Bombarding the same region shouldn't give spoils

[sully800]

If you hit autoattack across a bombardment route it should kill all of your remaining troops. There are an infinite number of single neutral armies left to kill, so you should not stop attacking until you are down to 3 or less armies.

Sarcasm aside, I agree that the maps play well with the current features so to garner more support for this topic you would have to show that the gameplay would still be good after changing the rules. Unfortunately there is no way good to do that without creating a testing area. I stand by my assertion that this is not how bombardment is intended to function, but there are many more suggestions on the to do list that should be implemented before this one. And since maps are designed based on the actual bombardment rules (and not the intended functionality) this "problem" would become harder and harder to "fix". But that doesn't stop me from thinking it is a nonsensical feature!

[Yanarix]

well if youre really all about it, then how about adding another game play mode where you get a spoil at the end of every turn, regardless of whether you took a territory; effectively emulating the results of the spoil bombardment feature.

this would allow anyone to play any map the way fe is played and everyone knows exactly what theyre getting into when joining a game.

[Kotaro]

1. As per the rules/instructions. Bombarding is not conquering which mean you don't get spoils. Broken/Incomplete game mechanic.
2. Fixing this will reward aggression and progression of the game state, allowing for more exciting and dynamic games.
3. Just because everyone does it, does not mean it's valid. Exploiters and cheaters will always use whatever advantage they can get whether its following the game rules or not.

1) Yes, the rules page, that was written about 100 maps ago, doesn't agree with this. So obviously, the written rules need to be changed to fit the actual application of the bombardment. You may consider it "stupid", but this is how it works; it's not broken, so why fix it? You're rolling dice and killing an army, so you get a reward for it. Unless you'd like to change the rules so that you have to kill more then one to get a card?
2) haha. Since you've decided to use Feudal War as a constant example, ignoring the 20 to 30 maps that also have this feature, I'll use it as an example too. In Feudal War, this would force people to leave the 10's early or get no cards. So anyone with a smidgen of a brain, would simply sit back and wait a turn or two. Some idiot will come through the 20's way too early, and then the other person is sitting there, ready to steal an easy kill. And if no one came through too early, then it would turn Feudal War from a strategy game, into a "build and hope someone else is stupid" game. Reward aggression? It would kill the aggressive easy, and reward the patient waiters.
3) Calling us cheaters is desperation on your part. Most of the mods and admins on this site know this trick; are they cheaters? Or is this how the gameplay is SUPPOSED to work? Are you calling the "top 10 feudal map-ranked" people cheaters, or did they just pick this up before you, and now you're upset about it?

[Kotaro]

well if youre really all about it, then how about adding another game play mode where you get a spoil at the end of every turn, regardless of whether you took a territory; effectively emulating the results of the spoil bombardment feature.

this would allow anyone to play any map the way fe is played and everyone knows exactly what theyre getting into when joining a game.

This idea would change the entire gameplay of the entire site, not just feudal war.

[Bones2484]

well if youre really all about it, then how about adding another game play mode where you get a spoil at the end of every turn, regardless of whether you took a territory; effectively emulating the results of the spoil bombardment feature.

this would allow anyone to play any map the way fe is played and everyone knows exactly what theyre getting into when joining a game.

This idea would change the entire gameplay of the entire site, not just feudal war.

I dont even want to imagine how Arms Race would work with this change.

[ronin56003]

I was speaking in generalities. I did not call out anyone specifically nor as a group. Again reading is fundamental.

Yes, the rules page, that was written about 100 maps ago, doesn't agree with this.

Of course, why didn't I think of that. Let's just change the rules to match the gameplay. It's never the gameplay thats wrong, regardless of how common it is. I'm sure that the people that run this are not compelety dedicated to the site/game and exploits/bugs will not be fixed immediately and will then become common "strategies".

[Yanarix]

well if youre really all about it, then how about adding another game play mode where you get a spoil at the end of every turn, regardless of whether you took a territory; effectively emulating the results of the spoil bombardment feature.

this would allow anyone to play any map the way fe is played and everyone knows exactly what theyre getting into when joining a game.

This idea would change the entire gameplay of the entire site, not just feudal war.

yeah, thats what I said isnt it? any map.

is that a bad thing? no. its just one more option.

[The Neon Peon]

I fail to see how the instructions is not 100% correct:

Some maps allow a special type of assault called bombardment. Bombardment doesn't allow you to conquer once the opponent's forces are destroyed, instead it converts the opposing region to neutral.

[iambligh]

Can we lock and dispatch this one already?

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Loopholes

So people being ignorant is a loophole?

You raise two separate points.
No, people [who don't take full advantage of bombardment] are not ignorant.

In the rules under "Taking a turn" they may have read....
You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!

...and in Gameplay notes...
Bombardment doesn't allow you to conquer once the opponent's forces are destroyed, instead it converts the opposing region to neutral.

So, the people aren't ignorant, they've just read the rules and it tells them that you don't get spoils for bombardment. Seeing as they are not ignorant and are playing the game by the rules, does this make spoils for bombardment a loophole?

Now...
(1) Do you agree, for the sake of your argument above, that people aren't ignorant?
(2) Before I say "yes, it is a lophole" and you reply "no, its not a loophole", what do we mean by loophole! Would you like to go first?

E.G.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

No loophole, just ignorance.

Can you hoist that flag any higher, Timminz?
Congratulations! you've just admitted it's a loophole.... again!

Me again.

Are you trying to look like an idiot?

No, but I'm making a good job of making you look.... [hang on, that would be totally unfair and personal].

This whole time I thought we were having a reasoned discussion,...

Well done! You are correct, I am having a reasoned discussion. Do you want to join in? If so, go back to my previous post, it covers the flaws in your reasoning for "No loophole, just ignorance".

E.G.

[The Neon Peon]

Well done! You are correct, I am having a reasoned discussion. Do you want to join in? If so, go back to my previous post, it covers the flaws in your reasoning for "No loophole, just ignorance".

E.G.

Actually, Timminz is the one having the reasoned discussion. You are just ignoring anything that people say which you can't come up with an answer to. That is not a discussion. That is called two people talking at the same time when only one is listening.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Clearly it is possible to imagine a situation where an army bombs an enemy (non friendly) target without actually taking it. Hiroshima is one example of this of course.

Do you want a reply to the poor taste or the bad example?

We now have the image of CC combined with a City flattend and over 100,000 people dead. Now that you've had your attack, you can go and collect the spoils. And what spoils were there left for the Allies to collect?

A fine example to show the bombardment/spoils concept.

E.G.

[The Neon Peon]

Clearly it is possible to imagine a situation where an army bombs an enemy (non friendly) target without actually taking it. Hiroshima is one example of this of course.

Do you want a reply to the poor taste or the bad example?

We now have the image of CC combined with a City flattend and over 100,000 people dead. Now that you've had your attack, you can go and collect the spoils. And what spoils were there left for the Allies to collect?

A fine example to show the bombardment/spoils concept.

E.G.

Cannon bombarding a wall
Same concept with a catapult
Archers...

Any long range weapon enables you to take out your enemies in an area without it conquering the region.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Thank you Neon for skipping the whole bad taste part...

...and then providing more examples of how a bombardment doesn't allow allow a army on the ground to collect any spoils from the region they have bombarded...

Cannon bombarding a wall
Same concept with a catapult
Archers...

...and then, without any help from me, saying EXPLICITLY that bombarding isn't conquering.

Any long range weapon enables you to take out your enemies in an area without it conquering the region.

[The Neon Peon]

it took 4 million games for someone to complain about this, want to know why?

"Spoils" is a term CC is forced to use to avoid legal issues associated with the word "cards" which it replaced.

So it makes no sense to argue that terminology we are forced to use should have any affect on gameplay because the word we are forced to use has a meaning which does not fit in with some other word we use.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

"Spoils" is a term CC is forced to use to avoid legal issues associated with the word "cards" which it replaced.

Fine! So we won't mention the c-word and at the same time you acknowledge that the CC may have some similarities to another game.

So it makes no sense to argue that terminology we are forced to use should have any affect on gameplay because the word we are forced to use has a meaning which does not fit in with some other word we use.

This game has an intuitive feel for it. The rules make sence. So, lets throw the word away and go back to the basic rules of the game. The ones that new comers have may have some feel for. The same ones that were used in a CC poll not so long ago - the 1975 rules. Let me quote from them...

... a player earns a maximum of one R*** c*** for every turn in which he successfully occupies a new territory.

Now doesn't that sounds familiar?

E.G.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Actually, Timminz is the one having the reasoned discussion. You are just ignoring anything that people say which you can't come up with an answer to. That is not a discussion. That is called two people talking at the same time when only one is listening.

Sorry, Neon, didn't mean to not reply to your post.

Tell you what, lets list the original argument for this thread and both summarise what the main arguments for and against are. You summarise what I've been arguing for and i'll try and do the same for you. Then we'll hopefully find out whether we've been listening to each other.

Since you want politness, you can have it: After you. You go first then I'll do the same.

Best wishes, E.G.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

I think that you're a bit out of line calling people who do this cheaters.
You have a valid point that the instruction page does not reflect the current reality.

...and why I call it a loophole.

Either the instruction page or the way bombardments work needs to be changed.

Thank you!

It would also help to review the maps with non-adjacent attacking. Would anyone like to patronise me and help? E.G.

[The Neon Peon]

Alright

1. that taking bombarding for a card makes the game boring because you just sit and do nothing for a long time (not yours, but stated)
2. instructions imply that you should not get spoils for bombardment
3. bombarding for spoils makes no sense since you do not get anything by bombarding a territory, and only if you take over it

[Kotaro]

Alright

1. that taking bombarding for a card makes the game boring because you just sit and do nothing for a long time (not yours, but stated)
2. instructions imply that you should not get spoils for bombardment
3. bombarding for spoils makes no sense since you do not get anything by bombarding a territory, and only if you take over it

On top of that;

Feudal War becomes a boring, pure luck game, instead of strategy. It rewards aggression, with a nice fat lip, and a loss, easy.

There is still a risk bombarding a 1 neutral, despite it being low, there's still a risk. Risk should lead to reward, no?

The rules do imply it, but they were written forever ago; it also says, in the rules, that making a multi is the ultimate offense. Yet, you can buy back premium and get back into the game. Doesn't seem to be an ultimate offense, eh? Or is "ultimate offense" a way of saying "give us more money"?

Making a code to neglect bombarding a 1, wouldn't beable to discern a neutral 1 from a player 1, most likely, without a tremendous effort. So, it would, most likely, take bombarding a players 1 also be worth no cards. Does that seem fair?

[Yanarix]

I wouldnt say it rewards aggression, just forces you out of your nest before you are ready to do an uber victory sweep.

but I agree that bombarding players into neutrality is way too picky of a situational check, better to just nix spoils from bombardment all together. cut, dry, simple.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

I fail to see how the instructions is not 100% correct:

Some maps allow a special type of assault called bombardment. Bombardment doesn't allow you to conquer once the opponent's forces are destroyed, instead it converts the opposing region to neutral.

Now that you mention it, Neon, this instruction is NOT 100% correct.

It says that the region converts to neutral. If a region is already neutral it can't convert to neutral.

E.G.

[The Neon Peon]

Some maps allow a special type of assaultcalled bombardment. Bombardment doesn't allow you to conquer once the opponent's forces are destroyed, instead it converts the opposing region to neutral.

A neutral is not your opponent last I checked. I think they took it as common sense that if the territory is a neutral it either
1. reconverts to neutral
2. nothing happens

both are logical assumptions, since what else will happen? I personally would not expect it to become an enemy when I bombard it.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Thank you, Neon. Here's my go at your side of the argument.

1. We don't want to change the bombardment rules.
2. There's a risk to bombarding and it should be rewarded.
3. Its a good strategy.
4. People are ignorant if they do not know how to use the re-bombardment startegy.
5. Its not clear how changing the rules would effect each map.
6. If you don't like the bombardment rules you should go and play on some other map.
7. Bombardment is an advanced game startegy.

What have I missed? Would you like to refine it!

I'll have a ponder at yours.

E.G.