Why only 3v1 or 3v2?
  • 46 posts
  • Page 3 of 4
elysium5 wrote:
Wouldn't this cause people to attack more often when it might not be a good idea? I can see wanting to attack an army right next to yours just because you would not want to be attacked first if the attacker has the advantage. Or am I missing something?
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
aeronautic wrote:
It has been stated that this would mean making our own rules for the game and not something that we should be doing with an age old tried and tested game method.

However, for the sake of the thread:
I'm not sure how it would affect a decision to attack over any current decision for the same move, as the only thing that's different here is when the highest dice are tied, both attacker & defender lose a troop and this could mean killing 2 and losing 2.
I think everyone with 10 v 3 troops would be expecting to Kill 2 and Lose 0 and that expectation gets turned into frustration and anger when it becomes Kill 0 Lose 2 and again & again, until they are left with 4 v 3 troops.
This Even Field mode would still allow both scenarios to happen, however, if the defender ties the attacker's highest dice, the defender loses 2, as does the attacker (as they would currently), which means that instead of the attacker losing 2 and having the possibility of losing 2 again & again, the defender now only has 1 troop remaining and can now only kill 1 attacker troop.
We mustn't forget that winning dice are still king!
The even-field mode doesn't kick in if either attacker or defender actually rolls the highest numbers and the results will be as they are currently, with less overall losses due to the defender winning when dice are tied.
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:
My partner just had a game where it was 17 v 2. Yes, that is 8.5 times the ratio and he finally killed 2 after LOSING 12. This is the final game of a tournament that we had in the bag, now it is iffier. He needed to kill 6 (2, 3, 1) and managed to kill a 2 and knock down a 3 to a 2. So he went 3 and 13 and just did one.
aeronautic wrote:
If it was my decision to make, I'd make this happen, because I'm sure that it would revolutionise the game and at last make Risk more realistic.
However, it is not up to me, nor is it advocated by any other staff and it would mean making our site different to all other sites in how Risk Dice results are handled.

This is a very real solution to all the problems with dice where all attack & defence probabilities would be exactly as they are now, the dice algorithm would be exactly the same, but the dice result handling would be different and even though this will probably never happen here at D12, it is a nice feeling to have witnessed an innovative idea that found a very simple solution to a problem.
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 wish we could attempt it. There are so many complaints about dice and some just laugh it off...possibly because they have not had the pleasure of experiencing it yet.
The_Bishop wrote:
This would completely change the game play giving a strong advantage to the attack. I wouldn't call it "more realistic", nor I can see how it might stop the complaints about dice. In fact once that one knows the odds of the new dice battle method, he will complain the same everytime the outcome is much worse than what he expected, nothing changes.

Back in the years, the original patent of the game described the dice battle as both attack and defence roll 1 die, the lower loses 1 unit (army or troop), in case of a tie the rolls had to be repeated. One game could require a whole day, so they decided to make the battles faster allowing up to 3 dice for both players (attacker and defender) and assigning the ties to the defence. That was the very first version of the game, the name wasn't Risk but doesn't matter.

3-dice vs 3-dice was a great advantage for the defence. The average outcome is kill 11, lose 19, while here we are used to kill 11, lose 9. A different game really! Parker & Bro decided to change the rule to even the things out, so that yes, the defender wins the ties but he cannot roll more than 2 dice, resulting in a ratio pretty close to 1:1. I think they were really undecided about what version of the game they should have released, because the istructions told "2 dice for the defence" but in the game box there were 3 defence dice, sort of non-accidental mistake.

Then little by little the American version was imposed in all European countries (but Italy) and we have now the modern Hasbro Risk world wide played. But keep in mind please that we are already playing the Even Version of the game, if you guys want to give more advantage to the attacker then it will not be "even" anymore, it will be Super Attack Version.

From my personal experiences I can tell that the more you give advantage to the attack the more the game becomes fast and dynamic; while the more you give advantage to the denfence the more the game becomes slow and strategic. I'm not asking to implement the old Super Defence Version that we still play in Italy, I am fine with the current internetional version, I just want to give you all an idea of how things change when the dice change.

Apart from everything said above, the Dough_boy's method cannot be applied to every attacks because there are cases where it contradicts the principle of one mandatory garrison troop in each territory. Let's assume a territory with 3 troops attacks a territory with 2 troops, what happens when they both lose 2 troops? In theory the territory is conquered but there are no invasion forces to occupy it... The same when attacking 2v1 if both players lose 1 troop.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
dough_boy wrote:
Simple, you couldn't attack unless you would have a backup. So no 2v1 or 3v2, would have to be 3v1 or 4v2.

Or, it only comes into play when you have #x the armies. So if it is 6v1, then it goes into effect.
aeronautic wrote:
The whole point of the thread and hence dough_boy's suggestion is to give a realistic outcome to a an outnumbered defence.
There would of course have to be activation & deactivation numbers.

It would be nice to be able to set this up on a basic Risk attack calculator program for testing. I'd like to see how it performs statistically over 100k+ attacks.
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:
Amazing this is from almost 4 years ago. I just had an 11v1. Lost 5. I LOST FIVE! and never killed him.
LizardMagpie wrote:
Does anyone else feel like there is something strange with the dice on attacks versus 1, or is it just me?

I know we all tend to remember the throws that go unexpectedly against us rather than the ones that go the other way -- and I'm relatively new to this site -- but I've played a lot over several years on another similar Risk site, and I haven't experienced the same sort of thing over there at all. On the face of it the way the dice work here and on MajCom looks pretty much the same. But I have a feeling that on D12 there is something that works differently on attacks versus 1. It feels like the dice here seem to get stuck. The odds on losing 4 or 5 or more consecutive throws against a single troop must be pretty large I would have thought, but it seems to happen here quite often. If there is a mathematician out there, I'd be interested to know what the odds are the defence wins on a roll of 3 or more v 1 - then I could carry out a little comparative experiment here and on MajCom to see if I'm just imagining it.
dough_boy wrote:
It happens far too often for me to think it is a coincidence. The game I mentioned right before yours, it happened 2 more times in the same game. A huge attacking advantage and I lost 3 or more each time.