Lindax wrote:Random or not, I don't give a f*ck, they suck. The amount of games I lost on this site because of bullshit dice is just ridiculous.
You know the feeling, you play every move perfect, the plan comes together, you're ready to strike and sweep the map.... kaboom!
27 vs 14 ends 3 vs 6, 53 vs 10 leaves you with 11, etc., etc.
And don't give me the bullshit that "you don't remember the good dice, you only remember the bad ones". FFS! If you play a decent game you never get the good ones. If you have 14 to take 20, you simply don't even try, even though that's when you might have gotten the good ones.
Unfucking random the dice and program it so that if you have double the amount of your opponent you win the fucking battle or something like that.
Gillipig wrote:People should seriously start worshiping me!
Chariot of Fire wrote:No worries. And yes, I do believe that the advantage once held by the attacker is not as pronounced as it once had been. The old rule of thumb (add up all the armies of the terrs you plan to hit and add the number of terrs divided by 3) to calculate what size stack is required no longer seems to work very often. I see and experience far more failures than ever I used to.
iAmCaffeine wrote:I honestly think it's a case of remembering the good and bad rolls. Of course everyone has genuinely lost a game because of the dice, but that works both ways. I remember losing 18v2 once, horrific. I've ranted about the dice many times, but I remember a couple of outstanding rolls as well. I have won 5v12, although granted it was too late, and just now won 15v15 with 13/14 left.
TeeGee wrote:Funny how I see many more high rankers complaining about a random object than I see cooks.
By the way, my dice suck too, yet I still manage to win some games.
I propose a new dice system.. attacking dice range from 4-6 and defending dice 1-3 always, forever.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests