• 24 posts
  • Page 2 of 2
dough_boy wrote:
Here is another... SMH
game 856102
Yup...and now either green will go 22 on 27 or you will go 26 on 27 (or clean up greens mess). Then light blue likely wins the game, or if none of that happens enough would have cached to hand black the victory. :)
aeronautic wrote:
My point was only for impossible attacks (statistically and realistically) and although Hoodlum put up a good suggestion to combat it with the penalty of all of the lost points to the perpetrator, it is unfair to new players who don't understand what they should have done as well as for borderline cases where, statistically there's a chance of success, but realistically there would be no chance of continuing to win the game.

That's why I just suggested a warning to remove the "Blinkers" for a second and make a player reconsider the implications.
I know that the stalwart game-ruiners and the foolhardy will still go ahead and make the move, but perhaps it will shock one or two players to discover that their perception of a chance and the reality of 0% chance, may make them reconsider.

As for punishment for ruining a Capitals game, I think the loss of an extra 40 points by the perpetrator would be a good deterrent, especially if a warning appeared on screen before you could hit the attack button.
Not enough attack troops, this will cost you an extra 40 battle points if you continue.

The only thing I can see as a fix is prevention... the program would have to automatically blocked any attack with less than 30% chance of success and state;
Attack Not Feasible
Attacking Troops Not Sufficient
and give a warning for any attacks between 31% & 51% as;
Are you sure? This attack has little chance of success and may ruin the game.
This automated block / warning should deactivate once there are only two players in the game.

However, everything suggested, affects something else.
For example; the ability to reduce a Capital strength enough for you to kill with a trade next turn, but not enough for the 3rd player to kill first.
Team 2p v 2p which has the same strategy as 1p v 1p.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Thorpe wrote:
I like the warning but nothing else
Are you sure? This attack has little chance of success and may ruin the game.
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
dough_boy wrote:
Or...we just don't play caps. I am not signing up for any more of those tourneys.
dough_boy wrote:

Another game. I made a mistake in placing of troops. Figured surely blue would realize he didn't have a chance and that green couldn't kill him and probably me either for at least another turn. Instead he attacks me leaving a few left on both of ours.

I think I might have to stop tourney games where caps are played...there is no skill in them...just luck as to if you play after someones crappy moves.
aeronautic wrote:
I often found that some players use favouritism to decide who to attack and weaken, leaving their buddy an easy victory.

All Risk games types are prone to dubious play and bad decisions, most of which either lead to your demise or an unexpected win, but are not all so noticeable or instantaneous as Capitals.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Blizzard wrote:

Game 858672

This is HILARIOUS. (Coming from a person who takes a lot of risk)

Dude wins 22-16 on his first capital then decides he’s gonna try 17 vs 30!!! After going 6&6 he retreats. Hahahahaha, luckily I have a chat ban or else i’d Be booted off the site. Also, this is a tournament game!
I know you