Risk Dice

Right. I know I said I was done, but I just had an idea that may be useful to you. How about Dungeons and Dragons (DnD) dice? There are seven types for multiple purposes. There is even one DnD die that carries the D12 name: The D12 Dodecahedron die. It has twelve sides; useful for, say, any attacker with more than 12 troops. Then there's the D4 Tetrahedron dye. In our case useful for defenders with four or less troops. Or just defenders who are vastly outnumbered. Check out all the DnD dice @ https://www.dieharddice.com/pages/d-d-dice-explained PS. I sometimes get rolls with two or three digits in here. It's probably a glitch, but it shows that dice such as these could be a possibility.

not a glitch. it's the balanced dice option

I've played with Balanced Dice many times, but the unusual rolls don't always occur. They also seem to occur more often on phone than desktop. Or is that just me? Either way, adding a descriptive mouseover text would perhaps be a good idea – for all three types of dice – so people know what they are getting themselves into.

While being no expert in statistical analysis or mathematical probabilities, I see that vikingo's new suggestion is in-keeping with this threads intention (reduce the chances of against-the-odds wins by the defenders when vastly outnumbered). [quote=vikingo1337]The D12 Dodecahedron die. It has twelve sides; useful for, say, any attacker with more than 12 troops.[/quote] I see from the DnD dice link you provided that the 12 sided dice is numbered from 1 to 12. With that number system, I don't know how it can be incorporated in the programming to fight against 6 sided dice. First it would be better if it was a dice with 2 of everything from 1 to 6, but this wouldn't improve the chances of the attacker rolling a 6, over a standard 6 sided dice. Another way to do it is to incorporate a reverse of dough_boy's defence dice suggestion and fix the attack dice ability / odds of not rolling the worst numbers, so making something like 3 X [b]6[/b]'s, 3 X [b]5[/b]'s, 2 X [b]4[/b]'s, 2 X [b]3[/b]'s, 1 X [b]2[/b] and 1 X [b]1[/b]. Whatever we end up deciding on, I think it's best to unify on what we want the outcome to be. This thread is solely related to the amount of complaints about [i]paraphrasing[/i] "how can 1 or 2 defending troops kill 10 or 12 attacking troops and lose none" [u]It's probably best to get some sort of survey started.[/u] [i][b]Vastly Outnumbered[/b][/i] should really signify the amount considered suitable to guarantee a win with little to no resistance. 1) What number of attacking troops constitutes "vastly outnumbered" against 1 defender? 2) What ratio of attacking troops constitutes "vastly outnumbered" against all defenders? Before we can ask other questions, we need to know these figures.

[quote]It's probably best to get some sort of survey started. Vastly Outnumbered should really signify the amount considered suitable to guarantee a win with little to no resistance. 1) What number of attacking troops constitutes "vastly outnumbered" against 1 defender? 2) What ratio of attacking troops constitutes "vastly outnumbered" against all defenders? Before we can ask other questions, we need to know these figures.[/quote] Everyone wants to make their own suggestion to fix it, but nobody wants to contribute to the basis of the values that require the fix.

Outnumbered = 5x Vastly Outnumbered = 7x+ Maybe it isn't just that the defense shouldn't be able to roll a 6. Maybe it should be that the tie no longer defaults to the defense and is awarded to the attacker, but maybe the attacker loses one too. So if I am attacking 6v1 and the dice tie, I conquer, but still lose an army. This wouldn't work in a 2v1 scenario, but then it would be less than the outnumbered scenario. After thinking about it, I think the dice remain the same, at some point the tie goes to the attacker, but BOTH sides lose an army. So 10v2 and 666v66, each side would lose 2 654v66, attacker loses 2, defender loses 1 555v66, attacker loses 2, defender loses 0 Maybe in a vastly outnumbered scenario that would mean the defense couldn't roll a 6 either. So outnumbered, tie is changed, vastly outnumbered, defense further weakened.

Just had a game with 19 on 4. So almost outnumbered 5:1. I lost 13...mainly because of the tie.

We still need to know what figures/ratio is to be considered overwhelming/vastly outnumbering, before working on a solution. @dough_boy, consider this; even with a 5:1 ratio, your attack 19:4 wouldn't qualify for (Power Dice/Whatever Alternative), therefore, the outcome is at the mercy of luck. This is why I am trying to find what figures the players consider to be vastly outnumbering. What would you expect to lose in Real Life with 19 troops against 4 defenders fighting for their cause and their survival? I'd say 8+ That's a 2:1 loss, just from frontal attacks on a fortified defensive position. The remaining troops are afforded the opportunity to flank the position through the sacrifice of their troops drawing fire. Whatever we eventually calculate what needs to be done to resolve the issue, we should always consider that defenders are normally fortified with enfilade & defilade positions and will normally know that you are coming. Therefore, in Real Life battles, attackers will mostly lose at least double what they kill when the attack numbers are not overwhelming or of mixed unit types, i.e. Ground Troops supported by Mortars, Heavy Machine Guns, Air Attacks and Artillery. We should consider a number that would normally simulate the attacker having mixed units. With all this considered, we could leave all dice as they are and simply program that the attacker can't lose any more than 2 X Defence, but we will still need that number/ratio where it activates?

Then if you are saying 8+, let's call it 2.5x or 10. Or round up to 3x and in this case outnumbered is 12v4. So if that is the threshold, I would then say 3.5x (or 4x) would start the transition to whatever the dice or lack of tie is. So 14v4 or 16v4. We also cannot think solely in terms of real life. I mean one could argue that 8 American Delta Force can kill 8 drug cartel members and not lose anything. So I think you would have to look at even training, etc.

[quote]We also cannot think solely in terms of real life. I mean one could argue that 8 American Delta Force can kill 8 drug cartel members and not lose anything. So I think you would have to look at even training, etc.[/quote] Yes I agree with this statement as there was a Medal of Honor awarded to 1 USA Soldier who held off and destroyed many dozens of enemy soldiers, vehicles and a panther tank and survived, but generally we are dealing with wars & battles not skirmishes and are considering those only, with equipped, trained & experienced attackers & defenders. [quote=aero]I'd say 8+[/quote] This was expected losses. I still think we need a fixed number against 1 defender or a minimum that activates the code, as 4:1 is not high enough to be overwhelming odds? (or was this ratio, expected losses?) Perhaps if we find the minimum number of attackers v 1 defender, we could then move straight to the number of expected losses X #defenders. ??

Yeah, I had 12v1 in a game and lost 6. So 6v1 should trigger no tie to the defense and instead is in favor of the attacker HOWEVER, the attacker would still lose 1 too.

[quote]So 6v1 should trigger no tie to the defense and instead is in favor of the attacker HOWEVER, the attacker would still lose 1 too.[/quote] We can deal with the methods later, let's first see if we can get some feedback from lots of players about what number v 1 defender should produce minimal expected losses due to overwhelming attack? I originally stated 6v1 dough_boy 6v1

just a note......I play on a board about 3 games every week or so. for many years. and I know how real dice act. the dice here are definitely not random as real dice. the defense has a distinct advantage. I have lost more rolls as the attacker in the few weeks I have played here. than the years of board play......just saying......

[quote=kwikool]just a note......I play on a board about 3 games every week or so. for many years. and I know how real dice act. the dice here are definitely not random as real dice. the defense has a distinct advantage. I have lost more rolls as the attacker in the few weeks I have played here. than the years of board play......just saying...... [/quote] This has been debunked time and time again: https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/879/the-sites-dice-are-accurately-pseudorandom

[quote=dough_boy]After thinking about it, I think the dice remain the same, at some point the tie goes to the attacker, but BOTH sides lose an army. So 10v2 and 666v66, each side would lose 2 654v66, attacker loses 2, defender loses 1 555v66, attacker loses 2, defender loses 0[/quote] At first, I didn't see any potential in this, but it has just jumped out at me as a really logical solution. It will change the tradition of the win/lose methods of the game, but it will never allow defenders to infinitely kill attackers with draw dice and the 3v1 dice mostly only suffer from the tied dice causing so much loss and inevitable anger. If this was implemented for the whole game and not just when the odds were against the defender, it would give a much truer result of a conflict. Attackers always have the edge, so the defenders WILL BE overcome, however, the defenders will take some attackers with them when they fall. If this was used as a solution, there would be no need for ratios or "what is regarded as vastly outnumbered".