[XML] infected neutrals

[Ditocoaf]

well until he posts image if IN had 5 armies on each territory bordering a player(s) with 2 armies each and IN armies were on 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' and 'e' territ names then according to the logic the IN armies on territ name 'e' would never attack and the player bordering that territ would ALWAYS win UNLESS players attempted to get their 2 army down to 1 and NOT every player thought up the genius idea of doing so. (IN would always attack with 'a' territ first followed by 'b' 'c' 'd' in THIS hypothetical situation because if all the IN territs have the same # of armies they resort to alphabet order) ...alphabet order is what ditocoaf is worried about. I am aware that the likely hood of IN ever using alphabet order to determine who wins is fairly small... but personally after IN looks at 'how many armies do i have?' there is not much else to go on save alphabet...so i cant think of a better option...can u ditocoaf?

Maybe use some apparently-random mathematical forumula like the one used for determining targets? Like I said, this probably isn't that important; and we'll never really know how often this will happen on conquest maps until we actually try it. So I guess this issue can be saved for IN's v2.

[cicero]

Re the possible problem on Feudal Wars see the map below with armies in starting positions.
I have yet to understand the core of what the possible problem is from Ditocoaf and Vrex's recent exchange of posts.
Can you post again referring to the map and expressing what you think may happen? [Ditocoaf, I note you say it will be rare, but I'm still interested to know. We might as well follow it through since Lack etc are going to be busy fixing the forums for a while - so the infected neutrals are going to have to join the queue and be well behaved virally infected armies.]



Talking of forums. You'll have noticed the number of posts per page has changed (again - from 10 to 15) and so the page numbers are all out. Again!

To assist here's a link to the [CURRENT PROPOSAL].

[Ditocoaf]

Re the possible problem on Feudal Wars see the map below with armies in starting positions.
I have yet to understand the core of what the possible problem is from Ditocoaf and Vrex's recent exchange of posts.
Can you post again referring to the map and expressing what you think may happen? [Ditocoaf, I note you say it will be rare, but I'm still interested to know. We might as well follow it through since Lack etc are going to be busy fixing the forums for a while - so the infected neutrals are going to have to join the queue and be well behaved virally infected armies.]

Well, here's an example, focusing only on Realm of Might and Imperial Dynasty. I'll use the quickest scenario possible, even though it involves players losing an improbable number of armies.

Say Realm of Might attacks RoM 3, and takes it, meanwhile Imperial Dynasty attacks ID 5, and takes it. Both groups now have say 3 armies in each castle, and 1 in their new holding (they suffered heavy losses). It is now the neutrals turn. The only IN territories that can attack are RoM 1, and ID 7. They both have 10 armies, so the armies in the ID area will always attack first. They will attack ID 5, and most likely take it. (here I'm not sure if the game re-chooses an attacking territory, so I'll present both situations.) a. ID 5 now attacks ID Castle, and takes it. The player at RoM wins. b. RoM 1 now attacks RoM 3. If it fares the same in battle that ID 7 did, then it will be ID 5's turn to attack again, taking ID castle, and allowing RoM to win the game..

Really, it would be unlikely for these two to lose so many armies as to only have 4 left after round 1, and I'm also pretending that the other 4 places don't exist. But this could happen later in the game, after the neutrals have built up. Neutrals play such a large role in this map, that if there are ever the same # on two territories, the Alphabetical Order thing could determine the game's winner.

[vrex]

after re-browsing the proposal i believe that IN would indeed 'perform a second look' after taking its first imperial dynasty territory...which means it would then attack realm of might and then if and only if the army count was still the same attack imperial dynasty again causing realm-man to win. It is also possible for The great kingdom and Rebel territory to unlock a 10 army neutral by attacking only one territory...the other castles must go through two territories...looking at all the castles the alphabetical order would be: 1)Barbarians Castle 2)Feudal Empire Castle 3)?The Great Kingdom Castle? (does it look at T or G?) 4)Imperial Dynasty Castle 5)Realm of Might Castle 6)Rebel Territory Castle 7)?The Great Kingdom Castle?

i cant remember if its THE great kingdom or just GREAT kingdom oh well either rebels will win all the time like ditocoaf says in his hypothetical situation or Great kingdom will...it is all purely hypothetical and highly unlikely...but since we have time might as well take a look

[yeti_c]

Looks like you guys have a point...

So perhaps we need to improve the algorithm for order of attack away from Alphabetical...

At the moment (IIRC) we have,

1) Largest Army
2) Alphabetical

Can we change to

1) Largest Army
2) Biggest opponent (using zmobie rationale - biggest feast)
3) Alpha

(Remember that all castles can bombard all territorys - so ROM is at a slight disadvantage as it cannot gain any extra bonus until it has bombarded out at least 1 10 border... although - it does have the advantage of being able to always chuck all it's troops on the Castle. Some of the others can gain a couple of quicker bonuses before having to face a 10 border...)

C.

[Blitzaholic]

I like the idea, but i do not think the zombie neutrals should be able to attack, but i do think at the end of each round they could get a bonus of 1 army randomly per round.

[cicero]

I like the idea, but i do not think the zombie neutrals should be able to attack, but i do think at the end of each round they could get a bonus of 1 army randomly per round.

Not quite sure what you're suggesting here Blitz ... If the zombie/infected neutrals don't attack what is the point of them?
Surely if they receive one army per round (randomly or otherwise) then the neutral territories will just build and build making them less and less relevant to the game since they will become, in most cases, effectively impenetrable.

[vrex]

Looks like you guys have a point...

So perhaps we need to improve the algorithm for order of attack away from Alphabetical...

At the moment (IIRC) we have,

1) Largest Army
2) Alphabetical

Can we change to

1) Largest Army
2) Biggest opponent (using zmobie rationale - biggest feast)
3) Alpha

(Remember that all castles can bombard all territorys - so ROM is at a slight disadvantage as it cannot gain any extra bonus until it has bombarded out at least 1 10 border... although - it does have the advantage of being able to always chuck all it's troops on the Castle. Some of the others can gain a couple of quicker bonuses before having to face a 10 border...)

C.

even if we had IN look at player number of armies (like it does for target selection) ditocoafs hypothetical situation still applies as each attacking IN has 5 armies and each about-to-die player has 2 armies...however it would make an extra buffer zone making the likely hood of IN using alphabet go down even more... beyond that here are a few of my ridiculous ideas (the only ones i can come up with) 1)IN has color preference and always attacks color...[completely unfair for color...] 2)IN has rank preference and always attacks...[player ranks can change during the game and its unfair for the players at the target rank]
3)IN has player name preference...[once again alphabet order must be used so its unfair and people end up wishing they could change their username] 4)IN has neg feedback or pos feedback preference [my ideas are so cruel now people really wish they could have those negatives removed or didn't fish so much for feedback ] ....mm i think im done....hope you all enjoyed my ridiculous ideas as much as i do

[Ditocoaf]

I would suggest using this forumula:
first, arrange the IN territories with the most armies in alphabetical order.
then,
(total attack force in those territories) / (IN territories with the most armies) = X remainder Y
and use Y to determine which of the territories to use first.

This way, any change to the amount of armies would affect which place gets attacked first. If the players wait a turn, and the territories all get 1 army added to them, then a different player will be attacked.

[cicero]

Say Realm of Might attacks RoM 3, and takes it, meanwhile Imperial Dynasty attacks ID 5, and takes it. Both groups now have say 3 armies in each castle, and 1 in their new holding (they suffered heavy losses). It is now the neutrals turn. The only IN territories that can attack are RoM 1, and ID 7. They both have 10 armies, so the armies in the ID area will always attack first. They will attack ID 5, and most likely take it. RoM 1 now attacks RoM 3. If it fares the same in battle that ID 7 did, then it will be ID 5's turn to attack again, taking ID castle, and allowing RoM to win the game.

Really, it would be unlikely ... but this could happen ... if ... [then] the Alphabetical Order thing could determine the game's winner.

OK Ditocoaf. In the scenario that you describe alphabetical does decide the outcome of the game.

My edit reduces your description to only include the outcome which the logic produces (as already confirmed by vrex) and also I've emphasised the 'if's and 'but's to show that it is unlikely.

But ultimately I think that both players have played so poorly that they have allowed the game to be won purely alphabetically. If you're going to play really poorly then you deserve that.

Let's reconsider the scenario. As RoM on my opening move I will definitely not conquer anything except RoM4. I may then use some armies to weaken RoM1 by bombardment. This avoids opening myself up to the big (starting 10) neutrals. However as ID ... ahhh ... I have no option (if I want a card) but to attack a territory that borders with a big (starting 10) neutral armies ...

Surely this is a flaw of the map (only ID suffers from this - though of course I appreciate that it was not designed with INs in mind), not of the current IN logic ?

Do we suggest a revamp to correct this ? [I'm not sure if I'm serious on this, but certainly all future (AI - After Infection) designers will design with the possibility of IN's in mind.]

[Ditocoaf]

Say Realm of Might attacks RoM 3, and takes it, meanwhile Imperial Dynasty attacks ID 5, and takes it. Both groups now have say 3 armies in each castle, and 1 in their new holding (they suffered heavy losses). It is now the neutrals turn. The only IN territories that can attack are RoM 1, and ID 7. They both have 10 armies, so the armies in the ID area will always attack first. They will attack ID 5, and most likely take it. RoM 1 now attacks RoM 3. If it fares the same in battle that ID 7 did, then it will be ID 5's turn to attack again, taking ID castle, and allowing RoM to win the game.

Really, it would be unlikely ... but this could happen ... if ... [then] the Alphabetical Order thing could determine the game's winner.

OK Ditocoaf. In the scenario that you describe alphabetical does decide the outcome of the game.

My edit reduces your description to only include the outcome which the logic produces (as already confirmed by vrex) and also I've emphasised the 'if's and 'but's to show that it is unlikely.

But ultimately I think that both players have played so poorly that they have allowed the game to be won purely alphabetically. If you're going to play really poorly then you deserve that.

Let's reconsider the scenario. As RoM on my opening move I will definitely not conquer anything except RoM4. I may then use some armies to weaken RoM1 by bombardment. This avoids opening myself up to the neutrals. However as ID ... I have no option (if I want a card) but to attack a territory that borders with a big (starting 10) neutral armies ...

Surely this is a flaw of the map, not of the current IN logic ?

This is pretty much a flaw with the map. With something as complex as INs added into the game, you can't really expect it to work with every map; and I don't really think map makers will or should go back and retrospectively fix their maps to make them fair with INs. I think something like this will end up working only with some maps, and not with others; and map makers don't necessarily have to keep INs in mind; there will just be some maps known as "bad for INs." Conquest maps in particular won't be used with INs frequently, but most normal maps will work well. All options work well with some maps, and poorly with others; this will just be accentuated with this option, since it's more complex.

I guess the only situation that could cause my hypothetical flaw to happen would be to have an equal overwhelming force bordering two or more castles, with no players left but in those castles. Players would all have to play very poorly to allow that to happen. But as you point out, this map is already unfair with INs in other ways, so I doubt it will ever be popular to play with INs on this map.

[vrex]

I would suggest using this forumula:
first, arrange the IN territories with the most armies in alphabetical order.
then,
(total attack force in those territories) / (IN territories with the most armies) = X remainder Y
and use Y to determine which of the territories to use first.

This way, any change to the amount of armies would affect which place gets attacked first. If the players wait a turn, and the territories all get 1 army added to them, then a different player will be attacked.

ditocoaf to the rescue! look cicero! another array formula! [IN arranges territs by largest force ...oh look 3 of my territs have 7...IN arranges territs in alphabet array 'position 0-1-2' IN uses formula 7/3=2 remainder 1 IN attacks player losing 1 army...IN recalculates 7/2=3 remainder 1...but guess what? ITS NOT THE SAME PLAYER!!! why is that u ask? because the territories with 7 armies still on them DO NOT include the territory THAT JUST LOST ONE ARMY!!!] so beautiful............(weeps) i applaud you ditocoaf IN option HERE WE COME!!!

[brendan man]

Nice idea!

[cicero]

I would suggest using this forumula:
first, arrange the IN territories with the most armies in alphabetical order.
then,
(total attack force in those territories) / (IN territories with the most armies) = X remainder Y
and use Y to determine which of the territories to use first.

This way, any change to the amount of armies would affect which place gets attacked first. If the players wait a turn, and the territories all get 1 army added to them, then a different player will be attacked.

ditocoaf to the rescue! look cicero! another array formula! [IN arranges territs by largest force ...oh look 3 of my territs have 7...IN arranges territs in alphabet array 'position 0-1-2' IN uses formula 7/3=2 remainder 1 IN attacks player losing 1 army...IN recalculates 7/2=3 remainder 1...but guess what? ITS NOT THE SAME PLAYER!!! why is that u ask? because the territories with 7 armies still on them DO NOT include the territory THAT JUST LOST ONE ARMY!!!] so beautiful............(weeps) i applaud you ditocoaf IN option HERE WE COME!!!

Unfortunately your math is out vrex

Assuming there were originally three territories with 7 then using Ditocoaf's formula the calculation is (initially with three territories) 12 / 3 = 4 remainder 0 (attack force in a territory with 7 armies is 4 ... three of those is 12)
Now, as you say, one of those three territories with 7 becomes 6. The calculation (now with two territories) is 8 / 2 = 4 remainder 0 (attack force in a territory with 7 armies is 4 ... two of those is 8 )
The same result.

But what ditocoaf is actually suggesting is this:

Assuming the original three territories have 7 then using Ditocoaf's formula the calculation is still
12 / 3 = 4 remainder 0 (attack force in a territory with 7 armies is 4 ... three of those is 12)

One turn later all the territories with 7 become 8. The calculation is now 15 / 3 = 5 remainder 0 (attack force in a territory with 8 armies is 5 ... three of those is 15 )
Again the same result.

From the above it is clear that the formula doesn't work.
Even more significant is the fact that the second turn illustrated above would never occur. Any IN territories with 7 armies on them capable of making an attack in the first turn will attack until they have less than 4 armies on them. There's no chance of getting to 8 in the way suggested.

[vrex]

i was never good at math but im going to try and analyze some things... ok first of all the new code was an attempt to assure ourselves that IN would never decide who was going to win by the alphabetical name of the territory it is sitting on that happens to be next to a certain player... IN armys should only ever get from 7 to 8 if they are surrounded by other INs i am aware that they attack themselves down to 3 or 2 the code is not an attempt to mitigate this.. USING the code i must go into detail in attempt to figure out if the same player always dies. if i do not remember things accurately...then correct me here goes!

there are 4 players with 2 armies remaining each |:| IN has cornered the players and each player has 2 borders which are occupied by IN |:| the borders for each player are 2 IN armies and 7 IN armies |:| For player 1 the IN army of 7 is sitting on territ name 'a' (break) for player 2 the IN army of 7 is sitting on territ name 'b' (break) for player 3 the IN army of 7 is sitting on territ name 'c' (break) for player 4 the IN army of 7 is sitting on territ name 'd' |:| we all know using current logic and certain outcomes of rolls that player 4 will always win, this is what the code must avoid |:| according to you cicero using ditocoafs code the first IN attack would be directed at territ 'a' because 16/4=4 remainder 0 and territ 'a' was placed in array number zero because of alphabetical order which followed number of armies highest to low |:| as far as i know once a change in the number of IN armies on a territ takes place (ie the IN army that attacked territ 'a' loses 1 army) IN 'shares the love' [courtesy of twill] which means when we use 12/3=4 remainder 0 [only 2 territs and attack force is 4+4] IN is attacking territ 'b' |:| so therefore assuming a loss of 1 army every time 8/2 (c)... 4/1 (d)... 3/4 (hmm broken?)... IT seems you are CORRECT cicero LOL [man this really breaks my logic up because 4 territs and 7 armies or 4 attack force each and every time it loses an army there is one less territ but still 4 attack force in three territs then 2...my head hurts]

if we used total number of armies? 28/4 remain 0 (a)... 27/3 0 (b)... 26/2 0 (c)... if loss of 2 armies? nope it would just skip around... how about number of armies on only 1 territ(the highest army count)? 7/4 remain 3 (d)... 7/3 1 (b)... 7/2 1(c)... 7/1 0 (a)... 6/4 3 (d)... 6/3 0 (a)... 6/2 (b)... 6/1 (c)... 5/4 1 (b)... 5/3 2 (d)... 5/2 1(c)... 5/1 0 (a)... 4/4 (a)... 4/3 1 (c)... 4/2 0 (b)... 4/1 0 (d)... [we seem to have a pattern going lol but at least its variety] 3/4 well IN wouldn't attack at this point because it doesn't have 4 armies... HMM hope flairs again LOL i realize do to that fact that IN is losing 1 army so therefore player is losing 1 army that player 3 has won because each player only had 2 but i hope u see that if they had 3 that player 1 would have won and if they had 4 player 4 would win...im sure if we had more armies for IN that player 2 would win at some point as well |:| remember when analyzing this that the array for attacking IN army is constantly changing therefore it will not ever attack the same player twice as long as it has 7 armies on any territ that is about to kill someone... *whew*

[Tieryn]

I've read some of the posts.. and I'm not quite caught up on the math, but I've got an idea... and I hope it might help a little with this problem... yeah.

So the problem seems to be IN's in big built up territories, are going to cause issues... Please correct any mistakes I make as I go along. An IN territory will not attack unless it has 4 armies. If this is true, then to stop or reduce the incidence of alphabet decision (although I think the alphabet decision is much like in some card games with suit order... It's just another strategy and strength. It just changes the math a little, and I think it's perfectly valid and acceptable)

But my idea to change/fix the problem was "IN Srpeading". So IN territories grow, but on some maps there are some big starting spots... I think it would be interesting for these spots to slowly spread. Perhaps along the following rules:

Let (with respect to a territory)

• HN = The highest army count of its surrounding neighbours.
• AC = The army count of the territory itself
• NN = The Number of Neighbours

//Do Check on all armies,
If AC / HN >2 (army count is more than double highest neighbour)
Territory with the highest ratio: Send 1 army to random smallest neighbour (if more than one)
Repeat check until all territories return false.
group all changes and apply as a single move with a single gamechat output
"Neutral players roam mindlessly"

Sure it looks like a little bit of mind there, but it's more the random aimless wandering... Perhaps for zombies going to the place of less zombies hence more food... that's a good angle on this! spreading for food supplies is a natural instinct, not a cognitive function. Classic zombie behaviour.

What do people think?

[Neoteny]

Anything with zombahs is a good thing.

[4V4T4R]

As for tieryn's idea, the problem with spreading is that is prevents the large armies from being isolated. For example, consider the sanctuary on AoR:Magic. With the current rules, the army there is isolated until someone takes a bordering territ, releasing it. With ur proposal, it would spread out and reach players long before they intended to release it, so whoever started near the sanctuary would be screwed every time.

And about the alphabetical discussion, I think it is irrelevant. Arguing such a situacion is like saying "If I have one army next to a territ with 100, I will lose." From previous turns, you have put yourself into a losing situacion. Thus, it is entirely ur fault. The rules of how the IN's work would be easily known. If someone doesn't realize that they will resort to attacking in alphabetical order and work to prevent it, then they deserve to be attacked. It is simply part of the game.

[cicero]

final proposal
The details of this suggestion are now finalised as far as regular forum discussion is concerned. Please do not post further suggestions for change.
I have drawn this post to the attention of the site owners/moderators [specifically Lack & Twill].
I would prefer that we, as community members, await their 'official' feedback/criticism before making any significant edits to this proposal.

Having said that if those of you who fully understand the suggestion aims find errors/omissions/ambiguities in this post then please do post accordingly. 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, but predictably so. They attack any un-infected armies without thought for their own safety and with no real goal in mind. Whether they still have a mind is open to debate.
They always attack the largest uninfected armies on their borders and continue the battle until they destroy their enemies or sustain such casualties that they cannot continue. There is no antidote.
__________

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 when the game is initialised are infected and are active.
• Any neutral armies introduced to the game by deadbeats, bombardments or killer territories are infected and incubate for one full game round before becoming active.
• Active neutrals always attack if capable. Incubating neutrals do not attack.
• With colour codes added active neutrals are identified by a preceding 'a' and incubating neutrals are identified by a preceding 'i'. These replace the usual 'n'.
• The infected neutral turn occurs immediately after the end of each game round before the start of the next game round.
• Game Log reports of infected neutral activity are affected by Fog of War in the same way as reports of player activity.
• The infected neutral turn progresses according to the pseudo code below.

__________

Code: Select all

// DEPLOY phase
// add one army to each ACTIVE infected neutral territory
For Each active infected neutral territory
   add one army to territory
   write to game log : "infected neutrals get 1 army added to <territory name>"
Next
// Infected neutrals do not receive ANY other 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.

Code: Select all

// ATTACK phase
// All ACTIVE infected neutral territories with 4 or more armies and with non-neutral neighbours are capable of making an attack
// NB bombardment attacks are not allowed

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.

Code: Select all

FutureOffset = current system time // timestamp offset to be used to allow players to watch infected neutral turns in real time
NumAttTerr = number of territories capable of making an attack // calculate how many territories can attack
While NumAttTerr > 0 and FutureOffset < turn end time // as long as there's a territory that can attack, and not out of time, ATTACK !!
   // the following two lines must be INSIDE the While loop since the territories capable of attacking may have changed since the last iteration
   arrange the qualifying territories in an array AttTerrs() // indexed 0, 1, 2 etc
   sort the AttTerrs() array by "number of armies on territory (high to low)" then (where this is indecisive) by "(number of armies on territory -3) MOD number of AttTerrs with same number of armies (low to high)" // the reason for the "-3" here is purely for consistency with the "AttackForce" used below
   AttTerrInd = 0 // set the attacking territory index to zero; to point to the first attacking territory

   // select TARGET player territory(s)
   // This logic addresses both a single target territory and multiple target territories
   // The attacking territory will attack the bordering territory(s) which contain the most armies
   // [Remember that bombardment attacks are not allowed]
   arrange the qualifying territory(s) in an array Targets() // indexed 0, 1, 2 etc.
   sort the Targets() array by "alphabetical order (a to z)"
   NumTargs = the number of territories in the array Targets()
   AttackForce = initial number of attacking neutral armies - 3
   TargCount = 1 // set the target count to one; to indicate the first of the NumTargs targets

   While TargCount<=NumTargs // attack each of the targets in turn
      TargInd = (AttackForce + TargCount - 1) MOD NumTargs // set the target territory index; to point to the TargCount target

      Repeat
         attack Targets(TargInd) // attack the target territory
      Until the attacking territory has <= (3 + (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs)) armies or the battle is won
      If the battle is won Then
         If TargCount = NumTargs Then // ie neutrals are attacking the last target territory
            advance (all remaining - 1) armies
         Else
            advance (all remaining - (3 + (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs))) armies
         write to game log using FutureOffset as timestamp : "infected neutral player attacked <territory name> from <territory name> and conquered it from <player name>"
      FutureOffset = FutureOffset + 5 seconds // to allow players to watch the turn in real time
      TargCount = TargCount + 1
   End While
   
   NumAttTerr = number of territories capable of making an attack // recalculate
End While
If FutureOffset >= turn end time
   write to game log using FutureOffset as timestamp : "infected neutral player ran out of time"

// END phase
// Consider all INCUBATING neutrals
For Each incubating neutral territory
   If incubating neutral territory was infected in the preceding game round Then
      write to game log : "infected neutral territory <territory name> incubating"
   Else
      incubating neutral territory becomes active neutral territory
      write to game log : "incubating neutral territory <territory name> now active"
Next

// Note that regardless of game settings infected neutrals make NO fortifications.
// Note that regardless of game settings infected neutrals receive NO cards.


__________

The player who wins gains no points for beating the infected neutrals any more than they do now for winning a game containing neutral players or 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.
__________

Documentation
This suggestion relies on the predictability of the Infected Neutrals for it's effectiveness. Players will need to understand this predictability to incorporate the Infected Neutral behaviour into their strategy. Whilst the pseudo code above does describe the behaviour accurately it does not present it as simply as will be necessary for the community as a whole.

The "Instructions > Game Options" tab to be updated to include the following just after the Fog of War section:

Infected Neutrals

Infected neutrals play their turn immediately after the end of each game round before the start of the next game round in both sequential and freestyle games.

Any neutral armies on the map when the game is initialised are infected and are active. Any neutral armies introduced to the game by deadbeats, bombardments or killer territories are infected and incubate for one full game round before becoming active. Active neutral territories are capable of attack if they have 4 or more armies and at at least one non-neutral neighbour. Incubating neutrals do not attack. [With colour codes added active neutrals are identified by a preceding 'a' and incubating neutrals are identified by a preceding 'i'.]

At the start of their turn infected neutrals receive one additional army on every territory held. They receive no other bonuses, positive or negative, of any kind. Infected neutrals will always attack from each of their capable territories in turn attacking from the territory with the largest number of armies first. Such a territory will attack its largest neighbour(s) and continue until battle is won or the attacking territory has less than 4 armies remaining. Infected neutrals end their turn when there are no neutral territories capable of attack or they run out of time. Regardless of game settings infected neutrals do not make fortifications and do not receive a card.

Ordinary neutrals do not have a turn, receive no armies at any time and are entirely passive. [With colour codes added ordinary neutrals are identified by a preceding 'n'.]

Further, to avoid overwhelming the "Game Options" tab page, a more detailed post describing Infected Neutral behaviour to be posted in "General Discussion > Q&A" when Infected Neutrals are implemented. This post will then form the basis of a thread for any clarifying questions about how the Infected Neutral option works.

Infected Neutrals

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

__________

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 the neutral armies produced by a deadbeat (in non terminator games) 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 may make them attack 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 (which cannot auto attack since it is surrounded on all sides by other infected neutrals) ... that 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 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 neutrals 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. Hence from 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 a single territory)

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 last surviving player at the end of the game (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 possibly 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.

[vrex]

YAYYYYYYY its finally done! so happy... now we wait for those 'powers that be'

[Ditocoaf]

Awesome! I regret missing the summit, but I'm stoked about the results

So how are the AttTerrs sorted by "number of armies MOD number of AttTerrs with same number of armies"? I'm afraid MOD is something I'm not familiar with...

[vrex]

(total attack force in those territories) / (IN territories with the most armies) = X remainder Y
and use Y to determine which of the territories to use first.

remember this ditocoaf? what you have written here... Z/W = X remainder Y is a MOD... it is also a FORMULA and or if you wish a MOD FORMULA... ALTHOUGH we are NOT using THIS formula the IN summit resulted in a FORMULA that is not ALPHABETICAL and results in various outcomes of players winning...the exact specifics however are ... complicated... perhaps if you wish you can post again begging cicero to explain it...or just wait for the 'documentation' {in the final proposal} to come out.

[Ditocoaf]

(total attack force in those territories) / (IN territories with the most armies) = X remainder Y
and use Y to determine which of the territories to use first.

remember this ditocoaf? what you have written here... Z/W = X remainder Y is a MOD... it is also a FORMULA and or if you wish a MOD FORMULA... ALTHOUGH we are NOT using THIS formula the IN summit resulted in a FORMULA that is not ALPHABETICAL and results in various outcomes of players winning...the exact specifics however are ... complicated... perhaps if you wish you can post again begging cicero to explain it...or just wait for the 'documentation' {in the final proposal} to come out.

lol, all those caps make it sound like you're speaking slowly to someone you consider very very dumb. I guess I was asking what exactly the new formula was; and apparently I'll have to beg cicero to explain it . I guess I was under the impression that MOD referred to a SPECIFIC FUNCTION, but I gather from your post that it is a GENERAL TERM referring to A GENERAL GENRE OF FUNCTIONS?

[yeti_c]

No no... MOD is a function that returns the remainder of a Division function...

i.e.

10/3 = 3 Remainder 1

10 MOD 3 = 1

C.

[greenoaks]

final proposal

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 a single territory)

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).

it is my understanding of the rules from playing terminator games that all points from deadbeat players go to the eventual winner of the game. i can not find anything though that states it is one or the other.