Dune Jihad turn comments

[Andrew]

This thread will be for comments related to the in game play, such as if there was the battle, talk about it.

so please post here, the dune jihad turns thread is for turn play(commands) only.

I also will post here most of the time when the maps/website is updated for turns.

Me maybe edit this first post with th eupdates and such, so people can find it easily. Players pages are updated.

Lets try not to start any flame wars saying "you suck" or "I am beating you badly"..try more constructive things like "good battle", "hope to see you on battlefield more often" ::) although the reply below mine seems ok to me.

As for the suggested foramt of posting in the Dune Jihad Turns thread, please refer to my first post in that thread.

March 12, 2003 - Maps and miniboard are updated!, might try to refine rules about when someone takes over territory and such.

[ken124578]

Rotflmao, i just destroyed ghostysquare's capital with my first attack ;D :D

[Ghosty_Square]

Duh...

[ken124578]

Andrew, i suggest that we organise an afternoon where we can all be on so that we can play a nice little game of online dune risk ;D

[Andrew]

Andrew, i suggest that we organise an afternoon where we can all be on so that we can play a nice little game of online dune risk ;D

I don't think that will happen to easily, for 6 people with different time zones and schedules. also takes time to update maps and stuff.

But good idea and may happen, if the game is sped up some how..hope dunenewt posts soon what he wants done.

Also if it takes this long (3rd person. 1, 2, 3,) a week to post, then I dont see how 6 people can do it in one day.

[Andrew]

OK, do people think it is a good idea to be able to attack a territory from several different territories at once?

please post your opinions...

one good thing about it is that, you would be able to post in one reply to attack a country and not have to wait to how you did in battle.

Although this rule would complicate the retreat aspect a lot, and you can't attack from a territory with only one army...when you woudl do this, every territory you attack from uses 1 less army per territory to make it fair I think . please post comments as to what you think, as this would speed the process of deciding what to do.

[Dunenewt]

Yep introduce this rule at once

[Andrew]

Yep introduce this rule at once

err, I think I will wait a bit to see what others think.

to see the pros/cons and also problems it could create.

because if it was implemented, with retreat option, what armies of yours get killed on what territory?

lets say you are attacking a territory with 4 territories with 4 armies on each of them, if you lose 6 armies, what ones die? I think it would be spread out evenly over hte 4 terriories(one die on each) with the other 2 armies dieing alphabetically/numerically according to the territory.

[ken124578]

This is part of Risk2, though the downside of it is this:

Dices, 2 defending, 3 attacking.

Defencive: 6, 5

Attacker: 6, 6, 3

There's 1 tie, in this case defencive wins, that means that 1 unit dies of every army that attacks (original attacking army: 8, 8, 7, army after this little fight: 7, 7, 6) the attacker wins the other win with 6 to 5, defensive loses 1.

Yes i know that it is a bit hard to understand, so let me summarise it a bit.

If defencive wins each attacking territory loses 1 unit each, if defensive wins both each attacking territory loses 2 units (if possible) if defensive loses it loses 1 unit per dice that is lower then the attacking one.

The amount of dices being thrown by the attacker depends on the amount of units in which it is attacking, but there is a whole set of rules for this (large armies throw with "another dice" which gives a lower score etc) i say that we shouldn't implement this in the game since it requires a whole set of new rules and "dices", just like soccer, you can't play soccer combined with some football rules.

[Dunenewt]

I dont understand that retreat think anyway

[Andrew]

Well Bashar has provided me with a program to decide battles. you put in each sides number of army's, and also retreat # if you want.

Then it calculates the battle and displays the surviving armies(if any for the defending team). It says eithor the attackers lose or win.

The attacker cant lose the battle so to speak but must retreat at 1 army no matter what. (each territory must have at least 1 army on it at all times)

Hope this clears something up

And yes me confused about what you posted ken

Although there are no "ties" when "rolling" the dice in this game as there aer no dice, just a program that decides who wins or loses. Also if you want to say that each person only rolls one dice.(but not really, just program that decides battles for simplicity)

[ken124578]

Oh, there were some rules about dices, in the original risk the defender had an advantage, meaning that if it's a tie (6, 6) the defender would win.

Anyway, dice comparison was part of risk and risk2, still is btw.

[Andrew]

Oh, there were some rules about dices, in the original risk the defender had an advantage, meaning that if it's a tie (6, 6) the defender would win.

Anyway, dice comparison was part of risk and risk2, still is btw.

do you mean the electronic game risk 2?

and yes defender wins ties (but not in Jihad as there is no ties; maybe implement something later)

[ken124578]

Dice comparisons ARE a part of risk.

[Andrew]

Dice comparisons ARE a part of risk.

yes I know about comparing dice in risk as attackers can have 1-3 dice depdending on #of armies on territory; and defender can have 1-2 depdending on #of armies on territory.

but this is Jihad! not risk! although similiarities....lets drop this topic somewhat as it is not exactly the current problem..unless there it is a problem.

[nampigai]

it's only a beta ;)

I just beat the crap out of my friends the attacked each others to get north america while I took Europe Africa and Australia ;)

[tag]

I would like to state here that the program I wrote for Andrew fully complies with the original Risk! rules. The program determines the appropriate number of "dice" to be rolled for each side, compares them, and calculates the casualties. It then repeats this process until all defending armies are vanquished or the attacking army has been whittled down to it's player-specified minimum size, the default being 1 since, as Andrew pointed out, a region may never be left without an army.

In accordance with Risk! rules, the defender does win if there is a tie.

To clear up the matter of retreating, it works like this. Let's say you have a region with eight armies that you want to use to attack a neighbor; however, you only want to commit five armies in the attack so that the home region is not left unprotected. By stating a retreat number of three, you tell the GM that should five casualties be sustained to cease the attack. Simply speaking, the retreat number is the army size at which it stops attacking. I hope that clears things up a bit.

As to multi-pronged attacks, I have no objection to this from a standpoint of gameplay. It's merely a simple matter of setting the retreat number to the number of regions involved; in Dunenewt's case, three. Casualties should probably be spead as evenly as possible thoughout the involved regions. Ultimately, though, I'd leave this rule to the GM's discretion as the responsibility of determining casualties falls on his shoulders and this rule might make things more complicated.

Thanks to Dunenewt for bringing up our first gameplay issue. :-)

[Andrew]

If i were to implement it...I could go with dieing alphabetically/numerically according to the territory.

OR

I could spread the deaths out as evenly as possible and then the rest coudl be random as to what territory armies get killed. (as long as at least one army remains)

Thanks Bashar for the info.....me try to do what Dunenewt ask in theother thread and will state when and if it is done..(I think I will pick random deaths after the rest is spread out evenly)

err and dunenewt since you are only atacking with 3 armies from 3 territories you still have to retresat at one army, me update stuff in about 15 min.

And also if the person wins the battle does all the attacking armies go into that territory? actually i guess so, since he should be able to move them after the battle maybe..

[Andrew]

Retreating 101

A program decides battles.

the default retreat is one army as you can not lose a territory while attacking.

If you have 5 armies you can retreat on 1, 2, 3, 4 armies. this means that if you picked 4 as your retreat, then as soon as one of your armies gets killed you retreat which means teh battle is over.

more later if thats not enough

[Andrew]

Ok, one major problem, is when a territory with lets say 10 armies attacks a territory with x armies, the attacker wins with 8 armies left...how do I decide how many armies to move onto the new territory?!?!?

My best and fairest guess would be move half of them, and when there is an odd number of armies left(that won battle) divide in half but leave the extra army on the original territory.

This is how I will do it for now until someone figures out a good way to do it.

I think it would take to long if I posted the results of battle , then the player tells me how many on each territory....so me go with above until better idea.

Updated turn, will IM the next person.

[ken124578]

No, according to the rules a minimum of 3 armies must be moved to the conquered territory, if 3, 2 or 1 army survive the battle they should all be moved to the conquered territory (leaving 1 behind ofcourse)

Let me make it clearer:

8 attack, 5 defend.

1 must stay behind so you can only attack with 7.

7 attack, 5 defend.

Attacker wins with 3 units left, according to the original rule if only 3, 2 or 1 unit remains after the battle they should all be moved to the just conquered territory.

attacking territory with 1 army, just conquered territory with 3, you can move them at the end of your turn.

[Andrew]

err, no? oh yes me understand what you say..hmm, maybe change that rule somewhat for battles....I think that rule was for at the end of turn and not applied to movement of armies during battles. I think to make the game fastest and easiest for me would be the move half armies suggestion.

The attacker attacks with all its armies, but auto retreats with one army left (hence one army on territory at least)

As for the rule of minimum 3 armies moving, I dont see that on my webpage, unless it is told in the forum.

More comments please.

And yes at end of turn you can move armies from one territory to another (A max of 10 I think...at end of turn)

[ken124578]

As for the rule of minimum 3 armies moving, I dont see that on my webpage, unless it is told in the forum.

More comments please.

It is said so in the original risk rules, i can take a screenshot of the rule if you want.

[Andrew]

It is said so in the original risk rules, i can take a screenshot of the rule if you want.

Ok you are going by original risk rules....how do you suggest i determine how many armies move form one territory to another after a battle? shoudl I move the max amount of armies, or just half, until 3 armies max on new territory?

[ken124578]

The player chooses how many armies it wants to move to his new territory (if he has 4 survivers or more) else if he has 3, 2 or 1 remaining army they go to the newly conquered territory by default (leaving 1 unit behind)

This might sound confusing again, let me try to make things more clear:

4 survivers, 1 stays behind, 4 - 1 = 3, 3 go to the new territory by default.

8 survivers, 1 stays behind, 8 - 1 = 7, the player can choose how many go to his new territory, atleast 3 must go, so he can choose between 3 till 7 units to be moved to his new territory.

3 survivers, 1 stays behind, 3 - 1 = 2, 2 must go to the new territory.

2 survivers, 1 stays behind, 2 - 1 = 1, 1 must go to the new territory.