This is a new thread but Gumble would prefer to continue the last one but since he had last post, he can't.
Basically Gumble is stumped, stumped like a tree freshly hit by lightning.
This is the situation:
Gumble has a designed a complex scenario wheres you start with just a few villagers and must tribute up to 5 players to ally with only ONE of them. Using allied victory you must complete their (The chosen computer player) objectives and your own in order to win. BUT this doesn't work. You complete both of them but the game goes on. The only way to win is by defeating all other enemy players (Which is the Conquest global victory condition.) Gumble needs theroies and solutions to this problem as many other scenarios for Gumble's campaign have a similar make up.
Notes:
Diplomacy makeup:
Players 1,2,5,6, and 8 are the 5 players you can possibly ally with. You are default player 3 (yellow). Players 1,2,5,6, and 8 are enemies to each other and have 'allied victory' selected. And so do you. Theroretically because you can only side with one computer player (the others turn enemy when you don't tribute them) and completing their (and your) objectives you will win.
Player 4 and 7 are allied with all players and do NOT have allied victory on. They have no objectives. Player 4 is eniemies with the human player (yellow). but in player 3 eventurly has to turn enemies with player 7 too.
Observations:
When you start the scenario and defeat player 4 and 8 (while still allied with all other computer players) you win the scenario. This Gumble can only assume is because although the computer players are not allied with each other, you automatically pass all objectives because in your allies relationship, you just got an allied victory win through 'Conquest' (global victoy)
In a seperate diplomacy test, you can lose if two computer players are allied (with allied victory on) if they complete their objectives even if you are allied with one of them. There is also a none-chain effect if you complete your objectives and one of them also completes their objectives and that your allied with him, you win. (this negates the victory conditions of the other computer player even though they are allied ((with allied victory)) to the other computer player your allied with.)
Also Strange effects happen if you (player 1) are allied with 'allied victory' to player 2 who is allied (not with allied victoy) to player 3, who you are enemies with. If you and your ally complete your objectives you will NOT win. Gumble belives this because the diplomacy link between the second and third computer players. What happens next is very weird:
If you complete your objectives, your allied computer player's obejectives AND the third computer player's objectives you won't win or lose. The game becomes locked and the only way to win is through global victory condtions.
BUT
If the third computer player completes his objectives you will lose like normal. So in a weird way, using 'allied victory' you can negate the victory conditions of a computer player by completing your own and your allies without winning or losing but forceign the game to stitch to Global.
AND
This effect does not work in reverse. If your allied computer player completes their objectives and/or the third computer player completes their objectives the game does not get locked, you lose.
ALSO
If your allied to player 2 with allied victory on, but they dont have it on and you complete your obectives, you win. But if they have allied victory on and you don't, you lose if they complete their objectives.
AGAIN,
Even if both you and your ally have the exact same objectives(IE kill player 3), if ethier have allied victory off you lose. The computer player's objectives takes precedence and you loase even though you have completed these same conditions.
These are all the facts Gumble knows, back to the original problem, Even if all 5 computer players complete their objectives (and yours) you still dont win, again for some reason it reverts to the global conquest condion.
There are few factors that might influence this result:
1. You have to tribute the computer allies to remain allies with only one of them (you choose). Even if they start netrual to you this still happens.
2.Your player 3, yellow. There are numerous identifing bugs accur when you change which player is the human player, for example in this situation the build object ban list for player 1 actually applies to player 3. Although there doesn't appear to be any diplomacy issues Gumble may be wrong.
3.The computer players allied relationship to the 2 other none allied victory players, player 4 and player 7. They might be stuck in a loop because they may be having to wait for the two players to complete their objectives.
Although this isn't a complete list of the rules that govern allied victory Gumble needs a solution for this issue, He needs your help, O AoEH.
Too many people say far too much about Gumble. They also claim Gumble says far too much which isnt true.
One man's truth is another man's lie. Seek TRUTH to escape this moral mire.
'Experts' try to analyse human behaviour and the human condition and make grand conclusions. - Its the same as the guy who explains why a joke is funny and kills the joke.
Basically Gumble is stumped, stumped like a tree freshly hit by lightning.
This is the situation:
Gumble has a designed a complex scenario wheres you start with just a few villagers and must tribute up to 5 players to ally with only ONE of them. Using allied victory you must complete their (The chosen computer player) objectives and your own in order to win. BUT this doesn't work. You complete both of them but the game goes on. The only way to win is by defeating all other enemy players (Which is the Conquest global victory condition.) Gumble needs theroies and solutions to this problem as many other scenarios for Gumble's campaign have a similar make up.
Notes:
Diplomacy makeup:
Players 1,2,5,6, and 8 are the 5 players you can possibly ally with. You are default player 3 (yellow). Players 1,2,5,6, and 8 are enemies to each other and have 'allied victory' selected. And so do you. Theroretically because you can only side with one computer player (the others turn enemy when you don't tribute them) and completing their (and your) objectives you will win.
Player 4 and 7 are allied with all players and do NOT have allied victory on. They have no objectives. Player 4 is eniemies with the human player (yellow). but in player 3 eventurly has to turn enemies with player 7 too.
Observations:
When you start the scenario and defeat player 4 and 8 (while still allied with all other computer players) you win the scenario. This Gumble can only assume is because although the computer players are not allied with each other, you automatically pass all objectives because in your allies relationship, you just got an allied victory win through 'Conquest' (global victoy)
In a seperate diplomacy test, you can lose if two computer players are allied (with allied victory on) if they complete their objectives even if you are allied with one of them. There is also a none-chain effect if you complete your objectives and one of them also completes their objectives and that your allied with him, you win. (this negates the victory conditions of the other computer player even though they are allied ((with allied victory)) to the other computer player your allied with.)
Also Strange effects happen if you (player 1) are allied with 'allied victory' to player 2 who is allied (not with allied victoy) to player 3, who you are enemies with. If you and your ally complete your objectives you will NOT win. Gumble belives this because the diplomacy link between the second and third computer players. What happens next is very weird:
If you complete your objectives, your allied computer player's obejectives AND the third computer player's objectives you won't win or lose. The game becomes locked and the only way to win is through global victory condtions.
BUT
If the third computer player completes his objectives you will lose like normal. So in a weird way, using 'allied victory' you can negate the victory conditions of a computer player by completing your own and your allies without winning or losing but forceign the game to stitch to Global.
AND
This effect does not work in reverse. If your allied computer player completes their objectives and/or the third computer player completes their objectives the game does not get locked, you lose.
ALSO
If your allied to player 2 with allied victory on, but they dont have it on and you complete your obectives, you win. But if they have allied victory on and you don't, you lose if they complete their objectives.
AGAIN,
Even if both you and your ally have the exact same objectives(IE kill player 3), if ethier have allied victory off you lose. The computer player's objectives takes precedence and you loase even though you have completed these same conditions.
These are all the facts Gumble knows, back to the original problem, Even if all 5 computer players complete their objectives (and yours) you still dont win, again for some reason it reverts to the global conquest condion.
There are few factors that might influence this result:
1. You have to tribute the computer allies to remain allies with only one of them (you choose). Even if they start netrual to you this still happens.
2.Your player 3, yellow. There are numerous identifing bugs accur when you change which player is the human player, for example in this situation the build object ban list for player 1 actually applies to player 3. Although there doesn't appear to be any diplomacy issues Gumble may be wrong.
3.The computer players allied relationship to the 2 other none allied victory players, player 4 and player 7. They might be stuck in a loop because they may be having to wait for the two players to complete their objectives.
Although this isn't a complete list of the rules that govern allied victory Gumble needs a solution for this issue, He needs your help, O AoEH.
Too many people say far too much about Gumble. They also claim Gumble says far too much which isnt true.
One man's truth is another man's lie. Seek TRUTH to escape this moral mire.
'Experts' try to analyse human behaviour and the human condition and make grand conclusions. - Its the same as the guy who explains why a joke is funny and kills the joke.