Number of Dice options

[Philler]

I am pretty sure the idea must have been discussed before but a quick forum search and a check on the To-Do list did not show it up. If it has been discussed in detail then please provide me a link and i will gladly read it all...

Anyhoo, we all have times were we curse the dice... like everyone else I just hate it if I planned a big move, begin my battle with odds like 15 to 3 just to end up not winning this no-brainer battle... or even worst, you have broken though the defense and are about to whack a bunch of 1-army countries and even though its 20 against 1 a bunch of these 1s are able to take out 2 to 3 of your army each before you can progress... its just not very realistic but its what you get with a max # attack dice of 3 and a max # defense of 2.

So my suggestion: how about there is a game option (added to the Start a Game options) to change the maximum number of dice for both attacker and defender. This is not a choice per attack (although that might also be interesting) but a fixed number for the entire game. For instance maximum of 5 attack dice and 3 defence dice or even more extreme max of 7 attack and max 5 defend. I am sure someone can do the math to see if the basic odds of the game will change dramatically and prevent that. In general I feel that there must be a way that we can come up with max pairs (3-2, 4-3, 5-4, 7-5, 9-6, etc, etc) that would still give a mathically sound game but at the same time would lower the chance of freak occurences like 9 to 1... 9 does not win... An additional benefit would be that large battles would be over quicker...

[Sir. Ricco]

Hmm… very interesting. I don’t know though. I think it would give the attack a little too much advantage.

[Herakilla]

Hmm… very interesting. I don’t know though. I think it would give the attack a little too much advantage.

and defense too much advantage in beginning making it hard to start out

[Bartoli]

Yeah; i would love to attack thos 1s with 7 dices

but then he trows a six of course

[max is gr8]

Once IRL we played where the average scores played against each other and 3 people died on the opposing side if the average was lower

[owyn999]

Personally I think that giving the attacker an option of how many they want to attack with wouldn't be a bad option,

sorry I didn't search for this option but if the attacker had the choice to attack from one territory to another with 1 army at a time I think that it would give people a different perspective and would give the feeling of scouting around.

You know I send in my scout to test the defenses, IE test to see how the dice are behaving, and then send my larger force in after.

Also at the end of the turn maybe give the player an option to set his defensive dice for the next turn to 1 or 2

Just an addition to the current idea

Edit: Also as a further thought on this, I figure that this allows people to use the same type of strategy in this game as the board game that I won't name. the 1 dice can with the war strategy, it gives that person defending the ability to throw just one die and pray for 6's... which seem to always come when I'm attacking that person in the game...

Also I think that an option to play CCC ((Classic Conquer Club)) or Dice Selection would make this a well recieved addition to the game...

[Philler]

Hmm… very interesting. I don’t know though. I think it would give the attack a little too much advantage.

and defense too much advantage in beginning making it hard to start out

I am not sure if this is true. Lets say that the game was set to 5 attack dice, 3 defense dice. In the first round you could add your 3 reinforcements on one country (as most do now anyway) giving you a 5 attack - 3 defense which in my opinion sounds more logical than the current 3 -2 where you very often simply strike out completely (the ever dreaded first turn double loss, no card result, game sucks from there on out ).

I also dont think it gives an unfair advantage to the attacker. If the armies are near equal you will get a sequence of 5 vs 3 attacks which makes about as much sense as a 3 vs 2 attack. The big difference kicks in with those should-be-slaughter battles of 5 vs 1. In that case attack would have 5 dice versus 1 defense dice which would give the attacker a much bigger chance of winning (which is logical) while still giving the defender the chance to roll a 6 and still win which we can then call the rambo-defense-factor or something like that

All in all the most frustrating thing with the current dice setup are the freak results of should be sure wins battles. The 9 vs 3, 7 vs 2, 5 vs 1, etc, etc. With this game option I think a lot of that would lessen while still keeping the basis gameplay the same. And wouldnt also just be cooler to see more dice and more kills per attack! Imagine if there is a 9 - 6 dice option... you could kill 9 armies per attack... you would also get a lot more varried outcomes than the current 2 won, 1 all, 2 lost...

Owyn, your extra ideas are pretty cool but would require a massive amount of additional coding. I am not sure how CC is coded but changing the number of dice should not change much to the interface or the backend math of the system. Still I know the game-that-must-not-be-named and it is a cool and realistic option to be able to decide how many armies to put into a battle. I think its on the Denied list though posted at the top this forum's To-Do List

[Herakilla]

the extra dice that attackers get really only gives the advantage in the long term, if you lose even one of those 5 your attacking with your already down an out a die. thats why when the numbers get higher on both sides the attacker gains more and more of an advantage

[Bartoli]

the extra dice that attackers get really only gives the advantage in the long term, if you lose even one of those 5 your attacking with your already down an out a die. thats why when the numbers get higher on both sides the attacker gains more and more of an advantage

nice thought, but how you say it, has not much to do with the number of dices...

when an attacker trows more dices, and the defender to; the defender has more chances of having the same hight as the attacker.

it has however an tremendous advantage overwinning weak defended countries with an enourmous (how do you spell that) army

where is the math-guy in this place?

[Herakilla]

one other thing, defenders would gain more of an advantage than attackers, each die you add adds another 1/6 chance to get a 6 which is an auto win for defenders with 3 you have a 3/6 of getting one 6 so effectively every other roll should have a 6 instead of every 6th 3rd roll and that can be painful

[Philler]

one other thing, defenders would gain more of an advantage than attackers, each die you add adds another 1/6 chance to get a 6 which is an auto win for defenders with 3 you have a 3/6 of getting one 6 so effectively every other roll should have a 6 instead of every 6th 3rd roll and that can be painful

Dont think that is right. Just with the current rules you eliminate dices against each other. Example of 5-3 dice setup as discuseed above:

Attacker Dice: 6 - 6 - 3 - 2 - 1
Defender Dice: 6 - 5 - 2

Result 1st Pair: 6 - 6 (defender wins)
Result 2nd Pair: 6 - 5 (attacker wins)
Result 3rd Pair: 3 - 2 (attacker wins)

End Result: Defender loses 2, Attacker loses 1.

If we could get a math guy in here that would be great yes

[lackattack]

I'm also curious to see how the odds of 5v3 compares to 3v2.

But what if the defender only has 1 army? 5v1 would be quite unfair in my opinion.

[Philler]

Getting a math guy to do some odds checking would be good yes.

To solve the problem of 5 vs 1 being unfair you could make the number of attack dice depend on the number of defenders left. This would also be a realistic warfare (ever tried beating up 1 guy with 4 friends all at the same time . So for instance in 5 attacker - 3 defender dice setup: if defender = 1 then attacker = 3. I think this would make it fare.

The base problem of all the dice frustration here in CC is that a 20 vs 5 fight is reduced to a sequence of 3 vs 2 battles where the defender wins on equal outcome. This is just not realistic warfare. If 20 vs 5 was reduced to sequences of 5 vs 3 battles with a final 3 vs 1 battle once the defender is done to 1 I am sure that odds would become more realistic.

Lack, I dont know your system but it would not be too hard I think to make the number of dice flexible or is it? I am not saying that it should be the new default but it could be an interesting game option. And if the odds and gameplay change then perhaps that is simply interesting and will challenge players to work out new strategies based on these new odds. If this option could be easily implemented you could come up with an option like:

Dice Configuration:
option A: Traditional (3 attack - 2 defense)
option B: Expanded (5 attack - 3 defense)
option C: Aggresive (7 attack - 4 defense)
option D: Nuclear (9 attack - 6 defense)

To protect the defender when armies go low you could add:

option B: if defense = 2 then attack = 4, if defense = 1 then attack = 3
option C: if defense = 3 then attack = 6, if defense = 2 then attack = 4, if defense = 1 then attack = 3
option C: if defense = 4 then attack = 7, if defense = 3 then attack = 6, if defense = 2 then attack = 4, if defense = 1 then attack = 3

If not too hard to implement then it could open up a whole new gameplay/strategies and I am sure it would take away a lot of the dice frustration that the current 3-2 limit has. Afterall you can only lose 20 vs 5 a few times before you go nuts!

[Herakilla]

Dont think that is right. Just with the current rules you eliminate dices against each other. Example of 5-3 dice setup as discuseed above:

Attacker Dice: 6 - 6 - 3 - 2 - 1
Defender Dice: 6 - 5 - 2

Result 1st Pair: 6 - 6 (defender wins)
Result 2nd Pair: 6 - 5 (attacker wins)
Result 3rd Pair: 3 - 2 (attacker wins)

End Result: Defender loses 2, Attacker loses 1.

basically with 2 dice you have a 1/36 chance of getting 2 6's but i cant remember how to

the chances of you getting TWO 6's in a roll are low, even if you get 5 dice

i'd do the math but its like 4th grade math and i cant remember it XD

[greenoaks]

Sure it may stop people complaining about their attack rolls, but i doubt it.

They will still remember the attacks when the randomness of it just didn't go their way and then come back here bitching about how unfair it is.

It is human nature to remember the negatives more than the positives.

[Risktaker17]

New dice options have been rejected tons of times, but this intrigues me. It seems it has a decent idea behind it.

[BaldAdonis]

basically with 2 dice you have a 1/36 chance of getting 2 6's but i cant remember how to
the chances of you getting TWO 6's in a roll are low, even if you get 5 dice
i'd do the math but its like 4th grade math and i cant remember it XD

With 5 dice, odds are about 1/6 that you get 2 sixes.

The numbers are really obnoxious to work with, 6^8 possibilities for the dice, and no good way to cut them down as symmetries, because choosing the attacking dice involves taking the three highest numbers out of 5. If you really want to see what would happen with 5v3, run some simulations. A lot though, cause there are 16 million different rolls.

[Risktaker17]

Dont think that is right. Just with the current rules you eliminate dices against each other. Example of 5-3 dice setup as discuseed above:

Attacker Dice: 6 - 6 - 3 - 2 - 1
Defender Dice: 6 - 5 - 2

Result 1st Pair: 6 - 6 (defender wins)
Result 2nd Pair: 6 - 5 (attacker wins)
Result 3rd Pair: 3 - 2 (attacker wins)

End Result: Defender loses 2, Attacker loses 1.

basically with 2 dice you have a 1/36 chance of getting 2 6's but i cant remember how to

the chances of you getting TWO 6's in a roll are low, even if you get 5 dice

i'd do the math but its like 4th grade math and i cant remember it XD

Herakilla isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

I kid Hera, we are friends

[Herakilla]

Dont think that is right. Just with the current rules you eliminate dices against each other. Example of 5-3 dice setup as discuseed above:

Attacker Dice: 6 - 6 - 3 - 2 - 1
Defender Dice: 6 - 5 - 2

Result 1st Pair: 6 - 6 (defender wins)
Result 2nd Pair: 6 - 5 (attacker wins)
Result 3rd Pair: 3 - 2 (attacker wins)

End Result: Defender loses 2, Attacker loses 1.

basically with 2 dice you have a 1/36 chance of getting 2 6's but i cant remember how to

the chances of you getting TWO 6's in a roll are low, even if you get 5 dice

i'd do the math but its like 4th grade math and i cant remember it XD

Herakilla isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

I kid Hera, we are friends

if you arent a junior yet then try to remember 4th grade math when your a junior! especially when you got calculus and ap calculus

[Philler]

Not sure how I would run simulations for 16 million rolls but I will give it a try... Is there a resident math guy or are they all like Herekilla, haha, no offense man!

And even if the odds would change a bit, would that really be a bad thing? After all its just a game option so if you dont want to give that a try then just stick to the classic setup...

[Halmir]

Concise description:

• OK the dice are random and I've had some nice series of rolls recently. My suggestion is to implement a different set of options for game play.

Specifics:

• instead of 3 attack dice vs 2 defending ones, how about 4 vs 3, or 7 vs 5 or other combinations.
• someone with a better head for numbers and more patience needs to figure out other options. Currently the dice work at various attack % success rates. My suggestion is to tinker with that by adding more dice to either attack or defence such that u can blitz an enemy more easily, or hold them off much more readily.
• Better attacks will appeal to gamblers - whoever goes first has the advantage, but also it's worth taking a risk mid-game more now; better defense means that the strategy element is more important- get those bonuses as you're sure gonna need the extra armies here!

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• more fun!

[riodeishere]

extra dice has been tryed and failed on other similar sites. all of which now suck compared to Cc because time was mis-allocated to changing the basics of Risk.
sorry mate good idea but will take too much time.
gotmy thumbsdown

[obliterationX]

Dice?! Pardon your non-copyright-aware language! I think you mean random intensity generating cube-devices.