[GP/UI] infected neutrals

[richardgarr]

I like the attack when provoked option, If neutral is attacked during round #(arbitrary #) it will attack , so if you need to kill off a neutral to gain a pathway or a bonus (whatever the reason) , you must make sure you are prepared for the retaliatory attack. This would be a good way of players having some control over where, and when a neutral army will be unleashed.

[The Weird One]

I think this is a good idea.

[KingCoolDaddy]

I like it too... Just quirky enough that it might be a blast!

[the_fatty]

I think this is a good idea.

second that

[cicero]

Thanks to all for your posts to date. I am quite excited that so many are straightforward, supportive "let's do it" type replies.
Equally other replies questioning, or suggesting alternatives to, my original post are very thought provoking ...

Or you could get really cutting edge, set up a rules based system for deciding if they should attack (for an AI coding example, see ... <snip> ... Or there are other systems this could be based on other than territory names or randomly. For example, it could be based on who holds the most territories, who has killed the most natives (revenge is sweet), path of least resistance, path of most resistance, closest target (map makers would have to take this into account in their designs), only attack when provoked (i.e. attack only if attacked first), attack if relative player armies in country being attacked is less than 10% or above 75% (easy pickings vs desperation), set by the map maker ("motives"), randomized motive but announced.

Just to reiterate my position my suggestion is not about AI players. It's an interesting topic, but not for this thread. Perhaps AS players? Artificially Stupid? That describes my zombies pretty well. [Continuing the off topic train of thought - I like the idea that the site provides a programmable AI engine that could, perhaps, be 'programmed' using XML or something. Each of us would be able to write our own AI code and paste it into the engine. There could then be AI tournaments etc with the points going to the programmer ... Like I said - interesting, but off topic ]

I think alphabetical territories is a mistake because in some maps (because this feature hasn't been designed for) the computer would always go one way. Always.

Yes. They would always behave in an utterly predictable manner. (And this will apply equally to maps designed before zombies and those designed specifically with them in mind.) But that doesn't mean you could predict the behaviour with any certainty until it was too late. I'm probably being a bit over the top here, but I think a sub-chaotic behaviour would result. There would be a kind of "butterfly effect" possible in that players could radically change the route of the zombies by attacking tactically.

For example, in midkemia, Qwan starts with 6 neutrals, it would always attack earennial, which would suck to start there, kind of like alcatraz in LA.

I agree that this option would not suit some maps. And certainly some of the newer maps with pre-defined large numbers of neutrals may not be appropriate. Remember that neutral zombies is intended as an option not a default setting. It should be switchable just like Fog of War. Some maps will suit NZ's (Neutral Zombies) and others won't - we all have our preferences for certain game options on certain maps and this intended to be another option.

it's just too simple of a system and will get boring after a while, there needs to be uniqueness if not randomness. if you have a classic map, and neutrals end up in kamchatka, they will always attack Alaska, Alberta, Northwest tarritories, greenland, iceland, great britain, n. europe, s. europe, egypt, congo etc etc etc. no matter what the opposition looks like - it's like a one player suiciding in a 3 person stand off - someone always gains and someone always loses, and nobody likes being on the losing side and nobody can control it.

And this is where the sub-chaotic behaviour kicks in I think ...

Firstly I agree that if the set up is on Classic as you describe and this position is at the start of the game. If you ignore all other factors, the NZ's will progress along the route you describe. But those other factors are (i) the players. And we're not going to be ignored!! And (ii) the dice. I think these will affect the zombies route too ...

Let's assume that you, Twill, are a player whom it would suit perfectly for the NZ's to pursue the route described. Fine. You'll do nothing to stop them and will try to make the best of your advantage. However I really don't want them to turn up in Europe and so I'll attack them ... [At this point in my post I began to describe a hypothetical game to illustrate potentially alternate outcomes, but it gets too long to make good reading - see my closing comment.]

I like the idea, it needs a lot of work before we consider implementing it though

I think it needs less work than you think. But you've got me thinking enough that I'm going to go and do some play testing on Classic map (since I have the board game) and report back to the thread ...

Cicero

[richardgarr]

Just thought I would bump this, so I people might have something other then the million threads on the CC bug, to read.

[hasaki]

I just read your idea I and i dont think it will work. As you said when the N-army reaches 4 armies it will attack. Apart from a dead beating player the
N-army will never have over 4 armies on any one place at any one time.

So I just don't see the point in having something like this unless the N-armies could build up to a sizable force before attacking.

[richardgarr]

I just read your idea I and i dont think it will work. As you said when the N-army reaches 4 armies it will attack. Apart from a dead beating player the
N-army will never have over 4 armies on any one place at any one time.

So I just don't see the point in having something like this unless the N-armies could build up to a sizable force before attacking.

Originally it was suggested that the N armies receive 1 man per terr each turn.

[cicero]

I just read your idea I and i dont think it will work. As you said when the N-army reaches 4 armies it will attack. Apart from a dead beating player the N-army will never have over 4 armies on any one place at any one time.

So I just don't see the point in having something like this unless the N-armies could build up to a sizable force before attacking.

Imagine the position on Classic map that Twill suggests above. Let's look at the zombie army on Kamchatka over a few turns.
Note I am ignoring players and any action they might take, ignoring card sets and also I am assuming winning dice on every attack for the zombies.] This serves to better illustrate my response to the point that you have raised although it is certainly not realistic gameplay.

Round 0 - Neutral Zombies (NZ's) in Kamchatka 3 armies.

Round 1 - add 1 army to all NZ territories - Kamchatka 4.
Attacks - Kamchatka to Alaska.
End Position - Kamchatka 1, Alaska 3.

Round 2 - add 1 army to all NZ territories - Kamchatka 2, Alaska 4.
Attacks - Alaska to Alberta.
End Position - Kamchatka 2, Alaska 1, Alberta 3.

Round 3 - add 1 army to all NZ territories - Kamchatka 3, Alaska 2, Alberta 4.
Attacks - Alberta to Northwest Territory.
End Position - Kamchatka 3, Alaska 2, Alberta 1, Northwest Territory 3.

Round 4 - add 1 army to all NZ territories - Kamchatka 4, Alaska 3, Alberta 2, Northwest Territory 4.
Attacks - Northwest Territory to Greenland & Kamchatka to Irkutsk.
End Position - Irkutsk 3, Kamchatka 1, Alaska 3, Alberta 2, Northwest Territory 1, Greenland 3.

Round 5 - add 1 army to all NZ territories - Irkutsk 4, Kamchatka 2, Alaska 4, Alberta 3, Northwest Territory 2, Greenland 4.
Attacks - Greenland to Iceland & Irkutsk to Mongolia.
End Position - Mongolia 3, Irkutsk 1, Kamchatka 2, Alaska 4, Alberta 3, Northwest Territory 2, Greenland 1, Iceland 3.

Round 6 - add 1 army to all NZ territories - Mongolia 4, Irkutsk 2, Kamchatka 3, Alaska 5, Alberta 4, Northwest Territory 3, Greenland 2, Iceland 4.
Attacks - Mongolia to China, Iceland to Great Britain, Alberta to Ontario ...

Which, I guess, is a rather long-winded way of saying "if a zombie army gets isolated it will build up beyond 4".

When I first ran through this sequence - as a start to some play testing as mentioned in my previous post - I was concerned that the zombies appeared too strong. They appear to be taking over pretty rapidly don't they?

But this simply confirms that ignoring players makes the gameplay unrealistic.

So I simulated a full game. I dealt random territories to 5 players on the Classic map. [5 x 8 = 40 which leaves 2 neutral territories for the zombies.] I deliberately chose Kamchatka as one of the zombies territories since it had already come up in this thread and the other was randomly assigned - Congo.

I played for each of the players in turn and of course the zombies at the end of the round. The Kamchatka zombies did progress to Alaska and then Alberta, but made it no further - they were wiped out in round 6. The Congo zombies did not progress at all but survived until wiped out in round 4.

The effect of the zombies was relatively subtle - as I would expect, and hope, in such a scenario. Some players in Africa deployed but did not attack - since it made sense to wait for the zombies to attack another player according to the rules - hoping to take advantage after the battle. The player in Africa immediately threatened by the zombies (pink) was able to hold them below the 4 army horde required to make an attack and seemed to use the dynamic to build up a stronghold in that continent. It may have been that the zombies presence made the other players so passive that pink was able to seize the initiative.

In North America green was heavily present, but first lost Alaska to the zombies. Another player lost Alberta, but by this time green had reinforced Northwest Territory and wiped out the zombies before they could attack.

In both areas the players were respectful of the zombies and took care to ensure they didn't gain a stronghold. If they had been ignored - as in the hypothetical example above - it can be seen that they may multiply into a game threatening plague rapidly.

One game does not make for real play testing, but some interesting results I think.

Cicero

[vrex]

Personally, a little flair to games is always appreciated. every time someone creates a concept which increases the fun/strategy factor it makes me happy im a part of conquerclub .
Perhaps the only places NZ's would not liked in would be those forced neutral maps known as feudal war and the might/magic...except for the crazy people willing to see exactly what would happen. Created maps with NZ's in mind would of course be fine as the map through the forge will be balanced.
BUT due to the fact that NZ's are an OPTION and not a requirement if they were hypothetically implemented we would most likely never see a game with feudal war, NZ on... in the meantime they would add a fun new flair to several maps and spawn several ideas for new ones.
Of course...we still need one person to comment on this...
In closing i agree wholeheartedly that this should be implemented...but *coughlackcough* needs to state his views as he is 'headmaster'

[Stoney229]

I really like the idea, and do not think it really needs much more work... but would a player in a zombies-enabled game have to eliminate all zombies in addition to all human players in order to win? b/c I'm afraid that the zombies would just be too difficult to defeat in a 2-player or deadbeat game.

Also, I definitely think that zombie wins should result in no points loss, otherwise people will be less likely to play with zombies (esp if they have a lot of points and prefer to play with other players that have similar points so as not to lose too many points to a lucky low-ranked player), because they are less likely to gain points and more likely to lose points than a non-zombies game.

one last problem I can think of... it would definitely catch new players off guard, b/c I think they don't always realize there are different game types to pay attention to before joining a game. However, this problem already exists especially with assassin games, so .... (I just thought I mention it )

other than that i think it's great, and hope to see it sometime soon.

----
and juicy BOB love to you, cicero

[Coleman]

I'd write this, not for free, but I could write it. It wouldn't be very hard.

The logic...

Code: Select all

If (zombie != 0) {  //does not equal 0 is what us paranoid folk do for true
{
  Territory x = 0; //need this later
  Territory y = 0; //ditto
  Neutral Grow All Owned Territories By 1; //autodeploy 1, if I understood that right
  Cycle through owned territories; //some sort of loop
  {
    while (armies > 3);
    {
      Check borders; //another loop
      {
          Territory x = current iteration;
          if (Territory y < Territory x)
            Territory y = Territory x; //ignoring alphabetical preference atm
      }
      Auto-Attack Territory Y;
      if (Win)
        Fort All;
    }
  }
}


[DiM]

I'd write this, not for free, but I could write it. It wouldn't be very hard.

The logic...

Code: Select all

If (zombie != 0) {  //does not equal 0 is what us paranoid folk do for true

i was sure 0=false and 1=true

[Coleman]

I'd write this, not for free, but I could write it. It wouldn't be very hard.

The logic...

Code: Select all

If (zombie != 0) {  //does not equal 0 is what us paranoid folk do for true

i was sure 0=false and 1=true

Close, 0 is false, everything else is true. -33 is true, 42 is true, .02347 is true.

So anything that is not zero is true.

I guess someone could come up with a programming language where that isn't the case, but everything currently written beyond 1 & 0 only (boolean logic) behaves where 0 is the only false value.

[DiM]

I'd write this, not for free, but I could write it. It wouldn't be very hard.

The logic...

Code: Select all

If (zombie != 0) {  //does not equal 0 is what us paranoid folk do for true

i was sure 0=false and 1=true

Close, 0 is false, everything else is true. -33 is true, 42 is true, .02347 is true.

So anything that is not zero is true.

I guess someone could come up with a programming language where that isn't the case, but everything currently written beyond 1 & 0 only (boolean logic) behaves where 0 is the only false value.

i thought it's about binary code. there 0=false and 1=true.