[XML] infected neutrals

[cicero]

so in your proposal will a deadbeat's stack retain their colour for terminator games ?

if they do, will any territories conquered by deadbeat player A be the same colour as deadbeat player A or will they turn grey ?

what i am getting at is currently in terminator games i can get the points from a deadbeat if i can eliminate him before the game ends (otherwise the points go to the eventual winner). with infected neutrals those territories would be harder to conquer each round but still a possibility, although a smaller possibility if deadbeat player A's number of territories expand.

Terminator rules stay as they are. Deadbeats' armies are not replaced by neutrals in terminator. Hence no infected neutrals will be introduced by a player deadbeating in a Terminator game. [Though of course they could still be introduced by a bombardment or by a killer neutral territory [though none of those exist yet ]].

Having reviewed the [CURRENT PROPOSAL] in light of your comments I can't see any ambiguity on that point ... Do you think it needs to be changed in some way?

[cicero]

I have begun work on some documentation for infected neutrals.
See the Documentation section of the [CURRENT PROPOSAL]

What are your thoughts about the two elements of the documentation (ie an addition to Instructions > Game Options plus a separate detailed post in Q&A) ?

What are your thoughts on my first draft for the addition to instructions? I know that it does not include any mention of how the infected neutrals discern their turn order or target selection where there are equal numbers of armies (ie all our MOD function distinctions), but I can't see how this can be done concisely enough not to overwhelm the Game Options tab.

Any Q&A would have to be limited to a paragraph. People wont read more than that.

If you felt the need for a long informational post, the best we could do would be to add a paragraph on the rules page and then link to a Q&A forum post with technical details/storyline.

I must admit I'm concerned that when infected neutrals are implmented I don't want to spend the next 6 months of my life re-explaining their behaviour in the forum ... so I'd like to go with a Q&A post ... but then if they won't read it ...

Awaiting your thoughts ...

[greenoaks]

so in your proposal will a deadbeat's stack retain their colour for terminator games ?

if they do, will any territories conquered by deadbeat player A be the same colour as deadbeat player A or will they turn grey ?

what i am getting at is currently in terminator games i can get the points from a deadbeat if i can eliminate him before the game ends (otherwise the points go to the eventual winner). with infected neutrals those territories would be harder to conquer each round but still a possibility, although a smaller possibility if deadbeat player A's number of territories expand.

Terminator rules stay as they are. Deadbeats' armies are not replaced by neutrals in terminator. Hence no infected neutrals will be introduced by a player deadbeating in a Terminator game. [Though of course they could still be introduced by a bombardment or by a killer neutral territory [though none of those exist yet ]].

Having reviewed the [CURRENT PROPOSAL] in light of your comments I can't see any ambiguity on that point ... Do you think it needs to be changed in some way?

i can. this section:

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.

[cicero]

so in your proposal will a deadbeat's stack retain their colour for terminator games ?

Terminator rules stay as they are. Deadbeats' armies are not replaced by neutrals in terminator. Hence no infected neutrals will be introduced by a player deadbeating in a Terminator game. [Though of course they could still be introduced by a bombardment or by a killer neutral territory [though none of those exist yet ]].

Do you think the proposal needs to be changed in some way?

i do. this section:

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.

Fair enough. I'll admit I've not reviewed the "Why it is needed" section recently since I don't tend to think of this as the core proposal ... nonetheless you make a good point.

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

Now how about contributing your thoughts on the Documentation since that is what my most recent post was about ?

[greenoaks]

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 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. At the end of their turn, regardless of game settings, infected neutrals do not make fortifications and do not receive a card.

i can't tell from your documentation whether or not ditocoaf's suggestion (from page 21) on removing the alphabetical attack nature of IN's has been accepted, although i can see from the code it is. is this the info that will be available for players to read to understand what goes on ?

it is not clear that any change to the size of armies will affect which place gets attacked.

[cicero]

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 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. At the end of their turn, regardless of game settings, infected neutrals do not make fortifications and do not receive a card.

i can't tell from your documentation whether or not ditocoaf's suggestion (from page 21) on removing the alphabetical attack nature of IN's has been accepted, although i can see from the code it is. is this the info that will be available for players to read to understand what goes on ?

it is not clear that any change to the size of armies will affect which place gets attacked.

I know.

I know that it does not include any mention of how the infected neutrals discern their turn order or target selection where there are equal numbers of armies (ie all our MOD function distinctions), but I can't see how this can be done concisely enough not to overwhelm the Game Options tab.

You think I should try and squeeze those parts into the Game Options tab documentation too? I think I agree since, as you point out, without them the description of infected neutral behaviour is inadequately incomplete.
It's being concise enough that is proving difficult!

[greenoaks]

how is this ?

Infected neutrals attack from each of their capable territories in turn attacking from the territory with the largest number of armies and will attack its largest neighbour. It should be noted each change to the size of attacking armies may affect which territory the Infected Neutrals attacks from. Likewise each change to the size of defending armies may affect which territory the Infected Neutrals attacks. If the Infected Neutrals defeat all the defending armies on a territory it will advance all of its available armies. This will continue until the battle is won or each attacking territory has less than 4 armies remaining. At the end of their turn, regardless of game settings, infected neutrals do not make fortifications and do not receive a card.

[yeti_c]

Greenoaks - I'm rather disappointed with your ava...

Also - did I not read that the advancement had changed slightly (i.e. Neutrals advanced some into each attacked territory) or did I dream that?

C.

[greenoaks]

Greenoaks - I'm rather disappointed with your ava...

Also - did I not read that the advancement had changed slightly (i.e. Neutrals advanced some into each attacked territory) or did I dream that?

C.

ok, avatar fixed. *greenoaks pretends he is a map maker in the map foundry*

i think you dreamed it, a territory can only attack one place at a time so there can only ever be one territory to advance to. you might be thinking of how they rotate their attacks as the defender's armies are reduced on the adjacent territories. eventually though they will defeat one stack completely and then advance to it.

[yeti_c]

Greenoaks - I'm rather disappointed with your ava...

Also - did I not read that the advancement had changed slightly (i.e. Neutrals advanced some into each attacked territory) or did I dream that?

C.

ok, avatar fixed. *greenoaks pretends he is a map maker in the map foundry*

i think you dreamed it, a territory can only attack one place at a time so there can only ever be one territory to advance to. you might be thinking of how they rotate their attacks as the defender's armies are reduced on the adjacent territories. eventually though they will defeat one stack completely and then advance to it.

Much better - I prefer real ladies... (the other one looked animated!)

My recollection was - that if it could attack 3 then once it defeated one - then it would advance a third of the armies in... but maybe I did make that up... I knew at the time that it was a departure from the previous behaviour!

C.

[cicero]

how is this ?

Infected neutrals attack from each of their capable territories in turn attacking from the territory with the largest number of armies and will attack its largest neighbour. It should be noted each change to the size of attacking armies may affect which territory the Infected Neutrals attacks from. Likewise each change to the size of defending armies may affect which territory the Infected Neutrals attacks. If the Infected Neutrals defeat all the defending armies on a territory it will advance all of its available armies. This will continue until the battle is won or each attacking territory has less than 4 armies remaining. At the end of their turn, regardless of game settings, infected neutrals do not make fortifications and do not receive a card.

OK so it seems you do think I/we should squeeze the parts about how infected neutrals discern their turn order or target selection where there are equal numbers of armies (ie all our MOD function distinctions) ...

But though your suggestion is at least ... concise ... it is so ambiguous it doesn't really help a player who doesn't already understand how infected neutrals behave. [A player like yeti_c it seems ... ... read the proposal to refresh your memory Mr Y!]

[greenoaks]

i am good at analysing and numbers, not writing. i was just trying to put up an example so that others might see where i am coming from and reword it.

i do believe you need to be clear that IN's will not just pick one target and attack until they have dropped to under 4 or have conquered the territory. a player needs to be able to read and understand that all surrounding territories will get attacked in turn until the IN defeats one of them completely or drops to 3 or less. otherwise you will have players complaining that their 10 stacks are now 2 but the IN advanced in the other direction.

i would not however put the MOD function in the description, perhaps a clicky to it for those who want to see in more detail how the target is selected.

[yeti_c]

Code: Select all

         If TargCount = NumTargs Then // ie neutrals are attacking the last target territory
            advance all possible armies
         Else
            advance all remaining armies - (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs) armies


I think perhaps I misread this bit...

What does the "Else" do... from Greenoaks comments - I'd assumed that it would always "advance all possible armies"...

However - you have an "advance all remaining armies"? Which to me looks like it splits the attack force down...

C.

[yeti_c]

Hey Cic - You haven't answered my question...

C.

[greenoaks]

Hey Cic - You haven't answered my question...

C.

i found the answer for you yeti_c. Page 18 according to that post it advances some armies to each territory. the post explaining it is near the bottom of page 17.

it would appear your confusion is of my making

however, the problem i see with that is the number of territories that the IN is attacking at the start of its turn will increase as it defeats those neighbouring territories. adjacent smaller territories will eventually find they are now equally as large and come under attack as well. that was not the case when the advancement rules were changed in March from

If they win the battle they advance all possible armies.

[bryguy]

I think that instead of this being a gameplay option it should be an xml option cause otherwise basically a bunch of maps could be thrown out of whack with an option like this added, but as an xml option the map maker could decide if he/she wanted it in or not, and it could make for alot of interesting maps

[yeti_c]

I think that instead of this being a gameplay option it should be an xml option cause otherwise basically a bunch of maps could be thrown out of whack with an option like this added, but as an xml option the map maker could decide if he/she wanted it in or not, and it could make for alot of interesting maps

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before...

And we decided that all the current maps would be great "as is"... No current maps will be "thrown out of whack"...

C.

[Ditocoaf]

yeah, there was a long discussion about whether it would work on conquest maps like Feudal War, and a change was made, and it should be fine. And if it doesn't work well with a certain map, then still no problem. All other options are also preferable on certain maps and not on others.

[bryguy]

yeah, there was a long discussion about whether it would work on conquest maps like Feudal War, and a change was made, and it should be fine. And if it doesn't work well with a certain map, then still no problem. All other options are also preferable on certain maps and not on others.

It would most definatley not work on feudal, cause most people fight to the 10 neutral and then stop, with infected people would get there then get slaughtered.

Same with AoR: Might/magic

[cicero]

It would most definatley not work on feudal, cause most people fight to the 10 neutral and then stop, with infected people would get there then get slaughtered.

Same with AoR: Might/magic

Think it through bryguy ... remember that to win a game at Conquer Club you simply need to be the only player left ... You don't have to take over the whole map. [For most game types.]

So whilst the gameplay will be very different on the maps you mention it will still be interesting, strategic and challenging. Even so, as Ditocoaf says, it is already the case that certain gameplay options don't work well on certain maps, but that's fine since no-one is forced to play those combinations. Personally I play very few maps, though perhaps that is because I am lazy [ ] rather than because there is anything wrong with the others, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth having those other maps ...

[cicero]

Hey Cic - You haven't answered my question...

C.

i found the answer for you yeti_c. Page 18 according to that post it advances some armies to each territory. the post explaining it is near the bottom of page 17.

it would appear your confusion is of my making

however, the problem i see with that is the number of territories that the IN is attacking at the start of its turn will increase as it defeats those neighbouring territories. adjacent smaller territories will eventually find they are now equally as large and come under attack as well. that was not the case when the advancement rules were changed in March from

If they win the battle they advance all possible armies.

Regarding yeti's original question, specifically the first half of this post on page 18 makes it clear what happens when an infected neutral territory attacks multiple neighbours and how many armies advance into each neighbour. *

Regarding the problem which greenoaks sees ... don't worry greenoaks it doesn't happen.
For example consider an infected neutral territory with players on 5 borders. Those 5 territories have 13, 13, 10, 7 and 5.
The infected neutral will attack the two territories starting with 13 on them as much as possible in that attack.
Assuming that the infected neutral had enough armies/good enough dice then they could potentially conquer both those 13's.
At no point in that attack cycle would they be distracted by the 10, 7 or 5.

In the next iteration of course (when the infected neutrals now occupy both their original territory and the two which had 13 player armies on them) then new targets will be selected ... but, if I've understood correctly, that is not what is concerning you.

Cicero

[* Or at least what should happen . The reason I delayed answering yeti's question is because there is an error in the code he quotes. I've not put it right yet, because I want to review all the code around it in case I've made a similar error elsewhere. Anyone who cares to PM (not post here because it'll make the thread messy) me identifying that error and identifying any others elsewhere in the pseudo code that may be related to it ... will be rewarded in Heaven ... or perhaps ConquerClub ]

[greenoaks]

you are spot on. my confusion arose from not fully understanding where that loop ended. i was of the belief that it covered each roll of the dice. *really spreading the love around*

and i have been reading your thread constantly. how hard is it going to be for everyone else to understand. so many players struggle now with bombardment.

[Ditocoaf]

well, all most people are going to know, and need to know, is that the infected neutrals will attack people around them. This will be enough to implement basic IN strategy. If they want to know more, then they will look it up and try to understand, but it isn't something newbies will be worrying about.

And regarding Feudal War and bryguy's concern: you'd have to play Feudal War completely differently. You'd shun the edges of your realm, trying to build up armies enough to break through. Meanwhile, you'd have to periodically bombard the INs around you, to prevent them from attacking you. It'd be like it is in a real zombie invasion--almost unstoppable. Probably many games will be won by the last person to survive the INs. So it'd be playable, just a very different board. I'm actually looking forward to trying this.

Hey, cicero, maybe when this comes out, you can start a game for all the frequent contributors to this thread.

[greenoaks]

only if i get to play the unstoppable zombies.

[yeti_c]

I'm actually looking forward to trying this.

Me too...

Last man standing risk sounds like awesome fun...

Next suggestion would be to allow 1 player games against zombies... if you conquer the board - you win... if you don't you lose.

C.