Welcome Comrades to the 105th edition of the Dispatch
There is a long-standing tradition that an issue of the Dispatch is named after the subject of that issue's Interrogation. This is a tradition which I have now violated in seven of the last eight issues, and I am afraid I will have to do so again. "I am become Death, the destroyer of traditions...." Really ironic, considering how strongly I believe that a community needs to have ties to its past and respect its history.
Still, although I really enjoyed the Interrogation of chapcrap (see Mess Hall and Interrogation Room, below) once again major news on the site is overshadowing this development. Accordingly, I have named this issue Polymorphia, in honour of the major update that has caught many people's interest.
Here's what we have on tap for you:
The first regular section is Mess Hall and Interrogation Room, which includes the above-mentioned interrogation of chapcrap, as well as the second installment of IAmCaffeine's trivia contest. The first installment had relatively few entrants, so there is plenty of opportunity to get in there and score some points!
The Platoon Report covers all aspects of the Clan scene. It just gets bigger and better every issue. I'm going to stop talking about how much bigger and better it is again, because I'm running out of superlatives! Even if you're not a clan player, TheVoice's analysis of what maps the clans are playing on may give you some insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the various maps.
War Games covers all aspects of the tournament scene. If you haven't been involved in tournaments lately, here's some background to bite into. Particularly interesting is that Join This? Or Not! contains a full bevy of freemium-friendly tournaments this time around. If you find it difficult to find freemium-friendly tournaments, this is definitely a place to look.
In Cartographic Surveillance, our hard-working duo of Seamus and Koontz cover all that is new in the foundry. Just like the foundry itself, there is a lot of work that goes into presenting this information to us. If you haven't looked lately, you might be surprised by what is cooking!
Next issue, Seamus76 will be the guest publisher, so expect something pretty special for that one!
Finally, our Next Mission Brief includes such things as the closing credits and information on how to subscribe.
Welcome to another jam-packed issue of the Platoon Report, your headquarters for Clan news!
Just last issue, I wrote about CC users suggestions for updates to the Clan page and lo and behold updates have arrived. The complete war history of every clan, active or otherwise, right down to the game-by-game level, is now available in each clan's Details page! This is a HUGE accomplishment and a great deal of thanks is owed to Leehar, chemefreak, and to bigWham for all their work bringing this to reality. The winning clan avatars are also updated for active clans, and the date founded has been included for each clan. Clans also have their own details page, which includes links to their recruitment and headquarter pages. It's safe to say, the Clan page has become a source of a great deal of information, and is looking fantastic... if you haven't checked it out yet, you're missing out!
Our reporters have been on overdrive for this edition! Keefie kicks it off with an update on Clan League 5, which is rapidly drawing to its exciting conclusion. The Voice has done an thoroughly interesting study of where the CC4 wars are - or more specifically, the maps on which the battles are occurring. Betiko challenges our readers to think about all the new gameplay options, and how they might impact the clan scene. Last but certainly not least, IcePack backs up and drops off a truckload of rankings for your enjoyment - the latest version of the F400, a first look at 1v1 rankings, and the Platoon Report exclusive Combined Conquer Clan Standings.
Believe it or not, there's much much more going on in the clan world, and we need your help to inform the rest CC Clan world! We're looking for regular reporters to help cover the other great events that are going on.. contact me or Dukasaur if you're interested!
Hello friends, and welcome to your favourite part of the Newsletter, "War Games", where you can find information about CC Tournaments, and other stuff in the Tournament scene!
In this issue, we deliver our usual dose of tournament goodness - mcshanester29 brings us another MTTW interview with hmsps; DaveH imparts more Tournament Tips and gives us the latest news in the TPA Wrap; and anamainiacks points us toward some tournaments in Join This? Or Not!
Stay Tuned for the next issue of the ConquerClub Dispatch for an interrogation of Kabanellas. Post any questions you may have for them here --> Interrogation with Kabanellas
The publisher of Issue 106 will be long-time Foundry Exec Seamus76!
Submitting Your Own Articles
If you have a story you think the ConquerClub Community would find interesting, you can submit your articles to Dukasaur and you may just see your article published in the Newsletter!
Subscription
Did you enjoy this Issue? Have you subscribed to the Newsletter yet?
If you want each and every issue of the ConquerClub Dispatch delivered right into your Inbox, then Subscribe Here!
Ffraid wrote:For those of us that got some wrong, could we have the correct answers from the first round of the trivia contest?
My mistake, apologies.
Answers 1. the.killing.44 2. WidowMakers 3. 23rd January 2009, samuelc812 4. Baltic Crusades, Three Kingdoms of Korea and Colonial Africa 5. Optimus Prime 6. Amazzony, 4705 7. jpcloet 8. fumandomuerte 9. February 10. Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:39 pm
In the title, which is the publication date, says 2-2-2009 (even though the timestamp of the first post is different). This current issue is a good example of that. The publication date is 16-10-2013, yet the timestamp of the first post is in June.
In the title, which is the publication date, says 2-2-2009 (even though the timestamp of the first post is different). This current issue is a good example of that. The publication date is 16-10-2013, yet the timestamp of the first post is in June.
That's an arguable point I guess. I would argue it's not actually published until it is posted. Dukasaur can rule on this one.
In which case the answer is Optimus Prime at 4,538.
As mentioned, all answers can be found in the Dispatch; here.
Gilligan wrote:#10: You specified no timezone....In my land it was 10:39 AM, maybe in yours it was 2:39 PM.
Anyway, I still love trivia and will continue to participate.
Fair point, I didn't consider that as I assumed everyone would be on CC time. In that case all answers with the correct date and minutes will be marked right. I'll amend this in the next issue.
In the title, which is the publication date, says 2-2-2009 (even though the timestamp of the first post is different). This current issue is a good example of that. The publication date is 16-10-2013, yet the timestamp of the first post is in June.
That's an arguable point I guess. I would argue it's not actually published until it is posted. Dukasaur can rule on this one.
I have to agree with Gilligan on #3 (of course, that was my answer, too ). For some reason, the timestamp of the first post seems to be before the stated publication date. I've never figured that out. As he stated, Issue 104 is an excellent example. There's a difference of 3½ months between those dates!
Re #9: Okay, I found the newsletter where it talks about the foundry reorganization in February but here: The Foundry is being Revamped! is a discussion about the foundry actually being shut down in December of 2009 for "a mysterious ongoing refurbishment".
In which case the answer is Optimus Prime at 4,538.
As mentioned, all answers can be found in the Dispatch; here.
The same issue lies with this answer. That dispatch went out on March 30. As I was the one that updated those fun little stats in the Hall of Fame, there was no way they could have gotten that information BEFORE I posted it. I would immediately publish the data as I had it, I never did what IcePack does with the F400 ("The next F400 is published in the dispatch", etc).
Anyway, I'm not going to make a scene about it, because there is ambiguity in dates posted and dates published with the dispatch.
In the title, which is the publication date, says 2-2-2009 (even though the timestamp of the first post is different). This current issue is a good example of that. The publication date is 16-10-2013, yet the timestamp of the first post is in June.
That's an arguable point I guess. I would argue it's not actually published until it is posted. Dukasaur can rule on this one.
I have to agree with Gilligan on #3 (of course, that was my answer, too ). For some reason, the timestamp of the first post seems to be before the stated publication date. I've never figured that out. As he stated, Issue 104 is an excellent example. There's a difference of 3½ months between those dates!
Re #9: Okay, I found the newsletter where it talks about the foundry reorganization in February but here: The Foundry is being Revamped! is a discussion about the foundry actually being shut down in December of 2009 for "a mysterious ongoing refurbishment".
Apparently, I was just dead wrong on #10!
the difference in dates is they are working on a draft/template which then gets posted.
In the title, which is the publication date, says 2-2-2009 (even though the timestamp of the first post is different). This current issue is a good example of that. The publication date is 16-10-2013, yet the timestamp of the first post is in June.
That's an arguable point I guess. I would argue it's not actually published until it is posted. Dukasaur can rule on this one.
There are often 3 possible dates for a newsletter. There is a stated date in the title (which is sometimes wrong although usually very close), there is a timestamp on the post (which is often just the date that the template was made, not the date of publication), and last but not least there is the true actual publication date (which may be difficult to prove due to the presence of the other two.)
Since this is a friendly competition, I would say that when in doubt, give them the points. If there's more than one correct answer, let's not quibble about which one is the most correct.
Dukasaur wrote:Since this is a friendly competition, I would say that when in doubt, give them the points. If there's more than one correct answer, let's not quibble about which one is the most correct.
Your word is law, amendments will be made next issue.