billy07 wrote: AAFitz wrote: billy07 wrote:
Thomassaurus wrote:I know the dies are random but it does get a little annoying sometimes. How about if you could choose not to have dies in a game,
so as long as long as you had more troops you know you would win, it would just take the same amount from you as it takes from them.
Say you attack 8 to 4 they loose 4 you loose 4 you attack 10 to 3 they loose 3 you loose 3.
Just an idea.
basically the drop would decide the winner in this instance. the forums would then be deluged with threads complaining about random drops and how the 'even' dice didn't give them a chance
Regretfully, I am forced to agree with you 100%, except the drop wouldnt even matter...only going first would.
The only way to win a game going second in a game, is because of the dice typically. Otherwise, the other player would always be ahead in army count.
And, you would make every 3v3 attack on round one, knocking every army they had down to 1, and taking at least 3 spots from them with 3 deploy, 4 with 4 deploy, 5 with 5 deploy, 6 with 6 deploy, 7 with 7 deploy....12 with 12 deploy...and on their turn, they would be left with 3 to deploy, and little or no 3's to place them on.
It would work without fail. You make a 4, attack a 3 and win, every time. This may seem like a neat idea, but clearly, the dice were included for a reason.
You could devise a way to make this work, but the drop would decide most games, and it would require one attack per round only. Now, pick that setting on the hive. Let me know how it turns out for ya.
happily, i am forced to disagree with you 100%. you didn't work out your maths properly. a 4 could not take a 3 as it would lose 3 and not have 1 to carry over. a 6 could only take 1 country as it would become a 2 after it has enterted a new country.
good forting would be a way to win, but like you said, if the first person made everything 1's it becomes a pointless game.
Your umm... math is wrong....You didnt nearly disagree with me 100%...
billy07 wrote:i am forced to disagree with you 100%.......but like you said, if the first person made everything 1's it becomes a pointless
The math is wrong though. you would need 5 deploys to kill the 3s, not 4's, but for initial drops of many armies the result would be exactly the same. at 12 armies, youd take 6 spots each time, and leave ones nearly everywhere else.
No doubt, a system of limiting attacks, and forting could very well make the game playable, but the game of chess already exists, so you might as well just play that, instead of configuring a new one.
For fun though, it would be fun to see a game made this way. Dice would perhaps still be needed, but instead of deciding the number of kills, perhaps they could decide the number of attacks.
All pointless conjecture though. Its just not even the same game. and would essentially require an entirely new game engine.
I will admit, Id love to give it a shot, and on speed freestyle, with no one going first or second. It would no doubt be an interesting game...though, it could also turn into a game of tic tac toe, theoretically, for an unlimited number of rounds.
the only winning move...is not to play.