5 ms·
I say this with earnesty: I wonder which came first, the military idea of 3:1 attacker ratio or the boardgame Risk 3:1 attacker dice ratio.
by jimkleiber 4y ago
I say this with earnesty: I wonder which came first, the military idea of 3:1 attacker ratio or the boardgame Risk 3:1 attacker dice ratio.
- LeifCarrotson 4y agoThe defender in Risk gets two dice if they have more than one army in a territory.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> I wonder which came first, the military idea of 3:1 attacker ratio or the boardgame Risk 3:1 attacker dice ratio. The 3:1 force ratio concept is far older than Risk, Risk doesn't have a fixed 3:1 dice ratio (3:1 is the maximum dice ratio the attacker can have, and requires 3 or more attacking armies and only one defending army), and to reflect the force ratio concept achieving a 1:1 dice ratio should require a 3:1 (or slightly lower, since in Risk ties go to defender, so even dice isn't exactly even) force ratio rather than getting a dice ratio between 1:1 and 3:2 for an equal force ratio, as Risk currently does.
- bee_rider 4y agoI think it is the military idea, because it doesn't really map to risk perfectly anyway. In Risk, the attacker gets 3 dice to the defender's 2, but the defender wins in a tie. It is actually an interesting mechanic -- the defender has a big advantage if it becomes a 2v2 on the dice, but the attacker has an advantage while the have the extra die. So, for large battles the attacker has an advantage, while small ones lean toward the defender. Here's someone who did a simulation and made a table. The interesting bit is the diagonal -- even sized armies. They didn't go far enough, but eyeballing it, I suspect it would swap over to an attacker advantage around ~10v10-ish. https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2h224y/request_who_has_the_advantage_in_risk_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2h224y/requ...