Trading commanders, exploit or not?

[Dimaz]

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.

[Baalz]

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.

[TwoBits]

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.

[Gandalf Parker]

What I SEE happening in game-start threads is that this comes up over and over.
But within each thread it often comes down to "Well some seem to think its a problem but I dont think its a problem and its my game so we wont ban it". I think if we had multiple lists from light to extreme that people would continue to think along those lines, just faster and clearer. Maybe.

[Squirrelloid]

Sombre, re: assassins:
(1) The lack of access to assassins is easily remedied. Introduce a spell which summons an assassin. Now everyone has access to them.
(2) If you don't have sufficient assassins and you have access to them, and your opponent pulls this tactic, that's sort of your own fault now isn't it? Especially if you let them get away with it turn after turn. The point of counters is you have them if you plan on having them, not that knowing about them instantly negates some particular tactic.

Alternate counters to blocking chaff armies set to retreat:
(1) cast CotW, GR, or similar on their province. Assuming PD, your summoned army will actually get to fight, and you can kill as many as you can. If you win, your army advances as planned.
(2) use stealthy armies or fliers to attack their originating province (and other potential retreat provinces) and cut off their retreat, limiting your inconvenience to one turn.

[Sombre]

I don't believe I said the tactic wasn't counterable. All the counters you list are considerably more expensive than the tactic itself and involve equal if not more micro. So if you are forced into making these counters, the tactic has already been wildly successful.

But this is besides the point. Everyone can do it, so it simply isn't a balance concern. It's more that it's something that feels buggy and counter intuitive which causes large amounts of micro, but using it will definitely net an advantage if your opponent doesn't. Hence if people are trying their very best to win, they'll both end up using it. That's cool if you don't feel it detracts from the game and if everyone in the game is happy to accept that every turn you have to fiddle with your swarms of commanders and chaff troops and micro based counters all along your hostile borders. In fact it's an advantage to use it pretty much everywhere, even peaceful borders.

But to me when a single indy commander with 3 militia troops stops a large attack force in their tracks by appearing briefly then running away, that messes up my immersion and feels flat out buggy. I also feel, like I said, that it wasn't intended to work that way. It's not a tactic I'm willing to use and hopefully I won't have it used against me in games, because I generally don't play with people who would do so. If I do, guess I'm SoL and have to accept a disadvantage and the imposition of a crappy game mechanic. I certainly wouldn't cry cheat.

Re: the idea of modding in a global assassin spell, I think that's a crazy solution with big micro implications. A way simpler one would be to tell people not to do it. Sure a rules lawyer could try and weasel past the rule or try to use it against its spirit, but let's face it, when someone's doing it it's pretty obvious.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Re: the idea of modding in a global assassin spell, I think that's a crazy solution with big micro implications. A way simpler one would be to tell people not to do it. Sure a rules lawyer could try and weasel past the rule or try to use it against its spirit, but let's face it, when someone's doing it it's pretty obvious.

I think there should be a spell that summons an assassin just on general principle. Its a tactical option which i've found myself wanting more than a few times when my nation didn't have it available.

[Trumanator]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

I think there should be a spell that summons an assassin just on general principle. Its a tactical option which i've found myself wanting more than a few times when my nation didn't have it available.

Tell that to your five assassins that died to one anathemet salamander.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

Tell that to your five assassins that died to one anathemet salamander.

But I got him in the end, didn't I? =) When you have 20 assassins, losing a few is not a big deal...

[Lingchih]

Hmm, I thought this thread was about trading commanders.