Conquer Club

So when do you think this is going to be put into action ?

KoE_Sirius wrote:So when do you think this is going to be put into action ?

whenever lack approves it and implements it, which can be somewhere from tomorrow to never.

I just read this thread and.....
AWESOME IDEA!
This will make the AoR and Feudal maps so much more awesome.

Oh man, i just thought of something. In Magic there is the 75 on Sanctuary.... It would be insane, and possibly suicide, but imagine setting up a path for that 75 to actually leave the sanctuary and demolish one or more of your opponents. The 75 would kill your enemies, and it leaving would leave Sanctuary open for the taking. Like i said, it could be suicide, but if it worked it would be awesome.

Also, those 10s in Feudal will get pretty interesting. So many new strategies will be needed.

DiM wrote:

vrex wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Yeah - no point in seeing the updates as they happen - just calculate it - then output the new values and the updated Log.

C.

the last part here almost makes it sound like the zombies dont roll dice at all im sure they do but just very quickly right

zombies will roll dice and move around like any player but the difference is that you won't see the dice rolling and you won't see the armies moving. you'll just see the loading animation few seconds and then the updated map with all the zombie actions.

I expect you all (yeti_c & DiM) are right in the nature of the implementation.

However sometimes, in casual games, I happen to be on CC just as another is taking their turn. If it's a particularly interesting game I sometimes look at the game and repeatedly click 'refresh map' so that I can see them moving across the map and/or review their moves in the game log. [I appreciate that I never see their dice.]

It would be nice to have this option if I happened to arrive at my game just as the round ended and the zombies played ...

However the more I think about it the less sensible it seems to build in such a delay.

Cicero

I can imagine Fuedal, everybody would be bombarding the 10's to make them less troublesome, and people would be bombarding a lot more often.

can i put a ''z'' in front of my name please then?

alex_white101 wrote:can i put a ''z'' in front of my name please then?

it will be abut terit names in alphabetical order not player names.

DiM wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:can i put a ''z'' in front of my name please then?

it will be abut terit names in alphabetical order not player names.

why not have the zombies attack the biggest army near them? Like someone said above, it would be more "food" for the zombies to attack the big armies. That would make it much more strategy and much less "it will attack x,y, and then z because they are in alphabetical order.

Alphabet would get boring, because the paths of the zombies would be too predictable and, like someone else said above, the maps with indavidual starting places would suck, because the guy with the lowest country name alphabetically would always get owned by the neutrals.

wcaclimbing wrote:

DiM wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:can i put a ''z'' in front of my name please then?

it will be abut terit names in alphabetical order not player names.

why not have the zombies attack the biggest army near them? Like someone said above, it would be more "food" for the zombies to attack the big armies. That would make it much more strategy and much less "it will attack x,y, and then z because they are in alphabetical order.

Alphabet would get boring, because the paths of the zombies would be too predictable and, like someone else said above, the maps with indavidual starting places would suck, because the guy with the lowest country name alphabetically would always get owned by the neutrals.

i already talked about this with cicero when he said he'd like zombies to attack the strongest and in case of a tie to attack alphabetically.

but this is bad because if a guy has a continent (let's say australia) all he has to do is leave 1 on indochina and he will never be attacked because the other player will bring more than 1 troop to china to try and break australia. and at the same time you get a nice zombie defence as well as your bonus.

yes you could make them attack the strongest and if both are the same size decide randomly but i strongly object to that cause the last thing we want is another random factor. remember all the dice and initial drop complaining threads? well, do you want zombie complaining threads?

You could make breaking continents a tie-breaker before it does it alphabetically.

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.

One other thing...

What about Bombardments?

I think Zombies shouldn't bombard - as they are stupid and cannot work the controls!!

C.

yeti_c wrote: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...

Agreed.

yeti_c wrote:I think Zombies shouldn't bombard - as they are stupid and cannot work the controls!!

also agree.

awesome idea


there should be a poll

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.

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.

Well in that case - you should not take the continent - and wait for the zombies to annihilate the opposition...

Strategy you see!!

C.

Just to weigh in -- sounds like a great idea!

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.

yes it could backfire, but my point is that what if the zombies can't break the continent?
you continue to hold it, and the zombies continue to only attack you, making them virtually worthless

4V4T4R wrote:yes it could backfire, but my point is that what if the zombies can't break the continent?
you continue to hold it, and the zombies continue to only attack you, making them virtually worthless

If you continue to hold it - then you drop your men and blast the zombies out the way...

C.

another thought, how would zombies be handled on territories with troop adjustments?
for example, suppose zombies occupied a territory in the dust bowl.
At the beginning of each round, they would loose a troop, then they would gain a troop, and then
never be able to attack.
So perhaps zombies should not be affected by troop adjustments.

4V4T4R wrote:another thought, how would zombies be handled on territories with troop adjustments?
for example, suppose zombies occupied a territory in the dust bowl.
At the beginning of each round, they would loose a troop, then they would gain a troop, and then
never be able to attack.
So perhaps zombies should not be affected by troop adjustments.

Yeah.
Since they can't get armies from positive bonuses on the map, it would make sense that they also cant lose armies to negative bonuses.

4V4T4R wrote:another thought, how would zombies be handled on territories with troop adjustments?
for example, suppose zombies occupied a territory in the dust bowl.
At the beginning of each round, they would loose a troop, then they would gain a troop, and then
never be able to attack.
So perhaps zombies should not be affected by troop adjustments.

This would make the most sense. I'm kinda a zombie nut, and I know that zombies are not affected by weather the way we humans are. So it would make sense that in maps like Dustbowl, they aren't affected by weather. But wcaclimbling has a good point; if they can't get positive bonuses, they shouldn't get negative ones either.

And a quick, kinda-relative question: what's the current situation with neutrals owning Dustbowl territories? Do they still lose an army?

wrightfan123 wrote:And a quick, kinda-relative question: what's the current situation with neutrals owning Dustbowl territories? Do they still lose an army?

I bet they dont lose any, because the neutrals on AoR Magic dont lose anything, so i doubt it would be any different for Dust Bowl.

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