What is abusive ?
 

Just to know what is the general opinion about these exploitive (or at least gamey) tactics...

Personnally as rules against any of these things aren't really enforceable I consider all the following valid behaviors, and will occasionally use some in MP as most players do. But I guess some players consider some of these things as pure treachery...

- using archer decoys (groups of one or two expandable units in front of the army) to pull the arrows of the first squads in "fire:closest" --> I think there are three good limitations to this, 1/ you need to sacrify troops and if the ennemy don't use archers or use them with intelligence, the sacrifice is for nothing, 2/ the ennemy may avoid decoys, using fire:none (not 100% efficient but usually targets a big squad), or fire:archers, fire:cavalry, etc..., 3/ for big battles you'll need lots of commanders squad slots as one decoy isn't sufficient (especially if the ennemy use several little archers groups) - so against experimented players (who usually use themselves decoys and many little archers groups) I think it can't give an unfair advantage (but countering this tactic force players to do more micro-gestion in MP, so decoys are harmful for the general game experience)

- using diversion magic attacks to waste ennemy gems (ie : some call of the winds/wild on a province you are going to attack) ; it may work or not as the tactical AI is programmed not to use gems if the fight is too easy (but the AI seems to weight more the number of units than the quality) ; also if the ennemy hasn't scripted gems spells it's you wasting your gems ; so another exploitive but not really game breaking tactic in most cases ; but it may be ultra powerful if it allow you to win against an ennemy main army using powerful battle enchants, so it's maybe the worst AI weaknesses exploitation tactic when it works

- using 2 items of the same kind on an unit with 3 misc slots... as 2 similar items don't work in adjacent slots it was originally an exploit of some missing lines in the code, but my impression is : 3 slots pretenders and heroes were made with a possible use of this exploit in mind (or it would have been fixed since dom2, instead of adding more 3 slots pretenders in dom3)

There are probably far more borderline things, I just remind these 3 for having seen them used (or used them myself I'm not an angel) in MP games.

Re: What is abusive ?
 

Here is a few worse examples:

4) Charming Bogus and company and stealing their funky attack commanders scripts.

5) Using combinations of "mists of deception" + some battle enchantment damageing spell (like wratful skies) and then retreating the caster mage. Basically there is no way to kill the mist, so the enemy army has to endure 50 rounds of mass lightning bolts....pure evil in my opinion.

Re: What is abusive ?
 

I remember having charmed Bogus sometimes but didn't think about copying his orders, I think having one commander with special orders may be a just reward for charming Bogus (not that easy considering there is also an archer with "fire:mage" iirc), but it for sure starts to be a big exploit if you copy the special orders.

Didn't know the last one, it looks really terrible (and I would consider it a clear/bannable exploit as nothing in Mist of Deception description says it makes other spells work without a mage). It's stange that they have allowed MoD to work without the caster staying there.

edit : just realised that Wrathfull Skies works with a retreating mage, unlike fire stom... Hum.. it may probably allow some other exploits (or very borderline uses) as well, perhaps they should change all battle dammage spells so they work only with the caster alive and there* (if it's already coded for fire storm it shouldn't be hard to do).

re-edit : * iirc fire storm caster is considered dead if he retreats, but I may be wrong, manual says "lasts untill the battle ends or the mage die"

Re: What is abusive ?
 

1) Jeez, what the heck am I going to do with my diseased units if I can't use them as archer decoys? I thought that's why diseased units take a year to die, so you have time to march the dying and wounded to the front lines.

2) The AI is pretty good at not wasting gems too much. I did like it one time when I assassinated a Prince Of Death with a Disease Demon, and the Prince of Death obeyed his script to cast Darkness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And sometimes even scouts have a reason to attack/retreat: if you're at war with a glamour nation, that's the only way to see what's hiding in the provinces.

5) This one's on the bug shortlist now. I think if it's shortlisted as a bug then it's abusive to use the tactic (eg. sneaking non-stealth units out of castles, etc.)

Re: What is abusive ?
 

ganging up against the weaker instead of the stronger?
(perfectly legal but lame)

Re: What is abusive ?
 

I think there is a little difference between sending diseased to the frontline (and one normal sized front squad) and using optimized archers decoys (1 or 2 units per decoy squad, many decoy squads in a checkers disposition, one empty space between them, two between them and the first big squads etc...).

Anyway, it's not really an exploit, just an annoyance forcing other players to use as much microgestion to counter it.

Re: What is abusive ?
 

I've always hated 'cheap' stuff that causes lots of micromanagement issues for your opponent. Raiding them is fine, but stuff like 1-3 guys in a unit as archer decoys is pretty easy for a human to counter, as long as they micro. So if you use it all you're doing is forcing them to micro. Assassins can also fall into this category - they are essentially effective in that they annoy your opponent and waste his turn taking time. I wouldn't relish playing people who use annoyance tactics all the time and I probably wouldn't have much fun when I had to.

Re: What is abusive ?
 

The archer decoys give you the turn you need to get your buffs up, so its important, it might sound gamey but that your forces charge into enemy archers before they got their arrow fend sound equally strange to me.

Re: What is abusive ?
 

soon this thread has earned a place in the strategy index http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: What is abusive ?
 

Yes, I dislike the decoys, but either won't do the suicidal move of not using some against say a Man's archers heavy army. They may be a need to keep nations balanced sometimes (or to make low prot troops not totally worthless).