Only commenting to 1)

Actually the paradox is, the more dice you have the LESS random it is, in total.

Its the law of the big numbers.

Try to flip a coin 10 times. You will often be pretty far away from the ideal 5:5 distribution. Flip a coin 1000 times. You will be very close to 500:500 in relative times.

Thats the way the casinos works. Casinos never loose, because they have the low of big numbers on their side!

I don't like the new game style.. i think.
I just played a 76 round match, making myself weak all the time, until the other player just gave up...
Games last way too long now, because you can attack like once per turn, because you need 16 dice per new field.
The game's ending is decided very soon. The previous game i played, i was the first to connect 6 lands, and i won the game with a big difference over the rest...
I prefer the old 8-stacks :)

The problem is that this game would work very well if people didn't sit around waiting for 16-stacks to build. If they do, everything becomes tedious and even (as mentioned, it's closer to 50/50, that means it's a lot harder to make an advantage, and so things just kinda get stuck as it is). If people didn't sit and wait for 16-stacks, we'd have a much more strategic game; with careful moves and protection, etc.

Unfortunately, building 16-stacks is a valid strategy; and if nobody else is doing it, it's one that's got a good chance of allowing you to win. So it'll keep happening.

I prefer the 8-game, but it's not like I'd stop plaing with the 16-game. My experiences with 16-game has been boring endgame so far, but I can see it could be different.

maybe adapt the max where you can have 1 stack of 16 1 of 15 down to stacks of 8 ? may be a lot more coding :P but i dont think people would wait for full stacks in this case hehe. as defence would be way harder.

Also some thoughts to this sandbox:

It just isn't IT (the solution to kdice problems)

Even tough the dices are distributed more even, it still start position who defines who wins. As long every player is at least of intermediate expierence / strategy. It just doesnt matter big stacks anymore, it now matter how close you starting countries are. Are they close? you will win, are they spread all over the board, you'll loose.

16v16 matches still happen, altough some rounds later in the game than with 8.

I agree with Noonsaliwah. The stacking "problem" is still there. There has to be something else thought of, for keeping people from stacking at some point of the game. idk. Maybe benefits for every round you conquer at least on territory? Maybe some penalty for a round when you do absolute nothing? Maybe get rid of this all or nothing scheme when attacking? This means the attacks or defender looses some dice altough he wins the attack or defend (can be done with matching pairs, as explained some other thread. Total win/loose is determined by aritmethic sum, how much the attacker/defender looses neverthe less by matched pairs.

e.g.
attack rolls 6 4 3 1 = 14
defender 5 4 1 = 10.

attack wins

defender nevertheless kills 1 attaker dice.
since 6 vs 5 -> attacker wins
4 vs 4 -> defender wins
3 vs 1 -> attacker wins.

i hereby again propose my idea of altering things for a better:

What effect will have a reduced reserves pool do?
Like reducing it to 16-8 or none?
It fuger it would lead to the wanted more aggresive gameplay since all that saves all your precious dice is mere size.
this will probably shorten the 8v8 endgame too.

Hmm, Looks like I shoulda got here sooner.

Personally

1) It's a hell of a lot more risky. Losing a big stack becomes really painful, and dice advantages become less certain, so one must biuld their strategy around something else.

2) 16v16 end games happen. Sometimes. 8v8 happpened every single time, regardless. More often than not, 16 dice will stay relatively fluid to the end, and big changes can happen

3) Speaking of fluid, there's a much longer and enjoyable midgame in 16 dice, with the odd rampage from a built up stack let loose here and there.

Also, these games tend to be much less close. The other game, even in endgame, lots of people had a shot and the game stayed exciting. In 16's, there tends to be 1 single crushing winner. Less fun :(

Personally, I don't see that anymore often than usual.

I'd like to see what would happen with the dice refills weighted towards the smaller stacks.

It'd prevent one person from getting a big stack early on... which essentially creates an island of untouchability around them... which leads to turtling