[GO] No Dice Games

[Amilo]

no don't like it the game will be killed by this its no more riks then anymore its only save game playing where does the word risk stand fore then???????????????

[yeti_c]

This suggestion has already been implemented. All games are no dice games, since the introduction of assault cubes.

Is there an echo in here?

C.

[KLOBBER]

This suggestion has already been implemented. All games are no dice games, since the introduction of assault cubes.

Assault cubes? What the heck is THAT?

I thought they were called "intensity cubes" now.

[Artimis]

This suggestion has already been implemented. All games are no dice games, since the introduction of assault cubes.

You mean intensity cubes, surely?

[Timminz]

Regardless of the quality of my memory, they are no longer dice.

[KLOBBER]

In a sense, they never really were dice.

However, most people continue to call them dice.

[Mr_Adams]

In a sense, they never really were dice.

However, most people continue to call them dice.

so, klobbers stupid comments aside, I call for the resurection and implementation of this thread's central idea. we have to much gold behind this proposition to be ignored, now DO IT.

[KLOBBER]

In a sense, they never really were dice.

However, most people continue to call them dice.

so, klobbers stupid comments aside, I call for the resurection and implementation of this thread's central idea. we have to much gold behind this proposition to be ignored, now DO IT.

Dude, I suggest that you learn to spell the words "Klobber's," "resurrection," and "too" before you use the word "stupid."

[Timminz]

I'm drowning in semantics.

[eclecto]

With all the views regarding the dice and how it throws a monkey wrench into the best laid plans of mice and men, how about this option:

Games where there are no dice ! Pretty simple really: in order to attack you must have two more armies than the defender. The result is determined by subtracting the defenders armies from the attacking armies. So 3vs1 results in 2 armies for the attacker 1 to remain on the attacking terr and the other to occupy the won terr. 25 vs 23 same result. 7 vs 1 result 6 left. No more chance, more like Diplomacy or chess. Well I take that back there is always the probalistic element of the cards and drop.

Probably only suitable for multiplayer games.

[Robinette]

You're going about this all wrong...
Just get a pretty girl to blow on your dice and everything will be all right



Seriously though...
Don't you think this is a bit extreme?
Do you really think you will find real support for this?
We simply must keep some randomness to things,
afterall, we do live in a random and unpredictable world...

So perhaps you might want to advocate a coin instead of the dice...
Heads or tails... 50 50 chance on every flip...
WAY more predictable than 6 sided dice,
but still offers a certain level of excitement and RISK...

[djt5483]

playing risk without dice would be gay

[eclecto]

You're going about this all wrong...
Just get a pretty girl to blow on your dice and everything will be all right
Image


I tried that and she left lipstick all over my "mouse."

Ruined my concentration too.

[john9blue]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095&hilit=no+dice+games&start=210

Huge thread about this... it's pretty controversial. I'm not sure whether I think it's a good idea or not.

[Thezzaruz]

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43095&hilit=no+dice+games&start=210

Huge thread about this... it's pretty controversial. I'm not sure whether I think it's a good idea or not.

Yea this. There is a whole forum for bringing forth ideas you know, should check it out...

[niMic]

That's a terrible idea. And it's not Risk.

[BaldAdonis]

No more chance, more like Diplomacy or chess. Well I take that back there is always the probalistic element of the cards and drop.

Probably only suitable for multiplayer games.

Don't forget the issue of who starts. Imagine if could play a two player game like this: any territory could be conquered with a 3 and a 4. So any territory of theirs adjacent to two of yours could be taken in the first round. You'd be able to conquer one for each army you deploy. So after one turn, you'd have 1/3 more than you started with, and they'd have 1/3 less. Definitely only suitable for multiplayer games.

[4myGod]

In real war there are "unusual" things that happen. If you were to compare it to dice, it would be like attacking with 5 against 100 and winning with only losing 3. It makes this game more interesting, because you constantly have to think of new strategies as your luck fails you in certain areas. If it's just set how it is, then whoever can get more troops wins. There is no lucky or unlucky battles over the map.

Then people will complain about 1 person starting with a territory set already and winning the game due to receiving more troops. They will complain about the cards, whoever gets the mixed set first will win for sure.

Example of some real life examples which would compare to "unlucky" or "lucky" rolls:

Pearl Harbor:
"The attack sank four U.S. Navy battleships (two of which were raised and returned to service late in the war) and damaged four more. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, and one minelayer, destroyed 188 aircraft, and caused personnel losses of 2,402 killed and 1,282 wounded."
"Japanese losses were minimal, at 29 aircraft and four midget submarines, with 65 servicemen killed or wounded."

[Night Strike]

Moved to Sugs & Bugs and merged with the existing topic.

[e_i_pi]

Pearl Harbor:
"The attack sank four U.S. Navy battleships (two of which were raised and returned to service late in the war) and damaged four more. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, and one minelayer, destroyed 188 aircraft, and caused personnel losses of 2,402 killed and 1,282 wounded."
"Japanese losses were minimal, at 29 aircraft and four midget submarines, with 65 servicemen killed or wounded."

That's because it was 1v1, they dropped Kates, Vals, and Zeroes, and went first. Of course you're going to win in that situation

[PJDH]

Dice here are...
30/70 autoasalt = attacker had 7 left !!!
25/3 I had 7 left (regular attack)
6/1/1 lost all took one
and so on
We all had them, or at least we all should have had them!!

Where is the skill when you lose 11/3 with 1/3, and then player after you gets 37/30 left 30 and then takes 10 more turfs ending with 15/5 which he takes with 14 left!!!

NO DICE OR CHANGE THE SCRIPT FOR THEM!!!

No autoasalt and random each dice separately!!! Not all dice at once like now!!!

[jleonnn]

Concise description:

• ok, have u ever experienced so bad dice you want to tear the computer apart? well, how about a completely new game type where the armies to advance are subtracted from the opposing armies-defending. for example, "a" has 9 troops, "b" has 6 troops, "a" assaults "b" and advances 3 troops, that way bad dice(and unfortunately good dice) is eliminated. Of course, this, as i am suggesting, will be just a different game mode and option when starting again, the nomal dice game will still be there(that is if this idea is implemented)

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• No bad dice
• players can be more confident about their assaults

[jleonnn]

Concise description:

• ok, have u ever experienced so bad dice you want to tear the computer apart? well, how about a completely new game type where the armies to advance are subtracted from the opposing armies-defending. for example, "a" has 9 troops, "b" has 6 troops, "a" assaults "b" and advances 3 troops, that way bad dice(and unfortunately good dice) is eliminated. Of course, this, as i am suggesting, will be just a different game mode and option when starting again, the nomal dice game will still be there(that is if this idea is implemented)

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• No bad dice
• players can be more confident about their assaults

[Thezzaruz]

Firstly, one thread about the subject is more than enough...

Secondly, do a search ffs. No dice games has been suggested before (recently even), find the thread and read-up/continue there.

[jleonnn]

ok...right, you say that everytime