Like the game BUT....

A boardgame of world domination
nzld
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:31 am

Like the game BUT....

Post by nzld » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:41 am

Really enjoy the game. However it really really bugs me that at least once a game (usually several times) I can attack a country with no defense (just the basic colour) with 12 or 15 armies and lose. I understand that it is statistically possible, but in actuality it is virtually impossible, especially with the regularity with which it occurs.

Why is this?

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:13 am

I promise you it's just random! The game doesn't cheat with dice throws ever.

User avatar
qwas
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by qwas » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:28 pm

Maybe make it that if attacking an undefended country, if there is over one army the army will be captured. Citizens might be able to destroy part of an army... I often attack an undefended country with one or two armies left (or I have one army left after a massive fight) and often get anhililated.
Proud member of Seans forum since 14th April 2005. 1 year and still counting.
Now to spam those 30 messages to get into 3rd place in post count. :D

I'd like to buy your soul please.
http://www.mindistortion.net/iwantyours ... lex_Rider2

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:17 pm

I want to keep the attacking rules the same as in the Risk board game.

If you play the board game you need to keep one army of your colour to indicate that you own that territory, so that army can't ever be moved (or the territory would be "un-owned"). To make things look more clear on Conquest I just show one less army per territory and use the colouring to show who owns a territory. If you'd like it to look more like the actual board game just unselect the "Show only moveable men" option.

nzld
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:31 am

Post by nzld » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:27 am

With the rules of the original Risk game it is theoretically possible that 1 troop can defeat 12 attackers, but in actuality it is statistically improbable. Try it with a set of dice at home, it will never happen. But in the computer game it seems to happen.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:01 am

nzld wrote:With the rules of the original Risk game it is theoretically possible that 1 troop can defeat 12 attackers, but in actuality it is statistically improbable. Try it with a set of dice at home, it will never happen. But in the computer game it seems to happen.


Yes, it's statistically unlikely to happen but if you play enough games it will happen eventually. I've never had that much bad luck ever myself but I get stopped by smaller forces quite regularly.

I'll say again though that the game doesn't cheat at all with dice throws and doesn't pick on human players over computer players or do anything else that could be called cheating.

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:46 pm

Well, I personally used to have the theory (in those old days when I was playing board games more often), that thrown dice don't fall as random as random numbers from a computer do. After all a dice is influenced by the way it is thrown and it's actual shape, which is not a perfect cube and so on and so on...

User avatar
BoxZone_Author
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: UK (back from USA)
Contact:

Post by BoxZone_Author » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:52 am

I remember having a "falling out" with my brother after rolling 12 of 16 defence rolls as 6s. He assumed that I was somehow cheating in the way I rolled the dice.

It does happen with real dice.
It's also one of the reasons I rarely select "attach until I win" but always go three at a time incase I do really badly and want to stop.
Last edited by BoxZone_Author on Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

nzld
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:31 am

Post by nzld » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:46 am

I don't believe there is any built in cheating, not at all what I was suggesting.



Yes, it's statistically unlikely to happen but if you play enough games it will happen eventually

You would have to play a lot of games for the sorts of odds I am talking about!! You would be better off buying a lottery ticket, better chances.

I do enjoy the game and will probably keep playing, but the sheer frequency of times where I attack a territory with overwhelming force (ie they only have the base unit) and lose is extremely frustrating. This is not an isolated occurance and I have run some statistical analysis and do not see how this can happen so often. In fact it is impossible. Maybe the algorithm used gives an unstatistical advantage to the defending side different from that used by the Risk game?

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:49 am

nzld wrote:Maybe the algorithm used gives an unstatistical advantage to the defending side different from that used by the Risk game?


No, it just rolls "dice" using Windows' built in random number function exactly in the same way you would get random numbers by throwing a dice in the board game.

nzld
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:31 am

Post by nzld » Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:27 am

I think the game is great. I have definitely got my money's worth so no complaints there.

Todays' game, I controlled Venezuela, Peru and Argentina. Brazil had no extra troops on it. I attacked it with 20 from Argentina. Somehow I lost all of them without gaining the territory. I then attacked with 15 from Peru. Again, I lost them all without gaining the territory. Lastly, I attacked with everything I had left on Vensuela, 16 of them. Again I lost them all.

This is just not possible. It really isn't. I guess I will stop playing the game now.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:55 am

I'll say it again (and I'm sure this won't be the last time...)

The game doesn't cheat. The dice rolls are completely random.

If you play enough times you'll run into a stretch of bad luck eventually.

nzld
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:31 am

Post by nzld » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:58 am

As I have said, I know the computer doesn't cheat. It can only do what it is programmed to do.

The statistics show that the dice rolls are not random.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:32 am

Sigh...

The dice rolls are completely random.

Random doesn't mean that everyone will throw the same number of 1s or 6s. Look, I'll even post the piece of code that does the dice rolls here. rand() is a Windows function which returns a random number. The code doesn't know if it's a human or a computer that it's rolling the dice for.

Code: Select all

   // roll the dice
   if (option.bSounds == TRUE)
   {
      sndPlaySound("Dice.wav", SND_SYNC);
   }

   while (config.defend[0].iCountdown > 0 || config.defend[1].iCountdown > 0
      || config.attack[0].iCountdown > 0 || config.attack[1].iCountdown > 0 || config.attack[2].iCountdown > 0)
   {
      for (i=0; i<iAttackDice; i++)
      {
         if (config.attack[i].iCountdown > 0)
         {
            config.attack[i].iCountdown --;
            config.attack[i].iNumber = rand()% 6 + 1;
         }
      }

      for (i=0; i<iDefendDice; i++)
      {
         if (config.defend[i].iCountdown > 0)
         {
            config.defend[i].iCountdown --;
            config.defend[i].iNumber = rand()% 6 + 1;
         }
      }

      if (config.defend[0].iCountdown > 0 || config.defend[1].iCountdown > 0               // don't bother drawing last one
       || config.attack[0].iCountdown > 0 || config.attack[1].iCountdown > 0 || config.attack[2].iCountdown > 0)
      {
         Draw_DrawScreen(hMainWindow, &bitmaps, &config, &option, territory, &ptHolding, &ptHoldingOld, iNetworkStatus, hNetworkWaiting, bPressingDoneButton, REDRAW_ALL);

         if (option.bSounds == TRUE)
         {
            sndPlaySound("Dice.wav", SND_SYNC);
         }
      }
   }


I don't think there's much more I can say really.

User avatar
Fusion_power
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:34 pm
Contact:

Post by Fusion_power » Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:17 am

The code is pretty explicit. Unfortunately, the rnd function is not very random. I'm just quibbling though. Even a Cray supercomputer has problems generating truly random numbers. Lets say that your code is about as random as you can get using the internal random number generator.

Years ago, the commodore 64 had a programmable sound chip. It could be set to a high frequency and you could read the value at random intervals using the rnd function. The combination resulted in the most highly random numbers I've been able to generate. Unfortunately, the PC doesn't have anything even similar to it.

Fusion

Post Reply