Help with an academic paper
-
Hello all,
I've played TripleA for a long time (especially during my Erasmus Exchange in Finland in 2011), and after delving deeper into Game Design academic research I've found myself returning here to ask for player help
I'm researching Player Probability Intuition using the Risk combat rules, and although the games are different yet fundamentally similar I've found myself here looking for your expert opinions.
I'd love if if you could fill out my very short survey (without calculating dice probabilites but using your intuition). Don't forget to check TripleA in the games you have played section (I plan to talk about it in my paper also ).https://forms.gle/XH9Rb91Jifo5vW5h7
Thx in advance.
-
@kutay-tinç I always calculate unless the situation is obvious.
-
@rogercooper That's what is right
But do you calculate all the possible scenarios? Especially if you are rolling all attack and defense rolls separately? That would be a huge burden imo -
Wasn't sure if I understood the question, cause the framing was different than what I'm used to playing.
"The defender then observes the roll of the attacker and decides whether to defend with 1 die or 2 dice."
Unless the rules have changed in more recent editions of Risk, I think this is maybe a bit off?
In Risk I've played both players must first state how many armies/dice they intend to roll, and only afterwards would they then roll those dice (simultaneously) to determine the outcome of the battle. So the situation outlined in the survey would not arise in normal play. The Defender would only know that the Attacker intends to roll 2 dice (ie attacking with 2 armies) but would not know the actual values of the attacker's dice before deciding whether to defend themselves with 1 or 2. If it is a form of asynchronous Risk, say players are playing via email and not a live game where both players are present at the same time, I believe the standard method is for the defender to just always roll 2 dice when available, so as not to delay the attackers turn with defender confirmations for each battle round. A&AO had to manage a similar issue when developing a way to play A&A asynchronously with an order of loss in the profile, but that's not the standard for most tables or tourneys, where the defender still gets to choose and the attacker must sometimes wait for the defender to respond. Or basically if the attacker is assigning the casualties for the defender, that they do so with the defender's best interest in mind (effectively playing for the opponent to save time.) Again though might not be applicable for the specific Q you're asking re: RISK.
ps. Are those the Dutch rules? I remember hearing about them before but I've never played that way. I think there is maybe a difference in how RISK has been played in Europe vs how it's played in Britain and the States which could explain my head scratching. It may skew the answers a bit, as my first thought was 'wait what?' lol
Best of luck!
-
pps. Knock on thought, cause I just looked it up and that seems to be the case -different printings of the rules in regional releases. I'm sure that's a recipe for all sorts of rules lawyering when travelling haha
It raises an interesting issue for things like tournament rules (thinking again in the A&A context) since usually the rules there have different victory conditions, like with the cap on the game round so that players have to adopt a different style of gameplay vs the clock. But then I think for the average person who just has the boardgames in their closet, they will always defer to what's written in the manual. So like even errata and faqs may be disputed when someone holds up the game manual and says "but see, it's written right there!" hehe. I wish more games like A&A and RISK would have a lengthy and stacked to the hilts appendix. Like for A&A could easily have all the setup cards as a page X in the book, or for RISK all the many variants with optional extra zones.
For me the gold standard remains RISK II by microprose, but that's only cause it was what I had growing up. That and the 1993 physical release, which has my favorite color combo!
-
@black_elk I did not know there was a version where you didn't know the result of the attacker die before choosing 1 or 2 dice. Regional releases are so confusing but this has been an eye opener. Maybe I can research more and write a paper on those as well, thx for the inspiration
If I had to choose I'd probably go with what I already played with during my childhood and use the pick your # of die while defending rules -
I played Risk back in the 70's and I am astonished how different the rules are today - about 45 - 50 years later.
What I remember is that as well attacker and defender rolled with a maximum of three dice each, provided at least that many armies where present in the embattled territory. There were three red dice and three blue dice in the box.
And the defender did not have a choice. He rolled 1 die (having only 1 army), two dice (having two armies) or three dice (having three or more armies). The same rule applied to the attacker, of course.
Resolving the dice result worked the same way as it seems to be today however.... Just another step back into history ...
-
I thought the attacker got 3 and defender 2. But as you say, it was half a century ago
My future self now realizes that it was training wheels for A&A
-
@beelee said in Help with an academic paper:
I thought the attacker got 3 and defender 2. But as you say, it was half a century ago
3/2 started in later editions.
My (at that time) original edition (maybe from 1975 or a bit earlier) had three/three dice.
A newer edition from the 90's that I bought as replacement for the older one (I gave it to someone as I lost interest in Risk in the 80s) indeed had three/two dice as you said. But I have only rarely played that, if ever.Edit:
I just read on Wikipedia that Risk was originally released in 1957!Also German Wikipedia says:
"Die wesentlichste Veränderung war die Verringerung der Verteidigerstärke von drei auf nur noch zwei Würfel. Dies stärkt die strategische Bedeutung des Angriffs und macht das Spiel wesentlich dynamischer."what translates to:
"The most significant change was the reduction of the defender strength from three to just two dice. This increases the strategic importance of the attack and makes the game much more dynamic."
-
