Adjacent Attacks

by **denominator** on Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:39 am

Looks to me like we're in for 3 games. With the exception of the new guy, total_destructo, we're all premium, so we all should be up for it.

I'll create 2v2v2, sully an Arms Race, yeti a fog game (map of your choice)? 6 players all around?

by **yeti_c** on Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:21 am

FOW Game - Usual password...

Game 4447932

C.

by **n00blet** on Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:12 pm

yeti_c wrote:FOW Game - Usual password...

Game 4447932

C.

Age of Merchants? Oh goodness.... :lol:

by **denominator** on Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:30 pm

2v2v2 doubles game.

Iberia, Sequential, Flat Rate, Adjacent.

Game 4452443

Usual password.

by **yeti_c** on Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:25 am

by **yeti_c** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:08 am

2 more players needed for both.

C.

by **ubersky** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:46 pm

I would be willing to participate in gameplay testing.

by **n00blet** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:49 pm

ubersky wrote:I would be willing to participate in gameplay testing.

We always need new recruits! I'll pm you the password 8-)

by **denominator** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:04 pm

Anyone up for some St. Paddy's fun?

4 player, sequential, no spoils, adjacent, St Patrick's Day map.

Same password as usual.

Game 4478615

by **ubersky** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:17 pm

Has anyone run a Tournament that reads this?

Maybe put together a small 4 or 8 person Tournament so that all the AA testing games would be tagged with the something like "AA Testing Tournament".

We could request no "prize" at the end. Also you can make it open ended so we can make games as much as we want.

by **lancehoch** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:02 pm

ubersky wrote:Has anyone run a Tournament that reads this?

Maybe put together a small 4 or 8 person Tournament so that all the AA testing games would be tagged with the something like "AA Testing Tournament".

We could request no "prize" at the end. Also you can make it open ended so we can make games as much as we want.

n00blet is currently running a tournament "First Adjacent Attacks Tournament".

by **SuicidalSnowman** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:20 pm

I joined up. I was gone for a bit completing applications...

by **n00blet** on Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:36 pm

lancehoch wrote:
ubersky wrote:Has anyone run a Tournament that reads this?

Maybe put together a small 4 or 8 person Tournament so that all the AA testing games would be tagged with the something like "AA Testing Tournament".

We could request no "prize" at the end. Also you can make it open ended so we can make games as much as we want.

n00blet is currently running a tournament "First Adjacent Attacks Tournament".

And let's not forget our fearless co-organizer lancehoch =D>

by **yeti_c** on Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:56 am

Gah - missed the St patricks game!!

C.

by **SuicidalSnowman** on Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:18 pm

Great win in the 3 doubles Iberia game gentlemen!

by **denominator** on Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:22 pm

SuicidalSnowman wrote:Great win in the 3 doubles Iberia game gentlemen!

I quite enjoyed the teams game. It would be awesome to pick up two more people and play somewhere like World 2.1 4v4.

by **n00blet** on Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:54 pm

denominator wrote:
SuicidalSnowman wrote:Great win in the 3 doubles Iberia game gentlemen!

I quite enjoyed the teams game. It would be awesome to pick up two more people and play somewhere like World 2.1 4v4.

I vote: definitely.

Anyone care to brave to great frontier that is Adjacent Attacks?

by **yeti_c** on Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:24 am

In - as ever.

C.

by **SuicidalSnowman** on Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:22 pm

Always in

by **denominator** on Fri May 01, 2009 5:44 pm

So I went through the game log of that FOW game we played to see who cheated (if anybody) and here's what I came up with:

2009-03-22 14:00:51 - yeti_c assaulted Fort Hope from Colato and conquered it from n00blet
2009-03-22 14:01:00 - yeti_c assaulted Pampas from Fort Hope and conquered it from sully800

One instance, and a minor infraction at that. Well done to all for following the rules!

by **n00blet** on Sat May 02, 2009 1:06 am

denominator wrote:So I went through the game log of that FOW game we played to see who cheated (if anybody) and here's what I came up with:

2009-03-22 14:00:51 - yeti_c assaulted Fort Hope from Colato and conquered it from n00blet
2009-03-22 14:01:00 - yeti_c assaulted Pampas from Fort Hope and conquered it from sully800

One instance, and a minor infraction at that. Well done to all for following the rules!

CHEATER! BURN! :twisted:

by **yeti_c** on Sun May 03, 2009 8:17 am

n00blet wrote:
denominator wrote:So I went through the game log of that FOW game we played to see who cheated (if anybody) and here's what I came up with:

2009-03-22 14:00:51 - yeti_c assaulted Fort Hope from Colato and conquered it from n00blet
2009-03-22 14:01:00 - yeti_c assaulted Pampas from Fort Hope and conquered it from sully800

One instance, and a minor infraction at that. Well done to all for following the rules!
CHEATER! BURN!

I blame my sitter!!

C.

by **sully800** on Sun May 03, 2009 4:09 pm

No wonder I lost that game

hahaha

So what are the chances of this great game type ever being implemented? It does not seem like it would require much coding at all since you are just limiting the attacks which can currently happen. I understand that Infected Neutrals will take a while because it is very complicated, but this is so simple and highly desired. Please lack? [-o<

by **OliverFA** on Wed May 20, 2009 3:34 pm

I have been thinking a bit about this proposal, and I have concluded that this option, despite what it seems, would speed up games. Why do I say that? I'll explain:

In many games, after an initial phase of expansion, there is a moment when an equilibrium is reached, and all players stop. They just stay building up their armies, waiting for the right moment. The reason for this behaviour is that the consequences of losing an attack in that moment, or even winning an attack but with a lot of casualties, are too high. Losing or winning with many casualties means having a weak defense. And because of unlimited attacks, a weak defense means losing not only a continent bonus, but also the full continent. So they continue building up until odds are strongly in favour of them. And this building up continues forever.

With adjacent attacks, this risk is much lower. The risk is only losing the continent bonus, but not the full continent. And because of the lower risk, players will be inclined to take it more often.

The final result is that the game gets dynamized with that option.

by **denominator** on Thu May 21, 2009 11:42 am

Exactly. And it allows the other players in the game to see an impending loss and turn their efforts to preventing it. It makes the game much more tactical and really requires you to put your troops in the right positions.