Conquer Club

With the FOX holes reverting to 1 neutral, they won't ever pick up the +1 per 3 bonus. Killer neutrals take effect before pretty much everything else, including bonus logic.

TaCktiX wrote:With the FOX holes reverting to 1 neutral, they won't ever pick up the +1 per 3 bonus. Killer neutrals take effect before pretty much everything else, including bonus logic.

I do not agree, it depends on how many troops you have in the fox-holes, they are close connected to the ohter bonuses and can be use as buffer zones, its first when you have hammered troops down under 1 that it becomes 1 neutral, what dont have to be an easy task, front trenches are a dangerous place to be in, but can also be hard to conquer.

Flapcake wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:With the FOX holes reverting to 1 neutral, they won't ever pick up the +1 per 3 bonus. Killer neutrals take effect before pretty much everything else, including bonus logic.

I do not agree, it depends on how many troops you have in the fox-holes, they are close connected to the ohter bonuses and can be use as buffer zones, its first when you have hammered troops down under 1 that it becomes 1 neutral, what dont have to be an easy task, front trenches are a dangerous place to be in, but can also be hard to conquer.

No. killer neutrals will reset to 1 neutral no matter how many troops you have on them.

tokle wrote:

Flapcake wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:With the FOX holes reverting to 1 neutral, they won't ever pick up the +1 per 3 bonus. Killer neutrals take effect before pretty much everything else, including bonus logic.

I do not agree, it depends on how many troops you have in the fox-holes, they are close connected to the ohter bonuses and can be use as buffer zones, its first when you have hammered troops down under 1 that it becomes 1 neutral, what dont have to be an easy task, front trenches are a dangerous place to be in, but can also be hard to conquer.

No. killer neutrals will reset to 1 neutral no matter how many troops you have on them.

They do not reset, they reverts, Il change the text to "Bombard" Its only No man´s land that resets

Legen text changed to "Bombard" from reverts.

If thers are any alternative ways to put it I gladly recive constructive suggenstions.
[bigimg]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6896/trench10840x800.png[/bigimg]

Maybe you could put a -1 decay on the fox holes to show the as a dangerous place to be?

tokle wrote:Maybe you could put a -1 decay on the fox holes to show the as a dangerous place to be?

not a bad suggestion, but it could do that people will stay away from putting troops there, and it is the front line to protect the hinterland. it was to provoke people to occupy and set troops I made a +1 for every 3 fox hole, the danger part came from artillery, airstrike and shell hole atack.

I wouldn't make it too complicated, personally...


Though I love the map and the idea! I have been advocating a trench warfare idea for some time! It's about time somebody took it into action, though I was thinking of something more like the Somme. But "generally" works, too.

General Brock II wrote:I wouldn't make it too complicated, personally...


Though I love the map and the idea! I have been advocating a trench warfare idea for some time! It's about time somebody took it into action, though I was thinking of something more like the Somme. But "generally" works, too.

I echo not adding in too many gimmicks or complications.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

General Brock II wrote:I wouldn't make it too complicated, personally...


Though I love the map and the idea! I have been advocating a trench warfare idea for some time! It's about time somebody took it into action, though I was thinking of something more like the Somme. But "generally" works, too.

I echo not adding in too many gimmicks or complications.


--Andy

Hi Andy and General Brok, thanks for your comments.

sometimes simple is best, I agree.

The game play are not set, and Im open for any suggestion to make it work for most fun and excitement.

Changes, Special bonus are now as follow:

No man´s land: All troops (N1 u N18) resets to 1 neutral after end turn.
Shell holes in No man´s land are safe, artillery, aircraft or FOX-holes can not hit them.
Shell holes 1-3-4-6 can one way bombard nearest FOX-hole.
Artillery and Aircraft can bombard all trenches.
FOX-hole bonus +1 for every 3. +2 for 6. ECT.

[bigimg]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1644/trenchmap840x80004.png[/bigimg]

How about if the artillery and airplanes can only bombard the enemy tranches?
And are the supply lines and field hospital included in that? I think the field hospital should be safe.
Maybe you could add some airplanes and have them able to bombard each other too.

tokle wrote:How about if the artillery and airplanes can only bombard the enemy tranches?
And are the supply lines and field hospital included in that? I think the field hospital should be safe.
Maybe you could add some airplanes and have them able to bombard each other too.

Hello Tokle
Good suggestions with artillery and airplanes can only bombard the enemy tranches, but that should include No man land.

Yes I think that supply lines and field hospital are included, the enemy had no second thought boming any thing behind the lines.

About add more ariplaines, thers no more space on the map

The hospital should be a safe zone. Most players I don't think would keep the majority of their troops in the back, so IMHO, it should be safe to have the hospital as a safe zone.

Flapcake, the idea off having the field hospital being safe from the planes is a good idea. Tey and get a tent next to the territs with a large red cross on the top. The fly boys where pretty good at missing them.

I'm going to disagree on the Field Hospital being safe. The Geneva Conventions came into effect BECAUSE of this war, where the most inhumane things ever used in war were employed (gas being the most famous one). So having a Geneva Conventions-based rule in the mix would be un-authentic.

koontz1973 wrote:Flapcake, the idea off having the field hospital being safe from the planes is a good idea. Tey and get a tent next to the territs with a large red cross on the top. The fly boys where pretty good at missing them.

Good idea with the red cross, goin to find a way to insert it.

TaCktiX wrote:I'm going to disagree on the Field Hospital being safe. The Geneva Conventions came into effect BECAUSE of this war, where the most inhumane things ever used in war were employed (gas being the most famous one). So having a Geneva Conventions-based rule in the mix would be un-authentic.

agree, ww1 on both sides avoided no means, who was the first real modern and perhaps therefore the most cruel war in the new time period.

Flapcake wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:I'm going to disagree on the Field Hospital being safe. The Geneva Conventions came into effect BECAUSE of this war, where the most inhumane things ever used in war were employed (gas being the most famous one). So having a Geneva Conventions-based rule in the mix would be un-authentic.

agree, ww1 on both sides avoided no means, who was the first real modern and perhaps therefore the most cruel war in the new time period.

I agree with both sides here. But for the sake of gameplay, at the moment the shell holes are the only places safe from bombardment, doesn't that make them too important? And it would probably make situations where people would only be stacking in the shell-holes, which would be seem a bit strange in relation to the realities of trench war.

As for the airplanes, you wouldn't need more planes, you could divide up the airfield next to the planes.

tokle wrote:

Flapcake wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:I'm going to disagree on the Field Hospital being safe. The Geneva Conventions came into effect BECAUSE of this war, where the most inhumane things ever used in war were employed (gas being the most famous one). So having a Geneva Conventions-based rule in the mix would be un-authentic.

agree, ww1 on both sides avoided no means, who was the first real modern and perhaps therefore the most cruel war in the new time period.

I agree with both sides here. But for the sake of gameplay, at the moment the shell holes are the only places safe from bombardment, doesn't that make them too important? And it would probably make situations where people would only be stacking in the shell-holes, which would be seem a bit strange in relation to the realities of trench war.

As for the airplanes, you wouldn't need more planes, you could divide up the airfield next to the planes.

first I apologize, qwert pointed an error out for me, bombard No man land makes no sence when it resets to neutral after end turn, that will be corrected in next update.


TaCktiX, when you say "divide the airfield" you mean by then scrink the plane and put 2-3 more in same field and they are then seperate targets ?
It sounds like a cool idea.

Flapcake wrote:

tokle wrote:

Flapcake wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:I'm going to disagree on the Field Hospital being safe. The Geneva Conventions came into effect BECAUSE of this war, where the most inhumane things ever used in war were employed (gas being the most famous one). So having a Geneva Conventions-based rule in the mix would be un-authentic.

agree, ww1 on both sides avoided no means, who was the first real modern and perhaps therefore the most cruel war in the new time period.

I agree with both sides here. But for the sake of gameplay, at the moment the shell holes are the only places safe from bombardment, doesn't that make them too important? And it would probably make situations where people would only be stacking in the shell-holes, which would be seem a bit strange in relation to the realities of trench war.

As for the airplanes, you wouldn't need more planes, you could divide up the airfield next to the planes.

TaCktiX, when you say "divide the airfield" you mean by then scrink the plane and put 2-3 more in same field and they are then seperate targets ?
It sounds like a cool idea.

That was me saying that...
You could do it that way. But wouldn't necessarily need to. You could have several numbers on the field next to one big plane. But maybe having several smaller planes would look better.

tokle wrote:

Flapcake wrote:

tokle wrote:

Flapcake wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:I'm going to disagree on the Field Hospital being safe. The Geneva Conventions came into effect BECAUSE of this war, where the most inhumane things ever used in war were employed (gas being the most famous one). So having a Geneva Conventions-based rule in the mix would be un-authentic.

agree, ww1 on both sides avoided no means, who was the first real modern and perhaps therefore the most cruel war in the new time period.

I agree with both sides here. But for the sake of gameplay, at the moment the shell holes are the only places safe from bombardment, doesn't that make them too important? And it would probably make situations where people would only be stacking in the shell-holes, which would be seem a bit strange in relation to the realities of trench war.

As for the airplanes, you wouldn't need more planes, you could divide up the airfield next to the planes.

TaCktiX, when you say "divide the airfield" you mean by then scrink the plane and put 2-3 more in same field and they are then seperate targets ?
It sounds like a cool idea.

That was me saying that...
You could do it that way. But wouldn't necessarily need to. You could have several numbers on the field next to one big plane. But maybe having several smaller planes would look better.

Yes it was you, sorry Il work on a solution, I think it will work greate, I got many good inputs now thanks, keep em comming pls

I don't know why qwert doesn't post his ideas here directly, rather than in pms...

But I actually think having bombardment of No-man's land is still a good idea. I think it adds another element that the players have to be observant and know what's going on. Because it might lead to a non-observant or non-experienced player to waste ammo on taking out enemies in no-man's land because they don't realise that they turn neutral. Or they forget.
Another, better point is that it allows you to see no-man's land in fog games. In that way the planes could be considered reconnaissance planes.

tokle wrote:I don't know why qwert doesn't post his ideas here directly, rather than in pms...

But I actually think having bombardment of No-man's land is still a good idea. I think it adds another element that the players have to be observant and know what's going on. Because it might lead to a non-observant or non-experienced player to waste ammo on taking out enemies in no-man's land because they don't realise that they turn neutral. Or they forget.
Another, better point is that it allows you to see no-man's land in fog games. In that way the planes could be considered reconnaissance planes.

You got a very good point, (who hasent in a sleepy moment bombarded a neutral troop, I dident say that )
I can see when you put that way, that it could make some sence.

I think what qwert ment was that it sounded conflicting, perhaps it should be formulated another way, and it could provide a spoil by taking out your opponents sentenced to death troop, you dont get any thing for hitting a 1 neutral troop.

Flapcake wrote:

tokle wrote:I don't know why qwert doesn't post his ideas here directly, rather than in pms...

But I actually think having bombardment of No-man's land is still a good idea. I think it adds another element that the players have to be observant and know what's going on. Because it might lead to a non-observant or non-experienced player to waste ammo on taking out enemies in no-man's land because they don't realise that they turn neutral. Or they forget.
Another, better point is that it allows you to see no-man's land in fog games. In that way the planes could be considered reconnaissance planes.

You got a very good point, (who hasent in a sleepy moment bombarded a neutral troop, I dident say that )
I can see when you put that way, that it could make some sence.

I think what qwert ment was that it sounded conflicting, perhaps it should be formulated another way, and it could provide a spoil by taking out your opponents sentenced to death troop, you dont get any thing for hitting a 1 neutral troop.

You do get spoils from bombarding neutrals too.

tokle wrote:

Flapcake wrote:

tokle wrote:I don't know why qwert doesn't post his ideas here directly, rather than in pms...

But I actually think having bombardment of No-man's land is still a good idea. I think it adds another element that the players have to be observant and know what's going on. Because it might lead to a non-observant or non-experienced player to waste ammo on taking out enemies in no-man's land because they don't realise that they turn neutral. Or they forget.
Another, better point is that it allows you to see no-man's land in fog games. In that way the planes could be considered reconnaissance planes.

You got a very good point, (who hasent in a sleepy moment bombarded a neutral troop, I dident say that )
I can see when you put that way, that it could make some sence.

I think what qwert ment was that it sounded conflicting, perhaps it should be formulated another way, and it could provide a spoil by taking out your opponents sentenced to death troop, you dont get any thing for hitting a 1 neutral troop.

You do get spoils from bombarding neutrals too.

I just thought that when the neutral was down to "1" it could not come down to "0" on bombarding, since one do not take over the area, and you should probably eliminate troops to get spoils? (do it make sense?)