I would favor a feature that would allow specified attacks (to/from certain territories) in 3 vs. 2 roll situations to automatically be split.  Meaning 1 loss for the attacker, 1 loss for the defender.  It would help gameplan in a development board of mine where I would like to take the luck out of play at a critical area.  Thoughts??

I see how this could work for BAO (Warlight uses percentages instead of dice, so I think it was able to remove the "luck factor", dunno if it was able to be applied to specific areas though), although I prefer some sort of Dice.
But seems like this is really just taking the Dice out of Risk, which seems weird. (I know the site isn't Risk only, but get too far away and it's not really a Risk-like site, it's something else, or would have to be split, IMO, into two "categories".)

You can modify the dice used to more or less simulate what you're going for here. The only problem is that you'll most likely need to use troop limits to get it done.

As one who has striven to remove luck from all areas, I can understand the desire, but the nature of this game does not permit that. I'm hoping that when SimPlay rolls out we'll have more luck-less options, but 'till then you've got to get creative if you want it to happen.

One way to go about this is to use huge unit counts. Let the law of large numbers work for you by having 100 vs 100 unit battles rather than 10 vs 10 unit battles. The more units you pit against each other, the more likely that the split will match the expected outcome based on the probabilities. Also, note that the odds are slightly in the favor of the attacker in a 3v2 matchup: the defender should lose about 7 units for every 6 attacking units lost. If you want a more even matchup, let attackers use 8-sided dice and defenders use 9-sided dice.

See Kjeld's Ancient Isles of Kjeldor map for an example of a map that has much higher unit counts than normal.

Deterministic dice... I love this idea. For example, attacker takes away from the defender 70% of the units the attacker has on his space, rounding down. Defender takes .6*(number of defending units), rounding down. This eliminates high variation in low unit matchups, and eliminates all of the dice whining.

Mongrel wrote: ...eliminates all of the dice whining.

But... but... what would I blame my (admittedly rare) losses on then?

asm wrote:

Mongrel wrote: ...eliminates all of the dice whining.

But... but... what would I blame my (admittedly rare) losses on then?

Your humility, or that I was in the game with you. BOOOOOOM!

Yertle wrote: I see how this could work for BAO (Warlight uses percentages instead of dice, so I think it was able to remove the "luck factor", dunno if it was able to be applied to specific areas though), although I prefer some sort of Dice.
But seems like this is really just taking the Dice out of Risk, which seems weird. (I know the site isn't Risk only, but get too far away and it's not really a Risk-like site, it's something else, or would have to be split, IMO, into two "categories".)

I find Blind At Once more of a dramatic break from being Risk-like than this suggestion.  This is more of an enhancement to border modifiers type suggestion.  You are right that if a board used only this type of border, then you have a very different kind of game, but it seems about as different as BAO is different.  Many Risk features could be maintained in this type of game:  troops, bonuses, cards, turn-taking, etc.

Note that a lot of boards use border modifiers to get a nearly automatic victory (the chip slot in Connect Some is some absurd attack dice versus 1-sided defend dice; Plink has such 1-sided defense borders).  Unfortunately, there is no choice of dice that gives nearly automatic splits - only scaling the board by large numbers of troops can simulate it.  However, what is desired is the usual luck and variation on one part of the board, and certainty (of splits) on another.  

Hugh wrote:

(the chip slot in Connect Some is some absurd attack dice versus 1-sided defend dice; Plink has such 1-sided defense borders).

I once lost a game of Connect Some because I gave up 2 armies rolling against the chip slot on the first turn.

asm wrote:

I once lost a game of Connect Some because I gave up 2 armies rolling against the chip slot on the first turn.

1 in 4096 rolls against the chip tray come up losing 2.  Very impressive asm!