Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

Yeah, nice try throwing in the "it is a SP" strategy card. :D But as the AI tends to buy even more commanders than normal players it will not work ;).

http://dom3.servegame.com/wiki?title...ht&oldid=24480

On a unrelated note. Anybody seen Gandalf?

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

"if it was a strategy for SP" means something quite a bit different than "It is a SP strategy". The strategy will work fine for SP simply because the AI is so bad. I've done it before with a Vamp Queen and the Black Heart just for ****s and giggles and it worked fine.

What really concerns me about you deleting the guide is that I think you did it out of friendship to certain people who don't like Gandalf rather than trying to guide new players along a path of righteousness. The reason I said I found it interesting is because I never considered the wiki would be used to fight your childish mickey mouse war.

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

I think your are seeing things that are not there. As you could clearly see it wasn't a guide. It was just advice, and bad advice even.

I doubt the original statement was even from GP. But if you want to think it was that way, and think I'm fighting some sort of war against GP. Go ahead. :) But that wasn't the reasoning behind removing the bad advice on the wiki.

And any strategy works in SP (example: http://dom3.servegame.com/wiki/Sons_...strategy_guide). Especially on normal. I think you could even win a never sitesearch game.

Now excuse me, I have a Disney war to fight!

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

How many of these guides that you consider bad have you deleted? BTW, I agree that Felgar's guide is bad.

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

Like I said. I have never deleted a guide. But I have removed bad advice and outdated information from guides on the wiki. Why?

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

I was just curious. I guess I shouldn't be so wiki ignorant but I didn't know people were modifying guides and such. I can see if someone put 1+1 = 5 on there, but I would think guides would be left alone, with maybe a little note at the bottom saying "This patch changed this" or something to that effect. Not additions and deletion to the body of the guide.

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

Well I disagree. Esp when the guide just posts bull****.

"Mindless units are useless patrolling" for example.

"Vampire lords get a bonus getting blood slaves".

I also updated a LA atlantis guide to point out the new underwater recruits.

So either falshoods or outdated information get edited. I see no added value in leaving guides untouched. And people can always use the view history command.

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

Poking around, the wiki entry for Lord of Night had that material added by "Lch" a while back, but endorsements of using that pretender as an assassin date back to the Dom2 board here. There are a number of references to how great the LoN is as an assassin in Dom3 threads going back to 2007.

It, um, does look like GP liked the LoN for use as an assassin. I guess he's not wrong: the Lord of Night is probably the toughest assassin out there in the game. That's kind of like being the tallest blade of grass, though...

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

Lch just copied the other wiki. The strategy wiki.

Re: Killing Indi Commanders
 

But that was not the comparison I made. The point was that one mage not researching produces exactly as much RP as an assassin not researching. A mage not researching makes you lose the research race exactly the same way an assassin not researching it does.

However bad units you think all assassins are, there is no escaping the fact that a mage sent to the front produce exactly the same amount of RP as an assassin sent behind enemy lines - none.

Again, you need to have the spells researched. Later is frequently a lot worse than now.

And though I certainly do not deny that assassin spells are generally a lot better than assassins, there is the gem cost. Would you recruit gems for a small amount of gold instead of a commander?


The above does not make much sense. If the tradeoff is usually too high, it is implied that it is sometimes not to high. This in turn implies that assassins are occasionally useful. And yet you claim that assassins are not useful.

How do you want it?


Is this really supposed to cover all possibilities?
Especially in light of my earlier mention of optimized expansion parties, it seems a bit on the thin side. Shutting down a few armies for a couple of turns is often enough to win a war.

Look, if I am to take your comments seriously, I would have to say that investing in at least one assassin per game is always a sound move. One assassin attack will make a player guard all his commanders with a couple of units. Reasonably early in the game this represents a far larger drain than a measly assassin.

I do not see it like that, but it is what your hyperboles lead to.
They do not strengthen your argument.


A blood 5 summon requiring a blood 4 mage and 66 blood slaves is not the same as an assassin recruitable from day one requiring only a small amount of gold.

I am not that big a user of assassins, but I just cannot agree to that they are never useful.