Re: [risk] defending vs attacking?

[Douglas Zander <dzander@solaria.sol.net>]

Richard, you had asked for input, so here is mine. 
I believe there are two ways to solve conflicts in a risk game.
1)
   if someone stands idlely by (does not attack) while another
   force comes into their territory, then that force deserves 
   to get beaten miserably while the attacker, who is prepared
   and aggressive, should not sustain heavy loses.
   (attacker forces) * 110%  -> (defender forces) * .90%
   
2)
   if someone stands their ground and entrenches themselves in while
   another force has to cover a lot of ground and provide support
   for their attacking army then the defender should have the upper
   hand while the attacker suffers major loses.
   (attacking forces) * 90%  -> (defender forces) * 110%

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now lets look closely at these two scenarios.
1)  in this game, it would be advantageous to attack, attack, ATTACK!
2)  here, it would be advantageous to assemble your troops and hold
    your ground when you suspect an equal (or near equal) army is
    going to invade your territory.

1)  using this formula, you may attack an army of equal strength and
    not be committing *complete* suicide.  
2)  here, you would be stupid to attack an army of equal strength

I believe that giving the attacker added strength will make for a
faster, more livelier game.  remember that in the original game, the
attacker uses 3 dice while the defender only uses 2.

OK, let's hear from some others.


 Douglas Zander                |  Watch "FarScape" on the SciFi Channel
 dzander@solaria.sol.net       |  Fridays 7:00pm Central
 Shorewood, Wisconsin, USA     |