[XML] infected neutrals

[yeti_c]

So I was wondering - do we have any inkling of a proposed date for this?

C.

[max is gr8]

Probably next update, probably in a few weeks. The summer update.

[arebez]

that would be cool sh-t

[bbqpenguin]

this has likely been discussed already, but again, i'm much too lazy to go digging through those posts, so

how will the zombies work in freestyle? they go last in the turn, but what if people don't end their turn and time runs out? will they automatically go at the instant time runs out? that could make things interesting quick, assuming their entire turn happens in an instance

[cicero]

this has likely been discussed already, but again, i'm much too lazy to go digging through those posts, so

how will the zombies work in freestyle? they go last in the turn, but what if people don't end their turn and time runs out? will they automatically go at the instant time runs out? that could make things interesting quick, assuming their entire turn happens in an instance

You don't actually have to read all the posts, just the Final Proposal on page 22 as indicated in the thread title ...

The infected neutral turn occurs immediately after the end of each game round before the start of the next game round.

This is true for all game types - both freestyle and sequential.
[The current naming is "infected neutrals" not "zombies".]

[yeti_c]

Man I can't wait for this...

This change would really lift Conquer Club clear from it's rivals - no other site has this.

C.

[Joodoo]

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!

[lancehoch]

They have both been answered, I believe. And the answers are: no cards for neutrals, and no fortifications.

[Simon Viavant]

I think the armies shouldn't start increasing until round 4 or 5, because otherwise it would be very hard to get a continent, unless you're really lucky, and if someone got a really lucky start they'd be the undisputed winner of that game right from the start.

[cicero]

Man I can't wait for this...

This change would really lift Conquer Club clear from it's rivals - no other site has this.

And thank you to my viral campaign manager

[cicero]

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!

Please check the Final Proposal on page 22 as indicated in the thread title for answers to questions like these ...

// Note that regardless of game settings infected neutrals make NO fortifications.
// Note that regardless of game settings infected neutrals receive NO cards.

[see last two lines of last code section]

Like you, I can't wait !!

[max is gr8]

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.

On a side note I have just realised cicero has an account on Mafia Scum...

[cicero]

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.

I wonder if they will ...
Personally I like the infected neutrals because they are not AI players - which is what such adaptations would seem to move them towards. I believe keeping them as they are proposed will make the best contribution to enhancing the CC experience ... But we will see when they are implemented.
[And no, I have no idea when that will be ... ]

On a side note I have just realised cicero has an account on Mafia Scum...

There may be an account with the name "cicero" on the site you mention. It's not me.

[max is gr8]

There not you? Odd, never mind.

[imcooler]

i like it but definatley not as the standard setting. but it would be good as an option.

[bedub1]

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.

There aren't any responses in this thread since your post on page 22. Have they given their "official" feedback/criticism yet?

If they have given it the go ahead, and that's why it's on the To-Do list....maybe this should be stickied so it remains at the top.

[lancehoch]

It is being implemented, but there are other, more pressing things that lack is implementing first.

[max is gr8]

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.

[cicero]

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.

That option was considered max, but in the end we decided on the version described in the Final Proposal on page 22 for reasons which, if you've read the thread, are clear .

[The Neon Peon]

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.
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?

[Ditocoaf]

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 personally am very much looking forward to FW with zombies...

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?

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.

At first glance, it might seem a little imbalanced, because if red starts the round, and has his territ taken over by KNs, then there's 7 rounds for others to take that territ back by a player before the INs go, whereas if gray loses a territ to KNs, then the INs will move right away. But it still balances out, because it's just as likely that blue will destroy the KNs next to red before the INs go, or destroy Gray's armies on the territ, therefore delaying the KNs from acting that round at all.

[max is gr8]

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

[cicero]

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

Being easier to program wasn't the reason.

Max, if you want to put forward an idea to improve this suggestion further you're going to need to explain the benefits of your variation over the existing version as detailed in the proposal more clearly.

[knubbel]

I did not read the hole thread, so I do not know if it has already been said:
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.
knubbel

[cicero]

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.

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:

Yes, there is an advantage in playing last in the round - ie immediately before the infected neutrals (zombies) because, as you say, that player can be absolutely sure how the infected neutrals will play in their next turn.
However, this advantage is in part offset by the natural disadvantage of going last in a round. Further if a player adopts the tactic you describe - leaving a border territory with only one army on it - that territory will still have only one army on it when all the other players take their turns even if the infected neutrals ignore it.

Overall the consensus seems to be that these advantages/disadvantages balance out in the game as a whole.

Cicero