Moderator: Community Team
Anatolia wrote:Here's my brief attempt to explain why it seems like the dice are stacked against us:
There's a 1.1% chance of losing 12v3, but it seems to happen about once a week, right? This makes sense because we're all making hundreds of similar attacks per week. We're bound to have a big loss like that every once in a while.
Meanwhile, the odds of winning 5v13 are similarly 1.1%, yet a miracle like that never seems to happen. It's simply because we never attempt attacks like this. If we tried as many underdog attacks as we try big vs small attacks, we'd win against big odds as often as we lose against them.
So, even though the theoretical odds are always fair, the practical odds (actual occurrences/turns taken) of losing big are much higher than for winning big, because of how we play the game.
The conclusion? Even though its annoying when people say the dice odds are against us, there's a weird truth behind what they're saying.
A
This is a good post. And I actually do attacks like this all the time and have had more than my fair share of success. It is not so rare a thing for me when I take out 9, 11 or even more with just 4 or 5 troops. Considering of course that one should not be able to win in the first place. The thing is that I only do this with 4 or 5 troops using the auto-assault or "Right Click" so that should I lose I only lose 2 troops and still keep at least a couple of troops on that region for defense.Anatolia wrote:Meanwhile, the odds of winning 5v13 are similarly 1.1%, yet a miracle like that never seems to happen. It's simply because we never attempt attacks like this. If we tried as many underdog attacks as we try big vs small attacks, we'd win against big odds as often as we lose against them.



when did you do that ?macbone wrote:I just attacked a 3v9 and killed 8 straight. The dice are bizarre sometimes.
And perhaps if you had 4v9 then you would have been completely successful.macbone wrote:I just attacked a 3v9 and killed 8 straight. The dice are bizarre sometimes.

this/your signature/ only shows 8 evolution steps from the first to now...Viceroy63 wrote:And perhaps if you had 4v9 then you would have been completely successful.macbone wrote:I just attacked a 3v9 and killed 8 straight. The dice are bizarre sometimes.
[This is a joke. Please no one get offendedHardAttack wrote:this/your signature/ only shows 8 evolution steps from the first to now...Viceroy63 wrote:And perhaps if you had 4v9 then you would have been completely successful.macbone wrote:I just attacked a 3v9 and killed 8 straight. The dice are bizarre sometimes.
i wonder what it looked like before 8 steps
