Bombarding the same region shouldn't give spoils

[GenuineEarlGrey]

beating-a-dead-horse

Nice one!!

But it doesn't change the legitimit points made about the bombardment loophole.

[blakebowling]

beating-a-dead-horse

Nice one!!

But it doesn't change the legitimit points made about the bombardment loophole.

ITS NOT A LOOPHOLE... IT WAS INTENTIONALLY CODED INTO THE GAME

[sully800]

beating-a-dead-horse

Nice one!!

But it doesn't change the legitimit points made about the bombardment loophole.

ITS NOT A LOOPHOLE... IT WAS INTENTIONALLY CODED INTO THE GAME

I sincerely doubt that.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

In reply* to iambligh's Beating a dead horse...

*Polite version

[Artimis]

Would it improve the game to change the rules on bombardment so that successfully bombarding a neutral territory does NOT qualify a player for spoils?

Bombarding Neutrals for spoils:
Strategic or Exploitive? Does it need to be modified?

Why?

You assault a region whether it's player controlled or neutral controlled with the expectation of getting a spoil(subject to game settings), so why not bombard a neutral region for the same benefit as bombarding a player controlled region? If you don't like it, don't play on bombardment maps or play with the No Spoils setting.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Would it improve the game to change the rules on bombardment so that successfully bombarding a neutral territory does NOT qualify a player for spoils?

Bombarding Neutrals for spoils:
Strategic or Exploitive? Does it need to be modified?

Why?

You assault a region whether it's player controlled or neutral controlled with the expectation of getting a spoil(subject to game settings), so why not bombard a neutral region for the same benefit as bombarding a player controlled region? If you don't like it, don't play on bombardment maps or play with the No Spoils setting.

I'll try and summarise the last 180 posts in two lines:

1. The rules say you only get a spoil for conquering not bombardment.

2. Spoils in war are associated with the pilage and finding what the enemy has left behind. You don't pick up any spoils unless you are there!

[Artimis]

I'll try and summarise the last 180 posts in two lines:

1. The rules say you only get a spoil for conquering not bombardment.

2. Spoils in war are associated with the pilage and finding what the enemy has left behind. You don't pick up any spoils unless you are there!

So on the basis of a technicality with the terms in use you want bombardment to grant no spoils, ever, regardless of the game settings?

[GenuineEarlGrey]

So on the basis of a technicality with the terms in use you want bombardment to grant no spoils, ever, regardless of the game settings?

You can get an answer to your question be reading some of the above messages.

Whether you agree or disagee with the original question, Change the rules on bombardment?, there's no "technicality" about it*. The rules on and the idea behind bombardment don't add up.

E.G.

*mind you I prefer the term "loophole".

[The Neon Peon]

So on the basis of a technicality with the terms in use you want bombardment to grant no spoils, ever, regardless of the game settings?

You can get an answer to your question be reading some of the above messages.

Whether you agree or disagee with the original question, Change the rules on bombardment?, there's no "technicality" about it*. The rules on and the idea behind bombardment don't add up.

E.G.

*mind you I prefer the term "loophole".

Were you the one who developed bombardment?
A: no.

Who coded bombardment into the site?
A: lackattack

How many lines of code does it take for something like this to be coded?
A: a good deal

Is it possible for someone to spend several hundred lines of coding and logic to make the rules for something, add all that work onto the site, use that feature that they made, and have many others use that feature that the person made, if the rules on it and the idea do not add up?
A: no.

No one is idiotic enough to code for bombardment as a feature and to accidentally make people get cards for it. Coding is not just randomly pressing buttons like you appear to believe. If you code for something to give you a card or not give you a card, either way requires several lines of code and thinking.

Your argument is that the idea behind bombardment does not fit in with what the coding (or in other words, rules) for it are, is completely illogical. It is like proposing that the idea I had for this post was to agree with you, but when I wrote the post, I ended up disagreeing.

If you want to push for reform of the instructions, I am with you. But don't make false and illogical arguments as to why bombardment is meant to be and is originally intended to not give you cards. Guess what, even if lack somehow managed to be drunk and code at the same time so that he coded the opposite of what he meant to code, if bombardment was not meant to give you a card, they would have changed it.

[Timminz]

I have posted an alternative suggestion that makes a lot more sense.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=83040

[GenuineEarlGrey]

I have posted an alternative suggestion that makes a lot more sense.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... =4&t=83040

Tim, thank you for
Change the wording of the instructions it covers some but not all of the bases covered here.

Cheers

E.G.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Earlier I said...

The rules on and the idea behind bombardment don't add up.

Let me put that another way for the hard of reading.....

• The rules on bombardment together with the idea behind bombardment doesn't add up.

I have NEVER said....

• The idea behind bombardment is a bad idea.

To then start implying that I'm dissing those have

• come up with the idea
• done the many lines of code
• checked the code
• and several other petty slurs on me

is totally unacceptalbe.

I have tried to consistently argue on how bombardment is presented in the rules and what bombardment means.

I have tried to move the arguments forward - even inviting others to figure a way forward.

There have been no slurs by me on anyone, especially those involved i developing the game - I find any direct or indirect suggestion that I have petty, childish and offensive*


E.G.

*I'd also find them reprehensible if I knew how to spell the word.

[Timminz]

Tim, thank you for
Change the wording of the instructions it covers some but not all of the bases covered here

It covers the necessary base.

[fiction]

Would it improve the game to change the rules on bombardment so that successfully bombarding a neutral territory does NOT qualify a player for spoils?

Bombarding Neutrals for spoils:
Strategic or Exploitive? Does it need to be modified?

Why?

You assault a region whether it's player controlled or neutral controlled with the expectation of getting a spoil(subject to game settings), so why not bombard a neutral region for the same benefit as bombarding a player controlled region? If you don't like it, don't play on bombardment maps or play with the No Spoils setting.

you right I plan to not play bombardment maps again because of this rule that any newer player wont know any you and many of your like minded fellows take advantage of. As someone earlier stated you get spoils by actually capturing territory not scotching the earth over and over again. Even if people who play this map don't intend to take advantage of people the exploit is not clearly visible on the map and thus gives an unfair advantage to those familiar with the cheat. This clearly violates the Unwritten Rules and therefore regardless of what the mob says it should be removed with all due haste. Further appeals can bring it back if the mob is able to poison the mind of those who make such a decision but for the good of all it need to be but to an end immediately before anymore fall victim to the exploitative cheat.

[neanderpaul14]

In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with bombardment as it stands.

For people who understand the rules of this it does become a part of the strategy on certain maps.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

For people who understand the rules of this it does become a part of the strategy on certain maps.

I think I know what you are trying to say:
"Bombardment is a part of the game and is a strategy on certain maps"

Bu that's not what I'm reading. Please, please take a step back and look again. There's a subtle difference

...[bombardment] does become a part of the strategy on certain maps.

Nobody is arguing against that!

For people who understand the rules...

But the "understanding" that you can get a card for bombardment doesn't come from the rules!!!!! It comes from something that some people know about and so they know how to exploit it*

E.G.

* and that's why I call it a loophole

[Timminz]

For people who understand the rules...

But the "understanding" that you can get a card for bombardment doesn't come from the rules!!!!!

It's true. The instructions (not the rules) need to be updated, to include bombardment within the part regarding spoils. See, this thread for the suggestion that will fix the error.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Tim, thank you for
Change the wording of the instructions it covers some but not all of the bases covered here

It covers the necessary base.

It covers the easiest base. You want to stay at home rather than making a home run

[Bones2484]

Tim, thank you for
Change the wording of the instructions it covers some but not all of the bases covered here

It covers the necessary base.

It covers the easiest base. You want to stay at home rather than making a home run

Timm's other thread solves the problem that HE sees. It doesn't solve the problem that YOU see. And that's why it's his thread and separate from this one.

[oVo]

Spoils in war are associated with the pilage and finding what the enemy has left behind. You don't pick up any spoils unless you are there!

It wasn't all that long ago the sets you cash in for bonus armies were made up of CARDS...
so players had to conquer (or annihilate) a territory to receive a card.

There was a label change from cards to spoils that had nothing to do with pilage
or the actual concepts of wartime occupation of conquered territories.

Of course it's also possible Rambo led CFOs penetrate the annihilated territory undetected by neutrals to retrieve spoils.

[iambligh]

2. Spoils in war are associated with the pilage and finding what the enemy has left behind. You don't pick up any spoils unless you are there!

I disagree. See every bombardment game ever played for examples to the contrary.

[clangfield]

Concise description:

• Spoils should not be awarded for simply bombarding the same territory if it's already down to 1 neutral troop

Specifics/Details:

• I can appreciate that this may be tricky to implement, however: I'm currently playing in an Feudal Epic assassin game where two of the players are just sitting in their realm and bombarding the same territory every turn, and just accumulating troops and spoils. I feel that this is contrary to the spirit of the game.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It would encourage more active participation and more aggressive strategy. It's up to them if they don't want to conquer territories but they shouldn't be rewarded with spoils, especially in an escalating game.

[TheForgivenOne]

Concise description:

• Spoils should not be awarded for simply bombarding the same territory if it's already down to 1 neutral troop

Specifics/Details:

• I can appreciate that this may be tricky to implement, however: I'm currently playing in an Feudal Epic assassin game where two of the players are just sitting in their realm and bombarding the same territory every turn, and just accumulating troops and spoils. I feel that this is contrary to the spirit of the game.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It would encourage more active participation and more aggressive strategy. It's up to them if they don't want to conquer territories but they shouldn't be rewarded with spoils, especially in an escalating game.

Isn't this the same, as in an Escalating game, or a stale game, where a bunch of players are just sharing a spot to attack? They still earn cards there. And it's a legit tactic to use on the Feudal maps. as a majority of the best players on both maps use it.

[Roussallier]

That's why I don't have the self-control for Feudal maps; I always lose to these guys. However, I don't think it's an underhanded strategy. No need to complicate gameplay by having conditions on when you can and can't draw cards.

Kill something > get a spoil. Let's keep it straightforward.

[Fazeem]

That's why I don't have the self-control for Feudal maps; I always lose to these guys. However, I don't think it's an underhanded strategy. No need to complicate gameplay by having conditions on when you can and can't draw cards.

Kill something > get a spoil. Let's keep it straightforward.

agreed this suggestion seems like it was done as a tantrum to losing.