Conquer Club

Is it just me or does the defender have a highly exaggerated advantage? During two separate turns in two separate games I lost 5 armies while attacking a territory with a single army defending. In the second turn, I lost a total of 11 armies while trying to conquer a single territory with 3 armies and still failed to conquer it!! I understand that the defender has a statistical advantage, but this is well outside the margin of error. I've never seen rolls this ridiculous while playing a game of Risk with real dice.

"Legally" the defender has no advantage but it seems to be a general consensus that s/he does

Actually, sailorseal, the defender does have the advantage of winning a broken tie, giving the defender the advantage in a 2v2 or a 1v1 and the attacker a slight advatage in a 3v2 or a 2v1 (talking in terms of dice thrown).

Q

I've witnessed plenty of absurd dice sequences and gotten my butt seriously whalloped by single defenders.
The odds can also be a bit misleading because the defender wins all ties and with these "random numbers" it seems that winning all ties throws a wrench into the domination equation.

Recently I had 22 armies (that I thought were ready to rock) and they only managed to conquer 4 single defended territories. Shit happens So you really need the numbers in your favor and a bit of luck to go with them.

sailorseal wrote:"Legally" the defender has no advantage but it seems to be a general consensus that s/he does

where is this general consensus sailor? once again, flat out wrong... sigh...-0

But the dice are done at random, so keeping track of your rolls and then recording your results on the forums doesnt mean anything. Sorry to be so harsh.

sailorseal wrote:"Legally" the defender has no advantage but it seems to be a general consensus that s/he does

I've seen absolutely no such "general consensus" and in fact, I would say that it's simply not true at all. The attacker certainly has the advantage unless the attacker is making what are widely regarded as moron-attacks.

Good heavens, do you just pull ALL of your information straight out of your ass or what?

I think when the attacker has at least the same amount of troops as the defender, the attacker has a slight advantage

The attacker has the advantage when its like 10 v 10 or 3 v 3 becuase the attacker has three dice. The more troops there are (so 1000 v 1000 rather than 10 v 10) the less the uncertainty is.

Rocket.

Rocketry wrote:The attacker has the advantage when its like 10 v 10 or 3 v 3 becuase the attacker has three dice. The more troops there are (so 1000 v 1000 rather than 10 v 10) the less the uncertainty is.

Rocket.

4v3 but otherwise as above:
The attacker has a statistical advantage if s/he rolls 3 dice. It is slight, however. The bigger the number on each side, the closer to the statistical value any attack is likely to be. But probability's a b$stard... See the previous 100 threads on this topic for drawn out statistical analysis.

xelabale wrote:

Rocketry wrote:The attacker has the advantage when its like 10 v 10 or 3 v 3 becuase the attacker has three dice. The more troops there are (so 1000 v 1000 rather than 10 v 10) the less the uncertainty is.

Rocket.

4v3 but otherwise as above:
The attacker has a statistical advantage if s/he rolls 3 dice. It is slight, however. The bigger the number on each side, the closer to the statistical value any attack is likely to be. But probability's a b$stard... See the previous 100 threads on this topic for drawn out statistical analysis.

Ok so bad example from me - 3 v 3 means the attacker attacks with two dice (one guy always gets left behind) so 4 v 4 would have been a better example? Is that right?

Rocket.

There's a theoretical advantage in 4v4. However, if you lose 1 army you are down to 2 dice, me no likey. 4v4 is therefore not a great bet in my opinion. 40v40 the advantage is more likely to materialise, 400v400 even more so. It's a function of how probability works and sample size etc.

If both have the same number, the odds get better as the stacks get larger. The attacker has less than 50% chance of winning up until 12v12.

1v1 = 0%
2v2 = 10.6%
3v3 = 20.6%
6v6 = 39.7%
9v9 = 46.4%
12v12 = 50.7%
20v20 = 57.7%
50v50 = 70.6%

THIS will tell you the odds of any attack. Don't forget to subract 1 from the attacking force, since you always have to leave 1 behind.

Timminz wrote:If both have the same number, the odds get better as the stacks get larger. The attacker has less than 50% chance of winning up until 12v12.

1v1 = 0%
2v2 = 10.6%
3v3 = 20.6%
6v6 = 39.7%
9v9 = 46.4%
12v12 = 50.7%
20v20 = 57.7%
50v50 = 70.6%

THIS will tell you the odds of any attack. Don't forget to subract 1 from the attacking force, since you always have to leave 1 behind.

thanks Timminz

Joodoo wrote:

Timminz wrote:If both have the same number, the odds get better as the stacks get larger. The attacker has less than 50% chance of winning up until 12v12.

1v1 = 0%
2v2 = 10.6%
3v3 = 20.6%
6v6 = 39.7%
9v9 = 46.4%
12v12 = 50.7%
20v20 = 57.7%
50v50 = 70.6%

THIS will tell you the odds of any attack. Don't forget to subract 1 from the attacking force, since you always have to leave 1 behind.

thanks Timminz

Numbers prove everything....

Rocketry wrote:Numbers prove everything....

...Except the things that have been proven to be unprovable...

MrBenn wrote:

Rocketry wrote:Numbers prove everything....

...Except the things that have been proven to be unprovable...

Err... but.. well... umm... i... - pffft whatever.

Rocket.

Rocketry wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

Rocketry wrote:Numbers prove everything....

...Except the things that have been proven to be unprovable...

Err... but.. well... umm... i... - pffft whatever.

Rocket.

Statisticians have concluded that you can prove anything with numbers...

Prove it

There are Lies, Damn Lies and then there are statistics

xelabale wrote:Prove it

This morning I proved that 12 attacking 18 when you are the 12
means you get royally buggered.