cicero wrote:If I have 8 v 6 can I just 'attack with 2' to make it 6 v 4? Or do I have to 'attack with 6' to make it 2 v 0 = 1 in original territory and 1 in conquered territory?
Not sure why I would want to do this, but could I ?
You'd want to do that when you're attacking a territory which could attack your bonus from outside of your bonus. For example, your 8 are on China, their 6 are on Siam, and you want to protect Australia.
Ultimately, even with these points addressed, this suggestion changes CC from a game to a puzzle or mathematical challenge. Since all outcomes are pre-ordained from the outset it will be possible to calculate the right/best moves for any player and, assuming no-one makes a mistake, the winner will be pre-ordained to by the initial drop.
Like a game of Connect Four. It's not Risk anymore when the outcome is determined.
zimmah wrote:would you vote against a new map from DiM for example, because they are not like the 'original risk' and you don't like the 'futuristic gameplay' or you just don't feel like playing some kind of variation?
Do you visit the foundry? There was a map (and a joke map ridiculing it) which was entirely luck based. There were 6 territories, and the first player got a bonus of 100. Whoever went first would win, just like in this suggestion. It got voted down, because it's a terrible idea. See the similarities? Just because we have options, doesn't mean we need to allow all options. That's how you make a product inferior.
Fruitcake, why not work on a way to explain to people why the dice act the way that they do? That resolves the problem of dice complaints, and doesn't add a different game to the site.