[XML] infected neutrals

[cicero]

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

I like 4 better too .

But that's not the whole point.

If you make the level at which the neutrals attack higher it reduces the chances that they will reach that level. If I have 3 neutrals in a territory next to me and I know that they won't attack until they reach 5 (or even 6) ... then they are no threat. And I can keep them in check, pretty easily. Only if they ever make it to 5 (or 6) will your logic come in to effect.

Cicero

[cicero]

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.

Yes, that was what I meant. But I see the possibility of ambiguity.
I have updated the proposal though not exactly with your wording. Please post again if you believe there is still room for improvement (in this part or elsewhere).

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

[cicero]

APOLOGY to all
I have just noticed that for the last 36 hours, since I posted the draft proposal, the thread title has directed users to page 11 to read it.

The draft proposal is in fact on page 16 and I have just corrected the thread title to reflect this.

To anyone who was frustrated or confused my apologies.

To those who still managed to find it and post constructively I salute you.

Cicero
<supposedly a sergeant, but currently feeling like a bottle washer who aspires to be a cook>

[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'"

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

Yes, that was what I meant. But I see the possibility of ambiguity.
I have updated the proposal though not exactly with your wording. Please post again if you believe there is still room for improvement (in this part or elsewhere).

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

lol, nice improvement... but I must have been confused, as I was thinking for some reason that this was supposed to be describing the order of which neutral terit attacks (which is why my wording didn't make total sense)... but I'm glad I could help even if I didn't know what I was saying.


...apropos nice location.

[Fag_Ash]

just read the entire thread (very sad... and probably forgotten the first 17 pages already) but wanted to put my 2 pennies in...

I think the idea is great... additional game options and new maps are what keep people interested and i guess keep more people joining...

the key is that it is a game option, so for the traditionalist, if you don't like it dont play it... if you like to try it...great...then decide...

similarly.. if you like it but think feudal or age maps are too chaotic then the option is there...

some of the negative posts / arguements / concerns... being next to qwan, if a neutral is on position x then..... e.t.c will surely be addressed by the random drop?

i think the proposal is spot on... the arguement against the OPTION is almost non existent... its the finer points of when / what to attack...

what ever is decided.. i will find which makes it works on and which it doesnt for me and play them accordingly...

thanks for the idea.. the time and effort put in to improve our CC experience... and i hope its implemented ASAP (after higher priority bug fixes, server updates, as stated e.t.c)

cheers

FA

[JeF]

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

I think I did read the correct proposal, but saying that they auto-attack doesn't really answer my question because it is my understanding that auto-attack is just the site automatically rolling a series of 3v2 dice until the attacker has 3 armies left or they win(3v1 when the defender has 1 army obviously), which brings me back to my question.

maybe it should auto-attack with just 2 dice then. then you would have a 50/50 chance. I just don't like the idea of the neutral armies having an attacking advantage. But that is just my opinion and it is a minor point so I understand if no one else cares.

ps. I would just like to say that I think the whole idea is really great and I really hope it is implemented.

[snoman99991]

We haven't necessarily addressed Zombie Fortification. Yes, they might be dim, but zombies have a natural tendency to infect and propagate the world in search for new victims. Surely some kind of simple system for branching out the zombies could be engineered?

Here's an idea for you guys to start with and hopefully improve to fit the situation better.

If all zombies attack when they hit 4 armies, why not have each Zombie Territory fortify to a weaker territory once it hits... say 7 armies. In particular, I would have all Zombie Territories that reach 7 armies fortify to territories that have less than 4 armies.

This way, the threshold of 4 armies that determines attacking behavior isn't upset by the existence of a major zombie population nearby.

Point in case:

Lets assume we're talking about the Classic map. Lets say there is a Red 5 in Brazil, and it's the first target for North Africa as per the current Zombie Attack rules (using army numbers, ideal target rules, and eventually even alphabetical order if necessary).

In this scenario, North Africa has 3 neutral armies at the end of it's Zombie turn. However, Congo, a major Zombie population center (we're imagining that the other African countries are also Zombie so that Congo isn't attacking at this point), has just achieved 7 armies this turn.

Instead of allowing that 7 to grow to numbers that the territory couldn't sustain in zombies (braaaaaaiiinnsssss!!!!), the Zombie territory would fortify to the next territory that isn't strong enough to attack yet. This fortification would be limited so that the 7 can only move up to 4 armies into an adjacent territory, so that this territory would still have attack capabilities next turn.

Now of course, these details can still be wrinkled out a whole lot. I only suggest the number 7 because anything greater than that would seem to powerful, and/or it would make it unrealistic to counter the Zombies.

Why is this important?

To keep up with Zombie lore, we know that Zombies infect populations rapidly. In order to do so, the population must be on the move, as a stagnant population would not do much as humans would learn to avoid it. Therefore, in their predictable nature with battlefronts, there should be a predictable nature in fortifications. If possible, the fortifications rules should be very similar to attacking rules, based on the principle of ensuring the largest populations possible. Instead of "attacking" the largest population like the Zombies do during attack phase, they would reinforce the places where they are weakest during their attack phase. It is also important to notice that in games with limited fortifications, Zombies would "choose" to move from their greatest population center, to the least populated territory, chosen by numbers, adjacent human players, and then by alphabetical ASCII order.

Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks again,

Snoman99991

[lozzini]

how about one zombie, from any infected terratory not bordering any player territories, will move towards the closest player to another infected country until it reaches the edge of the zombie infected area and can feed. If there two or more quickest routes to food go alphabetical. This would mean there would not be a lot of large zombie armies in a little zombie group and the zombies will all head outwards and attack.

Zombies would do this anyway, if they wererin the middle of a zombie population, they would try and get out of it and get to some humans

[firth4eva]

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

Last person alive...

So whoever they kill first loses...

C.

That makes no sense to me. What if 2 players have 1 territory each left with 1 man on it and neutral kills them both in the same turn.

[yeti_c]

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

Last person alive...

So whoever they kill first loses...

C.

That makes no sense to me. What if 2 players have 1 territory each left with 1 man on it and neutral kills them both in the same turn.

It's not rocket science - it's then which ever territory the Neutral player takes first...

So - in that instance probably the one with the biggest army next to it... as that will attack first.

C.

[lozzini]

and once it has killed that second to last player, the game will end so it wont kill the ;last territory of the last player anyway so it wont win

[yeti_c]

and once it has killed that second to last player, the game will end so it wont kill the ;last territory of the last player anyway so it wont win

Exactly...

C.

[cicero]

I think I did read the correct proposal, but saying that they auto-attack doesn't really answer my question because it is my understanding that auto-attack is just the site automatically rolling a series of 3v2 dice until the attacker has 3 armies left or they win(3v1 when the defender has 1 army obviously), which brings me back to my question.

maybe it should auto-attack with just 2 dice then. then you would have a 50/50 chance. I just don't like the idea of the neutral armies having an attacking advantage. But that is just my opinion and it is a minor point so I understand if no one else cares.

ps. I would just like to say that I think the whole idea is really great and I really hope it is implemented.

Jef, good to hear from you.

OK, I understand your proposal. Where auto-attack for normal players means "roll 3 dice for as long as possible", you are suggesting that neutrals would "roll 2 dice for as long as possible".

The neutrals would have the same 'attacking advantage' players have in the sense of the normal '3v2, defenders win ties' advantage. However they would be disadvantaged by their poor, predictable, tactics. I don't think they need to be further weakened by artificially limiting their attacking dice ...

Cicero

[cicero]

We haven't necessarily addressed Zombie Fortification. Yes, they might be dim, but zombies have a natural tendency to infect and propagate the world in search for new victims. Surely some kind of simple system for branching out the zombies could be engineered?

Here's an idea for you guys to start with and hopefully improve to fit the situation better.

If all zombies attack when they hit 4 armies, why not have each Zombie Territory fortify to a weaker territory once it hits... say 7 armies. In particular, I would have all Zombie Territories that reach 7 armies fortify to territories that have less than 4 armies.

This way, the threshold of 4 armies that determines attacking behavior isn't upset by the existence of a major zombie population nearby.

Point in case:

Lets assume we're talking about the Classic map. Lets say there is a Red 5 in Brazil, and it's the first target for North Africa as per the current Zombie Attack rules (using army numbers, ideal target rules, and eventually even alphabetical order if necessary).

In this scenario, North Africa has 3 neutral armies at the end of it's Zombie turn. However, Congo, a major Zombie population center (we're imagining that the other African countries are also Zombie so that Congo isn't attacking at this point), has just achieved 7 armies this turn.

Instead of allowing that 7 to grow to numbers that the territory couldn't sustain in zombies (braaaaaaiiinnsssss!!!!), the Zombie territory would fortify to the next territory that isn't strong enough to attack yet. This fortification would be limited so that the 7 can only move up to 4 armies into an adjacent territory, so that this territory would still have attack capabilities next turn.

Now of course, these details can still be wrinkled out a whole lot. I only suggest the number 7 because anything greater than that would seem to powerful, and/or it would make it unrealistic to counter the Zombies.

Why is this important?

To keep up with Zombie lore, we know that Zombies infect populations rapidly. In order to do so, the population must be on the move, as a stagnant population would not do much as humans would learn to avoid it. Therefore, in their predictable nature with battlefronts, there should be a predictable nature in fortifications. If possible, the fortifications rules should be very similar to attacking rules, based on the principle of ensuring the largest populations possible. Instead of "attacking" the largest population like the Zombies do during attack phase, they would reinforce the places where they are weakest during their attack phase. It is also important to notice that in games with limited fortifications, Zombies would "choose" to move from their greatest population center, to the least populated territory, chosen by numbers, adjacent human players, and then by alphabetical ASCII order.

Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks again,

Snoman99991

snoman

There's lots of interesting stuff in your post, I appreciate the enthusiasm . Having said that I should point out that whilst this suggestion is officially [To-Do] it is strictly on the understanding that the neutrals will not be called zombies. Whilst I share your enthusiasm for the zombie back story it has had to be set aside.

Hence the proposal uses the term 'infected neutrals' and includes a minimal back story to explain this. This new name and back story is in no way 'approved', but I am using it as a place holder for now.

I like the logic in your post and don't dismiss it out of hand. However I think that - since this is a gameplay element and not an AI player - there are several reasons to be cautious about adding this behaviour or a variant of it:

(i) it does make the neutrals more intelligent - fortifying, ie not leaving so many/any single army territories, is certainly something that a human might consider - and I think we are agreed that AI is not what this gameplay element is about
(ii) it makes the neutral behaviour more complex and difficult to predict because the neutral turn would include forts as well as attacks - again complexity is a human player trait

If we were trying to program an AI player I'd certainly want to include your idea or a variant of it, but since we're not ...

What do others think ?

Cicero

[yeti_c]

Once again - I think Cicero is spot on...

The fortification - whilst sounding quite cool will also
a) weaken any strongholds that the neutrals have built up.
b) be more confusing
c) be harder to code

I like the fact that the IN/NZ's go on a mass killing rampage - and that you might be able to set up a crushing blow from them if the game happens that way...

Also - Making them fort - makes them seem more cautious... all out attack is a very good Zombie trait!!

C.

[4V4T4R]

I like the fact that the IN/NZ's go on a mass killing rampage - and that you might be able to set up a crushing blow from them if the game happens that way...

I agree, think of trying to take the sanctuary on magic!!

[yeti_c]

I like the fact that the IN/NZ's go on a mass killing rampage - and that you might be able to set up a crushing blow from them if the game happens that way...

I agree, think of trying to take the sanctuary on magic!!

Actually this raises the one reason why neutrals *shouldn't* fortify - ever...

After one round on AOR Magic - the person in the lead - gets 70 neutral armies fortified next to them... one turn later - they're dead.

C.

[PLAYER57832]

I like your idea, but still think the attack choice should be random, if territory size is equal OR, alternating (in this case only) -- logic being that they are so unintelligent as to get confused over who they need to attack and basically treat both/all countries like they are one. Attack would cease when they have taken over 1 of the equal territories. (because then they figure they are done) Then they would either continue attacking or stop, based on the rest of the rules you put forth.


Also, I think you said earlier that the neutral army would advance fully into the conquered territory, but did not see that in your draft. Did I just miss it?

[snoman99991]

My apologies for mistaking the Infected Neutrals as Zombies, I had misread the current draft.

The idea here though, would be that the fortification, or rather the movement of IN's would follow very specific criteria, like the attack patterns. Infected Neutrals would simply move however many troops it had to to it's weakest neighbor until the 7 or more was reduced to a 3.

In this way, the Infected swarm of Neutrals slowly finds its way to the players. However, it's important to note that each territory would only fortify once, and that this could be coded so that no territory would end up with more than 7 at the end of fortification.

So lets say there's a 7 somewhere remote, but it's linked to some front-line neutrals. These neutrals all happen to be 1's due to humans managing them of course. Lets say there are four of these ones, all within fortification reach of the 7. If this were an unlimited fortification game, the 7 would *automatically* dump one on each of them to evenly disperse the infected neutrals. All sevens currently behind the front lines would do this, but none would ever fortify if that would exceed seven.

This would follow very specific rules. Like I said before, it starts with the weakest neighbor, and these only happen adjacently (fortifications are not chained around one by one, but more than one territory can dump it's troops if they all meet the circumstances), and then continues on to the next weakest neighbor until there are 3 left on the original territory, or there are no available places to fortify to.

As for instances where there are two or more territories that qualify to be fortified first, they would be selected by whichever one borders the most humans, and then by alphabetical order.

If there are no candidates for fortification that border humans, NO fortification occurs from that territory, due to the dim nature of Infected Neutrals. They cannot detect humans outside of the range of an adjacent neutral space. Because of this, zombie territories that are well isolated do not naturally fortify until someone gets close.

This would ensure a balance on levels with lots of neutral territories like feudal and magic/might

feedback?

[yeti_c]

Whilst I like the idea - I just think that it's very complicated... this fanning out of neutrals would only affect unlimited reinforcement games too...

For non unlimited games - you would have to write an even more complex set of rules for the fortification choice.

C.

[crzyblue]

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)

Sorry but that again I feel it is stupid, either make it random, or people holding like Europe with neutrals surrounding it and other players on the other side of it will just keep they're number of armies lower then that player, I mean come on... it's not rocket science to see this really just give the advantage to the person that can keep the least number of armies closest to the NZ, Randomize it or make it head for bonuses, they're either smart or stupid, there's no middle... if they're smart enough to determine number of troops near them then smart enough to see who gets a terr. bonus, or either they're so stupid that they act randomly.... take your pick

[cicero]

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)

Sorry but that again I feel it is stupid, either make it random, or people holding like Europe with neutrals surrounding it and other players on the other side of it will just keep they're number of armies lower then that player, I mean come on... it's not rocket science to see this really just give the advantage to the person that can keep the least number of armies closest to the NZ, Randomize it or make it head for bonuses, they're either smart or stupid, there's no middle... if they're smart enough to determine number of troops near them then smart enough to see who gets a terr. bonus, or either they're so stupid that they act randomly.... take your pick

Surely if people holding a continent, or just a territory, simply fortify all their armies away from the neutrals so that they don't get attacked by them ... the human players will see this and attack the player themselves?

And re randomness, you're going to have to re-read the thread. Randomness is a no go area. Why? You're going to have to re-read the thread .

Cicero

[cicero]

I like your idea, but still think the attack choice should be random, if territory size is equal OR, alternating (in this case only) -- logic being that they are so unintelligent as to get confused over who they need to attack and basically treat both/all countries like they are one. Attack would cease when they have taken over 1 of the equal territories. (because then they figure they are done) Then they would either continue attacking or stop, based on the rest of the rules you put forth.

PLAYER#####, you're gonna have to rephrase that for me, I'm struggling to understand ...

Also, I think you said earlier that the neutral army would advance fully into the conquered territory, but did not see that in your draft. Did I just miss it?

Yep, you missed it. Look at the fifth ">" point under 'Specifics'.

Cicero

[crzyblue]

delete me

[cicero]

The idea here though, would be that the fortification, or rather the movement of IN's would follow very specific criteria, like the attack patterns ... <well thought out description of fortification process snipped> ... This would ensure a balance on levels with lots of neutral territories like feudal and magic/might

snoman#####, what are your thoughts on my previous response to your fortification suggestion?

(i) it does make the neutrals more intelligent - fortifying, ie not leaving so many/any single army territories, is certainly something that a human might consider - and I think we are agreed that AI is not what this gameplay element is about
(ii) it makes the neutral behaviour more complex and difficult to predict because the neutral turn would include forts as well as attacks - again complexity is a human player trait

Remember that the infected neutrals are intended as an interesting gameplay element. And one that the players can predict and, potentially, use to their advantage.

Your suggestion, I believe, will make the neutrals 'better players' and in so doing will make them more of a force to be reckoned with in games. This will mean that players will be excessively distracted by them and as a result the neutrals could unfairly change the course of games.

I think that on most maps the neutrals will be simply a minor irritation, since they will only occupy a few territories. And that that is as it should be. On maps with large pre-determined neutral deployments or where large numbers are introduced by deadbeats the face of the game will change. And in these latter scenarios I think that the neutrals are already strong enough.

Cicero