Start a new topic

New Dice Algorithm / True dice rolls

Game does not use true dice roll probabilities. Many, many times I've had 97-99% chance to win and dont.

HOW TO VOTE FOR THIS FEATURE? Tap the 'Do you like this idea?' below

91 people like this idea

The more I play, the more childish I’ve become. I just bomb out of games now when the dice do crazy rolls. Can’t be bothered to play a game when luck supersedes skill. This seems to occur more and more these days. 

 Luck is a huge part of the game. That's why you opt to take a "Risk" to win.

Luck is a factor, of course, but it shouldn’t be the be all and end all. All games should primarily be based on skill or why bother? This is how sports work!

 What are you asking for? The dice to be rigged so that the results are always as you expect when you roll?

80% of the time - yes. The 20% is the random factor; the initial placement is random; player capability is random, etc, etc. At the moment, balanced blitz is flawed.
Balanced Blitz is intended to skew results. It gives you more of a result you'd expect than if you rolled real dice. Of course, the complaint here is that results are not consistent with what you'd expect but this is more likely a case of you remember the bad rolls and forget the consistent rolls. You'd have to take a lot of empirical data to really show whether it's "flawed" or not. But i feel that if it's not true random, it's already flawed. True random will result in a lot more unexpected results and have everyone here livid all the time, which is why they created balanced blitz.
I suppose in a round about way this is the point I’m making. I can accept true random as it can occur anytime to anyone. I feel balanced blitz is flawed as it gives results similar to true random and shouldn’t. I’ve noticed many times what should be an easy win (say 8:1) results in a loss.

Do you have actual data on how many wins and losses an 8 to 1 battle results in?  And how many troops are lost when winning? "many times" has no meaning. We need to know that your wins are minimal, also. I personally find an 8 to 1 not a guarantee, so I roll the dice one at a time for those to be safe, unless time is an issue. I only use blitz when I'm running the map. You really don't want to keep fighting when you're down to 3 or 2 troops. My biggest complaint is that blitz doesn't have the option to stop when your army dwindles to 2 or 1 dice.

@Briand. Aah, so you're one of these people that manually roll which frustrates the hell out of me. You're basically frigging the system. Explains a lot.

Don't bother responding, my time with Risk is up. Going to find a 'better' strategy game to occupy my time where skill counts.

@Julian. Seriously? If you have 4 troops and you want to take a shot at getting a card, it only makes sense to do one roll one at a time. What's the point in using Blitz on situations which can lose you the whole game over saving a few seconds of time? is this why so many people complain about Blitz being "rigged?" Because you expect risky situations to always go your way? I'm not doing Blitz up against a territory with 1 army when I only have 7 or less. I won't even use blitz early in the game in those scenarios because guess what? There ARE times when you're not going to take it! And you want to stop when you're down to 3 troops rather than take those more-than-likely losses over a non-essential take-over.

I'm by no means Math literate but would like to understand if I should lose a 10 v 9 battle on my capital? I lost to a competitor who had 3 armies remaining. Game was based on balanced blitz. Was this luck, crap algorithm, sore loser, or something else? Please explain as I don't understand how I lost! I'm one of these players that just quits the game when this happens, spoiling it for the remaining players.


The odds were against you only having 10 armies against 9. The attacker has a slight advantage but only if there are 3 armies to fight with. Assuming you're going to lose on average as many troops as the defender, there is a high chance that you will be beat down to less than 4 and then suffer the serious consequences of only rolling 2 or 1 die. You can look up the odds online as many write about the exact numbers, but basically you should not expect to win this fight. You CAN win, but I would roll one by one to be safe. My general rule is to assume you're going to lose as many as the defender when using blitz, so you always need at least 3-4 armies more ON AVERAGE. You will find that you lose less ON AVERAGE as you sweep the map. But low army quantities give huge chances of high swings because the dice are only rolled a few times and if you're down to 3, you would be better off quitting unless it's a must win or lose the game type of scenario.

Hey Briand, sorry you misinterpreted, I was the defender whose capital was attacked. Thanks for confirming, though, that I shouldn't have lost. Just reinforces my view that the game is flawed.


Here's the problem. Odds "slightly in your favor" do not account to you winning every time and the game "being flawed" when you don't win. When one bad outcomes happens, everyone comes here to whine that the game is flawed and in favor of the "other guy." Odds and averages are just that. If you could show that you lost 90 times out of a 100 as the defender with the 10 vs 9, then maybe you can make such an argument. But a single battle will only slightly on average go to the defender but really, any result is fair game. You could have won with no losses. He could have won with no losses. "even" is not "fair" with dice.

Login or Signup to post a comment