Trading commanders, exploit or not?

[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.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Jarkko

I fail to see the problem of sending in chaff armies to slow down hostile armies.

Well it's hard to find fault with your argument there.


Regarding assassins being the counter, I'm afraid this simply isn't reasonable. The small force attack>retreat requires virtually no resources whatsoever and is available to everyone. Assassins on the other hand are far from commonly available and require more resources. They're also riskier, since they need to go do their thing in enemy territory and will quite often get ganked in the process.

Simple exercise - what are you likely to have more of - assassins or scouts/indy commanders?

You might also say fliers are the counter, but again they aren't commonly available, cost more resources and are riskier. They also don't prevent the tactic, they just make it very slightly more costly.

It's certainly true that in history small harassing forces have been able to slow and even halt powerful enemy forces. But I don't see what that has to do with dominions. We all know that you can justify anything if you try hard enough, taking examples from history, making up fluff to explain unintuitive game mechanics (like the explanations for poison arrows bypassing shields and prot),.. the fact remains that in dom3 it feels buggy when 10 militia with attack/retreat manage to stop an army of hundreds of elite troops turn after turn apparently at random (since eventually your army of hundreds will manage to attack, but no-one can work out why this happens). I'm sure that can be explained away with some anecdote from the battle of Stalingrad of whatever. That's cool, I'm glad people can explain stuff like that away and feel happy about it, I just don't like it in the games I play in, that's all.

Edit: Btw I strongly suspect, though I can't know for sure, that KO and JK did not intend this to be a usable 'tactic' in much the same sense that I suspect they didn't intend stuff like slave collar spam.

[Illuminated One]

Did anyone think about the possibility of having to attack Hinnom with Marverni? You have enough armor for 2 of your druids, the rest and all your communion slaves go unarmored.
Now you know or suppose that Hinnom has Earthquake scripted twice.
Do you
a) Cast Ghostrider (or do whatever) to make sure your mages are not hit by the earthquakes
b) Send in your mages to find swift dead

Now this is a perfectly viable game situation that should crop up in such or another form in many games.

I have never seen the other thing crop up, but I can believe it happens in lategame madness. But as I said before if you blame the brokenness of late game on things that work perfectly fine during the normal game (which is what interests normal and especially noob players - the real bordercase is the lategame) you will only reduce the normal game without making anyone content with late game. Next ban thread ETA ...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lingchih]

Hmm, I thought this thread was about trading commanders.

[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...