Trading commanders, exploit or not?

[Micah]

I think "exploit" might be a bit too pejorative, and this conversation should probably focus on *undesirable tactics* instead of "exploits."

Stuff like LAD conversion and gem gen production are extremely tedious and add very little to the game in terms of skillful tactical decisions.

Stuff like blocking movement with an army set to retreat is bad (IMO) because it infringes upon your opponent's orders without actually beating their units. It's extremely frustrating and just exploits a weakness in the game engine. Likewise with using remotes to bleed gems, because the gemuse AI is so atrocious. I suppose a good litmus test for this sort of thing would be asking if the decision would make sense without knowing the secondary mechanical effects that can result...IE, would attacking with this army that will be utterly crushed be a good choice? Obviously no. Would casting these ghost riders into an army that will crush them without significant losses be a good choice? Again, if the answer is no then it feels like abuse to just get the AI to burn gems. Both of these tactics are also unable to be countered or outplayed in any sort of reasonable manner (not casting gem spells late game is not an option...)

Saying stuff like these are "exploits" is beside the point...something doesn't have to be an exploit to make the game less fun, and maximizing fun and possibly skillful play should be the goal of house rules and mods.

also @Squirrel -I can't believe you rate the returning effect on the AoV as worse than the ankh, but whatever...an army of returning SC's would be pretty worthless, all it takes is a single scratch and they go home.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Micah

also @Squirrel -I can't believe you rate the returning effect on the AoV as worse than the ankh, but whatever...an army of returning SC's would be pretty worthless, all it takes is a single scratch and they go home.

I rate it as less likely to be intended.

I mean, LAD was specifically implemented to animate the dead mages with their paths intact. So there's an argument that said feature was intended. AoV is supposed to cause the wearer to return if 'scratched', not anyone who ever wore it, meaning the implementation is a poor for the stated intention and reasonable intention given its a worn item.

[Belac]

Originally Posted by Micah

I suppose a good litmus test for this sort of thing would be asking if the decision would make sense without knowing the secondary mechanical effects that can result...IE, would attacking with this army that will be utterly crushed be a good choice? Obviously no. Would casting these ghost riders into an army that will crush them without significant losses be a good choice? Again, if the answer is no then it feels like abuse to just get the AI to burn gems.

History is full of examples of hugely-outnumbered armies suiciding against large enemy forces just to slow them down. Thermopylae, Wavre, Bastogne...and there are far too many examples of armies using the 'attack and retreat' order to list. That was how the Persians slowed the Romans down before Carrhae, pretty much the whole purpose of cavalry in the US Civil War, the Austrians' only successful tactic against Frederick the Great...I have no problem with this particular exploit for that reason.