[XML] infected neutrals

[yeti_c]

Once again - as ever - I agree with Cic... I'm looking forward to the new proposal so that I can then agree with the Territory choice.

C.

[lostatlimbo]

My .02 - i think its a bad idea to give the neutral armies 1 army on every territory. within a few rounds they have a huge army advantage, especially 1v1

[TaCktiX]

That's an inherent part of why Infected Neutrals would be a significantly different mode of play. It's an OPTION, not a REQUIREMENT.

[cicero]

My .02 - i think its a bad idea to give the neutral armies 1 army on every territory. within a few rounds they have a huge army advantage, especially 1v1

In addition to TaCktiX valid response there are also the following to consider:

(i) The neutrals get no bonuses of any kind.
(ii) The neutrals are stupid ... they'll waste their armies a lot.

These two more than offset the advantage you point out.

Not forgetting ...
(iii) No one will ever ally with the neutrals.

It's a hard life for an infected neutral

[cicero]

OK ... the new attack logic is out!

Contained in the second draft proposal as promised - see next post.

BUT if the pseudo code that I've used in the proposal* hurts your head (like it does mine) you might want to read this illustrative post instead/first to get the flavour of the new attack logic.

An example using the Classic map. [Note that the example focuses on only one Infected Neutral territory. I think we are all familiar with how the Infected Neutrals attack with each capable territory in turn, starting with the largest.]
__________

Focus Territory:
Irkutsk - Infected Neutrals - 15 armies

Neighbouring territories.
Siberia - Player - 3 armies
Yakutsk - Player - 1 army
Kamchatka - Player - 3 armies
Mongolia - Player - 2 armies

IN's will attack Siberia and Kamchatka only. [Since they are, joint, largest.]
To decide the order, put target territories in alphabetical order in an array:
Kamchatka in position 0
Siberia in position 1

Consider the "attack force" to be all those armies over 3.
So the "attack force" is 12.
"Number of targets" is 2.
attack force (12) divided by number of targets (2) = 6 remainder 0
So we attack Kamchatka first since it is in position 0.

We keep attacking until the first 'attack threshold' is reached.
The first 'attack threshold' is 15 - 6 = 9.
If Kamchatka is defeated before the 'attack threshold' is reached then all armies over the threshold are advanced.

Then Siberia is attacked in much the same way.
The second 'attack threshold' will be 15 - (6 x 2) = 3.
If Siberia is defeated before the threshold is reached then this time, because Siberia is not just the second target but the last target, all possible armies are advanced.
__________

Hopefully you can see that if there had been just one more army in Irkutsk then Siberia would have been attacked first because - "attack force (13) divided by number of targets (2) = 6 remainder 1" ...

Hence the behaviour is predictable, manipulable by the players and no longer defaults to alphabetical at any point. It also "shares the love" as Twill would have it. And in so doing avoids everyone just fortifying away to avoid being attacked - because if everyone does then everyone gets attacked. I believe that this may even have the side effect of addressing the concerns expressed by some about freestyle games ...

Let me know if you need more examples.

Or if this is horribly flawed ...

Or if there are errors in the pseudo code (Yeti springs to mind, though I'm sure there are others ... )

[* I've used pseudo code in the proposal because, if it's good pseudo code, it should make the programmer's life easier and hopefully we'll get infected neutrals sooner as a result ]

[cicero]

second draft PROPOSAL
Please note my previous post.

Once this proposal is finalised I will draw it to the attention of the site owners/moderators.
When discussing, please quote concisely from the proposal to make the thread easy to follow.
__________

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

NumAttTerr = number of territories capable of making an attack // how many territories can attack ?
While NumAttTerr > 0 // as long as there's one or more territory that can attack, 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 (high to low) then alphabetically (a to z)
   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 NumTargets targets

   While TargCount<=NumTargets // 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 possible armies
         Else
            advance all remaining armies - (NumTargs-TargCount)*INT(AttackForce/NumTargs) armies
         write to game log : "infected neutral player attacked <territory name> from <territory name> and conquered it from <player name>"
         delay 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

// 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.


__________

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.
__________

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

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

__________

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

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

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]

wait... so if the 15IN win (assuming flawless rolls) they advance 2 into sub territ 0 (kamchaka)? and then if they win the other battle too they advance all into sub territ 1 (siberia)? interesting logic...players could definitely influence it (ie attack the in army bringing their number down so that...) or attack surrounding player armys so that...lol so many possibilities! love the new way you decided it be done cicero, agree once again! i know yeti is not going to be the one making this a non-psuedo code but what does yeti think of coding difficulty?

hold on 15 attack kamchaka 14 left in attacking territ one army automatically advanced so 14(a)-1(k)...yes that means there are 2 armies that can be advanced 12(a)-3(k) cause 12 is the threshold so other one (siberia) would end up as 1(a)-11(s) because they advance all of their armys...by the way cicero did u correct your mistake cause i dont see one

[Twill]

Damn cic, that's one hell of a detailed proposal.

OK, I agree in principle with 2,3,4 but personally (note, not professionally) disagree with 1 and have a minor explanatory request for number 4.

1 extended inclubation period for deadbeats going infected ...
There is already an incubation period. Everyone gets advance notice of a potential deadbeat; for two turns you see the person miss their turn ... sure on your third turn you don't know 100% that the person will now deadbeat by missing their final turn, but it seems to me to be a positive part of the infected neutral effect for players to have to form a strategy - a contingency plan - based on the imminent possibility of an infection outbreak. Therefore I can see no real need/merit for this.

My concern is that the strategy for dealing with a potentially deadbeating player is potentially the polar opposite of dealing with a bunch of IN armies.

Because you don't know if the player is deadbeating or will suddenly come back with a lot of armies you will probably want to defend those territories more.
If you, however, are facing a buildup of deadbeated IN armies that are going to nuke your armies no matter what, you will probably want to pull back your men and send the IN's a different way.

So, The chance for one player being royally screwed because IN's will suicide and wipe out entire armies are increased and unfair.

with the 1 turn incubation period, all players have a 100% knowledge of what is happening (you've tried very hard elsewhere to ensure predictability) and allow the random screw-over factor to be removed.

There are no downsides to an incubation period that I can think of, except the delay of 1 turn.

------


4

Hopefully you can see that if there had been just one more army in Irkutsk then Siberia would have been attacked first because - "attack force (13) divided by number of targets (2) = 6 remainder 1" ...

I love how you have built in predictable and manipulatable randomness to this.

My question is, will the remainder ever be larger than the number of territories available? I'm not a math person but I don't think there will be, but can you mathematically prove that there will never be a remainder > territories? It's kind of important for obvious reasons when the remainder determines the first country of attack

I do wonder why you have all of the troops advancing towards the last territory attacked. why not leave the original 3 in the original country.

And, What happens if there are 2 countries but only 4 armies?
Attack force = 1
Number of Targets = 2
Attack force per country = 1/2 remainder 0.
Does the code then tell it to wait because it can't attack
Does it round up to 1 and attack the territory 0 because of the remainder?
Or did you address that in your code and I missed it?


Overall a thorough proposal.

[cicero]

1 Regarding the need for an (extended) incubation period for the virus ...

My concern is that the strategy for dealing with a potentially deadbeating player is potentially the polar opposite of dealing with a bunch of IN armies.

I see what you're saying ...
Part of me wants to insist that this dilemma makes for interesting strategic choices - as I said the need for a contingency plan, just in case ...

On the other hand, even though you don't explicitly suggest it, perhaps having no incubation period is open to abuse. Would players deliberately miss two turns just to put their opponents in this quandary? Just to come back and take advantage of every one deploying away? No, I don't think so.

On the other other hand, I'm not sure if an (extended) incubation period, puts those who play first (and hence play immediately after it becomes 100% certain that the player is going to become an infected neutral) at an unfair advantage?

I still tend towards thinking an (extended) incubation period is not necessary ... Other points of view?

[cicero]

4 Regarding the attack logic ...

Will the remainder ever be larger than the number of territories available?

No. Never. Rest assured.
Lack will be familiar with the MOD function which produces the remainder of a division.

I do wonder why you have "all" of the troops advancing towards the last territory attacked. Why not leave the original 3 in the original country?.

And what happens if there are 2 countries but only 4 armies?

Your two questions Twill, the first of which I believe vrex is also asking in his post, show that my example was not quite thorough enough ...
__________

On the first question I'm hoping that perhaps the table below will help.
For clarity I've assumed a 100% attack success rate (and hence the actual numbers of armies in the player territories is irrelevant).

Whilst there is an imbalance, in that whichever territory is attacked last has potentially more armies advanced into it, I think this actually works to the good.

(i) After completing such a multiway attack it may well be that one of the successfully conquered territories becomes the next attacking territory in the infected neutral turn. If so it adds a nice little element of balance that, it is more likely to be the one taken last.
(ii) Also if those armies weren't advanced the original territory would, without outside interference, become attack capable again on the next turn.

And note that:
(iii) We have assumed 100% attack success. The numbers actually advancing may well be less in each case even if each battle is won.
(iii) As can be seen, the difference between this last territory and the ones attacked before it will never more than : number of territories attacked + 1, so it's not such a huge imbalance.
__________

On the second question, regarding attacks made by small infected neutral forces, the logic degrades gracefully.

Assuming 2 player target territories as you suggest : Targets(0) and Targets(1)

(a)
With only 4 infected armies.
attack force = 4 - 3 = 1

attack force / number of targets = 0 remainder 1
So it will be Targets(1) that gets attacked 'first'.
And yes, as soon as an infected army is lost the attacks will cease.
So Targets(0) will never get attacked.

(b)
With only 5 infected armies.
attack force = 5 - 3 = 2

attack force / number of targets = 1 remainder 0
So it will be Targets(0) that gets attacked first.
If whilst attacking a single army is lost then then Targets(1) will start to be attacked.
However if a pair of armies are lost together then Targets(1) will never get attacked.

(c)
With only 6 infected armies.
attack force = 6 - 3 = 3

attack force / number of targets = 1 remainder 1
So it will be Targets(1) that gets attacked first.
Now it is still just possible that Targets(0) will never get attacked: if a single army is lost followed by a pair of armies.
Any other variant; "single, single" or "pair" will result in Targets(0) being attacked too.

(d)
With 7 armies or more the attack force is sufficient that both territories will always be attacked.

You can guarantee that all target territories will be attacked if the Infected Neutrals have at least X armies. Where:

X = (number of targets x 2) + 3

[I made that formula up off the top of my head and though I'm 95% sure it's right I'm tired and have to go to bed. My wife to be says so ]

[Twill]

(a)
With only 4 infected armies.
attack force = 4 - 3 = 1

attack force / number of targets = 0 remainder 1
So it will be Targets(1) that gets attacked 'first'.
And yes, as soon as an infected army is lost the attacks will cease.
So Targets(0) will never get attacked.

Wouldn't this mean that the "attack force" that is actually available to attack Targets(1) is 0 armies meaning that there is no actual attack made?

I see how the logic works otherwise, and yes, you are right, it does degrade gracefully



-----



On the note of incubation periods, why not give it the one turn incubation? what is the downside to it? I see you saying that you don't think leaving it as is will be a problem, but are there any problems with extending it by one turn???

[vrex]

1 Regarding the need for an (extended) incubation period for the virus ...

My concern is that the strategy for dealing with a potentially deadbeating player is potentially the polar opposite of dealing with a bunch of IN armies.

I see what you're saying ...
Part of me wants to insist that this dilemma makes for interesting strategic choices - as I said the need for a contingency plan, just in case ...

On the other hand, even though you don't explicitly suggest it, perhaps having no incubation period is open to abuse. Would players deliberately miss two turns just to put their opponents in this quandary? Just to come back and take advantage of every one deploying away? No, I don't think so.

On the other other hand, I'm not sure if an (extended) incubation period, puts those who play first (and hence play immediately after it becomes 100% certain that the player is going to become an infected neutral) at an unfair advantage?

I still tend towards thinking an (extended) incubation period is not necessary ... Other points of view?

cicero's concern seems to be: will a one turn wait period give players who go before/after ins more of an advantage then they are already thought to have by simply going before/after ins? he also throws in some other stuff...thank you for clarifying cicero how the neutrals advance by the way as far as players being responsible for guessing and creating 'just in case' scenarios im all for it because i would be one of those people who actually spend time on or before my turn. most people, especially new people...would probably be crushed if there was no wait period and there was a deadbeat army of 25 or so nearby...however, it would be their own fault for non considering the behavior of neutrals on the map settings they chose...of course not all players look or read to find out what something does before playing with it...but in my opinion the 'im not sure if he will miss his last turn and turn into a rampaging IN' factor will add to the FUN factor of games with INS set to ON.

[wcaclimbing]

I agree with the 1 turn "incubation" period.

as vrex said, without the 1 turn wait, people WOULD be crushed. Sometimes, theres just nothing you can do, because without the one turn of waiting, wouldn't the neutral stomp your 1s, and then take out the rest of your guys once they can reach them? So, forting away wouldn't work, unless you had some neighboring opponents armies to distract the neutrals. Without some time to plan your move before the might-turn-neutral army attacks, whoever is closest will be decimated. I don't know if that is what is meant to happen, but I think the 1 turn would be more fair, especially to the guys that are neighboring the "might turn neutral" armies.

[Ditocoaf]

Well, no matter what, the players who go before the deadbeat will always have an extra turn to prepare more than the players who go after the deadbeat. So either some players get a turn to react, and some don't, or some get two turns, and some get one.

[cicero]

(a)
With only 4 infected armies.
attack force = 4 - 3 = 1

attack force / number of targets = 0 remainder 1
So it will be Targets(1) that gets attacked 'first'.
And yes, as soon as an infected army is lost the attacks will cease.
So Targets(0) will never get attacked.

Wouldn't this mean that the "attack force" that is actually available to attack Targets(1) is 0 armies meaning that there is no actual attack made?

No. This is not what the logic produces.
In your previous post you introduced the concept of an "attack force per country" and I think you're still thinking about that here. Whilst I see your meaning the logic doesn't do include that concept. The logic says:
"do I have more than 3 armies?" ...
"I do! Great, let's go attack someone!" ...
"Now, let's see, how many targets do I have here ... umm 2"
"So who shall I attack first ... umm, ok this one"
"ATTACK !!!"
"Oh I seem to have lost an army or two"
"do I have more than 3 armies?" ...
"No ... oh well."

You see? They're quite philosophical about it.
[Seriously, the point is armies > 3 always means attack and yes the logic produces this; as described in my previous post.]

[greenoaks]

3 turn order for the infected neutrals - affecting both sequential and freestyle games ...
It has been argued, unsuccessfully in my opinion, that the the neutrals need to take their turn in some other way than simply "at the end of the playing round".

In freestyle games it seems to me that the case is even more clear cut. There is already some brinksmanship in freestyle about playing last. Infected neutrals, in some scenarios, will increase the desire of some players to play last. This seems to me again to be a legitimate tactic and one which other players - who may not have such a motivation to play last themselves in a particular game - will have to take into account when formulating their own strategy. Again the neutrals are a gameplay element - it is not for them to take this into account. The players must.

Cicero

in a freestyle game you propose that IN goes last - fine. but when ?

does it start its move as soon as the last player has finished their fortification or does it wait until the end of the 24 hour period and then attack ?

[cicero]

Well, no matter what, the players who go before the deadbeat will always have an extra turn to prepare more than the players who go after the deadbeat. So either some players get a turn to react, and some don't, or some get two turns, and some get one.

An interesting point Ditocoaf. And whilst not exactly the one that everyone else has been trying to get in to my thick skull in previous posts it has indirectly convinced me that an incubation period is required ...

Consider the sequence:
P1, P2, P3, P4, P5,
P1, P2, P3(miss), P4, P5,
P1, P2, P3(miss), P4, P5,
P1, P2, P3(miss & become infected, but not play), P4, P5, infected play,
P1, P2, P4, P5, infected play,
P1, P2, P4, P5, infected play ... etc.

I can see now that the blue players know 100% when making their turn that that P3 has deadbeat and become infected and hence the neutrals will play at the end of the round. The green players only know that if P3 misses his third turn this will be the case.

Therefore I'm convinced on the need for an incubation turn. The above sequence becomes:
P1, P2, P3, P4, P5,
P1, P2, P3(miss), P4, P5,
P1, P2, P3(miss), P4, P5,
P1, P2, P3(miss & become infected, but not play), P4, P5, infection incubates,
P1, P2, P4, P5, infected play,
P1, P2, P4, P5, infected play ... etc.

Now the blue players have 2 turns where they know that P3 has deadbeat and become infected and the green players have 1 turn where they know the same thing.

I appreciate this still isn't 100% equal among the players, as Ditocoaf was pointing out, but it is certainly much better than without the incubation period and, I would suggest, falls back into the group of minor advantages/disadvantages like going first in a game, going last before the infected neutrals etc.

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

[cicero]

In a freestyle game you propose that IN goes last - fine. but when ?

Does it start its move as soon as the last player has finished their fortification or does it wait until the end of the 24 hour period and then attack ?

The infected neutrals take their turn between the end of one game round and the start of the next game round.

Which I believe answers both.

The game round ends when the last player completes their fortification and so there is no wait of any kind.

[vrex]

yeeeeeeeey a incubation! lol....i wonder if twill has seen his answer yet? i agree completely with new proposal...i really think it should make its way into a new page...going all the way back to 16 is...not fun...

[greenoaks]

In a freestyle game you propose that IN goes last - fine. but when ?

Does it start its move as soon as the last player has finished their fortification or does it wait until the end of the 24 hour period and then attack ?

The infected neutrals take their turn between the end of one game round and the start of the next game round.

Which I believe answers both.

The game round ends when the last player completes their fortification and so there is no wait of any kind.

it would not be possible for the IN to receive all of its armies, figure out which territories to attack, roll the dice, advance, attack again, etc in the zero time between the end of the last round and the start of the next.

it could also put the person following the IN in a speed game at a severe disadvantage due to the potentially severe alteration to the layout of his and his opponents forces and no time to see it happen.

[Twill]

HURRAY for ditocaf, premium for life for you!! (ok, maybe not)

I'm glad you have seen the light cicero

greenoaks...the server would process all that in the blink of an eye. I do think there should be a bit of a pause or an intentional slowing down so that people can see what is going on, especially in a speed freestyle game. maybe the IN has a 1 minute turn (their moves take 10 seconds, but you then have 50 seconds to absorb what happened). Just from a user-interaction perspective it would be important.

[vrex]

would the 1 minute turn be ciceros responsibility to implement in his psuedo code or lackattacks responsibility to integrate into site? after all lack made the 24hour, 1hour and 5 minute turn stuff right? anyhew cicero IF you have time or willingness, please post an entirely whole and NEW proposal containing all modified elements on this page or the next so we can not have to go back to 16 and so twill can demand lack implement this for us

[cicero]

It would not be possible for the IN to receive all of its armies, figure out which territories to attack, roll the dice, advance, attack again, etc in the zero time between the end of the last round and the start of the next.

The server would process all that in the blink of an eye. I do think there should be a bit of a pause or an intentional slowing down so that people can see what is going on, especially in a speed freestyle game. maybe the IN has a 1 minute turn (their moves take 10 seconds, but you then have 50 seconds to absorb what happened). Just from a user-interaction perspective it would be important.

As Twill has already advised, it would be quite possible for the Infected Neutrals to do their thing between rounds, because in reality it is not actually 'zero' time between rounds just a 'very small amount of' time between rounds. And since the Infected Neutral turn takes place entirely on the server it would not lengthen that 'very small amount of time' significantly or perhaps even noticeably in most cases.

However I can't see the advantage in introducing any artificial delay...
__________

Just to get one thing out of the way I think we all understand that freestyle allows for consecutive turns. I hope we all also understand and agree that since the Infected Neutrals take their turn between rounds they effectively take a single sequential turn regardless of the game type. Hence, with time passing from left to right:

sequential game turn order
P1 ... P2 ... P3 ... infected

freestyle game turn order
P1 ...
P2 ... infected
P3 ...

[If we wanted to introduce true freestyle play for infected ...
turn order
P1
P2
P3
infected

... the code would become exponentially more complex. If that is ever attempted it certainly won't be in Infected Neutrals version 1.0 and I am not going to consider it here.]
__________

So back to introducing a delay ... Since there is no way, even in freestyle given my previous point, of 'interacting' with the Infected Neutral turn what purpose does any delay serve? Let's assume I am watching 'live' as the round ends and so am in a position to observe the Infected Neutral turn ...

With Delays
I get to refresh repeatedly to see what has happened, purely observing, until the Infected Neutral turn is complete.
Then, if it's my turn in sequential or if it's freestyle and I didn't play last in the previous round, I can start my turn.

Without Delays
I refresh once to see what has happened in the Infected Neutral turn.
Then, if it's my turn in sequential or if it's freestyle and I didn't play last in the previous round, I can start my turn.

The former seems pointless.

Someone tell me why I'm wrong. [I'm aware of my recent experience regarding incubation and enjoyed it more than you might think ] It may be of interest to note the last time delays were discussed in this thread back on page 8. (See my post on that page.)

Oh and vrex the current proposal is on page 26 not 16
But just to be helpful here's a [CURRENT PROPOSAL] link.

[yeti_c]

HURRAY for ditocaf, premium for life for you!! (ok, maybe not)

I'm glad you have seen the light cicero

greenoaks...the server would process all that in the blink of an eye. I do think there should be a bit of a pause or an intentional slowing down so that people can see what is going on, especially in a speed freestyle game. maybe the IN has a 1 minute turn (their moves take 10 seconds, but you then have 50 seconds to absorb what happened). Just from a user-interaction perspective it would be important.

In a Freestyle game I can see your point... however - for Sequential - then it's not an issue as you have all the time in the world to see what the previous "players" did...

However - I'm pretty sure the server would just calculate it VVVV quickly... so the 1 minute round would be 1 minute of observation for the players... which might just piss people off.

C.

[yeti_c]

PS - Cicero - loving the rest of the proposal... the new attack mechanics are spot on I think... and also super easy to code as it's maths based - Maths based logic is uber easy for computers to do.

C.