iambligh> Well, whats the harm in tricking noobs into playing poorly? oh, thats right, they stop playing and your player base stagnates.

I wouldnt say it rewards aggression, just forces you out of your nest before you are ready to do an uber victory sweep.

but I agree that bombarding players into neutrality is way too picky of a situational check, better to just nix spoils from bombardment all together. cut, dry, simple.

well if youre really all about it, then how about adding another game play mode where you get a spoil at the end of every turn, regardless of whether you took a territory; effectively emulating the results of the spoil bombardment feature.

this would allow anyone to play any map the way fe is ...

well if youre really all about it, then how about adding another game play mode where you get a spoil at the end of every turn, regardless of whether you took a territory; effectively emulating the results of the spoil bombardment feature.

this would allow anyone to play any map the way fe is ...

you still havn't shown that this change will "ruin" the strategy of the the map.

So its hosted alot, popularity is arbitrary.

Destroy? Ruined? spare me your kneejerk reaction, people will have to be more careful with the limited territories behind their obstacles and will eventually need to break out of their shell to keep the cards coming in. you get a little taste of that as ...

It's not "feeling clever", it's taking the time to know how the game works

yeah, we've figured it out too, it only took one game. free cards for everyone is how you like to play, we get it.

Show me where this is stated by anyone official. It is not "intended", it is your opinion.

Its a fact ...

Like I said, you feeling *very* clever is not good a reason to keep bombardment spoil mechanics as they are. Easily conquerable territories are intended to be a limited commodity you have to manage properly to keep the cards coming in. Sorry you want to stick with an easy rule-set, where you dont ...

If you want a reasoned discussion, respond to the people being reasonable.

Ronin busted out an excellent excerpt from the manual, respond to that, or any of my points.

trading 1's is a mutual thing, the other person can cut you off by using terrain or spreading their forces out. again, easy targets are a limited resource, remote bombardment allows players to have unlimited easy targets, negating the point of making players take a country to get a card.

nope.

So why are you going to pick on a solution that has obvious implementation problems as a means to make your point that no change is warranted?

Bones2484 wrote:So you shouldnt be able to bombard the territories in Feudal down to 1 army to make it easier to clear out?

No. you can bomb it down to 1, you can keep bombing it once its at 1 and it will stay at 1, BUT you dont get a card unless you TAKE it. Thats all Im saying.

No ones saying you cant remotely bombard, you just dont get a card for pounding a 1 army neutral into a 1 army neutral.

Bombard a place, then take it with your army? damn right, thats the point. hell it doesnt even matter whether it was bombarded because you took it with your army.

Territories ...

I said the more open maps wouldn't see a downside, as the availability of targets would ensure that removing the bombardment conquer feature would not damage the playability.

No one complained about it, so who am I to do so? real strong argument, wow, guess I better go cry now really though, what ...

That doesnt change anything, a distraction from the crumminess of any one individual game is just a distraction. I can get those for free.

So can I take you not responding to either of my points as a concession there, right?

yes, and that strategy is called "sitting on your ass for the better part of the week before anything happens". its not like there are any competing strategies: go off half cocked and get run over.

You havnt shown that Im wrong in that:

not interacting with anyone for half a dozen turns isnt ...

Why?

No one in this thread has given any logical reason as to why you should not get a card when you take the same risk as taking a territory.

Oh really? take a walk with me back to page 1.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1866056#p1866056

players are rewarded for not ...

well, for Feudal War in particular, realm of might gets shafted, hard, but thats a map issue, not so much a mechanic issue. This isnt so much of an issue for other maps such as Waterloo, because of its absolute porousness- but would Waterloo suffer from this change? absolutely not.

If you want a ...

The best I can understand, is that you see people doing something that is more effective than what you do, and rather than adjusting your play to this more effective method, you are asking that the rules be changed to suit your strategy. I recommend that you just accept that your strategy is not ...

I made the same mistake myself recently, I had assumed that by denying the kill, the person trying to kill the eliminated player would be reassigned to eliminate that players target.

Putting a system like that in place would allow for the effects of deadbeat and confused players to be reduced to a ...

Well here's my two cents, a game where people are going to make the exact same move, not interacting with any other players for upwards of half a dozen turns in a row is a poorly designed game. Yes, I know you all feel tremendously clever when using this tactic against people that spread out too ...

It was suggested back on page 1, but the 3's and 5's are very easy to confuse if youre not paying attention or have a small screen. granted, once you know to look for it, you dont miss it again; still, it shouldnt be too hard to fix.

I think simply having the max be the default for all pull down tabs would be the best way to go. After a long series of combats (with the maximum value preselected) I often find myself only reinforcing for 1 in my post victory dance.