>>"Please bear in mind that "Artillery" is a broad term, realistically artillery can be as minimal as a mortar team up to and including a cruise missile strike. So I consider your example of California to japan as reasonable when you apply the term "artillery" broadly."

Imho, the problem with an interpretation on what kind of artillery it would be is based on territory range.. a cruise missle could launch from california to hit japan.. the same cruise missle could his Alaska, but the same settings would not apply... Albeit with the mapmaking process, I can see no better way to apply such a card, save to have mapmakers make sea squares actual territories *as some makers have*

>>warlight is not currently complicated enough across the game to apply or contemplate deployment time, by example a "diplomacy", "sanctions", "airlift" etc. etc. all those things in a real world setting require "deployment" time

Diplomacy and Sanctions take effect at the end of the turn, actually effecting the next turn.. which simulates a diployment time... I see the gathering of the cards the time it takes to prepare to be deployed.. The airlift card, however, does make a better point, and considering Warlights goal to make the game remain relatively simpl*1*, the initial Idea would be the most likely to be implemented..

*1*- Fizzer has stated, if I recall properly, that he dislikes adding in features which would make it too difficult for a new player to understand and be able to compete adequately with a vet, and my changes would likely be put in that category

--

I agree that trying to create specifics about populace will be unrealistic to expect in this game, If it ever gets Implemented, it will really be up to Fizzer's discretion on using the 1 minimum or making it into a neutral.. However
3) Warlight can interpret 0 values in initial setup
which means it could be possible to initiate it into a new card, but it would probably require more time to set-up

---

Sorry the post is backwards.. I originally was only going to respond to one, lol

>> "having Bombers from say Germany, bombing a few miles out of Paris, would not cause the populace to take up arms, despite the french having no, or effectively no military there... it could, however, be a decent way to symbolize the possible loss of productivity *loss of bonus* that it might cause.."

When we starting getting into the specifics of who's military has what natural forces in a region in real life were probably trying to over apply reality onto warlight, at least at its current development stage. - That having been said,
1.) Since an aircraft cant land anywhere it wants to (Except helicopters and VTOL's)
2.) Because of above, Aircraft cannot "take control" of a territory
3.) Since warlight doesn't allow "0" values

The simple resolution is the same: A airstrike like any other attack will reduce the number of forces in a selected territory downward but cannot reduce the force size in the territory (Occupied or neutral) to less than "1", Thus after an airstrike there is no "conversion" to deal with as i previously suggested AND it still requires a ground force to occupy the now heavily reduced defending force (Neutral or occupied)

>>"too often these things take deployment time"

If you look at the cards of this game several would in real life require "deployment time" in a technical sense, I understand your thinking but warlight is not currently complicated enough across the game to apply or contemplate deployment time, by example a "diplomacy", "sanctions", "airlift" etc. etc. all those things in a real world setting require "deployment" time. So I don't think it applies here at least at the current development level of warlight. - Also, It would seem that the gaining of "pieces" of cards kinda represents the preparation/buildup stages of a cards execution, thus by example 4 turns to acquire 4 pieces of a sanctions card could represent 4 months of diplomatic efforts to get sanctions approved in congress, the UN the Kremlin or wherever... Warlight doesn't apply a sense of "time" to this game, what we perceive as a few minutes in game time could realistically be days, weeks or months of activity. So in summary, I think the card "pieces" represents "deployment time"

>>"One problem with the entire idea is that it wouldn't work in all maps, in all situations.. for instance.. california shooting at Japan.. with Artillery would be absurd"

Please bear in mind that "Artillery" is a broad term, realistically artillery can be as minimal as a mortar team up to and including a cruise missile strike. So I consider your example of California to japan as reasonable when you apply the term "artillery" broadly.

>>"it wouldn't work in all maps"
Now i do realize we have some fantasy and odd maps available to us.... like the battle over a pig map, or the karate/ninja map thing... I also realize some of these maps use portals and other "outside the norm" setups, but as i see it, since those maps and not typical and are "fantasy" anyways, who am i to say that a airstrike from the pig's butt can't go through a portal to attack the pigs snout that's technically 6 territories away?... point was that those maps are not really based on a realistic setting anyways and if they didnt want the card to apply they could simply disable it in game setup.

Thanks for the continued interest Perrin

>>" I consider the "revert to neutral" as representing the "broken unit" idea, disorganized survivors or locals taking up arms after a conflict in their region/city."

The problem herein is that It's assumed that all territories that you hold that are within bombing range would require a military presence to keep the populace from taking up arms.. and if the populace took up arms it wouldn't be to aid their nation...
While I can see and understand your point, and in contested territories it would make sense.. having Bombers from say Germany, bombing a few miles out of Paris, would not cause the populace to take up arms, despite the french having no, or effectively no military there... it could, however, be a decent way to symbolize the possible loss of productivity *loss of bonus* that it might cause..

>>"However, the idea was the card was a "preemptive" strike before an "infantry/armor" attack occurs, thus reducing the # of defending units a ground force has to deal with when attacking the territory for control."

I'm kind of torn on how this should be implemented.. personally.. I can see your reasoning, which makes perfect sense, based on what I quoted.. since Artillery and Airstrikes are intended to weaken a foe before attack.. but too often these things take deployment time.. I shied from proposing this earlier, and still have my doubts, due to difficulty to program, as well as difficulty to use in-game.. make it dual part.. you use it at the end of your turn *card draw phase*, select the territory it will originate from, to simulate the action of preparing, whether it is visible or not Is really relevant to Fizzer and/or the Host of the individual game.. then the next turn it reacts as you describe it..

>>"One other note, if you did "block" the cards attack from looping back on itself, the rule would have to apply on a "per card" basis"

I would have to agree completely.. using one airlift card to a location does not void future airlifts to that location, neither should airstrike.

--

One problem with the entire idea is that it wouldn't work in all maps, in all situations..

for instance.. california shooting at Japan.. with Artillery would be absurd, but is only 2 territories away..
or Consider the battlefield map, which *In my minds eye* would be a field where combat took place.. an airstrike making turns so quickly wouldn't be possible with conventional aircraft....

Overall I like the Idea, but I don't foresee it being implemented because of these possible problems..

---

if they are Implemented however, they could lead to several other cards...

Bombing run.. leads *up to* X Distance, then attacks as though with a pre-determined number.. similar to Airstrike Your Suggestion of Early Warning.. which would likely end up just being like Diplomacy but for these style of cards *possibly hidden, so the cards can be wasted on you, rather then just diverted* Intercept, to be able to prevent an Airstrike or Bombing Run within X distance of a certain territory.. or w/e the common populace and Fizzer can come up with, which will likely be better then my ideas, lol.

Perrin, Thanks for the feedback, here is my responses below. Feel free to give any further feedback you see fit, the more activity to the idea the better the chance of implementation.

>> " I disagree with airstrikes creating neutrals.. It is vastly difficult to destroy every last remnant of an enemy, and 1 is determined to be the bare minimum in an area, so it should default to either 1, or if Fizzer decides he could implement 0 being minimum and that could take effect, although that would require a complete restructure of the game."

Well the idea follows like this, The airstrike does not represent a "boots on the ground" type of unit thus it cannot become a "controlling" unit/army/player if kills off 100% of the occupying force. Since the issue of a "0" army has been discussed elsewhere and rejected we have to leave something in there. As far as the territory reverting to neutrals if brought down to a 0 level, bear in mind a bombing run/campaign can/does devastate the fortitude of and resolve of units taking fire, I consider the "revert to neutral" as representing the "broken unit" idea, disorganized survivors or locals taking up arms after a conflict in their region/city. This is pretty common in any true war zone that is heavily attacked by air power and does not have "boots on the ground" forces occupying it during or after a air campaign.

>> "If it wasn't initiated in the deployment phase, then an order priority would be *contrary to much save for the most modern artillery* which would require time to deploy and set up before they fired.. if anything it should act like an *order delay* card, instead of an order priority."

Well... It should automatically become the "first order" when played, but after the deployment phase. A "initiating territory" is selected purely for the purpose of A.) Controlling distance that can be attacked from a player controlled territory and B.) Making the card "counterable" through the use of an order priority card and a successful attack on the territory selected for the artillery to initiate from. However, the idea was the card was a "preemptive" strike before an "infantry/armor" attack occurs, thus reducing the # of defending units a ground force has to deal with when attacking the territory for control.

>> "the airstrike would ideally be unable to return immediately upon itself *hitting the same territory up to 3 times* "

Although I understand your thoughts here I kind of disagree, but let me explain - each consecutive "strike" to a territory reduces the attack value by 10%, thus in theory the same territory could be hit "3" times, one at (12 vs ??), then (8.8 vs ??) and lastly at (6.8 vs ??). Now i consider this type of "return on itself" attack to be no different that a aircraft making multiple passes of a target until all munitions are expended", in modern bombing it has long been a option to bomb certain targets on "ingress" to a primary target and then bomb the same or similar targets on "egress" away from a primary target. Additionally, like i said before the airstrike card cannot "take over" a territory it attacks, only reduce the forces in the territory or cause it to convert to a neutral if its defending forces reach 0. One other note, if you did "block" the cards attack from looping back on itself, the rule would have to apply on a "per card" basis, i feel that if someone/team has multiple airstrike cards then they should be able to attack a territory once "per card", thus it would be similar to the "loop back" attack

and why is my name still hello world, i thought i changed to aquaholic already

cool

I disagree with airstrikes creating neutrals.. It is vastly difficult to destroy every last remnant of an enemy, and 1 is determined to be the bare minimum in an area, so it should default to either 1, or if Fizzer decides he could implement 0 being minimum and that could take effect, although that would require a complete restructure of the game.
The Artillery card, as you describe it, would probably take place in the deployment phase, rather then *as if used with an order priority card* putting it behind the deploys, but before all orders.. in which case selecting the territory it originated from would be irrelevant...
If it wasn't initiated in the deployment phase, then an order priority would be *contrary to much save for the most modern artillery* which would require time to deploy and set up before they fired.. if anything it should act like an *order delay* card, instead of an order priority.

also, the *range of artillery/airstrike* would of course be customizable, and the airstrike would ideally be unable to return immediately upon itself *hitting the same territory up to 3 times*
as the latter proposed 'early warning' card, having a full game duration would fully unbalance it's usefulness in relation to the rest of the cards, *considering that weight 1 and 3 pieces is default for *all* cards*