Bombarding the same region shouldn't give spoils

[BaldAdonis]

What if the neutral has more than 1 army, and you wanted to weaken it to prepare for an attack? Wouldn't this ruin that strategy?

[lancehoch]

What if you are stuck in an artillery in Waterloo and just want to die, so you auto-bombard neutrals until you have only a 1 left?

[Yanarix]

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 that you can easily take are a limited resource, as you gobble them up, you have to take bigger risks to keep cards coming in.

Nothing is saying you cant auto bombard until you only have one left, just dont expect to get a card for it. Being unable to have attacks adjacent to artillery in waterloo treated as regular assaults like in feudal war is a completely separate issue. (which I agree is totally stupid and deserves its own thread. hey, there's some cannons here, I guess we have to use them? )

[Bones2484]

I think that if you try to bombard a neutral territory an error should pop up saying you there is nothing to bombard.

So you shouldnt be able to bombard the territories in Feudal down to 1 army to make it easier to clear out? I can, somewhat, understand this argument for attacking solo neutrals, but that idea is flat out awful for anything else.

And can you imagine the confusion if you could bombard neutrals only some of the time?

[Yanarix]

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.

[Bones2484]

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.

Was I quoting you?

[Yanarix]

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?

[ronin56003]

Timmiz -
Can you walk me thru what would happen on a game with 6 people doing the same build-up strategy on Feudal War?
Is the last person who decides to break out win? How many turns happen before that happens? 5? 10? 15?
Educate me on the pros and cons of this strategy.

I understand you need to build up forces some times to attack, but its ConquerClub not ColdWarClub. There have been thousands of games were "good strategy" was just exploits used by everyone because if you did anything but exploit your chances of winning were nil to none.

If its still considered strategy, its stagnant, slow and unimpressive. It should be removed for more dynamic, fast paced strategies. Granted games are is just numbers and dice, so maybe its the only option.

Bombarding neutral's with 1 army should bring up and error, unless spoils actually means spoils which means you would need to occupy the territory to pickup the leftovers of your enemies you defeated.

[Kotaro]

So, if bombarding a neutral is a "unfair strategy", I believe that trading off 1's in an 8 way escalating is the same way. The 1 can't defend itself, and it's just going back and forth to build cards. I want a script to stop this too, it's unfair to those that don't know it.

[ronin56003]

So, if bombarding a neutral is a "unfair strategy", I believe that trading off 1's in an 8 way escalating is the same way. The 1 can't defend itself, and it's just going back and forth to build cards. I want a script to stop this too, it's unfair to those that don't know it.

Unfortunately those are oranges we are talking about apples. The person your going back and forth as well as yourself have to worry about the other deciding to stop it and plow thru that contested territory as well as conquer your territory. Poor old neutral has to take in the pooper and like it while you "safely" bombard them into pseudo-oblivion repeatedly.

* EDIT *

Also while your doing this, someone could come up to your contested territory and mess it up for you both. Your not behind a wall of n10s your in the open where you suspect to attacks from others.

[Yanarix]

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.

[iambligh]

If you don't "attack" and instead "bombard" from a safe distance then you SHOULD NOT get spoils. so either rename the "spoils" or change bombardment rules so you don't get a "spoil"

The term "spoils" is the result of a renaming -- it used to be "cards" until a copyright scare swept through. Either way, I beg to differ; the word "spoils" does indeed apply to a non-occupied region -- in the context of THIS GAME. Game designers can use any words they want for their brand language and have them mean whatever they want.

That's like 'disputing' the language and iconography they use for rankings and medals.

[ronin56003]

If you don't "attack" and instead "bombard" from a safe distance then you SHOULD NOT get spoils. so either rename the "spoils" or change bombardment rules so you don't get a "spoil"

The term "spoils" is the result of a renaming -- it used to be "cards" until a copyright scare swept through. Either way, I beg to differ; the word "spoils" does indeed apply to a non-occupied region -- in the context of THIS GAME. Game designers can use any words they want for their brand language and have them mean whatever they want.

That's like 'disputing' the language and iconography they use for rankings and medals.

That's fine with language. I'll talk about the intent then. In order to get spoils/cards/resources from a territory/area you should have to occupy/take it over. Was this the original intent? Should the intent be changed?

Example: You have a wallet in your pocket. I want it. I shoot and kill you from 50 yds away. Yay, I can get your wallet, if I go to where you are laying and get it. It doesn't magically appear in my hand.

The same should be done with bombard. Yay I annihilated the army, do I go occupy and get spoils or do I sit back and bombard again later?

[Kotaro]

Unfortunately those are oranges we are talking about apples. The person your going back and forth as well as yourself have to worry about the other deciding to stop it and plow thru that contested territory as well as conquer your territory. Poor old neutral has to take in the pooper and like it while you "safely" bombard them into pseudo-oblivion repeatedly.

* EDIT *

Also while your doing this, someone could come up to your contested territory and mess it up for you both. Your not behind a wall of n10s your in the open where you suspect to attacks from others.

Same difference. You're talking about 1's being too little a risk to be worth a card; they're too little in one game, but not another? And you want to change the whole gameplay system of the bombard, based on your obvious lack of knowledge of one map? And what about other maps. There's Waterloo. New World. Duck and Cover (or something like that). Each one can do the same thing, yet you're basing your entire weak argument off of one map.

Let me guess. Someone recently schooled you in Feudal War, and you were just so angry, you came here to make this topic. And being behind neutrals has nothing to do with it, you're just an angry young person who lost a game.

What next? Going to get screwed by dice and come make a topic about making the dice less random? .

[ronin56003]

Same difference. You're talking about 1's being too little a risk to be worth a card; they're too little in one game, but not another? And you want to change the whole gameplay system of the bombard, based on your obvious lack of knowledge of one map? And what about other maps. There's Waterloo. New World. Duck and Cover (or something like that). Each one can do the same thing, yet you're basing your entire weak argument off of one map.

Let me guess. Someone recently schooled you in Feudal War, and you were just so angry, you came here to make this topic. And being behind neutrals has nothing to do with it, you're just an angry young person who lost a game.

What next? Going to get screwed by dice and come make a topic about making the dice less random? .

Wow. This is nowhere near being about 1s being insignificant. I realize that there are other maps with bombard abilities. I haven't played all the maps with it, but I assume the mechanics still work the same and the same strategy could work. It's tremendously easy to do it on Feudal War. The mechanics of bombard is slightly flawed which is exploited on Feudal War.

Childish behavior aside, the fact that I got schooled on Feudal War means nothing. I'm fine with losing, its part of the game. I don't think the bombard mechanics as they are should be part of the game. Again... Was this the original intent? Should it be changed? Games/Rules have always changed after gameplay, to keep it fun, balanced, and competitive. Some are called fixes, some nerfs, some just plain old changes.

[Timminz]

Timmiz -
Can you walk me thru what would happen on a game with 6 people doing the same build-up strategy on Feudal War?
Is the last person who decides to break out win? How many turns happen before that happens? 5? 10? 15?
Educate me on the pros and cons of this strategy.

I understand you need to build up forces some times to attack, but its ConquerClub not ColdWarClub. There have been thousands of games were "good strategy" was just exploits used by everyone because if you did anything but exploit your chances of winning were nil to none.

If its still considered strategy, its stagnant, slow and unimpressive. It should be removed for more dynamic, fast paced strategies. Granted games are is just numbers and dice, so maybe its the only option.

Bombarding neutral's with 1 army should bring up and error, unless spoils actually means spoils which means you would need to occupy the territory to pickup the leftovers of your enemies you defeated.

I am not the person to give advice on this strategy, as I am not versed well enough in it. You'd be better off asking someone who excels at 6-way escalating matches on feudal.

Feudal escalating matches are not the game you want if you're looking for "dynamic, fast paced strategies". It is a slower, more structured game, and that's part of why people who play it like it.

I disagree entirely. Bombardment is an advanced game-play feature. Some people don't know how to use it properly. Some people don't know you can use it to get an easy card in Feudal, and some people waste all their armies trying to attack Portugese 1 (New World map). I don't think warnings should be implemented for something like this, any more than I think one should pop-up when trying to advance into Alcatraz.

[ronin56003]

I am not the person to give advice on this strategy, as I am not versed well enough in it. You'd be better off asking someone who excels at 6-way escalating matches on feudal.

Is there an example that you can use to explain it to me then? Or know someone I can talk to about it?

[Timminz]

I am not the person to give advice on this strategy, as I am not versed well enough in it. You'd be better off asking someone who excels at 6-way escalating matches on feudal.

Is there an example that you can use to explain it to me then? Or know someone I can talk to about it?

If you wait too long to attack, someone who attacked out at the right time will kill you. That's why sitting around forever is a bad strategy. Perhaps, in the games you've played, everyone attacked too soon, and so the one who waited the longest won, making it seem as though waiting the longest will always be the best strategy.

We're getting way off topic here. There is a strategy sub-forum where you can get help with various strategies.

[lancehoch]

Again... Was this the original intent? Should it be changed?

The original intent was to develop a different gameplay feature. I am not sure of what the first map to utilize bombardment was, it was before I joined the site. I think that the feature works exactly how people wanted it to work. If you look at the Waterloo map, the Duck & Cover map, or the Arms Race! map, bombardment makes sense with the nature of the territories. Waterloo has artillery which cannot attack short-range targets, but you cannot advance into a a long range territory from an artillery outpost. Duck & Cover uses planes dropping bombs on far away territories; Arms Race! has nuclear weapons destroying a territory. It does not follow that you would be able to capture a territory using these type of territory dynamics, but you would be able to destroy enemy troops that are there. Another map that has somewhat similar dynamics is King of the Mountain, but this uses helicopters which can "land" at other helipads and at the tops of the mountains. These dynamics are different and I believe that bombardment is a perfect solution.

[Kotaro]

The original intent was to develop a different gameplay feature. I am not sure of what the first map to utilize bombardment was, it was before I joined the site. I think that the feature works exactly how people wanted it to work. If you look at the Waterloo map, the Duck & Cover map, or the Arms Race! map, bombardment makes sense with the nature of the territories. Waterloo has artillery which cannot attack short-range targets, but you cannot advance into a a long range territory from an artillery outpost. Duck & Cover uses planes dropping bombs on far away territories; Arms Race! has nuclear weapons destroying a territory. It does not follow that you would be able to capture a territory using these type of territory dynamics, but you would be able to destroy enemy troops that are there. Another map that has somewhat similar dynamics is King of the Mountain, but this uses helicopters which can "land" at other helipads and at the tops of the mountains. These dynamics are different and I believe that bombardment is a perfect solution.

He's not asking about that He's asking about the kill 1 neutral, get a card, 1 neutral comes thing.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Did you miss me?

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Since I've been gone this has to be the best illustration of the issue yet:

Example: You have a wallet in your pocket. I want it. I shoot and kill you from 50 yds away. Yay, I can get your wallet, if I go to where you are laying and get it. It doesn't magically appear in my hand.

The same should be done with bombard. Yay I annihilated the army, do I go occupy and get spoils or do I sit back and bombard again later?

I don't mind if you get a card for the first kill, but why should you get one for the second

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Some people don't know you can use it to get an easy card in Feudal

At last.... you admit to the loophole.

[Timminz]

Some people don't know you can use it to get an easy card in Feudal

At last.... you admit to the loophole.

No loophole, just ignorance.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

The original intent [of bombardment was to develop a different gameplay feature.

Anyone fancy that we stop banging our heads for a moment and take step back?
I went through some of the maps, and listed the ones with some kind non-adjacent attacking.

• I haven't included Draknor (attack through doors) or British Isles (one-way attack over a wall).
• I have included D-Day at Omaha Beach: D-Day: Attack from land to beach and advance.

I must have missed some! Which ones? Go on, patronise me.... even if you have already

American Civil War
Arms Race!
Battle of Actium
Citadel (stay with me on this one, its a good example)
D-Day: Omaha Beach
Duck & Cover map
Feudal War
Forbidden City
Greater China
Halloween Hollows
King of the Mountain
Madness
New World
Space
Supermax: Prison Riot!
Waterloo