[XML] infected neutrals

[chapcrap]

chap, I know it is a step back, but I would move this back as this is not a good idea as it stands now. It will affect all maps currently in play a huge amount and would need to be blocked from the huge majority of them.

Yep. I was thinking the same after seeing this discussion. It probably needs to be coded as an XML option, like killer neutrals are.

[OliverFA]

Oliver, the problem you see and the solution will not work for some of the maps. Antarctica has 30 neutrals on it, bases all start with 3 troops, those neutrals will eliminate every player in order of bases.

Koontz, no offense, but it would be nice if at least you read my proposal before dismissing it. With what I proposed, 30 armies is bigger than 3, so infected neutrals would not be activated for several turns.

IMHO the problem with this forum is that issues are seen as excuses for rejecting proposals rather than as points to be fixed/polished. With that approach, killer neutrals would have been the excuse to reject trench.

As I said. I don't want to deny problems, but I would like them to be seen as something to be discussed about rather than as excuses to back rejection. My proposal fixes your 30 armies problem in Antarctica, yet you say it doesn't making it seem like you didn't read it.

Remember, the 1v1 game has a third player who is all neutral, a good round of dice and a bad drop eliminate a player in round 1.

Again, the activation trigger would eliminate this whole issue about the bad drop and turn 1.

Both solutions of a timed trigger and army size trigger are not a good solution. Both carry huge problems for some maps.

Would you be so kind to name those huge problems?

I said about the third player in all maps for 1v1, so that timed trigger for classic maps would not work.

In classic, neutral territories are very few, so they would not be a problem even without a trigger.

The army size one would not work on other maps like huge neutral maps.

Why not? It would provide enough time for players to secure their position. Can you name some examples? You say that it wouldn't work. I can say it would work and that's all.

Sorry if that seems so aggresive, but I see so many negativity in all suggestions that get proposed here. When someone proposes a suggestion, that person gets smashed with a lot of not constructive criticism. "That's a terrible idea", "It would not work", "How can someone even dare to propose that"... Even really bad ideas should be rejected with a bit more of education, because the person who has proposed it has taken the time and effort to make that proposal. It's almost imossible for an idea to be right from the start, usually the idea needs to be polished and improved, but in this forum that won't happen because it gets a lot of negative criticism and no constructive one.

And now, we have gone as far as to reject already submitted ideas. Don't get surprised if noone wants to make elaborated or original suggestions. Only 5 min suggestion will be made, as no one will want to make the effort just to get smashed.

[spiesr]

Oliver, the problem you see and the solution will not work for some of the maps. Antarctica has 30 neutrals on it, bases all start with 3 troops, those neutrals will eliminate every player in order of bases.

Koontz, no offense, but it would be nice if at least you read my proposal before dismissing it. With what I proposed, 30 armies is bigger than 3, so infected neutrals would not be activated for several turns.

Setting up individual trigger time for when Infected neutrals become active for different maps is very unlikely to happen.

[OliverFA]

Setting up individual trigger time for when Infected neutrals become active for different maps is very unlikely to happen.

Yes, I already supposed that. That's why I figured the alternative way to activate neutrals.

[agentcom]

Oliver, it's equally unfair to the people, like me and koontz, who have taken the time to consider the proposal and pointed out significant problems with it ... to accuse us of not adequately considering the proposal just because we disagree. Koontz and I had a back-and-forth via PM about this topic right around the time the suggestion started back up. Believe me, neither of us is out to get you or just likes going around dissing on people's ideas. Neither of us flew into this discussion half-cocked and with a vendetta. It actually disappoints me that you would think that of me, since I--actually both of us--have spent so much time over the past months and years trying to improve people's suggestions.

You also completely ignore that Koontz also proposed a solution: adding this as a feature to some maps. Incidentally, I support that idea over this one or your variations. You dismiss Koontz' idea with only a brief mention of one thing (that I can see): that having this on a limited number of maps is not as preferable to you as having this as an option for all maps. Fine. Reasonable people can disagree. But I find it far more exciting to consider the possibility that some maps will be designed with well-placed zombie neutrals that will make for an entirely new map/game style than the idea that we should just have the option to "activate" the neutrals on the existing maps and then play those maps differently.

[koontz1973]

Koontz, no offense, but it would be nice if at least you read my proposal before dismissing it. With what I proposed, 30 armies is bigger than 3, so infected neutrals would not be activated for several turns.

And when it is, it wins. If you set the trigger later, it is not used. So why have it at all?

IMHO the problem with this forum is that issues are seen as excuses for rejecting proposals rather than as points to be fixed/polished. With that approach, killer neutrals would have been the excuse to reject trench.

Not so, a problem was pointed out with trench and a solution was found via the forum. This is what we are trying to do now.

As I said. I don't want to deny problems, but I would like them to be seen as something to be discussed about rather than as excuses to back rejection. My proposal fixes your 30 armies problem in Antarctica, yet you say it doesn't making it seem like you didn't read it.

So you admit this has problems but you still want it anyway. And as above, I point out the problem with your solution.

Again, the activation trigger would eliminate this whole issue about the bad drop and turn 1.

No it would not. 3 players, one being all neutral, if you set the activation trigger too late, it is not used, too early it is bad for players. The whole problem is the 1v1 game in which a third player is introduced that is all neutral. This is the same for all maps unless positions are coded in.

Would you be so kind to name those huge problems?

Option 1: Timed Trigger

• You would need to place a note on all current maps stating when the trigger will be deployed. No old maps will be updated with this information so all old maps will not get this feature. Forcing map makers to place this note on future maps is possible but most will reject the idea and not allow the setting to be used on their map.
• Set the trigger turn too late and it is not used. Too early and it becomes a win for the last man standing.

Option 2: Army size Trigger

Total of infected armies in territories bordering that player > Total armies of the player

You are joking over this? Total number of infected armies is greater than the armies of a player. Here is your idea in work. We play a 1v1 on classic, I go first and deploy 5 armies. This is more than you and more than the neutral player. I eliminate one region of yours meaning you have less. At the end of turn one, you have less armies than the neutrals and get hit by all of the random neutrals. A lot of luck in this approach but I bet a lot of players will play maps like this with this setting.

In classic, neutral territories are very few, so they would not be a problem even without a trigger.

16 neutral regions on classic map in 1v1.

Sorry if that seems so aggresive, but I see so many negativity in all suggestions that get proposed here. When someone proposes a suggestion, that person gets smashed with a lot of not constructive criticism. "That's a terrible idea", "It would not work", "How can someone even dare to propose that"... Even really bad ideas should be rejected with a bit more of education, because the person who has proposed it has taken the time and effort to make that proposal. It's almost imossible for an idea to be right from the start, usually the idea needs to be polished and improved, but in this forum that won't happen because it gets a lot of negative criticism and no constructive one.

And now, we have gone as far as to reject already submitted ideas. Don't get surprised if noone wants to make elaborated or original suggestions. Only 5 min suggestion will be made, as no one will want to make the effort just to get smashed.

That has not been done here Oliver. I am sorry that this one is not good. You agree that this has potential but problems. I was not around the site in 2008 when this was first discussed. As I said, back then we had 71 maps and it would of been easier to work out problems but with all of the newer settings and map range we now have, more problems will come up for older ideas. One of them was the escalating spoils being changed. I fought for that to change and am glad that my argument had some merit to it. If that ever gets submitted, again I will go into that thread to talk about it.

Oliver, I believe we are all in agreement that this is an idea worth having, but we need consensus on how to do it. Right now, this cannot go ahead as it is as the majority of maps will have it banned. On the ones that it will be played on, some settings will need to be eliminated like 1v1. So would you like to implement this on 10 maps only with some game sizes and types and have an OK game experience or allow the foundry to produce for you 5 great maps using this in the next year? The year after you can get 5 more and 5 more after that every year. You cannot blame the map makers for what we have in the way of tools, but as I keep saying, give us the tools to make great maps and we will make them.

[chapcrap]

Oliver, I believe we are all in agreement that this is an idea worth having, but we need consensus on how to do it. Right now, this cannot go ahead as it is as the majority of maps will have it banned. On the ones that it will be played on, some settings will need to be eliminated like 1v1. So would you like to implement this on 10 maps only with some game sizes and types and have an OK game experience or allow the foundry to produce for you 5 great maps using this in the next year? The year after you can get 5 more and 5 more after that every year. You cannot blame the map makers for what we have in the way of tools, but as I keep saying, give us the tools to make great maps and we will make them.

This is basically true. I'm moving this here, because we need to have it setup correctly before being submitted. If I didn't move it here, bigWham would have, with questions attached to it.

So, when the differences and issues are ironed out, we can put it back in submitted. This definitely wasn't getting rejected by taking a step back.

[koontz1973]

This is basically true. I'm moving this here, because we need to have it setup correctly before being submitted. If I didn't move it here, bigWham would have, with questions attached to it.

So, when the differences and issues are ironed out, we can put it back in submitted. This definitely wasn't getting rejected by taking a step back.

Here is how I see it going from now on, and this will keep the whole idea intact with no modification at all from the original idea apart from not allowing it on all maps but only future ones.

The following is the opening post. Nothing has been changed.

show

This as it stands is a great idea. But instead of allowing all neutrals to have it, give it to the map makers to use in there arsenal of tools. So if we follow the OP but only use it where it needs to go in xml, then the following xml with a neutral tag should be the way forward. This is a normal xml for 1 region (without some parts) and shows a coded neutral has infected status.

Code: Select all

    <!-- France -->
    <territory>
      <name>France</name>
      <borders>
        <border>French Landing Point</border>
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
      </coordinates>
      <neutral=infected>4</neutral>
      <bonus>4</bonus>
    </territory>

[chapcrap]

If it's done that way, there can be more than one type of neutral in a game? So, a map could have infected neutrals and neutrals that weren't infected?

[koontz1973]

If it's done that way, there can be more than one type of neutral in a game? So, a map could have infected neutrals and neutrals that weren't infected?

Correct.

Right now we have neutrals and killer neutrals, both are on the same map. If we get a slew of xml updates to include all of the neutral options in submitted, then you can have all or none on a map. It all comes down to what the imagination of map makers and players have.

[spiesr]

How would the game treat the territories that the neutrals conquer under such a system?

[koontz1973]

How would the game treat the territories that the neutrals conquer under such a system?

Really good question. Right now it would not effect them in the same way as they would not have the infected tag. This needs thinking about or we will end up with a great idea poorly executed. Give me some time to work up an idea for this but I believe the solution might be to go with both OliverFA give all approach and an xml update.

[degaston]

I don't think it makes sense that zombies would get a deploy because they don't breed or mature, they convert opponents into zombies. They should get 1 attack against each neighboring player (because they're slow) in random order (because zombies don't do alphabetical). Any opponent troops the zombies kill in the attack should be added to the attacking territory (because they've been zombified). This would also imply that zombies can and will attack even with only 1 troop (and can use the same number of dice as they have troops, up to 3), because if the opponent is killed, he would become a zombie and remain on his territory. When a player attacks a zombie territory, any player troops killed do not become zombies because they would be shot in the head by their own people before they had a chance.

Edit: If a single zombie attacks and loses, he remains on his territory because zombies have nothing to lose.

[koontz1973]

How would the game treat the territories that the neutrals conquer under such a system?

OK, I have spent time on how to work this out. We have two options and either one is OK and should be good to go.

Option one.
This option uses all xml updates for it to work. This will exclude all old maps and is probably the easiest and best way forward. For it to work, it would have two parts to it. This is not a new thing when it comes to xml as we already use miltiple parts for other things.
Part one would be the start of the xml just as winning conditions, bonuses, starting positions are. It should read something like this:

Code: Select all

 <infected>
          <components>
             <territory>Dakar</territory>
             <territory>Cairo</territory>
             <territory>Nairobi</territory>
             <territory>Lagos</territory>
             <territory>Cape Town</territory>
             <territory>Johannesburg</territory>
          </components>
</infected>

All territories in this components would then work like the infected when they become infected. This list can include all or some regions giving map makers a flexible approach and allowing some regions to be off limits like a losing condition. While I have only used territories here, continents should also be allowed to be written here so large maps with lots of regions, you are not listing 100+ territories.

Part two would be in the territories part of the xml and read like the previous post I made.

Code: Select all

<territory>
          <name>France</name>
          <borders>
            <border>French Landing Point</border>
          </borders>
          <coordinates>
          </coordinates>
          <neutral=infected>4</neutral>
</territory>

What this part gives us is the option to place the infected anywhere onto a map.

Combining these two parts, you get the basis for having the infected start and allow them to expand or not depending on the map.

Option Two.
Option two is a more catch all approach and may prove to be the more problematic of the two. As the original idea, this becomes a setting that players could use for in games. The only thing though is that players would not get a button to click on the start a game page. So all maps would have the infected status but not all maps would get to have it turned on. We then use the second part of the xml option above to generate the starting points of the infected in future maps.

Either option is good and covers all basis. As a map maker, I would think option one is a better idea as it gives a more flexible approach but I have no idea on how easy either one of these would be to code.

When you combine any of these approaches to this idea, it should work as it is stated in the original post.

@degaston, I agree with some of your points, but right now this one is in the lets get it done phase and lets not poke holes in it phase.

[degaston]

@degaston, I agree with some of your points, but right now this one is in the lets get it done phase and lets not poke holes in it phase.

Sorry, I didn't realize that two days ago at noon was the last opportunity to make suggestions here. Understandable though, considering you wouldn't want to throw out all that hard work and coding that's been done.

But seriously, this idea has been kicked around for 5 years, and nothing's been done. Go back three pages and the comments are from 2010! I don't see any consensus on how this should work, so I don't see how you can be at the "get it done" phase. I thought a fresh perspective would breathe some life back into these tired, old zombies.

I don't think that this belongs in the xml, - that just limits the potential benefits of this feature, and for what gain? A consistent, workable behavior should be established for the zombies, and it should become just another game setting. It can be disabled by default, and then enabled for maps on a case-by-case basis when it is known to work for them. I'm not saying my ideas were perfect, but I thought they made more sense than giving the zombies a deploy, and having them attack territories in alphabetical order.

Edit: What might make this workable on almost any map is to have an aggression setting that determines the frequency at which a zombified territory will attempt an attack. So on a conquest map with a large number of neutrals, set the aggression factor low, and even though they greatly outnumber the players, they are less likely to overwhelm them. This could be on the game settings page, so players could choose how aggressive they want the zombies to be.

[chapcrap]

I don't think that this belongs in the xml, - that just limits the potential benefits of this feature, and for what gain? A consistent, workable behavior should be established for the zombies, and it should become just another game setting. It can be disabled by default, and then enabled for maps on a case-by-case basis when it is known to work for them. I'm not saying my ideas were perfect, but I thought they made more sense than giving the zombies a deploy, and having them attack territories in alphabetical order.

This would be my preference, to have it as a game setting, rather than an XML possibility.

[OliverFA]

I don't think that this belongs in the xml, - that just limits the potential benefits of this feature, and for what gain? A consistent, workable behavior should be established for the zombies, and it should become just another game setting. It can be disabled by default, and then enabled for maps on a case-by-case basis when it is known to work for them. I'm not saying my ideas were perfect, but I thought they made more sense than giving the zombies a deploy, and having them attack territories in alphabetical order.

Edit: What might make this workable on almost any map is to have an aggression setting that determines the frequency at which a zombified territory will attempt an attack. So on a conquest map with a large number of neutrals, set the aggression factor low, and even though they greatly outnumber the players, they are less likely to overwhelm them. This could be on the game settings page, so players could choose how aggressive they want the zombies to be.

+1

Instead of making this an XML feature, what should be done is to allow mapmakers to forbid specific settings from their maps if the concept justifies it.

Fine tuning the aggression factor would make it workable at any map. In fact that was the idea behind my activation trigger proposal.

[koontz1973]

Instead of making this an XML feature, what should be done is to allow mapmakers to forbid specific settings from their maps if the concept justifies it.

Then it should be excluded from all old maps as they are the ones with the problems. Also all 1v1 games cannot have this. As for exclusion, we can now do this and we are doing it a lot more now. I am happy for this to be a setting, but it just cannot go onto old maps or have any 1v1 game use it.

Fine tuning the aggression factor would make it workable at any map. In fact that was the idea behind my activation trigger proposal.

Aggression would have to be consistent for all maps. All settings are consistent no matter what map you play. You cannot have one map use this one way and another use it another. The OP has a workable idea, it is now how to do it.

Allow this as a setting and you would have to exclude:
1v1 games (the most popular setting on the site)
Feudal style maps (these include the AOR and feudal maps - 5 of the most popular maps)
All maps with coded neutrals
All maps with losing conditions
All maps with high neutrals
All maps with winning conditions

As I said before, having a setting that does not allow you to play you favourite map or size of game seems pointless and does not achieve anything worthwhile.

Work out how this can be a setting and be used for all old maps, I will be happy to agree to it but right now, this is unworkable unless it becomes an xml feature for future maps.

[OliverFA]

Instead of making this an XML feature, what should be done is to allow mapmakers to forbid specific settings from their maps if the concept justifies it.

Then it should be excluded from all old maps as they are the ones with the problems. Also all 1v1 games cannot have this. As for exclusion, we can now do this and we are doing it a lot more now. I am happy for this to be a setting, but it just cannot go onto old maps or have any 1v1 game use it.

With all respects, that's your opinion. I see many old maps with no problems. Just to name one, Classic does not have problems at all with this.

Fine tuning the aggression factor would make it workable at any map. In fact that was the idea behind my activation trigger proposal.

Aggression would have to be consistent for all maps. All settings are consistent no matter what map you play. You cannot have one map use this one way and another use it another. The OP has a workable idea, it is now how to do it.

That's why I proposed a consistent trigger setting for all maps, and I still believe this can be fined tuned for all maps at once.

Allow this as a setting and you would have to exclude:
1v1 games (the most popular setting on the site)
Feudal style maps (these include the AOR and feudal maps - 5 of the most popular maps)
All maps with coded neutrals
All maps with losing conditions
All maps with high neutrals
All maps with winning conditions

Again, that's your opinion, as Feudal maps (and maps with high neutrals in general) would be the ones who would most benefit from this setting.

As I said before, having a setting that does not allow you to play you favourite map or size of game seems pointless and does not achieve anything worthwhile.

And as I said, I believe my proposal makes all maps playable.

Work out how this can be a setting and be used for all old maps, I will be happy to agree to it but right now, this is unworkable unless it becomes an xml feature for future maps.

I already made a proposal, but to be honest, I am tired of getting a "no because no" type of answer to my proposals, so forgive me if I don't want to make another one.

[degaston]

Then it should be excluded from all old maps as they are the ones with the problems. Also all 1v1 games cannot have this. As for exclusion, we can now do this and we are doing it a lot more now. I am happy for this to be a setting, but it just cannot go onto old maps or have any 1v1 game use it.

Do you have any reason for this statement? For maps like Antarctica, Atlantis, and Das Schloss, if the zombies only attacked 10% of the time, then they would mostly be an annoyance that had to be monitored and occasionally be dealt with. This would also allow it to work with 1v1. And why exclude all old maps?

Aggression would have to be consistent for all maps. All settings are consistent no matter what map you play. You cannot have one map use this one way and another use it another.

It seems to me that the entire purpose of settings is that they can be different on every map you play.

Allow this as a setting and you would have to exclude:
1v1 games (the most popular setting on the site)
Feudal style maps (these include the AOR and feudal maps - 5 of the most popular maps)
All maps with coded neutrals
All maps with losing conditions
All maps with high neutrals
All maps with winning conditions

You're making a lot of blanket statements without any justification. People play nuclear spoils with assassin and on maps with losing conditions. How is this different?

As I said before, having a setting that does not allow you to play you favourite map or size of game seems pointless and does not achieve anything worthwhile.

I guess I must have missed the suggestion to make this a required setting that everyone must use. I'll vote "no" on that.

Work out how this can be a setting and be used for all old maps, I will be happy to agree to it but right now, this is unworkable unless it becomes an xml feature for future maps.

You dismissed my suggestions without comment. Was there something about them that you thought would not work as a game setting?

Edit:

...

Didn't see yours before posting. Great minds think alike?

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I believe this is best suited to be a game setting. Yes, some fine tuning may be necessary, but I've seen some very viable suggestions. I like Oliver's army count trigger suggestion and believe it to be the best suggestion so far. Really, I think there's some people who've misunderstood the suggestion, likely due to Oliver making a mistake in the equation he put forward. For clarity and simplicity sake, Oliver's suggestion was to make the neutrals attack only when there's an army at least their size beside them. I think that solves any issues with people having to fight back large hordes of neutrals. It also solves all 1v1 game problems, since the neutrals would gain 1 for a total of 4 on the first turn and hence wouldn't attack any of the players' 3 stacks they had around the board. Sure, it'd likely be a pain in the ass to have to consolidate your armies to punch through the neutrals as the game goes on, but that's a setting choice that should be left up to the players.

Personally I like playing different games with really screwed up settings because I think it's fun. I also don't mind games taking a long time to complete, so I'd have no problems playing this setting on Feudal War or Feudal Epic. Sure, there may be balance issues and it's a gamble where you land and how screwed you get because of it, but that happens with plenty of other settings on different maps as it is. Hell, take a look a Pearl Harbour, that's a map that's so luck oriented based on the drop that it's not funny. Sure, sometimes you get screwed by the drop when you get to drop 5, your opponent drops 20, AND they go first, but the risk of that is part of the fun of playing the map.

I also like Degaston's idea of different aggression levels, though I'm undecided about it being a random percent chance of attack. I could see two different options for aggression levels. Let's call one "defensive", where we use Oliver's army count trigger to simulate the neutrals getting jumpy when larger armies get close to them and hence attack the stack down until it's smaller in size and hence no longer considered a threat by the neutral. The other could be called "offensive" or "aggressive" and can use the current proposed system, where the neutrals will attack as long as they have at least 4 on the territory.

I can't remember what the current suggestion has for how the neutrals decide who to attack, but I think having it set up as random, if possible, would be a good idea since it prevents someone from using the 75 stack in AOR2 to intentionally destroy an opponent. Someone could still try, but they run the risk of having the neutral's wrath fall upon them instead.

The downside I can see to Oliver's army count trigger suggestion is that it doesn't make sense thematically that zombies would only go after equal or greater size armies. Suggestions often get renamed and I would be in favor of renaming this suggestion to something else. "Neutral Aggression", "Neutral Kingdoms", and "Barbarian Hordes" are some of the different names I can think of off the top of my head.

[stahrgazer]

Edit: What might make this workable on almost any map is to have an aggression setting that determines the frequency at which a zombified territory will attempt an attack. So on a conquest map with a large number of neutrals, set the aggression factor low, and even though they greatly outnumber the players, they are less likely to overwhelm them. This could be on the game settings page, so players could choose how aggressive they want the zombies to be.

Lots of reading to do here but what I saw in the original post was an idea that all neutrals would receive an extra troop.

An idea that could make this more viable is to limit the number of zombies that receive an extra zombie based on the traditional "1 extra troop per 3 regions" - and then have those dispersed randomly on the zombie regions.
ie. A large map with 30 neutral regions would receive 10 zombies (30/3=10, minimum 3) that are randomly placed on up to ten different regions (code it so that each troop is added at random to 1 of the 30 neutral regions; most get none, some get 1, some zombie regions could get more than one additional troop that round.)

To make it harder to strategically plan around these zombies, I'd suggest have them randomly aggressive; they might attack any region around them whether it's the region with the greatest or the least number of troops on it. That essentially makes the zombies an extra player, just one that doesn't get any cards; but also makes it less likely the zombies can overwhelm the map.

Now, I realize that on some newer maps players get a minimum 4 rather than a minimum 3 troops or increase troops on multiples other than 3 . It wouldn't hurt to keep the zombies limited to the traditional amount, making them viable but not able to easily overwhelm the maps.

[koontz1973]

Allow this as a setting and you would have to exclude:
1v1 games (the most popular setting on the site)
Feudal style maps (these include the AOR and feudal maps - 5 of the most popular maps)
All maps with coded neutrals
All maps with losing conditions
All maps with high neutrals
All maps with winning conditions

Again, that's your opinion, as Feudal maps (and maps with high neutrals in general) would be the ones who would most benefit from this setting.

You're making a lot of blanket statements without any justification.

So lets look at each part then.

1v1 games

These will need to be excluded from the setting as in every game of 1v1, you have a third player. The third player is the neutral player and is in all 1v1 games for every map. This is for all maps in 1v1 and is part of the overall part of the xml. So if you play classic map as 1v1, then both players start with 14 regions with 3 troops on each region. The neutral player starts with 14 regions with 3 neutrals on each. Players will get 4 troops each at the start of the game, the neutrals will get 14 troops according to this idea in the OP. So with this idea as it stands, you give the neutral player over 3 times the amount of troops as regular players, the ability to attack (in sequence) any region it chooses. This is bad.
Lets see how Olivers ideas would work with this in a 1v1 game then.

Option 1: Timed Trigger
An activation turn for infected neutrals is coded in the XML. Different maps would have different activation turns. Classic style maps would be activated in turn 1, while maps with a lot of neutrals would have higher activation turns, and some "impossible" maps could even even activation at turn 100 or later.

As above, I stated that the infected get 14 troops in round one for a classic game 1v1 style. Each of these 14 regions can then attack. The overall problem with this idea is that it would need to be consistent over all maps and settings. This is how settings work. You cannot have a map set at round 1 and then another at round 10 as players would never know when it would start. Farming would then be a huge issue with this setting.

Option 2: Army size Trigger
There would be separated triggers for each player, and at the begining of their turn infected neutrals would check with each player to see if they get "activated". Infected neutrals would get activated towards a particular player when:

Total of infected armies in territories bordering that player > Total armies of the player

For some reason, this idea says that a player must have less troops overall than the neutrals bordering a region. How would that work for the setting as it would never get used. Even if you allow the +1 to go onto a neutral, by round 7, the neutral on any classic region is at 10 armies. So you have 10,20 or maybe even 30 neutrals next to a players piece. As a lot of classic 1v1 games are over before this, what you get is a setting that will eliminate the losing players faster while never really being in use as suggested. Why have a game play option that is not used.

Now that 1v1 games have been eliminated unless any of you can find the flaw in my logic, lets move onto feudal style maps.

Feudal style maps

Lets look at Feudal War for this example then as it is the most popular map of this type.
Look at the starting positions. The bracketed numbers are neutrals.
Feudal Might (6)
The Great Kingdom (4)
Rebel Territory (4)
Realm of Might (10)
Barbarians (4)
Imperial Dynisty (6)
So in each game, you start of with 3 troops and get an auto deploy of 5 troops. That gives you 8 troops onto each castle you own. You get 1 or 2 castles in this game. So if you do not attack at all, just sit and build up for 1 round to make sure your castle is OK, you get this:
Feudal Might (6)+(3)=(9)=elimination
The Great Kingdom (4)+(2)=(6)=survive
Rebel Territory (4)+(2)=(6)=survive
Realm of Might (10)+(5)=(15)=elimination
Barbarians (4)+(2)=(6)=survive
Imperial Dynasty (6)+(3)=(9)=elimination
So out of the 6 starting position, half will eliminate a player straight out. But lets say you are lucky and manage to survive round 1. you get another 5 troops to attack with so you might be able to gain a territory or two. Only for the neutrals in the next line be a 4 or an 11 neutral and can take you right back. This gives you one round for incubation so you might have 11 troops to attack with. But when you do finally get out of your camp, all of those pesky neutrals have been building and building for 5 rounds. So now you have a game of lets get though stacks of neutrals that just keep getting bigger and bigger. and bigger every round. So by round 5, the stacks for every region is now higher than the auto deploy you get on the castle and just getting higher. By round 10, the overall amount of neutrals you have is just so large it becomes stalemated in every game. God forbid anyone would play this with adjacent or no reinforcements.

Option 1: Timed Trigger
An activation turn for infected neutrals is coded in the XML. Different maps would have different activation turns. Classic style maps would be activated in turn 1, while maps with a lot of neutrals would have higher activation turns, and some "impossible" maps could even even activation at turn 100 or later.

This is the same as above. The timed trigger needs to be consistent over all maps.

Option 2: Army size Trigger
There would be separated triggers for each player, and at the begining of their turn infected neutrals would check with each player to see if they get "activated". Infected neutrals would get activated towards a particular player when:

Total of infected armies in territories bordering that player > Total armies of the player

Players will never allow for this to happen. If you know you are hitting a ten stack of neutrals, you will advance 20 troops so you are not attacked by them. Go slowly and you can stay ahead of the curve. But what happens by round 5, you have a string of troops that is now surrounded by high neutrals. Those neutrals all border you and attack at once. Eliminating all progress. This just gets worse as the neutrals get bigger and you get smaller.

All others

I cannot be bothered to go into each one. But lets look at some maps then.

Antarctica

30 neutrals on the south pole will eliminate bases as that is what it can do. So the player with the highest letter wins.

Atlantis

The problem with Atlantis is the islands. Even if you wanted to just go for elimination, you need to hit neutrals to get to the other islands. These would be building up so by the time you have taken a bonus, the neutrals have attacked and taken it from you. This would be a slow death and last player standing wins.

Das Schloss

The helicopters destroy the parachutes. The rest of the map becomes like feudal, only worse as the neutrals are a lot higher.

if the zombies only attacked 10% of the time, then they would mostly be an annoyance that had to be monitored and occasionally be dealt with. This would also allow it to work with 1v1. And why exclude all old maps?

How can you say 10% of the time? What determines the 10%, how do you make sure all players are hit equally?

It seems to me that the entire purpose of settings is that they can be different on every map you play.

So escalating spoils is different on all maps? Trench is different? Fog is different? When did this happen?

You're making a lot of blanket statements without any justification.

I do not do this. I think about it a lot before I weigh in on an idea.

I guess I must have missed the suggestion to make this a required setting that everyone must use. I'll vote "no" on that.

So why have a setting then that no one wants to play?

[degaston]

… 1v1 and feudal style maps ...

Your issue with 1v1 and feudal maps seems to be related to the OP and Oliver’s suggestions. Impossible odds against huge stacks of zombies, and confusing methods to alleviate that problem. My suggestion was to not give zombies a deploy, and to have an aggression factor that could be adjusted to make the game interesting, but not impossible. You said that can’t be done, but you didn’t say why. Assuming that there is no technical reason it can't be done, is there some reason why you think it wouldn’t solve the issues with those types of games?

All others
I cannot be bothered to go into each one. But lets look at some maps then.

Antarctica

30 neutrals on the south pole will eliminate bases as that is what it can do. So the player with the highest letter wins.

This is why the zombies should attack in random order, and only attack once. With a low aggression setting, this map will work just fine.

Atlantis

The problem with Atlantis is the islands. Even if you wanted to just go for elimination, you need to hit neutrals to get to the other islands. These would be building up so by the time you have taken a bonus, the neutrals have attacked and taken it from you. This would be a slow death and last player standing wins.

Again, if the zombies do not get a deploy, then this is not a problem. One possible way that the zombie attacks could work is: for each possible zombie attack (chosen in random order), generate a random number (0-99). If it is less than the aggression factor, then the zombies attack that territory once. So if the aggression factor was 10%, then each dock would be attacked by Poseidon once out of every 10 rounds. If you maintain enough troops on your docks, then you will never lose your bonus to a zombie attack. This may require a slow build up, and 10% aggression may be way too high for this map. This is part of why I suggested that the setting does not have to be enabled on every map at the start, and why I think fine control is needed in order to get the right amount of aggression.

Das Schloss

The helicopters destroy the parachutes. The rest of the map becomes like feudal, only worse as the neutrals are a lot higher.

I just remembered that the helicopters are killer neutrals, so they won’t be infected. Problem solved,

if the zombies only attacked 10% of the time, then they would mostly be an annoyance that had to be monitored and occasionally be dealt with. This would also allow it to work with 1v1. And why exclude all old maps?

How can you say 10% of the time? What determines the 10%

10% was just an estimate I was throwing out there for discussion. It would probably require gameplay testing to know what the appropriate range was. My preference would be to have a slider or some other control on the game start page to allow fine control of the aggression level. Providing just a few selections like they do for round and time limits could also work, though not as well in my opinion. Do you have some technical or logical reason why this wouldn’t work?

how do you make sure all players are hit equally?

How do you make sure all players get equal dice? The answer is: you don’t. The zombies will randomly attack targets and everything will work itself out. This is another reason why they should not attack alphabetically.

It seems to me that the entire purpose of settings is that they can be different on every map you play.

So escalating spoils is different on all maps? Trench is different? Fog is different? When did this happen?

So every game has the same number of players? Speed games all have the same time limit? There’s only setting for round limits? There’s only one type of reinforcement? There’s only one type of spoils? When did all this happen?
Please provide some reason there couldn’t be more than one setting for zombies, just like there is for round limits and speed game times.

You're making a lot of blanket statements without any justification.

I do not do this. I think about it a lot before I weigh in on an idea.

We can’t read your thoughts. You have to put them into the thread for us to know why you disagree with a particular idea - like you did this time. Thank you.

I guess I must have missed the suggestion to make this a required setting that everyone must use. I'll vote "no" on that.

So why have a setting then that no one wants to play?

Your earlier statement said that this prevented people from playing maps or settings that they liked. I’m saying that no one is required to use it if they don’t want to. There are many setting and map combinations that I would not want to play. Shall we disable them?

[koontz1973]

My suggestion was to not give zombies a deploy, and to have an aggression factor that could be adjusted to make the game interesting, but not impossible.

Lets look at this idea you had then.
Zombies without a deploy. Not a bad idea but then they are just neutrals and do not really become a threat. The whole idea of this is to make the neutrals a threat. Aggression factor. You say later that you want a slider. So a neutral 3 is going to attack me 10% of the time or 100% of the time. Either way, a neutral 3 is just that. How often do you see players attack 3v3? It is not done as the defender has better odds. But lets give the zombies this idea. So you castrate them with numbers and them make them even worse by letting them attack.

This is why the zombies should attack in random order, and only attack once. With a low aggression setting, this map will work just fine.

So instead of base A being eliminated first, base P is. Same difference. You eliminate a player and if you go with your once per round idea, you end up with a setting that will eliminate players one at a time over 8 rounds. Not really fun.

I just remembered that the helicopters are killer neutrals, so they won’t be infected. Problem solved,

Killers are killers to players. Zombies are classed as neutrals. Would make no difference.

How do you make sure all players get equal dice?

All players dice are the same. Sometimes the luck engine makes it seem you are losing a lot more then you really are. My dice rolls for attack are minus 12% but that comes back. But then again, dice are dice and not a setting.

So every game has the same number of players? Speed games all have the same time limit? There’s only setting for round limits? There’s only one type of reinforcement? There’s only one type of spoils? When did all this happen?
Please provide some reason there couldn’t be more than one setting for zombies, just like there is for round limits and speed game times.

So if a setting does not work, lets implement it 5 times and hope one of them works.

Your earlier statement said that this prevented people from playing maps or settings that they liked. I’m saying that no one is required to use it if they don’t want to. There are many setting and map combinations that I would not want to play. Shall we disable them?

Not a bad idea. This would get my support from the get go, not as a cartoe, but as a player.

When ever a new suggestion has been put into place, unexpected effects have happened (losing conditions and nukes games). As this suggestion stands, I have said why it would not work and it therefore needs more input to make it work. As no one will go and change all the old maps, it is far easer to get this implemented now as an xml update than it is to change them all for this.

I would rather see map makers use this for better maps to come than to roll this out over some maps and have a problematic system.