[XML] infected neutrals

[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

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

I have read it "there's already to much randomness blah blah blah" well then lets see in a freestyle game, if I'm going last, knowing that neutral will attack me if I have the most there and I want to keep my bonus, well I'll just move all armies away from there, then at the start of next turn deploy some there to keep ahold of it and so on.... it's not that hard to fool them then, which is why I suggest random or make it go for terr. make people have to use strat. to get past neutral and hold a bonus. I can keep on listing instances where this would get abused over and over

[4V4T4R]

I have read it "there's already to much randomness blah blah blah" well then lets see in a freestyle game, if I'm going last, knowing that neutral will attack me if I have the most there and I want to keep my bonus, well I'll just move all armies away from there,

Then someone might push through the neutrals and take your bonus. This is the risk.

[crzyblue]

I have read it "there's already to much randomness blah blah blah" well then lets see in a freestyle game, if I'm going last, knowing that neutral will attack me if I have the most there and I want to keep my bonus, well I'll just move all armies away from there,

Then someone might push through the neutrals and take your bonus. This is the risk.

helps if you finish reading that post buddy... states in a freestyle game, which you can take your turn as soon as another player takes theirs

[4V4T4R]

I have read it "there's already to much randomness blah blah blah" well then lets see in a freestyle game, if I'm going last, knowing that neutral will attack me if I have the most there and I want to keep my bonus, well I'll just move all armies away from there,

Then someone might push through the neutrals and take your bonus. This is the risk.

helps if you finish reading that post buddy... states in a freestyle game, which you can take your turn as soon as another player takes theirs

i did read it, but it doesn't imply that you are the last to go. If anyone goes after you,
then they could break your bonus.

[crzyblue]

ok won't reply to people who don't understand what i'm talking about... anyways cic, if in a 3 player freestyle game, if you capture a bonus, and you're the last to go, then you can leave 1.s by the neutrals, and just fortify the areas that have other players near them and the let player on the other side of the neutral get attacked.

[cicero]

... lets see in a freestyle game, if I'm going last, knowing that neutral will attack me if I have the most there and I want to keep my bonus, well I'll just move all armies away from there, then at the start of next turn deploy some there to keep ahold of it and so on.... it's not that hard to fool them then, which is why I suggest random or make it go for terr. make people have to use strat. to get past neutral and hold a bonus. I can keep on listing instances where this would get abused over and over

OK ... in a freestyle game. Now perhaps we're getting somewhere. I admit that I don't play freestyle and so such considerations had not occurred to me.

You suggest that waiting to play last will give you an advantage as described. It is my understanding that there is a slight disadvantage in going last in freestyle since it bars you from starting the next round. Is that right?

And, assuming for a moment, that the advantage to be gained from going last against infected neutrals is so great, what's to stop everyone from holding out to play last? What would happen then?

Cicero

[crzyblue]

well then you'd have people waiting to the last minute to play... thus having everyone go at once and the last person to have they're 1 hour time limit to play end they'd get the advantage, but the only people going to take advantage of this is someone close to holding a bonus with neutrals near it.... so not many would take this advantage.... which is why I suggested have it go for area bonuses first. that way in said example the last person doesn't get that advantage because he still has to fort neutral

[cicero]

And, assuming for a moment, that the advantage to be gained from going last against infected neutrals is so great, what's to stop everyone from holding out to play last? What would happen then?

Excuse me answering my own post. I'm still much more interested in crzyblue's response ...

However ... I like the idea that everyone is so busy holding out to play last in freestyle and gain the advantage that crzyblue describes ... that one or more of them miss their turn ... now that's a cool 'infected neutral' effect

[4V4T4R]

ok won't reply to people who don't understand what i'm talking about... anyways cic, if in a 3 player freestyle game, if you capture a bonus, and you're the last to go, then you can leave 1.s by the neutrals, and just fortify the areas that have other players near them and the let player on the other side of the neutral get attacked.

Now that i agree with, although you still risk another player taking your bonus unless
you then immediately start your turn.

However, it is kind of the point that you can control who they kill. Although,
in a freestyle game, you could purposely wait to go last, to have this advantage.
That is why i proposed that the infected neutral's turn order would cycle.
In other words, they would first go last, then they would go after the
second to last person finished, then third to last, etc.
In a freestyle game, this could mean that they go during someone's turn.
But, it also gives everyone a chance to go last before the neutrals.

[snoman99991]

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.

<cut for brevity>

Cicero

I certainly understand that we want to avoid making neutrals a real "intelligent" opponent here. Truthfully, my 'drawn-out' example was simply that; an example. I wouldn't expect you to necessarily use that as the only possible choice. If you wanted these territories to just ensure that they never had more than 10 troops on them at any given time, the largest would move troops to it's smallest accessible territory.

The whole point of the fortification is really just to avoid having a situation that makes it completely impossible for humans to have a viable game in any particular game type. More than anything, it serves as a way to make it possible keep the IN hordes close to the humans, and avoid having them pool up in a way that completely eliminates certain conquering options. Lets say we were playing Conquer Man, and someone were to deadbeat, causing maybe twenty IN territories. Pretty soon, those troops would build up if nobody was far ahead, and if that deadbeater had his own little section in the middle of the map, it might be near impossible to avoid being destroyed by IN's at some point in the game.

Granted, I really want to concede that this idea would need heavy modification, and a lot of thought put into it first. My suggestion was just a loose interpretation of how that might work. In reality, it all comes down to how coding works, and whether or not it's realistic/useful. It could very well play out completely different, and be totally useless. But for all we know, it could be crucial if the whole IN system becomes unbalanced.

Again, thank you for reading.

[vrex]

wow the debate continues lol, has anyone tried to figure out how hard this would be to code?

[cicero]

wow the debate continues lol, has anyone tried to figure out how hard this would be to code?

My opinion is that it will be pretty straightforward to code.

Yeti_c, as a regular programmer, might have a more informed opinion ...

[yeti_c]

ok won't reply to people who don't understand what i'm talking about... anyways cic, if in a 3 player freestyle game, if you capture a bonus, and you're the last to go, then you can leave 1.s by the neutrals, and just fortify the areas that have other players near them and the let player on the other side of the neutral get attacked.

Now that i agree with, although you still risk another player taking your bonus unless
you then immediately start your turn.

However, it is kind of the point that you can control who they kill. Although,
in a freestyle game, you could purposely wait to go last, to have this advantage.
That is why i proposed that the infected neutral's turn order would cycle.
In other words, they would first go last, then they would go after the
second to last person finished, then third to last, etc.
In a freestyle game, this could mean that they go during someone's turn.
But, it also gives everyone a chance to go last before the neutrals.

This won't work - as then the neutrals will end up having double turns sooner or later... as you are promoting them in the order.

C.

[yeti_c]

wow the debate continues lol, has anyone tried to figure out how hard this would be to code?

My opinion is that it will be pretty straightforward to code.

Yeti_c, as a regular programmer, might have a more informed opinion ...

Based on the proposed suggestion (i.e. the propsal on page 16)

This is the most streamlined method... i.e. the logic is very simple and easy to follow... therefore code...

Adding in various other factors discussed throughout the thread will make it more complex.

C.

[yeti_c]

Based on the proposed suggestion (i.e. the propsal on page 16)

This is the most streamlined method... i.e. the logic is very simple and easy to follow... therefore code...

Adding in various other factors discussed throughout the thread will make it more complex.

C.

now all of u know that your making yeti's coding job harder Laughing
even if you manage to hold out till the end on a freestyle anyone who goes before you (as you are blocked from taking the first turn) could blast into your weak bonus...but only if they were fast enough...besides there are very wise players out there who will see what your dong and stop it...and if they have to get some help Laughing

BTW - it won't be me coding it...

C.

[vrex]

My opinion is that it will be pretty straightforward to code.

Yeti_c, as a regular programmer, might have a more informed opinion ...

Based on the proposed suggestion (i.e. the propsal on page 16)

This is the most streamlined method... i.e. the logic is very simple and easy to follow... therefore code...

Adding in various other factors discussed throughout the thread will make it more complex.

C.

now you all know your making yeti's job harder
in freestyle if you manage to hold out for that last turn their will be someone who goes first (as you are blocked in order to prevent back-to-back turns) they could blast through your weak bonus if they were fast enough. besides, there are some pretty wise players who will see what your doing and go after you, and if need be...employ help

[Twill]

3 comments (as a user, not as a mod)

====
a) I'd still like to leave the "fan attack" out there - so the attack selection process is:

1) when you reach 4, divide your armies by the number of non-neutral territories surrounding you, equally attack each one.
2) finished.

OR

1) attack the bordering country with the most armies.
2) if there are 2 or more territories with equal armies, attack both with [armies divided by territories]

The problem with this (and with the suggestion to have them attack only with 1 or 2 dice) is that we would need to ALSO code the ability to attack with 1 or 2 armies, which we don't have right now.

The first option would eliminate the freestyle problem where you can retreat and re-fort.
The second option would keep the "attack the most people" but eliminate the problem of alphabetical handicaps for certain players on certain maps.

OR

Add in a modifier that once the initial selection has been made (whatever that selection process is), it attacks the country with most armies, but if the INs win, then that is no longer the largest country and it attacks the other country that had equal armies but has since become the largest.
So, rather than auto attack, it always attacks the largest group of armies somewhat "spreading the love" more "equally"
For some reason I think this would also address the freestyle problem, because then you could have a larger set of men, without ever fearing that you would be knocked significantly below the person on the other side of the zombies.
It would make them more of an equalizing force than an unbalancing force.

====
b) Wait 1 turn after a deadbeat becomes neutral before attacking.

This fits with the "infection" back story (infection isn't instant) and also allows people time to re-adjust to a known threat:

Player 3 deadbeats a game and has 50 men in North Africa while player 1 has 50 men in Brazil and Player 2 has 51 men in Southern Europe.

Now, if there is no waiting period, players 1 and 2 have moved (but don't want to move their men away from the border unless player 3 comes back and walks right in to their territories), player 3 deadbeats, the round ends, instant infection means that player 2 is getting his ass kicked straight away.

If there is a 1 round "incubation period" then the players have time to plan and adjust to the new situation making it a strategic scenario rather than a rape scenario.

====

c) What order do the IN territories attack?

We know that a single territory will attack the largest/alpha territory first...but if there are 5 IN territories, which one is going first?

This will make a difference...for example, INs on Central America and Brazil with Players in Western USA (2), Peru(3), North Africa (2).

If Brazil attacks first to Peru then Central America will attack Western USA, if Central Attacks first, Brazil will attack North Africa.

Yeti suggested that the largest threat be attacked first, but that would require more processing power (calculate threat level, store threat level, attack) but if we go with alpha order (simple calculation and processing) then it's the same problem we had earlier with non-strategic planning ability on the player's side...the person in Western USA is going to get attacked no matter how few armies he puts there (assuming the Brazilians kill the Peruvians) and so he cannot strategically defend against the INs (lets ignore the Eastern USA and Argentina variables here, it's an example :-p)

I don't have a solution to this one...I don't know how complicated it would be to calculate biggest threat and store it for something like AOR or Feudal or a 2 player World 2.0 where there could be a million threats to calculate and store.


Just my thoughts.

[yeti_c]

a) I like the OR option... i.e. if you have 2 equal armies - then divide armies by 2 then attack each auto each territory with the armies once...

Also this means that the dice do factor the decline a bit more - instead of the attack biggest one at a time... (There is a difference here)

b) Not a bad idea - but would be a lot tricker to code.

c) I think the proposal is for Biggest IN army to attack first...

And if there are equals - then alpha/xml order...

(I don't think it makes a *huge* amount of difference so a third differential is probably immaterial)

C.

[PLAYER57832]

I wrote a clarification of my earlier suggestion, but it seems to have disappeared. It is somewhat like Twills, though different

Concerning ties only.

If 2 or more territories have equal armies,

EITHER

1. they randomly pick one territory to attack, goes forward per remainder of rules.


2. They become confused and think all the territories are the same territory and attack each in succession (one after the other, then back around) until one is defeated. "Start" point (first country attacked) would be random.

3. They think all territories are one, but after one round of attacks (attacking each country once), stop and realize they made a mistake, reassess per original rules. If another tie (same or other armies), repeat this rule.

for example
Neutral has 10 armies
A, B, C have 6 armies. D has 5, E has 4.

nuetrals first attack A,B,C A now has 5, B has 4 and C has 5
D has 5, E has 4

nuetrals now attack A,C, D (5 armies each)
A ends up with 3, B still has 4, C has 3, D has 4 and E has 4
ETC until nuetral runs out of armies OR 1 territory is conquered. (neutrals too dumb to know that it has been attacking other territories).

Is is not as complicated (playing or programming) as it is to explain, but it might not be what you want.

FINALLY,
I DO like the idea of selecting the country COMPLETELY at random -- without regard to the number of armies, but I can also understand your arguments in favor of your plan. I will likely play this however it is finally set up.

[vrex]

_______________________

* 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)
_______________________

looks like your right yeti, anyway twill cicero has already stated that he wants INs to roll as many die as players usually do, i agree with him as anything else doesnt make sense (why make them weaker? they are supposed to be a potential game threat!) as far as the b suggestion i think it would be good to give a period where players can adjust...

[4V4T4R]

ok won't reply to people who don't understand what i'm talking about... anyways cic, if in a 3 player freestyle game, if you capture a bonus, and you're the last to go, then you can leave 1.s by the neutrals, and just fortify the areas that have other players near them and the let player on the other side of the neutral get attacked.

Now that i agree with, although you still risk another player taking your bonus unless
you then immediately start your turn.

However, it is kind of the point that you can control who they kill. Although,
in a freestyle game, you could purposely wait to go last, to have this advantage.
That is why i proposed that the infected neutral's turn order would cycle.
In other words, they would first go last, then they would go after the
second to last person finished, then third to last, etc.
In a freestyle game, this could mean that they go during someone's turn.
But, it also gives everyone a chance to go last before the neutrals.

This won't work - as then the neutrals will end up having double turns sooner or later... as you are promoting them in the order.

C.

no it would wrap around.
for example, in a three player game

round1:
player1
player2
player3
neutrals

round2:
player1
player2
neutrals
player3

round3:
player1
neutrals
player2
player3

round4:(same as round 1)
player1
player2
player3
neutrals


in a freestyle game, the players may take turns in a different order, but the
same concept would apply.

There is the chance that the player they go after is the last to go, and then
the next player they go after starts the next round.
In this case, they would take two turns only 1 turn apart, but
it would be no different than another player doing the same thing,
and they wouldn't get two turns, they would still have to wait until the next round.

[PLAYER57832]

It seems any issue of order will be negated because there IS no order in freestyle. A "game sitter" can always just keep watch and go in before/after the neutrals have taken their turn (or deploy, but wait to finish). Most of the advantages and disadvantages mentioned are integral parts of freestyle and why I for one don't play freestyle anymore. ( I don't have the time to sit and play "you go first") Nuetrals won't change that.

Putting nuetrals at the end seems to be the best. It will affect a freestyle game in ways differant from how it affects a sequential game, but does that really matter? As long as the affect is uniform for all freestyle games .. and it would be if the nuetrals always took the last turn. Anyone who doesn't like the effect can just not play with nuetrals .. .like any other CC option.

[vrex]

It seems any issue of order will be negated because there IS no order in freestyle. A "game sitter" can always just keep watch and go in before/after the neutrals have taken their turn (or deploy, but wait to finish). Most of the advantages and disadvantages mentioned are integral parts of freestyle and why I for one don't play freestyle anymore. ( I don't have the time to sit and play "you go first") Nuetrals won't change that.

Putting nuetrals at the end seems to be the best. It will affect a freestyle game in ways differant from how it affects a sequential game, but does that really matter? As long as the affect is uniform for all freestyle games .. and it would be if the nuetrals always took the last turn. Anyone who doesn't like the effect can just not play with nuetrals .. .like any other CC option.

well put, one way or another this option is not going to satisfy everyone on conquerclub as there are at least 1 million (?maybe...) members, i for one dont have time to sit at my comp and wait for player y to go because its freestyle, plus i strategize better on sequential...that must be why i dont choose to play the OPTION of freestyle... in the end as long as the 'option' affects all players the same way it doesn't matter too much how it turns out when 'finalized'.

[4V4T4R]

Is this thread about freestyle vs sequential or infected neutrals

my cycling turn proposal was in response to people who thought that the nz's
always going last would give the last player an unfair advantage. Since the
nz's are supposed to be a game play feature, and thus should not give any
player an unfair advantage, i concordantly proposed a cycling turn as a solution to this problem.

If you have a different idea of how to insure that this is balanced, let's hear it!

[cicero]

my cycling turn proposal was in response to people who thought that the nz's always going last would give the last player an unfair advantage. Since the nz's are supposed to be a game play feature, and thus should not give any player an unfair advantage, i concordantly proposed a cycling turn as a solution to this problem.

Even if it is a problem, I think your solution may well be flawed 4V4T4R.

In my quote of your solution I have added three things: First - an underline of the player playing 'last' - before the neutrals. Second - turn numbers behind square braces at the beginning of the line. Third - a count of 'how many turns have the neutrals had since my last turn?' at the end of the line.

for example, in a three player game

round1:
1] player1 (0)
2] player2 (0)
3] player3 (0)
4] neutrals -

round2:
5] player1 (1)
6] player2 (1)
7] neutrals -
8] player3 (2)

round3:
9] player1 (1)
10] neutrals -
11] player2 (1)
12] player3 (1)

round4:(same as round 1)
13] player1 (1)
14] player2 (0)
15] player3 (0)
16] neutrals -

I am presuming that you don't mean rounds would be r1, r2, r3, r4 - r1, r2, r3, r4, etc ... if you do mean this then you'll see player3 plays last twice as often as the others ... which doesn't solve the perceived problem.

Assuming instead that you mean r1, r2, r3 - r4, r2, r3 - r4, r2, r3 - r4, r2, r3 etc this still leaves a flaw ... you'll see at turn 8 that when player3 takes his turn the neutrals have played twice since his last turn - if you had zombie neighbours you wouldn't be pleased at not being able to do anything! And of course this happens every three rounds. Also you'll see that of all three players only player1 never has a turn (except in the very first round) where the zombies haven't played since his previous turn. And both the others do, every three rounds.

If you have a different idea of how to insure that this is balanced, let's hear it!

I do think that the existing suggestion is better balanced than this.

As I've said before; in some (normal) games I get to go first. In every round. And that's an advantage. But it's evened out over many games because I get a different turn in the game order in different games.

In some (infected neutral) games I will get to last and hence immediately before the zombies. In every round. And that's an advantage. But it's evened out over many games because I get a different turn in the game order in different games.

Cicero
[They don't call me "brief cicero" for nothing.
I have to pay them.]