Conquer Club

I always thought that you had to take a territory to get a card. Now I noticed someone getting a card while he only bombarded territories. So he did not conquer 1:

1014845

2007-11-06 17:14:25 - Strider24 receives 1 armies for holding FIN AA
2007-11-06 17:14:25 - Strider24 receives 5 armies for 17 territories
2007-11-06 17:15:25 - Strider24 deployed 6 armies on FIN AA
2007-11-06 17:15:31 - Strider24 bombarded Z5 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:15:44 - Strider24 bombarded Z3 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:15:51 - Strider24 bombarded K5 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:15:57 - Strider24 bombarded K4 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:16:21 - Strider24 gets a card

So I think in this case a player should not get a card, as this is like reducing someones armies without taking them all.

can you turn opponents armies neutral b4 they get down to 1

Forza AZ wrote:I always thought that you had to take a territory to get a card. Now I noticed someone getting a card while he only bombarded territories. So he did not conquer 1:

1014845

2007-11-06 17:14:25 - Strider24 receives 1 armies for holding FIN AA
2007-11-06 17:14:25 - Strider24 receives 5 armies for 17 territories
2007-11-06 17:15:25 - Strider24 deployed 6 armies on FIN AA
2007-11-06 17:15:31 - Strider24 bombarded Z5 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:15:44 - Strider24 bombarded Z3 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:15:51 - Strider24 bombarded K5 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:15:57 - Strider24 bombarded K4 from FIN AA and annihilated Forza AZ's armies
2007-11-06 17:16:21 - Strider24 gets a card

So I think in this case a player should not get a card, as this is like reducing someones armies without taking them all.

I disagree on this. When you bombard someone you're still risking your own armies. And essentially taking over the territory. I think you deserve a card for it. If nothing else because you've used your armies without gaining a true advantage other than to reduce someone else's armies.

and how do u even get that on the game log?!?!

alex_white101 wrote:and how do u even get that on the game log?!?!

In the Pearl Harbor map you can bombard planes from the gunners....

but bombardments are cowardly attacks, you should not get a card for them, although i would be interested to hear from some of the map makers regarding this.

stevieQ wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:and how do u even get that on the game log?!?!

In the Pearl Harbor map you can bombard planes from the gunners....

thankyou, i did not know this.

you don't reduce someone armies-- you eliminate them from the territory. Only difference is that instead of actually being able to advance one's armies , it turns to neutral. You are in fact taking a territory- so thus should get a card.

alex_white101 wrote:

stevieQ wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:and how do u even get that on the game log?!?!

In the Pearl Harbor map you can bombard planes from the gunners....

thankyou, i did not know this.

I'm not 100% sure if this is honest or sarcastic, but I'm assuming it's legit and if so then you're welcome.

If not then for me.

cowardly?

billy07 wrote:cowardly?

not literally, but its not like a neighbor attacking a neighbor......

Forza,

I previously conducted a Poll about this topic and the response was 14 in favor of a card and 6 against. Of course, some of the responses may have been affected by my "behavior" in the game tied to the poll.

Perhaps you want to conduct a new poll and see if opinions have changed? I am going to guess not much. I was of your opinion - no card without occupying a territory.

So annihilating an enemy is an equivilent to conquering a territory.

stevieQ wrote:I disagree on this. When you bombard someone you're still risking your own armies. And essentially taking over the territory. I think you deserve a card for it. If nothing else because you've used your armies without gaining a true advantage other than to reduce someone else's armies.

Yes, but sometimes you also reduce someones armies to a smaller amount without taking a territory. Then you also risk your armies, but you don't get a card.

I'm not against getting a card, but I thought you wouldn't get a card for only bombarding.

Apparently the way lack has the site coded, removing a particular player from a territory (standard attack or bombardment) gives a card. Not actually occupying a new territory.

This is interesting. I am not sure that it has ever came up in the foundry (that I have seen). I can see both sides of the argument for getting and not getting a card.

I personally don't think a card should be awarded since the original game rules (I know this is not the original game) state to get a card you need to occupy a new territory. IMHO

WM

WidowMakers wrote:Apparently the way lack has the site coded, removing a particular player from a territory (standard attack or bombardment) gives a card. Not actually occupying a new territory.

This is interesting. I am not sure that it has ever came up in the foundry (that I have seen). I can see both sides of the argument for getting and not getting a card.

I personally don't think a card should be awarded since the original game rules (I know this is not the original game) state to get a card you need to occupy a new territory. IMHO

WM

I've seen this discussed a few times... however I'm with you WM -> I think a card should solely be for taking a territory...

C.

I agree with the no territory no card rule.


If you get a card for conquering a territory then that's fine, but when you get a card and are able to maintain that same attack route it is kind of cheap.

No conquer - no card

It's quite easy in my opinion.

Aye, I agree, no new territory no card. Thanks for bringing this up Forza.

Here is a reply from the Mapmaker himself (cairnswk).

cairnswk wrote:

Aerial Attack wrote:Quick Question:

Seeing as how you are the map maker - did you intend for people to receive a card when bombarding a territory (as opposed to actually occupying it)?

This was brought up by me about a month and a half ago (Suggestions/Bug Reports). Now Forza AZ has raised the same issue (General Discussion or Q & A).

Good question...aerial attack, and Forza AZ.

I guess one would not expect to receive a card in these circumstances if that is the only move you play, although is it still a valid attack move in that you destroy the enemy if you turn the attacked terit neutral.

I would say, yes, it is a valid card move if you detroy the enemy on a bombardment and turn that terit neutral. It stop the enemy from placing armies there, and this is the basis i guess of what a normal attack move is all about, even though you don't get ot occupy the terit.

But is this something that is "lacking" (pardon the pun) on this and perhaps we need to bring Lack's attention to this fact.

I hadn't really thought about it to be honest, as it is one of those things that had not crossed my mind.

If you want me to ask of Lack then i will, but i think that receiving a card on this move, is valid. :)

He seems to think it's fine as is (or at least valid). I guess it's up to lack if he wants to make the change. Although with more bombardment maps out there now ...

The way I always viewed it (even before playing at CC) was that a card was a reward for increasing the # of territories you had. You conquered something, here is your card.

I think this bombard option either slipped through the cracks or Lack intentionally did it this way. If Lack has a personal preference then we need to know. If not I think there should be a poll in the GD to decide the option (assuming Lack can code it the new way)

WM

because you are essentially eliminateing an opponents armies, you get the card. you can not take the territory for yourself becasue you are not close enough, hence the bombardment. It was a good idea and i like the way it works. you do deserve a card for it and it should stay the same.

So, when you attack someone until they have only 1 or 2 armies left in a territory but you don't actually take the territory you should get a card as well because you killed off their armies but don't want them to have an attack route to you?

I think you should get a card for annilhation. The orignal rules were made before annihlation's introduction, there was no way of killing all the armies on a terr without conquering it.

Allow me to give a viewpoint which I hope, is simple and plain enough to understand by all.

I'm of the opinion that a successful bombardment should yield a card in cards games.

I find it to be unfair should I not receive a card after a successful bombardment because another player who happens to be beside the bombarded territory which has only 1 neutral army now, can easily attacked and owned it thus gaining a card in the process from my sweat and toil.