Conquer Club

So...is it just me, or is it impossible to attack a location in England if you don't already have a location in England? I mean, I don't mind...seeing as how I hold England, but that looks like an issue that might need to be resolved...

it can only be bombarded and this was made because endland was bombed but never invaded in WW2

Charbroil wrote:So...is it just me, or is it impossible to attack a location in England if you don't already have a location in England? I mean, I don't mind...seeing as how I hold England, but that looks like an issue that might need to be resolved...

That's the way the map is supposed to be played. There was a huge debate for a while on that in its map foundry thread - drop into the forum from time to time to take a more active part in the development of maps to try and avoid anything else you might foresee as potential "problems" (like England).

so is it impossible to win if you dont have land in england???

stlcard1521 wrote:so is it impossible to win if you dont have land in england???

No, it's just like any other game with neutrals left over. You don't need them to win. Or, the map might be coded so you can win by either conquering the whole map or everything but england, I dunno.

Operation Sea Lion was certainly a very plausible plan that only failed due to Germany's attack on Russia (which it also didn't need to do)

Having an England that can't be attacked is historically inaccurate, or at very least completely against the theme of the map.

The purpose of having a map like this is to be able to play it out differently. Locking a part of the map and explaining it by saying 'It didn't happen in real life' is against the whole purpose.

You can still kill it, just not conquer it. Don't wine if you won't participate in the foundry...

Kane of Nod wrote:Operation Sea Lion was certainly a very plausible plan that only failed due to Germany's attack on Russia (which it also didn't need to do)

Having an England that can't be attacked is historically inaccurate, or at very least completely against the theme of the map.

The purpose of having a map like this is to be able to play it out differently. Locking a part of the map and explaining it by saying 'It didn't happen in real life' is against the whole purpose.

I disagree...

C.

If you're going to disagree at least give a reason. Restricting this sort of thing is against the purpose of the map. Try retorting instead of just replying with a arbitrary 'no'.

Kane of Nod wrote:If you're going to disagree at least give a reason. Restricting this sort of thing is against the purpose of the map. Try retorting instead of just replying with a arbitrary 'no'.

I like the extra feature and the extra strategy that goes with the idea... hence I disagree with the suggestion - the above comment was implicit within my previous post.

C.

There's just as much strategy with or without it.
Also, this isn't a suggestion. It was a bug report from someone who thought it was not supposed to work that way. I thought that was the case too until someone corrected me, it makes very little sense the way it is.

Kane of Nod wrote:There's just as much strategy with or without it.
Also, this isn't a suggestion. It was a bug report from someone who thought it was not supposed to work that way. I thought that was the case too until someone corrected me, it makes very little sense the way it is.

Usually - any error or change to a map is taken to the Map Foundry - in the specific Map thread...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23910

Really the discussion should continue there... and it can be answered by the Cartographer... If you look through the thread (I know there is a lot!) you will find some answers to questions you hadn't even thought about asking...

C.