Trading commanders, exploit or not?

[Zeldor]

Huh, have you ever really seen proper fort defences in late game? It's like saying that when you research GR it's fair that your opponents cannot storm your castles any longer. You call 10D for 2x GR fair tactics for making enemy lose 50-100 gems against them + lose his entire army when storming without gems?

[Tollund]

If you can't take his castle without gems, then don't take it. Preach him out or jus leave a sigle unit there and move on to his other provinces. What you are asking for is for your enemies to give up as soon as they attack you. Burning 10-25 death gems to get your opponent to spend his own gems seems like a perfectly reasonable exchange to me. Next you'll be complaining that people shouldn't be allowed to play kingmaker, to throw the game, to trade gems or items or to donate their gems to the enemies of the person who just killed them.

[Maerlande]

Again, though, I think force-fitting comparisons to real life guerrilla tactics is disingenuous. If you can't GUARD your supply wagons because of a engine limitation it's a problem when your opponent can "raid" them.

Only one more thing about this I wanted to say. I agree that there appears to be no counter to some of these. That's what I meant by dropping GR on some one is like fighter bomber interdiction of movement. However, Dom 3 doesn't allow you to put up fighter patrols. So it's a tactic that can't be countered.

And you are right. I am wishing for some functionality that isn't in the game. It would be very nice if an army with flying troops could set up recon patrols to intercept interdiction tactics. I haven't seen some of these used to the extent you've discussed.

[Psycho]

Using ghost riders or some such to spend gems when storming is a annoying, but making a house rule that forbids it is not good IMO, as there is too much gray area. Lets say I sent an AQ with the aegis and armor of virtue to attack your force before storming. Was the intention to do as much damage to you or was the intention to make you spend gems? How can you know? Say I knew you had mostly demon MR 15 troops and you had a mage in the army capable of casting antimagic, which would make the aegis totally ineffective. Maybe I am just a poor player and didn't realize I can't hurt you and you spending all gems was an unintended side-effect. Or maybe I am a good player and was counting on luck, body ethereal and mirror image on AQ to make her stay longer on the battlefield until your mages spend all their gems.

There are several solutions to the problem of gem spending:
1) Don't storm the castle if it's not that crucial to take it.
2) Put twice the amount of gems (or three times if you expect both a magical attack and a regular one before storming) and cast spells that will put your mages to 200 fatigue, so by the time they recover ghost riders are defeated. All the major buffs and BE fall into this category.
3) If you have time, don't storm at once. Let him waste several ghost riders. Make him think you won't storm at all and then storm.

Yes, it makes storming forts in lategame terribly hard. But, I like it that way. It should be easier to defend than to attack. And if your enemy is storming such a well guarded fort, then it is probably your capital and he has already won.

[Dimaz]

1) I'm not Zeldor.
2) I too played d2 and d3 from the beginning (no ppp unfortunately) so let's discuss the things that are appropriate for the thread. It's good that you have experienced the situation from my example. Now, you think it's perfectly OK and I think it's not perfectly OK but I will surely use this trick if it's not banned in the house rules. And there are other people that think like me and there are other people that think like you. So please, stop telling Micah that his arguments and examples make no sense, because they have enough sense for other people.

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Dimaz

I'm not Zeldor.

My mistake, sorry Zeldor

So please, stop telling Micah that his arguments and examples make no sense, because they have enough sense for other people.

Then why dont you people who do not like the integral parts of the game set up a MP game, discuss the settings in the game thread, test it out, and then tell with proof just how awesome the results were? If you had discussed these "rules" in a game thread I for one would not have interfered, and the only reason I can see for bringing this to general discussion is because some apparently have a desire to implement some hand waving as rules for fair games. Why try to forcefeed rules (which I still don't know what they are, apparently everybody else know what these obvious situations are except me, and I am pissed I don't figure it out from the handwaving represented so far) some (at least I) think are stupid and against the very essence of the game?

[Gandalf Parker]

Because one of the common complaints is that setting up a game takes months due to those discussions.
And some of the common arguments break out startingwith "everyone knows" or "all games tend to".

So IMHO we dont have to agree on what IS or ISNT an exploit (I dont think that will ever happen). Just what items are fairly often included in bans. That way we can smooth out both problems by having some posted common game settings so a game admin can start a thread with lines such as
"we will be playing with the limits in #4 with 2 added items" or something like that.
Much quicker, much smoother, much less of the drama (that we are seeing here)

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

So IMHO we dont have to agree on what IS or ISNT an exploit (I dont think that will ever happen). Just what items are fairly often included in bans. That way we can smooth out both problems by having some posted common game settings so a game admin can start a thread with lines such as
"we will be playing with the limits in #4 with 2 added items" or something like that.
Much quicker, much smoother, much less of the drama (that we are seeing here)

A noble thought that. However, it will be called the "List of Exploits". Any valid and legal tactics put on that list (because a person once said they are in the gray area) would thus automatically be considered cheats and exploits, just because they are on the list.

However, if that is how it would be, then I would want to see a ban on astral and death magic added to the list. They are known cheats and exploits of the game engine in such a magnitude, that no MP game can be won without astral and/or death. Besides, *everybody* knows banning astral and death magic makes sense, and anybody claiming otherwise is a cheater and exploiter.

[vfb]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

...However, if that is how it would be, then I would want to see a ban on astral and death magic added to the list. They are known cheats and exploits of the game engine in such a magnitude, that no MP game can be won without astral and/or death. Besides, *everybody* knows banning astral and death magic makes sense, and anybody claiming otherwise is a cheater and exploiter.

[Stavis_L]

In case anyone has issues w/the LAD/Ankh behavior and would like to restrict it in their next game, check the Brainless Soulless mod I just put in the mods sub-forum.