Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?

[William.VanDuin@ach.com.au]

I dont agree - attacks are encouraged by the fact that by gaining territory you
are gaining resources in the way of reinforcements.  No one wins by digging in (
At least thats what i find in normal risk).  Why do countries attack in real
life.  Because they want resources - room to expand.




"Ray Pearce" <raypearce@enterprise.net> on 30/03/2000 12:22:00

Please respond to risk-users@gamerz.net

To:   risk-users@gamerz.net
cc:    (bcc: William Van Duin/Kandos/ACH/AU)

Subject:  Re: [risk] "Skewed" combat?




To encourage attacks.
The game would be very boring if every player just dug
themselves in and waited to be attacked.
Giving the advantage to the attacker will make it a much
more 'dynamic' game :-)

hippo

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bauer <bbauer@thalia.org>
To: <risk-users@gamerz.net>
Sent: 30 March 2000 16:54
Subject: Re: [risk] "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?



To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
     unsubscribe risk-users
as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.