Change the rules on bombardment?

[ronin56003]

Would it improve the game to change the rules on bombardment so that successfully bombarding a neutral territory does NOT qualify a player for spoils?

Bombarding Neutrals for spoils:
Strategic or Exploitive? Does it need to be modified?

[Timminz]

As was pointed out to you already today, there is risk involved in bombarding neutrals, the same as bombarding any other coloured armies. This is a perfectly valid way to collect a card, and I guarantee you that it will not be changed.

[Bones2484]

As was pointed out to you already today, there is risk involved in bombarding neutrals, the same as bombarding any other coloured armies. This is a perfectly valid way to collect a card, and I guarantee you that it will not be changed.

My thoughts exactly.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

I'm not arguing against bombardment but there is one point where things become inconsistent.

there is risk involved in bombarding neutrals

But that's not really the case after the first card when you then re-attack a territ with only one neutral! In Feudal War you can get repeat cards for repeat bombarding of the same land which will always be rest to one neutral.

In Feudal War is a good example because you can keep bombarding your "own" lands.

E.G.

*There was recently some talk about this on the Feudal War topic under maps.

[blakebowling]

I'm not arguing against bombardment but there is one point where things become inconsistent.

there is risk involved in bombarding neutrals

But that's not really the case after the first card when you then re-attack a territ with only one neutral! In Feudal War you can get repeat cards for repeat bombarding of the same land which will always be rest to one neutral.

In Feudal War is a good example because you can keep bombarding your "own" lands.

E.G.

*There was recently some talk about this on the Feudal War topic under maps.

Take notice, at some castles on feudal war, you can't bombard anything except the 10 neutral barrier, which is a risk. So if someone's bombarding neutrals, you can probably rule out those two castles as their location.

[THE ARMY]

to be technically correct if a player bombards another player they SHOULD NOT get spoils. Ther term spoils refers to the pillaging of an encampment or territory previously owned by the enemy, and requires troop movement into said territory. If you don't "attack" and instead "bombard" from a safe distance then you SHOULD NOT get spoils. so either rename the "spoils" or change bombardment rules so you don't get a "spoil"

[Timminz]

I'm not arguing against bombardment but there is one point where things become inconsistent.

there is risk involved in bombarding neutrals

But that's not really the case after the first card when you then re-attack a territ with only one neutral!

Regardless of what some people think, it is possible to loss a roll against a 1.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Regardless of what some people think, it is possible to loss a roll against a 1.

And who might "some people" be? Certainly not me.

You're not telling me you are going to defend bombarding on the risk of losing a roll against one army? Sure, there's a risk involved when you bombard against three neutrals. But the risk against one is less. Then to do that again and again and say there's a risk involved while gaining much more in spoils is a weak, weak argument.

E.G.

[Timminz]

Regardless of what some people think, it is possible to loss a roll against a 1.

And who might "some people" be? Certainly not me.

You're not telling me you are going to defend bombarding on the risk of losing a roll against one army? Sure, there's a risk involved when you bombard against three neutrals. But the risk against one is less. Then to do that again and again and say there's a risk involved while gaining much more in spoils is a weak, weak argument.

E.G.

I don't follow. Do you think bombarding a single army of an opponent should not garner spoils?

The point is, that this is a feature of the map, I don't understand what the complaint really is. Are people complaining that they aren't using as effective a strategy as their opponents, and think it's a flaw in the map? That's what it seems like.

[sully800]

Regardless of what some people think, it is possible to loss a roll against a 1.

And who might "some people" be? Certainly not me.

You're not telling me you are going to defend bombarding on the risk of losing a roll against one army? Sure, there's a risk involved when you bombard against three neutrals. But the risk against one is less. Then to do that again and again and say there's a risk involved while gaining much more in spoils is a weak, weak argument.

E.G.

Especially because in bombardment you don't have to advance an army.

I'd suggest a blend between this idea and the current situation. You get a card if you bombard an enemy territory and you don't get a card if you only bombard a neutral territory.

[Yanarix]

Well here's my two cents, a game where people are going to make the exact same move, not interacting with any other players for upwards of half a dozen turns in a row is a poorly designed game. Yes, I know you all feel tremendously clever when using this tactic against people that spread out too soon, but once you boil it down to its base elements it is dead boring.

why wait a week before anyone starts "playing" the game?

[Kotaro]

This idea is terrible. I've seen people go 10 to 1 against a neutral and lose. There is the same risk for bombarding a neutral, just as bombarding a player. And saying they can't fight back is a bullshit answer. Neutrals can't fight back when you assault their territories either; should that not give a card either?

Chose "No" because it's a terrible idea.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

I've seen people go 10 to 1 against a neutral and lose.

No one has said there isn't a risk in attacking neutral. But the risk against one is less. Then to do that again and again and say there's a risk involved while gaining much more in spoils is a weak, weak argument.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

I don't understand what the complaint really is.

Good point. Between me, Sully800 and Yanarix have we got some of the reasons across?

[Timminz]

I don't understand what the complaint really is.

Good point. Between me, Sully800 and Yanarix have we got some of the reasons across?

The best I can understand, is that you see people doing something that is more effective than what you do, and rather than adjusting your play to this more effective method, you are asking that the rules be changed to suit your strategy. I recommend that you just accept that your strategy is not the best, and either change it, or play a different map, and/or setting.