Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?

[John Williams <williams@morinda.com>]

I would like to play a game with this system, which Richard suggested a
while back (largest force has the advantage):

> largest force wins, but loses a number of armies proportional to
> the number of *other armies lost* / *total armies*.  (round up)
>
> A 2 -> B 1            A loses  1/3 * 2 == 2/3 == 1 army.
> A 3 -> B 1            A loses  1/4 * 3 == 3/4 == 1 army.
> A 3 -> B 2            A loses  2/5 * 3 == 6/5 == 2 army.
> A 4 -> B 1            A loses  1/5 * 4 == 4/5 == 1 army.
> A 4 -> B 2            A loses  2/6 * 4 == 8/6 == 2 army.
> A 4 -> B 3            A loses  3/7 * 4 ==12/7 == 2 army.

~ John Williams



On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Richard Rognlie wrote:

> Agreed.  It has nothing to do with reality.  It is trying to 
> simulate the dice factor of risk without the random factor 
> of dice...
> 
> But I can be talked into other formulas...
> 
> Attacker * .85 vs. defender?
> 
> 
> Richard
> 
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:54:49AM -0500, Bill Bauer wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Richard Rognlie wrote:
> > 
> > > Anyone up for testing the "attacker attacks at 1.16 advantage" aka
> > > "skewed" combat?
> > 
> >   ummm... I don't think this reflects much reality-wise...
> > 
> >   It is a given in the military world that the DEFENDER has the advantage
> > in any assault. Why would the attacker get the advantage?
> >