Minimum damage.

This is a follow up proposal of Laochras thread regarding roll variance....
Which I understood, but disagreed with because he suggested removing variance altogether, and Amok basically said "fuck that shit". Meaning he doesnt want to mess around with this aspect of game play.. BUT... I have an idea that might meet halfway that still plays into the whole risk online 2.0 concept, while enabling players to avoid the more disgusting rolls that take place.

So my understanding of rolls is (only an example) that if a tank has 8 attack and goes to kill an infantry with 7 defense both will roll a number between 1-8 and 1-7 respectively, If this is wrong please correct me.
On that basis the infantry will roll an average of 4 and the tank will roll an average of 4-5 meaning the infantry will lose on average 4.5 HP and the tank will lose 4 HP(because we're starting from 1 not 0), the tank and infantry will die on average every 2 rolls with an HP of 8 but on this basis the tank should deal an extra 1 point of damage to the next infantry unit.. which means you kill 1 extra inf after 14 rolls.
What I propose, which is highly unlikely to be considered viable ( I know) but I'm going to put it out there for review anyway is this:

What if you could give a unit a minimum damage value?
So instead of tanks providing 0- 8 attack damage they all roll between 4 and 8 attack, giving tanks an average roll of 6 attack, and give infantry a defensive range from 3-7, giving an average roll of 5 for example instead, but also narrowing the variance significantly enough that really bad rolls will be removed from the game, because your tanks wont ever be dealing 1 attack 3 times in a row and all dying vs 2 militia meaning you cant take belgium and your opponent is free to snatch it next turn with his superior unit count in the area.... Instead you'll be guaranteed to take Belgium with its 2 militia, but you wont be guaranteed to kill 8 infatry in paris with 8 tanks every turn....although it would be a lot more likely to happen.

This could also be a feature in map making or even be a new paradigm to squeeze new strategies out of. But in fear of over complicating the game it might just be easier to only do this for the default map. The only problem then would be the inconsistency between default map rolls and custom map rolls, but I still think this is a reasonable alternative to having set attack numbers and having crazy roll variance.

Well done for reading this essay... here's a cookie

As far as I'm aware laochra didn't suggest removing variance, but reducing it...

I don't know nor care much about rolls, but this is a good suggestion, and Lao's was too

Written by Xenosapien, 20.01.2016 at 09:43

As far as I'm aware laochra didn't suggest removing variance, but reducing it...

true that he suggested multiple rolls.. my bad.

Support, i hate when someone stacks 200 inf in his cap and when i attack it and conquer the city gives 0 reinfs and 0 population.

Written by Weisser Wolf, 20.01.2016 at 13:37

Support, i hate when someone stacks 200 inf in his cap and when i attack it and conquer the city gives 0 reinfs and 0 population.

You have absolutely no idea what they're talking about here... right? XD

Written by RaulPB, 20.01.2016 at 17:59

Written by Weisser Wolf, 20.01.2016 at 13:37

Support, i hate when someone stacks 200 inf in his cap and when i attack it and conquer the city gives 0 reinfs and 0 population.

You have absolutely no idea what they're talking about here... right? XD

Yes, sorry lol i read again it, so it isn't a bad idea reducing the casualities. Let me explain, in IRL if u attack with helicopters, or bombers, u'll have more casualities tahn an attack with only infantry.

Written by Weisser Wolf, 20.01.2016 at 18:03

Written by RaulPB, 20.01.2016 at 17:59

Written by Weisser Wolf, 20.01.2016 at 13:37

Support, i hate when someone stacks 200 inf in his cap and when i attack it and conquer the city gives 0 reinfs and 0 population.

You have absolutely no idea what they're talking about here... right? XD

Yes, sorry lol i read again it, so it isn't a bad idea reducing the casualities. Let me explain, in IRL if u attack with helicopters, or bombers, u'll have more casualities tahn an attack with only infantry.

This doesnt have anything to do with the suggestion, thats collateral damage I'm talking about a minimum damage dealt per roll, meaning attack damage would be consistently higher for tanks or w/e. You're talking about collateral damage which reduces the population of a city, meaning it produces less reinforcements and less income... thats not what this is about.

Written by Phoenix, 20.01.2016 at 11:47

Written by Xenosapien, 20.01.2016 at 09:43

As far as I'm aware laochra didn't suggest removing variance, but reducing it...

true that he suggested multiple rolls.. my bad.

Wasn't lao's suggestion. As I said the game used to work like that but at some point of the game the admins changed it. According to Amok the way in which the battle worked were changed with the introduction of the HP, however the way in which rolls were made was never documented as changed there.

http://atwar-game.com/news/news.php?news_id=12
http://atwar-game.com/news/news.php?news_id=27

I agree to either this idea or Ends's variation (avg 3 rolls) tho.

Written by Phoenix, 20.01.2016 at 19:11

Written by Weisser Wolf, 20.01.2016 at 18:03

Written by RaulPB, 20.01.2016 at 17:59

Written by Weisser Wolf, 20.01.2016 at 13:37

Support, i hate when someone stacks 200 inf in his cap and when i attack it and conquer the city gives 0 reinfs and 0 population.

You have absolutely no idea what they're talking about here... right? XD

Yes, sorry lol i read again it, so it isn't a bad idea reducing the casualities. Let me explain, in IRL if u attack with helicopters, or bombers, u'll have more casualities tahn an attack with only infantry.

This doesnt have anything to do with the suggestion, thats collateral damage I'm talking about a minimum damage dealt per roll, meaning attack damage would be consistently higher for tanks or w/e. You're talking about collateral damage which reduces the population of a city, meaning it produces less reinforcements and less income... thats not what this is about.

It's called trolling

Dang it man

This ia exactly what I suggested in Lao thread...
every game with rolls is giving you a range of damage per hit, but almost none is starting from 1, you never see a sword dealing 1-50 damages per hit but rather 20-30...
the problem with current system is that the more powerfull a unit is, the more variance it has, hence the more unreliable it is...