Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

Zeldor, it appears I have played this game and Dom2 slightly bit longer than you have, so don't you go and think that I am a noob :)

But to answer your question: Yes, yes I have. Many times. And I don't see where the problem is. Which is exactly why I don't understand your eagerness to claim something cheating when it clearly and obviously simply is not.

If you don't know how to plan your strategies against your opponents, then maybe you should play some easier game, like Tetris for example?

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

History is full of examples of hugely-outnumbered armies suiciding against large enemy forces just to slow them down. Thermopylae, Wavre, Bastogne...and there are far too many examples of armies using the 'attack and retreat' order to list. That was how the Persians slowed the Romans down before Carrhae, pretty much the whole purpose of cavalry in the US Civil War, the Austrians' only successful tactic against Frederick the Great...I have no problem with this particular exploit for that reason.

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

1) I'm not Zeldor.
2) I too played d2 and d3 from the beginning (no ppp unfortunately) so let's discuss the things that are appropriate for the thread. It's good that you have experienced the situation from my example. Now, you think it's perfectly OK and I think it's not perfectly OK but I will surely use this trick if it's not banned in the house rules. And there are other people that think like me and there are other people that think like you. So please, stop telling Micah that his arguments and examples make no sense, because they have enough sense for other people.

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

My mistake, sorry Zeldor :)

Then why dont you people who do not like the integral parts of the game set up a MP game, discuss the settings in the game thread, test it out, and then tell with proof just how awesome the results were? If you had discussed these "rules" in a game thread I for one would not have interfered, and the only reason I can see for bringing this to general discussion is because some apparently have a desire to implement some hand waving as rules for fair games. Why try to forcefeed rules (which I still don't know what they are, apparently everybody else know what these obvious situations are except me, and I am pissed I don't figure it out from the handwaving represented so far) some (at least I) think are stupid and against the very essence of the game?

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

Because one of the common complaints is that setting up a game takes months due to those discussions.
And some of the common arguments break out startingwith "everyone knows" or "all games tend to".

So IMHO we dont have to agree on what IS or ISNT an exploit (I dont think that will ever happen). Just what items are fairly often included in bans. That way we can smooth out both problems by having some posted common game settings so a game admin can start a thread with lines such as
"we will be playing with the limits in #4 with 2 added items" or something like that.
Much quicker, much smoother, much less of the drama (that we are seeing here)

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

In case anyone has issues w/the LAD/Ankh behavior and would like to restrict it in their next game, check the Brainless Soulless mod I just put in the mods sub-forum.

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

I described one of the situations as fully as I can given my poor English. If it's still handwaving I think the discussion is useless. I don't have anything against stealth troops, GR airstrikes or anything else in general; rather there are some common scenarios that look like abuse of game rules to me (and perhaps to some others). Using *GR* during *castle storm* to *burn gems* is one of such situations. There are some others less annoying.

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

Hmmm, I don't know if I'd categorize it as there being no counter. Sure, it might slow your conquest, but I think that's perfectly valid. If you 1) expect it 2) Are in very late game and 3) Have a couple turns to feint then it's not that hard to set yourself up so that a couple ghost riders (or whatever) dropping before you storm is just an annoyance. It should be pretty easy to wipe out/route/enslave a smallish force in 1 or 2 turns, and script your mages to account for that - particularly if you hold off a couple turns and see what your opponent is likely to throw at you. If he's dropping ghost riders I think a single boosted undead mastery will stop any other gems from being cast (maybe? I dunno.)- or a couple life for lifes, or soul slays, or a few just man's crosses firing at large enemy monsters, or, well use your imagination. if you can manage to get an the appropriate mages up in your casting order you're golden...if not, you still only need to double up the gems for spells that need to be cast 1st round and push anything you can to the second round (where plenty of spells will be fine going off). If you're prepared for this tactic and you've got the type of army that you're burning that many gems you really shouldn't have much trouble ending this sort of maneuver by your enemy before it gets too expensive.

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

A noble thought that. However, it will be called the "List of Exploits". Any valid and legal tactics put on that list (because a person once said they are in the gray area) would thus automatically be considered cheats and exploits, just because they are on the list.

However, if that is how it would be, then I would want to see a ban on astral and death magic added to the list. They are known cheats and exploits of the game engine in such a magnitude, that no MP game can be won without astral and/or death. Besides, *everybody* knows banning astral and death magic makes sense, and anybody claiming otherwise is a cheater and exploiter.

Re: Trading commanders, exploit or not?
 

Um, you know, you can give key BE mages a ranged weapon and double the gems, and script them to: cast spell X, hold x 4, fire closest (or some such). They'll ride out any irritating Ritual Attacks, and still be able to cast during the 'normal' combat phase.

Costly? Sure. First off, obviously you'll need double the gems. And those casters wont be able to do much more to help after casting the BE. Then they might do something stupid in the 'main' fight after running out of ammo, if the battle runs long. And they'll have at least one, and most likely both, hand slot(s) full, so no Elemental Staves, etc.. So you'll probably need lots of extra mages along to compensate, for that really important fight.

But it's doable, and in a fortress-storming situation, very fair - you should have to bring along a lot extra, if the ultimate prize (say, the enemy's capital) is worth it.

As far as 'CAP' goes, while it's not available in siege situations (you'll have to resort to the above or some other technique), it is available in open-field provinces, at the cost of time, money and gems: Build a lab, and throw up some Domes, before you move on. That'll keep the Ritual attacks at bay while you advance. Slow, but doable.

Of course, that wont help against "suicide squads". But don't you have options of your own to deal with that? Someone mentioned assassination. What about your own flying? Or flanking? How about your own Ritual attacks?

So I'm not saying anything in general about the whole meta-question of how to deal with 'exploits' and what not. I just don't think GR, etc., and 'suicide squads' are a valid to the argument though - sure, they're irritating tactics, but I think they're valid, and they can be dealt with.