Tactical Dice control

[Bodmanbod]

hi in the original board game you could choose how many dice you rolled, so if the attacker rolled three 6's then you would most likely only roll 1 dice to minimise losses etc... I think this could be implemented into CC.

Obvioulsy an attacker should not have to wait for the defender to choose how many dice to roll, but maybe something could be set up in a persons profile where they set variables for how many dice to use. For this to work the defenders dice would need to be calculated after the attacking dice but this should be no problem. Also if someone doesn't want to set up variables for dice then it could just default to the maximum.

The way i see it working is:

You have one set of options in your profile, for defending dice. and when you attack you choose how many dice to use (clicking auto attack would use the maximum).

This all works on the principle of the game that you only lose as many armies as dice you roll.. also atm i think attackers have an advantage over defenders.

And in the option you could set things using code. For example:

Code: Select all

<A1dice>
    <defender>2</defender>
</A1dice>

<A2dice>
    <Highdice1>4-6</highdice1>
    <lowdice1>4-6</lowdice1>
        <defender>1</defender>
    <highdice2>4-6</highdice2>
    <lowdice2>1-3</lowdice2>
        <defender>2</defender>
    <highdice3>1-3</highdice3>
    <lowdice3>1-3</lowdice3>
        <defender>2</defender>
.......
.....
etc

you could set as many variables as you want and this would make the game a lot more tactical, people that don't set it wouldn't lose out compared to now and people who do would have more control over the game when it isn't their turn.

Also if you wanted you could be a real bitch and set it to allways roll 1 dice to make attackers turns take ages. :p

[BlindRacoon]

If the player is offline who will choose the dice roll? and yes if they have variables etc this would be hard wouldnt it? + in the original game you don't get to see the attackers/defencders dice before you roll... did you?

I think a good idea but would destroy the pace of games and RT

[Bodmanbod]

what i meant is that each player chooses their own variables in their profile, not that they choose in the game. the attacker could choose in the game as they would obviously be online.

IE:

attacker chooses to attack with 1 dice, less chance of winning but would lose less if it's a bad dice, also only has to advance 1 army.

but if the attacker uses 3 dice they should have to move three in.



atm although the dice are fair it's pretty bad because you can't be tactical.

and in the board game i can't remember if its a rule but i allways play that the defender rolls after the attacker (logical seeing as you can't defend unless you are attacked)

[BlindRacoon]

Ok, ill give you this much, its a ok an idea. i wouldnt mind seeing it implemented but i don't want to abck it because it means more things for me to forget and get pissed of at....

sorry

[Bodmanbod]

lol well you'd only have to do it once...

[Spritzking]

tis is a very unusefull idea. what does it matter? the armies you might win with the defending, you will loose them in the attack. so it does not matter that much, so its a total waste of time to implent and it gives us all a lot of mess to work out

[yorkiepeter]

IE:

attacker chooses to attack with 1 dice, less chance of winning but would lose less if it's a bad dice, also only has to advance 1 army.

Not really. Can u imagine the attacker not continuing the attack if the defender has already lost 1

[RobinJ]

There are (very) occassionally situations were I would like to roll only 2 dice. As for the defender, I think they should always roll 2 dice because I can't see any advantage in rolling 1.

[max is gr8]

when you're down to units

(attacker win both/1 each/ defender win both)

3v2 (37.17% / 33.58% / 29.26%)
3v1 (65.97% / 00.00%/ 34.03%)

(defender loses a unit/doesn't lose a unit)

3v2 (70.75%/29.26%)
3v1 (65.97%/34.03)

Logically when you have 2 units left you should only use 1 unit as it increases your chances of surviving

[Bodmanbod]

well if the attacke rolled three sixes you would not roll two dice for defence as you have a high probability of losing two armies. whereas if you rolled 1 dice you would be guarentied to lose maximum of one.

also i think that the attacker should have to advance atleast the amount of armies as dice he rolls. this would have a big effect on adjacent games.

this would just make the game more tactical and more like the board game

[wcaclimbing]

bad idea

In real war, you cant reason "Oh no, the guy shot his Nukes at me, so im just gonna play it safe so i dont lose as many men."

and ive never heard that the defender could choose how many dice to roll.

I thought only the attacker could do that.

[RobinJ]

well if the attacke rolled three sixes you would not roll two dice for defence as you have a high probability of losing two armies. whereas if you rolled 1 dice you would be guarentied to lose maximum of one.

also i think that the attacker should have to advance atleast the amount of armies as dice he rolls. this would have a big effect on adjacent games.

this would just make the game more tactical and more like the board game

But in the board game the dices must be thrown at the same time to make it fairer

[Bodmanbod]

meh i must play it wrong then :p

i allways reason you can't defend until your attacked lol

anyway the attacker should still choose how many dice to roll, and have to move in atleast how many he rolls.

[max is gr8]

bad idea

In real war, you cant reason "Oh no, the guy shot his Nukes at me, so im just gonna play it safe so i dont lose as many men."

and ive never heard that the defender could choose how many dice to roll.

I thought only the attacker could do that.

You can

England didn't send all of it's units to Iraq or all it's units to Afganistan