Bombarding the same region shouldn't give spoils

[The Neon Peon]

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

More than half of that list does not have any bombarding. What does this have to do with anything?

[GenuineEarlGrey]

More than half of that list does not have any bombarding. What does this have to do with anything?

Now I never said they had anything to do with bombarding, did I?

I went through some of the maps, and listed the ones with some kind non-adjacent attacking.

Earlier someone mentioned we all play on different maps. Now, rather than "arguing" with just words, I'm begining to think i'd like to understand where these "non-adjacent attacking" are the same and where they are diffferent. As I said - patronise me.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

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.

Can you hoist that flag any higher, Timminz?

Congratulations! you've just admitted it's a loophole.... again!

[ronin56003]

From instructions page:

Taking a turn tab - You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region

Gameplay notes - Bombardment doesn't allow you to conquer once the opponent's forces are destroyed, instead it converts the opposing region to neutral.

QED

No spoils for bombardment.

[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.

Can you hoist that flag any higher, Timminz?

Congratulations! you've just admitted it's a loophole.... again!

Are you trying to look like an idiot? I say, "no loophole", and your response is, "you've just admitted it's a loophole". This whole time I thought we were having a reasoned discussion, and it turns out you're just a broken record with nothing to say at all. What's your reply to this going to be, "I'm glad you're agreeing with me"?

[Yanarix]

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.

[barterer2002]

It seems to me that ronin is correct and that the Taking a turn tab in the instructions needs to be edited to read: You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, or annialiate the enemy troops in the region, just like reality!

Your wallet example was a fine one supporting your point but it obviously doesn't include everything. Clearly it is possible to imagine a situation where an army bombs an enemy (non friendly) target without actually taking it. Hiroshima is one example of this of course.

I'm still not sure why you're calling this a loophole. There is clearly a trade off here. By bombarding and not taking the tert the player is not adding to his bonuses (the 1 extra army for every two terts within a region). He's not adding terts to get to 12 or 15 or 18. He's risking his armies to defeat an enemy and while it may be that 20 v 1 will almost never cause significant damage to the 20 it certainly can cut 3 or 4 out with some frequency.

To the best of my memories, bombardment was put in place first on the Pearl Harbor maps (the anti air craft). The purpose was that bombardment could disable enemy aircraft which was, naturally rewarded with a spoil (card at the time). I see no evidence that it is not still reasonable.

There are of course many ways to play any map, the strategy on Feudal War of bombarding a neutral is one that is used by many players but is certainly not an unreasonable one IMO. It will not always result in victory.

[Kotaro]

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.

Can you hoist that flag any higher, Timminz?

Congratulations! you've just admitted it's a loophole.... again!

So people being ignorant is a 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.

Can you hoist that flag any higher, Timminz?

Congratulations! you've just admitted it's a loophole.... again!

So people being ignorant is a loophole?

The way I understand it, being ignorant is the way it "should" be, while knowing what things do is using a "loophole".

[Yanarix]

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 need to worry about all that extra strategy, but if this "spoils for bombardment" is how it was intended to function, then the basic game engine may as well not even have the whole "you need to conquer a territory" thing and have everyone just draw a card every turn.

[Timminz]

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 need to worry about all that extra strategy, but if this "spoils for bombardment" is how it was intended to function, then the basic game engine may as well not even have the whole "you need to conquer a territory" thing and have everyone just draw a card every turn.

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

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

You make it sound like this particular intricacy of game-play affects every game. As far as I can tell, it only bothers you on one map out of well over a hundred.

[ronin56003]

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

Can't get more official then the instructions.

No spoils for bombardment as per previous post on instructions.

Logically speaking its, by far, more likely that the mistake is in the many lines of code/logic vs. the 2 lines of english instructions.

[Kotaro]

Can't get more official then the instructions.

No spoils for bombardment as per previous post on instructions.

Logically speaking its, by far, more likely that the mistake is in the many lines of code/logic vs. the 2 lines of english instructions.

Haha. Instructions? Where are these magical instructions, and where in them do they say "No Spoils for bombardment"?

[ronin56003]

top of the page next to "home" is an "instructions" link. Click it.

From my previous post:

From instructions page:

Taking a turn tab - You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region

Gameplay notes - Bombardment doesn't allow you to conquer once the opponent's forces are destroyed, instead it converts the opposing region to neutral.

QED

No spoils for bombardment.

Reading is fundamental.

[Yanarix]

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 that this "feature" results in people not needing to interact with each other or compete for cards, which in my opinion is bad.

You make it sound like this particular intricacy of game-play affects every game. As far as I can tell, it only bothers you on one map out of well over a hundred.

so which way is it? am I saying its a problem on every map or only one? obviously not on maps without bombardment and Ive already said that it isnt a problem on maps that arnt so claustrophobic(and making this change wouldnt harm their gameplay either).

now tell me, if it was the other way around, would you be arguing for getting spoils for bombardment? probably not.

[sully800]

It seems to me that ronin is correct and that the Taking a turn tab in the instructions needs to be edited to read: You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, or annialiate the enemy troops in the region, just like reality!

Successfully annihilating and enemies troops is one thing. Changing nothing on the map by converting a single neutral army into a single neutral army is a different story in my opinion. It just doesn't make sense in terms of what bombardment represents that you should get spoils for such an action.

I understand that maps function fine with the way bombardment is currently set up. But I definitely do not believe this is the way bombardment was meant to act. The instructions validate the intention, which may just be an argument over semantics but I think it holds some weight.

It makes sense to gain something for killing an enemy. It does not make sense to gain something for changing nothing on the map.

[The Neon Peon]

Yanarix,

You played a game on feudal, and found that it was smart to stay put and not expand. This strategy is allowed by bombardment. But obviously, since you do not like the type of game where you build slowly and carefully time your attack, you should get rid of the main reason people play Feudal (the gameplay) just so that you can play it how you want.

What you are proposing is that you destroy the gameplay on one of CC's most popular maps just so that you can play a faster game where you are forced to interact with your opponents.

Alright, let's pass this suggestion and completely ruin the gameplay for 4% of CC (yes, the map is that popular) just so that you can play on this map the way you want to and not the way the map is designed.

I would like to congratulate you on bringing up this highly important self-less issue that will satisfy your needs to play the gameplay of over 100 other maps on Feudal War. It is obvious that Feudal needs to be altered so that its gameplay will be similar to the other maps on CC rather than unique. There is absolutely no way that the 138,000 games on this map show that people like the gameplay.

Nope, the map definitely needs to be altered to suit your gameplay needs which the other 100 maps who have that gameplay you seek out with interacting and no bombardment for cards already. 100 is not enough! Feudal must be altered to be played more like the way Yanarix intends it to be played! Screw the huge crowds who love the map because it is unique!

Who is with me?

P.S. Games don't have to make sense. that is why you can pull 130 troops out of nowhere when you cash a set of spoils. Last I heard, spoils war do not cause massive bursts of overpopulation.

[GrimReaper.]

the votes speak for themselves

[barterer2002]

The complaint seems to be that the bombardment feature is allowing players not to interact with each other on the maps. That, however, seems to be to be the nature of the conquest maps (the AOR series, New World and Feudal War). Part of the strategy of these maps is knowing how and when to move in and attack your opposition. Waiting forever won't work but going to early will weaken you up for the kill. It seems, logical from where I am.

Sully-If the functionality of bombardment is changed to reflect what is being requested here then no change is needed in the instructions. If the bombardment feature remains as it is, however, the wording needs to be changed.


Personally I don't care one way or the other. I don't think that the strategy being employed is a loophole but if it were changed I don't think it would affect me one way or the other. Of course I'm not a very good feudal player to begin with. I tend to be overanxious.

[Yanarix]

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 realm of might- or is that your winning strategy? dont be realm of might?

[The Neon Peon]

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 realm of might- or is that your winning strategy? dont be realm of might?

I've won plenty of games and RoM (Realm of Might). It is one of my favorite castles.

This post is your exact problem

Consider this for even half a second:

Feudal is one of the most popular maps on the site, in the top 5 or so (I'll get the exact numbers later in the day). You are obviously planning on changing the strategy of the map to having you break out earlier and interact with others. Now, please try to explain how the fact that people do not like the strategy makes it a popular map. Answer? It doesn't.

People like the strategy on it. Otherwise it would not be popular. If you want to prove that people play it so often do so even though they hate the way it is played, you will simply be proving yourself an idiot.

Get through your head that
1. this world is not about you. (people usually undergo this change from the ages of 8-10)
2. If people did not like the strategy, they would not play it. People play it often. Therefore, people do like the strategy on it. If you have a problem with it, play another map and stop trying to convince people that the gameplay which made the map popular is bad.

[Yanarix]

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

[Timminz]

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

I think that, as the side wanting to change things, you should need to prove that the change will not negatively affect the gameplay. The way things are now, it appears as though people like the way it functions already. I think you would have to be pretty convincing to get them to change their minds.

[ronin56003]

1. As per the rules/instructions. Bombarding is not conquering which mean you don't get spoils. Broken/Incomplete game mechanic.
2. Fixing this will reward aggression and progression of the game state, allowing for more exciting and dynamic games.
3. Just because everyone does it, does not mean it's valid. Exploiters and cheaters will always use whatever advantage they can get whether its following the game rules or not.

[barterer2002]

I think that you're a bit out of line calling people who do this cheaters.

You have a valid point that the instruction page does not reflect the current reality. Either the instruction page or the way bombardments work needs to be changed.