[GO] No Dice Games

by **Generaln7** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:40 am

i would like to play a game of risk with out dice the solders will be juist killing each other at a 1:1 ratio. I think it would be cool to play and you wont have all the bullshit over riged dice;)
How about it? it would put some more statagie in the game.

by **benjikat** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:50 am

Generaln7 wrote:i would like to play a game of risk with out dice the solders will be juist killing each other at a 1:1 ratio. I think it would be cool to play and you wont have all the bullshit over riged dice;)
How about it? it would put some more statagie in the game.

So basically whoever has the good fortune to have a good drop / go first, is likely to win! - no thank you.

When will people realise - it's the dice that make CC great

by **firth4eva** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:57 am

What about no territories either? That would be great.

by **chessplaya** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:03 am

lol

crazy!

Dumb !

ignorant!

by **Generaln7** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:05 am

i dont know but i thought it would be fun what we could do is by the optines where you chose if you want to play with cards or not, ect, ect you could have the optinen to turn dice on or not;)

by **firth4eva** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:14 am

It's been suggested and rejected.

by **Generaln7** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:18 am

firth4eva wrote:It's been suggested and rejected.

im not saying that every one should play with out dice but that if people want to that thay have the choise not to;)

by **Risktaker17** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:11 am

I think the idea is decent and would definitely use it, because my dice have been awful of late.

by **khazalid** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:42 am

this would be a cool idea if it made any sense at all.

by **rebelman** on Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:44 am

firth4eva wrote:What about no territories either? That would be great.

circus max

by **Fruitcake** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:34 am

[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]

I have often played without dice. The simple rule is, to attack, you must have at least 1 more than the defence to win (obviously).

Now this seems very simple on the surface, but does make for very strategic games, however, playing with escalating cards never really works, flat or no cards is best.

The main advantage being it takes all random result from the dice out of the equation.

No doubt someone has suggested this before, but I rarely read the forum, so apologies if I am thrashing a dead topic. Further apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place.

Good luck to you all.
_____________________________________________________________

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

by **bloknayrb** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:52 am

And if you have the requisite more than one more pieces, how many do you lose by attacking?

by **CrabNebula** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 12:07 pm

No randomness, no fun. I'd rather play Chess then.

by **owenshooter** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:12 pm

*shaking my head in disbelief*

by **Coleman** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:40 pm

I think you are looking for a Diplomacy website. I don't think that would work for this one.

by **owenshooter** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:52 pm

Coleman wrote:I think you are looking for a Diplomacy website.(

now, THAT is funny... i had that game on the original atari system... i burned the graphics into our tv and eventually fried the system out, because i could never finish a game and turn it off!! that was before a such thing as SAVING games (kids are spoiled today). i wonder if there is really a "diplomacy" game site. i haven't thought of that game in ages!!! coleman, THANKS!!!-0

by **Audax** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:48 pm

And if you have the requisite more than one more pieces, how many do you lose by attacking?

You both lose the same amount. So if 5 attack 3, 1 moves in, as 3 are lost by both parties. What this means is you really have to think about every position on the board.

In fact, all the games I have played have never really laster much longer than a no cards game.

I would also put it forward, as so very many seem to have a problem with the 'random' dice here, so get rid of the dice for those that want.

Good idea Fruitcake

by **Fruitcake** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:09 pm

I would also put it forward, as so very many seem to have a problem with the 'random' dice here, so get rid of the dice for those that want.

Amen to that.

Thanks for the support Audax. Seriously, it is a good game for those that find the way the dice roll here a little odd. I must admit to that myself QED I put this idea forward.
_____________________________________________________________

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

by **moz976** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:21 pm

Moved over to suggestions forum. It seems like I've heard of this one before but can't find the thread.

by **Coleman** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:23 pm

The only real big problem I see with this is the attacking and moving first advantage would be pretty big.

The only games where I feel like this works is where everyone moves at the same time after secretly making up moves, which is probably too much new coding to consider and would change the nature of the game quite a bit with no dice on.

by **yeti_c** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:38 pm

Coleman wrote:The only real big problem I see with this is the attacking and moving first advantage would be pretty big.

The only games where I feel like this works is where everyone moves at the same time after secretly making up moves, which is probably too much new coding to consider and would change the nature of the game quite a bit with no dice on.

But would it (taking classic as an example) - yes you'd get a 6 to start with - but you lose 3 - and leave a 2 and a 1 somewhere - that would be easy to conquer for player 2...

C.

by **Coleman** on Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:03 pm

That still is quite imbalanced. The only reason it works in Diplomacy is you only have 1 army per territory and there are all these weird movement rules.