No dice games [REJECTED]

[spiesr]

[MOD EDIT: The reason this is REJECTED is the possibility of unbreakable stalemates. See here and here -- 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

Positives:
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[/quote]

[Audax]

Got my support Fruitcake..I would love to see a no dice game.

Where is the poll?

Audax

[BaldAdonis]

In a 2 player game, if the first player gets 4 to start, then unless the map is so skewed that both players are directly opposite, he'll be able to find four territories to take with no chance of losing them the next round. Many places you wouldn't even need to deploy: if you have two territories next to one, you'll take it. Try applying this to any game you've just started, and see how many you can take over. It'll be a lot more than you could take with dice.

[Maggog]

so if I get this right...

4 vs 3 - 3 vs 2 - 2 vs 1- ....? If it ever becomes 2 vs 1 the attacker cant take the territory?

what about in games like 2.1 or maps where players get 5+ men, they could place a 2, a 2 and a 1 and guarantie that they take 2 areas for sure, this cuts their opponent down to 4 guys per round (an even bigger effect in world 2.1)

[john1099]

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.

[Great Pretender]

shouldn't this be in s suggestion forum then?

[Fruitcake]

In a 2 player game, if the first player gets 4 to start, then unless the map is so skewed that both players are directly opposite, he'll be able to find four territories to take with no chance of losing them the next round. Many places you wouldn't even need to deploy: if you have two territories next to one, you'll take it. Try applying this to any game you've just started, and see how many you can take over. It'll be a lot more than you could take with dice.

Not quite, and the first player could never take more than 2 terries....

start=3 per terry, so the first player places 4 armies on one terry. Same player takes terry 1, loses 3 in attack, has to leave one behind, so moves 3 in. this now means just 4 on the next attacking terry against 3, so has to use armies from another surrounding terry to reduce to 2 before attacking, then takes. great, but player then has 3 terries with just 1 army on each.

[Fruitcake]

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.

The game of Risk is called a strategic game....isn't it?

I was asked to post this for discussion.

[Audax]

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.

Apart from the obviously silly number which has nothing positive, I fail to undertstand hwo you can say this. How many threads appear on this forum about the dice????????

I agree with Fruitcake's comment about strategic thinking. I play no dice risk all the time, but then maybe that is because I think skill comes from this strategic thinking and not luck...

[Sven Hassel]

a simple answer: NO

the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?

[Audax]

what about in games like 2.1 or maps where players get 5+ men, they could place a 2, a 2 and a 1 and guarantie that they take 2 areas for sure, this cuts their opponent down to 4 guys per round (an even bigger effect in world 2.1)

Good point, bet Fruit hadn't though about that, I had not, never play it myself. Notwithstanding that...it would be an option, not compulsory...surely this increases the attractiveness of the site rather than detracts from it.

[BaldAdonis]

Not quite, and the first player could never take more than 2 terries....

start=3 per terry, so the first player places 4 armies on one terry. Same player takes terry 1, loses 3 in attack, has to leave one behind, so moves 3 in. this now means just 4 on the next attacking terry against 3, so has to use armies from another surrounding terry to reduce to 2 before attacking, then takes. great, but player then has 3 terries with just 1 army on each.

If this ever gets implemented (which it won't, it's been suggested and rejected because it doesn't make sense), sign me up for a hundred games against you. You're forgetting that you start with more than one territory, so there are support troops scattered around the map. It would be very unlikely to come up with a drop where you CAN'T take 3 territories and not leave any singles exposed.

[Fruitcake]

a simple answer: NO

the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?

I disagree, dice are not at the heart of the game, strategy is.
your examples:
11v10, that is why strategy would be more important.
20v33? 5vs9, I think the pertinant word is 'crazy'

[Fruitcake]

If this ever gets implemented (which it won't, it's been suggested and rejected because it doesn't make sense), sign me up for a hundred games against you. You're forgetting that you start with more than one territory, so there are support troops scattered around the map. It would be very unlikely to come up with a drop where you CAN'T take 3 territories and not leave any singles exposed.

have you played a no dice game?

[owenshooter]

i want a poll, damnit!!! where is the poll!! a guy as clever as you are, and you can't figure out how to add a poll?!! get with it fruity!!!-0