Change the wording of the instructions

[Timminz]

Concise description:

• Change the wording of the instructions, so that they indicate that a spoil may be gained in any turn which you conquer, or bombard a territory, and end your turn.

Specifics:

• change the wording of the instructions from, "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!", to, "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer, or annihilate a region. (note: the bolding has been added for emphasis. There is no need to include that formatting in the actual suggestion)

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• The altered wording I have suggested is how the game actually works.
• It will avoid confusion such as displayed here.

[Woodruff]

Concise description:

• Change the wording of the instructions, so that they indicate that a spoil may be gained in any turn which you conquer, or bombard a territory, and end your turn.

Specifics:

• change the wording of the instructions from, "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!", to, "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer, or annihilate a region. (note: the bolding has been added for emphasis. There is no need to include that formatting in the actual suggestion)

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• The altered wording I have suggested is how the game actually works.
• It will avoid confusion such as displayed here.

Good call.

[The Neon Peon]

Thanks, Tim. Back this.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

You all know how verbose I can get, so here's the summary....... Progress, hurray!

Concise description:

• Change the wording of the instructions, so that they indicate that a spoil may be gained in any turn which you conquer, or bombard a territory, and end your turn.

Tim, thank you for finally seeing the light..... [E.G. lights fuse and runs]
......and coming over to what those arging in favour of a rule change have been saying for a long time (about 14 pages),

Moderators: This is just a continuation of the thread listed below.

• It will avoid confusion such as displayed Change the rules on bombardment?.

The only "confusion" displayed in the above thread was displayed those arguing against changing the rules. Those in the for camp have not said they wanted bombardment banned [I'm loathed to say "never" as after 14 odd pages it may be mentioned somewhere]. They've just argued that EITHER bombardment should come under the current rules OR the rules should change.

Tim, thank you for putting this suggestion forward - it had to come from someone who was not on the pro side.

Why didn't I?

1. Clearly I'm not such a sweet talker as Tim.

2. The solution, as good as it is, doesn't cover bombarding neutrals....

I'd suggest a blend between [the changing the bombardment rules] 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.

[Timminz]

Yes Mr Grey, the wording of the instructions is the only thing that is not completely correct at the moment. I don't understand why you bring up neutral armies though. The instructions do not specify anything about the colour of armies being attacked, and this suggestion does not include anything about army colour either.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Yes Mr Grey,....

Come on Mr Timminz, there's nothing personal in these arguments. We've had some good exchanges in the previous thread. Perhaps its time to drop the formality?!

• change the wording of the instructions from, "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!", to, "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer, or annihilate a region. (note: the bolding has been added for emphasis. There is no need to include that formatting in the actual suggestion)

Please change annihilate to bombard that way how you came about getting the land (conquer or bombard) is consistent with the wording of the rule.

I don't understand why you bring up neutral armies though. The instructions do not specify anything about the colour of armies being attacked, and this suggestion does not include anything about army colour either.

The short answer - because your solution is trying to kill two birds with one stone.

I bring up neutral armies because I want to follow through your suggestion. No point in resolving one [sorry, I almost used the L-word] grey area to create another.

Your idea says for any territory, I'm just seeing wondering if the idea follows through for neutrals as well as enemy territories.

Besides, you may already know where I'm going with this

First things, first. Its a good idea to make sure the rules are consistent for bombardment. Its already been established that they are not
See Change the rules on bombardment? for details.

Let's say its first two turns of a game, red vs green, red plays first.

• Turn 1
  
  • Red puts three new armies on a terrt, bombards green 3, kills the three green, gets a card. The terrt turns neutral 1.
  • Green puts three new armies on a terrt, bombards a neutral 3, kills the three neutral, gets a card. The terrt turns neutral 1.
  • That looks fair. Let's continue.
• Turn 2
  
  • Red puts three new armies on a terrt, bombards a neutral 3, kills the three neutral, gets a card.
  • Green puts three new armies on a terrt, bombards a the same terrt which is now neutral 1, kills the one neutral, gets a card.
  • Hang-on. Green's getting rewarded twice for the same move

Oh look! The new instruction is consistent when applied to attacking an enemy. I like your idea with the following wording:

change the wording of the instructions from,

• "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!",

to

• "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer, or bombard an enemy region.

[Timminz]

Oh look! The new instruction is consistent when applied to attacking an enemy. I like your idea with the following wording:

change the wording of the instructions from,

• "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!",

to

• "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer, or bombard an enemy region.

The word is "Annihilate". It is, to bombarding, what "Conquer" is to attacking. It does not differentiate between actual players and neutral, and I am in no way suggesting that it should. I am merely suggesting that the instructions be updated to fully explain how and when spoils are earned. Please stop trying to twist this suggestion into something it is not. I am suggesting something different from what you are. I have made my opinion of your suggestion known, in the appropriate thread. I would appreciate it if you could keep your comments regarding various suggestion, within the appropriate threads, as well. Thank you.

[GenuineEarlGrey]

Oh look! The new instruction is consistent when applied to attacking an enemy. I like your idea with the following wording:

change the wording of the instructions from,

• "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer a region, just like reality!",

to

• "You earn spoils at the end of every turn in which you successfully conquer, or bombard an enemy region.

The word is "Annihilate". It is, to bombarding, what "Conquer" is to attacking.

I see where you are coming from this. The only reason for the suggestion was to ensure the words were consistent across all the rules. Will that be the case if "Annihilate" is used here?

BTW I notice how you also chose to drop just like reality!

Is that another consession that getting cards for neutral isn't like reality?!

It does not differentiate between actual players and neutral, and I am in no way suggesting that it should.

But we need to deal with how the rule change will effect other aspects of play - it doesn't mean that reviewing it isn't valid for this thread.

Please stop trying to twist this suggestion into something it is not.

Consider this a knot. Unfortunately the two threads are tangled.

I am suggesting something different from what you are..... I would appreciate it if you could keep your comments regarding various suggestion, within the appropriate threads, as well.

You are not suggesting something different from the other thread. This thread takes the convienient route. It offers to solve one of the prolbem raised in the original thread while leaving the other(s) in the too hard basket.

You've put a great idea down to advance the original thread. Why not put thread down and get back to the original problem - you are making great contributions to the debate, don't stop now for the sake of small victory that ignores the bigger problem.

E.G.

BTW.... Have a great Easter and don't have too many choccy eggs

[Artimis]

This thread takes the convienient route. It offers to solve one of the prolbem raised in the original thread while leaving the other(s) in the too hard basket.

You've put a great idea down to advance the original thread. Why not put thread down and get back to the original problem - you are making great contributions to the debate, don't stop now for the sake of small victory that ignores the bigger problem.

There is no problem with bombardment, the instructions only need updating to include a feature that was added AFTER they were written. So gaining spoils from bombardment doesn't fit the reality of gaining spoils in real life warfare, this is an internet game, not a real life war campaign.

[Timminz]

I am suggesting something different from what you are..... I would appreciate it if you could keep your comments regarding various suggestion, within the appropriate threads, as well.

You are not suggesting something different from the other thread.

But, I am. The problem is out-dated instructions. The solution is to update them. That is what this thread is suggesting. The other thread is suggesting that the mechanics of the game be altered to match the out-dated instructions. I disagree entirely with that idea, but again, this is not the place for discussing suggestions other than the one outlined in the opening post of this thread.

[Thezzaruz]

Great idea Timminz

[iancanton]

The problem is out-dated instructions. The solution is to update them.

i'll look into this.

this is not the place for discussing suggestions other than the one outlined in the opening post of this thread.

absolutely right, timminz. don't let others hijack this thread.

ian.