The pieces for war of the ring are pretty cool looking actually, axis and allies is a lot of luck and their are few effective ways to win with USA, U.K., and Russia.
Many different variations to it though, I have axis and allies battle of the bulge also and it's a bit more strategic with reinforcements and supply lines.
I have s question for any math geeks out there. I've been debating between different ways to handle strongholds in my lotr risk variant. So in risk combat works like this: attacker rolls 3 dice. Defender rolls 2 dice. Compare highest rolls and 2nd highest rolls. Defender wins ties. Now if the defender is defending a stronghold there are a few ways to apply the combat bonus. The rules as written in LoTR risk say the defender adds +1 to the highest defense roll. Castle risk rules say a stronghold (capital, castle whatever) can only be attacked with 2 dice. And my variant says the defender can add +1 to the defense die of choice. Which of the three gives the largest advantage to the defender?
If we are assuming that the 3 rolls are: 1. Rolling 3 attacking into 2 defending 2. Rolling 3 attacking into 2 defending (+1 highest) 3. Rolling 2 attacking into 2 defending (+1 highest) The best case for defender is option 3, then 2, then 1. If you remove the +1 clause from option 3, it remains the same ranking but the odds are less significant.
that's about what i'm thinking, the 2 attack dice is best but not a huge deal compared to +1 of choice, and +1 of choice is strictly better than +1highest
Best balance would probably be 2 into 2 no + anything. 3 into 2 + 1 choice, for better, not broken defense. If you want borked odds, 2 into 2 +1 choice.
Let me explain better 1. 3 attacking into 2 defending (+1 to highest defense roll) 2. 3 attacking into 2 defending (+1 to defending roll of choice) 3. 2 attacking into 2 defending I'm looking for which one gives best results to defender. I suppose 2 is clearly better than 1. But not sure about 3. So st3ck says 2 is better than 3. Is that a gut feeling or do you have any maths to back that up?
I kind of scribbled out the odds of each roll and did a rough proportion of the pool of winnable combinations. To not type out a bunch of stuff, basically 2 vs 2 no choice gives the defenders about 1/14 worse odds vs 2v3 with a choice. I could be wrong, but not by much. Edit: a word. Also I think I proved my initial statement wrong. Or I just didn't calculate your scenarios. Basically the variation between 3v2(+1 to choice) vs 2 v 2 is statistically insignificant, but favors defenders choosing some small percentage of the time.
I was watching the Co-Optional Podcast (they sometimes talk about video games, and sometimes boardgames). They were talking about Star Wars: Destiny, which is a Dice/Cardgame; I was reminded of the old Dragon Dice game that TSR made. Apparently SFR picked the game up, though I'm not sure if they are still active or not. Anyway, I used to love the old Dragon Dice game, and it's interesting to see that more games have come out basically iterating on that. Anyone else used to play Dragon Dice, or play any of the similar games since?
