Conquer Club

There is an continues discussion concerning the luck factor of RISK (The chance or possibility of loss.).Most of the posted comments irritate me (“Are you Good or just Lucky”) the reason for I play RISK is the risk/luck “make and take it” factor (adrenaline/ 2 to 1 u have to get his cards else the next player is going to take u out and win the game). The bottom line is that RISK is a well timed strategy, based on some luck with dice and cards (Classic rules)

CC offers a great variant of games were the luck factor is reduced were player can test the skills.

In my experience the purest and most chess like strategy occurs between strong players in a four player doubles…without a doubt the most challenge game type u find/ the luck factor tends to even out between the teams, and the strategically aspect is in its essence.

Stop bitching and try out your strategically skills.

Don't let risk control you. Manage risk. That's strategy.

Better do it in CC than on the freeway ...

Stormur wrote:Better do it in CC than on the freeway ...

What?

Taken risks..........Risk management....

I take a lot of risks(it is the name of the game, isn't it?), but I try to be unpredictable. If luck isn't on your side a certain turn always try to have a back-up plan!

What is this "RISK" you speak of?

I think there is something to say for luck. When one army holds out against 10 and causes you to lose 5 troops because he rolls a 6 five times, that sucks. Your plans for the continent go from looking really easy to incredibly difficult. luck can easily cause you to get a good stronghold/ lose a good stronghold in the beginning of the game.

Without a good strategy, you won't hold against good players. Unless you're over-lucky.

Luck is difinitly a great factor in this game, and can turn the tide very easily all by itself.

But it happens, and you should get over it.

Stormur wrote:Most of the posted comments irritate me (“Are you Good or just Lucky”)

Tell them to check every single victories of the guy and conclude themself if he is good or just lucky. That will shut him up

pancakemix wrote:What is this "RISK" you speak of?

The board game the game we are playing is based on.

In escalating when the sets are up to 50 or higher, then luck is incorporated pretty big.

Who needs luck when you sacrifice a kitten to the almighty dice god, Ashmesh, every day?

Stormur wrote:Stop bitching and try out your strategically skills.

its impossible when when u lose 2 army at the start of every turn.

Most of the games ive lsot lately have not been to the opponents strategy but to my bad luck

To quote the greatest gambler of all time, Amarillo Slim

The result of one game doen't mean a damn thing, and thats why one of my mantras has always been "Decisions, not results". Do the right thing enough times and the results will take care of themselves in the long run.

If you play the correct move you may well run into bad dice or the other player gets exceptionally against the odds luck, but the majority of the time you will achieve the result.
I'm happy whenever I make the correct move or play a smart game - regardless of the outcome, as I know that I made the right desision for that time.

Stormur wrote:
In my experience the purest and most chess like strategy occurs between strong players in a four player doubles…without a doubt the most challenge game type u find/ the luck factor tends to even out between the teams, and the strategically aspect is in its essence.

I disagree whole heartedly with this for the same reason I think 1 v 1 games are also fundamentally flawed. Assuming both teams work together, they're essentially the same thing.

2 v 2 takes more luck than 2 v 2 v 2 because there's no question as to who you should attack. It's nothing more than a race to secure bonuses with borders shared by your teammate in which luck with dice and cards are actually made more important than other games.

If there is more than one opponent, strategy is brought into the equation more. Should I bust up team 2's bonus or just make my border look less attractive than team 3's and hope team 2 goes after him? Playing other players on the board against each other is often what separates good players from the rest. Anyone can just go balls out and win if they get good luck, but that strategy never works if you don't get the dice or cards.

With 3 teams or larger singles games, making a bunch of noise early can often be your undoing 'cause people will focus on you. However, this never happens in 2 v 2. If you pull out to an early lead, you'll be able to win the game unless the dice turn on you or the other team pulls a timely set out.

2 v 2 is balls out from the get go. Whomever gets the dice, gets the win because the option of laying low and going unnoticed is never there.

gimil wrote:

Most of the games ive lsot lately have not been to the opponents strategy but to my bad luck

U nailed it just what i was referring to...

gimil wrote:

Stormur wrote:Stop bitching and try out your strategically skills.

its impossible when when u lose 2 army at the start of every turn.

Most of the games ive lsot lately have not been to the opponents strategy but to my bad luck

With all due respect, I think you are probably wrong. You've played enough games by now that factors such as luck should have at least come close to evening out. If your strategy was truly sound and are were rarely beaten besides through luck, your rating would be doing better than treading water in terms of ranking.

I've certainly had some games of late where my luck was crap. Truly, there is little you can do about this. However, I've also had plenty where I was able to overcome bad dice early and needed only to get OK dice later in the game to win it. At the same time, I can also point to several games where I really wish I had a significant move back which ultimately cost me at least a shot at victory. A move, perhaps, where I did something foolhardy and far too reliant on getting great dice that never came.

Actually, when I see people do stupid things, it's when they attempt take-out moves that aren't crucial to the game and have relatively low odds of success. Then, when the fail as expected, they piss and moan about their dice. Oh, boo hoo, you had a 25% chance of pulling that off and didn't quite do it. Of course, now they're completely depleted and ripe for elimination themselves once somebody else cleans up the crumbs they left of their target and cashes in.

Honestly, the number of games I've been in where somebody had such great luck that they needed essentially no skill to win has been tiny. At most 5-10 out of about 150. Typically, the player is too weak to truly take advantage of what fortune they have or they're an otherwise good player who was simply able to use some timely dice to put them over the top in a well played game.

In the end luck averages out. I think the real question is whether luck makes the game more like backgammon or like chess. Chess is all about skill, there is no random factor in it whatsoever. Backgammon has a major chance factor, it is possible for someone with far less skill to beat a master on occasion. On the average, skill and tactics win out.

This game is somewhere inbetween. A lot depends on the type of game played. Both the dice and even the distribution of the cards can have a significant impact on a specific game. But on the average it all evens out. You get bad rolls/cards, they get bad rolls/cards. You get good rolls/cards, they get good rolls/cards.

A sports announcer once joked that you have to be an idiot to bet on baseball because any one game is completely unpredictable. On the average the better team has a better average but on any one game, with any one set of pitchers, with any one set of conditions, anything can happen. The worst team in the league can actually win a game against the best team in the league. That's also an extreeme example, and this game is somewhere in the middle.

The problem with luck is that one only remembers bad luck, like the time you lost 7 rolls in a row against a nation as opposed to the time you ran over 7 nations in a row without a single loss.

tzor wrote:In the end luck averages out. I think the real question is whether luck makes the game more like backgammon or like chess. Chess is all about skill, there is no random factor in it whatsoever. Backgammon has a major chance factor, it is possible for someone with far less skill to beat a master on occasion. On the average, skill and tactics win out.

I partly agree with you here tzor. But the real skill in backgammon (and also partly in Risk) is to know that it is a dice based game. What a master of backgammon does when playing is develop his strategy based on the probability of the opposing player landing or not where he wishes. The same skill of calculating the percentage chances of each dice roll can be used to great effect in any other dice game. This is the element that separates the good tactician from the great games player. Look at monopoly for example, many good players never develop this part of their game. Someone can be great at the trading part of the game, but if they don't take into account the dice element when placing houses etc they miss out on a significant advantage.

In Risk the dice is part of the game. (Along with tactics, strategy, diplomacy) - this needs to be studied as much as the rest. Defending troops should be placed depending on the probability of attacks succeeding as well as just calculating the chances of your attack succeeding.

Luck comes and goes. It's the timing of it that kills you or makes you the winner. I've had guys attack me while outnumbered and manage to win the battle. Amazes me. First, that they did that and second, that it worked.

But without some sort of skill in reading the map and your opponents several rounds ahead luck ain't worth a dam thing. Especially when playing the better players here.

I'm not a big backgammon player, but I compare this to poker in a way. You have to gamble (RISK) with your moves. But not every stinkin one. Sometimes you have to know when you're beat and shut up and sit down, wait for the next move before you screw yourself entirely.

Bottom line: Luck plays a factor but doesn't dictate the result.

i still think the dice need to be tweeked. for instance. if teh dice are a tie the defender wins. but what happens if im fighting 3 dice to 1. the defender throught a 6. but i through 3 sixs. y should the defender win with odds like that. i think that if theres a tie with the dice but i roll 2 of the number thats tied i should win. ive got a bunch of tweeking ideas i jsut havent had teh motivation to suggested them.

gimil wrote:i still think the dice need to be tweeked. for instance. if teh dice are a tie the defender wins. but what happens if im fighting 3 dice to 1. the defender throught a 6. but i through 3 sixs. y should the defender win with odds like that. i think that if theres a tie with the dice but i roll 2 of the number thats tied i should win. ive got a bunch of tweeking ideas i jsut havent had teh motivation to suggested them.

Everyone hates this answer but that's the way the game has always been played. As it stands you have a significant statistical advantage when rolling 3 dice vs 1. The example you gave being one of the few instances where the defender wins.

That is the truest statement here. That happens to me a lot when one army causes too much damage.

snipery67 wrote:I think there is something to say for luck. When one army holds out against 10 and causes you to lose 5 troops because he rolls a 6 five times, that sucks. Your plans for the continent go from looking really easy to incredibly difficult. luck can easily cause you to get a good stronghold/ lose a good stronghold in the beginning of the game.

Luck will screw you over in a game you should have won a whole lot of times, but it will make you win just as many games you should have lost.

Aka. there is nothing but skill.

Ah, I love the smell of a good bump in the morning...

Larger games have less luck involved than smaller games.