by jimg7777 on Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:58 pm
How about a NO DICE option ? Let’s just eliminate the luck (good and bad) of the Dice so the best Strategists are more likely to WIN.
Proposed modified rules:
1. Attacking territory MUST have at least 2 more armies than defender, or can't attack.
2. Attacker always wins (makes sense - they have the larger force) but in doing so,
2A. Attacker loses armies equal to what defender had (let's call that #, D). It would be like having VERY
STEADY dice spins i.e for series of 3vs2 attacks it's like it went - split, win2, lose2, split, lose2, win2...
or split, split, split...)
OR 2B. Attacker loses D-1 or D-10% to give attacker some advantage (as current dice odds do.)
OR 2C. Attacker loses D if they had 2 more armies than Defender, D-1 if they had 4 more armies, D-2 if they
had 6 more armies... to create advantage for more overwhelming attacks - more realistic.
OR 2D. Attacker loses # of armies based on what’s most probable using actual Dice Odds…
2E. May need some special processing so that A3vsD1 spins don’t always reward Attacker with win. Maybe a counter so that when you attack 3vs1, you win 1, lose 1, win 1, win 1, lose 1, win 1,… to maintain 2/3 win advantage for Attacker, which is close to a actual dice odds…
Pros: 1- Attacking is pure SKILL. Everyone can accurately predict an entire campaign. Much more likely that
best strategist will win the game.
2 - No more complaints about the dice. (OK they must be random - but weirdly STREAKY at times)
Cons: 1 - Evenly matched players likely to stalemate.
Maybe put a limit on # of rounds and then at that point the most terrs wins with most armies as
tie-breaker.
2 – Some may think it’s a less robust game since no "character-building" by working to overcome bad
dice. But that’s why it’d be an OPTION (like nuclear or fog of war.)
Still lots of luck involved:
1. With initial territory placement.
2. With the timing of spoils, and whether you own spoil territories.