Conquer Club

gingerswimmer wrote:*gets out really old box of risk* says it right here

can you upload an image of it

yeah i have the risk book in my hand how would i go about putting it on here?


soz im stupid



oh and ive just looked its the 2000 version...............so not that old, but still not new

gingerswimmer wrote:yeah i have the risk book in my hand how would i go about putting it on here?

soz im stupid

oh and ive just looked its the 2000 version...............so not that old, but still not new

can you like give a version number or anything. Risk 2000 is the version where you have to use a trecking system right? got missles and such? nothing at all compared to the you know original risk system right?
Give me a page number and version number please, as well as who made the booklet(hasbro or another) and whatever identifieing information you can give me.

can you perhaps literally quote the section you are refering too, i keep comming back that you must have misread/misunderstood the text

its the hasbro (with a parker logo on the front as well) MADE in the year 2000 version, its got a napolionic feel to it with cannons, musket infantry and cavalry, the rule book i have is in blue and white page 10 says
and i quote

"the number of dice thrown by the defender is 1 or 2 depending on the number of battalions he has in the territory being attacked:

No. of defending battalions...............................No. of dice thrown by defender

1............................................................................1
2............................................................................1
3 or more...............................................................1 or 2

I cant find any reference to such a game. I need a title, language and more. darn i thought i had all the versions on my vingertips, but it sounds like castle risk, or a variant i never heard off.

risk 2000 http://www.scribd.com/doc/23317986/Risk-2000

the original rules: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/risk.pdf

that is the game cover



that is the rule book cover



that is the section on defending dice, sorry about the blur i have a crappy phone, but if you look close you can see the box with the number of dice in

wicked shots. good enough for me. i am stumped now..

gingerswimmer wrote:No. of defending battalions...............................No. of dice thrown by defender

1............................................................................1
2............................................................................1
3 or more...............................................................1 or 2

this doesn't make sense to me. if you could throw 2 dice to defend why would you chose to limit yourself to 1. your chance of equalling or bettering the attackers dice rolls are much better with 2 than 1 roll.

if you only roll 1 dice you only lose 1 troop, depends on what the attacker rolls and if he/she rolls before after or the same time as you

gingerswimmer wrote:if you only roll 1 dice you only lose 1 troop, depends on what the attacker rolls and if he/she rolls before after or the same time as you

i have never played Risk.

do you not roll at the same time ?

depends on what type of rules you are going by, i have always played it as rolled at the same time, but different people have different ways they play, and the amont of dice they use

I've played it the way gingerswimmer is talking about. It just means that when you have a small amount of troops, instead of instantly rolling 2 or 3 die while defending yourself, you can roll one and if it turns out wrong you can still maintain the few troops you have left, instead of rolling more dice with the possibility of loosing troops you need.

I'm not convinced it would work on here though. that's very board gameish - same as Rol style where you use percentage dices, etc.

kabuki.mono wrote:I've played it the way gingerswimmer is talking about. It just means that when you have a small amount of troops, instead of instantly rolling 2 or 3 die while defending yourself, you can roll one and if it turns out wrong you can still maintain the few troops you have left, instead of rolling more dice with the possibility of loosing troops you need.

I'm not convinced it would work on here though. that's very board gameish - same as Rol style where you use percentage dices, etc.

it is a rare rule variant for the UK in the 1990ish. It favors the attacker even more... its not needed here. also, here all dice are thrown at the same time. in the uk version there was also mention of throwing it at the same time. Other variants allowed for more discretion on the defenders part. this increased the odd for the defender. that last part is not going to happen here, since nobody wants to be online to make the call on 10k vs 10, for every single attack

How would that even work here? In most games in CC, the defender is not present when the dices are rolled, so how would he even choose whether to roll 1 or 2 dices?

natty_dread wrote:How would that even work here? In most games in CC, the defender is not present when the dices are rolled, so how would he even choose whether to roll 1 or 2 dices?

true

SirSebstar wrote:

kabuki.mono wrote:I've played it the way gingerswimmer is talking about. It just means that when you have a small amount of troops, instead of instantly rolling 2 or 3 die while defending yourself, you can roll one and if it turns out wrong you can still maintain the few troops you have left, instead of rolling more dice with the possibility of loosing troops you need.

I'm not convinced it would work on here though. that's very board gameish - same as Rol style where you use percentage dices, etc.

it is a rare rule variant for the UK in the 1990ish. It favors the attacker even more... its not needed here. also, here all dice are thrown at the same time. in the uk version there was also mention of throwing it at the same time. Other variants allowed for more discretion on the defenders part. this increased the odd for the defender. that last part is not going to happen here, since nobody wants to be online to make the call on 10k vs 10, for every single attack

Agreed.

Alright, there are too many flaws in this suggestion, and it won't be implemented. Rejected

Dice. We have all moaned about them, we know they are random. but sometimes it seems random is just not good enough. streaks destroy the game.

So im wondering if it has ever been suggested to introduce 'less' random dice. i know your probably thinking wtf is he talking about. I mean investing in an algorithim in which it is random but with an influence from previous rolls, whereby the 'unevenness' of previous battle outcomes is proportional to the influence on the next roll. It could be done on the last x number of rolls or the rolls taken in the last x amount of time.
streaks are still possible, but they become much less likely.

Im aware lots would be against the idea, but the severity of the influence could be minimised so only extreme periods of biased battle outcomes begin to have an effect.

If done correctly it would have no overall impact on dice stats, but would make those mornings where you literally lose 20 games in a row purely because the dice didnt even give you a chance a much rarer occurance.
And hence it would also decrease the number of games in which you lose bec

I'm guessing they already use this. That's why it all evens out so perfectly in the end, and don't see many (any?) major variations.

You get hugely bad / good dice, keeps going for awhile. The algo kicks in eventually and swings it largely in the opposite direction "balance" the shitty / good dice out.

On avg over time it looks great, but those streaks are a bitchhhhhhh. I believe it's caused by the very thing ur proposing.

IcePack

IcePack wrote:I'm guessing they already use this. That's why it all evens out so perfectly in the end, and don't see many (any?) major variations.

You get hugely bad / good dice, keeps going for awhile. The algo kicks in eventually and swings it largely in the opposite direction "balance" the shitty / good dice out.

On avg over time it looks great, but those streaks are a bitchhhhhhh. I believe it's caused by the very thing ur proposing.

IcePack

Interesting. I didnt consider that.

.... i wonder

Wut?

Or maybe that's percentages evening out after tens of thousands of rolls?

I personally don't like it, there are streaks in the real world of Risk! (Trust me, i've seen them), so I don't know why they shouldn't be on here.

TheForgivenOne wrote::-s Wut?

Or maybe that's percentages evening out after tens of thousands of rolls?

I personally don't like it, there are streaks in the real world of Risk! (Trust me, i've seen them), so I don't know why they shouldn't be on here.

+1

You just have to learn how to overcome the streaks.

yeah streaks are in the real world, but your forgetting that this wont rule out streaks, just make them way less common, because they are a bit to common.

Taking a complete stab in the dark here but if you to ask everybody why they left cc, id say
number one being they were just briefly checking it out the site and didnt enjoy it,
number two, 4 games was not enough and they were not willing to pay 25 dollars
***number three, fustration at dice.***

More customers means better gameplay for all us, so making the dice more paletteable may be in more peoples interest than you may realise.

The numbers from random.org are thoroughly vetted to ensure randomness. As a result of that, streaks do not occur more often than they ought to according to the rules of probability. You are essentially saying that you don't like that real randomness allows for such streaks, and you want us to do something about it. Well, we're not going to alter the dice to make them less realistic, and if that causes people to leave, so be it. We've seen throughout the years on CC that no matter how we change the dice system, people will always complain and threaten to quit. That would probably happen in response to this suggestion being implemented as well. I think we just need to take dice complainers as a constant source of unrealized income, and leave it at that.

People get mad because they have bad dice. People get mad because opponents have good dice. I don't know how you expect to even it all out. People will always get frustrated at the dice.