Board Games are great
Quote: charliepatrick...there are throw the dice and find out what happens games (yes they're fairly boring) through to chess and sit there for ages and work it out. Personally I prefer games with some thinking required but, due to player interaction, not fully deterministic. There are some very interesting games that really keep your mind active - 18xx (which I play monthly) might be depending on who you can find to play (warning some games last hours) - or perhaps some of the other mentioned in the thread.
I play 18xx games on line via http://www.fwtwr.com/fwtwr/. Turn based, via email, but keeps my hand in. 1825 is probably my favourite of the set, mostly as it's more creative and less about stocks and share manipulation. And I'm not as good at the share price manipulation as the other players.
I don't like games of chance. Growing up as a kid I ALWAYS preferred games of skill. I think this was because I didn't care for my younger brothers and sister beating me when we played games of chance! I don't like losing.
When I was a kid (8-12 years old) we (and every other family in town) all owned one of those red & black cardboard checker boards, that folded in half, with black and red plastic checker pieces. On the BACK of the checkerboard was a backgammon board. But at the time we didn't know it was backgammon. We didn't know what it was. Just the board for some game that no one knew how to play.
My mom taught us how to play a lot of different games, chess included, but even she didn't know how to play this game, that we probably later found out was called backgammon. So the other side of that red and black cardboard checker board never got used. (If it did get used it was just for some game we made up.)
I've since read that backgammon was very big for awhile in the '70s, but this craze didn't yet reach our small town, in northern lower Michigan.
Now skip ahead to a few years later... 1976... when our family moved here to Southern California.
My brother Bill, two years younger than me, became friends with the kid next door. They were the same age and were in the same grade in school. Steve taught Bill how to play backgammon one summer. I can vividly remember them playing game out by the pool and in their room and in the garage. They always looked like they were having loads of fun. But then again, since I could see that backgammon used dice, and since I wasn't a fan of games of chance, this game didn't interest me.
Anyway, one day Bill offered to teach me how to play. His friend Steve must not have been available to play. For whatever reason, I said yes. The rules are pretty simple and can be learned him probably 10 or 15 minutes. So he taught me how to play and we started playing.
Bill won.
Okay fine, he got lucky, right? We played again... and again... and again. We played all weekend long and I can't remember the final tally, but I do remember I hardly ever won. Bill won most all the games. He kicked my backgammon ass.
Even then, at the age of 15 or 16, I knew enough about the laws of probability to know that by now, if this WERE a game of mostly luck, I should have won a lot more games. If it was all luck I should have won half of them! And yet I hardly won any!
So that's when I knew there must be much more to this game then meets the eye. In hindsight, that's because my brother Bill simply knew more about the game then, than I did. And I said earlier, I don't like to lose at anything. So what did I do? I remember going to the library and checking out every book they had on backgammon. I also hit up every bookstore, used or new, I could find, and starting buying books. (Today I own over 60 books on backgammon.) I read everything about the game I could get my hands on.
As I was reading these books, I was flabbergasted. The game, although it used dice, wasn't a game of luck or chance at all! It contained far, FAR more skill than I ever, EVER could have hoped for or imagined! And the more I read about backgammon, the more fascinated and the more in love I became. And when I first learned that there are times when you WANT your checkers to be hit and be sent back, (to slow you down, to improve your timing for a "back game") I was hooked.
So yes, backgammon does use dice and does have an element of luck to it because of this, but overall it's a game of skill. In a match up to a certain number of points, the more skillful player might lose a game or two, but will win have a HUGE edge overall, and will more than likely win the match. And the longer the match the greater the likelihood that the stronger player will win it.
Backgammon is essentially a gambling game, and it's a GREAT gambling game, but it's also the only gambling game I know of that is just as much fun to play if there are no stakes involved at all. (Poker, for example, is boring if you're not playing for money. Everyone just stays in every hand!)
Anyway, so that's my little backgammon story, and how I came to play. I'm still learning and enjoying the game, almost 40 years after my brother Bill taught me how to play. In MANY ways, it's much, MUCH more "fun" than chess. (My other passion.) It's also more sociable and I know many more girls who play backgammon than the number of girls I know who play chess.
Just for fun I once attended (attended, meaning I just was watching - I didn't enter) a backgammon tournament, and when I did I found out it's nothing at all like a chess tournament. At the backgammon tourney, everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves and having fun. By contract, a chess tournament is about as anti-social of an event as I can think of. (But I still like and enter them!)
Here's a short little article about skill and luck in backgammon: http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Simborg/LuckVsSkill/index.html
Here's my collection of backgammon books: http://www.edcollins.com/backgammon/books.htm
Quote: EdCollins
So yes, backgammon does use dice and does have an element of luck to it because of this, but overall it's a game of skill. In a match up to a certain number of points, the more skillful player might lose a game or two, but will win have a HUGE edge overall, and will more than likely win the match. And the longer the match the greater the likelihood that the stronger player will win it.
Ed,
Is there any chance you like acey-deucey, or is that too much luck involved for you? By far my favorite backgammon game, with the selective doubles. My guess is you're a purist, but there's always hope... ;)
Quote: EdCollinsBy contract, a chess tournament is about as anti-social of an event as I can think of. (But I still like and enter them!)
Will you be playing in the National Open this year?
dwheatley: Yes, the doubling cube and handling it helps to make backgammon so much fun!
Beethoven: Yes, I'll be there. I didn't play in the National Open this past year, (2013) despite having played in it the prior three consecutive years. I love that tourney. I'm definitely playing in it this year, and looking forward to it already.
On another note, if you enjoy two-player abstract strategy board games (my favorite type) I recommend the turn-based site Little Golem. There are a number of great games there, including Hex, Havannah, DVONN, Lines of Action, Go, Amazons, Twixt, Reversi, and Breakthrough. (I even maintain their FAQ.)
The way I learned it, everything is played the same as traditional backgammon, with one exception; if you roll a 1-2, you take them, then any double (x4 value) you want strategically. The caveat is, you MUST take the 1-2 first, and the doubles you select MUST be fully playable (can't just take 3x) and played. The difference in setup is that you roll to bear on, rather than start with the 2-5-3-5 set, bear off normally. So every pip of yours goes through every pip of theirs. It gets wild; a very good game over Bloody Marys on a Sunday morning.
Its RISK with a Plants vs Zombies theme.
Historical flavour, diplomacy, randomness that can be tamed, mix between collaborative and competitive gaming,...
Well, a game for so-called "gamers", not for the family event.
I used to play a lot through fanzines in the 80's. Opportunity to play variants (Machiavelli, South America, Supremacy, there are so many!). Diadoques my favourite one. We played by mail and it gave a flavour to the game: nobody knew who you were spending time communicating with. You could also publish communiqués.
Then there was the no-diplomacy variant: anonymous opponents, so you had to 'guess' strategies or make them public, with all the propaganda and intoxication.
But by the 90's, e-mail changed everything. In the beginning it was felt as a huge improvement (speed, essentially; automated referees, too) but quickly appeared to allow dirty moves. Also, people are behaving without respect on the Internet - face-to-face or post mail is more gentle(wo)manly. I stopped playing altogether, as fanzines died.
--
When people keep grudges about a backstab, that is because they had invested trust. It must be clear beforehand to new players that it is NOT a game of trust, but of distrust. Then all goes well.
If what they like is games of cooperation, well, by all means stay away from Diplomacy!
BTW, if anyone "used to play" Magic, I'll buy your cards if we can work out a deal. I've played forever, and now play with my son. Great game.
Quote: tournamentkingThe last board game I played was with my kids, Battleship. The last game I played as a kid was Battleship. I work part time/gamble part time. How do any adults have any time for all these new fancy games?
You seem to be obsessed that adults play board games. Let me assure you it's a past time for all, and finding time is merely a case of deciding what your priorities in life are.
Quote: kubikulannRepublic of Rome, anyone?
Historical flavour, diplomacy, randomness that can be tamed, mix between collaborative and competitive gaming,...
Love the game, and so glad I got the (slightly flawed) reprint. Rules are a real pain to get down, and early defeats seem to be common. But once established, there's a lot of intrigue in the game.
Quote:Well, a game for so-called "gamers", not for the family event.
Nope, and there's not enough semi co-operative games around.
I had a great evening last week playing Settlers, Flutter and a few card games. I was driving so wasn't drinking (it will be my turn to host it soon), but I think with the right set of players it's a great day/evening as long as it doesn't become too serious. With Settlers you have to agree up-front that everyone has to go for the leader even if it's your wife, sister etc.Quote: thecesspit...past time...finding time...
Quote: charliepatrickI had a great evening last week playing Settlers, Flutter and a few card games. I was driving so wasn't drinking (it will be my turn to host it soon), but I think with the right set of players it's a great day/evening as long as it doesn't become too serious. With Settlers you have to agree up-front that everyone has to go for the leader even if it's your wife, sister etc.
If you get board (sic) of Settlers, may I suggest Kingdom Builder as a similar complexity game, with a different sort of competition. Can't gang up on the leader as much, but has a similar mix of luck/skill.
It should be BORED games.
OK, we got your point. You don't like boardgames. Who cares? (Except to get some picture of the kind of person you are)Quote: BuzzardI believe board games usually are a victim of poor spelling.
It should be BORED games.
Quote: BuzzardI believe board games usually are a victim of poor spelling.
It should be BORED games.
Making the joke twice is not twice as funny.
Getting old is hell. My apologies to one and all !
Quote: BuzzardDamn, sorry. Forgot I did it already SORRY
I see what you did there.
Quote: WizardYes, there is a spinner numbered one to six.
Speaking of Chutes & Ladders one of my many annoyances is there is a space on that game showing a kid walking through a puddle in bare feet. This causes him to go down a chute with the consequential space being sick. Getting your feet cold and wet will not by itself make one sick. As I've said hundreds of times, being cold does not cause you to get a cold.
My family and I just played Chutes & Ladders for the first time in years. I was going to say to the forum members "If someone could write a simulation on the average number of turns it takes to finish this game, that would be great." But I checked first, and someone already did.
Mercifully, however, my older son got the two best ladders and we finished the 4-player game in 82 moves! So it took him only 20 rolls to finish (our spinner is busted).
Interestingly, I also noticed the boy who stomps barefoot in the rain, then gets sick. We landed on that square 4 times!
You forgot to put "alive" in quotes. We are on our 43rd murder after all. :+)Quote: odiousgambit"Clue" is alive and well at Diversity Tomorrow, http://diversitytomorrow.com/
The goal is to get three sets of properties, which isn't that difficult because of property wild cards and "action" cards that let you steal others' properties. It's advertised as being a 15-minutes-or-less game, and it delivers!
One great thing is that the combination of property, money, and action cards make the game dynamics slightly different every time.
It's also easy to create house rules that are fun. One example is that there's an action card to steal someone's set of properties. But it can be countered by a Just Say No! card. We decided you can Just Say No to a Just Day No. One time, all three Just Say No cards were used in one play to attain victory.
Another great aspect is that someone who is losing can come back to win. It seems like the player who goes first is at a disadvantage, because they're more vulnerable to getting their money/properties taken. But we've noticed that the player going first does win about 1/4 of the time in our 4-handed games.
But skill and focus are also required — sometimes we make poor choices in which we could have won, but before the turn comes around again, someone else won.
The recognizable theme and fast gameplay make it highly recommended as a family game for ages 8 and up!
(However, don't confuse it with Monopoly Deal Millionaire —that game is terrible!)
Quote: dwheatleyI am quoting this from the Wizard's interview thread.
I have a lot of respect for the Wizard, but his choice in board games is a little outdated ;) I also used to play these games a lot when I was younger, but there is a new world out there. Risk, Life, Battleship and Monopoly are almost shunned by the modern community. Boggle and Scrabble are good fun, but modern online implementations such as Words with Friends and Word Hero have almost eliminated the need\will to play the board game version. Settlers with Catan is a good 'gateway' game, but it has its own flaws.
People who play poker, otherwise gamble, or like analyzing games of chance will almost certainly enjoy some of the games on this list, the equivalent of the IMDB top 100 movie list, for board games:
http://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame
If you like movies, you owe it to yourself to check out the IMDB list and see what you are missing. If you like board games, you owe it to yourself to check out the BGG list.
Why is Risk shunned?
I have always loved that game (and many of its variants), especially with 6 players. Its a great combination of strategy, diplomacy, and luck.
I'll be honest, I have heard of almost none of the games on that list (though some do sound quite good).
Its funny, because I never heard of Gen Con before today (so I guess I must be out of the loop), but I just got my haircut and the barber mentioned how awesome it was when talking about board games.
Quote: GandlerWhy is Risk shunned?
I have always loved that game (and many of its variants), especially with 6 players. Its a great combination of strategy, diplomacy, and luck.
I'll be honest, I have heard of almost none of the games on that list (though some do sound quite good).
Its funny, because I never heard of Gen Con before today (so I guess I must be out of the loop), but I just got my haircut and the barber mentioned how awesome it was when talking about board games.
I'm guessing Risk is shunned because of how long a single game can sometimes take. I played the phone app version a bit, which is faster, because there's no physical act of rolling the dice. I ended up quitting because the game literally said I had a, "100%" probability to win a blitz (it was 18 on 1 or something crazy) and I lost. Lost that game because of that, by the way.
I don't think I could play that game in person because there's a reasonable possibility that I would kill someone. JK. Bad words would definitely come out of my mouth, though.
I usually play games until the luck/variance factor rears its ugly head. I was starting to get into Backgammon, but then I lost one because the other player rolled doubles (4's, 5's or 6's) four times in five turns in the end game. He would have lost the game otherwise. I understand that variance is such that those things can happen, but it doesn't change the fact that it's total bull****.
I haven't heard of most of those games, but generally speaking, I don't like games...so it's no surprise I haven't.
I think the last board game I played was Life with my daughter over 20 years ago.
Quote: DRich
I think the last board game I played was Life with my daughter over 20 years ago.
I can't stand the newer version of Life that someone gave us about 10 years ago — too many things going on. I force my family to play the 1970s version that I still have.
Quote: GandlerWhy is Risk shunned?
I have always loved that game (and many of its variants), especially with 6 players. Its a great combination of strategy, diplomacy, and luck.
Risk would be a better game played online with random players. In real life, some people just want to gang up and take certain other people down. If you are suicidal, you can prevent any other player form winning in Risk. The battles take too long. These could be automated and resolved very quickly in an online version. Finally, I hate long games where someone can drop a die and wipe out the position.
I like games where the basic rules can be explained in 30 seconds, there is no element of luck, yet the strategy and tactical positions are very rich. Blokus is my favorite example. I play humans online at http://pentolla.com/play/.
Qwirkle is a simpler and involves luck, but has some of the same features. You can play a bot at https://www.ultraboardgames.com/qwirkle/game.php
Azul involves luck and takes a bit longer to explain the rules, but I find it interesting.
Anyone have recommendations for games I can try online (against bots or humans)?
Quote: Mental<snip>Anyone have recommendations for games I can try online (against bots or humans)?
Mental,
The website https://cardgames.io has many games available: mostly card games, but a few others as well. All of the games can be played versus bots. Several can also be played online against humans as well.
I have been playing a lot of Thirteen. My record is a winning streak of 54 games against the bots.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Edit: oops... the streak was 53 games, not 54.
Quote: DogHandThe website https://cardgames.io has many games available: mostly card games, but a few others as well. All of the games can be played versus bots. Several can also be played online against humans as well.
Thanks. The first game playing bot I ever wrote was for Reversi/Othello in the 1970s. The processor had 8 kilobytes of user-accessible memory, and ran BASIC at a glacial pace. I was never able to make a bot that would beat a moderate-strength human. I assume it would be easy to do now.
I just tried the Reversi bot on https://cardgames.io and it is terrible!
I loved playing board games growing up
Broadside, Stratego, Operation, Life, Chess, Chutes and ladders, Monopoly, Sorry ect
But
Now with computers
I'm playing the greatest strategy game ever
Civilization 5.
Just started a new game last night.
So addicting
Quote: MentalRisk would be a better game played online with random players. In real life, some people just want to gang up and take certain other people down. If you are suicidal, you can prevent any other player form winning in Risk. The battles take too long. These could be automated and resolved very quickly in an online version. Finally, I hate long games where someone can drop a die and wipe out the position.
I like games where the basic rules can be explained in 30 seconds, there is no element of luck, yet the strategy and tactical positions are very rich. Blokus is my favorite example. I play humans online at http://pentolla.com/play/.
Qwirkle is a simpler and involves luck, but has some of the same features. You can play a bot at https://www.ultraboardgames.com/qwirkle/game.php
Azul involves luck and takes a bit longer to explain the rules, but I find it interesting.
Anyone have recommendations for games I can try online (against bots or humans)?
"Risk Global Domination" is free on Steam and Phones (and I believe on Xbox as well).
I have played Risk online (there are several free versions, and I liked Risk 2 back in the day). But, honestly I prefer it with real people, especially when you have a full 6 player game. It allows for a lot of diplomacy and backroom plotting (usually people end up forming factions and it adds a lot of variables to the game). My friends and I used to play Risk 2 LAN sometimes, which is essentially playing a board game as you are all in the same room, but it allows some more secrecy (nobody else can see your moves or individual chat).
You are correct that all of the pieces and rolling is time consuming, and playing digital versions does streamline that aspect (but at the same time that can be part of the fun).
Quote: Mission146I'm guessing Risk is shunned because of how long a single game can sometimes take. I played the phone app version a bit, which is faster, because there's no physical act of rolling the dice. I ended up quitting because the game literally said I had a, "100%" probability to win a blitz (it was 18 on 1 or something crazy) and I lost. Lost that game because of that, by the way.
I don't think I could play that game in person because there's a reasonable possibility that I would kill someone. JK. Bad words would definitely come out of my mouth, though.
I usually play games until the luck/variance factor rears its ugly head. I was starting to get into Backgammon, but then I lost one because the other player rolled doubles (4's, 5's or 6's) four times in five turns in the end game. He would have lost the game otherwise. I understand that variance is such that those things can happen, but it doesn't change the fact that it's total bull****.
I haven't heard of most of those games, but generally speaking, I don't like games...so it's no surprise I haven't.
I guess time is a factor and risk can get quite long. And, it can cause drama I suppose. But, its like any other game (though when two people conspire to betray others and form fake alliance, etc... I can see how some people get upset). But, that is half of the fun.
As for dice variance, that is something that happens, even 18-1, means that you will lose some of the time. In regular version, the defenders get two dice, and the attacker gets three (and the two highest are what counts), and the defender wins ties (which gives a small edge to the attacker assuming they have enough troops to be eligible for the full three dice, and you are playing the standard version with no weird +1 to roll modifiers etc....) which gives the attacker a slight advantage, but they will still lose sometimes lives or online (I have seen two troops hold against thirty, the probability is probably crazy, but enough sessions and it happens).
Quote: terapinedI grew up on board games
I loved playing board games growing up
Broadside, Stratego, Operation, Life, Chess, Chutes and ladders, Monopoly, Sorry ect
But
Now with computers
I'm playing the greatest strategy game ever
Civilization 5.
Just started a new game last night.
So addicting
Civ 5 is the best. Its basically a board game on a PC (really all CIVs kind of are with their tile based and turn based systems). Probably one of my favorite games of all time (I still prefer it over Civ 6).
(Also a fan of Stratego, great two player strategy game).
Quote: Gandler...Also a fan of Stratego, great two player strategy game.
Ah, Stratego.
For many, many years, I operated the #1 Stratego site on the internet, until Jumbo asked me to take it down. Fortunately, you can still see some of it, courtesy of the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191022014209/http://web.archive.org/web/20120806041322/http:/www.edcollins.com/stratego/
Quote: EdCollinsAh, Stratego.
For many, many years, I operated the #1 Stratego site on the internet, until Jumbo asked me to take it down.
Cool!
One way they messed up Stratego was when they labeled the scouts as #1 instead of #9. I think they changed it back.
Quote: EdCollinsAh, Stratego.
For many, many years, I operated the #1 Stratego site on the internet, until Jumbo asked me to take it down. Fortunately, you can still see some of it, courtesy of the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191022014209/http://web.archive.org/web/20120806041322/http:/www.edcollins.com/stratego/
That looks like a great site (love the homepage setup). Sadly most of the links to your pages seem dead (I am not familiar with the way back machine so I can just be doing something wrong).
I was quite interested in your rules variation page. I grew up with my parents board (from the early 1970s I think), I have played "newer" (maybe not "new" any more) versions in other settings and the rules seemed a bit different (well not hugely different, but enough to impact play I think, its been a couple years since I played at all to be honest, but I recall being alarmed by some changes).
I have always been a fan of capture the flag (both in video games and in real life), so I was a huge fan when I realized that this was basically a board game version of capture the flag as a kid.
Quote: Gandler
As for dice variance, that is something that happens, even 18-1, means that you will lose some of the time. In regular version, the defenders get two dice, and the attacker gets three (and the two highest are what counts), and the defender wins ties (which gives a small edge to the attacker assuming they have enough troops to be eligible for the full three dice, and you are playing the standard version with no weird +1 to roll modifiers etc....) which gives the attacker a slight advantage, but they will still lose sometimes lives or online (I have seen two troops hold against thirty, the probability is probably crazy, but enough sessions and it happens).
I don't care because the game literally said, "100%," so that's supposed to be 100%. The game should have said 99.9%+ if that's what it meant. This was one where I was trying to press in after strategically holding both South America and Australia (and biding my time) to put a pincer attack on North America while my alliance mate controlled Africa and was going to move on Europe. My alliance mate, however, didn't have nearly the material I did (and had one less card) and also had an indefensible position (except for Africa) when it would have come down to just the two of us.
They were also prepared (to their folly) to be loyal until it was down to us, from what I could tell, but obviously turned on me and pushed East then South into Australia after I lost the 18 v. 1 attack. They were in no position to contest South America, (we had our South America/Africa borders stacked because we didn't trust each other THAT much) but taking that over was a trivial affair after the player controlling North America went on the offensive against South America.
Also...even the game says that the RNG essentially tries to prevent ridiculously improbable things from happening. I don't remember the exact verbiage, but it basically says it's random but balanced towards favoring what, "Should," happen.
My guess is the other player has paid for additional features, or whatever, and I did not...so, haha, you get to lose 18 on 1 fights.
Anyway, screw games that are more than zero variance/"luck" dependent, unless I have a mathematical monetary advantage on them. Anything else is stupid and pointless if playing a really strong game can be completely nullified by, "Bad luck."
He begins his turn by placing more than enough armies to wipe me out while also preparing to win all of Europe.
So it starts out 24vs 4 with me rolling two dies. My guys perform well, and by the time he busts in, he is down to about 14, and I have three armies left. One in each country, so he is rolling three dies to my one. I manage to pick off one or two, and it comes down to him having nine armies to one as I make my last stand.
My Blue Guys entered legend that day, as I rolled six 5 or 6 high numbers and knocked most half his force. In the end, I survived with one army and one country, and as I didn't have the cards to cash in, the next player took me out, double cashed, and won the game.
The guy who failed to wipe me out, who I will call Chris Dingleberry, accused me of tanking and swore he would never play any game with me again.
Here is the kicker some twenty years later, my mom and his mom were playing Mah Jong, and Mrs. D accused another player of cheating. When my Mom defended her, Mrs. D brought up this long ago Risk game as evidence that my family had a thing against her and hers.
My Mom had no idea what she was talking about and called me at 1130 at night to ask about it.
Quote: billryanAt a key point in a game of Risk during Winter break around 1974, I was attacked by some two dozen armies who were trying to wipe me out. I held Australia with four armies on the defensive perimeter and one on each of the other three. The guy was going big, as I had four Risk cards, and he had three, so if he wiped me out, he could cash in for forty armies, and possibly the second cash of forty-five.
He begins his turn by placing more than enough armies to wipe me out while also preparing to win all of Europe.
So it starts out 24vs 4 with me rolling two dies. My guys perform well, and by the time he busts in, he is down to about 14, and I have three armies left. One in each country, so he is rolling three dies to my one. I manage to pick off one or two, and it comes down to him having nine armies to one as I make my last stand.
My Blue Guys entered legend that day, as I rolled six 5 or 6 high numbers and knocked most half his force. In the end, I survived with one army and one country, and as I didn't have the cards to cash in, the next player took me out, double cashed, and won the game.
The guy who failed to wipe me out, who I will call Chris Dingleberry, accused me of tanking and swore he would never play any game with me again.
Here is the kicker some twenty years later, my mom and his mom were playing Mah Jong, and Mrs. D accused another player of cheating. When my Mom defended her, Mrs. D brought up this long ago Risk game as evidence that my family had a thing against her and hers.
My Mom had no idea what she was talking about and called me at 1130 at night to ask about it.
Great story!
I wouldn't have accused you of anything, but I'd have definitely been pretty mad. It should have been an extremely easy push and conquering of your army. But, that's why I hate any game involving luck (unless there's a way to win money) because stuff like that can happen.
I wouldn't even have played the phone app version of the game if not for their assurances that the RNG is designed to not be truly random, but instead to prevent completely ridiculous things from happening.
Quote: Mission146I don't care because the game literally said, "100%," so that's supposed to be 100%. The game should have said 99.9%+ if that's what it meant. This was one where I was trying to press in after strategically holding both South America and Australia (and biding my time) to put a pincer attack on North America while my alliance mate controlled Africa and was going to move on Europe. My alliance mate, however, didn't have nearly the material I did (and had one less card) and also had an indefensible position (except for Africa) when it would have come down to just the two of us.
They were also prepared (to their folly) to be loyal until it was down to us, from what I could tell, but obviously turned on me and pushed East then South into Australia after I lost the 18 v. 1 attack. They were in no position to contest South America, (we had our South America/Africa borders stacked because we didn't trust each other THAT much) but taking that over was a trivial affair after the player controlling North America went on the offensive against South America.
Also...even the game says that the RNG essentially tries to prevent ridiculously improbable things from happening. I don't remember the exact verbiage, but it basically says it's random but balanced towards favoring what, "Should," happen.
My guess is the other player has paid for additional features, or whatever, and I did not...so, haha, you get to lose 18 on 1 fights.
Anyway, screw games that are more than zero variance/"luck" dependent, unless I have a mathematical monetary advantage on them. Anything else is stupid and pointless if playing a really strong game can be completely nullified by, "Bad luck."
I am honestly not familiar with what version you are playing where it says "100%" of winning an attack. Maybe it was like 99.5% and it rounds up? I don't know enough about the online version to say.
18-1 you can lose, (extremely rare) but enough plays you will see this (and even more extreme examples occasionally, so it was not necessarily terrible).
If its a free version with pay to win features, I guess that is possible (but it would be pretty sleazy if you can pay for better probabilities in rolls, I just can't see that....)
But, that sounds like a good Risk game, stacked borders with allies, turning on each other in the final hours, etc..... Its never fun to get destroyed when you have an overwhelming advantage, but it happens.
Why so down on some aspects of luck (especially on a gambling forum)? Almost everything (really everything if you are getting super metaphysical) in life has some aspect of luck. Risk represents this with dice (with certain players having the advantage in circumstances, but of course can still lose). Any game that involves drawing cards (even rarely for events, etc...), rolling dice (or spinning a chance wheel etc...), or even drawing/rolling for position has aspects of luck. Even games that are regarded as no luck, often have advantage to players that act first (or last in some cases), so in all cases there is some degree of luck even if it is just drawing/rolling for your seat.... I don't think there is such a thing as a board game with zero luck, and I am not sure if it is possible for there to be. Dice are often used to simulate luck in board and role playing games, and even if your circumstance is your action will be successful if your roll a 2-6 on a six sided die, you can still roll a 1 and fail.
Quote: billryanAt a key point in a game of Risk during Winter break around 1974, I was attacked by some two dozen armies who were trying to wipe me out. I held Australia with four armies on the defensive perimeter and one on each of the other three. The guy was going big, as I had four Risk cards, and he had three, so if he wiped me out, he could cash in for forty armies, and possibly the second cash of forty-five.
He begins his turn by placing more than enough armies to wipe me out while also preparing to win all of Europe.
So it starts out 24vs 4 with me rolling two dies. My guys perform well, and by the time he busts in, he is down to about 14, and I have three armies left. One in each country, so he is rolling three dies to my one. I manage to pick off one or two, and it comes down to him having nine armies to one as I make my last stand.
My Blue Guys entered legend that day, as I rolled six 5 or 6 high numbers and knocked most half his force. In the end, I survived with one army and one country, and as I didn't have the cards to cash in, the next player took me out, double cashed, and won the game.
The guy who failed to wipe me out, who I will call Chris Dingleberry, accused me of tanking and swore he would never play any game with me again.
Here is the kicker some twenty years later, my mom and his mom were playing Mah Jong, and Mrs. D accused another player of cheating. When my Mom defended her, Mrs. D brought up this long ago Risk game as evidence that my family had a thing against her and hers.
My Mom had no idea what she was talking about and called me at 1130 at night to ask about it.
That is an awesome story, it sounds like you have been playing risk for a long time.
What is "tanking" when it comes to Risk? Is that some dice cheat? I have never heard that term in a Risk context?
Quote: billryanAt a key point in a game of Risk during Winter break around 1974, I was attacked by some two dozen armies who were trying to wipe me out. I held Australia with four armies on the defensive perimeter and one on each of the other three. The guy was going big, as I had four Risk cards, and he had three, so if he wiped me out, he could cash in for forty armies, and possibly the second cash of forty-five.
I did some Monte Carlo simulations for Risk attacks. I varied the number of attackers (A) and defenders (D). Both sides use the maximum number of permitted dice for each roll. They roll until there are no armies left on the D side or one on the A side.
I did the minimal sanity test. For 2 A on 1 D, the true win probability is 57.87037%. The average number of rolls (NR) until the battle is resolved is exactly 1. Maybe someone can work out some of the other numbers exactly as a check on my work.
I give a few examples here for 2-5 attackers (A) and 1 defender (D). These results simulated 100M attacks for each A/D combination. The righthand column is the percentage of attacker wins.
2 A 1 D NR: 1.00 57.87164%
3 A 1 D NR: 1.34 85.66709%
4 A 1 D NR: 1.46 95.12347%
5 A 1 D NR: 1.50 98.33814%
In the spoiler, I give many more results of the MC simulations up to 30 attackers and 5 defenders. I skip the result if the defender won none of the 100M simulated attacks. You might want to guess what A/D ratios get you to 90%, 99%, 99.9%, etc. win probability for the attacker before you look at the spoiler. You can see that the case of 2A vs. 4D is already suicidal. If we assume the attack in the quoted event was 24A against 4D, what is your guess for the chance of the attacker failing to even enter Australia? The three remaining ?A vs. 1D battles are high probability wins? However, one attacker must be left behind after every territory is conquered.
2 A 1 D NR: 1.00 57.87164%
3 A 1 D NR: 1.34 85.66709%
4 A 1 D NR: 1.46 95.12347%
5 A 1 D NR: 1.50 98.33814%
6 A 1 D NR: 1.51 99.43451%
7 A 1 D NR: 1.51 99.80772%
8 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.93444%
9 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.97775%
10 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99229%
11 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99742%
12 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99916%
13 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99971%
14 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99990%
15 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99998%
16 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99999%
17 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99999%
18 A 1 D NR: 1.52 100.00000%
19 A 1 D NR: 1.52 100.00000%
2 A 2 D NR: 1.00 22.76441%
3 A 2 D NR: 1.34 56.60051%
4 A 2 D NR: 1.74 72.58983%
5 A 2 D NR: 1.88 85.66534%
6 A 2 D NR: 2.01 91.42443%
7 A 2 D NR: 2.06 95.61839%
8 A 2 D NR: 2.10 97.43021%
9 A 2 D NR: 2.11 98.69519%
10 A 2 D NR: 2.12 99.23950%
11 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.61711%
12 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.77630%
13 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.88694%
14 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.93483%
15 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.96687%
16 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.98087%
17 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99038%
18 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99439%
19 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99715%
20 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99837%
21 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99916%
22 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99949%
23 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99977%
24 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99987%
25 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99994%
26 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99995%
27 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99998%
28 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99999%
29 A 2 D NR: 2.13 100.00000%
30 A 2 D NR: 2.13 100.00000%
2 A 3 D NR: 1.23 13.17429%
3 A 3 D NR: 1.83 39.48065%
4 A 3 D NR: 2.35 58.20858%
5 A 3 D NR: 2.68 72.47405%
6 A 3 D NR: 2.88 82.75735%
7 A 3 D NR: 3.02 88.99438%
8 A 3 D NR: 3.10 93.45864%
9 A 3 D NR: 3.15 95.91126%
10 A 3 D NR: 3.18 97.64703%
11 A 3 D NR: 3.20 98.54838%
12 A 3 D NR: 3.21 99.18150%
13 A 3 D NR: 3.21 99.49944%
14 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.72343%
15 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.83124%
16 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.90788%
17 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.94428%
18 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.97007%
19 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.98190%
20 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99011%
21 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99412%
22 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99687%
23 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99804%
24 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99897%
25 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99942%
26 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99968%
27 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99979%
28 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99990%
29 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99993%
30 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99998%
2 A 4 D NR: 1.23 5.18346%
3 A 4 D NR: 1.91 25.46531%
4 A 4 D NR: 2.62 41.75679%
5 A 4 D NR: 3.05 58.82687%
6 A 4 D NR: 3.41 70.51864%
7 A 4 D NR: 3.62 80.53411%
8 A 4 D NR: 3.79 86.72991%
9 A 4 D NR: 3.88 91.62262%
10 A 4 D NR: 3.96 94.45969%
11 A 4 D NR: 3.99 96.61409%
12 A 4 D NR: 4.02 97.80948%
13 A 4 D NR: 4.04 98.69250%
14 A 4 D NR: 4.05 99.16643%
15 A 4 D NR: 4.05 99.51289%
16 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.69213%
17 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.82187%
18 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.88899%
19 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.93713%
20 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.96076%
21 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.97805%
22 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.98623%
23 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99239%
24 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99540%
25 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99747%
26 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99843%
27 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99915%
28 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99944%
29 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99966%
30 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99982%
2 A 5 D NR: 1.28 2.99708%
3 A 5 D NR: 2.09 16.41157%
4 A 5 D NR: 2.89 31.06663%
5 A 5 D NR: 3.49 45.74699%
6 A 5 D NR: 3.94 59.59313%
7 A 5 D NR: 4.29 70.14248%
8 A 5 D NR: 4.52 79.21174%
9 A 5 D NR: 4.70 85.29208%
10 A 5 D NR: 4.81 90.23047%
11 A 5 D NR: 4.89 93.29394%
12 A 5 D NR: 4.94 95.69925%
13 A 5 D NR: 4.98 97.11549%
14 A 5 D NR: 5.00 98.20149%
15 A 5 D NR: 5.01 98.81334%
16 A 5 D NR: 5.02 99.27519%
17 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.52974%
18 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.71665%
19 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.81766%
20 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.89271%
21 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.93138%
22 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.95951%
23 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.97497%
24 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.98539%
25 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99073%
26 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99470%
27 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.99669%
28 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99814%
29 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99884%
30 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99929%
If you think I screwed up the simulations and presented bogus results, let me know. I am sure someone did a similar MC sim before.
Quote: Gandler
Why so down on some aspects of luck (especially on a gambling forum)? Almost everything (really everything if you are getting super metaphysical) in life has some aspect of luck. Risk represents this with dice (with certain players having the advantage in circumstances, but of course can still lose). Any game that involves drawing cards (even rarely for events, etc...), rolling dice (or spinning a chance wheel etc...), or even drawing/rolling for position has aspects of luck. Even games that are regarded as no luck, often have advantage to players that act first (or last in some cases), so in all cases there is some degree of luck even if it is just drawing/rolling for your seat.... I don't think there is such a thing as a board game with zero luck, and I am not sure if it is possible for there to be. Dice are often used to simulate luck in board and role playing games, and even if your circumstance is your action will be successful if your roll a 2-6 on a six sided die, you can still roll a 1 and fail.
(Quote clipped, relevance)
I don't mind luck as a means to a financial end, but ask yourself this:
Suppose you had a game where you had a 20% advantage and were expected to make $2,000 worth of spins. If that game had no variance, then you make the spins and profit $400...guaranteed. So, would I even want an advantage play that had some variance component if, "No variance," was an option and both had equal expected monetary value?
Besides that, there's no real, 'Luck,' just variance. I'm just not a fan of variance in games that have no real goal aside from winning the game itself. The only thing it accomplishes is lessens the degree/frequency to which skill is a factor. If my only goal is winning, and I intend to become good at the game, then I should want skill to be as much of a factor as possible...if not the only factor.
The good news for me is I'm too old to care to play games like that anymore anyway. That being the case, the existence/degree of variance in one game v. another isn't really relevant to me.
Quote: MentalI did some Monte Carlo simulations for Risk attacks. I varied the number of attackers (A) and defenders (D). Both sides use the maximum number of permitted dice for each roll. They roll until there are no armies left on the D side or one on the A side.
I did the minimal sanity test. For 2 A on 1 D, the true win probability is 57.87037%. The average number of rolls (NR) until the battle is resolved is exactly 1. Maybe someone can work out some of the other numbers exactly as a check on my work.
I give a few examples here for 2-5 attackers (A) and 1 defender (D). These results simulated 100M attacks for each A/D combination. The righthand column is the percentage of attacker wins.
2 A 1 D NR: 1.00 57.87164%
3 A 1 D NR: 1.34 85.66709%
4 A 1 D NR: 1.46 95.12347%
5 A 1 D NR: 1.50 98.33814%
In the spoiler, I give many more results of the MC simulations up to 30 attackers and 5 defenders. I skip the result if the defender won none of the 100M simulated attacks. You might want to guess what A/D ratios get you to 90%, 99%, 99.9%, etc. win probability for the attacker before you look at the spoiler. You can see that the case of 2A vs. 4D is already suicidal. If we assume the attack in the quoted event was 24A against 4D, what is your guess for the chance of the attacker failing to even enter Australia? The three remaining ?A vs. 1D battles are high probability wins? However, one attacker must be left behind after every territory is conquered.
2 A 1 D NR: 1.00 57.87164%
3 A 1 D NR: 1.34 85.66709%
4 A 1 D NR: 1.46 95.12347%
5 A 1 D NR: 1.50 98.33814%
6 A 1 D NR: 1.51 99.43451%
7 A 1 D NR: 1.51 99.80772%
8 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.93444%
9 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.97775%
10 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99229%
11 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99742%
12 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99916%
13 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99971%
14 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99990%
15 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99998%
16 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99999%
17 A 1 D NR: 1.52 99.99999%
18 A 1 D NR: 1.52 100.00000%
19 A 1 D NR: 1.52 100.00000%
2 A 2 D NR: 1.00 22.76441%
3 A 2 D NR: 1.34 56.60051%
4 A 2 D NR: 1.74 72.58983%
5 A 2 D NR: 1.88 85.66534%
6 A 2 D NR: 2.01 91.42443%
7 A 2 D NR: 2.06 95.61839%
8 A 2 D NR: 2.10 97.43021%
9 A 2 D NR: 2.11 98.69519%
10 A 2 D NR: 2.12 99.23950%
11 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.61711%
12 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.77630%
13 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.88694%
14 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.93483%
15 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.96687%
16 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.98087%
17 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99038%
18 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99439%
19 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99715%
20 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99837%
21 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99916%
22 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99949%
23 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99977%
24 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99987%
25 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99994%
26 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99995%
27 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99998%
28 A 2 D NR: 2.13 99.99999%
29 A 2 D NR: 2.13 100.00000%
30 A 2 D NR: 2.13 100.00000%
2 A 3 D NR: 1.23 13.17429%
3 A 3 D NR: 1.83 39.48065%
4 A 3 D NR: 2.35 58.20858%
5 A 3 D NR: 2.68 72.47405%
6 A 3 D NR: 2.88 82.75735%
7 A 3 D NR: 3.02 88.99438%
8 A 3 D NR: 3.10 93.45864%
9 A 3 D NR: 3.15 95.91126%
10 A 3 D NR: 3.18 97.64703%
11 A 3 D NR: 3.20 98.54838%
12 A 3 D NR: 3.21 99.18150%
13 A 3 D NR: 3.21 99.49944%
14 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.72343%
15 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.83124%
16 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.90788%
17 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.94428%
18 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.97007%
19 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.98190%
20 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99011%
21 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99412%
22 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99687%
23 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99804%
24 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99897%
25 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99942%
26 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99968%
27 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99979%
28 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99990%
29 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99993%
30 A 3 D NR: 3.22 99.99998%
2 A 4 D NR: 1.23 5.18346%
3 A 4 D NR: 1.91 25.46531%
4 A 4 D NR: 2.62 41.75679%
5 A 4 D NR: 3.05 58.82687%
6 A 4 D NR: 3.41 70.51864%
7 A 4 D NR: 3.62 80.53411%
8 A 4 D NR: 3.79 86.72991%
9 A 4 D NR: 3.88 91.62262%
10 A 4 D NR: 3.96 94.45969%
11 A 4 D NR: 3.99 96.61409%
12 A 4 D NR: 4.02 97.80948%
13 A 4 D NR: 4.04 98.69250%
14 A 4 D NR: 4.05 99.16643%
15 A 4 D NR: 4.05 99.51289%
16 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.69213%
17 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.82187%
18 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.88899%
19 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.93713%
20 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.96076%
21 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.97805%
22 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.98623%
23 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99239%
24 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99540%
25 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99747%
26 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99843%
27 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99915%
28 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99944%
29 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99966%
30 A 4 D NR: 4.06 99.99982%
2 A 5 D NR: 1.28 2.99708%
3 A 5 D NR: 2.09 16.41157%
4 A 5 D NR: 2.89 31.06663%
5 A 5 D NR: 3.49 45.74699%
6 A 5 D NR: 3.94 59.59313%
7 A 5 D NR: 4.29 70.14248%
8 A 5 D NR: 4.52 79.21174%
9 A 5 D NR: 4.70 85.29208%
10 A 5 D NR: 4.81 90.23047%
11 A 5 D NR: 4.89 93.29394%
12 A 5 D NR: 4.94 95.69925%
13 A 5 D NR: 4.98 97.11549%
14 A 5 D NR: 5.00 98.20149%
15 A 5 D NR: 5.01 98.81334%
16 A 5 D NR: 5.02 99.27519%
17 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.52974%
18 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.71665%
19 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.81766%
20 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.89271%
21 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.93138%
22 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.95951%
23 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.97497%
24 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.98539%
25 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99073%
26 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99470%
27 A 5 D NR: 5.03 99.99669%
28 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99814%
29 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99884%
30 A 5 D NR: 5.04 99.99929%
If you think I screwed up the simulations and presented bogus results, let me know. I am sure someone did a similar MC sim before.
Awesome work!!!
Short Answer: There's essentially no way I should have lost, but I did. Screw that game.
