Conquer Club

They are, after all, far more common.

For instance, after 3 cards your chances of drawing the following sets:
Red: 1 in 27
Green: 1 in 27
Blue: 1 in 27
Mixed: 2 in 9

I can't think of any other chance-oriented game where the most common result pays the most.

I thought a mixed set was the same value as any other

in flat rate red is wourth 4, green 6, blue 8, mixed 10. in escallating, it doesn't matter. and the odds are the same for getting three of the same couler, than mixed

Kahless wrote:I thought a mixed set was the same value as any other

That's why you'll never make General

It's always been that, since the early days of the board game.

.

happy2seeyou wrote:You should really read the game instructions before you post on here. It would have saved you the trouble of posting this. It explains this exactly.

Thanks

Perhaps you should read someone's post before answering it. I wasn't asking what the values were, I was asking why they were that way relative to how common they were. None the less, to be a good sport, I went and looked at it again and didn't find any explanation of why they decided on those values for each of the sets. Thanks for playing though

As far as the person who said they're all as common as each other. That is not true.

There are 27 possible combinations of red, green, and blue cards that one can receive three cards in. 9 of them create sets but 6 of those combinations are mixed while only 1 each are all blue, all green, or all red.

I haven't played the board game in a long time but I recall it being escalating, so none of the sets were any more valuable than the others.

happy2seeyou wrote:You should really read the game instructions before you post on here. It would have saved you the trouble of posting this. It explains this exactly.

Thanks

He asked why it was true, not whether it was true.

Why do people feel the need to post for the sole purpose of telling other people that they shouldn't have posted something?

Trust me, as irritating as the original post may have been (and it this case I don't think it was at all), it's as nothing compared to reading the posts from people saying how the original question shouldn't have been asked.

You don't have to read the post if you don't want to, and you certainly don't have to respond to it.

Maybe the original post was in fact a rhetorical question. It seemed entirely reasonable to me. Maybe you should go back and read the question again before you post a response.

tahitiwahini wrote:

happy2seeyou wrote:You should really read the game instructions before you post on here. It would have saved you the trouble of posting this. It explains this exactly.

Thanks

He asked why it was true, not whether it was true.

Why do people feel the need to post for the sole purpose of telling other people that they shouldn't have posted something?

Trust me, as irritating as the original post may have been (and it this case I don't think it was at all), it's as nothing compared to reading the posts from people saying how the original question shouldn't have been asked.

You don't have to read the post if you don't want to, and you certainly don't have to respond to it.

Maybe the original post was in fact a rhetorical question. It seemed entirely reasonable to me. Maybe you should go back and read the question again before you post a response.

Ah yes, that all too unfamiliar scent of reason. How refreshing it can be.

I didnt type that to be mean at all. I actually thought it was in there. And I did read it wrong. Sorry to upset you so.

happy2seeyou wrote:I didnt type that to be mean at all. I actually thought it was in there. And I did read it wrong. Sorry to upset you so.

Sorry to jump on you about this. Your post was at the very least polite and I can see if you misread the original post that you were even being helpful. I apologize for my overreaction.

detlef wrote:They are, after all, far more common.

For instance, after 3 cards your chances of drawing the following sets:
Red: 1 in 27
Green: 1 in 27
Blue: 1 in 27
Mixed: 2 in 9

I can't think of any other chance-oriented game where the most common result pays the most.

Maybe for game play itself rather than based on chance?
i.e. Placing an extra 10 armies more often is more fun!

happy2seeyou wrote:I didnt type that to be mean at all. I actually thought it was in there. And I did read it wrong. Sorry to upset you so.

Of course, you did include the rolling eyes.

this has been said before.

READ OTHER TOPICS!

as far as i know cards are auto assigned colours as they are picked up by a player thus each of the events is independent and the chances are exactly the same.

if it is not like this then the chances are minutely greater for a mixed set but you definitely have got the chances wrong. if the events were dependent it would be like this:

let X be number of ters on board and let each of the card colours be their first letter; R,B,G

X/3=R=B=G

if X/3=10

player 1 gets a random card; 1/3
card is R
next card (presuming nobody else gets a card) chances are:
R=9/29
B=10/29
G=10/29

repeat etc....

thing is CC didn't make up the rules for the card values.

if they were changed then people who have played the board game would get really confused.

cardcolors in CC are completely random I think. I guess it would be possible for 6 players to have only red cards, to give an extreme example.


And as for "why" the sets have the values they have... they just have them.
And you have to live with it or play escalating/no cards.




But I think he's right that chances for a mixed set are bigger, I calculated it for the fifth card, and chances for having no more than 2 colours (any two colours) is about 40%, so chances for a mixed should be about 60%.

detlef wrote:Perhaps you should read someone's post before answering it. I wasn't asking what the values were, I was asking why they were that way relative to how common they were. Thanks for playing though.

Lol. Classic Powxnage

One would have to ask the original Risk game inventor I would think. He/She is the only one who would know "why".

anyway isn't there a full set of territory cards 1 of each type for each territory? so wouldn't that make the events independent of each other and the only variable is what cards other people hav?

joeyjordison wrote:this has been said before.

READ OTHER TOPICS!

as far as i know cards are auto assigned colours as they are picked up by a player thus each of the events is independent and the chances are exactly the same.

if it is not like this then the chances are minutely greater for a mixed set but you definitely have got the chances wrong. if the events were dependent it would be like this:

let X be number of ters on board and let each of the card colours be their first letter; R,B,G

X/3=R=B=G

if X/3=10

player 1 gets a random card; 1/3
card is R
next card (presuming nobody else gets a card) chances are:
R=9/29
B=10/29
G=10/29

repeat etc....

thing is CC didn't make up the rules for the card values.

if they were changed then people who have played the board game would get really confused.

OMG

Please, please, please tell me you don't work as a risk analyst at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If it's true that this has been discussed before, then thank God for this thread, because it's been discussed incorrectly before.

<Begin Rant>

Why are people so excited about the fact that something has been discussed before? How is that an impediment to discussing it again? Maybe (and I'm sure this never ever happens) the previous discussion wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Even if it has been discussed before, then goody for you. It's your lucky day! You can safely skip this thread and apply the time you saved not reading this thread (which has been discussed before) to the more interesting parts of your life. Instead you take the time to respond saying something has been discussed before. If I were interested in whether something was discussed before I guess I could do a search myself. Call me lazy, but I was just more interested in thinking about what the original poster said, regardless of whether it had been discussed before or not.

<End Rant>

Well, it turns out the OP is correct about the odds of getting a polychromatic set versus a monochromatic set.

I believe the branch of mathematics is called cominatorics and was correctly applied by the OP.

If you have 3 cards and each card is of one of three possible colors, then there are 3 * 3 * 3 = 27 different combinations. One of those combinations is the case where all the cards are red. One of those is the case where all the cards are green. One where all the cards are blue. Six of the possible combinations result in a case where the set is formed of one of each color. Eighteen result in three cards that do not form a set.

It is in fact twice as common to get a polychromatic set than a monochromatic set.

Surely you have noticed this happening in your own experience playing the game?

Hi everyone!!!! Spam Spam spam yayayayayay bye now

joeyjordison wrote:this has been said before.

READ OTHER TOPICS!

as far as i know cards are auto assigned colours as they are picked up by a player thus each of the events is independent and the chances are exactly the same.

if it is not like this then the chances are minutely greater for a mixed set but you definitely have got the chances wrong. if the events were dependent it would be like this:

let X be number of ters on board and let each of the card colours be their first letter; R,B,G

X/3=R=B=G

if X/3=10

player 1 gets a random card; 1/3
card is R
next card (presuming nobody else gets a card) chances are:
R=9/29
B=10/29
G=10/29

repeat etc....

thing is CC didn't make up the rules for the card values.

if they were changed then people who have played the board game would get really confused.

Hey Joey, if you're going to be combative, don't be wrong. Follow along and read it slowly over and over if you must. Here are the possible sets of cards that one can receive that will score after three cards:

RRR
BBB
GGG
RBG
RGB
BGR
BRG
GRB
GBR

There they are, the 9 different ways (out of 27) that you can get cards that make a playable set after your 3rd card. Now, you will notice that 6 of them are mixed sets. Twice as many as all non-mixed sets combined and 6x higher than any single one-color set. In my book, that is just a tad higher than "minutely".

Now, as to the "it's been that way since time began" and the "That's how the board game is set up" arguments, it's actually not the case. I was rather certain that the board game uses escalating bonuses and just now went to the official Hasbro site to confirm this. There it was, plain as day. The first set is worth 4, then 6, then 8, etc.

So, my apologies to all who have been put off by this. I can think of few things that would completely ruin your day more than reading a post on an on-line forum.

Just thought I'd throw it out there for discussion/bash the newbie. My bad.

There is one card for every country. A map with 42 countries will have 42 cards, 14 red, 14 green and 14 blue. As each player receives a card, the number of cards available is reduced, ergo, the probability of the cards change, hence, these are not independent events.

Example:

Start with 42 cards, the probabilities for each card will be
RED: 14/42
BLUE: 14/42
GREEN: 14/42

If the first player receives a red card, you don't have 42 cards anymore, but 41, probabilities for the next card will be
RED:13/41
BLUE: 14/41
GREEN: 14/41

If the second player receives a red card, you have now 40,
RED:12/40
BLUE: 14/40
GREEN: 14/40

See how the probability of the third card to be a red is less now? This will continue until one player uses a set. Now, if we are clear about this NOT being independent events, you may want to go over your probabilities again. This time, remember that you have to consider the order as well, there is a big difference between combinations and permutations.

AM

joeyjordison wrote:anyway isn't there a full set of territory cards 1 of each type for each territory? so wouldn't that make the events independent of each other and the only variable is what cards other people hav?

Though I'm sure this has been discussed before and I should be having a hissy fit about why you are lame enough to ask this question that has been asked so many times before, I'm just going to be a sport and answer your question. Is that cool?

The cards are not drawn from a finite set. Just yesterday, I played a set that had a blue Kamchatka. The very next card I drew was a green Kamchatka.

ABSOLUTE_MASTER wrote:There is one card for every country. A map with 42 countries will have 42 cards, 14 red, 14 green and 14 blue. As each player receives a card, the number of cards available is reduced, ergo, the probability of the cards change, hence, these are not independent events.

Example:

Start with 42 cards, the probabilities for each card will be
RED: 14/42
BLUE: 14/42
GREEN: 14/42

If the first player receives a red card, you don't have 42 cards anymore, but 41, probabilities for the next card will be
RED:13/41
BLUE: 14/41
GREEN: 14/41

If the second player receives a red card, you have now 40,
RED:12/40
BLUE: 14/40
GREEN: 14/40

See how the probability of the third card to be a red is less now? This will continue until one player uses a set. Now, if we are clear about this NOT being independent events, you may want to go over your probabilities again. This time, remember that you have to consider the order as well, there is a big difference between combinations and permutations.

AM
And it will continue like this

Once again, I don't think this applies here because it does not appear the cards are drawn from a finite set but rather randomly generated. As I understand, the only safeguard in place is that the same card is not held by two people at once.

That said, if it was a finite set, it would tip the odds even further towards mixed sets.

Here's a question, since I do not have a physical copy of the game on hand, how is Risk itself set up?

With 42 countries, are there even numbers of red, green, and blue cards (well, soldier, army, and cannon equivalents) in the Risk deck? Or are there more soldiers than cannons, lending a valid reason as to why a set of cannons are worth more than a set of soldiers?

detlef wrote:

joeyjordison wrote:anyway isn't there a full set of territory cards 1 of each type for each territory? so wouldn't that make the events independent of each other and the only variable is what cards other people hav?

Though I'm sure this has been discussed before and I should be having a hissy fit about why you are lame enough to ask this question that has been asked so many times before, I'm just going to be a sport and answer your question. Is that cool?

The cards are not drawn from a finite set. Just yesterday, I played a set that had a blue Kamchatka. The very next card I drew was a green Kamchatka.

Check your game log. Most probably, someone had just played a set with Kamchatka. And of course the colors will change: the system will try to even the probabilities every time!