Conquer Club

It takes away the whole "risk" aspect of the game, and would change it into something completely different.

However I would play it now and then for fun, because sometimes it is nice to eliminate as much luck as possible.

What would you do though while attacking against a single army? If you still lose 1:1 in that situation it seems like there is a problem, because normally you would win those attacks much more often than you would lose them.

Anyway, I doubt it would be implemented but I think it would be at least slightly interesting.

I can just see someone holding AUstralia and putting 5 onto siam each turn for.. um.... 40 turns?... would be fun though.

basically if u don't get gd placement then u r dead. everyone starts with the same armies so everyone will kill each other the same amount. this would be true until someone flucily got a bonus at which point they would automatically win unless there was an alliance made against them or a series of attacks by separate players.
i get annoyed by dodgy dice. today for example i lost 10 armies straight in one game. didn't even kill 1 army. next game i go to take a turn and lose 4 armies straight, don't make a single kill. next game i get perfect dice and take every territory i attack without a casualty! took an entire continent from a guy!
this is just the way the dice r and risk wouldn't b risk without dice

I could see using the cards for something - IE if you held E.Austrailia and you were attackign E.Australia you could get a "One time bonus" of autokilling 1 unit per turn...

It would be impossipible to do anything at the start.

not impossible. you would just need more then 1 country to border the country you are trying to invade.
oh and you get a minimum of 3 troops to begin with. so basicly, you can attack ony 1 country and win.!

Actually, if there are 3 armies on a territory, you would have to attack it 3 armies of your own to wipe out the 3 defending armies, then send in a 4th army to occupy (and leave at least 1 army behind in each territory you attack from).

At the beginning of the game, each territory has 3 armies on it. So, if you were lucky enough to occupy an enemy territory's two neighboring territories, you would be able to send 2 armies from each of two territories (leaving 1 behind in each) for a total of 4 attacking armies to annihilate your enemy's 3 armies (leaving 1 of your armies alive to occupy the conquered territory).

posted twice.

So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets sometimes).

gavin_sidhu wrote:So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets 99% of the time ).

totally agree

panicker wrote:

gavin_sidhu wrote:So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets 99% of the time ).

totally agree

I am starting thinking you're only angry 'cause Italy won the World Cup....
Moreover what you said about Italy is not true: have you wacthed Germany-Italy during the world cup? It was a really great match!

About italian Risk, maybe you should try it, before saying something totally not true!

Lupo wrote:

panicker wrote:

gavin_sidhu wrote:So italians like their risk like their football, defensive.

Dont like the idea, could get boring (as italian football gets 99% of the time ).

totally agree

I am starting thinking you're only angry 'cause Italy won the World Cup....
Moreover what you said about Italy is not true: have you wacthed Germany-Italy during the world cup? It was a really great match!

About italian Risk, maybe you should try it, before saying something totally not true!

my agreement was based purely on the domestic league in italy and is an opinion

as for the italian rules for risk i wouldnt be totally against that but how would it work when say both teams threw all sixes? defending team still win these battles?

yes the defender always win in case of tied dice.
(are the same international rules, the only difference is the fact that you could defend with 3 armies)

believe me, it's complitely a different game!

You should try it, at least one time!

CreepyUncleAndy wrote:When invading another territory, armies mutually annihilate each other at the ratio of 1:1. In other words, if you have 1 army guarding Kamchatka, I must have at least 3 armies in Alaska in order to take it (from across the Bering Straight) -- 1 army to annihilate (and be annihilated by) your 1 occupying army, 1 army to invade and occupy Kamchatka, and 1 army to remain behind in Alaska.

Perhaps this can be incorporated as a game option on Conquer Club?

I like this idea. In fact, I came to the forum today to suggest a 'no dice' option.

The unequal and/or changing annihilation ratios based on location might be premature at this point as you've said, but the basic 1:1 idea is sound.

As someone pointed out, automatically placing 3 armies on every territory at the start of the game makes this option problematic. A possible solution to this is to allow an army placement phase, as is done by some of us when playing tabletop risk.

Place one army on every territory automatically, then allow players to place their armies manually. The amount of army placement could be set at some optimal number (place 3 per turn, or 5 per turn, or whatever), or could even be a configurable option for the game setup.

Come to think of it, if the site staff takes the time to hack an army placement phase into the code for a 'no dice' option, the Army Placement Phase could become an option enabled for any game on the site.

Lupo wrote:Italian Risk rules (3 dice defending)

Hm, this sounds interesting, maybe I will try it the next time I play with some friends. Is that the only difference between international and italian rules?

Also, I don't think I would like a no dice game. I agree with those who said that without dice the game isn't Risk.

This whole concept sounds very much like The 'gunboat' version of Civilization. So why not throw in some calamity-cards to stir things up a bit?

As to placement in the beginning of the game you could utilize the CIV version of poulation expansion. always doubling the current population to the specific areas limit.

[MOD EDIT: The reason this is REJECTED is the possibility of unbreakable stalemates. See here, here and here. Feel free to continue the discussion here, but unless these difficulties can be overcome, this will not be implemented. If you see a thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. -- agentcom]

Suggestion:no dice

Suggestion Idea:OK instead of having dice for when you attack to see if you will take the terrotry why not if you have more armies for example 35 vs 29 you end up with 6.This can be adapted so that you roll dice to see how many of the six you loose

35 vs 6
you end up with 6
then you roll dice to see how much more you loose like if you roll a 0 you loose 0 if you roll 10 you can loose upto 1/5 of the attacking army

this is much more fair than the current system

Why it is needed: It is needed because you rarely have bad dice you have exremly bad dice.

like 16vs 5 a player lost 15

Priority=4.75

First of all, I hope you are suggesting this as simply an option and, secondly, it has been suggested before

you're trying to change the original risk game, which is moronic.
Terrible idea, and also on a side note, lower the priority, nothing wrong with the current system !

got to agree that its a terrible idea.

you think from the attackers point of view, but look from the defenders: you have a 6 conutry, continent with lets say 3 borders with 3 armies on each, the attacker comes with 20 armies, he will take your continent (using your formula) and you have to start from scratch or in a normal game you have a chance to at least keep a part of your continent

It can be an option...I guess...The only people who would use it would be n00bs and people trying to get some razy amunts of points...

no it is a serious option, and you dont act very adultive with your comments. but to go on, i like every option, that balnce winning and losing (armies not games) in a fair way...

already been suggested, check the stickey called "to-do list"

^Yes but is life and real war fair? Sometimes you hear of small forces holding off huge ones when they want it badly enough. Also, I wouldn't like CC to deviate too much from Risk. (Am I allowed to say that?)