Is the REAL problem with VQs...Norfleet?

[Norfleet]

Well, I've run into several would-be imitators of the strategy, but ultimately, even without my own VQ, defeating it is rather like taking candy from a baby. In truth, the VQ isn't as powerful as its made out to be: Like any SC, it's very adept at destroying conventional armies, which a wide range of SCs of varying costs and availability do very well for comparable risk, and falls flat against certain other things.

The key to successfully using the strategy, like any other strategy, involves keeping your opponent off balance, never being sure entirely what to expect and where to expect it, and forcing him to respond to you on your terms.

Originally posted by archaeolept:
for instance, reading the supposed "counters" in the counter thread mostly make me laugh as, for the most part, they would be pretty useless, or require vast amounts of resources compared to the reward, when used against someone who has mastered this strat - for instance, Norfleet.

Actually, I find many of those counters to be highly effective, given their cost. Obviously, how you assess cost vs. reward can vary widely. If you think about it, a VQ is, at least explicitly, "free". You don't have to pay gems for one. You have it from the start of the game. It's a freebie. So viewed from that perspective, ANY counter other than simply duelling it down with your own pretender costs SOMETHING, as opposed to the enemy pretender's nothing.

The question is: Do these proposed solutions represent a significant departure from tactics that you would otherwise be using ANYWAY?

In this respect, I'd have to say the answer is "no". Most of the proposed solutions are modular enough to be adaptable to any other related SC. Many of these solutions hold merit on their own as valid strategies with or without an SC. Sure, some of them are very contrived, but others are perfectly reasonable to employ as general strategies, particularly against SCs, many of whom utilize lifesteal, just as the VQ does.

Originally posted by rabelais:
Norfleet to my knowledge just pioneered the SC naked VQ castling and templing strat, he isn't *morally* responsible for it in some sinister way.

I'm sorry, but I can't claim credit for the naked VQ castling and templing strat. In truth, I employ the castling strategy independently of the VQ, and I don't really field the naked VQ as a strategy. Generally, I eschew the crutch of the immortality and field fully-equipped, armed-to-the-teeth VQs ASAP. That has only gone more slowly where YOU'VE encountered it because of Very Retarded Research combined with the fact that Ermor is really not a strong research nation. As such, the level of carnage I've managed to cause is somewhat limited.

Besides, you can barely even hit me!

So I'm not really "pioneering" the VQ/castle/temple strategy. I castle and temple out of an entirely seperate agenda. Arch will testify to the fact that I've fielded GKs based on similar builds with equally devastating effects. Frankly, this strategy works very well for ME because it fits perfectly with my personal idiom. I have yet to see anyone perform a truly successful imitation.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by archaeolept:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rabelais:
I think he deserves a cookie for finding a way to break the game,... (keeps the balance faithful humble ) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't repair the defect (and its derivable cousins), now that we know it exists.

Why do you do that? Is it reverse psychology? Do you maybe really NOT want it fixed?

---

what?

rabe's post seemed pretty straight-forward

---

It is straight forward, I will grant it that. But seeing it posted in every thread using words like broken and defect and fix doesnt strike me as a way of getting the devs to agree. If it were me I would think it would have an oppossite effect. But I guess life, like this game, supports many strategys. I was just trying to figure this one out.

[archaeolept]

yah, the mad castling/templing is really the core of Norfleet's strategic activities. Any uber-SC will work w/ it; its just that the VQ has more innate (and, in the case of immortality, unavailable to lesser pretenders) abilities.

I've only seen him use the GK once, actually. It was devastating but, OTOH, it was using R'lyeh before the paralysis bug was fixed, which rather compensated for the lack of a VQ.

I think my Last battle w/ his GK that game, turn 44 or so, his GK had a 40 defense before buffs

re. the counters thread: its more that most of what is discussed there presupposes catching the uber-VQ in open terrain in the mid to late game, which is not something I sea often. The VQ is hidden in the sea of castles for the most part, and if it does move out i'm not sure if an attack on her would occur before an "instant castle" spell like 7 red seconds takes place.

[Kel]

I don't really have a huge problem with the VQ herself but to answer the question of the post...the answer is 'no'.

I say that because Norfleet hasn't been in a single one of the larger games I have played (and VQs are/were).

Also because VQ's are all over the place, irregardless of the nation and secondary strategy used. I don't think I have actually seen many people use a castling strategy. She is just used, generally, as a generic flying immortal SC

Lastly, a lot of people build her completely differently than he does (he, himself, comments on how he wouldn't build one the way someone else did).

- Kel

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by archaeolept:
re. the counters thread: its more that most of what is discussed there presupposes catching the uber-VQ in open terrain in the mid to late game, which is not something I sea often. The VQ is hidden in the sea of castles for the most part, and if it does move out i'm not sure if an attack on her would occur before an "instant castle" spell like 7 red seconds takes place.

There are other game strategys which involve trying to time the next attack your enemy will make and attack that same province at the same time. Its not an uncommon skill to try and develop. That would handle 7 red seconds

And if a tactic keeps her from leaving her castle then it would be a good thing. Most of her benefits are handled then. Late game has alot of spells that could help if you can keep her from winning the game too quick.

[ May 06, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[rabelais]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by archaeolept:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rabelais:
I think he deserves a cookie for finding a way to break the game,... (keeps the balance faithful humble ) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't repair the defect (and its derivable cousins), now that we know it exists.

Why do you do that? Is it reverse psychology? Do you maybe really NOT want it fixed?

---

what?

rabe's post seemed pretty straight-forward

---

It is straight forward, I will grant it that. But seeing it posted in every thread using words like broken and defect and fix doesnt strike me as a way of getting the devs to agree. If it were me I would think it would have an oppossite effect. But I guess life, like this game, supports many strategys. I was just trying to figure this one out.

---

Gandalf, I'm working under the presumptive principle that the devs are thoughtful, mature adults, who, understanding complex sytems as they must to have created this marvelous game, realize that not every contingency can be anticipated, which is why such systems are interesting.

IMHO the strat in its most extreme form reduces the functional and strategic diversity of the game. A game we all treasure and with which we are positively obsessed !

I suspect from KO's reaction to hearing the strat described, that this degree of monotonic leverage was not forseen by the authors and is clearly counterparadigmatic.

I may be wrong. The devs may not agree, and I suppose there is a possibility that seeing me refer to the strat as "broken" (which is a technical CCG term, but perhaps should be explained more thoroughly with each use) will cause them to toss reason to the wind and obsteperously pile on immortal SC buffs until doomsday. (Which would indeed be arriving early )

It seems unlikely to me, but if that's true then I misunderstand the devs, the game and the community.

I haven't insulted anyone, I LOVE this game.

To suggest that I am endangering balance by attempting to defend it is bizarre.

It seems vastly more disrepectful of the devs to suggest they are reactively perverse and fragile in response to constructive feedback than any contexual criticism I could make.

These are brilliant men, not cranks or emotionally stunted children.

How does taking their work seriously enough to be impassioned against its abuse count as counterproductive behavior?


Rabe the Mildly Offended

(and off to catch a plane...)

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Kel:
I don't really have a huge problem with the VQ herself but to answer the question of the post...the answer is 'no'.

I say that because Norfleet hasn't been in a single one of the larger games I have played (and VQs are/were).

Also because VQ's are all over the place...

Lastly, a lot of people build her completely differently than he does (he, himself, comments on how he wouldn't build one the way someone else did).

- Kel

Are these folks winning with their VQs? Or is there only one way of playing VQs that is really "broken?"