[XML] infected neutrals

[rebelman]

Why dont we just call them rebels .

[yeti_c]

Maybe the zombie attacks could just be completely random, instead of alphabetic. That way, it would be harder to prepare for where the zombies would go next. Of course, we'd also get a lot of complaints on the forums that the zombies aren't really random...

Actually - I suspect it might be easier to attack in XML order...

C.

[lord voldemort]

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

[yeti_c]

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.

[Skittles!]

Why dont we just call them rebels .

Yes, we're after you!

[lord voldemort]

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..

[DiM]

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..

it attacks terits alphabetically not players.

so if player XXX is in terit A and player MMM is in terit B the zombies will attack player XXX because his terit is alphabetically in front of B

[yeti_c]

Actually - I think we should go with alphabetical names!!!! (As long as it's not case sensitive!)

C.

[DiM]

Actually - I think we should go with alphabetical names!!!! (As long as it's not case sensitive!)

C.

no way. it should attack terits alphabetically not players.

[Bolbs]

lol funny how yeti_c is all for the zombies attacking players alphabetically but DiM wants them to attack territories alphabetically.

I'm obviously going to vote for territories as well

[dim3wit]

I'm with Mitchmitch11. "Zombies" sounds a little dumb.

Also, what if the territories are passive aggressive? So the neutral territories act normal until you attack them, then they hold a grudge... Would that style be best on a territory by territory or map-wide basis?

[PLAYER57832]

Like it, but wouldn't it be better to randomize the attacks rather than have them automatically attack alphabetically. Also, I would say randomize whether armies are pushed forward or remain (all or nothing, no in-between). With the possible exception if there is NO other territory near the attacking country -- that is, so attacks would end, regardless of numbers of armies.

That is, zombie is near countries A, B, C. zombie attacks B ... and either moves all deployable survivors onto B or not, depending on randomized answer. If 4 remain, attack proceeds.

OR zombie is near only C, attacks and automatically moves all armies onto C.

[KoE_Sirius]

I think its a brilliant idea.

[cicero]

Like it, but wouldn't it be better to randomize the attacks rather than have them automatically attack alphabetically. Also, I would say randomize whether armies are pushed forward or remain ... etc

PLAYER57832 and several other posters have suggested incorporating various elements of randomness into the behaviour of the zombies.

This completely spoils the behaviour and, I would suggest, makes it less likely that the idea will be implemented [purely predictable behaviour as described will be simple to code and quick to execute - no need for calls to the external random number source].

But this simplicity of implementation is not the driving reason behind my belief that the behavour should be predictable: There is already enough randomness in the CC experience. Increasing the randomness decreases the skill factor and, in relation to my suggestion, would remove the possibility for many of the tactics suggested ...

If you don't know which way the zombies will go then you can't deliberately release them to attack another player. If you don't know which way the zombies will go then you don't know if you need to head them off to stop them giving away an assassin game ... etc, etc.

The behaviour has to be predictable. And yes, alphabetically by territory name so that it is not open to abuse by players choosing to call themselves "zzzthethird" and is open to exploitation by map makers. I'd love to see what the creative types in the Foundry would make of it ...

Cicero

[Lone.prophet]

if it is alpabetical than it has do do with the luck where you start

maybe make it attack the weakest/strongest territory it can first than if they are the same alpabetical maybe

[Coleman]

I think its a brilliant idea.

Agreed. This would also allow some other xml features by creating the possibility of a neutral turn.

That said... I'd rather lack worked on other features on his to-do list first...

[cicero]

if it is alpabetical than it has do do with the luck where you start

maybe make it attack the weakest/strongest territory it can first than if they are the same alpabetical maybe

It does mean that zombie behaviour is affected by the luck of where you start, but that is an element of randomness which already exists at ConquerClub. It is not a new one.

My starting position already determines, to an extent, how well I am going to do in a game. Other players take advantage if I have a weak position. Zombies will have no favourites or enemies and so will not take advantage of your weak position. They will behave as zombies do - predictably and aggressively.

Also somewhat stupidly, so making zombies attack the strongest player is not an option - they don't have that much reasoning ability. [And also for every additional complexity or decision that we incorporate into zombie behaviour the less they are simply another gameplay element - like a map, card set value or continent bonus - and the more they become an AI (artificallly intelligent) player which is not what I am suggesting (and has already been rejected).

Cicero

[Keredrex]

I t would also add an interesting twist to Terminator Games..... A Race to stay alive and get SOME points against Opponents and ZOMBALIENS....(?)

I think Its a GREAT Idea.... But The Zombaliens Should Attack Random....
...World2.1 - RED starts on Argentina, Amazonas, Chile, Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, ...Normally He Should Be Strong... But the ZOMBALIENS (?) Attack...now Green - Parana, Paraguay, Uruguay.. Gets the Continent...
It is possible to start on all the A, B, C, - 1, 2, 3, Territs and get wiped out...Though Rare... Possible!

If they attack Randomly everyone Must play equally Strategic in their Moves and account for the same threat...

Team games would also be very interesting.... But if your team mate deadbeats... Do they now become ZOMBALIENS...(?)... or does your team mate get them or dothey go to Regular Neutrals....It would suck to now be against everybody cause of a deadbeat

[richardgarr]

I believe that the original idea stated that zombies needed to have 4 or more armies in order to attack, If 1 man is deposited on each zombie terr per turn, attacking would be limited, by making sure a player always attacked a zombie terr , reducing it to 2 armies , it would ensure you would never be attacked by zombies touching your lands, so the zombies would only be able to attack with armies that had 4 or more, alphabetically would be the most random way of doing this. A player with a little foresight could use this tactic to his advantage easily. As well if you try to reduce the zombie to 2 men , a player might lose and then be attacked themselves as a result.

[browng-08]

We need this! We need zombies! I love it!

[pepperonibread]

I believe that the original idea stated that zombies needed to have 4 or more armies in order to attack, If 1 man is deposited on each zombie terr per turn, attacking would be limited, by making sure a player always attacked a zombie terr , reducing it to 2 armies , it would ensure you would never be attacked by zombies touching your lands, so the zombies would only be able to attack with armies that had 4 or more, alphabetically would be the most random way of doing this. A player with a little foresight could use this tactic to his advantage easily. As well if you try to reduce the zombie to 2 men , a player might lose and then be attacked themselves as a result.

Just simply random would be better. It probably wouldn't be to much too much trouble to apply the generator at Random.org to zombies, to pick a random territory to attack every time.

[strikercc]

What would happen on feudal war and those kind of maps?

[dominationnation]

amagin the alphebetical on Conquerman
It would just keep going up

[timmytuttut88]

what if zombies win? or they eliminate someones target in an assasin game?

[richardgarr]

what if zombies win? or they eliminate someones target in an assasin game?

I would recommend that all players involved lose points, based on the same calculations used for regular point loss,...the amount the zombies have could be derived from the average score of all players in the game. Those points would simply go into zombie land, never to be seen again.
This might actually help with point inflation.