[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]
With all the angst about dice, surely a no dice game should be an option.
The rules are simple. Both attacker and defender lose the same amount of armies. So the attacker has to have at least 2 more armies than the defender, simple example: 3 attackers against 1 defender, both lose 1, the attacker moves 1 army in.
This seems, on the surface to favour the first turn in a game, however, it does not. See the board in your minds eye. Now, the first attacker gets 3 armies, to take a terry, a minimum of 2 would have to be placed on the attacking terry (3 loss each, 1 moves in, 1 left behind) this leaves 1 spare...placement...wherever. Now the next takes the turn. They then have the option, take the easy singles (if they can) or attack elsewhere with the same result as above.
Now as the game progresses, obviously, one has to really look at the whole board strategically, for to break someone else, may leave you with too few defenders elsewhere, and under threat from another player, so strategic thinking plays a far greater part. It also brings forward planning more into the equation, it may well be worth just reducing on one turn, to set up for an assault the following.
The immediate question many have, with two player games is: So what happens if the first player just attacks every other terry on the first go? Well, it is simple, every terry then has a single unit left (3v3), and both lose 2, so no Terries taken bar the original where 4 were placed). But then the second player has easy targets to grab and build. They get the 4 income, and could take 2 terries with these (4+1 so 5 on a terry, takes 1, loses a single, moves 3 in, takes another moves 1 in), and so on and so on.
By playing this way, it takes a huge element of luck out of the equation (you could still play with cards as well to add that frisson of that luck if you wanted).
Negatives: It does often mean a longer game with multi players (2 player games still remain fairly fast). However, many no card games I have played seem to go on for weeks
No crazy dice runs, so less forum threads about the dice.
More strategic thinking
More lifelike as the largest force always wins the battle, but the defence has to be considered with a more measured approach...no more leaving 6 armies defending when there are 8 armies 2 Terries away with say 3 income coming, and hoping the dice roll for you.
I am not saying lets convert, I am putting forward the motion that this is an option cc could offer.
Please give this your support. If you still want to play with dice, great!
[quote=chapcrap]For a slightly different spin on this, see this post: https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... d#p3988290