Ways to balance out dice rolls..

[owenshooter]

do you think sarcasm comes across in the forums? oh wait, isn't that another thread? oops...-0

Yes, so discuss sarcasm there, and not here

i kind of think... wait... how do i say this delicately... um... everyone is kind of making fun of you in this thread. there really isn't a serious discussion going on about your ridiculous idea. perhaps you should go post in the ideas & suggestions forum OR stop blaming the dice for sucking.-0

p.s.-HAPPY BIRTHDAY WICKED!!! wait... that is another thread too...
p.p.s.-shocker, a thread on dice!!!!

[oVo]

[...] it would be more fair to implement advantage in numbers [...]

There is no need to implement an advantage in numbers with even more dice because one already exists. It is the advantage created by all players who fortify additional armies to improve thier odds with the dice during attacks.

btw... the dice don't suck, they just lie there.

[Zlorfik]

Guess I can't expect a serious discussion from a cc forum. goodbye.

[Plutoman]

Guess I can't expect a serious discussion from a cc forum. goodbye.

No, you really can't when what you propose does not help.

The dice are random. They may not seem that way, sometimes, but you have streaks of good and bad dice, and even dice. You just notice the bad ones more. Trust me, try counting up the times you win on both die in comparison to the times you lose on both. They really aren't that far off, and that's because the defender wins ties.

And also... The defender wins ties because the attacker rolls 3 dice.

[Iliad]

Would it be more fair if attackers and defenders rolled one dice per soldier? I'm tired of losing rolls with ridiculous odds on my side.

so if it's a 1000 against a hundred, the defenders would almost win every time since they win draws?

[Snorri1234]

Guess I can't expect a serious discussion from a cc forum. goodbye.

No, you really can't when what you propose does not help.

Or when you propose a change that will take away the whole idea behind the game.

[owenshooter]

Guess I can't expect a serious discussion from a cc forum. goodbye.

whew... i thought he'd never catch on...-0

[jimboston]

I think the main reason this idea is being ragged on is because you are proposing to completely change the NATURE of the game.

The other changes implemented by CC (I believe) add-to the original Risk board game. Some of the options... like the card values and way you fortify where options in the board game too.

I can't speak for the original creator of Risk... (maybe I can... it could've been me who created it 30 years ago for all you forum trolls know)... but I think that the reason the dice work they way they work is;
1) the attacked uses 3-vs-2 because in "real-world" combat generally the attackers would have more armies attacking a "weaker" defender.
2) defenders win in a tie because in the "real-world" defenders are in fortified positions and so would have a slight advantage in that regards.

Of course the original reasons for the dice-play is moot... they work that way in CC because they work that way in Risk. The fact that Risk is so popular is enough evidence one needs to know one shouldn't mess with the fundamental nature of the game.

FOW changes of the nature of the game too (as do other options like teams)... but they ADD-TO the rules. They don't change rules.

[armyman44us]

seriously? there are no way since its random dice and it acts randomly which we want that to happen..
another thing is...i dont know if i put it correctly or not but, there is a flow of dice selection, yes i do see comebacks and bad strategies but there is, definitely a dice selection which that player is destined to win the game because of the selection of the dice..its like in some games u just got so smooth that u can beat the other 2 players under 7 rounds..its all selected, i mean when each game is initiated, one of the player will get that flow and just beat the crap out of other players...its is random but still, i think the random can be taken in to patterns..which someone will win the game..of course thats the definition of this game huh...

[Robinette]

I can't speak for the original creator of Risk... (maybe I can... it could've been me who created it 30 years ago for all you forum trolls know)...

It's a bit farther back than that... It was invented by French movie director Albert Lamorisse, released in 1957 the original name was ’La Conquête du Monde’ , which translates to ’The Conquest of the World’. Parker Brothers, who named the American version as Risk truly understood what would make the name attractive on this side of the Atlantic...

Risk implies chance... Risk means relying on an arbitrary event, for example, the roll of the dice, in order to achieve a desired outcome.

but I think that the reason the dice work they way they work is;
1) the attacked uses 3-vs-2 because in "real-world" combat generally the attackers would have more armies attacking a "weaker" defender.
2) defenders win in a tie because in the "real-world" defenders are in fortified positions and so would have a slight advantage in that regards.

I like your way of thinking here...

[Zlorfik]

Would it be more fair if attackers and defenders rolled one dice per soldier? I'm tired of losing rolls with ridiculous odds on my side.

so if it's a 1000 against a hundred, the defenders would almost win every time since they win draws?

..Which is exactly why I said tie means re-roll a few posts earlier, so this won't happen

I think the main reason this idea is being ragged on is because you are proposing to completely change the NATURE of the game.

The other changes implemented by CC (I believe) add-to the original Risk board game. Some of the options... like the card values and way you fortify where options in the board game too.

I can't speak for the original creator of Risk... (maybe I can... it could've been me who created it 30 years ago for all you forum trolls know)... but I think that the reason the dice work they way they work is;
1) the attacked uses 3-vs-2 because in "real-world" combat generally the attackers would have more armies attacking a "weaker" defender.
2) defenders win in a tie because in the "real-world" defenders are in fortified positions and so would have a slight advantage in that regards.

Of course the original reasons for the dice-play is moot... they work that way in CC because they work that way in Risk. The fact that Risk is so popular is enough evidence one needs to know one shouldn't mess with the fundamental nature of the game.

FOW changes of the nature of the game too (as do other options like teams)... but they ADD-TO the rules. They don't change rules.

Okay, I understand now, I'll play something I agree with more

[armyman44us]

Would it be more fair if attackers and defenders rolled one dice per soldier? I'm tired of losing rolls with ridiculous odds on my side.

its just doesnt sound kool at all...i dont want to click my mouse like over 50 times to just play, playing this game should be relax and having fun..making too much details usually cause many other more problems..so i guess the system wont accept your suggestion...yet they will listen...

[armyman44us]

well, my friend told me that in some maps. ages of merchants or something he got stuck with other players to fight their way out from neutral players who only have 3 right...

they were locked on the small islands for total of 2 rounds, for 2 players and 1 neutral player...

they were stuck and they couldnt expand their territory since they werent able to get out from the ports or something...they tried 7-3 lost, 11-3 lost, 14-3 lost, and 5-3 lost, finally they just keep piling up the rounds and they overcome by cashing in for 21-3 and 17-3

omg..are u kidding me? i think thats was fair huh...

[owenshooter]

i dont know if i put it correctly or not but, there is a flow of dice selection, yes i do see comebacks and bad strategies but there is, definitely a dice selection which that player is destined to win the game because of the selection of the dice..its like in some games u just got so smooth that u can beat the other 2 players under 7 rounds..its all selected

this is just so cute!! wow... a fresh conspiracy theory!!! wow!! impressive!!! go to http://www.random.org, and read how the program used here works...-0

p.s.-then again, you have played 11 total games, so i guess over the course of THAT many games, it must be pretty easy to pick up on this "flow" pattern you have discovered...

[mightyleemoon]

I feel it is a lot more fair than what happened to me today, 5 on 3 loss

Actually...I would think an attacking army...even in real war...would need substantially larger numbers to route out an army entrenched in a defensible position.

Attacking 5 on 3 shouldn't be very good odds for the attacker.

10 on 3? It happens. Both for you and against you. Believe me...someone has taken something like 10v3 on you as well and lost. It's happened to everyone. They just might not have complained about it.

[herndawg]

14-3, killed one, lost 11. Boo hoo, where is my kleenex. oh there it is, right next to my 2-5 win.
I don't attack 6-3 very often, unless going for a territory, not good odds. 55 percent, but one bad roll and there goes your percentage. Whoever it was that complained about a 5-3 loss...................never mind.