Bombarding and Annihilating Fail-Safe

[Marfski]

If a territory has been bombarded and annihilated and the attacking player has either turned the territory neutral or won the dice roll to get a card, is there a way to stop allowing any more bombarding?

When I first started playing I didn't understand about bombarding and I continued to bombard the opponent even after I had turned the territory neutral and so I continued to lose armies when I lost the dice rolls. I'm not sure what I expected to happen, but it seems like there should be a fail-safe built in where a player cannot continue to attack after turning the territory neutral or attacking the neutral for a card. Just thought I would put the question out for consideration.

I think this would help new as well as more seasoned players by eliminating the possibility of unecessarily losing armies.

[greenoaks]

this will not help seasoned players. most people do it once and learn from that, or maybe again if drunk. players should pay attention to what they are attacking.

lets not dumb this site down to the lowest common denominator.

[MEK]

I like the suggestion Marfski, no point in having something as an attack choice that won't benefit the attacker. I'm for it, good suggestion.

[GabonX]

Actualy having a spot to bombard can work to your advantage.

In cards games you can keep bombarding the same spot turn after turn to get a card even if you dont make any "real" attacks...

Arguably this should be stopped but the statement that bombarding and already bombarded territory can not benifite the attacker is false.

[lancehoch]

GabonX, they are trying to say that within one turn, after you have already attacked and annihilated a territory there should be a stop on attacking that territory. This would be similar to when you take a territory and only put one army on it, you can no longer attack it (it no longer appears on the drop down menu). The idea/suggestion would be to not have that territory be on the drop down menu after you have already annihilated the armies that were there previously.

[greenoaks]

this is a stupid idea as it prevents a player from purposely targeting the same tert to reduce his army to 1.

[Ditocoaf]

this will not help seasoned players. most people do it once and learn from that, or maybe again if drunk. players should pay attention to what they are attacking.

lets not dumb this site down to the lowest common denominator.

I don't think this would be "dumbing it down"; it's not as much an intelligence issue as it is an experience issue. Bombarding isn't explained very throughly in the rules, and though it becomes clear the first time you play, on my first game I lost a lot of armies trying to bombard a neutral territory of 1. It sounds like "lol dumb n00b" to someone who understands CN like they understand walking, but to people who haven't thrown their life into the net yet, it's an easy mistake to make, because you just don't know yet.

[GabonX]

GabonX, they are trying to say that within one turn, after you have already attacked and annihilated a territory there should be a stop on attacking that territory. This would be similar to when you take a territory and only put one army on it, you can no longer attack it (it no longer appears on the drop down menu). The idea/suggestion would be to not have that territory be on the drop down menu after you have already annihilated the armies that were there previously.

I understand this.

I was just pointing out that as it is now it can actualy benifite a player to bombard the same territory once per turn to generate cards. Did YOU get that from my first post?

[lancehoch]

GabonX, they are trying to say that within one turn, after you have already attacked and annihilated a territory there should be a stop on attacking that territory. This would be similar to when you take a territory and only put one army on it, you can no longer attack it (it no longer appears on the drop down menu). The idea/suggestion would be to not have that territory be on the drop down menu after you have already annihilated the armies that were there previously.

I understand this.

I was just pointing out that as it is now it can actualy benifite a player to bombard the same territory once per turn to generate cards. Did YOU get that from my first post?

Yes, I understood that from your first post. But, you are still missing the point of my post. Look at the bold above, we are talking about two different things. I am talking about one turn, you are talking about back-to-back turns.

[cicero]

First up, I do understand what the OP is driving at.
Yes, if you have - in your current turn - just bombarded a territory and 'taken' it and hence qualified for a card - it is a real noob trap that you can continue to attack it and just waste your armies in that same turn ...
And if it were really as simple as that then I would support the suggestion.

However ...

this is a stupid idea as it prevents a player from purposely targeting the same tert to reduce his army to 1.

Greenoaks is right.
To begin with I found myself thinking "why would anyone choose to reduce their armies for no reason ?!?" ...

But with a little reflection there is at least one. Or will be shortly.
Infected Neutrals (currently To-Do) select their targets primarily by where the largest armies are. Hence there will be some situations where it will be strategically useful to deliberately burn a few armies from a territory.

Any other situations where it would benefit the player to burn a few armies by continuing to bombard a territory already taken ?

Even if we can't think of any more the strategic option needs to be left in.

[greenoaks]

First up, I do understand what the OP is driving at.
Yes, if you have - in your current turn - just bombarded a territory and 'taken' it and hence qualified for a card - it is a real noob trap that you can continue to attack it and just waste your armies in that same turn ...
And if it were really as simple as that then I would support the suggestion.

However ...

this is a stupid idea as it prevents a player from purposely targeting the same tert to reduce his army to 1.

Greenoaks is right.
To begin with I found myself thinking "why would anyone choose to reduce their armies for no reason ?!?" ...

But with a little reflection there is at least one. Or will be shortly.
Infected Neutrals (currently To-Do) select their targets primarily by where the largest armies are. Hence there will be some situations where it will be strategically useful to deliberately burn a few armies from a territory.

Any other situations where it would benefit the player to burn a few armies by continuing to bombard a territory already taken ?

Even if we can't think of any more the strategic option needs to be left in.

yes there are
if you are in a doubles, trip or quads match you might want to use up your armies so that your teammate can take it from you and get a continent bonus. this is particular useful on maps such as waterloo where you can not fortify off that tert.

[greenoaks]

First up, I do understand what the OP is driving at.
Yes, if you have - in your current turn - just bombarded a territory and 'taken' it and hence qualified for a card - it is a real noob trap that you can continue to attack it and just waste your armies in that same turn ...
And if it were really as simple as that then I would support the suggestion.

However ...

this is a stupid idea as it prevents a player from purposely targeting the same tert to reduce his army to 1.

Greenoaks is right.
To begin with I found myself thinking "why would anyone choose to reduce their armies for no reason ?!?" ...

But with a little reflection there is at least one. Or will be shortly.
Infected Neutrals (currently To-Do) select their targets primarily by where the largest armies are. Hence there will be some situations where it will be strategically useful to deliberately burn a few armies from a territory.

Any other situations where it would benefit the player to burn a few armies by continuing to bombard a territory already taken ?

Even if we can't think of any more the strategic option needs to be left in.

yes there is.
if you are in a doubles, trip or quads match you might want to use up your armies so that your teammate can take it from you and get a continent bonus. this is particular useful on maps such as waterloo where you can not fortify off that tert.

[yeti_c]

And/or if you're stuck in a Waterloo game with just artillery - it can be a means of escape - i.e. bombard the shit out of a neutral territory down to 1 - then someone can kill you off!

C.

[Marfski]

Reading all the responses has been very illuminating. It sounds like in some maps like Waterloo it might be advantageous. Perhaps my suggestion should be that Conquer Club provide a more thorough explanation of how bombarding and annihilating works?

[yeti_c]

Reading all the responses has been very illuminating. It sounds like in some maps like Waterloo it might be advantageous. Perhaps my suggestion should be that Conquer Club provide a more thorough explanation of how bombarding and annihilating works?

(That is definitely true)

C.

[Ditocoaf]

yeah, when I played my first game, I was very confused. I thought, "hey, cool, 'bombarding' means that I can attack a territory far away! now why does this one army keep beating me? why can't I take this territory?" It was confusing, until someone told me you can't fortify to a territory that you "bombard".

[DoctorX]

This idea has already been suggested. Pretty sure the CC staff would like to just push a button a have it as you suggested; but I don't think it is that easy.

Agree, a bombarding warning should be issued somewhere, somehow. If you plan on playing a map you are not familiar with or a map with particulars you are not familiar with; search the forums and search for those who like to brag about the strategies. Unfortunately, many new players are slow to learn about this.

[Chadwick31]

It could disrupt strategy.

This would be a rare case, but it is possible.

For example, on the Waterloo map, if you need your teammate to take a territory that you're in, but you can't fortify out of it (as it is with the artillery), it is more advantageous to you to bombard until you're down to 1, so that your teammate can more easily take control of the territory.

Again, this is a rare situation, but is still possible.

[greenoaks]

yeah, when I played my first game, I was very confused. I thought, "hey, cool, 'bombarding' means that I can attack a territory far away! now why does this one army keep beating me? why can't I take this territory?" It was confusing, until someone told me you can't fortify to a territory that you "bombard".

or you could have just read the rules regarding bombardment.

There is a special type of attack called bombardment which converts the opposing territory to neutral once the opponent's forces are destroyed.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

It could disrupt strategy.

This would be a rare case, but it is possible.

For example, on the Waterloo map, if you need your teammate to take a territory that you're in, but you can't fortify out of it (as it is with the artillery), it is more advantageous to you to bombard until you're down to 1, so that your teammate can more easily take control of the territory.

Again, this is a rare situation, but is still possible.

Not ridiculously rare, especially in escalating team games.

[Ditocoaf]

yeah, when I played my first game, I was very confused. I thought, "hey, cool, 'bombarding' means that I can attack a territory far away! now why does this one army keep beating me? why can't I take this territory?" It was confusing, until someone told me you can't fortify to a territory that you "bombard".

or you could have just read the rules regarding bombardment.

There is a special type of attack called bombardment which converts the opposing territory to neutral once the opponent's forces are destroyed.

Heh, yeah, it seems quite obvious now, but at the time, I didn't even think about that because my opponent was already neutral (this was Feudal War).

[greenoaks]

yeah, when I played my first game, I was very confused. I thought, "hey, cool, 'bombarding' means that I can attack a territory far away! now why does this one army keep beating me? why can't I take this territory?" It was confusing, until someone told me you can't fortify to a territory that you "bombard".

or you could have just read the rules regarding bombardment.

There is a special type of attack called bombardment which converts the opposing territory to neutral once the opponent's forces are destroyed.

Heh, yeah, it seems quite obvious now, but at the time, I didn't even think about that because my opponent was already neutral (this was Feudal War).

i am able to bag you over it because i did it too and learnt from it.

although sometimes i still go d'oh, why didn't i change the target. but then if i can't remember to tell my cannons in a wargame to aim for something different, then i know i'd occasionally make that mistake in the heat of battle. little errors like that add to the realism of the situation.

[yeti_c]

I thought of a useful change to this...

When you select a combination of dropdowns that mean you are about to bombard - then change the "attack" button - to a "bombard" button...

(Also either Rename "auto attack" as well - or just call it "Auto")

C.