Moderator: Cartographers
captainwalrus wrote:the.killing.44 wrote:I personally won't play any map with a dice adjustment. Terrible idea that ruins the integrity of R*sk.
Seconded!
<territory>
<name>Tanks</name>
<border>Weak Soldiers</border>
<dicemodifiers>
<dx>d3
<lowerbound>4
</dicemodifiers>
<territory>
<name>Weak Soldiers</name>
<border>Tanks</border>
<dicemodifiers>
<dx>d6
<lowerbound>1
</dicemodifiers>
max is gr8 wrote:I like yours best WidowMakers
Though I'd suggest a base figure still.
E.g. Tanks have a fairly consistant power level but soldiers vary a lot more so it could be:
So in the above example the tank can be 4-6.
Soldiers can be 1-6.
So how about this?Evil DIMwit wrote:Another option is to let certain territories have extra dice offensively and/or defensively. You still match the highest two dice on each side, but the player with the advantage has more chances.
WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)
Evil DIMwit wrote:WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)
For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.
WidowMakers wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)
For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.
actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.
Evil DIMwit wrote:WidowMakers wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)
For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.
actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.
My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.
ender516 wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:WidowMakers wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:WidowMakers wrote:Example:
A castle with 5-d6 dice might not have a good bonus, but it will be very hard for a standard 3-d6 attack to kill it.
(of course other GP considerations need to come into play to make sure nothing is too lopsided.)
For reference, with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the chances are about 10% of the defender losing two troops, 21% of each losing one, and 69% of the attacker losing both.
actually with 3 attack dice and 5 defense dice, the attacker could lose 1,2 or three and the defender could lose 1,2 or 3 as well.
My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.
If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.
Evil DIMwit wrote:ender516 wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:My suggestion would be that you still only take the top two dice, rather than as many matches as possible. I think that would be simpler.
If there are still only two troops in jeopardy, then extra dice shift the odds, but do not offer the opportunity for qualitatively different game play the way that dice bonuses can.
I thought that was the aim... well, it's one or the other then.
<territory>
<name>Desert Wasteland</name>
<border>Lush Oasis</border>
<border>Seaside Town</border>
<decaytype=reinforce>1</decay>
Mr_Adams wrote:for conditional borders, perhaps the opposite? a border opened up if you DON't hold a certain territory? this could be set up so that a person could not be held in a bombard only territory. They could move out if they don't own any attacking territories. of corse, there would always have to be alternate routes, so that a person couldn't hide in an unnattackable territory.
<Territory>
<Name>Front hall</Name>
<Borders>
<Conditional>
<Required>Key1</Required>
<Required not>Blahblah</Required>
<Border>Locked door1</Border>
</Conditional>
<Border>Open door</Border>
</Borders>
<coordinates>.....</coordinates>
</Territory>
E.G. [iteration of 4, in a loop]
Round 1: Continent A is worth +3
Round 2: Continent A is worth -1
Round 3: Continent A is worth +1
Round 4: Continent A is worth 0
Round 5: [repeat] Continent A is worth +3
Round 6: [repeat] Continent A is worth -1... (And so on)
Round 1: Continent is worth +1
Round 2: Continent is worth +2
Round 3: Continent is worth +3...
dolomite13 wrote:Suggestion Idea: Elimination Zone
dolomite13 wrote:Suggestion Idea: Deployment Zone
Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as a deployment zone. A deployment zone would be the only territories that you could deploy forces to.
Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow mapmakers to limit where bonuses could be deployed but still allow the players a choice. For instance if you has a tech tree you could limit it so no forces except autodeployed ones could be deployed there.
Lack Label (Mod Use):
dolomite13 wrote:Suggestion Idea: Elimination Zone
Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as an elimination zone. An elimination zone would be the only territories that count towards eliminating a player. When they were eliminated from this zone the game would be over for them, all of their forces outside of the zone would become an equal number of neutral armies.
Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow maps such as Research & Conquer to create two separate army zones independent of one another. You could create a tech tree that granted bonuses but could not be accessed by military forces.
Lack Label (Mod Use):
Suggestion Idea: Deployment Zone
Description: This would allow a mapmaker to create a continent and set it as a deployment zone. A deployment zone would be the only territories that you could deploy forces to.
Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow mapmakers to limit where bonuses could be deployed but still allow the players a choice. For instance if you has a tech tree you could limit it so no forces except autodeployed ones could be deployed there.
Lack Label (Mod Use):
Users browsing this forum: No registered users