They could do the same without reserves as long as they have 7 territories. Yet, without reserves smaller players can only attack back at a huge risk.

Cyron, you just contradicted yourself badly?

If someone has 8 stacks, then without reserves they stay strong no matter what.

If someone against them has 5, then without reserves they'll ALWAYS be leaving weak stacks behind.

The idea of reserves favours the 5, who (if they're very lucky, or if they already have lots of reserves) has a chance of making a come back.


On another note, a lot of your ideas seem to read like "If someone is one move away form checkmate then there is no strategy in chess!"- the strategy comes in making sure it never gets to that point, earlier in the game.

When you have a 5-stack you can't have reserves/reinforcements/not sure how to explain what they are.

Noonsaliwah, when I'm talking about 8 stacks and 5 stacks, I'm talking about the number of dice in the stacks, not the number of stacks a player has. Reading it that way, I don't see the contradiction. If I'm still missing your point, please explain further...

<i>On another note, a lot of your ideas seem to read like "If someone is one move away form checkmate then there is no strategy in chess!"- the strategy comes in making sure it never gets to that point, earlier in the game.</i>

What ideas? This is the only one I've suggested that I can remember. That being said, your analogy would be fine except for the fact that game of chess is over the moment someone gets you in checkmate. It doesn't continue on for turns and turns. As it is now though, when you get a player with 8 or 9 territories, if he sits still and builds up reserves, the game is already won, but still goes on for turns. You can't beat them down because they refresh a full stack each turn even before reserves. The fact they have reserves though means that they can take losses, advance and beat down anyone. Even if two other players combine against it, there isn't much they can do unless they have reserves themselves, and for that to have happened, you had to have 3 players sitting around doing not much whilst they were building up their reserves. And that is the bit that gets me

Heck, I'd be happy to see someone win if they got +8 reserves or something. Stand everyone up and they get points based on their positions at the time. At least it would force people to deal with people trying to play turtle

This is an example of the play style I'm talking about. I'm not pointing fingers, and in fact I'm in there playing exactly the same way, but that style of play is required. I'd like a system where it's not beneficial to play that way

============

Fede's turn
Lasst mich durch! defeated 14/42 -> 11/24

TrplHelix's turn

Tokio Hotel's turn

Lejoe's turn

Cyron's turn

dreams_pacific's turn

Lasst mich durch!'s turn

Fede's turn

TrplHelix's turn

Tokio Hotel's turn

Lejoe's turn

Cyron's turn

dreams_pacific's turn

Lasst mich durch!'s turn

Fede's turn

TrplHelix's turn

Tokio Hotel's turn
Cyron defeated 29/48 -> 23/36

Withgout any reserves, smaller players would die out much more quickly. Because of this, I think they are an essential part of the game.

For instance, if you have 3 territories, all with 8-stacks, you can wait until you have 7 reserves, then attack. If you lose, at least you haven't weakened yourself.

Sure, the presence of reserves also makes it tempting to "turtle", but the total you can build up is capped at 32. So, after that there is no more advantage in not fighting... if anything, quite the reverse... you're wasting resources not to fight.

Try playing the game a little more, Cyron, and I think this will all become quite clear.

Or, try playing the original single-player version (called Dice Wars) linked under the kdice logo. It's pretty good training for what to do. <a href="http://www.gamedesign.jp/flash/dice/dice.html">Click Here for Dice Wars.</a>