Conquer Club

For you Conquer Club gurus out there this will seem like a stupid question but I am confused about bombarding and ahhihilating in some of the games. I understand the concept that you are taking the territory away from the other player but that you won't control it yourself and the territory will be a neutral. I don't understand why the games allow you to continue to bombard the territory once it has become a neutral, resulting in losing more of your own armies. I know some of you will say why would you continue to attack when it already became a neutral but there are plenty of new players out there that probably don't understand it and might do that, and well..... yes, I have in the past. Couldn't there be a way to to disallow any more bombarding once the territory is neutral? Thanks for the help.

I understand the bombarding part but not the annihilating part because when you attack and win the dice roll, the territory still stays neutral. It just keeps saying you are annihilating but nothing appears to be happening with the territory???

The reason you can bombard neutral terits is because some times it is the right move to. If you have to get though and dont want to lose any of your attacking army you take it down to 1 first by bombardment. or if you want to capture a neutral to get a bonus but you only have a small # of guys nearby, so this way you have better odd of taking it since instead of whatever it was before its then a 3. There are many bonuses to being able to bombard neutral terits.

Also on a side note this might have been better in suggestions.

He's saying to stop bombarding a neutral terit when it's down to only one neutral, but I disagree with the fact of doing this. Adding in a warning would be harder than it's worth, as you'd have to differentiate from between when they've been bombarding all the way down, and when they are just taking a terit for a card.

I like to bombard a neutral to get a card when I can't
do it elsewhare

i do that too. i bombard a single neutral army get a card and i don't have to put one of my armies on it.

leave this as it is.

I had never really thought about bombarding a neutral to get a card before. That does make sense. What I still don't understand is say if you have 14 armies and you bombard a neutral and win the dice you don't lose any armies, but you would get the card. Why doesn't it stop you from continuing to attack because if you lose the roll again your 14 armies will continue to be reduced? What good does it do to allow a person to continue to attack once they have already won with the dice once?

Marfski wrote:I had never really thought about bombarding a neutral to get a card before. That does make sense. What I still don't understand is say if you have 14 armies and you bombard a neutral and win the dice you don't lose any armies, but you would get the card. Why doesn't it stop you from continuing to attack because if you lose the roll again your 14 armies will continue to be reduced? What good does it do to allow a person to continue to attack once they have already won with the dice once?

it potentially does me a lot of good when my opponents are not paying attention to the little things that could make or break a battle.

What Marfski is trying to say is: in one turn, i have already bombarded and killed a select territory. Why does the game allow me to continue to attack said territory, even though I do not need it to get a card?

because it would be alot of work for them to make it so the computer allows it before you have a card but not after.

killmanic wrote:because it would be alot of work for them to make it so the computer allows it before you have a card but not after.

Don't see why the card should be the decider. If you have attacked and killed all troops in a territory then you shouldn't be able to attack that territory again in the same round, conquering it or not shouldn't be a factor.

this game should not be coded to remove any chance of a player doing something stupid.

pay attention to what you are targeting or waste your attack but don't come to this forum crying that the target selection drop-down is too difficult for you to operate.

Wow greenoaks, get a grip. It isn't stupid when people have questions about how certain game options, strategies work. It is stupid when you bust into a discussion just to make rude and non constructive comments. Go to the flame wars if you want to be obnoxious, this Q&A forum is for people who are trying to learn.

Thanks everyone for your responses. Like Killmanic said, I might start a thread on suggestions. Initially I was just curious about why this was allowed and thought I might not understand something about bombarding and annihilating. I thought hard before asking the question on the forum because there always has to be someone that says something nasty just because a question has been asked. I am not sure what I ever said to make greenoaks think I am "crying", or that the drop down is too difficult for me to operate. I was just asking a question.

sorry Marfski, i should have been clearer by quoting the post above mine so you would know that is who i was responding to.

Marfski wrote:Why doesn't it stop you from continuing to attack because if you lose the roll again your 14 armies will continue to be reduced? What good does it do to allow a person to continue to attack once they have already won with the dice once?

killmanic wrote:because it would be alot of work for them to make it so the computer allows it before you have a card but not after.

That's certainly the main reason. But there is more:

If partner has to conquer your territory (for example to cross over) and you can't move your pile by fortification. You can bombard some neutral country until you lose all. The s\he can conquer it cheaply instead of losing a tons of units.