No dice games [REJECTED]

[Fruitcake]

I, and it seems, a number of other folks, just don't think it qualifies as a RISK variation.

Quite right too. That is the great thing, but it seems others agree with my thoughts.

[owenshooter]

ok.. i voted on the poll.. whew... and yeah, i think it is a GREAT IDEA! i mean, the first Risk game i got, was for christmas when i was 10... they screwed up at the factory and forgot to put the dice in it... imagine my shock and dismay when i played risk at a friends house many years later, and actually had to roll the dice to decide the outcome of the battles instead of bartering with my brothers to determine who won the battle... if one of the options on this "no dice game" is, "do the dishes tonight" for a battle victory, then i'm in...-0

[happy2seeyou]

If there is no dice in the game, who is David_Wain and Nephilim going to blame when they lose to me AGAIN??

[owenshooter]

If there is no dice in the game, who is David_Wain and Nephilim going to blame when they lose to me AGAIN??

OH SNAP!!! (notice how i translated that so you could understand it, happy2? ha!!!)

[David_Wain]

We have to blame something when we obviously get totally outplayed every time

[ugabug]

Well i like this idea really thought out.

[zimmah]

it's just an option, so who not vote for it?

not that i would play it a lot anyways, but others might like it, and it would not hurt you to vote for it, so why not?

and who cares it is more like chess instead of more like risk, does it matter? not really, since you don't HAVE to play it, it's just an option

would you vote against a new map from DiM for example, because they are not like the 'original risk' and you don't like the 'futuristic gameplay' or you just don't feel like playing some kind of variation?

most likely not, so who vote against this?

i'm not saying i want no dice games, but i just think if someone wants them as an option, WHY NOT?

[sfhbballnut]

don't reallly see the point or like the idea at all

[cicero]

Fruitcake and supporters of the idea ...

It doesn't seem well thought out ... You say that 'attacker and defender lose the same amount of armies'.

So where the attacker has at least, 2 armies more than the defender this makes a successful attack possible.

eg 5 v 2 becomes -> 3 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 2 in conquered territory.
eg 4 v 2 becomes -> 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory.

But what about where the attacker has only 1 army more than the defender?

eg 3 v 2 becomes -> 1 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 0 in conquered territory ???
Of course 4 v 3, 5 v 4, 6 v 5 etc all amount to the same problem.

I'll assume that this is the extra, as yet unwritten rule, that attackers must have 2 armies more than defenders to win.

Another thing which doesn't seem to be clarifed in the post is this:

If I have 8 v 6 can I just 'attack with 2' to make it 6 v 4? Or do I have to 'attack with 6' to make it 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory?

Not sure why I would want to do this, but could I ?

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

I would suspect that, given the motivation of the game type existing [ ], it wouldn't be long before someone wrote a program to direct their moves.

Cicero

[BaldAdonis]

If I have 8 v 6 can I just 'attack with 2' to make it 6 v 4? Or do I have to 'attack with 6' to make it 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory?

Not sure why I would want to do this, but could I ?

You'd want to do that when you're attacking a territory which could attack your bonus from outside of your bonus. For example, your 8 are on China, their 6 are on Siam, and you want to protect Australia.

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

Like a game of Connect Four. It's not Risk anymore when the outcome is determined.

would you vote against a new map from DiM for example, because they are not like the 'original risk' and you don't like the 'futuristic gameplay' or you just don't feel like playing some kind of variation?

Do you visit the foundry? There was a map (and a joke map ridiculing it) which was entirely luck based. There were 6 territories, and the first player got a bonus of 100. Whoever went first would win, just like in this suggestion. It got voted down, because it's a terrible idea. See the similarities? Just because we have options, doesn't mean we need to allow all options. That's how you make a product inferior.


Fruitcake, why not work on a way to explain to people why the dice act the way that they do? That resolves the problem of dice complaints, and doesn't add a different game to the site.

[Fruitcake]

cicero wrote:

If I have 8 v 6 can I just 'attack with 2' to make it 6 v 4? Or do I have to 'attack with 6' to make it 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory?

Not sure why I would want to do this, but could I ?

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

Taking the first point, yes, this is exactly the same as rolling the dice one roll at a time. Each attack is in effect a single roll, so auto would drive you in otherwise the choice is still yours.

To the other, all I can say is trust me, the outcome is never pre ordained. You would have to be able to judge what every other player was going to do in a given situation, impossible. We play this way on the board almost exclusively at home, purely to hone our strategic thought processes. As I have mentioned before, cards can still be played which ensures a frisson of luck, however, the % of luck against strategic skill to arrive at the final outcome decreases dramatically.

hope this helps.

[cicero]

Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.

All I can say is trust me, the outcome is never pre ordained. You would have to be able to judge what every other player was going to do in a given situation, impossible. We play this way on the board almost exclusively at home, purely to hone our strategic thought processes. As I have mentioned before, cards can still be played which ensures a frisson of luck, however, the % of luck against strategic skill to arrive at the final outcome decreases dramatically.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that "trust me" isn't a good argument .... ... seriously, explain why the outcome is not pre-ordained?

I appreciate that the outcome is not always the same, but this I think is because of variations in the drop. I can calculate for a given drop what my best moves are. If you make your best moves too if you have a weaker drop you cannot overtake me.

Even if I make my best moves I cannot make a win if others have a stronger drop. It would seem that a strong drop can only lose if the player makes mistakes and hence games can only be lost by error. Equally an initial drop advantage cannot be overcome unless the player with that advantage makes an error.

And then, setting all that aside, let's say that I see your game is an interesting one. [It strikes me now that perhaps it is a little like chess crossed with checkers/draughts or something similar.] Chess is a complex game, with no luck, but because of all the possibilities it cannot be realistically 'calculated' by most minds (human or otherwise). That's the trouble with thinking aloud, I've nearly convinced myself I like your game now ...

However I think perhaps the real reason it will not be implemented here, and has been rejected so many times in the past, is because it does have such a high skill factor. For a massively multi player site like CC it is important to have a large membership who can all enjoy winning often enough to return. Higher skill games tend to appeal to an elite who master the game and as a consequence new, casual players are unlikely to win so often if at all. Many of these players will not return.

Cicero

[zimmah]

However I think perhaps the real reason it will not be implemented here, and has been rejected so many times in the past, is because it does have such a high skill factor. For a massively multi player site like CC it is important to have a large membership who can all enjoy winning often enough to return. Higher skill games tend to appeal to an elite who master the game and as a consequence new, casual players are unlikely to win so often if at all. Many of these players will not return.

Cicero

they will not have to play it.

[zimmah]

would you vote against a new map from DiM for example, because they are not like the 'original risk' and you don't like the 'futuristic gameplay' or you just don't feel like playing some kind of variation?

Do you visit the foundry? There was a map (and a joke map ridiculing it) which was entirely luck based. There were 6 territories, and the first player got a bonus of 100. Whoever went first would win, just like in this suggestion. It got voted down, because it's a terrible idea. See the similarities? Just because we have options, doesn't mean we need to allow all options. That's how you make a product inferior.


Fruitcake, why not work on a way to explain to people why the dice act the way that they do? That resolves the problem of dice complaints, and doesn't add a different game to the site.

true, however this would not be luck based, chess isn't luck based just because it has no dice, does the starting player always win?

[Fruitcake]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that "trust me" isn't a good argument .... ... seriously, explain why the outcome is not pre-ordained?

The answer I gave is really just that. You would have to be able to judge what every other player was going to do in a given situation, which is impossible.

I appreciate that the outcome is not always the same, but this I think is because of variations in the drop. I can calculate for a given drop what my best moves are. If you make your best moves too if you have a weaker drop you cannot overtake me.
Even if I make my best moves I cannot make a win if others have a stronger drop. It would seem that a strong drop can only lose if the player makes mistakes and hence games can only be lost by error. Equally an initial drop advantage cannot be overcome unless the player with that advantage makes an error.

I sense you are thinking as with the dice game. I see many discussions about it in 2 player games. However, with multi player games there is little or no discussion. The thing is, with this method, the defender can actually get you, in that you have to always ensure you have more in defence than any potential attack. This puts a brake on those quick wipe games where someone gets the best of the drop. After all, we have all played the game where a string of outlying single army terries are counted in our minds…you know the style…(well the enemy is likely to lose a couple on the way etc etc, so by the time they get to the border they might only have 3 or 4 left against my 3) this way you would have to sit and think every move through, especially if you only had chained fortifications.

And then, setting all that aside, let's say that I see your game is an interesting one. [It strikes me now that perhaps it is a little like chess crossed with checkers/draughts or something similar.] Chess is a complex game, with no luck, but because of all the possibilities it cannot be realistically 'calculated' by most minds (human or otherwise). That's the trouble with thinking aloud, I've nearly convinced myself I like your game now

The game grips one, because one is no longer concerned about the ramifications of ‘bad’ dice, but has to start thinking on an almost 3 dimensional strategic way.

However I think perhaps the real reason it will not be implemented here, and has been rejected so many times in the past, is because it does have such a high skill factor. For a massively multi player site like CC it is important to have a large membership who can all enjoy winning often enough to return. Higher skill games tend to appeal to an elite who master the game and as a consequence new, casual players are unlikely to win so often if at all. Many of these players will not return.

Very good point, that is why I am championing it as an option…those who want to enjoy the luck of the dice can still do so.