Idea:
The bomb hits the ground. The territory you aimed at has half its troops die in pain. That territory and the adjacent ones become poisonous to live, any bonuses the territories are in are reversed i.e. 3 bonus becomes -3 for x turns, and any troops in those territories or adjacent ones have 10% of their troops die off every turn from toxic radiation.

Card card: card that gives you a card.

Too OP

Would imbalance the game way too easily. Easy way to make Strategic 1v1's end very, very quickly if you know how to get intel on your opponents' picks.

win card: gives you automatic win.

Card card actually sounds very interesting. This radiation card simply needs some tweeks and it wouldn't be garbage.

I also got a new card that he should totally add.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Card: If you use it on someone else who has it, you both die. If you use it on someone who doesn't have it, they die.

^ The Prisoner's Dilemma isn't too hard to just turn into a game template.

knyte - actually I think this can be implemented. Here's my idea:

Template require specific map, 2 players and AI. AI starts with +100 income and 2 bonuses of -100, so he have -100 income on start.

each player can go for average bonuses to get to opponent, or he can go for very good and efficient bonuses.

The trick is, that in order to go for good bonuses, he needs to break AI -100 bonus. So if only 1 player will go for it, AI still have 0 income and is harmless. But if both players will go for good bonuses, they both need to break AI's -100 bonuses, witch will give AI his +100 income, and he'll kill them both.

deleted

Edited 7/18/2015 08:42:31

I agree that there's specific situations where it would be great. Even the Bomb Card had strategic value- it creates this massive incentive to split up stacks (and makes No-Split games much more interesting).

That said, I don't see this card being used properly in the vast majority of cases. For the most part it would just be another things to look for in settings and make sure it's either not there or being used properly.

I like the scenario you described, though. It's a good MAD/Prisoner's Dilemma template, and I'm tempted to make it myself. That said, it could be implemented right now pretty well with a negative sanctions card.

fell free to invite me to one to test it :)

I don't see how you could use negative sanction card here, though.

Edited 7/18/2015 09:10:39

It would have to be a little bit contrived. I'm also confused about how raising the AI's income would help a player get a good bonus.

@Latnox

That is not exactly prisoner dilemma you described. The standard version would be 2-player prisoner dilemma and can be done so easily in every symmetrical-balanced-mirrored map. Just eliminate the cards and luck factor. Custom scenario with predetermined for starting positions. Only problem is the move order, which might be disturbing when you need to make 3 territory moves.

Prisoner dilemma with 2 players (A and B) needs 3 option-outcomes (4th is the both lose).
- A Win, B Lose (Values: 3-1)
- Equal outcome (2-2)
- B win, A Lose (3-1)
- Both Lose (-1:-1; or 0;0)

Its easier to make it in equal Attack-Defense ratios and with no split mode. Prisoner dillema comes down to 2 possible moves for each player and 4 outcomes layed out above.

Players (A and B) options:
- Co-operation
- Deceit

Outcomes:
- A CoOp, B CoOP = Equal outcome
- A CoOp, B Deceit or A Deceit, B CoOp = Win-Lose
- Both Deceit = Both Loose

With 3 players it is more trickier (Still every player must have only 2 options). But Truth table should run like for each player and total of 8 possible outcomes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
T T T T F F F F
T T F F T T F F
T F T F T F T F

The key factor is that if everyone must have exactly same moves options. If you have option for someone to have more than 2 armies in one territory then he/she must be limited to either move all forward or not to move at all (Not just no split move). Because for example if you have X armies then the possible options to make different moves is rather complicated due to fact you can keep some armies put N=X, where N is possible moves and X armies.

Second thing is the defense-attack ratio that changes army size and might shift the outcome. So basically Prisoner dilemma must come down to within one turn. But if you want to make it within one turn then the move order makes it not pure equal standpoint.

Option to create prisoner dilemma is create such situation where Player A who has 1th turn has exactly these armies and these territories, while player B has 2nd turn and other armies and territories. And both situations take into consideration the turn variable and previously mentioned difference of armies and territories, which lead to turn options and outcomes.

The pure prisoner dilemma would not be very interesting play. But if we open it to human fault (lets call it blunder). Then these situations happen a lot. Take ladders for example. And it mainly happens in after the territory picking 1th turn. For example, if it is map of consisting only 2-army bonuses with each of 3 territories and players start with either 1 or 2 territories and close by with 4 armies initial +3 base income. (Also depends on border position, but imagine every territory threats other bonus 2 territory)

- Basically they have two options: either to take the +2 bonus or counter opponents. And that N-situations depending on how many initial territory distribution it has. These starting positions or bigger game local-situation analysis lead to prisoner dillema, although with humand fault option - blunder. To take or to counter? 2-options. And armies is just variable.

Edited 7/18/2015 10:32:59

@Mr.Tranquilizer - well, maybe my idea is not strictly a prisoner dilemma, but it base on it strongly. I imagine 2 possibilities: either go for profitable bonus, or unprofitable.

If both players go for unprofitable bonuses, then non of them gains anything special (like 2 prisoners that decided to keep quiet).
If one of them decides to go for profitable bonuses, then he'll most likely win (1 prisoner decides to talk)
If both decides to go for profitable bonus, then they're releasing AI who kills them both and they both lose (both prisoners decide to talk). You can imagine AI being a prison guard :)


I'd imagine map to looks more less like this:




@knyte - so here's my idea: in order to get to good bonus, you need to break AI penalty bonuses, giving him +100 income boost for each.

Edited 7/18/2015 12:28:45

I meant it mainly for diplos, and just like dirty bombs, to be used very sparingly. (maybe getting one to start or every fifty turns or something). However, just like always, this communitity uses an idea in clever ways that I hadn't even imagined. Also, just like real radiation, this could be varied to last longer or shorter, and would eventually stop working.

EXAMPLE:

Adjustable: Percentage of intitial blast (1-100)
Length of radiation: 1-10.
For example, if it lasts five turns and has 100% initial kill then the next turn it will have 80% (40 in surrounding turns), 60% the next turn and so on. Bonuses will stay reversed for the whole time that the card is working.

@Thomas

Sorry for making such a side topic here :)
About the card you made. The general gameplay wont profit much. Although I feel you in the Diplos here. I do not play diplos here as people do not know how to play them here at all (although most think they are so good at it). There used to be (I believe if you look-search you might still find fragments in internet) many Forum-Based diplomacy games-simulations with really strong-competent playerbase. One of them was even popular among world-wide university phD-s in political science, philosopy, foreing affair professors. Graphical-User-Interface makes it much more easier to track, understand put also draws a lot attention from younger community who has no sense of anything, but eager to click and rush into game without even understanding the basics. I believe you play in closed circle which should benefit more to you. But I would suggest to search internet for forum based and small interface option ones. These are really interesting and educative.

@Latnox
My english understanding is not always so good. Now I understand what you mean by the +100 income and -100 income for AI. The only trick parts as I mentioned are the cycle, and right army base and def/att ratio. Although this particual scenario would more lead to zero-sum game, because if they both play defensive no one wont win? There has to be gain for co-operation. Put basically it is right. That is why it is hard, because most games are built on only for victory. But if we think if FFA games with more than 2-players than, we can find probably many prisoner dilemmas between 2-players where their cooperation is more benefical against stronger player than zero-sum game between them. But it only would happen in no fog situation - thats why all FOG FFAs are so wrong in my opinion.

What's it's half-life, in turns?