Balanced Dice

Balanced dice is a game option that is designed to retain unpredictability in small battles but gain consistency in large battles. Instead of simply choosing a random number between 1 and 6 for each die, an algorithm first randomly determines the outcome of the attack and then finds dice rolls to match. The random algorithm doubles the chances of each side losing 1 army in a 3 dice vs 2 dice battle (from 33% to 66%). The algorithm was carefully coded to retain the attackers advantage (54% in 3 vs 2 battles).

This dice option will be particularly useful in capitals games because of the large battles. It is less useful in 2 player games where most of the battles are small; there will be less of a noticeable effect.

You do lose an aspect of the game because of the increased consistency, however. While reducing really bad dice it also means no really lucky dice. It will NOT EVER be a good idea to attack someones capital with less troops than they have.

Balanced dice have been thoroughly tested millions of times in a simulation but I would like to hear what happens in reality in case any modification needs to be made. If you get really bad dice in a large battle I want to hear about it so that I can get a sense about how often it occurs.

Why?  The randomization of the dice is as close to reality as possible, was it not? 
Why create a situation where the dice are less realistic in order to placate the complainers?

I get that its just an option, and we don't have to play with the balanced dice, but with more and more options to games people get into their niche of games they will/won't play and it's harder to start a game. 

Maybe I'm wrong and it won't be a big deal at all, just my initial thoughts...

Also, why call it "balanced dice" I think the name implies that the dice are better than the regular dice.

They are called balanced dice because most of the time both sides lose one army. Is that not more balanced?

Also, the option is hidden in the advanced options section of the create game page. I don't think it's going to be a problem.

I doubt it will be harder to start a game, but let me know.

The option was not created to placate complainers. I personally think that there is too much randomness in the game and wanted an option to reduce, but not eliminate that aspect. I think that if the creator of the original risk game had more options (or a computer) he would have done the dice differently. For example have the attacker use a 20 sided die and two 6 sided dice and the defender use two 12 sided dice. But those didn't exist or weren't widely available at the time. The point is with computers we can have lots of options so why not try one out?

Okay, I see your point. I just hope this doesn't make things overly predictable.

I was careful in designing it to make sure that didn't happen. One third of the time either the attacker or the defender will lose two troops. That seems like enough unpredictability to me. If it's not enough for you then use the standard dice. If most players find the 66% predictability is too high then I can modify it but lets try this percentage out for a few months first. My guess is that the opposite will occur. Players will complain that they don't see enough of a difference because they won't understand that the difference only becomes clear in large battles. I saw a 2p game yesterday where a player still complained about the dice. But as I explained above, you won't really see the difference in small battles.

I'll try it out and report back.

(Actually if you would analyze a complete 2p game than you would see a difference, but it's just not obvious for single battles anymore, because they're over so quickly.)

sounds good to me looking forward to trying them out. i will report back here once i have.

Risk is described as a stratergy game.
To me,having these dice seems like it will be more about the stratergy and less about the luck(or in some cases, rediculous good or bad luck)

It has always been about strategy - to be a good risk player means to deal properly with luck - and that's called strategy

It's just that the extreme cases happen a little less.

Game 432536

game 432848:

27 Jan, 02:57:52 Moron (Clarke) attacks Stake Bay (mcfunk) killing 4 troops, losing 10.

Not very Balanced, lol...

Also with balanced dice, I have found it more difficult on average to kill only 1 than standard dice. Several times, took 5 or 6 men to capture a "1" territory.

That's funny because 3 dice vs 1 die battles are not modified. That's just a coincidence.

I considering killing 4 and losing 10 to still be a small battle and like I said there is still quite a bit of variability in small battles.

I don't know why GhostRisk posted that game number. The dice seemed normal and besides, that is a 2p game and didn't I say you wouldn't notice as much a of difference in 2p games?

Guys this option is really meant to be paired with capitals or large deathmatch games where you get large stacks of troops. It is meant to help you more reliably win in the end game without those killer games where the dice rob you of a win that you really should have had. It's not meant to make every attack balanced. If you take 58 troops vs 44 you should expect to win that more often with balanced dice. But the margin by which you win will usually be narrower than if you won with standard dice. That's the cost.

I would like to congratualte for the innovation. I think more options are positive and make the game increasingly dynamic and ironically less predictable. Good job!

Vexer, I think you're right on the original design of the game being limited by readily available items in a board game of the time. I haven't tried balanced dice yet, but I applaud your desire to innovate!

This thread which I have also responded to gives a picture of something we have seen many times before. http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=2056
Incorrect analysis due to, too few components to base it on.