## No dice games [REJECTED]

Suggestions that have not stood up to community review.

Moderators: Suggestions Team, Global Moderators

### No dice games [REJECTED]

[MOD EDIT: The reason this is REJECTED is the possibility of unbreakable stalemates. See here, here and here. Feel free to continue the discussion here, but unless these difficulties can be overcome, this will not be implemented. If you see a thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. -- 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:
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]
Last edited by agentcom on Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:51 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: Stickied

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

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

Where is the poll?

Audax
Remember to breathe in more times than you breathe out.
Audax

Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: UK
Medals: 9

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.
Last edited by BaldAdonis on Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 2321
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:57 am
Location: Trapped in Pleasantville with Toby McGuire
Medals: 48

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)
Maggog

Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:01 am

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.
GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order

john1099

Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:14 am
Location: St. Catharines, ON
Medals: 18

shouldn't this be in s suggestion forum then?

Great Pretender

Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:29 am

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.

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

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.

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

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...
Remember to breathe in more times than you breathe out.
Audax

Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: UK
Medals: 9

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?
"Bullets kill, grenades kill, bayonets kill, the cold kills. Death has a thousand faces. The worst of them all: the Court Martial."

Sven Hassel

Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:15 pm
Location: Romania, the land where anything can happen
Medals: 9

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.
Remember to breathe in more times than you breathe out.
Audax

Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:06 pm
Location: UK
Medals: 9

Fruitcake wrote: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.

Posts: 2321
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:57 am
Location: Trapped in Pleasantville with Toby McGuire
Medals: 48

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.
11v10, that is why strategy would be more important.
20v33? 5vs9, I think the pertinant word is 'crazy'

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

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?

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

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

Krazy gurls love Cool-0!!!!

owenshooter

Posts: 8606
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of Tx
Medals: 27

### no dice games poll

Remember, this is as an option, it does not mean you have to play it.

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

err, sorry owen, slight cock up in the brain department there....done...perhaps one the mighty mods could tie these 2 together.

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

I love the idea as i think the dice play too much of a role in deciding the winner of a game. Got my support.
Mr Unbeatable

Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:52 pm

Mr Unbeatable wrote:I love the idea as i think the dice play too much of a role in deciding the winner of a game. Got my support.

yeah, dice deciding the game in a BOARD GAME is just ridiculous... ahem...-0

p.s.-where is the poll?!!!

Krazy gurls love Cool-0!!!!

owenshooter

Posts: 8606
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of Tx
Medals: 27

is this merged yet? ha!! you are killing me today fruity!!! let me cast my vote... oh wait, since we cast the dice, maybe i shouldn't use that term...-0

Krazy gurls love Cool-0!!!!

owenshooter

Posts: 8606
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of Tx
Medals: 27

I believe this belongs here

wacicha
Retired Team Member

Posts: 3953
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:51 pm
Medals: 33

mailed the mighty wicked to ask for it to be merged owen, just for you

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

Fruitcake

Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:38 am
Medals: 20

owenshooter wrote: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

Agreed!

Personally i instinctively don;t like the idea but you make some good points.

For me it would mean that a good lump of the emotion and drama would be taken out of the game.
Imagine Formula one without the crashes! Sheese that would be like watching pants go around in a washing machine.

Imagine in Football if every decision, in every game were correct and decided by flawless computers which measured every movement.
It would take away a huge portion of the injustice which keeps us all talking in pubs and coming back for more. The game requires a good but imperfect referee. Our 'Random' dice serve as our flawed adjudicator.

The element of luck keeps the best players trying and the worst interested.
If people wanted purely a battle of unadulterated wits, CC would stand for Chess Club!
The dice act as a cushion to soften the acceptance of our intellectual inadequacies and a brake on our cognitive bravura.

In short by taking away the dice you fundamentally alter the dynamics and essence of the game.

love,
jim

jiminski

Posts: 5416
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London
Medals: 29

Right here's a question...

If both sides lose the same amount of armies - what happens when it's 2 or 3 vs 1...

Who wins?

C.

Highest score : 2297

yeti_c

Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46

Next