Craig25 wrote:The idea means more planning and strategy is demanded of the attacker.
The defender would always defend with max dice as this gives him the most chance of defending the country. There is no benefit of only defending with 1 dice when you have the choice of 2.
And what if the attacker roles 3 sixes?
Mishuk gotal'u meshuroke, pako kyore.
Talapus wrote:I'm far more pissed that mandy and his thought process were right from the get go....damn you mandy.
Craig25 wrote:The idea means more planning and strategy is demanded of the attacker.
The defender would always defend with max dice as this gives him the most chance of defending the country. There is no benefit of only defending with 1 dice when you have the choice of 2.
There is benefit though - If you only defend with 1 you only lose 1...
Someone do the maths here - I don't know!!
C.
Ask and you shall recieve.
On average if you defend with just one die, you will kill an average of about 1 attacker troop for every 2 defender troops. Now if you defend with both dice, you kill about 1.7 attacking troops for every 2 defending troops lost. So it is definitely advisable to always defend with the maximum number of dice.
Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.
Craig25 wrote:Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.
so if i attack with my 12 stack and lose 8, how do i advance 12 when i only have 4 left and 1 of those must remain behind
Craig25 wrote:Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.
so if i attack with my 12 stack and lose 8, how do i advance 12 when i only have 4 left and 1 of those must remain behind
You only attack with 3 soldiers even if you have 50 on a territory, since you use 3 dice, not 50 dice. You just choose how many of those 50 to move across. So in your situation you've used 3 dice to the end, so you have to advance 3 soldiers, and leave a single one on the territory you advance from. When I used to play risk we played this rule.
Craig25 wrote:Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.
so if i attack with my 12 stack and lose 8, how do i advance 12 when i only have 4 left and 1 of those must remain behind
You only attack with 3 soldiers even if you have 50 on a territory, since you use 3 dice, not 50 dice. You just choose how many of those 50 to move across. So in your situation you've used 3 dice to the end, so you have to advance 3 soldiers, and leave a single one on the territory you advance from. When I used to play risk we played this rule.
what crap, when i send my 30 stack into a 10 stack i am sending all 30, not 3
This would just drag games out SO long, if you could only advance 3 at a time. I would predict a whole lot of games that took 30 rounds just to eliminate someone after the game is essentially over.
Game 1675072 2018-08-09 16:02:06 - Mageplunka69: its jamaica map and TFO that keep me on this site
TheForgivenOne wrote:This would just drag games out SO long, if you could only advance 3 at a time. I would predict a whole lot of games that took 30 rounds just to eliminate someone after the game is essentially over.
What he is suggesting is having to advance a minimum of the number of dice you attack with. IE. If you have a 10 stack and roll 3 dice and win you must advance the 3 and have the option to advance up to the other 6 if you wish. The only way I would consider supporting this is if we have the option of how many dice we can attack with.
The other site like this one, the one with believable random, has this option. They don't have the real nice maps like CC though.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
If I remember correctly, that is the standard rule on the RISK board game, you have to move at least the minimum number of attacking troops equal the the number of dice rolled.
ddgrimes wrote:If I remember correctly, that is the standard rule on the RISK board game, you have to move at least the minimum number of attacking troops equal the the number of dice rolled.
RISK is a registered trademark of Hasbro Inc. Conquer Club is not associated with RISK or Hasbro in any way.
Max Die you can attack with is 3 (if you have a min of 4 armies on the country)
If you choose to attack with 3 dice then you must move a minimum of 3 armies in.
if you choose to attack with 2 then you must move a minimum of 2 in.
If you choose to attack with 1 then you must move a minimum of 1 in.
This adds a massive amount of strategy, in your games would you always attack with 3 dice knowing that you are committing to moving a minimum of 3 to a country? I think not. Conquering continents and opponents, general moves all require more planning and strategy. It would make it a much better game!!!
