Conquer Club

lozzini wrote:i love this idea... but what happens when neutral armies occur by bombardment.. do they become zombie?

That is an awesome point... you can create zombie armies elsewhere by bombardment...

That would be wicked in Waterloo - sneak in - steal an artillery and bombard some troops into neutral - then the zombie armies will eat out the opponent from within!!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:

lozzini wrote:i love this idea... but what happens when neutral armies occur by bombardment.. do they become zombie?

That is an awesome point... you can create zombie armies elsewhere by bombardment...

That would be wicked in Waterloo - sneak in - steal an artillery and bombard some troops into neutral - then the zombie armies will eat out the opponent from within!!!

C.

actually they won't bombardment leaves 1 neutral it would be 3 turns before the neutrals start attacking and in that time you can retake the terit easily.

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

lozzini wrote:i love this idea... but what happens when neutral armies occur by bombardment.. do they become zombie?

That is an awesome point... you can create zombie armies elsewhere by bombardment...

That would be wicked in Waterloo - sneak in - steal an artillery and bombard some troops into neutral - then the zombie armies will eat out the opponent from within!!!

C.

actually they won't bombardment leaves 1 neutral it would be 3 turns before the neutrals start attacking and in that time you can retake the terit easily.

Not if it's some idiotic cook who doesn't realize it

This idea is fantastic, and I for one would love a chance to start playing it as soon as possible.

Is it on the "to-do" list yet???

wcaclimbing wrote:

4V4T4R wrote:also... i dont know about zombies actively trying to break countries,
this doesn't sound very zombie like. consider the situation where you are the
only player who holds a country next to zombies. The zombies attack you,
to break this country, and not the other players, allowing them to mass
troops right next to the zombies without fear of being attacked, because they
know the zombies will try to break your country. In this situacion, it is a
disadvantage to hold the country. Holding a country shouldn't put one at a
disadvantage like this.

Am I assuming correctly when i say when you said country you meant continent?

Having the Zombies break the closest availible continent is the only abuse-free way to do it. Because if they were set to attack the highest number of armies, if there was a zombie on Siam on Classic map, whoever owns australia could just put a 1 on indonesia and be safe from the zombie attack.

I think the system Yeti_c posted earlier would be the best, most reliable system to make the zombies fair.

Cause remember, in the situation you explained, as soon as the zombies broke the continent, they would revert back to attacking the biggest army, so stocking all of your armies next to a zombie could still backfire against you.

I agree with 4V4T4R. If there just so happens to be a neutral on siam and I have australia... then I am lucky. That is the case whether the game has zombies or not. If I choose to only leave one army on indonesia (again, something I might do regardless of whether the neutrals on siam are zombies), then I only risk an opponent being more likely to break through the zombies and into Australia.

On a separate note, it seems that having zombies attack the strongest territory at the end of a round would create a major problem... the problem being that the players that go last in the round have a huge advantage over the players that go first in the round... as players last in the round can always make certain that their territories are never attacked by zombies (unless all other adjecent territories have no more than 1 army AND the last player has the territory that comes first alphabetically), and the players going first will never be able to do this.

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.

yeti_c wrote: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?

Stoney229 wrote:

yeti_c wrote: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.

yeti_c wrote:

InkL0sed wrote: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

sounds well good

cicero wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

InkL0sed wrote: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.

also, how about a poll?

InkL0sed wrote:

Stoney229 wrote:

yeti_c wrote: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?

yeti_c wrote: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.

lord voldemort wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

lord voldemort wrote: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.

wcaclimbing wrote:

yeti_c wrote: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

4V4T4R wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:

yeti_c wrote: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.

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?"

wcaclimbing wrote: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

4V4T4R wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote: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.

I disagree - giving an advantage to the last player to play can only be a good thing - going first in many of the game types can often be a huge advantage.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

InkL0sed wrote: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... or two equal continents
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.

zimmah wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

InkL0sed wrote: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... or two equal continents
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.

Mostly covered by... (if more than one - continent with biggest bonus)

C.

yeti_c wrote:
Mostly covered by... (if more than one - continent with biggest bonus)

C.

not really, if you would script it exactly like you stated above, it will most likely give errors, since you do not state exactly what will happen if there are continents, but none of them is the biggest, will cause the script to malfunction or not function correctly

anyways like has been said before, it doesn't matter a lot since it would be better if the zombies would first check which territory has the most armies and then check which one of them gives the highest bonus, if any., then the coding will be like this:

if 'number of armies >=4' attack 'highest territory adjacent to it'
if 2 or more territories are equal(only count the highest) 'attack the one which creates the highest bonus' (potential food capacity) (or most territories inside a continent, for example..)
if equal(and highest, of course), start attacking alphabetically

zimmah wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

InkL0sed wrote: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... or two equal continents
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'm tempted just to repost my previous rebuttal to this suggestion which I made back towards the top of page 8. I quote it below for convenience.

I think my rebuttal is fairly thorough. And my opinion hasn't changed .
But I note that several posters support yeti's variation.

Can anyone post an argument explaining why adding [either of the versions of] a) is a good idea and specifically what this adds to the zombie behaviour to make for an even more enjoyable game?

Cicero

cicero wrote: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.