Countering Master Enslave...
 

I love using master Enslave on enemies then using their weak units on suisidal attacks. Its all fun and games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I've never seen the computer use it, but I am sure human players do. When they do how do you counter it?

This spell is too easy to cast. On a Big map, late game it is quite easy to havle high level astral mages that can cast the spell. How do you avoid someone casting Master Enslave then retreating? Or how do you avoid getting all your units converted? What to do other than "pray for the random" factor to kick in and not convert them?

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

When someone is casting Master Enslave, they use either a Pretender or a communion.

If they use a Pretender, your best best is to kill that unit before it casts. The AI likes targeting high HP and large units, so it's not hard for a defender to kill that guy dead before he can cast on round one if you use the good attacking spells.

If they are using a communion, killing off the communion members with area spells works.

Otherwise, sending thugs and SCs with high MR is a fine way to kill a Master Enslave Army. The spell is MR+, so some Banelords with a few MR boosting items basically means they can't be affected.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Antimagic is an obvious, if not 100% effective, response.

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

A wise man once said, "He who master enslaves last, master enslaves best."

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Master Enslave does not have the penetration to affect all of the opposing army.
In my last game, I was casting it (among others) with an Astral 12 (native) Seraph,
with an effective astral of 18 (boosters, banner, and shield) and penetration + 4.
Most of the enemy's heavy hitters would resist it, and we would have our little
battle afterwards... make sure that the enslave casts before your army-wide buffs,
so that your new converts do not die from the battlefield-wide enchantments.

Of course, against one of my opponents, who was relying on troops to breach my
castles, Master Enslave + Vortex of Returning by patrolling mages did wonders.
He never stormed a single castle.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

That's actually not true. Several nations get access to S4 mages (Marverni, Arcoscephale, R'yleh off the top of my head)

S4 + cap + coin + crystal shield + ring of sorcery = S8

Heck, even cheaper is to drop the ring and have a second mage carrying the light of the northern star - bonus he can cast vortex of returning after the master enslave if you want. Slap an eye of the void and rune smasher onto your main caster for +4 penetration. Drop those two where you expect an enemy army to move and they'll act first so no anti-magic and no retaliation at all. Yoink!

Counters: One seeking arrow (or possibly a couple) will sink a lot of your enemies gems. Most assassin spells will work well if you can outguess where he'll be dropping in. If they're dropping in on you a dome of flaming death will also ruin his day. If he's not using vortex of returning using SCs/combat summoning spells (elementals, etc) should work pretty good.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

It takes alot of gems. So when you see an army coming, hit it with every earth attack and such that you have, hoping that the enslver will spend all its gems before the next battle.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Cast a couple Ghost riders on the army. That will trigger the mages to use gems.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Evil!

How big a communion do you need to leave the caster conscious to actually pull this off?

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

So the primary, and just about only, defense against master enslave is to proactively and send spells and troops out to kill any opposing mage who can case the spell?

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

OK, lets make up a scenario. Lets say you know an astral mage level 10 that's equiped with 20 astral gems is going to attack one of your provinces that is surrounded by sea. You also know that hes got a pretty big army and that he's got all the intentions of casting master enslave on one of your biggest army. What will you do?

It usually takes what 1 or 2 turns for the astral mage to cast the master enslave spell? That gives you only 1 or 2 turns to kill him before he does... That is not enough time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif even with flying units. Maybe if the astral mage was alone and you had flying units.... even then, he could cast it before he is dead... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

I've sent a lonely astral mage to cast Master Enslave against a Huge army and converted most of them. and won the battle and gained 40+ units. OUCH.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I've found that the AI gets very twitchy when casting spells with 200+ fatigue (50/50 of not casting). That being said, it tends to mean that only high astral or communions get the job done reliably.

But, you may have had a different experience. I'd be interested in other people's experience with this aspect of high fatigue spells.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I made a thread once about my starspawn ignoring scripted Undead Mastery. I teleported 2 starspawns on a big Ermorian army aiming for casting UM and then Vortex of Returning. It went very well in test but in practice Death Starspawn just ignored the order and they both were successfully returned home with VoR. (Acting order was correct - I checked it many times) Next turn I repeated that trick and again had 8 astral games wasted as well as a turn of two good mages. After that I decided to stop trying http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

You've been given two other counters that don't involve killing the enemy mage:

1.) Master Enslave right back. He'll take your army (much of it), you'll take (much of) it back, along with his army (much of it). Hence, "He Who Master Enslaves Last, Master Enslaves Best."

2.) Use Anti-Magic/Army of Lead to protect your army. Will of the Fates might work here, I'm not really sure if luck helps against Enslave Mind but it might.

Or, you could use armies that aren't vulnerable to Master Enslave, e.g. hordes of undead chaff or magic beings like fairies or high-MR units.

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I don't see how your response negates my 'primary, and just about only, defense against..' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Master enslaving back requires having master enslave setup. The right kind of caster, gems in place, and likely a lot of gear to push it along. There is also a chance that the caster you have set up to master enslave in return gets enslaved by the first one.. And then, of course, the enemy might be set up for multiple master enslave castings.

Is there a way to have antimagic or army of lead cast before defenders get a chance to cast spells? If not then it doesn't sound all that helpful, by the time they get put up it is already too late.

An entire army that isnt effected by it is nice, but not everyone has good access to that. Plus, those other units have their own set of limitations.. such as if the commanders controlling them get enslaved...

It is definitely a tough spell. I'm guessing it is just another bit that says the farther you get in the game the less focus there is on big armies.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Well, in the classic Master Enslave contest, he who goes second has some serious issues to contend with.

First, the defender can cast AntiMagic/Army of Lead to protect both his troops and your former troops, greatly weakening the effect of your Master Enslave.

Second, since his new troops are among your remaining troops (and mages) many of your mages will be attacked or in hand-to-hand and thus less likely to cast what was ordered.
Do enslaved troops attack the round they're enslaved? I think they do.

This applies less if it takes a round or two to get communioned up to Master Enslave level. Though even a communion can do it round 1 with a Matrix and a late acting caster.

Fatigue
 

Just a question here:

If a caster can throw it on his own, what happens? My impression is that he will end up at 200 fatigue.

Also, the message before seems to say that the matrixes cast the spell on the mage's turn, not at the beginning of battle. Is that so?

Finally, what happens to the slave matrix if the bearer dies from fatigue? Will my other commanders pick them up?

Re: Fatigue
 

If a caster casts it without a communion (or a ridiculously high Astral level) he'll max out at 200 fatigue.

I believe the matrix casts at the beginning of the turn. Regardless, it is in effect when the mage casts.
I would just use a matrix for the master and have him act after the slaves, thus getting the full effect of the communion and being able to cast first turn. The slaves would cast Communion Slave normally. (Pythium communicants would also work). Then follow up with Vortex or Antimagic to prevent reprisals.

slave matrices should be treated like any other item when it's bearer dies. Commanders on the winning side have a chance to pick them up.

Re: Fatigue
 

How do you you stop a raging astral mage that is master enslaving your armies after another?
What do you do when he already enslaves 2 big armies and hes stil advancing?
What do you do when you lost your strong mages?

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

You're going to have to do SOMETHING in response to Master Enslave, and if using immune armies and casting counterspells doesn't work for you I'm not sure what you were looking for. Proactively killing off enemy mages before they can cast is ALWAYS the best defense against any spell. You've dismissed the notion of using armies that aren't vulnerable to Master Enslave, and aren't happy with the idea of counterspells, so what does that leave?

<font color="red">Edit:Mage commanders will usually not be Master Enslaved, by the way. Most mages have MR 15-17, so they'll be resisting at 19-21 which is something like a 3-5% failure rate.</font>

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

True that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

The situation I see counter-Enslaves being useful in is when other counters won't work, e.g. you're Ulm and your troops have low MR even after Antimagic. I don't expect hand-to-hand interference to be a big problem unless you were caught by surprise, in which case you're not using Master Enslave as a counter-tactic anyway. (You may be using it anyway but your forces will be set up differently.) I agree that you're going to have a hard time dealing with counter-countermeasures like Master Enslave + Army of Lead.

But I don't have a good understanding of the endgame anyway.

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I agree... but then, doesnt everyone?

Counterspells? The only spells mentioned either rely on a preemptive strike or are can be too late to do much..

Which is why I dont like that answer, actually http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I didnt dismiss the notion of armies that are invulnerable to the spell.. I just pointed out that such armies arent always easy to come by and typically have their own doom spell (such as undead mastery).

The counterspells, assuming we are talking about preemptive strike spells and antimagic/army of lead, are either a ubiquitous answer to the problem (kills the mages before they even get into combat) or potentially too late to matter. Were there other counterspells mentioned?

3-5% assuming no extra levels in the appropriate path and no penetration items (although the opposing mage might have enough astral path to get a bonus as well). A ring of wizardry and sorcery along with a rune smasher and maybe even a crystal shield arent all that hard, a few communion buddies can top it off nicely.. I actually had a game recently where I cast master enslave with a total penetration of +10. Get lucky and enslave the enemy enslaver, grab a few of their communion buddies so that if they do manage to pull off one it has a lesser chance of success (especially after your newly larger army just got antimagic/army of lead), and possibly even have their own former troops kill them (or force the AI to decide casting some other spell is better at the moment, like astral shield http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ).

It gets more complicated when magic items on the defenders are taken into account though. They might have defensive items to help (such as antimagic amulet) but that typically means that they are missing offensive items to power their own spells.

It is an incredibly potent option. It isnt that I am discounting all options for countering it, I am merely saying that it is so potent that if you are unable to do the proactive measures then an opponent making the most of this option could force you to change your entire playing strategy... just from the 'threat' of it being cast. That is power!

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

What do you mean by "too late to matter"? Are you talking about defender advantage, i.e. Master Enslave on round 1 before the attacker can cast any counterspells? That issue is not unique to Master Enslave. Fog Warriors + Rain of Stones x4 works the same way. Otherwise, Antimagic is a counterspell. It boosts the total resistance roll to +8. Against +10 penetration that's still not going to save your normal troops, but high-MR troops (13-ish) aren't all that uncommon in Dominions. "Counterspell" in this sense means "mitigator," not "nullifier."

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

My opinion remain that the defender advantage is far too big in late game, and the late game would be far more interesting with another initiative system, with a casting duration of several rounds for endgame spells, or simply without any instant offensive spell affecting the whole battlefield.

Now as Max said master enslave is nothing special, it's just one of the spells of this problematic category. Rain of stones and bone grinding (combined with fog warriors or high hp mages) are worse for me, as some nations can easily cast them 3 or 4 times in round one (if you can cast it 4 times bone grinding is the nastier spell against human nations, as it kills even the mages who had an armor to survive rains of stones). Undead mastery and arcane domination are more niche, but being lower level can be cast with better penetration bonus (and considering late game troops often include some feebleminded tartarians, undead mastery may give excellent returns for its price).

ps : red text hurts my eyes

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Originally, I was opposed to your view, Twan. But I think I am begining to agree. I'm in a very late game now and I expect to be Enslaved / Stoned so I will know soon if it is trully possible to resist them in a meaningful way. However the posts in this thread have me worried...

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

*shrug* Very late game has nuclear weapons and as the analogy suggests warfare is very different than before. If your opponent has access to significantly more nuclear weapons than you do...well you're gonna have a very hard time winning using traditional armies. Properly leveraged Tartarian Gate trumps master enslave/rain of stones/etc. Chain wishing, arcane nexus, army of lead....the very late game has a couple flavors of nuclear weapons which can trump each other depending on the situation. If you don't intend to stockpile nukes and shift how you play, you darn well better plan on winning before others do.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Rocky, the GOR Gargoyle whistles innocently.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Suggested Solution: Randomize the casting order in the magic phase.

The root of the problem is that the casting order is completely predictable.

Randomize the casting order like monthly rituals (why should the defender have any "first-move" advantage for magic...its MAGIC for godsakes) and the problem (along with several other gamey phenomena) is solved.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I agree with Twan, having been the beneficiary of the first cast in an enslave situation and seeing it totally reverse what should have been an even battle.

The current situation tends to lead to standoffs where hordes are unwilling to press the attack. There are certainly ways to deal with that but I think the game would be more interesting with Cleveland’s proposed randomizer so you should always be willing to attack knowing that you have just as good of odds as being the beneficiary of initiative as the victim of it.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

On the one hand, I like the concept that the defender has a tactical advantage (even though the attacker has a strategic advantage). On the other hand, it does seem that the defender advantage in late game is too strong; arguably free chaff from PD is sufficient tactical advantage to be thematic. On balance I support the notion of randomizing which side goes first. It would be a HUGE change in the game--do you think we have any chance at all of getting this in a patch? It would probably have to be an option like "Events: Common/Rare" or "Site Frequency: 40/45/50". "Initiative: Classic/Randomized."

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

There are ways to counter master enslave. But since i am about to do it in a mp game, I am not offering up free advice. Suffice to say there are counters.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

It would be a dramatic change, breaking all sorts of strategies. I'd love to see it though.

Actual what I'd really like would be simultaneous, random ordered turns. Units (or at least squads?) from both sides act in a random order.
Far more like the chaos of a real battle. No polite standing around, taking turns being killed.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I wonder if Xietor is talking about pre-emptive attacks, like teleporting in a mage squad set to Retreat? (Apparently the attacking army is considered "big enough to use gems" if at least one mage is attacking.) And of course you can always fall back on artillery spells and/or SCs with high MR. I still find the idea of randomizing turn order compelling.

On truly simultaneous, randomly-ordered turns: I would like that a lot too, on thematic grounds. It would probably need to be done on a per-squad basis because of the way the battlefield AI works.

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I would tend to have to disagree with this, on principle.

The art of warfare, is to work with known quantities - be they positive or negative for your cause - and engineer a situation that is likely to result in victory for your cause.

If 2 armies are unwilling to engage - a scenario that has historical precedence - then other tactics such as stealthy/flying raiding, and assassination, need to be implemented to either force an unfavorable maneuver by your enemy, or erode their position of strength so that your assault has the weight of success already in your favor.


Introducing any wholly random element takes this away, it says that no matter how well you plan and organize your decisive strike, you may be throwing everything away - not because you failed to accurately predict your opponent's behavior, but because you could not rely on a known quantity.

The great leaders of history, often were credited as achieving astounding victories through the taking of "great risks". I would argue wholeheartedly against this assertion. It is a simple fact that a mind that weighs everything in abstract possibilities will see a situation from that perspective, where the reality is that the highly ordered and focused mind of that great leader, took every possible factor into consideration, and as if the battle were a giant chessboard, predicted the reactions of his opponent to each of his moves, thereby engineering a dramatic victory over a numerically stronger opponent.


Thus, rather than requesting that your opponent be divested of a known quantity, it would better suit a commander to better plan for the implementation of that tactic. Know thine enemy. As many battles are lost because someone pursued a tactic that wasn't able to compete with their opponent's tactic, as were won because someone learnt what tactic their opponent was developing, and specifically arranged to render that tactic less effective, ineffective, or detrimental.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Jim,
Have you been in the situation where you don’t want to attack the other guy because you know he can enslave you?
It sounds very strategic and Sun Tzu-like in theory to have to rely on other tactics like raiding, remote damage spells, or assassination but my experience is that, by the late game, a powerful nation has so much gem income and resources that resolution of the standoff will not be found easily with these types of maneuvers. Instead you get a boring cold war with neither nation willing to cede the huge tactical advantage of going first. (check out Twan’s thread a while back for an example of the magnitude of defeat simply from going 2nd – I saw the same thing happen in Alexandria). So you get increasingly long turns as the micromanagement of the endgame bogs down. My preference would be to fight and get the game over with and anything that helps encourage that would be welcome.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

That's kind of an odd attitude to hear coming from somebody who plays a probabilistic wargame, as opposed to (for example) Diplomacy or Go. There are many, many wholly random factors in the game, e.g. whether Ritual A will be cast before Ritual B, whether army X will attack province P before army Y (and thus which will be the defender if/when they do fight), which and how many nations you'll go up against in the Arena Death Match. By your own argument, these random factors are known quantities and the essence of strategy is to anticipate both your opponent and the unknowable random complications and devise a (probable) counter to each.

You can certainly make the case that the current initiative system is fine as is. I wouldn't dispute that. You could make the defender advantage even stronger than it is and it will still be a playable game, in the same sense that Diplomacy is a playable game (one which offers options to both sides, none of which options dominates all the others). I would like a more random initiative system because in the endgame the defender is so strong--in a way uncorrelated with reality--as to seem unthematic. I love the game as it is, but I happen to think thejeff's suggestion would be really awesome and thematic if it were implemented, and it would probably make the MP players happier in the endgame at the same time. It's not likely to happen unless JK also thinks it would be awesome, so I'll just hope he reads this thread and agrees. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

It is not unique to master enslave, that is true, but the defender advantage is pretty big.. and is magnified the later in the game that it gets.

This is just repeating what others have said in this thread though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I just wanted to reiterate it again as it is such an important point.

On a side note though, I am currently thinking that mitigation and countering are different. Countering would be stopping something while it is occuring or putting something in place that stops the effect entirely.. They do share some things in common but comes down to degree.. giving all of your troops poison resist 100% effectively counters foul vapors while giving them all 50% (or giving half of them 100%) mitigates the damage. I hope that I am explaining that well enough to get my point across! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I think we've come to agreement on Master Enslave and the defender advantage. You are using the notion of "countermeasure" in a nonstandard way (e.g. ECM in the real world emphatically does NOT preclude the possibility of ECCM, nor is it guaranteed to be 100% effective), but it would probably be off-topic for me to pursue the point.

Hmmm, actually maybe that was my fault for saying "counter" for short, since "counter" actually doesn't have a recognized meaning except "a wooden object that you put things on." Countermeasure = "an opposing, offsetting, or retaliatory measure."

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

1. How often do multiple rituals get cast in the same turn, that actually affect eachother?

2. You are introducing a third party into this equation, and also working from an inknowable quantity, "will my opponent move to that province this turn?".

3. No one cares about the Death Match. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif



In all seriousness though, if turn resolution could be worked out with ordinary movement taking place according to predetermined attacker/defender initiative as it is, but casters were interspersed, such that 1 defender casts a spell, 1 attacker casts a spell, 1 defender, and so on, then at least you could say that the change is being made in name of balance. Else, if it will be randomly decided which side gets the "defender" initiative advantage to casting, then at the very least this should have Luck scales used as a modifier. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

And finally if a game actually ends up in a deadlock, I fail to see how you can blame that on game mechanics that ARE known throughout the play of the game, and will have obvious effects that you can expect. If you face a nuclear power and you continue to spend decades building nuclear weapons in the vain hope that you'll end up with enough that your opponent either capitulates, or you finally feel confident committing to deployment, then you will probably be waiting for a very long time. Does it take extra game time to broaden research, collect gems, and deploy other alternatives? Of course it does, but the argument that the income is so huge and the turns just take longer and longer only says to me that you need to adjust your map settings to compensate for playstyle - that's why they're there. If you play on too large a map with too fast research (even 200+ with normal research and people will simply hit "end game" fairly early), then you can complain that there is no way to get a clear advantage, but the reality is that if you had arranged the game so that it would take more time and effort for both sides to have equal access to all things, then you would have arrived at a situation where hard choices would have to be made in order to gain anything as powerful as Master Enslave.

I am becoming more and more convinced that MP games would remain more competitive with harder research, and threads such as this, with arguments such as these, only make me more sure that forcing hard choices on spell selection will lead to more complicated player interactions, and games that are less dependent on the Astral-Death-Blood paradigm of "what is powerful enough to win the game".

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Did I just happen to pick the only three random factors in the game? Surely you can think of some more--I can. Dominions is intentionally probabilistic. I just think it's odd to see a player of a probabilistic wargame arguing that there's a irreconciliable tension between random elements and strategy and that wholly random elements ruin the game. I can understand why people play e.g. Low-luck Axis and Allies, but I can't imagine such people playing a game which is INTENTIONALLY set up so that a lowly slinger can kill a Tartarian with the right DRN roll.

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

While I'm not supporting any change to the combat system yet (I still need to get wrecked by these spells first) - I would favor randomly picking which side goes first rather than randomizing at the squad level. Doing at the squad level would just be too chaotic. You'd lose even the minor semblance of control over your formations that you currently have now.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

I think if it was 50/50 whether the attacker or defender went first, that would just reduce the defender's advantage to blind luck. Either he enslaves me and then fog warriors and rain of stones and I lose, or I do it and he loses. That's kind of silly.

Do you guys play SRPGs? The Final Fantasy Tactics series in particular allows your units to move based on a speed/initiative score. This would be possible using existing dominions stats (AP).

Basically at the beginning of each combat round, each commander and formation rolls 1d6oe + AP to determine the order in which everyone acts. So there it's random, but it's also predictable.

The unit with the lowest AP in a formation sets the formation's speed. Commanders have their own AP value. Unit composition would also become important. High morale infantry mixed with elephant would take their turn based on the infantry unit's AP value, etc.

Obviously this would completely unbalance the current game, but it sounds like that's what some of you are looking for.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Hah Max, I wasn't intending to claim that there are no random factors in the game (Luck scale, anyone? Would you like barbarians with that?), but simply that these random factors become inherently inconsequential in the face of a "final cataclysmic battle". Yes, obviously DRN is capable of doing anything it wants to, I still remember one of the first threads I read on this forum (long before I registered) about someone losing their Cyclops or other SC pretender, to a single flagellant scoring two critical hits. But that is a REMOTE possibility, nowhere near the order of a 50% chance of things happening one way or another. Even taking into account all of the many DRN rolls in an enormous battle, statistical probabilities will bring them closer to a predetermined outcome the larger the battle becomes - the difference being the spin that the players place on the factors that CAN be directly controlled. All other meaningful random factors in the game are, through recruitment, equipment, or scripting choices, mutable by the player. Adding in a straight 50% variable that can in no way be influenced, only serves to break stalemates that I have already postulated to be caused by human error in game setup - at the expense of reducing the level of strategy demanded in the other 99% of confrontations that will happen during the game.


And Iron, as I said, I think the mundane troops (all non-casting movement) should be done with defender first as it is now, and alternating as a whole, as is currently done. I was just suggesting that rather than randomizing the entire initiative (and crippling strategic choice, as well as removing defender advantage), that perhaps the spellcasting could be interleaved, which would serve to actually add a strategic element based on what is known about caster ID and such, where the player who is relying on the larger communion will take longer to get the spell off, etc.

But at the same time, to make that work the best, you would need to be able to set your casting order, so you don't get some fruitcake popping up with an Air Shield or a Flying Shards, costing you the loss of the game-deciding battle.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Okay, Jim. I agree with your and Sector 24's point that 50/50 attacker/defender goes first would not be satisfactory. (I guess you were concentrating on the 50/50 scenario and not on the broader picture.) I still like the idea of squad-level initiative for thematic reasons, but Ironhawk dislikes that for valid reasons and some other people might too. Since I haven't ever actually been bitten by this problem in my SP games, I won't be worrying too much about this in the near future.

I hate the idea of alternating, though. It's neither thematic nor a solution to the current problem--you'll simply scramble to find low-numbered casters and lots of high-numbered chaff casters to pad them with. Look to BattleTech for an example of how those kinds of systems play out; I think it's artificial.

-Max

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Keep the non-magic combat the same.

My suggestion was to, at the beginning of each turn, have ALL mages from BOTH sides cast their spells in a random order.

It's simple.

It makes sense.

It's aesthetically pleasing.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Well I simply brought up alternating, because it's the closest you can get to simultaneous, without running the battles in some sort of real time engine. In lieu of real time running, there are serious snags with any potential setup - including what the game currently has - but at least what we have now doesn't require a significant change of game mechanics, AND can be mitigated somewhat by slowing research so as not to get all magic schools at 9 by turn 50-60, which is the only reason that this issue should ever come up. With slower research, forcing choices in spells means that even in the "late game" you are struggling more often with checks and balances, rather than playing a game of "lets all do everything all at once until we get sick of it or someone just wins, possibly because the other guy staled from being sick of it". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Ultimately though, I think that perhaps the most elegant solution to this actual problem, is to analyze the spell itself. Perhaps the best way to avoid this problem, is to change Master Enslave from affecting the entire battlefield, to simply having a huge AOE, such as the massive endgame evocations. In this way, one person having the spell is still a huge boon for his war effort, but both sides having it leaves much more room for an actual magical tug of war for supremacy, and it makes multiple casts of the spell into something that is much more vital to its effective use.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

Okay, well that actually makes sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Anything that gets you closer to simulating simultaneous casting is definitely good in my book. And total side by side randomization of casting would surely be better than interleaving. Though I would think you'd still want -some- of the defender advantage left in place. If it's just the mundane troops that get to move first, that's the part that is easiest for the attacker to manipulate directly through placement and spell choice. I still think that defending casters should get some sort of distinct advantage, though something less than "cast a spell that wins the fight in the first round" would be preferable. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

For me the ideal system (for dom 4) would be an individual initiative based on ap, or better on a new initiative stat for commander/mages, a little drn for some randomness, a *little* bonus for the defenders (and attackers with adequate survival skill) based on province terrain (so they finally start to matter), and a malus for mages based on the level/requirements of the spell they intend to cast.

Of course some mechanics like communion can't work the same with this kind of system (retro communion isn't an intended mechanic anyway and contribute to astral overpowerness, and suppressing all the micro gestion related to mages id would be a good thing).

For dom3 I think the best way to make late game more interesting would be a simple mod replacing battlefield instants by large ae spells. It would be extremely logical for enslave spells, considering the insane progression they have between level 6 and 9 (level 6 : one spell enslave one guy, level 9 : one spell enslave a whole army, and nothing in between...). Even an aoe 10 master enslave would have been considered an extremely powerful spell, if it was made so instead of aoe = battlefield. And spells like rain of stones have no reason to have a bigger ae and range than the fire/water/air endgame instant spells (or it would be more logical to make RoS a BE working like wrathfull skies, a rain of stones has no reason to be instant when a rain of lightnings isn't).

Personnally I'm so tired of endgame round one victories or boring stalemates that as soon this kind of mod start to be used in MP, I stop playing vanilla games.

Re: Countering Master Enslave...
 

The problem as I see it is a combination of the defender advantage and the power of the battlefield wide offensive spells.
I will offer up a new solution: introduce a simultaneous resolution phase solely for the battlefield wide offensive spells.

How it would work:

Defender's turn: Defender moves and casts spells as normal. However, battlefield-wide spells do not take immediate effect.

Attacker's turn: Attacker moves and casts spells. Again, his battlefield wide spells do not take effect just yet.

Battlefield spell resolution phase: Takes place after both sides have moved. All defensive spells resolve first followed by the offensive spells.

eg. In the case of both sides casting master enslave - each unit makes the first MR check against the enemy spell. If the unit fails, it then makes another MR check against the "friendly" master enslave, to see if control of the unit is regained.

Essentially this would make the battlefield spells work a bit like one shot battlefield enchantments, in the sense that they do not necessarily take immediate effect.