I think my idea is good, and obviously ryan agrees to possibly test it as some point. My idea will create MORE strategy and will weed out REAL skill. Just trying to help the game.

Err...As I understand the figure of speech "weed out", it means to remove unwanted factors...Which means I must agree with you, this will do nothing but weed out skill.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/weed_out

I like this idea for a sandbox thing. To restate the case (assuming I understand it, and its a lot like Risk): at the moment an attack from one territory to another is all or nothing; the suggestion is to make these attacks more like a series of battles, where each side loses random amounts each time, based on the dice in each battle.

The advantage would be in the increased complexity, increasing the possibilities for play and adding a lot more strategy.

However, it would slow the game down considerably I suspect. Attacks will be slower, more thought out, and general progress would be creeping rather than sweeping as it often is now. This may be counteracted by doubling the number of reinforcements. It would also probably work better on the 16max version.

I'd be very curious to try this out.

I agree, it would be good to test with the 16 dice max. It would reduce the pain of losing a 16 stack.

*blink blink* I don't get it. There's something I'm missing. *sigh* Maybe I need to see it in action to figure out what you mean, because "reduce the pain of losing a 16 stack" doesn't seem to follow from the information I have. We'll see.

"Attacking weaker territories does happen to be the generally accepted method of gaining land..."

Many like to attack the strongest territories they can safely attack in order to remove potential enemies.

"Many like to attack the strongest territories they can safely attack in order to remove potential enemies"

Aye, and the strongest territories they can safely attack tend to be weaker than the territory they use to attack it. That's what I meant.

True dat

I will be a constant and devoted tester of this style of play on the 16 die. If this so happens.

I love this idea!

What is the advantage of big dice stacks fighting against smaller?

Because only the better dices throws fight others dices. E.g.

3 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 3 4 5

against

5

attacker wins because the 6 > 5

3 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 3 4 5

against

6 5

defender wins, attacker looses 2, because
6 - 6 (defender wins)
5 - 5 (defender wins)

Im not sure, if it should be implemented that the attacker can stop attacking any point he feels right, or the game attacks for you again and again until
*) defender has 0 dices
*) attacker has 1 dice

I think 2nd might be better, or the game becomes yet more statically, when attackers can stop and rebuild at any point.