yeti_c wrote:Man I can't wait for this...
This change would really lift Conquer Club clear from it's rivals - no other site has this.
Joodoo wrote:I don't think these two questions have been answered yet...
1.Can infected neutrals get cards when they conquer at least one territory? If so, does a player get their cards if the infected neutral is eliminated?
2.Can infected neutrals fortify? Ex.In the classic map, red has western Australia and is surrounded by infected neutrals . Red is killed by the infected neutrals. Logically, they would fortify all of their armies to Indonesia or Siam. Do infected neutrals do that?
I can't wait for this to be released!
[see last two lines of last code section]Final Proposal on page 22 wrote:// Note that regardless of game settings infected neutrals make NO fortifications.
// Note that regardless of game settings infected neutrals receive NO cards.
I wonder if they will ...max is gr8 wrote:I think once the infected neutrals arrive people will call on adaptations that can make bombardments, and can collect cards and can make fortifications, etc.
There may be an account with the name "cicero" on the site you mention. It's not me.max is gr8 wrote:On a side note I have just realised cicero has an account on Mafia Scum...
There aren't any responses in this thread since your post on page 22. Have they given their "official" feedback/criticism yet?cicero wrote: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.
max is gr8 wrote:I have an idea about this, the infected neutrals could attack in order of amount of units, e.g. Western Aus has 30 infected, Eastern Aus has 40 normal, New Guinea has 30 normal
Eatern Aus is attacked until goes below thirty and from then changes as the highest numbers change.
The Neon Peon wrote:Two questions:
1. This option does disappear for games like AoR and fedual right? Some person new to the site might get kind of annoyed if that happens.
I expect it shouldn't be a problem... Logically, things should still work as they always do. Killer Neutrals come in on a player's turn. If that territ is then still neutral by the end of the round, it will (if applicable) attack like other INs would.2. You mentioned that there were no maps with killer neutrals. There is now a map with a killer neutral. How will that neutral behave?
Being easier to program wasn't the reason.max is gr8 wrote:I have read through the whole of the thread, but easier to program does not mean it makes more sense, they're infected not insane
Hi knubbel, thanks for your interest in this suggestion. And yes, the point you raise has already been discussed [ ] and we pretty much came to the following conclusions:knubbel wrote:In sequential games the last player of a round has a huge advantage to the other players because he can influence the zombies movement.
For example he could free a huge zombie armee and let his territority with a 1. The Zombie will get this 1 and after that attack another player (because of alphabetic order).
Hope you can understand what I mean.
cicero wrote:Overall the consensus seems to be that these advantages/disadvantages balance out in the game as a whole.
cicero wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Assassin games ... "someone shoot those zombies before they give the game to .. oh shit - too late!!"
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Users browsing this forum: ViperOverLord