[GP]Zombie Spoils

[greenoaks]

Concise description:
The spoils cashed turn the territory neutral.


Specifics/Details:
Unlike Nuclear spoils which reduces a territory to 1 neutral, in Zombie spoils the troops remain but become neutral. They do not attack/advance and they do not receive auto-deploys or territory bonuses.


How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
This adds another element to gameplay.

[DaveH]

Good title and idea!

[General Brewsie]

I agree with DaveH on both accounts, the idea and the name of the characteristic.

[IcePack]

I'm in favor of this, interesting and fun element

[CreepersWiener]

Yes, another good idea...seems like deja vu. I would like to kick some Zombie ASS!

[Victor Sullivan]

YES

[Darwins_Bane]

Perhaps you should check out this suggestion. It might interest you.

[Victor Sullivan]

Perhaps you should check out this suggestion. It might interest you.

A very cool suggestion, that is. But it's not quite the same. This is much simpler and the neutrals would be non-aggressive.

[greenoaks]

Perhaps you should check out this suggestion. It might interest you.

i know about that as i was there all those years ago when the method of attack/target choice was being refined. i suppose i should read the last few pages of it to see why it died.

besides the word Zombie this suggestion has no relation to that one. i'd thought of a few other headings such as Rebellion Spoils but Zombie just jumps out as a suitable name ie. your troops are still there but they will never be yours again.

[Clockwork11]

Totally for this idea. I think we need more spoils options.

[Darwins_Bane]

Perhaps you should check out this suggestion. It might interest you.

i know about that as i was there all those years ago when the method of attack/target choice was being refined. i suppose i should read the last few pages of it to see why it died.

besides the word Zombie this suggestion has no relation to that one. i'd thought of a few other headings such as Rebellion Spoils but Zombie just jumps out as a suitable name ie. your troops are still there but they will never be yours again.

Perhaps it's just me but for me, zombies implies something that attacks, albeit mindlessly. i feel like this option is still to similar to nuke spoils tho. the only thing that really differentiates the two is that instead of reducing the neutral to a 1, all of the troops remain instead. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I am merely remarking at my personal thoughts on the subject.

[drunkmonkey]

I don't like the idea. One of the fun features of nuclear is that you can't build up any large forces to protect bonuses. This option would let you build up large stacks on the outside borders of bonuses, and if you get nuked, you're still protected by a neutral force. Seems like it would lead to a lot more stalemates.

[TheForgivenOne]

Maybe change it to Switzerland spoils then?

[General Brewsie]

Yes, another good idea...seems like deja vu. I would like to kick some Zombie ASS!

Seems like a rather antisocial, aggressive, even violent response. Like the kind that inspires vandalism where the perpetrator feels that he will not be caught doing things counter to the welfare of society. Graffiti in public restroom stalls, street lights shot out with pellet guns, car key scratches on cars in parking lots, etc. Come on, Weiner, even zombies have the right to live. (Don't they?)

[General Brewsie]

I don't like the idea. One of the fun features of nuclear is that you can't build up any large forces to protect bonuses. This option would let you build up large stacks on the outside borders of bonuses, and if you get nuked, you're still protected by a neutral force. Seems like it would lead to a lot more stalemates.

I agree with drunkmonkey's assessment of the affect of the nuke configuration, but I don't agree that not being able to build stacks easily is a good thing. I think that by leaving a 1-army "bridge" instead of eliminating it as we do in Nuclear we would be adding an interesting option at the same time as we would be eliminating a different one, but at the same time eliminating a major cause of creating games that drag on far too long.

[greenoaks]

i feel like this option is still to similar to nuke spoils tho. the only thing that really differentiates the two is that instead of reducing the neutral to a 1, all of the troops remain instead. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I am merely remarking at my personal thoughts on the subject.

exactly, it is similar to Nukes. just like Escalating is similar to Flat Rate but instead of the amount being fixed the troops received escalates.

too often i nuke someone to break their bonus but they reacquire that territory easily the next round as it is only a 1. under this spoils format reacquiring that territory is not so easy if you had several troops on it.

it is a small but critical difference between the two types.

as for the name, my initial concept was along the lines of Renegades or Freedom Fighters obtaining independence from your armies (or your enemies) but i was thinking if they can cede from you then you might be able to convince them to come back to the fold. whereas Zombies aren't returned to life - if you want to enter their territory they must be killed in their entirety. (if you have a different name suggestion i am happy to hear it)

I don't like the idea. One of the fun features of nuclear is that you can't build up any large forces to protect bonuses. This option would let you build up large stacks on the outside borders of bonuses, and if you get nuked, you're still protected by a neutral force. Seems like it would lead to a lot more stalemates.

but you no longer get your territory bonus and now have a difficult time re-obtaining it. a different strategy may be required.

[drunkmonkey]

I don't like the idea. One of the fun features of nuclear is that you can't build up any large forces to protect bonuses. This option would let you build up large stacks on the outside borders of bonuses, and if you get nuked, you're still protected by a neutral force. Seems like it would lead to a lot more stalemates.

but you no longer get your territory bonus and now have a difficult time re-obtaining it. a different strategy may be required.

I was talking about building forces just outside the bonus. For instance, on classic map, if you hold Oceania and build on Bangkok, or hold S.A. and build on Dakar & Mexico City. Your bonuses stay protected (possibly even more protected, because players are more hesitant to waste troops killing neutrals).

[greenoaks]

but only if by chance they hit the stack and not your bonus

and if they hit the stack you can't advance so you get no more cards, it will only be a matter of time before they cash a card that breaks your bonus

[RedFlyingGolf]

i like it

[Qwert]

now these sugestion give me idea

[tatianair]

I like it!

[smithrog]

Totally for this idea. I think we need more spoils options.

I agree

[jrh_cardinal]

it would lead to a lot more stalemates.

this

[greenoaks]

it would lead to a lot more stalemates.

this

i don't see how it would lead to any more than nuclear spoils does

[MichelSableheart]

In nuclear spoils, troops disappear from the board rapidly. The 1 neutral that remains is easily taken, which increases agression. If instead the complete stack remains, you are likely to create large neutral stacks, which players are hesitant to conquer, thereby reducing agression. I have to agree that stalemates are more likely to occur then in nuclear spoils. However, I doubt they would be as bad as a no spoils stalemate, because the neutral stacks stop growing, and will eventually be outmatched.

I like the concept, and think it may well be worth trying out.