[XML] infected neutrals

[Stoney229]

There are still several issues outstanding - target selection being the major one.

Can someone come up with a simple formal proposal of how exactly this should work, then we will all know we are on the same page.

cicero - I assume it's on you to post another formal proposal. But for me, I've read the entire thread from the beginning, but I still think that zombies should attack the territory that comes first alphabetically.

[4V4T4R]

The nz's should attack the adjacent territory with the largest army. In the
event two territories have the same number of armies, they attack the one
alphabetically first. Also, the nz's attack FROM terrts in alphabetical order.


So, if they had Eastern U.S and Western U.S and were trying to attack
Central America, they would first attack from Eastern, and then, if they didn't
take it, they would attack from Western.

This is good because it is "dumb and predictable" which is the entire point.
This is a strategy game, where the trick would be to use the nz's to your
advantage. For this to be possible, you have to be reasonably able to predict their moves.

[sfhbballnut]

ooo I can see the people trying to say the zombies aren't behaving like they should now......., lol should be fun

[cicero]

draft PROPOSAL
IMPORTANT notes: This post is the current draft proposal of this [To Do] suggestion. Anyone contributing to this thread must read, and re-read, this draft proposal since it will be edited frequently both as a direct response to future discussion in the thread and to make it a more thorough proposal.

Once a FINAL proposal is produced I will draw it to the attention of the site owners/moderators.

Any future posts which result in this proposal being updated will be acknowledged in the thread with a [PROPOSAL UPDATED] response.

At present everything is still open to discussion. When discussing, please quote concisely from the proposal to make the thread easy to follow.
_______________________

Back Story/Motivation
The neutrals have been infected by an unknown virus. This affects their behaviour making them irrationally, unreasonably aggressive. They attack any un-infected armies without thought for their own safety and with no real goal in mind; in fact whether they still have a mind is open to debate.

They always attack the largest concentrations of un-infected armies on their borders and continue the battle until they destroy their enemy or sustain such casualties that they cannot continue.

Since the virus is unknown, there is no antidote.
_______________________

SECOND REVISION/DRAFT PROPOSAL Suggestion Idea:
Additional game type option:
Infected Neutrals : Yes | No

Specifics:
With Infected Neutrals set to No game play is as now.
With Infected Neutrals set to Yes game play is as follows:

> Any neutral armies on the map are infected.
> The infected neutrals take their turn last in the game round.
> At the start of the infected neutrals' turn one army is added to every territory held.
> Infected neutrals do not receive any bonuses of any kind, positive or negative. Motivation/Gameplay Note: This makes 'sense' since infected neutrals cannot benefit from the political structure of a continent. Equally they are not affected by factors such as frostbite on "Age of Realms" or drought on Dustbowl since they disregard their senses.
> All neutral territories with 4 or more armies are capable of making an attack and so will auto-attack a non-neutral neighbour* until they win the battle or have 3 or less armies. If they win the battle they advance all possible armies. If they have no non-neutral neighbours then they cannot attack (just as for normal players). NB Infected neutrals cannot make bombardment attacks. Motivation/Gameplay Note: This makes 'sense' since infected neutrals cannot operate bombardment technology. Also it would give infected neutrals an unfair advantage since they would effectively be able to advance along bombardment lines which players cannot.
> The infected neutrals continue their turn until they cannot attack further as defined by these rules.
> Regardless of game settings infected neutrals make no fortifications.

_______________________

* Infected neutrals are aggressive and irrational, but predictably so. An infected neutral turn will progress as follows:

If more than one neutral territory is capable of making an attack then the order is decided as follows:

(i) select attacking territory with the largest number of armies
if more than one territory qualifies:
(ii) select attacking territory alphabetically (see footnote 1)

When making an attack the target territory selection will be as follows:
[Remember bombardment attacks are not possible.]

(i) select bordering territory with largest number of non-neutral armies
if more than one territory qualifies:
(ii) select bordering territory occupied by player with the largest total number of armies in territories bordering the attacking territory
if more than one territory qualifies:
(iii) select territory alphabetically (see footnote 1)
_______________________

The player who wins gains no points for beating the infected neutrals any more than they do now for eliminating neutral players.

It will be seen that infected neutrals cannot win any games and so the question of points lost does not arise **. This firmly positions the infected neutrals as a gameplay feature and not an AI player.
_______________________

Why it is needed:
It would introduce interesting new ways of playing and tactics ...

• Neutral territories are no longer handy defences, but are actively dangerous!
• A deadbeating player does not benignly lapse, but his armies become infected and attack! Perhaps you won't ignore the player who looks like he might deadbeat after all.
• Even if there are no infected neutrals in the game to start with (because of the map/player numbers combination) some may be introduced by a deadbeat or, in maps including the option, by a successful bombardment or a "killer" territory (no maps yet exist with killer territories) ...
• When considering an attack on another player the fact there are "infected neutrals behind him" needs to be taken into account ...
• You may actually decide to deploy/fortify your armies away from infected neutrals since this will make them turn elsewhere ...
• Several players have asked for AI over time and, rightly, this has been rejected since this is a player/community based site. However the infected neutrals would introduce some positive elements of AI players (though 'intelligence' is stretching it a bit).
• Imagine a 1v1 (where 1/3 of territories are automatically neutral) ...
• Imagine a growing infected horde (it cannot auto attack since it is surrounded on all sides by other infected neutrals) ... which you deliberately release knowing, because of their predictable behaviour, that the infected neutrals will attack your opponents ...
• Map designers could take into account infected neutral behaviour when designing maps ...
• In heavily infested situations human players will have to cooperate to eliminate the infected neutrals first ...
• In extremely heavily infested situations human players may not, even with co-operation, be able to eliminate the neutrals ... in which case the player able to survive longest will win.
• Assassin games ... "someone kill the infected before they give the game to .. oh shit - too late!!"

_______________________

** Infected neutrals can't win or gain points ..
It is important to note that existing rules do not consider neutral armies as a player and hence the neutral armies cannot win. Under existing rules:

standard game
If at any time there is only one player left that player wins.
(whether the player holds 99% of the territories or 1)

assassin game
If at any time one player is eliminated (by whoever) the player whose target that was wins.

terminator game
If at any time a player is eliminated by the infected neutrals then the points are awarded to the player who last took a territory from the eliminated player (as per the rules to cover deadbeats). If no player had previously taken a territory from the eliminated player the points are awarded to the last surviving player at the end of the game (again as per the rules to cover deadbeats).
_______________________

Footnotes
1 References to 'alphabetical order' mean ASCII order (and refer to the names of the territories). Hence numbers come before letters etc.

Implementation of this would probably be more straightforward and processing/server efficient as 'XML order'. To facilitate XML=alphabetical order it would be necessary to revise XML for all maps to ensure the [borders] sections presented the borders in strict ASCII order.

[crzyblue]

Check for blue area

draft PROPOSAL
IMPORTANT notes: This post is the current draft proposal of this [To Do] suggestion. Anyone contributing to this thread must read, and re-read, this draft proposal since it will be edited frequently both as a direct response to future discussion in the thread and to make it a more thorough proposal.

Once a FINAL proposal is produced I will draw it to the attention of the site owners/moderators.

Any future posts which result in this proposal being updated will be acknowledged in the thread with a [PROPOSAL UPDATED] response.

At present everything is still open to discussion. When discussing, please quote concisely from the proposal to make the thread easy to follow.
_______________________

SECOND REVISION/DRAFT PROPOSAL Suggestion Idea:
Additional game type option:
Infected Neutrals : Yes | No

Specifics:
With Infected Neutrals set to No game play is as now.
With Infected Neutrals set to Yes game play is as follows:

- Any neutral armies on the map are infected.
- The infected neutrals take their turn last in the game round.
- At the start of the infected neutrals' turn one army is added to every territory held.
- Infected neutrals do not earn any bonuses.
- All neutral territories with 4 or more armies auto-attack a non-neutral neighbour* until they win the battle or have 3 or less armies. If they win the battle they advance all possible armies. If they have no non-neutral neighbours then they cannot attack (just as for normal players).
- The infected neutrals continue their turn until they cannot attack further as defined by these rules.
_______________________

* Infected neutrals are aggressive and irrational, but predictably so. An attacking infected neutral army will always attack according to the following 'thinking':

(i) attack adjacent territory with largest number of non-neutral armies
if more than one territory qualifies:
(ii) select player with the largest number of armies in adjacent territories (note the plural)
if more than one territory qualifies:
(iii) select territory alphabetically (see footnote 1) I don't like this Idea because I could be holding a terri. bonus and it be in oceania, I would be attacked last as long as I kept the number of armies protecting in indonesia less then the other armies in china and india, I still feel it should go after Territory bonuses first.

Similarly if more than one neutral territory is capable of making an attack then the order is decided as follows:

(i) select territory with the largest number of armies
if more than one territory qualifies:
(ii) select territory alphabetically (see footnote 1)
_______________________

The player who wins gains no points for beating the infected neutrals any more than they do now for eliminating neutral players.

It will be seen that infected neutrals cannot win any games and so the question of points lost does not arise **. This firmly positions the infected neutrals as a gameplay feature and not an AI player.
_______________________

Why it is needed:
It would introduce interesting new ways of playing and tactics ...

• Neutral territories are no longer handy defences, but are actively dangerous!
• A deadbeating player does not benignly lapse, but his armies become infected and attack! Perhaps you won't ignore the player who looks like he might deadbeat after all.
• Even if there are no infected neutrals in the game to start with (because of the map/player numbers combination) some may be introduced by a deadbeat or, in maps including the option, by a successful bombardment or a "killer" territory (no maps yet exist with killer territories) ...
• When considering an attack on another player the fact there are "infected neutrals behind him" needs to be taken into account ...
• You may actually decide to deploy/fortify your armies away from infected neutrals since this will make them turn elsewhere ...
• Several players have asked for AI over time and, rightly, this has been rejected since this is a player/community based site. However the infected neutrals would introduce some positive elements of AI players (though 'intelligence' is stretching it a bit).
• Imagine a 1v1 (where 1/3 of territories are automatically neutral) ...
• Imagine a growing infected horde (it cannot auto attack since it is surrounded on all sides by other infected neutrals) ... which you deliberately release knowing, because of their predictable behaviour, that the infected neutrals will attack your opponents ...
• Map designers could take into account infected neutral behaviour when designing maps ...
• In heavily infested situations human players will have to cooperate to eliminate the infected neutrals first ...
• In extremely heavily infested situations human players may not, even with co-operation, be able to eliminate the neutrals ... in which case the player able to survive longest will win.
• Assassin games ... "someone kill the infected before they give the game to .. oh shit - too late!!"

_______________________

** Infected neutrals can't win or gain points ..
It is important to note that existing rules do not consider neutral armies as a player and hence the neutral armies cannot win. Under existing rules:

standard game
If at any time there is only one player left that player wins.
(whether the player holds 99% of the territories or 1)

assassin game
If at any time one player is eliminated (by whoever) the player whose target that was wins.

terminator game
If at any time a player is eliminated by the infected neutrals then the points are awarded to the player who last took a territory from the eliminated player (as per the rules to cover deadbeats). If no player had previously taken a territory from the eliminated player the points are awarded to the last surviving player at the end of the game (again as per the rules to cover deadbeats).
_______________________

Footnotes
1 References to 'alphabetical order' mean ASCII order (and refer to the names of the territories). Hence numbers come before letters etc.

Implementation of this would probably be more straightforward and processing/server efficient as 'XML order'. To facilitate XML=alphabetical order it would be necessary to revise XML for all maps to ensure the [borders]section presented the borders in strict ASCII order.

Cicero

[yeti_c]

Check for blue area

I don't like this Idea because I could be holding a terri. bonus and it be in oceania, I would be attacked last as long as I kept the number of armies protecting in indonesia less then the other armies in china and india, I still feel it should go after Territory bonuses first.

I disagree with this...

Essentially - the NZ's or IN's will *probably* be fairly small on Classic map - therefore the shield that they give you here - will probably be immaterial instead someone will be able to knock through and break your bonus anyway... so whilst you could use that as a tactic - if there were armies on China and India - you're more than likely stuffed anyway.

C.

[crzyblue]

there still is the likely chance in a 3 player or 2 player game, that NZs could get dropped just outside the bonus and possibly on china too helping protect it.... I still feel it should go after territory bonuses first before alpha

[4V4T4R]

there still is the likely chance in a 3 player or 2 player game, that NZs could get dropped just outside the bonus and possibly on china too helping protect it.... I still feel it should go after territory bonuses first before alpha

How could an infected neutral know who was holding a bonus? They
do not have this intelligence, similar to how they can't bombard.

[crzyblue]

Simple through coding, coding that in won't be nearly as hard as you think it would be.

[4V4T4R]

Simple through coding, coding that in won't be nearly as hard as you think it would be.

I'm not talking about coding, I'm talking about story line. These creatures are
dumb and predictable, which is why they can't bombard. They can't break bonuses
for the same reason.

[crzyblue]

Then if they're really that dumb they should just attack at random no specific order then... like it randomly picks which territory to attack not alpha order because then they wouldn't be that smart to know that either

[cicero]

When discussing, please quote concisely from the proposal to make the thread easy to follow.

Check for blue area

<quoted the whole draft proposal post ... !!!>

Please, everyone, keep it concise.

Then if they're really that dumb they should just attack at random no specific order then... like it randomly picks which territory to attack not alpha order because then they wouldn't be that smart to know that either

crzy, any extra element of randomness only dilutes the skill in the game. It is generally accepted that CC is quite random enough and so additional randomness is not to be encouraged.

Anyway, if you think it through, random attacks are pretty much what you get from really poor CC players ... and they don't make games more fun, just more frustrating.

Notwithstanding that, seriously, thanks for your continued input crzy. Your post at the end of page 10 prompted the current (ii) deciding condition on target territory selection. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, keep it up.

Cicero

[cicero]

there still is the likely chance in a 3 player or 2 player game, that NZs could get dropped just outside the bonus and possibly on china too helping protect it.... I still feel it should go after territory bonuses first before alpha

crzy, in a 2 player game one third of the territories are going to be 'infected neutrals'. The least of your worries will be that there are some in China or wherever

Cicero

[cicero]

... which is why they can't bombard ...

Thanks 4V4t4R, I forgot to include that.

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

[JeF]

I just read the proposal above and not the whole thread so i don't know if this has been discussed yet, but how will the zombies be attacking? will it be the same as a traditional player attacking with the zombie being able to attack 3 dice vs. 2 dice?

I would like to propose that the zombie only gets to roll 1 dice regardless of how many zombies are on the territory. The reasons for this are:

1. IMO a player should have the advantage over an AI neutral territory.
2. To go with the storyline, if these are the slow mindless Dawn of the Dead type zombies then a group of people(especially if we consider the players armies as soldiers) should be able to outsmart them with traps and distractions and shotguns thus giving them an advantage.

[cicero]

I just read the proposal above ... how will the zombies be attacking? ...

Are you sure you read the proposal? It is on page 11.[edit & big apology - 10 Feb 08]Jef, sorry, this should say page 16 and, at the time of your post the thread title also referred to page 11. Hence your chances of actually reading the current proposal on page 16 were slim . Sorry.[/edit & big apology]

All neutral territories with 4 or more armies auto-attack a non-neutral neighbour until they win the battle or have 3 or less armies.

I would like to propose that the zombie only gets to roll 1 dice regardless of how many zombies are on the territory. The reasons for this are:

1. IMO a player should have the advantage over an AI neutral territory.
2. To go with the storyline, if these are the slow mindless Dawn of the Dead type zombies then a group of people(especially if we consider the players armies as soldiers) should be able to outsmart them with traps and distractions and shotguns thus giving them an advantage.

Now I'm sure you're reading the original suggestion on page 1. Please read the proposal on page 16 and post again. [edit]page number corrected again[/edit]

All the same I think that limiting the neutrals to one die will make them pointlessly weak. The chance of winning throwing 1 die v 2 dice is only 25.46% ! Not attacking at all, like the neutrals do now, would seem to be better than this.

Cicero

[timmytuttut88]

when is this gonna be done!

[cicero]

Officially to-do, once we sort out the details ... Time frame: More than 2 months (We're booked with more urgent updates until then, after that, it will be based on priority.) ...

[Night Strike]

Why should the neutrals attack as soon as they hit 4?? I think the number shouldn't be until 5. This would actually give the zombies an opportunity to have a successful attack because the chances of winning against anything larger than a 3 with just a 4 is incredibly slim. The neutrals are not powerful until they have at least 5 (or even 6).

[Stoney229]

Why should the neutrals attack as soon as they hit 4?? I think the number shouldn't be until 5. This would actually give the zombies an opportunity to have a successful attack because the chances of winning against anything larger than a 3 with just a 4 is incredibly slim. The neutrals are not powerful until they have at least 5 (or even 6).

I like 4 better

[firth4eva]

What if they kill the last 2 players? Who gets the points?

[yeti_c]

What if they kill the last 2 players? Who gets the points?

Last person alive...

So whoever they kill first loses...

C.

[Stoney229]

target territory selection will be as follows:
[Remember bombardment attacks are not possible.]

(ii) select player with the largest number of armies in bordering territories (note the plural)

I think this should be
"select the player with the largest number of armies in territories bordering a single 'attacking neutral territory'"

[yeti_c]

target territory selection will be as follows:
[Remember bombardment attacks are not possible.]

(ii) select player with the largest number of armies in bordering territories (note the plural)

I think this should be
"select the player with the largest number of armies in territories bordering a single 'attacking neutral territory'"

I believe that is what Cicero meant - but maybe a slight change in wording to ensure accuracy.

C.

[Kaplowitz]

we cant rely on neutral to do what he is supposed to anymore...he keeps deadbeating!



btw: i love this idea...no matter how it is presented.