Dices are okay, but what about the battle?

[sebbeshs]

Concise description:

• I'm not gonna complain at the dices, rather the "battle". I mean, imagine playing a game, and you're assaulting a region that has 1 troop, while you attack with 3. Let's say the results come out like: You: 2, 5, 6. Enemy: 6. So the enemy wins with his/hers 6, even though you had a 6 too, and even 11 points in total. Get where i want? What i suggest, is to set the battle outcome to the TOTAL intensity, rather than one individual troop. After all, troops in battle cooperate and fight together, right?

Specifics:

• Change battle outcome from individual troop intensity to total troops intensity

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• More fair game.
• Less based on luck and more based on tactics.

[maasman]

attackers will win most of the time with their extra cube advantage.

[jefjef]

1st player has a large enough advantage. How about we just have electronic coin tosses for the win.

Maybe a better sugg would be 5 sided defender dice.

[SirSebstar]

this suggestion is how dicewars work. Not a bad one, but its totally diffrent to cc's approach. not something thats really gone happen soon i think

[sebbeshs]

attackers will win most of the time with their extra cube advantage.

Then add one to the defenders. Note that defenders use all troops until last ones dead, while attacker always must leave one behind, too.

1st player has a large enough advantage. How about we just have electronic coin tosses for the win.Maybe a better sugg would be 5 sided defender dice.

Coin toss? Might work but people probably would think that that's too simple. But a 5 sided dice would be rather unfair. I just don't like it when it's 3 vs 1 and 1 miraculously wins. That is for either side. I mean, is he a special-ops equipped with a laser rifle with automatic, sniper, Anti-armor modes with self-generating ammo and 250 Homing Anti-Air missiles and a very powerful Homing missile launcher? Sometimes, it seems so...

this suggestion is how dicewars work. Not a bad one, but its totally diffrent to cc's approach. not something thats really gone happen soon i think

Probably not.

[phantomzero]

I mean, is he a special-ops equipped with a laser rifle with automatic, sniper, Anti-armor modes with self-generating ammo and 250 Homing Anti-Air missiles and a very powerful Homing missile launcher? Sometimes, it seems so...

Actually it's EXACTLY like that!

[Sir. Ricco]

I don't think of the battle as being 1vs6. Who makes a major attack with those number of troops. I think of each one representing 1000 troops. So really what you have is a 1000 vs 6000 battle.

[sebbeshs]

I don't think of the battle as being 1vs6. Who makes a major attack with those number of troops. I think of each one representing 1000 troops. So really what you have is a 1000 vs 6000 battle.

Okay, so it's 1000 special-opses equipped with a laser rifles with automatic, sniper, Anti-armor modes with self-generating ammo and 250 Homing Anti-Air missiles and a very powerful Homing missile launcher each.
Never the less, 1000 vs 6000 still is 1 * 1000 vs 6 * 1000, so there is no real diffrence.

[Sir. Ricco]

I don't think of the battle as being 1vs6. Who makes a major attack with those number of troops. I think of each one representing 1000 troops. So really what you have is a 1000 vs 6000 battle.

Okay, so it's 1000 special-opses equipped with a laser rifles with automatic, sniper, Anti-armor modes with self-generating ammo and 250 Homing Anti-Air missiles and a very powerful Homing missile launcher each.
Never the less, 1000 vs 6000 still is 1 * 1000 vs 6 * 1000, so there is no real diffrence.

Actually there is a great difference, even though I was not referring to your post. The ratio might be the same but I rather 1000 troops to fight a battle against 6000 then be alone 6.

[sebbeshs]

Okay, but still, i think its still abit fair to say that the 6000 still have the winning odds... (Assuming they got somewhat of technology too? )

[drunkmonkey]

Someone's never seen 300...

[Timminz]

You may wish to note that the numbers on the board represent the number of armies, and not the number of troops.

[sebbeshs]

Thanks for info and opinions. This suggestion is now rated doomed.(By myself.)

EDIT: i just played a turn, and i got 1 kill and lost about 11 armies (deployed on several regions, all 3 or over.)