Conquer Club

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.

Sometimes I do that when i play real risk with friends, we just say im just going to attack with 1 dude. Sometimes it comes in handy like if you attack with a 3 and you dont want to lose 2 dudes.

Vace Cooper wrote:Sometimes I do that when i play real risk with friends, we just say im just going to attack with 1 dude. Sometimes it comes in handy like if you attack with a 3 and you dont want to lose 2 dudes.

word

if you're looking for a way to reduce the effect of dice then keep an eye out for the CC City Mogul map coming soon. it's the first map that implements a gameplay system that reduces the streaky dice and makes you forget all those horrible moments when you attacked 10v2 and lost while the opponent came with 4 troops and killed 3 terits

well... my balance is generally good.. but, i can get tricky if i am rolling while standing on
one leg, during a desperate rally roll... then, you have to be sure the momentum doesn't
send you crashing into the board... now, balancing your meds while rolling, can be a bit
trickier, especially over the course of a long match...-0

Roll a lot of dice.

That should even out the probabilities.

Zlorfik wrote: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.

Are you implying that if you attack with 40 armies you get 40 dice?

There is far more wrong with that way than right.

If you roll 40 dice and the defender rolls 1 and it comes up a 6 . . . you still lose.

So even with 40 they wouldn't stop complaining, because they'd lose 1/6 of the time. Players who whine about dice will only be satisfied when they win every time they attack. They should all be ignored.

BaldAdonis wrote:So even with 40 they wouldn't stop complaining, because they'd lose 1/6 of the time. Players who whine about dice will only be satisfied when they win every time they attack. They should all be ignored.

Very true

MeDeFe wrote:Roll a lot of dice.

That should even out the probabilities.

Exactly ^^

World 2.1 is a good map for this. Same with other large army maps.

rolling with 1 dice to reduce possible losses is mathematically stupid.
so unless you want to lose...

detlef wrote:

Zlorfik wrote: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.

Are you implying that if you attack with 40 armies you get 40 dice?

There is far more wrong with that way than right.

@Wild_Tiger - this is what he means. Not just rolling one dice a time <_<

detlef wrote:

Zlorfik wrote: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.

Are you implying that if you attack with 40 armies you get 40 dice?

There is far more wrong with that way than right.

I feel it is a lot more fair than what happened to me today, 5 on 3 loss, and 10 on 3 loss, one with the enemy losing only one soldier, the other with the enemy unscathed,
conquerclub must not be for me if the enemy can roll double 6 five times in a row..

oVo wrote:If you roll 40 dice and the defender rolls 1 and it comes up a 6 . . . you still lose.

That little "tie=defender win" rule is also nonsense, in my opinion. It would be fantastic if tie rolls means re-roll, and you get as many dice as attackers although this would leave the problem of an automatic re-roll if defender gets a 6, if the defender is outnumbered, the overall the odds of him rolling 6 consistantly are much less than the attacker rolling them , ADVANTAGE IN NUMBERS. As an afterthought, this should be a secondary option in games, not a replacer for all the current modes I just want to see how this experiment turns out..

The thing is sometimes the dice save you and other times they kill you and your only safety is in numbers. Not the ones on the dice but the armies you deploy and fortify to your territories. A little restraint is a lesson often learned the hard way. Escalating cards can certainly lessen the pain by supplying vast numbers of reserves with which to tally forth... but all the other variations require more patience (or luck) before some strategies can be persued. I doubt there are any players here who haven't encountered an unconquerable territory that forces you to either hit it from another direction or give it a rest until the next round.

I've had turns where it seems like every single forted territory I attack rolls a six the first time which can really put a kink in my aggressive intentions. But there are also times where it is vital to break a huge bonus and it comes down to 1 die vs 1 die... and you take it. It really doesn't matter how crappy the dice get, if you can just survive long enough it usually balances out.

Listen guys, I've been playing chess for a while, and I realized something: we'd have a much better game if we changed just a couple things. First, the knight moves too many places, it's too complicated. Make it so that he can only move 2 squares away. Second, the queen should be able to teleport, anywhere on the board. That way when you have a queen and they don't, you get the advantage you deserve. Then the game will be fair to everyone. I just want to see how this experiment turns out.

BaldAdonis wrote:Listen guys, I've been playing chess for a while, and I realized something: we'd have a much better game if we changed just a couple things. First, the knight moves too many places, it's too complicated. Make it so that he can only move 2 squares away. Second, the queen should be able to teleport, anywhere on the board. That way when you have a queen and they don't, you get the advantage you deserve. Then the game will be fair to everyone. I just want to see how this experiment turns out.

This sounds like a great idea... but as an afterthought, this should be a secondary option in games, not a replacer for all the current rules.

LOL... CHECKMATE!
I was doing great until BaldAdonis declared "house rules" and teleported his Queen.

BaldAdonis wrote:Listen guys, I've been playing chess for a while, and I realized something: we'd have a much better game if we changed just a couple things. First, the knight moves too many places, it's too complicated. Make it so that he can only move 2 squares away. Second, the queen should be able to teleport, anywhere on the board. That way when you have a queen and they don't, you get the advantage you deserve. Then the game will be fair to everyone. I just want to see how this experiment turns out.

That is completely different from what I was trying to argue (assuming that was sarcastic). I wasn't trying to replace "complex" with "simple" and "easy" but rather "unfair" with "rational" you twit. Luck is not the same thing as complexity, and your argument is really pitiful. Chess would be no more fair if knight moved less and Queen could move anywhere, whereas in CC it would be more fair to implement advantage in numbers and tie means reroll.

Robinette wrote:

BaldAdonis wrote:Listen guys, I've been playing chess for a while, and I realized something: we'd have a much better game if we changed just a couple things. First, the knight moves too many places, it's too complicated. Make it so that he can only move 2 squares away. Second, the queen should be able to teleport, anywhere on the board. That way when you have a queen and they don't, you get the advantage you deserve. Then the game will be fair to everyone. I just want to see how this experiment turns out.

This sounds like a great idea... but as an afterthought, this should be a secondary option in games, not a replacer for all the current rules.

I'm drowning in sarcasm here , if you want to say something than say it plainly! If you don't agree than say why.
If it was NOT a secondary option but an ENTIRE replacer THOUSANDS of people would protest.

Zlorfik wrote: (assuming that was sarcastic).

I am totally not sure...

Snorri1234 wrote:

Zlorfik wrote: (assuming that was sarcastic).

I am totally not sure...

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

owenshooter wrote: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