New fair Risk dice roll mode

[ivory hornet]

I present: Fair Defense.

I propose a new risk dice roll mode: Fair Defense. With Fair Defense, a defending territory will always kill a number of troops equal to the troops stationed on that territory, + 0-3 more troops depending on chance. Example: 10 troops attack 5 troops, at least 5 of the attacking troops will die, but no more than 8 can die. So the attacking troops will 100% win, but still lose a fair amount of troops doing so.

I believe this mode would fix the issues in True Random, and Balanced Blitz, by creating a truly balanced dice roll mode which has luck but is still predictable.

[flint fern]

So win% is always (0% or) 100%? And if you attack with the same amount (excluding the troop that stays behind), you’ll always win without any element of luck? Or do you still have a chance to lose that battle as attacker?

[ivory hornet]

So if the defender has 5 troops for example, if you attack with 9 or more, you have a 100% chance of victory. If you attack with 6-8, you can still win, but it's luck based.

[sharp wraith]

the blitz is unbalanced in this one

[ivory hornet]

Example sheet:

5 attacking vs 5 defending = 100% chance of defender winning. Defender can still lose some troops, but cannot lose the battle.

6 attacking vs 5 defending = 75% chance of defender winning. If attacker wins, attacker will still lose 5 troops.

7 attacking vs 5 defending = 50/50, if attacker wins, attacker will still lose 5 troops.

8 attacking vs 5 defending = 75% chance of attacker winning, if attacker wins, attacker will still lose 5 troops.

9< attacking vs 5 defending = 100% chance of attacker winning, attacker will still lose 5 troops.

No matter what, the attacker will always lose an amount of troops equal the the defender's troop count. The defender can however still lose troops during a battle.

[ivory hornet]

Balanced Blitz isn't balanced, this version is. It's predictable and actually balanced.

[flint fern]

If I understand you correctly, for the 5-8 attacker examples 1 outcome is impossible, since you can’t both have 0 troops left after battle (and meet the specification).

As an example, for 6v5 the win% can’t be 75%. Since if the attacker loses 6, the defender can’t lose 5, because there would be no troops left to put on the attacked territory.

[placid trellis]

Actual balanced dice mode would require no dice to be used. It's just a cost and the cost for 1 defender is 0,85 attacker troops on average (as long as all rolls are 3v2) and 1,7 troops per defender on capitals.
If you go for 1 to 1 you will have very boring games where the person that gets a bonus first wins 100% of the time, because you can't break them in any way.

[ivory hornet]

When I count attacking troops, I don't count the troop which stays behind.

[flint fern]

Neither did I (but that also doesn’t affect the “problem”). If you write down all 4 combinations for the troops left for both the attacker and defender + how much more the attacker loses besides that, you’ll see for yourself. If I wasn’t clear enough.

[fair coyote]

“If everyone is incredible, then nobody is”

In the long run, I feel like this proposal would yield results uncomfortably close to “every territory is a capitol”…

[tawdry harbor]

I think an issue with this is that kills would never be profitable in fixed. You would also always lose at least 1 troop to get a card. Every game would just end in a stalemate. I mean think about it. To kill someone with 100 troops you would need 120-130 and you’d probably be left with 10 troops left. Even if you get a set now you have 20 troops. You’re just immediately dead. Even in progressive it would be iffy. I mean how many times does someone really have less than the number of troops you get from setting in. They’re getting the same sets you are after all. The only reason it’s profitable is attackers advantage. Defenders advantage just incentivizes everyone to do nothing.

[summer pewter]

Perhaps some tweaking to maintain attackers advantage (fundamental to risk imo) but still have a more predictable dice