Conquer Club

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:Oh for goodness sake, Timminz, don't waste peoples' time asking for some info to just go and ignore it in your reply.

You didn't give ANY worthwhile info for him to ignore.

Go to the back of the class, Bones.

Excluding me, there's been other people putting good points forward which neither you or Timminz have replied to....

....other than saying, its a "good strategy" and "if you don't like it, go and play on another map". give us something better. Your arguements are flimsy.

I'm saying that this "good strategy" is nothing more than a loophole that some players (including me) have learned to exploit.

I have no problem with some people liking fog and others not, the same with freestyle. But having situation where you get spoils for bombarding something thats already been bombarded like this is plain and simply odd. It doesn't fit in with the general ideas of the game. To say "if you don't like it, go and play on another map" is just plain bad for CC.

We dont agree with the premise that your entire argument is based off of.

This is not a loophole. YOU are the one that wants this changed, so you prove it to us. Simply staying "it's a loophole" does not change our minds.

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:I have no problem with some people liking fog and others not, the same with freestyle. But having situation where you get spoils for bombarding something thats already been bombarded like this is plain and simply odd. It doesn't fit in with the general ideas of the game. To say "if you don't like it, go and play on another map" is just plain bad for CC.

You may have noticed that Feudal is very dissimilar to the "classic" game style. It is not the same, and is not played the same way. You might as well be complaining about the one-way borders in Draknor.

Bones2484 wrote:But yes, you may be right.

Ah... progress.

Bones2484 wrote:Feudal requires patience.

But there's no disagreement on that.

One disagreement is that bombarding something you have just bombarded on the previous turn and getting reward doesn't fit in with the genearl ideas of the game.

And while I'm here, Bones...

....Oh for goodness sake, Bones, don't ask people not to waste peoples' time by asking for some info to just go and ignore it in your reply after the reply where you ignored the info in the first place.

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:One disagreement is that bombarding something you have just bombarded on the previous turn and getting reward doesn't fit in with the genearl ideas of the game.

But you aren't. It's a brand new 1-army.

Bones2484 wrote:We dont agree with the premise

I'm not sure you understand my premise.

My premise is.... bombarding something you have just bombarded on the previous turn and getting reward doesn't fit in with the general ideas of the game.

My supporting arguments are....
Feudal War bombardment is a loophole because
(1) its a startegy that isn't easily picked up by watching and learning from other players.
(2) its a strategy to cream points off the naive.
(3) its puts people off from playing each other.

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:I'm not sure you understand my premise.

My premise is.... bombarding something you have just bombarded on the previous turn and getting reward doesn't fit in with the general ideas of the game.

I think you should revise this statement.

Here. Let's try an example.

This is Sally.



She stands alone on Feudal 6. Everything ie peaceful in her little world. Little does she know that there are giant cannons up the hill at the castle pointed directly at her.



The cannon fires with a horrifying noise.

Sally collapses in a heap as the mortar shell hits her directly on the head.

*moments later*

This is Bruce.



He wanders around the Feudal territories, very ninja-like. There is a noise to the west and he happens across Sally, dead in the middle of Feudal 6 in a giant crater.

After looking around, he realizes he's alone. He figures that Sally must have been hit by a freak meteor and claims the territory as his own.

Feudal 6 now belongs to Bruce, not Sally, and remains neutral.

And to the point: You should always be eligible for a card if you are risking your armies in combat.

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:My supporting arguments are....
Feudal War bombardment is a loophole because
(1) its a startegy that isn't easily picked up by watching and learning from other players.
(2) its a strategy to cream points off the naive.
(3) its puts people off from playing each other.

(1) I disagree. It's extremely easy to figure out what they are doing. "Hey! He didn't conquer anything. Why did he get a card. Hm, he IS bombarding. That must be it!"

(2) I agree. But so is fog, or freestyle, or only attacking singles in escalating, or not going for bonuses in escalating, or any other strategy. It's also beatable on Feudal War. I'm sure you can come up with a counter for it, it's not that difficult.

(3) I disagree. If you can't handle losing to a different strategy, this is not the game for you to play.

Bones2484 wrote:

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:One disagreement is that bombarding something you have just bombarded on the previous turn and getting reward doesn't fit in with the genearl ideas of the game.

But you aren't. It's a brand new 1-army.

There would be a little more sport in it if it was n3 or even n5! At the moment though...

Wow! A whole one army to defeat with your automatic 5 deploy plus bonus. Even with only 5 extra armies you'll get spoils 199 times out of 200. Not much of a risk when
(1) the reward is a card! and
(2) you can do that again in the next turn!

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:My supporting arguments are....
Feudal War bombardment is a loophole because
(1) its a startegy that isn't easily picked up by watching and learning from other players.

Who didn't figure this out on their own the first time they looked at the map? It's pretty simple if you ask me. If you don't realize what the good moves are, then you aren't going to win. If you want a simpler game, you should just play the maps without bombardment.

O.K. Let's try the same example under early round Feudal war conditions

This is The Imperial Lady Sally.


This is Lord Bruce the Barbarian


Bruce and Sally have never met. One is going to give the other a big surprise and ruin their pretty little existence but that won't happen for a few years. Meanwhile....

...in a Barbarian field number 4 stands Neut with his four siblings, he looks all around and sees all the fields surrounding him other Neuts are doing the same thing. Life is good and the sushines.

Suddenly, without warning,


The cannon fires with a horrifying noise.

Lord Bruce kills everyone, takes the spoils (as is his right as Feudal Lord) from the farm and goes back to the castle.

Neut looks up. Neut still sees all the fields surrounding full of other Neuts harvesting the crops. Neut has no one to help him but gets on with the job when the same cannon fires with a horrifying noise.

Lord Bruce kills Neut, again, and takes the spoils....

....hang on, why are there any spoils to take. Neut hasn't planted anything. I thought he was dead, why is there anything to take!

And to the point: Lord Bruce has gained empty spoils at almost no risk

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:And to the point: Lord Bruce has gained empty spoils at almost no risk

Wrong. You have the exact same odds bombarding as attacking.

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:My supporting arguments are....
Feudal War bombardment is a loophole because ....

You're supporting arguments all have to do with one map, yet you're suggesting a change to a game-play feature that is used in numerous maps. Please stop.

The Neon Peon wrote:

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:And to the point: Lord Bruce has gained empty spoils at almost no risk

Wrong. You have the exact same odds bombarding as attacking.

Don't bother. This guy seems to think that attacking a 1-army is automatic success.

And I'm still trying to figure out why this is a problem on Feudal War when anyone on the map can use the same strategy. And please notice that I have not once said this is the best strategy, in fact, I've said that it can be beat with a good strategy.

But nevermind. GEG wants every game and every map to play like Classic.

well, for Feudal War in particular, realm of might gets shafted, hard, but thats a map issue, not so much a mechanic issue. This isnt so much of an issue for other maps such as Waterloo, because of its absolute porousness- but would Waterloo suffer from this change? absolutely not.

If you want a card you have to TAKE a territory, not just force their armies to dig foxholes.

Yanarix wrote:well, for Feudal War in particular, realm of might gets shafted, hard, but thats a map issue, not so much a mechanic issue. This isnt so much of an issue for other maps such as Waterloo, because of its absolute porousness- but would Waterloo suffer from this change? absolutely not.

If you want a card you have to TAKE a territory, not just force their armies to dig foxholes.

Why?

No one in this thread has given any logical reason as to why you should not get a card when you take the same risk as taking a territory.

The Neon Peon wrote:Why?

No one in this thread has given any logical reason as to why you should not get a card when you take the same risk as taking a territory.

Oh really? take a walk with me back to page 1.

viewtopic.php?p=1866056#p1866056

players are rewarded for not interacting with each other. So am I wrong or is this actually a good thing?

Yanarix wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Why?

No one in this thread has given any logical reason as to why you should not get a card when you take the same risk as taking a territory.

Oh really? take a walk with me back to page 1.

viewtopic.php?p=1866056#p1866056

players are rewarded for not interacting with each other. So am I wrong or is this actually a good thing?

They won't be rewarded very well for avoiding interaction entirely. It's all part of the strategy! You can't sit back taking cards forever, and expect to do very well. At the same time, you might be better off sitting back for a turn, or 2 (or 10 if the game calls for it), just taking cards by bombarding neutrals. You seem intent on trying to force a specific strategy on people.

In all honestly, I know for a fact that this thread is all for nothing, because this change will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, be implemented. I'll stop picking your arguments apart now. You can carry on complaining about bombardment. You can complain about the dice, and the weather too. It'll be just as useful.

yes, and that strategy is called "sitting on your ass for the better part of the week before anything happens". its not like there are any competing strategies: go off half cocked and get run over.

You havnt shown that Im wrong in that:

not interacting with anyone for half a dozen turns isnt boring.

the gameplay of other maps that dont put people into this bind would be harmed.

Nothings been picked apart. If you want to claim the anticipation is fun, I might buy that. If you want to claim that Waterloo would be different because of X nuance, Id agree with you.

Yanarix wrote:yes, and that strategy is called "sitting on your ass for the better part of the week before anything happens". its not like there are any competing strategies: go off half cocked and get run over.

You havnt shown that Im wrong in that:

not interacting with anyone for half a dozen turns isnt boring.

the gameplay of other maps that dont put people into this bind would be harmed.

Nothings been picked apart. If you want to claim the anticipation is fun, I might buy that. If you want to claim that Waterloo would be different because of X nuance, Id agree with you.

Aahhh.. I see it now. You're pissed off because you've had to wait. Well, my good sir, for the low, low price of only 25USD per year (that's right, 1 whole year), you can play as many games as your heart desires. You heard me right. You'll be able to play sooooo many games at a time, you'll be complaining that people are playing too fast. Hurry, and get your premium membership now, and we'll even throw in SPEED GAMES!!! And, for the next FOREVER we'll include the ability to create private games too. Hurry now. Only available for an unlimited time.

That doesnt change anything, a distraction from the crumminess of any one individual game is just a distraction. I can get those for free.

So can I take you not responding to either of my points as a concession there, right?

Yanarix wrote:That doesnt change anything, a distraction from the crumminess of any one individual game is just a distraction. I can get those for free.

So can I take you not responding to either of my points as a concession there, right?

1. The not interacting part adds to the strategy. When do you attack someone else? The person who can best decide that wins, what you are proposing is that everyone has to go out and attack each other soon or lose.

Also, considering that this is one of CC's most popular maps and this is the first actual complaint that has been brought up about this strategy... (do I really need to explain where I am going with that statement?)

Yanarix wrote:the gameplay of other maps that dont put people into this bind would be harmed.

2. You are right, the gameplay on other maps would be harmed. I am glad you realize that.

I said the more open maps wouldn't see a downside, as the availability of targets would ensure that removing the bombardment conquer feature would not damage the playability.

No one complained about it, so who am I to do so? real strong argument, wow, guess I better go cry now really though, what do you think is the point of making someone conquer a territory at all? to promote conflict

The Neon Peon wrote:

Yanarix wrote:well, for Feudal War in particular, realm of might gets shafted, hard, but thats a map issue, not so much a mechanic issue. This isnt so much of an issue for other maps such as Waterloo, because of its absolute porousness- but would Waterloo suffer from this change? absolutely not.

If you want a card you have to TAKE a territory, not just force their armies to dig foxholes.

Why?

No one in this thread has given any logical reason as to why you should not get a card when you take the same risk as taking a territory.

Bombarding a single neutral is not the same risk as attacking a single enemy territory. When attacking an enemy territory you have a 66% chance of winning on the first try. Same odds as bombardment of course.

The difference:
Attacking an enemy is a 66% chance of losing only 1 army. (It cannot be done again unless they attack you back)
Bombarding a neutral is a 66% chance of losing 0 armies. (Can be done repeatedly without ever losing an army)

I understand that the maps play fine in their current condition. But turning an already neutral territory into a neutral territory has always been stupid IMO. You aren't actually doing anything and therefore should not gain any spoils. I think that if you try to bombard a neutral territory an error should pop up saying you there is nothing to bombard. If an enemy owns the territory you will be allowed to bombard it because then you are actually accomplishing something within the game.

By my rules, you would not be able to gain or lose from bombarding a neutral territory. It would just not be a possibility, because it does not make any sense.