unbalanced defensive advantage?

[Menelaus]

I've noticed that a defender can roll 2 dice even when the attacker only rolls 1: Seems slightly unbalanced to me.

Also, as a sidenote, am pretty sure that in the tabletop version this was not in the core rules.

Couldn't find this talked about in a search, but do direct me if its already been discussed.

[Molacole]

you can't attack with 2 die if you only have 2 troops on that territory. One must occupy it at all times. If you attacked with 2 die and lost one, but won the other how would you advance any troops?

[Menelaus]

That's fine, of course you cant attack with 2 if you have to leave 1 behind.

My point is that the defender can defend with more dice than the attacker is rolling with, which i feel is unbalanced, i.e. if the attacker rolls with 1, the defender should only roll 1 even if he has more than 2 troops IMO

[AAFitz]

ive wiped out teams in almost 2 turns and many in three...if the attack dice were any stronger, the game would be decided by who goes first, and not how they play

it would make attacking 2's twice as powerful...it would be possible to take people out on turn one

the attack dice can be absolutely devasting as they are...any increase in their strength would throw the balance off so much as to be a joke

However, I do think you are possibly right about the original rules. But there are many differences in CC to the original rules. In the original, you had to move in as many dice as you rolled also..meaning if you rolled 3 dice you had to move in 3 armies. I think cards on a territory you owned gave you another dice roll(personally I think that one would be fun, but if you have 500 armies that card could be worth 100 armies or so) and there are 1000 different ways to play the original as well....

but rest assured, you do not want the dice any stronger...for you maybe, but not for everyone else

[yeti_c]

That's fine, of course you cant attack with 2 if you have to leave 1 behind.

My point is that the defender can defend with more dice than the attacker is rolling with, which i feel is unbalanced, i.e. if the attacker rolls with 1, the defender should only roll 1 even if he has more than 2 troops IMO

In the board game the attacker can choose to roll 1 2 or 3 (providing they have troops) and the defender can choose to roll 1 or 2 if they have the troops (I believe in the latest version you could have 2 if you had 3 or more defenders (but I believe this is a fluctuation around different regions))

I'm pretty sure there is no limit to the amount of dice depending on who is attacking you... which I think makes more sense... if a small army was attacking you why would you only send a small army to defend when you can send a bigger army and be more sure of victory?

C.

[Coleman]

This is the way the game has always been played long before I was born (I'm 20 years old by the way) so this is all kinda pointless discussion.

Made even more pointless by the fact that you shouldn't be attacking 1v2 anyway. But if this is something you like to do a lot let me know and I'll play you anytime.

[Stopper]

I agree, I think the defender's dice have an unfair advantage. Look at my dice analyzer results. I hardly ever win any games.

[AAFitz]

This is the way the game has always been played long before I was born (I'm 20 years old by the way) so this is all kinda pointless discussion.

Made even more pointless by the fact that you shouldn't be attacking 1v2 anyway. But if this is something you like to do a lot let me know and I'll play you anytime.

no one attacks 1 to 2...it would be 2 against 2...and sometimes its worth it...if you have nothing to lose, and you win by killing a 2, 3 or even a 4 with your 2...give it a shot....you may have a 10% chance of winning, but you could have a 100% chance of losing if you dont take the player out

[Coleman]

This is the way the game has always been played long before I was born (I'm 20 years old by the way) so this is all kinda pointless discussion.

Made even more pointless by the fact that you shouldn't be attacking 1v2 anyway. But if this is something you like to do a lot let me know and I'll play you anytime.

no one attacks 1 to 2...it would be 2 against 2...and sometimes its worth it...if you have nothing to lose, and you win by killing a 2, 3 or even a 4 with your 2...give it a shot....you may have a 10% chance of winning, but you could have a 100% chance of losing if you dont take the player out

Apparently something I said wasn't understandable. It is completely possible to roll 1 attacking die against 2 defensive die. You shouldn't do it, it is insanely stupid, but it can be done. I want people that perform that manuever frequently to pm me so I can raise my points.

[detlef]

I've noticed that a defender can roll 2 dice even when the attacker only rolls 1: Seems slightly unbalanced to me.

Also, as a sidenote, am pretty sure that in the tabletop version this was not in the core rules.

Couldn't find this talked about in a search, but do direct me if its already been discussed.

Here's an idea, avoid attacks where you don't get to throw more dice than the defender. It's been a rule in risk as long as the game has existed.

[tahitiwahini]

I've noticed that a defender can roll 2 dice even when the attacker only rolls 1: Seems slightly unbalanced to me.

Also, as a sidenote, am pretty sure that in the tabletop version this was not in the core rules.

Couldn't find this talked about in a search, but do direct me if its already been discussed.

The attacker attacks from a territory with up to one less than the number of armies on the territory (capped at a maximum of three), while the defender defends a territory with as many armies as are on the territory (capped at a maximum of two).

Unlike in Risk, there is no discretion in choosing how many armies to use in the attack or in the defense. Also, here there is no requirement to advance the number of armies involved in the attack.

The first difference makes a lot of sense if you think about how the game is set up here. If the defender got to chose how many armies he would defend with he would need to be online during the attack.

In this game you should never attack a defender in a situation where you are not throwing more dice than the defender unless you are desperate. Due to the tie going to the defender the attacker is always at a disadvantage unless he throws more dice than the defender.

The odds of winning a 2v1, 1v1, or a 1v2 attack all favor the defender in increasing degree. A good player only executes this sort of attack in the most desperate situation.

As for being unbalanced, it is of course. But then again because something is offered to you doesn't mean it's a good idea to accept it (viz. Trojan Horse).

[detlef]

This is the way the game has always been played long before I was born (I'm 20 years old by the way) so this is all kinda pointless discussion.

Made even more pointless by the fact that you shouldn't be attacking 1v2 anyway. But if this is something you like to do a lot let me know and I'll play you anytime.

no one attacks 1 to 2...it would be 2 against 2...and sometimes its worth it...if you have nothing to lose, and you win by killing a 2, 3 or even a 4 with your 2...give it a shot....you may have a 10% chance of winning, but you could have a 100% chance of losing if you dont take the player out

FWIW here are the odds of success when attacking from a two army country (1 attacking army)
vs 2: 10%
vs 3: 3%
vs 4: .7%

I certainly agree that sometimes you simply don't have the choice but given the insanely bad odds, you'd better truly be on your last breath.

[tahitiwahini]

There's some confusion in terminology here.

When one talks of a 2v2 attack, one usually is referring to armies, that is, two armies on the attacking territory and two armies on the defending territory.

This of course translates into the attacker throwing 1 die and the defender throwing two dice.

If you want to make the context clearer I guess one could refer to a 2v2 army attack which results in a 1v2 dice attack. In most cases the meaning is clear from the context but at some points it can be confusing.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

I agree, I think the defender's dice have an unfair advantage. Look at my dice analyzer results. I hardly ever win any games.

Damn Stopper, that's some bad luck you've had there

[Menelaus]

This is the way the game has always been played long before I was born (I'm 20 years old by the way) so this is all kinda pointless discussion.

Made even more pointless by the fact that you shouldn't be attacking 1v2 anyway. But if this is something you like to do a lot let me know and I'll play you anytime.

I certainly wasn't advocating that type of attack as a general tactic, that would be a suicide attempt!

However, as other posters have realised, i meant that in certain situations, e.g an assasin game or where taking out another player is going to be worth it for their cards, this type of manouver is can determine the course of a game, for better or worse.

I do however take the point made by others that the discrepancy from the original core rules relfects the other differences, i.e. in not being limited in how many armies to advance, etc.

The whole thing about "its always been this way so it should always stay this way" seems to miss the point of having a discussion board.

[yeti_c]

I agree, I think the defender's dice have an unfair advantage. Look at my dice analyzer results. I hardly ever win any games.

Damn Stopper, that's some bad luck you've had there

It's a doctored image - badly - you can still see the blue borders of the blocks...

C.

[detlef]

This is the way the game has always been played long before I was born (I'm 20 years old by the way) so this is all kinda pointless discussion.

Made even more pointless by the fact that you shouldn't be attacking 1v2 anyway. But if this is something you like to do a lot let me know and I'll play you anytime.

I certainly wasn't advocating that type of attack as a general tactic, that would be a suicide attempt!

However, as other posters have realised, i meant that in certain situations, e.g an assasin game or where taking out another player is going to be worth it for their cards, this type of manouver is can determine the course of a game, for better or worse.

I do however take the point made by others that the discrepancy from the original core rules relfects the other differences, i.e. in not being limited in how many armies to advance, etc.

The whole thing about "its always been this way so it should always stay this way" seems to miss the point of having a discussion board.

Well you are saying that it is unbalanced and thus, implying that it is a flaw. The rest of us are simply saying that, yes, attacking with less (or even the same amount of) dice is tempting poor odds but that is simply part of the game. If you think about it, it mimics real war.

If the attacking army does not outweigh the defending army in battle, the attackers are certainly at a disadvantage. The defenders have the luxury of protecting themselves behind walls or bunkers or trees. The attackers have to rush across a field or at very least advance from one spot of protection to the next and be temporarily vulnerable. That may likely be the reason they put this rule into place.

[Kyle Trite]

Also, think about what would happen if u could atk with 2 armies when there is only 2 armies on the atking territory and u lose both armies?

[pancakemix]

I agree, I think the defender's dice have an unfair advantage. Look at my dice analyzer results. I hardly ever win any games.

Damn Stopper, that's some bad luck you've had there

It's a doctored image - badly - you can still see the blue borders of the blocks...

C.

We know. Don't ruin our fun...