NO DICE

[coolpsp]

Suggestion:no dice

Suggestion Idea:OK instead of having dice for when you attack to see if you will take the terrotry why not if you have more armies for example 35 vs 29 you end up with 6.This can be adapted so that you roll dice to see how many of the six you loose

35 vs 6
you end up with 6
then you roll dice to see how much more you loose like if you roll a 0 you loose 0 if you roll 10 you can loose upto 1/5 of the attacking army

this is much more fair than the current system

Why it is needed: It is needed because you rarely have bad dice you have exremly bad dice.

like 16vs 5 a player lost 15

Priority=4.75

[RobinJ]

First of all, I hope you are suggesting this as simply an option and, secondly, it has been suggested before

[john1099]

you're trying to change the original risk game, which is moronic.
Terrible idea, and also on a side note, lower the priority, nothing wrong with the current system !

[Steel Panzer]

got to agree that its a terrible idea.

you think from the attackers point of view, but look from the defenders: you have a 6 conutry, continent with lets say 3 borders with 3 armies on each, the attacker comes with 20 armies, he will take your continent (using your formula) and you have to start from scratch or in a normal game you have a chance to at least keep a part of your continent

[Chad22342]

It can be an option...I guess...The only people who would use it would be n00bs and people trying to get some razy amunts of points...

[Spritzking]

no it is a serious option, and you dont act very adultive with your comments. but to go on, i like every option, that balnce winning and losing (armies not games) in a fair way...

[Wisse]

already been suggested, check the stickey called "to-do list"

[RobinJ]

^Yes but is life and real war fair? Sometimes you hear of small forces holding off huge ones when they want it badly enough. Also, I wouldn't like CC to deviate too much from Risk. (Am I allowed to say that?)

[Spritzking]

robin you dont understand, it is not about fairness of a game, of course it is fair after all cuz sometimes you loose and sometimes you win, the only shit is that you cant plan your moves very organized, and that is what should be an option,

@wisse i know the to-do list, but this isn't my thread and i just wanted to explain something to people

[CreepyUncleAndy]

I suggested a "no-dice" alternative months ago: it was called "mutual annihilation"; each attacking army automatically destroys one defender, and each defending army automatically destroys one attacker (so if you want to attack a territory that has 1 defender, you need to attack from a territory where you have 3 armies -- 1 to destroy and be destroyed by the defender, 1 to occupy the new territory, and 1 to stay behind to hold the territory you attacked from).

They didn't like that idea much, either.

[Herakilla]

the only shit is that you cant plan your moves very organized, and that is what should be an option,

if you cant plan your moves, you aint as good a player you thought you were

all my moves are planned, i make it up as i go. when i finish my turn i spend 2 mins or so (not very long) and plan for next turn. when i come into the game again for my next turn i revise my plan according to what other players did, this takes like half a min cuz my plans are very flexible

[christopherfre]

worst idea ever...read the very first line on this website...Risk all your armies on a daring continent grab. the game is called risk for a reason.

[Spritzking]

weel i got some reason to do the no dice:

it saves money. for the site wil use less dice, so lack will see his income rise trough the skies, if he implents no dice