No dice games [REJECTED]

[agentcom]

A few other threads where this was discussed:
Fruitcake, from a month ago;
Generaln7, from 3 months ago;
coolpsp, from last May;
CreepyUncleAndy, from over a year ago;
Basic summary: it's never been officially rejected; hardly anyone supports it; "why not just play Diplomacy?"; and Risktaker17 makes funny posts.

L.O.L.

Thanks to the above post from 2008, I have discovered that fruitcake has performed the amazing feat of having a suggestion in Submitted Suggestions AND an identical suggestion in Rejected Suggestions.

I plan on moving this version over to Rejected when I get a chance to search for and merge all this stuff together. Reading back through this thread, there isn't even that much support for this suggestion.

[Falkomagno]

I think this can be modified, preserving the positive original intention (decrease the luck factor from games), but avoiding the obvious flaws (stagnated dull games, as pointed out for agentcom).

Add the option of "City of Mogul" troops scale. so instead of starting with 3 troops, people start with 30, receving very few troops due to territories, but modifying the bonus accordingly.

So for instance, in classic map, instead of receiving 2 for Australia/south america, you receive 20. It has been proved that at large scale the streakness of the dice is less dramatic, but still preserves the "luck" inherent to our beloved game.

[greenoaks]

I plan on moving this version over to Rejected when I get a chance to search for and merge all this stuff together. Reading back through this thread, there isn't even that much support for this suggestion.

stop slacking off, move this to Rejected.

[SirSebstar]

I think this can be modified, preserving the positive original intention (decrease the luck factor from games), but avoiding the obvious flaws (stagnated dull games, as pointed out for agentcom).

Add the option of "City of Mogul" troops scale. so instead of starting with 3 troops, people start with 30, receving very few troops due to territories, but modifying the bonus accordingly.

So for instance, in classic map, instead of receiving 2 for Australia/south america, you receive 20. It has been proved that at large scale the streakness of the dice is less dramatic, but still preserves the "luck" inherent to our beloved game.

no offense, but a question. what to do with the. oh noes, someone started with australia in turn 1?

[sirgermaine]

Why is this in submitted?

[Falkomagno]

I think this can be modified, preserving the positive original intention (decrease the luck factor from games), but avoiding the obvious flaws (stagnated dull games, as pointed out for agentcom).

Add the option of "City of Mogul" troops scale. so instead of starting with 3 troops, people start with 30, receving very few troops due to territories, but modifying the bonus accordingly.

So for instance, in classic map, instead of receiving 2 for Australia/south america, you receive 20. It has been proved that at large scale the streakness of the dice is less dramatic, but still preserves the "luck" inherent to our beloved game.

no offense, but a question. what to do with the. oh noes, someone started with australia in turn 1?

the same like if that happen with such drop in regular scale....it doesn garantee to be unbreakable, since the amount of troops is high as well....

[agentcom]

I plan on moving this version over to Rejected when I get a chance to search for and merge all this stuff together. Reading back through this thread, there isn't even that much support for this suggestion.

stop slacking off, move this to Rejected.

Unfortunately, I didn't have time to put together any previous threads that have discussed this topic. Another project for another day, I suppose. With a little bit of happiness, I move this one to REJECTED.

[osok68]

Dear Conquer Club,

I checked the forum for this subject,could not find it,so here it comes;

I played risk with my friends very often and suddenly someone came with the idea to play it without the dice (there was a lot of stress and nagging becouse of it;bad luck/dice laying on edges).
The idea is to conquer territorys just by doing math;take the army(s) of the territory you attack,take the same amount of armys of your own territory and place at least one army of your terry on the one you conquered.
This sounds very dull and predictable,but the fun is that you can use the spoils you earn not only in sets,but also single and also for defending a territory.
for example: you earned a card by succesfully conquering a territory last round;the card is china(cavellary=8).Then the next round you can put 8 armys on china if you own it,conquer it or whenever someone attacks it.
So even someone else is playing and attacking a terry of yours that you have a card of,you can intervent;trade the card in and use the armys standing for it to defend it.
The other rule we had was that you get one army on every territory you have with no enemy-neighbours connected in the beginning of your round.
We never played with dice again,but it was hard confincing new players it was more fun that way.So i dont say 'lets get rid of those dice',but maybe one map with this concept for trial?Just try to help,hope not i am again someone with that stupid idea!!I play poker a lot,so i know theres no luck in the long run.Just keep rolling those dice,love to play on your site and maps!!!

kind regards,osok68

[chapcrap]

This has been suggested many times. MOVED and MERGED.

Dear Conquer Club,

I checked the forum for this subject,could not find it,so here it comes;

I played risk with my friends very often and suddenly someone came with the idea to play it without the dice (there was a lot of stress and nagging becouse of it;bad luck/dice laying on edges).
The idea is to conquer territorys just by doing math;take the army(s) of the territory you attack,take the same amount of armys of your own territory and place at least one army of your terry on the one you conquered.
This sounds very dull and predictable,but the fun is that you can use the spoils you earn not only in sets,but also single and also for defending a territory.
for example: you earned a card by succesfully conquering a territory last round;the card is china(cavellary=8).Then the next round you can put 8 armys on china if you own it,conquer it or whenever someone attacks it.
So even someone else is playing and attacking a terry of yours that you have a card of,you can intervent;trade the card in and use the armys standing for it to defend it.
The other rule we had was that you get one army on every territory you have with no enemy-neighbours connected in the beginning of your round.
We never played with dice again,but it was hard confincing new players it was more fun that way.So i dont say 'lets get rid of those dice',but maybe one map with this concept for trial?Just try to help,hope not i am again someone with that stupid idea!!I play poker a lot,so i know theres no luck in the long run.Just keep rolling those dice,love to play on your site and maps!!!

kind regards,osok68

[Gillipig]

I'm sad to see this suggestion rejected .

[Nucker]

I see that the suggestion for no dice has been rejected. I am putting it forward again.

While it is clear that the dice always balance out, this is not the case for individual games or battle outcomes. I have experienced this numerous times playing these strategy games over years. When the numbers are still low during the most critical times of the game, a 2x or 3x double roll against you either in Defense or Attack can mean game over. On the point of balance I have noticed that my dice largely do the positive balancing on the vs 1's where the attacking army is 4 or more (4 vs 1 seems to be a dead certainly to win a battle) meaning that the higher defense armies get lower losses. 10 attack vs 3 defense, often has 1 or 2 defense troops left and 2 or 3 attack. It is ridiculous. While very large armies (built due to early luck) sustain lower losses against similar defense, thus balancing the dice numbers once again in cases where it is not critical.

Planning forward attacks using dice becomes a case of building large armies to ensure victory. Problem is that 1 or 2 players out of 6 will experience the luck running their way and can thus race for the bonuses faster. This imbalances the game and it generally goes to the first to be lucky.

A player experiencing a bad run on the dice will tend to overcompensate on either an attack or defense when strategy and troops numbers would have required a different deployment. This then starts once again to favor the lucky in that game. Also many battles are at critical junctions and a lucky win at one of these changes the balance of the game.

Luck is always present in any situation, but the dice add to the natural factors such as player error or dead beating. I am suggesting that the NO DICE option be added just as Trench, Number of payers, Spoils ect is; as an option.

The outcome of the battle is then a case of superior numbers where the attacker needs 2 more troops than the defender as a minimum (one for each territory).

I feel that Conquer Club will benefit from having an additional strategy factor for players that enjoy the reduction of luck (after all these are really situation games not real battles). As many players complain about the way the dice fall it will allow them to test the range of their ability when this factor is removed.




Concise description:

No Dice

Specifics/Details:

The outcome of the battle is then a case of superior numbers where the attacker needs 2 more troops than the defender as a minimum (one for each territory).

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

I feel that Conquer Club will benefit from having an additional strategy factor for players that enjoy the reduction of luck (after all these are really situation games not real battles). As many players complain about the way the dice fall it will allow them to test the range of their ability when this factor is removed.

I am sure the programing for this cant be that difficult to implement, but what do I know.


Regards
Nucker

[Metsfanmax]

Do you have any justification for this suggestion that is not present in the versions that have been rejected numerous times?

[agentcom]

I see that the suggestion for no dice has been rejected. I am putting it forward again.

This is the key part of your post. Please add your comments to the ongoing discussion. In this case, I have MERGED it to the proper place for you.

[Nucker]

Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.

Actually the dice was introduced later and Risk did not have dice or cards (both increasing luck). Luck has been added to just about every game to the point where imbalance occurs. It is sort of teaching that luck is an essential part of life to a higher degree than it actually is.

[Nucker]

Do you have any justification for this suggestion that is not present in the versions that have been rejected numerous times?

Yes, I dont see why it cant be an extra element to CC, thereby increasing appeal and option.

My question is why disregard it as out of hand. I have not seen too much argument for why it is a ridiculous idea.

Many Risk players, to use that misnomer, play without dice and to good effect. While the uncertainty may appear to reduce the "fun" it does not and moves can be planned with far greater detail.

Surely it cant hurt to add it.

Regards