Extra Attack/Defend Advantage

[Robinette]

We all know that the dice method used here gives an ultra tiny advantage to the attacker, but wouldn't it be nice if there was an extra advantage to a specific planned attack.

In real life, there can be a significant advantage to launching an attack due to the unpreparedness of the defenders... on the other hand, sometimes a well defended position can have a significant advantage thwarting off an invasion...

The other real life effect is the extra defensive nature of a homeland. Not always of course, yet history is loaded with examples of the intensity of battle increasing as you close in on enemies home front.

Okay, so how does this translate to our battlefields here? One could argue that the luck and streaks of the dice provide us with ample variety to simulate those conditions, albeit in a sometimes frustrating way for the attacker since the defender is not even around to witness any glorious defensive streaks...

But I would love to see an extra element added that could simulate these conditions with slightly less randomness than the dice alone. Perhaps the first attack roll would change the lowest die to a 6, thereby providing that extra punch from an initial attack, even though you can still lose one or all of your attacking armies. This attack advantage would only apply to the 1st roll of the dice each turn.

And to simulate the extra homeland strength, perhaps a single country could be selected from the start (manually or randomly) that would provide that player with a 3rd defensive die. The benefit of this would be pretty limited since this method would only effect one territory for the entire game, so if you wanted a broader defensive advantage, then perhaps we could add a choice at the end of a turn for Defensive Fortification. Select one territory that "Dig's in" defensively, and this territory defends with an extra die. This territory should be identified providing an extra hesitation for the other players to attack.

Of course, this would be a choice when creating games... but if the 1st attack advantage were to be implemented globally, it would surely reduce the dice complaints a bit, and add to the enjoyment of the game.

 

[MrBenn]

I kind-of like the capital/heavy artillery concept (whereby a player could add a token to a specific territory on the drop to boost either attack or defence), although I would prefer an additional "dice" than a guaranteed six.

 

[coolname]

In the board game, we always used to play that the defender could choose (when 2 or more armies) to roll 1 die or 2 dice in defense, after the attackers roll. So when the attacker rolled 6-6-6 you'd defend with one die, and on a 1-1-1 attack you'd roll 2 dice. Cut-off point was at the 4-4 or 5-3 rolls by the attacker. Do you gamble and roll 2 dice of not?

This mechanism would be hard to incorporate in the game (perhaps you could specify your defense strategy, i.e: always defend w/ 2 dice or if attacker's 2 best dice are maximum 4-4, then defend with 2).

I think it gives the defender more of an edge.

On the dice & complaints; I think the Blitz function has something to do with it. If you have for example a 10-on-3 and you blitz, you could end up 3-on-2 (attacker lost 7, defender only 1). Were you to follow each roll using assault, you would see your attacking force dwindle from 10 to 8 to 6 etc. Perhaps then you would abort the attack earlier. Sometimes I use Assault and not Blitz in similar (10-on-3) situations, so I can abort earlier than when only 3 attacking armies are left.

 

[Badorties]

Some good ideas here. While we already have a feature in the pipe which will eliminate luck entirely from the dice, having these add on powers would certainly spice up the game.

It would be cool if say, a single region carried a 'football' which allowed an extra die on all attacks and defense. I dunno.. there is a million directions to go here. It's definitely a direction I would like to pursue, though not before 1.0

 

[Cassidy]

I really have something against any update that changes the dice, whether it's adding an extra die, increasing the numbers, etc. I suppose I'll be told to GFY, but it changes the game mechanics and the style of the game too much.

That said, no dice games don't fall under changing the way the dice work.

 

[Robinette]

I really have something against any update that changes the dice, whether it's adding an extra die, increasing the numbers, etc. I suppose I'll be told to GFY, but it changes the game mechanics and the style of the game too much.

That said, no dice games don't fall under changing the way the dice work.

Say What???
That's funny logic...

And just to be clear, my suggestion above is designed to be a game option...

 

[Shepherd]

fun ideas... in Jeopardy sometimes you luck out and hit the 'daily double' - image if after each turn you got to choose a region to be your daily double and your opponents were always wondering which region would be more heavily defended. Or maybe you get to plant a spy in an opponent's region and the spy reduces their capacity to attack or defend.

Regardless of what the exact rule is, it could be a game option but I think it would be more interesting if it were map specific. An Espionage map could have spies, a Revolution map could have sleeper cells and secret armies, a Trench Warfare map could have nerve gas attacks that weaken everybody downwind, and just about any map could have land minds that troops leave behind when they pull out of a region. The possibilities abound.

 

[Spazm]

I think as long as dice changes are clear and seperated out into seperate game types, ie "Classic" and "Revised", etc, it would be fun and refreshing.

Speaking of the slight advantage to the attacker; doesn't this (particularly in 1v1) give a rather large advantage to the 1st player to take a turn? I'm noticing a rather large trend in 1v1 games that the 2nd player is always playing catch-up. Maybe if the dice were "spiked" the first turn for each player?

 

[Shepherd]

Speaking of the slight advantage to the attacker; doesn't this (particularly in 1v1) give a rather large advantage to the 1st player to take a turn? I'm noticing a rather large trend in 1v1 games that the 2nd player is always playing catch-up. Maybe if the dice were "spiked" the first turn for each player?

The first player in a 1v1 does indeed have an advantage; on larger maps in which both players start with many territories this advantage often decides the game. We will be implementing rules that reduce the player 1 advantage, and many good suggestions have been made in another thread...
http://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/665-1v1-Dynamics

 

[BroncoBlue89]

I'm glad I stumbled across this Forum thread because I was wondering how/where to express an opinion about the current dice rules and their affect on the enjoyability of playing MC games. I've been playing games in MC world for over eight years and have had my share of ups and downs (currently more downs than ups). I understand that the random nature of the dice adds that bit of unpredictability that is supposed to reflect what happens in real life (e.g., the cloud cover that makes it impossible for the bombers to see their targets, or the sun at your back that blinds your enemy and makes it difficult for them to see exactly what you're doing) but sometimes the dice outcomes completely defy logic in a way that would not happen in real life, and it is then that I feel like I'm playing roulette instead of a strategy game. Luck should not play THAT large of a role in the outcome of an attack.

Therefore, I propose (after the current Beta period of our new platform has been completed and it's no longer in "Beta" mode) that a Beta area be created to try out various tweaks to the dice rules (such as those proposed by other players above) where players could play some games and see how the tweaks impact the playability (and more importantly, enjoyment) of the games. My proposed "tweak" would be to simply change the tie-goes-to-the-defender rule to the tie-goes-to-the-attacker rule. Thus, instead of 6-6-6 vs 6-6 resulting in two dead attackers, it would result in two dead defenders. I don't think the change would make a huge statistical difference in outcomes, but I think it would possibly make the game a bit more enjoyable for everyone.

And before anyone else says it, yes, I know that I can always play Fixed Force games if I want certainty of outcomes. But I don't want certainty, I enjoy the unpredictability of the game - it makes it a little more interesting. I just feel that it's currently a little TOO unpredictable and unrealistic.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts regarding this idea.

 

[brianstheman]

I'm glad I stumbled across this Forum thread because I was wondering how/where to express an opinion about the current dice rules and their affect on the enjoyability of playing MC games. I've been playing games in MC world for over eight years and have had my share of ups and downs (currently more downs than ups). I understand that the random nature of the dice adds that bit of unpredictability that is supposed to reflect what happens in real life (e.g., the cloud cover that makes it impossible for the bombers to see their targets, or the sun at your back that blinds your enemy and makes it difficult for them to see exactly what you're doing) but sometimes the dice outcomes completely defy logic in a way that would not happen in real life, and it is then that I feel like I'm playing roulette instead of a strategy game. Luck should not play THAT large of a role in the outcome of an attack.

Therefore, I propose (after the current Beta period of our new platform has been completed and it's no longer in "Beta" mode) that a Beta area be created to try out various tweaks to the dice rules (such as those proposed by other players above) where players could play some games and see how the tweaks impact the playability (and more importantly, enjoyment) of the games. My proposed "tweak" would be to simply change the tie-goes-to-the-defender rule to the tie-goes-to-the-attacker rule. Thus, instead of 6-6-6 vs 6-6 resulting in two dead attackers, it would result in two dead defenders. I don't think the change would make a huge statistical difference in outcomes, but I think it would possibly make the game a bit more enjoyable for everyone.

And before anyone else says it, yes, I know that I can always play Fixed Force games if I want certainty of outcomes. But I don't want certainty, I enjoy the unpredictability of the game - it makes it a little more interesting. I just feel that it's currently a little TOO unpredictable and unrealistic.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts regarding this idea.

So in this instance, you're saying "My attacks haven't been effective enough. I'd like to win more by eliminating more of my opponents troops more frequently".

However, at the exact same time, your opponent would be doing the same to you. So you'd lose more troops every time they attacked.

The odds of an incredibly lucky opponent roll would suddenly mean you had an unexpected loss at hand.

EDIT: I'm more confused thinking about this now. Attackers already have the statistical edge. "Tie to the defense" does not overcome the 3:2 dice rolls.

 

[ndrm31]

wow, how did this tread come back to life??????

 

[BroncoBlue89]

Blame it on me, ndrm. I was bored one day and started combing through some of the Forum threads, which I rarely do, and came across this one, which reminded me of this idea I've been wanting to explore. Sorry if this has all been hashed and rehashed already in the past.

Brian, I understand that the rule change would only benefit a person when on offense, and work against him/her on defense, but I still think it might make the game more enjoyable. It's kinda like many of the rule changes the NFL has made over the last several decades that were intended to increase scoring and make the game more exciting and interesting, which they did.

The current statistical advantage for the attacker is really pretty miniscule and I think changing the 'who wins the ties' wouldn't change it much, but potentially would make the game a little more enjoyable for everyone. I just think it would be worth trying it out in a limited number of games played in a separate (Beta-type) environment that wouldn't affect players' scores and ranks, just to see how they like it.

 

[Sebrim]

Just one point: it would seriously increase the first turn advantage, though...

 

[BroncoBlue89]

I could see that being a potential issue for games with few players (2, 3, 4) but I doubt it would make much difference in larger games. The only way to see if it does make a significant difference is to test it out in some games that don't count towards or against player scores/ranks.