[GP/UI] infected neutrals

[yeti_c]

But is it not the case - that the person that goes first gets a huge advantage - from going first...

Also - in this case the person going after the zombies - has the chance to mop up a string of 1's too...

C.

[Stoney229]

But is it not the case - that the person that goes first gets a huge advantage - from going first...

Also - in this case the person going after the zombies - has the chance to mop up a string of 1's too...

C.

I'm not following. can you clarify?

[InkL0sed]

But is it not the case - that the person that goes first gets a huge advantage - from going first...

Also - in this case the person going after the zombies - has the chance to mop up a string of 1's too...

C.

I'm not following. can you clarify?

He's saying that once the zombies finish attacking, the players who go first can easily take their trail of 1's.

[cicero]

You could make breaking continents a tie-breaker before it does it alphabetically.

Actually I think it should break continents first... (Chances are the borders will have biggest anyways)

So the order should be

a) I shall break a whole continent (if more than one - continent with biggest bonus)
If no continent breaks available...
b) I shall attack the largest army...
If two equal armies
c) I shall attack the largest army on the territory with the highest alphabetical name...

C.

I have to disagree yeti.

I believe the order must be: b) then c). Only. (As included in my revised suggestion on page 5).

Adding a) and targeting players holding continents first is not a good extension because:

(i) This would tend to result in zombie attacks on the strongest players. This would tend to 'level out' any advantage in position that a skillful player has made for themselves. 'Levelling out' of games would tend to prolong them for no purpose. And by extending and levelling games this would increase the effect of luck on the final outcome. A bad thing.

(ii) Attacking continents is not consistent with the 'dim, predictable and hungry' motivation that is inherent to zombies.

(iii) It makes more subtle tactics for distracting the zombies more difficult if they are always distracted by continents.

Most significantly: (iv) This is a step towards AI. This extension would make the zombies 'better players'. It would make them more 'human'. This is not the intention of the suggestion. The suggestion is to add a gameplay option ... "Fog of War" has an effect on games, it does not win or lose them. It is just Fog. Extra cards aren't handed to weaker players to even up the game. Cards are just cards. The zombies should not oppose the stronger players. They should simply look for the next, and biggest, meal. Zombies are just zombies.

Cicero

[Rocketry]

sounds well good

[4V4T4R]

You could make breaking continents a tie-breaker before it does it alphabetically.

Actually I think it should break continents first... (Chances are the borders will have biggest anyways)

So the order should be

a) I shall break a whole continent (if more than one - continent with biggest bonus)
If no continent breaks available...
b) I shall attack the largest army...
If two equal armies
c) I shall attack the largest army on the territory with the highest alphabetical name...

C.

I have to disagree yeti.

I believe the order must be: b) then c). Only. (As included in my revised suggestion on page 5).

Adding a) and targeting players holding continents first is not a good extension because:

(i) This would tend to result in zombie attacks on the strongest players. This would tend to 'level out' any advantage in position that a skillful player has made for themselves. 'Levelling out' of games would tend to prolong them for no purpose. And by extending and levelling games this would increase the effect of luck on the final outcome. A bad thing.

(ii) Attacking continents is not consistent with the 'dim, predictable and hungry' motivation that is inherent to zombies.

(iii) It makes more subtle tactics for distracting the zombies more difficult if they are always distracted by continents.

Most significantly: (iv) This is a step towards AI. This extension would make the zombies 'better players'. It would make them more 'human'. This is not the intention of the suggestion. The suggestion is to add a gameplay option ... "Fog of War" has an effect on games, it does not win or lose them. It is just Fog. Extra cards aren't handed to weaker players to even up the game. Cards are just cards. The zombies should not oppose the stronger players. They should simply look for the next, and biggest, meal. Zombies are just zombies.

Cicero

I completely agree.

[4V4T4R]

also, how about a poll?

[Stoney229]

But is it not the case - that the person that goes first gets a huge advantage - from going first...

Also - in this case the person going after the zombies - has the chance to mop up a string of 1's too...

C.

I'm not following. can you clarify?

He's saying that once the zombies finish attacking, the players who go first can easily take their trail of 1's.

Good point, except how often will there really be a trail of ones?

[wcaclimbing]

But is it not the case - that the person that goes first gets a huge advantage - from going first...

Also - in this case the person going after the zombies - has the chance to mop up a string of 1's too...

C.

There would never be much of a "trail of 1s".
This is because as soon as they reach 4 armies, they would start attacking. Since they only ever reach 4 (unless they are already surrounded by neutrals and have no other place to go) they will use up their own armies rather quickly. If a zombie had perfect dice, there would usually only be a single 1, because advancing with 4 armies leaves 3 left, which the zombies wont use to attack.

EDIT: unless it was one of the larger armies, such as the 10s on Feudal and the 75 on Magic.

[zimmah]

the only prob is alpabetically...im not keen on...like it could be abused this way

At least alphabetically people will know - and it wouldn't be abuse - it would be a tactic... if you do it correctly - you can unleash a devastating neutral army... if you do it wrong - or you get to close - you get yourself annihilated!!!

C.

nah im sayin gpeople with z in ther name will abuse it..

they mean in alphabetically order of territory names, not player names, however it would be good for me if they would look to the names instead

but what he ment is in alpabetic order of the territories, which can actually add a nice tactical twist.

[4V4T4R]

But is it not the case - that the person that goes first gets a huge advantage - from going first...

Also - in this case the person going after the zombies - has the chance to mop up a string of 1's too...

C.

There would never be much of a "trail of 1s".
This is because as soon as they reach 4 armies, they would start attacking. Since they only ever reach 4 (unless they are already surrounded by neutrals and have no other place to go) they will use up their own armies rather quickly. If a zombie had perfect dice, there would usually only be a single 1, because advancing with 4 armies leaves 3 left, which the zombies wont use to attack.

EDIT: unless it was one of the larger armies, such as the 10s on Feudal and the 75 on Magic.

true a single zombie terrt is not likely to leave much of a trail
however if the single territ is not taken over, it will spread exponentially
to adjacent territs, creating the potential for larger armies and more of a trail

[Stoney229]

But is it not the case - that the person that goes first gets a huge advantage - from going first...

Also - in this case the person going after the zombies - has the chance to mop up a string of 1's too...

C.

There would never be much of a "trail of 1s".
This is because as soon as they reach 4 armies, they would start attacking. Since they only ever reach 4 (unless they are already surrounded by neutrals and have no other place to go) they will use up their own armies rather quickly. If a zombie had perfect dice, there would usually only be a single 1, because advancing with 4 armies leaves 3 left, which the zombies wont use to attack.

EDIT: unless it was one of the larger armies, such as the 10s on Feudal and the 75 on Magic.

true a single zombie terrt is not likely to leave much of a trail
however if the single territ is not taken over, it will spread exponentially
to adjacent territs, creating the potential for larger armies and more of a trail

I do not see how this would give a counteracting advantage to early players.

[wcaclimbing]

Maybe making this only available on freestyle games is one of the options to make it more balanced, so everyone gets a fair chance of going last.

Or, the zombies are set to play once per round, but you wont know WHEN they play. Like, in a sequential game, the zombie program will randomly select a time to play within that round. Sometimes first, others last, and some in the middle of the round. (same way in freestyle). Then everyone would have an equal chance of playing before/after a zombie, and it would also add a bit more to the unpredictable part of the zombies.
"will they attack now, or later?"

[4V4T4R]

Maybe making this only available on freestyle games is one of the options to make it more balanced, so everyone gets a fair chance of going last.

Or, the zombies are set to play once per round, but you wont know WHEN they play. Like, in a sequential game, the zombie program will randomly select a time to play within that round. Sometimes first, others last, and some in the middle of the round. (same way in freestyle). Then everyone would have an equal chance of playing before/after a zombie, and it would also add a bit more to the unpredictable part of the zombies.
"will they attack now, or later?"

an interesting idea, however people will complain that it is not "random"
so what if the zombie turn cycles? That is, the first round, they go last, the
second, next to last, the third, next to next to last, etc. Each round cycling one
turn ahead. This gives everyone a chance to go last before the zombies

[wcaclimbing]

Maybe making this only available on freestyle games is one of the options to make it more balanced, so everyone gets a fair chance of going last.

Or, the zombies are set to play once per round, but you wont know WHEN they play. Like, in a sequential game, the zombie program will randomly select a time to play within that round. Sometimes first, others last, and some in the middle of the round. (same way in freestyle). Then everyone would have an equal chance of playing before/after a zombie, and it would also add a bit more to the unpredictable part of the zombies.
"will they attack now, or later?"

an interesting idea, however people will complain that it is not "random"
so what if the zombie turn cycles? That is, the first round, they go last, the
second, next to last, the third, next to next to last, etc. Each round cycling one
turn ahead. This gives everyone a chance to go last before the zombies

yeah, but the first person still gets an advantage (disadvantage, depending on how you see it) by being safe for more of the time.

I think random would be the best way to go.