Minimum Conquer Advancement (Risk Rules)

[mandalorian2298]

The idea means more planning and strategy is demanded of the attacker.

The defender would always defend with max dice as this gives him the most chance of defending the country. There is no benefit of only defending with 1 dice when you have the choice of 2.

And what if the attacker roles 3 sixes?

[maniacmath17]

The idea means more planning and strategy is demanded of the attacker.

The defender would always defend with max dice as this gives him the most chance of defending the country. There is no benefit of only defending with 1 dice when you have the choice of 2.

There is benefit though - If you only defend with 1 you only lose 1...

Someone do the maths here - I don't know!!

C.

Ask and you shall recieve.

On average if you defend with just one die, you will kill an average of about 1 attacker troop for every 2 defender troops. Now if you defend with both dice, you kill about 1.7 attacking troops for every 2 defending troops lost. So it is definitely advisable to always defend with the maximum number of dice.

[Craig25]

Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.

[greenoaks]

Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.

so if i attack with my 12 stack and lose 8, how do i advance 12 when i only have 4 left and 1 of those must remain behind

[Rosso87]

Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.

so if i attack with my 12 stack and lose 8, how do i advance 12 when i only have 4 left and 1 of those must remain behind

You only attack with 3 soldiers even if you have 50 on a territory, since you use 3 dice, not 50 dice. You just choose how many of those 50 to move across. So in your situation you've used 3 dice to the end, so you have to advance 3 soldiers, and leave a single one on the territory you advance from. When I used to play risk we played this rule.

[greenoaks]

Again this makes games more strategic as there are loads of times that you would not attack with more than 1 dice if you knew you would need to advance that many armies. Again I would put the option in the game start up.

so if i attack with my 12 stack and lose 8, how do i advance 12 when i only have 4 left and 1 of those must remain behind

You only attack with 3 soldiers even if you have 50 on a territory, since you use 3 dice, not 50 dice. You just choose how many of those 50 to move across. So in your situation you've used 3 dice to the end, so you have to advance 3 soldiers, and leave a single one on the territory you advance from. When I used to play risk we played this rule.

what crap, when i send my 30 stack into a 10 stack i am sending all 30, not 3

i see no strategy at all here, just insanity

[TheForgivenOne]

This would just drag games out SO long, if you could only advance 3 at a time. I would predict a whole lot of games that took 30 rounds just to eliminate someone after the game is essentially over.

[IcePack]

I believe he's saying its a minimum requirement of 3. aka, you can't attk a 10 stack with 30 and move foward none, you HAD to move a min. of 3.

Could be wrong, but its been brought up from others that I know play the same "house rules".

[jefjef]

This would just drag games out SO long, if you could only advance 3 at a time. I would predict a whole lot of games that took 30 rounds just to eliminate someone after the game is essentially over.

What he is suggesting is having to advance a minimum of the number of dice you attack with. IE. If you have a 10 stack and roll 3 dice and win you must advance the 3 and have the option to advance up to the other 6 if you wish. The only way I would consider supporting this is if we have the option of how many dice we can attack with.

The other site like this one, the one with believable random, has this option. They don't have the real nice maps like CC though.

[ddgrimes]

If I remember correctly, that is the standard rule on the RISK board game, you have to move at
least the minimum number of attacking troops equal the the number of dice rolled.

[pimphawks70]

If I remember correctly, that is the standard rule on the RISK board game, you have to move at
least the minimum number of attacking troops equal the the number of dice rolled.

RISK is a registered trademark of Hasbro Inc. Conquer Club is not associated with RISK or Hasbro in any way.

[ddgrimes]

ha ha, well the board game CC is based on has that as part of his rules

[Craig25]

Guys, confusion reigns here.

Max Die you can attack with is 3 (if you have a min of 4 armies on the country)

If you choose to attack with 3 dice then you must move a minimum of 3 armies in.

if you choose to attack with 2 then you must move a minimum of 2 in.

If you choose to attack with 1 then you must move a minimum of 1 in.

This adds a massive amount of strategy, in your games would you always attack with 3 dice knowing that you are committing to moving a minimum of 3 to a country? I think not. Conquering continents and opponents, general moves all require more planning and strategy. It would make it a much better game!!!