[GO] No Dice Games

[Gillipig]

I'm sad to see this suggestion rejected .

[Nucker]

I see that the suggestion for no dice has been rejected. I am putting it forward again.

While it is clear that the dice always balance out, this is not the case for individual games or battle outcomes. I have experienced this numerous times playing these strategy games over years. When the numbers are still low during the most critical times of the game, a 2x or 3x double roll against you either in Defense or Attack can mean game over. On the point of balance I have noticed that my dice largely do the positive balancing on the vs 1's where the attacking army is 4 or more (4 vs 1 seems to be a dead certainly to win a battle) meaning that the higher defense armies get lower losses. 10 attack vs 3 defense, often has 1 or 2 defense troops left and 2 or 3 attack. It is ridiculous. While very large armies (built due to early luck) sustain lower losses against similar defense, thus balancing the dice numbers once again in cases where it is not critical.

Planning forward attacks using dice becomes a case of building large armies to ensure victory. Problem is that 1 or 2 players out of 6 will experience the luck running their way and can thus race for the bonuses faster. This imbalances the game and it generally goes to the first to be lucky.

A player experiencing a bad run on the dice will tend to overcompensate on either an attack or defense when strategy and troops numbers would have required a different deployment. This then starts once again to favor the lucky in that game. Also many battles are at critical junctions and a lucky win at one of these changes the balance of the game.

Luck is always present in any situation, but the dice add to the natural factors such as player error or dead beating. I am suggesting that the NO DICE option be added just as Trench, Number of payers, Spoils ect is; as an option.

The outcome of the battle is then a case of superior numbers where the attacker needs 2 more troops than the defender as a minimum (one for each territory).

I feel that Conquer Club will benefit from having an additional strategy factor for players that enjoy the reduction of luck (after all these are really situation games not real battles). As many players complain about the way the dice fall it will allow them to test the range of their ability when this factor is removed.




Concise description:

No Dice

Specifics/Details:

The outcome of the battle is then a case of superior numbers where the attacker needs 2 more troops than the defender as a minimum (one for each territory).

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

I feel that Conquer Club will benefit from having an additional strategy factor for players that enjoy the reduction of luck (after all these are really situation games not real battles). As many players complain about the way the dice fall it will allow them to test the range of their ability when this factor is removed.

I am sure the programing for this cant be that difficult to implement, but what do I know.


Regards
Nucker

[Metsfanmax]

Do you have any justification for this suggestion that is not present in the versions that have been rejected numerous times?

[agentcom]

I see that the suggestion for no dice has been rejected. I am putting it forward again.

This is the key part of your post. Please add your comments to the ongoing discussion. In this case, I have MERGED it to the proper place for you.

[Nucker]

Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.

Actually the dice was introduced later and Risk did not have dice or cards (both increasing luck). Luck has been added to just about every game to the point where imbalance occurs. It is sort of teaching that luck is an essential part of life to a higher degree than it actually is.

[Nucker]

Do you have any justification for this suggestion that is not present in the versions that have been rejected numerous times?

Yes, I dont see why it cant be an extra element to CC, thereby increasing appeal and option.

My question is why disregard it as out of hand. I have not seen too much argument for why it is a ridiculous idea.

Many Risk players, to use that misnomer, play without dice and to good effect. While the uncertainty may appear to reduce the "fun" it does not and moves can be planned with far greater detail.

Surely it cant hurt to add it.

Regards

[ZeekLTK]

I think if you were to play without dice then you would need to have specialized maps which can give defenders an advantage at certain points and attackers an advantage at others in order to make it so it's not just simply "first to get a bonus is going to win because they will simply be able to overpower you with more troops"

For example, having territories in mountains or whatnot could give the defending army a bonus - you have to spend 2 attackers for every 1 defender to take it (or even 3-1 for very tough attacks). Then, even if your opponent gets a bonus, you still have a chance if you can take up some defensible positions.

Otherwise, I don't see how it's possible to play if EVERY attack produces the same results (1-1 for each side). If you have a spot in the game like this:

A-B-C-D and I have 3 armies at each A and B, and you have 3 at each C and D then this is what happens:

I drop 3 on my side of the border: 3-6-|-3-3
I attack: 6-3 = 3, I have to leave 1 and advance 2, I can't advance further: 3-1-2-|-3

you drop 3 on your side: 3-1-2-|-6
you attack: 6-2 = 4, have to leave 1 behind: 3-1-|-3-1
you attack again: 3-1 = 2, leave 1 behind: 3-|-1-1-1
you can't advance further

I drop 3 on mine: 6-|-1-1-1
I attack: 6-1 = 5, leave 1 behind: 1-4-|-1-1
I attack again: 4-1=3, leave 1 behind: 1-1-2-|-1
I can't advance because I don't have enough to both kill you and take the territory

you drop 3: 1-1-2-|-4
you attack: 4-2=2, leave 1 behind: 1-1-|-1-1
you can't attack any more

I drop 3: 1-4-|-1-1
I attack: 4-1=3, leave 1 behind: 1-1-2-|-1
I still can't attack any further

now we are stuck in an infinite loop and neither of us can win. So the only difference maker would be bonuses. But that is completely dependent on luck too, because, as shown above, the only way to gain territory is to start before the other player (luck) or if you are dropped in a favorable position to get a bonus before the other player can stop you (also luck).

So going 1-1 on every attack is still going to come down to luck, just a different kind of luck rather than rolling dice.

[agentcom]

Great explanation Zeeks. I have EDITED the OP to link to your post and a similar one that I made a while back.

[Frogmanx82]

I'm also sad that this is rejected. I played many many games with no dice. It was the preferred style for my group of friends. To anyone who commented without every trying it, you just don't know what your talking about. If there are software issues, that's a legitimate objection. To say the gameplay isn't fun, doesn't work, or is still just luck, well you just never tried it.

[nicestash]

I'm also sad that this is rejected. I played many many games with no dice. It was the preferred style for my group of friends. To anyone who commented without every trying it, you just don't know what your talking about. If there are software issues, that's a legitimate objection. To say the gameplay isn't fun, doesn't work, or is still just luck, well you just never tried it.

It might be fun, but it's not Risk.

[Fazeem]

I'm also sad that this is rejected. I played many many games with no dice. It was the preferred style for my group of friends. To anyone who commented without every trying it, you just don't know what your talking about. If there are software issues, that's a legitimate objection. To say the gameplay isn't fun, doesn't work, or is still just luck, well you just never tried it.

It might be fun, but it's not Risk.

But that is the thing neither is this site it is ConquerClub. While it is true some of the basic concepts are the same the actual gameplay, variations and dynamics is quite different and evergrowing here. Risk is far more limited and does not have the diversity this site offers. While I do think that all the arguments have been extremely gorunded I can see why there would reject this idea. Although I can see a simple solution that is already partially inplace for the concern about a indefinite dead lock would be to make all games of this type round limited. BUt I do not forsee any solutions to the rest of the major concerns nor would I most likely play this setting to often if it were available(NOt saying anything major I rarely play assassin or trench).

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• chose to have no dies.
• NO DICE Option - Attacking outcome determined by rules.
• Dice do not matter games..
• no bad dice!
• Non-random attacks
• using regular math (+1/-1)

[Nucker]

Troop for Troop (also known as “no dice”)

Basically the “element of luck” has been over escalated or added to games of strategy to the point where strategy itself is adversely affected.

A natural element of luck exists in all games as in life; just by the actions of others and self, regardless of added luck features such as cards and dice (which tend to multiply upon each other)

I am putting forward the case of troop for troop as an option in Conquer Club in the most earnest fashion I can. I know it has been posted before, several times by both myself and by others only to be rejected as out of hand. And as out of the spirit of the game.

I would like to address this issue of unreasonable rejection (or knee jerk reaction) first.

As a site that has advanced options on game play like fog and trench not to mention deployment and team play and style and object of play, it is incredible that the troop for troop option has not been explored long, long ago; given its use in play around the world. Admittedly, it is not wide spread but it is well known.

The spirit of the game is encapsulated in winning a 6 player chess game, adding the extra feature of using or manipulating another player against yet another. (Also adding to natural luck factors). In other words, the spirit of the game is to be the ultimate General. The dice actually detracts from this model and does not really add to it.

To be clear on the knee jerk reaction I am NOT advocating the removal of dice, but the addition of the option of removing them in a troop for troop replacement.

For those not familiar with troop for troop, it works like this:

All territories start with 1 troop and not 3 (to avoid thinning by players playing first and elimination thereafter). Players then have a first round deployment where no player can attack but can deploy their 3 or applicable troops anywhere on their territories. Then the game continues as per normal in the second round.

So to take a territory you need two more troops than the defender, eg 5 vs 3 = 3 off both and 1 troop on the attacking territory and one on the defeated territory, now both belonging to the attacker. Obviously any additional/surplus troops of the attacker can be advanced or divided between the territories, as the player sees fit.

This way, players can plan attacks more accurately and not have to change strategies mid attack due to excessive luck either way on the dice (it is also not fun to win a game due to having too much luck).

This current necessity to change strategies in the dice format on CC has radically altered games and moods in many games I have witnessed. “f*ck the Dice!” is a common CC curse, and a justified one!

In low numbers, up to about 12 in extreme cases but reasonably at 7 to 9 against 3, the outcomes of two identical games with the double against going in opposite favor is radically different. So much so, that the luckiest player is most often the winning player.

In large maps it is possible to factor against excessive luck but is still frustrating and game changing, but in smaller maps the luck is nearly always the deciding factor, especially in the race for bonuses. The same is true of run games where there are lots of neutrals the luckiest gets to the bonuses first.

Having played a few of your maps in real life using troop for troop some of the neutral numbers will have to be adjusted to accommodate for the 1 troop start position, but not much and a lot not at all.

I am very serious about getting this option added as a feature due to my passion for the game and need to have a more balanced option for players of like mind (of which there are many) and am going to lobby players on this issue until we have reasonable solution.

The dice could still be used for ease of programming use; just set at 1 for 1.

I am certain it will add to your already comprehensive site and will win players from competitor sites and keep players that have come to loath the dice in the game. 

Regards
Nucker

[spiesr]

MERGED: Troop for Troop

[Sey69]

As long as:

1) starting players remain randomly chosen,
2) random seeding for deployment remains random,
3) everything else that should be random remains as such,

I'll rely on my luck everyday of the week. Sorry, no sale here.

note: an outstanding General shall overcome the element of luck and win... regardless.

[hansinafrica]

If only that were true Sey69, but it's unfortunately not. The dice dictate the victor.
Yes, you must put the right strategies in order, but at the end of the day, it's down to luck whether they succeed or not.
Having played Risk for many years, I assure you that not only is "no dice" play possible, but it makes a mockery of the silly gamble you involve yousrself in. I have enjoyed every game much more (regardless of position), playing no dice.
Those who speak of it being impossible, haven't done it, or are such inferior strategists that they require the luck element.
It works, it works far better than the roll of the dice, and when you win, you can honestly say "I am the victor," rather than "I think I had a good game plan, but the dice helped me."
Similarly, a loss can be taken responsibility for, "my strategy or fellow player manipulation was inferior" rather than "I was unlucky with the dice."

[hansinafrica]

"Troop for Troop" as Nucker calls it is a superior game to the gamble of CC, and while I do enjoy the tinkering along with the dice, I can never take any game seriously, and by extention, can't take CC seriously. Until the true maths of troop for troop is introduced, this will remain for me a form of blind folded poker, a random rollercoaster of wins and losses over which you have little power and therefore can appreciate little reward.

[Robert44]

Guys, can we not discuss this before rejecting? I've been part of CC for almost 3 years and too many times I've seen how the dice don't always make sense, e.g. how can a guy with 6 troops take down my "stack" of 11 men?

If it is set as a game option (just like trench, fog of war, etc.) then I see no harm in implementing it. In fact, I think it can only enrich CC and the types of games we can play. Maybe the topic and Nucker's suggestion needs to be investigated further, the details of the implementation sorted out to give each player a fair chance of winning at the beginning of the game, but let's spend some time discussing it, or even put it to a vote if necessary.

[TheForgivenOne]

Guys, can we not discuss this before rejecting? I've been part of CC for almost 3 years and too many times I've seen how the dice don't always make sense, e.g. how can a guy with 6 troops take down my "stack" of 11 men?

If it is set as a game option (just like trench, fog of war, etc.) then I see no harm in implementing it. In fact, I think it can only enrich CC and the types of games we can play. Maybe the topic and Nucker's suggestion needs to be investigated further, the details of the implementation sorted out to give each player a fair chance of winning at the beginning of the game, but let's spend some time discussing it, or even put it to a vote if necessary.

This has been discussed. Notice 420+ posts. Can you describe to me how a game on a map with no bonuses would end? Yes, we do have one. (Circus Maximus).

[agentcom]

I had forgotten about Circus Maximus. Great point. I have added that to the OP along with two other awesome posts

[Fruitcake]

Anyone who has ever played Empire xp can vouch for the fact that stalemates occur far less frequently than I have seen in my years on CC.

[hansinafrica]

Sadly I'm busy finishing my last game of CC and will not to playing anymore. I love the game and have played Risk for years, on boards and on line, but the dice game takes the fun of strategy out of it all. It's like playing chess, but the game decides which piece you must play each turn. You can't plan, build, defend or attack effectively as you never know what you'll get. The only route to probable victory (but not assured) is to play conservatively and without flare. Very boring.
If you ever introduce a dice-less game, please let me know, but I'm tired of the randomness, it can only hold attention for so long, and that is now at an end.
To all you detractors, obviously you haven't played dice-less. Until you ditch the dice this will be no different to playing the one arm bandits as a strategy game it is not.

[jammyjames]

How about we Un-reject this suggestion, as it's better than 50% of the shit that's gone through.

Do it.

[spiesr]

How about we Un-reject this suggestion, as it's better than 50% of the shit that's gone through.

Do it.

How about you make a post showing how those who have said this would not work are wrong?

[jammyjames]

Wouldn't work on a small handful of maps.

Remove them from the choice, easy.

Freestyle only, no maps without bonus. there would never be a single unbreakable tie