Conquer Club

Firstly, this is NOT intended as a flame at ppl who say this. Secondly, if bombardment really does make sense and was part of your map idea, i have no problem with that.

but does EVERY map thread have to have SOMEONE who says "gee, i like where you're going with this!! now just add a terit called _________ that can bombard __________ or ___________ or all of the _______________'s or EVERYTHING!!!"

personally, if i see bombardment i know i haven't got enough experience to help with the map. Also, if i see the word "bombard" in the legend, i ask myslelf, "why??" anyone else find the answer to that question lacking??

WHY OH WHY DOES EVERY MAP THREAD HAVE BOMBARDMENTS SUGGESTED??????

ustus wrote:Firstly, this is NOT intended as a flame at ppl who say this. Secondly, if bombardment really does make sense and was part of your map idea, i have no problem with that.

but does EVERY map thread have to have SOMEONE who says "gee, i like where you're going with this!! now just add a terit called _________ that can bombard __________ or ___________ or all of the _______________'s or EVERYTHING!!!"

personally, if i see bombardment i know i haven't got enough experience to help with the map. Also, if i see the word "bombard" in the legend, i ask myslelf, "why??" anyone else find the answer to that question lacking??

WHY OH WHY DOES EVERY MAP THREAD HAVE BOMBARDMENTS SUGGESTED??????

because it can make for interesting games. Not every map has bombardment tho, and it is hardly ever suggested.

Jeez, calm down. There are a couple reasons I can see for bombardment.
First, like you said, if it makes sense. On my Korea map, North Korea has nukes so that makes a lot of sense, no? Same thing with Pearl Harbor and Arm's Race!, to name others.
Secondly, it's a way to check power of a territory while still sprucing it up. You can't attack somewhere, but you can destroy the troops.
Thirdly, it is an unique gameplay feature and can change a map from the same-old to unique map, one of the requirements, being "inherently unique, either in gameplay, theme, or design.

Whatta you have against bombardment? God.
.44

.44 - your response satisfies the question i didn't ask, which is why there are bombardments in the first place. Personally, i don't enjoy playing maps with the feature (i find it annoying to fight for a terit and then only end up being able to deny it to an enemy) but as i said, that's a personal feeling. I'm not asking why there are bombardments. they're there for those who do like the feature, and i have no problem with that. I can simply choose not to play the maps that have them. and i'm not as frustrated as i sound. i have that problem when typing, i sound more... passionate about every issue than i really am. my appologies

bryguy wrote:. Not every map has bombardment tho, and it is hardly ever suggested.

first, not every map has bombardment because bombardment is not a good idea for every map. which is the point i was making in my original post.

to the second half of the sentence... go read thru the whole drafting room forum. That's where i'm commenting on. at least 90% of the maps (don't quote the number, it's an estimate) have someone suggesting bombardment. I made the post right after seeing one in a map that simply had no reason to have bombardments. Personally, i find this very annoying. Thankfully, most map-makers don't add bombardment to add bombardment.

I just posted to see if anyone agrees on this: don't suggest bombardment unless there's a reason.

if no one does, or i'm the only one who thinks it's suggested far more often than merited, I'll happily shut up on the issue, and continue to comment in the map forums as i do now, having learned somewhat more about the merits of adding bombardments. Since starting to post here, i have learned the merits of one-way attacks, which i found annoying at first as well. So i'm not attempthing to be closed-minded on the issue.

_ - Ustus - _

I'd agree with the general sentiment that gameplay features should have some logical basis and should attempt to model some kind of real-world rationale, rather than adding them purely for the sake of adding them.

ustus wrote:to the second half of the sentence... go read thru the whole drafting room forum. That's where i'm commenting on. at least 90% of the maps (don't quote the number, it's an estimate) have someone suggesting bombardment. I made the post right after seeing one in a map that simply had no reason to have bombardments. Personally, i find this very annoying. Thankfully, most map-makers don't add bombardment to add bombardment.

I do read thru the drafting room, but not as much as I used to (there was a time when 73% of the new posts were mine (hehe, 173% of all percentages are exagerated or made up on the spot ))


I agree tho that its not right for all maps, and can be annoying sometimes, but other times it can be helpful (or purposeful)

I like bombardments if it fits the theme of the map. Nuclear war? Bombardments. Artillery? Bombardments. Air bases with bombers? Bombardments. WWII Naval Battles? Bombardments. Landing troops on a beachhead? Start with 12 hours of bombardments.

When you think of it, a large % of contemporary warfare isn't moving troops in and occupying a region, it's bombarding somebody into the stone age. The US bombards targets every day, yet after several years we still don't really "control" Iraq or Afganistan - in large part because of car bombs and other forms of bombardments.