No dice games [REJECTED]

[BaldAdonis]

[It strikes me now that perhaps it is a little like chess crossed with checkers/draughts or something similar.] Chess is a complex game, with no luck, but because of all the possibilities it cannot be realistically 'calculated' by most minds (human or otherwise).

This game would be much more like checkers than chess. A few basic guidelines would be enough to allow you to make the best moves almost every time, because the pieces and the gameplay are so simple.

A few other threads where this was discussed:
Fruitcake, from a month ago;
Generaln7, from 3 months ago;
coolpsp, from last May;
CreepyUncleAndy, from over a year ago;
Basic summary: it's never been officially rejected; hardly anyone supports it; "why not just play Diplomacy?"; and Risktaker17 makes funny posts.

I think the idea is decent and would definitely use it

Been requested and rejected TONS OF TIMES!

No randomness, no fun. I'd rather play Chess then.

[BaldAdonis]

true, however this would not be luck based, chess isn't luck based just because it has no dice, does the starting player always win?

Chess isn't solved (yet), so I can't say, but the first player does have a big advantage, and in chess you don't have a random starting position. This game doesn't get rid of the luck, it just moves it to the very beginning of the game, when the drop and play order is decided.

Besides, this suggestion is much more simple than chess: there's only one piece and one interaction between pieces. It's more like Connect Four or checkers (which are solved, and end up as first player win or a draw, resp.)

[Risktaker17]

Been rejected more times than anyone can remember!

[BaldAdonis]

Been rejected more times than anyone can remember!

0?

[Fruitcake]

Baldadonis wrote:

It's more like Connect Four or checkers (which are solved, and end up as first player win or a draw, resp.)

Disagree, it is nothing like it. There are far more impondrables with this than the games you mention. Troop movements being just one.

It is impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond. The idea of this is far more strategic. For instance, You have to think not just about this move, but the turn next, the turn after that and so on. Because of this one still makes errors of judgement. One can think something is going to happen, but then the enemy turns and does something completely different, this then changes the whole face of the game and so all one can do is make the call, just as in normal dice driven games cc offers.

I don't wish to seem a bore about this, but judging by the steady voting so far there are quite a few who see this as an option worth going with, for that is all it is...an option.

[insomniacdude]

I would never play it. As has already been said, it's more of a puzzle then a game of skill. Because the luck of the dice are removed, there are now only three elements of luck remaining: cards, drop, and play order. Only one of these has a dynamic effect on the game continuously; that is to say, the drop and play order effect the game from the very beginning, and that's it. In standard games, the cards (usually) and the dice offset the "statistical puzzle"-ness to the game, requiring true human ingenuity. That means that for every scenario there is almost always a singular and clear "good" and "bad" move. Someone said that it wouldn't be long before computer programs are written to take a player's turn in these no dice games.

Even so, surely that shouldn't be enough to turn down another option that, like it or not, would certainly add a new level to the game. My gripes from there are pretty simple:

1) It's just not Risk. It doesn't fall into the product CC is trying to deliver, IMO.
2) Because of that, I feel like the points added into the system from these games isn't fair t the people who earned their points in more CC-like games.

[Tieryn]

Yeah, I agree fruitcake, as an option, I'd find in interesting...

I'd really want the games that are no-dice to have a different coloured background screen tho, so I'm sure which type I'm playing. I too often forget it's chained or adjacent forts... no-dice would throw me unless it was -REAL- easy to know which game was which.

My concern is bigger maps, such as the battle of actium, where you start with heaps of armies, and in order to overcome this, I suggest something like staggered deploys.. In order to overcome the major benefits of going first, the first player only gets 3 deploys... in multi player games, this would step up by 1 deploy each person, 1st-3, 2nd-4, 3rd-5, 4th-6, until you reached standard deployments, and then be ineffectual afterwards.. It's just something that would help reduce that impact of first play, which with 8 beginning deploys, would be hugely impacting in a no-dice game... Perhaps this even for the first 1-2-3 rounds or so in 2 player, again rising by one each time, until standard level is found.

Thoughts?

[BaldAdonis]

-It is impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond.
-The idea of this is far more strategic.
-You have to think not just about this move, but the turn next, the turn after that and so on.
-Because of this one still makes errors of judgement.
-One can think something is going to happen, but then the enemy turns and does something completely different, this then changes the whole face of the game

Explain again which of those does not describe checkers or Connect Four.

I made the analogy because all three fall under the domain of combinatorial game theory, so you can apply the same decision structures to any of them. Because it can be shown that the first player can, by taking 3 territories, create an advantage (unless someone drops a bonus, then the game depends on the starting position), the first player should win, as long as they don't make any mistakes.

Maybe you just play against bad players who make illogical moves, so the games don't SEEM to be determined... but they are. At any given time, there is a best move to make (because you can only put your deployment in a finite number of places and make a finite set of attacks to take adjacent territories, so the one which leaves you in the best position is the best move [Risk doesn't fall victim to this, because the attacks are probabilistic, you only know with certain odds which move is best]), so it's not impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond if you assume they will make their best move. If they don't make their best move, then that's even better, because they're in a worse position than they could be.

Let's play a game right now. Since you don't need dice, the entire game can be done by writing down your moves, once you know the starting position. You could play by mail! (like Diplomacy, but with fewer rules)

[nelo]

i agree with fruitcake is an option of a game and just play who wants you getmy vote

[yeti_c]

-It is impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond.
-The idea of this is far more strategic.
-You have to think not just about this move, but the turn next, the turn after that and so on.
-Because of this one still makes errors of judgement.
-One can think something is going to happen, but then the enemy turns and does something completely different, this then changes the whole face of the game

Explain again which of those does not describe checkers or Connect Four.

I made the analogy because all three fall under the domain of combinatorial game theory, so you can apply the same decision structures to any of them. Because it can be shown that the first player can, by taking 3 territories, create an advantage (unless someone drops a bonus, then the game depends on the starting position), the first player should win, as long as they don't make any mistakes.

Maybe you just play against bad players who make illogical moves, so the games don't SEEM to be determined... but they are. At any given time, there is a best move to make (because you can only put your deployment in a finite number of places and make a finite set of attacks to take adjacent territories, so the one which leaves you in the best position is the best move [Risk doesn't fall victim to this, because the attacks are probabilistic, you only know with certain odds which move is best]), so it's not impossible to know how the enemy is going to respond if you assume they will make their best move. If they don't make their best move, then that's even better, because they're in a worse position than they could be.

Let's play a game right now. Since you don't need dice, the entire game can be done by writing down your moves, once you know the starting position. You could play by mail! (like Diplomacy, but with fewer rules)

You are correct - if Risk was a 2 player game...

Perhaps this option shouldn't be available for 2 player games?

C.

[Phantom7]

I am not as good as Fruit at putting a point of view forwards, but I will just say.

I cannot see any reason not to have a no dice option, I have played just about all types and like them. I know loads of people who play this way. Ive never had a problem with any way of playing this game, it is all good fun.

You have my support fruit on this, a great idea. , and a great thread, some serious stuff without the usual stuff that happens.

[HayesA]

You got my vote, Fruitcake buddy. I'm bloody sick of losing the game due to omigawd dice rolls. I don't see how dice are the "heart" of the game. I thought it was Risk/Strategy? This would definitely make me want to maybe buy premium, and use Fog of War for all my games.

[Kemmler]

Definitely needs tweaking then it might be good... with neutrals it would suck

[Fruitcake]

Risktaker17 wrote

Been rejected more times than anyone can remember!

Interesting. I was not led to believe this.

I was asked to see what the response would be like to a discussion and a poll.

Perhaps you mean, it has previously died a death due to not being supported. Strangely the voting seems, so far to be quite reasonable.

[Fruitcake]

Kemmler wrote

Definitely needs tweaking then it might be good... with neutrals it would suck

In what way Kemmler? Seriously. I am interested in why.