Why only 3v1 or 3v2?
  • 29 posts
  • Page 1 of 2
aeronautic wrote:
What I am about to propose may be controversial, but it may well be food for thought and could change the game for the better.

Defence should always be stronger, but less so when overwhelmed.
Has it ever been considered that the overwhelming might of the attack should be reflected in the overwhelming chances of success, without the constant advantage to the defender.
This can not be achieved with the standard practise of 3 dice verses 2 or 1 dice, because the defender has the advantage of only having to match the attacker's highest dice roll to win the fight.

Therefore I suggest that when the attack/defence is overwhelming, so should the chances of rolling a 6 be increased.

What about adding a dice when the attack / defence or defence / attack ratio increases to x amount
I suggest:
Ratios to Dice
For 3+ defence only.
If defence equals the attack troops, dice should be equal i.e. (3v3)
If defence is double the attack troops, extra dice for defence i.e. (2v3 or 3v4)

For 6+ attack only.
If attack is 6 times stronger, you get 4 attack dice i.e. (4v1 or 4v2)
For 10+ attack only.
If attack is 10 times stronger, you get 5 attack dice i.e. (5v1 or 5v2)

The loss rates may have to be reviewed as well.
This would give a more realistic chance of the 1 Troop being killed when greatly outnumbered and less chance of killing a greater defence with a suicidal charge.

My suggested ratios may be unfeasible, but that's for the "game gurus" to debate.

However, if the ratio system was to be implemented, then it would serve to rectify most unrealistic results in both overwhelming attacks and overwhelming defences, also making desperate suicidal attacks far less lucrative.

Examples: (click to show)
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
dough_boy wrote:
I would love to experiment with something. It is frustrating having 20 on 2 and losing 10 to take 2. Or 11 v 1 and losing 9...all because of a dice roll. In "real life", that one or two might get a shot off, maybe double if lucky, but the sheer overwhelming numbers should make it impossible to lose more than double the defense when outnumbered 10 to 1.
elysium5 wrote:
Could experimentation also include rage flipping/throwing the virtual board when real dice throws don't pan out as intended?
Mike Donovan : How'd someone like that get to be your leader anyway?

Martin : Charisma. Circumstances, promises... Not enough of us spoke out to question him until it was too late. It happens on your planet, doesn't it?
vikingo1337 wrote:
I like the idea, but it should be made simpler.

Why not simply set the bar higher by doubling the number of dice? Instead of 3v2, it would for instance be 6v4 if both attacker and defender had at least 6 and 4 troops or more, respectively. Or 6v3. 6v2. 6v1. And if reversed: 5v4. 4v4. 3v4. 2v4. 1v4.

You could even take it a step further by tripling the number of dice to 9 and 6, respectively. But the system should be easy to comprehend and have a dice cap I think. Otherwise it gets a little too complicated. Like that weird map of Europe where you can't attack certain territories. I stay as far away from that one as possible.

Anyway. These dice should also be made optional. Like Balanced Dice, Original Dice, and... Power Dice? Bravalla Dice? Realistic Dice?

Just my two cents anyway.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
My point was to make the outcome more realistic only when the attacker drastically outnumbers the defender.

Remembering that Defenders have the advantage of only having to match your highest roll.
If you are pitting 6 attacking troops against 4 defending troops then, both in real life and in a game, this is quite an even battle and the defence has and should have as much of a chance of winning the fight. Therefore, giving them 6 dice verses 4 dice is more of an advantage to the defender than 3 dice verses 2 dice.

Realistic outcomes gained from 4 dice verses 1 dice, are to raise the odds of winning when you greatly outnumber the defence.
There will of course always be the times when the attacker simply rolls all low dice and loses a troop against 1 defender and the times when the defender rolls a 6 multiple times making the attacker lose a few troops, but the majority of the time, the laws of averages say that the attacker has more of a chance of winning a fight against 1 defender if the have an extra dice to have a chance of rolling a high number, preferably a 6, while the defender only has a 6 to 1 chance with their one dice or a 3 to 1 chance with 2 dice.

The amount of dice used has no bearing on the player's understanding or knowledge of when extra dice are to be used, as the program controls that and the amount of dice do not have to be selected by the player. Therefore, to the player, it is not complicated in any way.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
dough_boy wrote:
I just had a 10 on 1 and lost 6 watching the defense roll a 6 5 times and the other time when they rolled a 2, I had 2 2 1.

Sure, lose 2, maybe 3. But 6? And roll a 6 5 out of 6 times? I am just statistically unlucky I guess.

What if instead of adding dice, the defense is weakened? So maybe if outnumbered 10 to 1 the defense cannot roll a 6?
GriffinUcos wrote:
Not just me then dough_boy. It happens too often to be random, it just looks like the defenders die doesn't update.
"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon."
vikingo1337 wrote:
The dice would be complicated in that you’d have to know what happens to the algorithms, and the number of dice, in every scenario. If you don’t, the dice rules favour those who know them by heart. There has to be a better way.

Power Dice has a nice ring to it though. Or is that just me?
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
vikingo1337
The dice would be complicated in that you’d have to know what happens to the algorithms, and the number of dice, in every scenario. If you don’t, the dice rules favour those who know them by heart. There has to be a better way.
Not really, there could be a few dice algorithm groups created with a preset number of dice and then the program counts the attack/defence ratio to decide which group to use.
I would guess that this is currently the case, only without counting the attack/defence ratio, but counting the attack/defence number, so as to decide whether to use 3v2 dice, 3v1 dice etc.

vikingo1337
Power Dice has a nice ring to it though. Or is that just me?
Surely my suggestion is Power Dice?

I think I shed some light on your Power Dice suggestion, where it would give the defence even more chance of rolling a 6.

As I also stated, there will always be the times when the defence still kill many of the attacker's troops by rolling multiple 6's and this happened to dough_boy above, but here's the thing, there have been many occasions also where the attack has rolled multiple 6's, but still don't win the battle and in fact lose many troops, all because the defence also rolled 6's at the same time and only needs to match your roll to win.

This is why I am trying to find a better solution.

dough_boy
What if instead of adding dice, the defence is weakened? So maybe if outnumbered 10 to 1 the defence cannot roll a 6?
This is a suggestion of only having a 5 sided dice for the defence, when the defence is outnumbered 10 to 1.
This is actually also a good suggestion, because even though it's (I believe) physically impossible to make a five-sided cube in the physical world, in a computerised game, the dice are just number generators and five-sided dice are perfectly feasible.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
vikingo1337 wrote:
You're still not hearing me right.

Whereas Balanced Dice and Original Dice need very little introduction, Power Dice (or whatever you wanna call it) would require that the player knew when and where the extra advantage materialises. The 3+ defense, 6+ attack, and 10+ attack rules would have to be top of mind for everyone involved, or only players who know them by heart would be able to take advantage of them continuously.

We would probably also just see an increase in armies that, coincidentally, were the exact size needed to trigger the dice advantage. In effect turning the very common two defensive troops (two dice instead of one) into 3+ troops everywhere. And vice versa for attack, cf. the Law of Least Effort.

I'm not gonna contribute any further to this discussion, as it feels like we're getting nowhere.

Good luck with the new dice.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
Sorry if you think the thread is going nowhere.
This is a thread dedicated to reducing the regular defence wins against the odds.
With regard to the current options of Balanced & Original (Standard) dice, the Balanced dice are still required to have an introduction or explanation, due to their non-standard procedure and even though explained for what they aim to achieve, the method of achieving it is complicated and beyond the care or understanding of most regular players.

For this thread to gain credence, we would first have to try to find a unified way of creating a dice or program method to improve the outcome of regular biased defence wins against the odds. This could be either automatically applied when using Standard dice or could be an Option as in the case of Balanced dice.
It would have to have lots of statistical testing and be proved to have improved the problem, but not eliminated or solved the problem, as it is impossible to do so.
The most important thing is not to worsen the problem.

Therefore, if a suggestion is made which defeats the object of the thread, I point it out and try to get it back on track.

The unilateral method that we end up with, does not have to be my original suggestion, but at the moment, that is the only suggestion on the table that will, at the very least, offer calculable permutations which reduce the chances of regular 6 sided dice, producing a win for the defence when they are greatly outnumbered in a realistic way, i.e. comparable to real life battles.
The amount of troops required for the dice change is only a suggestion as well and can be trialled and tested to find the most realistic point at which, the defence stands little to no chance of winning the battle.

There has also been a suggestion by dough_boy for a non-standard dice method, which is keeping to the object of the thread.

I welcome any suggestions for other methods and also any supporting calculations that the Maths buffs among us can offer?
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Bearskin wrote:
dough_boy
What if instead of adding dice, the defence is weakened? So maybe if outnumbered 10 to 1 the defence cannot roll a 6?
Makes a lot of sense from a game-play perspective. You could go further with multiple thresholds, so the defence dice become 5-sided, then 4-sided maybe even down to 3-sided. It would require a lot of testing (or simulation at first) - as well as programming time.

My only concern is that it would remove/reduce the aspect of chance in any battle, as you are effectively 'stacking the deck' in favour of the attacker.
Maybe call it weighted dice

It really needs a maths expert to model it in parallel with the existing rules and compare outcomes.

I like the idea as an option though.
aeronautic wrote:
Bearskin
My only concern is that it would remove/reduce the aspect of chance in any battle, as you are effectively 'stacking the deck' in favour of the attacker.

The whole point is to only make it applicable when the defence is vastly outnumbered and therefore giving a more realistic outcome.
Even with a 5 & 4 sided dice, the defence will still win rolls against the odds, as the attacker won't always roll a 6 and not always even roll a 5 with three dice.

Also I am only suggesting another Option here.
We currently have:
Standard Dice
Balanced Dice

I think Weighted Dice is a good name for the 3rd option.
All dice methods are detailed in how they work and an explanation for weighted dice would be provided too.

This allows players who like the randomness of standard dice to continue using them by default.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
The_Bishop wrote:
In the italian version of the game the defender's dice are 3. More strategic games in my opinion, but less dinamic.
Really that's the original rule of the first French edition, then Parker Brothers changed it... Commercial decision I'd say, they got a game more young people friendly.
3 defender dice is different, you can like it or not, but surely it is not inferior. Games are surely longer, but never stalemating, probably it can still happen but, after hundreds of games played, I can swear I have never seen a stalemate in Italian Risk. The game is also much less affected by crazy players, cheaters, gamblers and game ruiners of any kind.
There's the good and the bad in the 2 versions, personally I like to play both. One dice more makes a great difference in strategy.

I also tested on my own "unlimited dice" both for attacker and defender, that means if you got 15 troops on 1 terry then you can attack with 14 dice at once. But it results too weird for me, the more you pile up troops in 1 territory the stronger you are, if you try to conquer a region you have to split your forces and you become easy to kill. Not very senseful in my opinion, but maybe it would need some more tests.
  ---  π : «Come on, be real!»
  ---  i : «Be rational, please»