## [XML] infected neutrals

Have any bright ideas? Share and discuss them with the community

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules

And don't forget to search for previously suggested ideas first!

### Re: infected neutrals - new draft PROPOSAL: page 18 [To-Do]

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?

Tieryn

Posts: 781
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:30 am
Location: Generation One
Medals: 10

### Re: infected neutrals - new draft PROPOSAL: page 18 [To-Do]

Anything with zombahs is a good thing.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.

Neoteny

Posts: 2843
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Medals: 29

### Re: infected neutrals - new draft PROPOSAL: page 18 [To-Do]

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.

4V4T4R

Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:38 am
Medals: 5

### FINAL PROPOSAL

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:
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 territoryFor 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 timeNumAttTerr = number of territories capable of making an attack // calculate how many territories can attackWhile 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 // recalculateEnd WhileIf FutureOffset >= turn end time   write to game log using FutureOffset as timestamp : "infected neutral player ran out of time"// END phase// Consider all INCUBATING neutralsFor 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.

cicero, in Q&A on Infected Neutral implementation date, wrote: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.
Last edited by cicero on Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:34 pm, edited 16 times in total.

cicero

Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 10

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

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

AWESOME!! I achieved point count above!!

vrex

Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: in containment with the infected neutrals...
Medals: 10

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

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...
Ditocoaf

Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2

### Re: infected neutrals - new draft PROPOSAL: page 18 [To-Do]

Ditocoaf...ages ago...lol wrote:(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.
Highest rank:

AWESOME!! I achieved point count above!!

vrex

Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: in containment with the infected neutrals...
Medals: 10

### Re: infected neutrals - new draft PROPOSAL: page 18 [To-Do]

vrex wrote:
Ditocoaf...ages ago...lol wrote:(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?
Ditocoaf

Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

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.

Highest score : 2297

yeti_c

Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48

### Re: FINAL PROPOSAL

cicero wrote: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.

greenoaks

Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am
Medals: 138

### Re: FINAL PROPOSAL

greenoaks wrote:
cicero wrote: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.

The rules of the "killer neutrals" make it so that any person killed by a "killer neutral" (not to be confused by "infected neutral") state that the last player to take a territory wins the beans.

C.

Highest score : 2297

yeti_c

Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

what's the difference between a killer neutral and an infected neutral?

where are the rules you refer to ?

greenoaks

Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am
Medals: 138

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

greenoaks wrote:what's the difference between a killer neutral and an infected neutral?

where are the rules you refer to ?

"Killer Neutrals" are an XML feature that can affect a territory - as specified in the XML...

"Infected Neutrals" are this suggestion...

C.

Highest score : 2297

yeti_c

Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

yeti_c wrote: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.

well yeti here has told us what a mod actually is as even i was not sure i was guessing srry for all the capital letters and what may have been implied i was just really trying to make sure readers saw the important parts i have actually thought of a new way to describe the formula which i will now post...hope it is understandable

let 'qualifying territs' refer to the psuedo code where IN first sorts its attacking territs by army count (high to low) therefore (10, 10, 9, 7, 5) results in (10,10) these are 'qualifying territs'

(highest army count on qualifying territs)/(number of qualifying territs)=X remainder Y)

[therefore according to the proposal (10,10,9,7,5) becomes [10,10] becomes 7/2=remainder 1 [because of -3]]

hope that helps
Highest rank:

AWESOME!! I achieved point count above!!

vrex

Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: in containment with the infected neutrals...
Medals: 10

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

yeti_c wrote:
greenoaks wrote:what's the difference between a killer neutral and an infected neutral?

where are the rules you refer to ?

"Killer Neutrals" are an XML feature that can affect a territory - as specified in the XML...

"Infected Neutrals" are this suggestion...

C.
i have no idea how that relates to my original question. so here it is again, perhaps cicero can tell me where he got the information that relates to the section i have bolded

cicero wrote: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, not to the person who last took a territory from the deadbeat.
here is an example Game 1209247 in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

greenoaks

Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am
Medals: 138

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

I suppose he means in that case, not as per the rules to cover deadbeats, but instead as per the rules to cover killer neutrals.
Ditocoaf

Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

Ditocoaf wrote:I suppose he means in that case, not as per the rules to cover deadbeats, but instead as per the rules to cover killer neutrals.

That be the head of the nail... with said verbal hammer...

C.

Highest score : 2297

yeti_c

Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

greenoaks wrote:Perhaps cicero can tell me where he got the information that relates to the section i have bolded

cicero wrote: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, not to the person who last took a territory from the deadbeat.
here is an example Game 1209247 in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

Greenoaks, the proposal was put together based on my understanding of the 'rules' which cover deadbeats. Like you, I don't know where exactly they are written down ... But, based on your example, it seems I had misunderstood these 'rules'. Hence ...

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

That's what you get for supposing Ditocoaf

It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ... or do we all have to have a game like Greenoaks' to discover for ourselves?
Last edited by cicero on Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

cicero

Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 10

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

cicero wrote:
greenoaks wrote:here is an example Game 1209247 in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

Greenoaks, the proposal was put together based on my understanding of the 'rules' which cover deadbeats. Like you, I don't know where exactly they are written down ... But, based on your example, it seems I had misunderstood these 'rules'. Hence ...

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

That's what you get for supposing Ditocoaf

Then again ... perhaps that's what I get for supposing.

Greenoaks !!! I've just checked the game you link to. 4 players do deadbeat in that game. But you aren't the last to take a territory from any of them. 3 deadbeat immediately and no-one takes a territory from them and the fourth ... well the last person to take a territory from him was red so your (misquoted) example doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

So, I say again, "It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ...". Having confirmed the rules once and for all I may need to edit the proposal again ...
Last edited by cicero on Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

cicero

Posts: 1358
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: with the infected neutrals ... handing out maps to help them find their way to CC
Medals: 10

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

cicero wrote:
cicero wrote:
greenoaks wrote:here is an example Game 1209247 in this game yellow, pink, cyan & green deadbeated. i was the last to take a territory from yellow (round 10), the last to take one from pink (round 9) & the last to take one from green (round 7). red eventually won the game and got the points from them.

Greenoaks, the proposal was put together based on my understanding of the 'rules' which cover deadbeats. Like you, I don't know where exactly they are written down ... But, based on your example, it seems I had misunderstood these 'rules'. Hence ...

[PROPOSAL UPDATED]

That's what you get for supposing Ditocoaf

Then again ... perhaps that's what I get for supposing.

Greenoaks !!! I've just checked the game you link to. 4 players do deadbeat in that game. But you aren't the last to take a territory from any of them. 3 deadbeat immediately and no-one takes a territory from them and the fourth ... well the last person to take a territory from him was red so your (misquoted) example doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

So, I say again, "It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ...". Having confirmed the rules once and for all I may need to edit the proposal again ...

In a terminator game you get points for the players that you eliminate. When players are auto-kicked in a terminator game their armies remain on the map, and you can still get points (and cards) from them if you eliminate the deadbeat before the game is over (otherwise their points are awarded to the game winner).

found at 'instructions' 'game options'

so, i think it has nothing to do with being the last one to strike someone, it's either killed by you (and then you'll get the points obviously) or killed by the neutrals, and while the neutrals are no player and therefore get no points, the points will go to the game winner (the last surviving player that is)

the last player to be killed by the neutrals will off course not lose any points, and will only get points for the players that are either killed by himself and/or the players that are killed by 'no-one' (either deadbeat or killed by neutrals)

hope that's clear enough.
Click image to enlarge.

zimmah

Posts: 1648
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: VDLL
Medals: 53

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

Right - I've just been doing some searching about Killer Neutrals...

Seems there is no info technically written down... so we would need to ensure this is correct with Lack...

But from what I remember - IF Killer Neutrals happen to kill someone in a terminator game - then their points goto the last person that attacked them... this is because the last person to attack them - has put them into a killing position (i.e. restricted them to only killer squares) and thus has effectively killed them!!

This is the Logic that Cicero is depending on for Terminator games with Infected Neutrals...

If no-one has attacked them - then their points will be collected by the winner of the game as per usualy DB rules.

C.

Highest score : 2297

yeti_c

Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

not sure if this has been taken care of yet, but... what about zombies in detrimental territories? the ones that remove X amount of armies from anyone in a territory each round (ex:the dust bowl) as it is, i don't think detrimental territories affect neutral players because they remove the armies at the beginning of the players turn (i think, though i may be mistaken) and neutrals dont take turns. will this change because the zombies now have a "turn"? or should it be rules that they're immune to the detriment? or has this problem already been resolved and i'm just babbling?
bbqpenguin

Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:11 am
Medals: 11

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

bbqpenguin wrote:not sure if this has been taken care of yet, but... what about zombies in detrimental territories? the ones that remove X amount of armies from anyone in a territory each round (ex:the dust bowl) as it is, i don't think detrimental territories affect neutral players because they remove the armies at the beginning of the players turn (i think, though i may be mistaken) and neutrals dont take turns. will this change because the zombies now have a "turn"? or should it be rules that they're immune to the detriment? or has this problem already been resolved and i'm just babbling?

yeah, I think it was determined pretty early on that no penalties would effect the zombies. This is because they can 'disregard their senses,' also because they don't get the bonuses either.
Ditocoaf

Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Being eaten by the worms and weird fishes
Medals: 2

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

cicero wrote:Then again ... perhaps that's what I get for supposing.

Greenoaks !!! I've just checked the game you link to. 4 players do deadbeat in that game. But you aren't the last to take a territory from any of them. 3 deadbeat immediately and no-one takes a territory from them and the fourth ... well the last person to take a territory from him was red so your (misquoted) example doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

So, I say again, "It would be interesting to know where these rules are actually set down ...". Having confirmed the rules once and for all I may need to edit the proposal again ...

you have forgotten that in terminator games deadbeat players retain their colour and can be attacked after they have been kicked from the game.
so here i am the last to take a territory from yellow : 2007-12-03 03:59:37 - greenoaks attacked Ukraine from Southern Europe and conquered it from lucious
here i am the last to take a territory from pink : 2007-12-02 13:07:20 - greenoaks attacked Southern Europe from Northern Europe and conquered it from asuco4
here i am the last to take a territory from green: 2007-12-02 08:04:49 - greenoaks attacked Northern Europe from Great Britain and conquered it from Sars_LilBro

zimmah wrote:found at 'instructions' 'game options'

so, i think it has nothing to do with being the last one to strike someone, it's either killed by you (and then you'll get the points obviously) or killed by the neutrals, and while the neutrals are no player and therefore get no points, the points will go to the game winner (the last surviving player that is)

the last player to be killed by the neutrals will off course not lose any points, and will only get points for the players that are either killed by himself and/or the players that are killed by 'no-one' (either deadbeat or killed by neutrals)

hope that's clear enough.
not quite zimmah, you had it right in the first paragraph only

greenoaks

Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am
Medals: 138

### Re: infected neutrals - FINAL PROPOSAL: page 22 [To-Do]

Is nobody listenening to me?

C.

Highest score : 2297

yeti_c

Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 48

PreviousNext