Adjacent Attacks

[lancehoch]

It would have to identify each unit out of potentially thousands on the board and add a live of code that represents another action that the server must take. And then the server would have to store and update this information after every roll of the dice. This is where the server strain comes into play.

[flatrick]

It would have to identify each unit out of potentially thousands on the board and add a live of code that represents another action that the server must take. And then the server would have to store and update this information after every roll of the dice. This is where the server strain comes into play.

I can understand if you feel frustrated in explaining this kind of info to a total novice, but I hope you will bear with me...

...because I still do not feel as if there is that much of a difference between adding this "code tag" or another army.

I tried to break up what you said and here is what I came up with (if you could correct me along the way on any particular points I have misunderstood) :

It would have to identify each unit



There is no more workload so far in "identifying" units, since the server needs to "identify" all units anyway and record each unit's different values (e.g. what colour, what number, etc.)



out of potentially thousands on the board



Now keep in mind that the "code tag" is only applied to one player's units at a time. I am still quite green in regards to this game, but I doubt one player ever has thousands of units on the board.
Besides, is it not completely unrelative how many units there are on the board, rather than how many regions? I mean surely the server does not get any (significant) increase in workload just because one region has a larger number of units? For instance, if a board has 32 regions, isn't the workload (almost) exactly the same whether each region has 1 unit or 100 units (as in "thousands on the board")?



and add a live of code that represents another action that the server must take.



Does it really add that much of a workload to the server if you add 2 additional actions? You simply have to tell it that when an unit has been moved it cannot be moved again and it has to be marked visually.



And then the server would have to store and update this information after every roll of the dice.



Yes, but only for the lapse of time in which one player plays his round!

[flatrick]

It would have to identify each unit out of potentially thousands on the board and add a live of code that represents another action that the server must take. And then the server would have to store and update this information after every roll of the dice. This is where the server strain comes into play.

I can understand if you feel frustrated in explaining this kind of info to a total novice, but I hope you will bear with me, because I still do not feel as if there is that much of a difference between adding this "code tag" and adding another army.

I tried to break up what you said and here is what I came up with (if you could correct me along the way on any particular points I have misunderstood) :

It would have to identify each unit



There is no more workload so far in "identifying" units, since the server needs to "identify" all units anyway and record each unit's different values (e.g. what colour, what number, etc.)



out of potentially thousands on the board



Now keep in mind that the "code tag" is only applied to one player's units at a time. I am still quite green in regards to this game, but I doubt one player ever has thousands of units on the board.
Besides, is it not completely unrelative how many units there are on the board, rather than how many regions? I mean surely the server does not get any (significant) increase in workload just because one region has a larger number of units? For instance, if a board has 32 regions, isn't the workload (almost) exactly the same whether each region has 1 unit or 100 units (as in "thousands on the board")?



and add a live of code that represents another action that the server must take.



Does it really add that much of a workload to the server if you add 2 additional actions? You simply have to tell it that when an unit has been moved it cannot be moved again and it has to be marked visually.



And then the server would have to store and update this information after every roll of the dice.



Yes, but only for the lapse of time in which one player plays his round!

[lancehoch]

Do not click the following game link with BOB on: Game 1332205.

Yes, games do get to the point of thousands of troops. In the game above, red has over 214,000 troops on one region. This is not a common occurrence, but it does happen.

I will try to give an example, maybe that will help us understand one another. Using the USA map as a basis. (This is using your three rules.)
I have 14 troops on Alabama and another 18 on South Carolina. I want to attack from Alabama to Tennessee, I use 8 troops in this process and advance all 8. I now have 8 troops on Tennessee 6 on Alabama, and 18 on South Carolina. I would like to assault Georgia and I cannot use any of the 6 from Tennessee, but I can use either of South Carolina or Alabama. I assault Georgia from South Carolina and do not lose a troop, I advance 12 troops. Now, I would like to fortify Alabama, but I cannot use the troops from Georgia or Tennessee. If this were adjacent fortifications I cannot do anything. If this is unlimited fortifications, I accidentally fortify 2 armies from South Carolina to Tennessee, but I cannot fix this mistake. I then mess up again and fortify 5 from Alabama to South Carolina. I now can only fortify 4 troops from South Carolina, I move them to Alabama to fix my mistake.

Now, looking at this from a coding standpoint. There is no difference in the attacking phase between your idea and the current suggestion. Your idea asks that whatever tags are used in the attacking phase remain active in the reinforcement phase, not much of a difference. What is different is how the territories that did not use all of their troops in the attacking phase are handled in the reinforcement phase. In my example above, the situation arises with the fortification from Alabama to South Carolina and then the subsequent fortification from South Carolina to Alabama. The tag, however it is implemented, would need to be able to differentiate between the 4 troops that were on South Carolina and the 5 troops that were fortified from Alabama to South Carolina. Under the current suggestion, this does not need to be monitored and this is really the only difference between the two suggestions. I hope this cleared up some of the confusion.

[flatrick]

Do not click the following game link with BOB on: Game 1332205.

Yes, games do get to the point of thousands of troops. In the game above, red has over 214,000 troops on one region. This is not a common occurrence, but it does happen.

Oh...my...god. Indeed, that is an increadible feat, and I wonder how that took place.

I will try to give an example, maybe that will help us understand one another. Using the USA map as a basis. (This is using your three rules.)

Thank you for your effort much appreciated.

I have 14 troops on Alabama and another 18 on South Carolina. I want to attack from Alabama to Tennessee, I use 8 troops in this process and advance all 8. I now have 8 troops on Tennessee 6 on Alabama, and 18 on South Carolina. I would like to assault Georgia and I cannot use any of the 6 from Tennessee, but I can use either of South Carolina or Alabama. I assault Georgia from South Carolina and do not lose a troop, I advance 12 troops.

Just for clarity, here is the status as it stands at this point :

In RED are the units that can not be further used and in GREEN are the units that can still be used.

Tennessee: 8 troops
Georgia: 12 troops
Alabama: 6 troops
South Carolina: 6 troops

Now, I would like to fortify Alabama, but I cannot use the troops from Georgia or Tennessee. If this were adjacent fortifications I cannot do anything.

Yes. And this is a perfect illustration of how these stricter limitations will precisely force even more rigorous planning ahead.

If this is unlimited fortifications, I accidentally fortify 2 armies from South Carolina to Tennessee, but I cannot fix this mistake.

Status check:

Tennessee: 10 troops
Georgia: 12 troops
Alabama: 6 troops
South Carolina: 4 troops

I then mess up again and fortify 5 from Alabama to South Carolina.

Status check:

Tennessee: 10 troops
Georgia: 12 troops
Alabama: 1 troop
South Carolina: 4 troops and 5 troops

I now can only fortify 4 troops from South Carolina, I move them to Alabama to fix my mistake.

Status check:

Tennessee: 10 troops
Georgia: 12 troops
Alabama: 1 troop and 4 troops
South Carolina: 5 troops

Now, looking at this from a coding standpoint. There is no difference in the attacking phase between your idea and the current suggestion. Your idea asks that whatever tags are used in the attacking phase remain active in the reinforcement phase, not much of a difference. What is different is how the territories that did not use all of their troops in the attacking phase are handled in the reinforcement phase. In my example above, the situation arises with the fortification from Alabama to South Carolina and then the subsequent fortification from South Carolina to Alabama. The tag, however it is implemented, would need to be able to differentiate between the 4 troops that were on South Carolina and the 5 troops that were fortified from Alabama to South Carolina. Under the current suggestion, this does not need to be monitored and this is really the only difference between the two suggestions. I hope this cleared up some of the confusion.

OK, I understand better where the problem resides.

A simple way to circumvent this would be to limit reinforcements to "Chained". It is hardly a solution at all, of course.

In fact, what I did not realize before is that there is actually a Rule 4 we use with my friends which concerns the reinforcements. It is a kind of mix of "Chained" and "Unlimited" in the sense that you can only move your units (NB: that have not attacked during the round) to regions which are directly adjacent to the region in which these units find themselves in (like in "Chained"), AND you can move as many different units as you want (like in "Unlimited").
This however poses the same problem as "Adjacent" and "Unlimited" play and I also realize now that me and my friends do indeed keep mentally track of which units in whatever countries have been used or not.



Anyway, I am still wondering how much this supplementary "tag" would strain the server.

There are 2 issues that can be inferred from the particular situation you illustrated with South Carolina:
Visual problem: you have to differenciate the used and non-used troops within the same region.
Technical problem: the server has to differenciate the used and non-used troops within the same region.

The 2 solutions are quite easy to figure out:
Visual solution: use two numbers, the first one indicating the non-used troops, the second one indicating the used troops preceded by a "+"-sign and perhaps followed by a neutral colour or an "x"-mark.
Technical solution: the server creates 2 layers for the whole map, each region having its parallel copy. One layer would consist of only used troops and the other of only non-used troops. The troops would then be switched from one layer to the other according to their status, but visually you would always see the outcome of an addition of both layers.

The strain for the server would be to withhold a double amount of regions. Nevertheless, half of those regions would have no other information besides their number. Indeed, since the layer with used troops only consists of units belonging to the player currently playing, there is no need to distinguish to whom they belong. Also, they can not perform any actions, so their existence is completely irrelevant to any attacks or reinforcements.

In conclusion, I am just wondering how big of a burden it would be to create such a layer and having the servers keep track of it?

[n00blet]

Another problem with adding those rules would be, as lance and you noted, that it would not only affect attacks, but it would affect reinforcements as well. At this point, I doubt that any single set of rules that limits both attacks and reinforcements would be approved.
The use of two layers of armies might reduce the strain on the server, but it would still, at the very least, double the amount of information the server has to handle. It would also make it somewhat confusing for players new to the game type, with two army lists on every country. Somehow, I don't think many would understand it without (maybe even with) the comprehensive explanation you gave, which would be hard to add into the rules page.

[sailorseal]

It would have to be a option

[n00blet]

It would have to be a option

The first post and poll both say that it is meant to be implemented as an option.

[sully800]

We need to play a game of Oasis with Adjacent Attacks.

I think Oasis is a great map, but you can't get a true taste of the harsh desert unless you are actually forced to survive in it. Regular games you can simply jump across the oases, but an AA game would be truly fun.

Any takers? I don't want it to be left empty like the Conquer man game...

[denominator]

Yeah, I'll definitely play.

Also, I played one of the AoR maps for the tournament, and it made it much better. You can see the dominant player(s) rolling across the map building giant bonuses rather than just being randomly run-through by an unexpected force.

[n00blet]

Oasis would be great

But then again, these are the same 3 players that joined the conquer man game...

Any fresh blood?

[SuicidalSnowman]

I'll play Oasis AA.

[Ditocoaf]

I return! Just to play oasis AA. Because it sounds awesome.

[n00blet]

Hey! Well that's 5....I'll make it

Game 4121131
Pass is the same as in the tourney. If you don't know it, just pm me

[denominator]

I seem to have discovered a critical issue with AA.

For reference, see these two games: AoR 1 and Australia.

Note: The following is not entirely fair for the Australia map game, as I missed 2 turns, but the theory stands.

With Adjacent Attacks, it is far to easy to team up on one player. Both of these games were played as a result of the tournament, and by no means am I complaining that I lost or anything. I am merely pointing out a major flaw. In the AoR game, I had a major lead in round 23, when I was finally able to eliminate Megadeth666 from the game. However, at that point, both Hado911 and endar1077 noticed the lead and were able to unite temporarily to knock out my bonuses. There is no way one player can hold off 2 under such pressure for very long, and eventually endar1077 took an extensive lead. Then as Hado and I turned on endar, he buckled under the pressure and fell to the wayside. However, at this point, I had been significantly weakened, as had endar, so Hado was able to push through and gain enough bonuses we could not break.

A similar scenario played itself out in Australia, where I was able to capture the large Western bonus early. However, with the other 3 players coming to an uneasy truce to attempt to break my bonus, there was no hope of withstanding the pressure. Even without missing the turns, I was expending all of my troops in dire attempts to hold the bonus, rather than pushing forward. Now I sit at the brink of elimination with so few troops compared to the other players.

This flaw seems to be that it is far too easy to identify the strong player in the game and team up against him early, because he is unable to run through your territories and capture your bonuses. Even at my peak strength in the Australia game, I was picking up 10 troops per turn (6 for Western Australia, 4 for 12 territories), whereas the combined strength of my opponents was 14 (9 for <12 territories, plus two small bonuses at 3 and 2 apiece). So the strong player is unable to hold all the borders for very long.

I'm not sure how (if) to change this. But it seems pretty unfair to me that the strongest player early cannot finish a game because he is held back by the rules. It took me forever to chase down Megadeth in the AoR game, because he was able to move one territory away each turn while I could only gain one on him each turn.

Thoughts?

[SuicidalSnowman]

I agree, somewhat. I know in my tournament group, there is a feudal game with adjacent forting. One player got an early lead (really only by one village!) and the rest of us have had no chance. I currently finding myself hoping to eliminate another weak player first to get some tournament points out of the game...

I think this one might be more of an issue with the adjacent forts, but it hasn't offered much strategy for anyone. Red and I got off well, while Yellow and Green started close and fought early. Still, Red went faster than myself, and now there is really nothing anyone can do... Likewise, I am not complaining, but I feel as though this game has had almost no strategy, instead it was drop and how easily you went through starting neutrals.

Also, two people have cheated, but it was pretty minimal...

Game 3883010

[n00blet]

Hmm....I understand what you're saying....I believe though, that this problem would be mostly associated with more "linear" maps, with only a few set paths for armies to traverse through (such as conquest maps), because then it would be possible to get into a deadlock over one key territory between two main landmasses.
As for the recognition of a game leader, I think that has more to do with adoption of new strategies. This is a very different style of gameplay, so sometimes the basic principles of regular play might not apply....I completely understand how it would be annoying to be continually shot down as the game leader, but I would be more worried if it led to a stalemate. As it did not, I would suggest that possibly this would lead to more savvy diplomacy, such as attacking as far as your allies expect you to, but reinforcing the areas you will need to attack once you complete your end of the bargain. Not exactly breaking the truce, but diplomacy would be far more cutthroat....I think it would be interesting.

Of course, I could be looking at it completely wrong. Thoughts?

[denominator]

Well I discovered the hard way that, unlike regular games, it is not in your best interests to keep pushing. In both games, had I sat back with my large bonuses and then reinforced the shit out of my borders until I had more troops on the board than the other players, I likely would have won. However, by continuing to push forward, I ended up wasting my own troops.

On maps that are more linear, such as Classic, this wasn't such an issue. If the lead player manages to claim Asia, there are enough chokepoints that he can hold the bonus and pinch other players'. On these large maps with many territories, they essentially open up the map and spread you defences while clogging your path with ineffective territories simultaneously. On AoR, there was no way I could ever make it to my opponents' bases and take out major bonuses.

AA definitely takes a much more defencive strategy than regular games.

[SuicidalSnowman]

Agreed. In AA it is better to be slow and plodding, rather than explosively aggressive. You still need to take territories and bonuses, and prevent your opponent from doing so, but protecting your established positions is so important because once you lose them you may never get them back.

I am wondering how AA would translate into team games...since you would have to deal with extra turns passing off territories between teammates, but then again, you would have extra defense in many areas as well.

[n00blet]

Oooh...Team games would be interesting.....It is frustrating at times trying to keep everyone playing within the rules though.....Any official word yet? Has this, by any chance, reached the attention of "the powers that be?"

[SuicidalSnowman]

Oooh...Team games would be interesting.....It is frustrating at times trying to keep everyone playing within the rules though.....Any official word yet? Has this, by any chance, reached the attention of "the powers that be?"

I'd say we have enough for a 2 team doubles or possibly a trips game. If anyone is serious I will get some of my friends to play.

[denominator]

I think a team game on a big map would be epic - something like World 2.1.

[n00blet]

Oooh...Team games would be interesting.....It is frustrating at times trying to keep everyone playing within the rules though.....Any official word yet? Has this, by any chance, reached the attention of "the powers that be?"

I'd say we have enough for a 2 team doubles or possibly a trips game. If anyone is serious I will get some of my friends to play.

Go for it. We still need some people for the Oasis game: Game 4121131, so if any of them want to join that would be cool too.

Also, with the new CC newsletter dedicating a whole section to sugs and bugs maybe this thread will finally get some recognition

[yeti_c]

I'd be in for the Oasis game - but I can't remember the pw!

C.

[denominator]

Okay, so Oasis turned out to be not as good as expected. Any ideas for the next map?