Dark Knight

[sum1lost]

Reverend Zombie said:

But what about archer decoys?

What about archer decoys? Why would archer decoys being exploits have anything to do with Ks post? If the devs ruled it a bug/exploit, its pretty obvious it is. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to ask the question, to be honest.

That said, it would be nice if a link could be posted to the ruling on the matter, since I may have missed the post where the devs ruled it an exploit.

[Reverend Zombie]

sum1lost said:

What about archer decoys? Why would archer decoys being exploits have anything to do with Ks post? If the devs ruled it a bug/exploit, its pretty obvious it is. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to ask the question, to be honest.

It's a counter to your argument. Devs think it's an exploit (see below), but everyone accepts it.

That said, it would be nice if a link could be posted to the ruling on the matter, since I may have missed the post where the devs ruled it an exploit.

From earlier in this thread:

Ironhawk said:
...I know players who have even quit dominions over the archer decoy exploit. I'm surprised to hear that you dont think it is one.

As for a thread about it, I don't have one handy no. It was discussed (along with several other tactics commonly used in MP play) during the beta. And IIRC the "small squads morale rule" was put in to try and address it. Tho I think the most popular option to address it was Fire Closest/Fire Largest. Unfortunately, that wasnt accepted.

[Velusion]

Reverend Zombie said:
There are judgment calls everywhere, I don't think they make anyone hypocritical.

K isn't being hypocritical, he is taking the position that "anything goes". I'm saying "whatever the devs say is bad is banned". Others however are standing upon a platform of espousing "anything goes" but then slipping in their own exceptions as they see fit. That leads to being inconsistent which in turns makes someone look hypocritical.

Reverend Zombie said:
You don't *really* ban everything on the bug list in your games, do you (is it even possible)?

Sure I do. It's been like that for along time and listed in Velusion's game FAQs/Rules thread linked on every game. There really aren't that many actual *bugs* that can be exploited, so no one really notices or cares. There are also a select few exploits that can't be reasonably enforced so those are ignored - but not condoned. And it's not like I kick people off for using an exploit, I just give a warning, point to the first post in the game thread and have never had a problem after that.

Reverend Zombie said:
Also, you ban some stuff that isn't on the bug list. You do this according to some standard you have, which is acceptable (& I enjoy playing in your games, and always abide by house rules).

Hey I'm all for house rules that effect specific games (though I incorporate individual game rules into mods so you can't not abide by them ). However "exploits" are never allowed in any the games I start.

Reverend Zombie said:
If someone else's standard is "anything goes except for MoD, because it alone among bugs uniquely breaks the combat rout system" why is that hypocritical?

That standard isn't hypocritical, but is that person prepared to keep that promise that "anything goes" no matter what game-breaking bug is discovered next month? If not.. then yea, it's hypocritical.

[Velusion]

Reverend Zombie said:

From earlier in this thread:

I've asked for a link to a post where the devs said that anchor decoys were a "bug" or shouldn't be used...

The manual mentions it being an acceptable tactic.

Perhaps at one point during the beta archer decoys were considered bad, but I have seen no indication that the devs currently think anchor decoys are a problem that shouldn't be used.

I'll also add that personally - I don't have a problem with archer decoys. Never did.

[sum1lost]

Reverend Zombie said:

Not really. Its only a counter if I accept it as a legitimate strategy.

From earlier in this thread:

I saw that quote, but Ironhawk isn't a dev. While I see no reason to mistrust him, I'd like to see what the devs said on that actual ruling myself, if it is possible. Especially since it is in the strategy manual, so perhaps the descion was made to make it less effective and incorporate it into the game.

[Kristoffer O]

From a thematic point of view it feels ridiculous to have archers fire at three gyus up close, when there is a whole bunch of threatening archers firing at you from the enemy ranks.

I dislike the current possibility to place an arrow-magnet up front just to disable the first enemy arbalest volley, making them practically useless.

There is no easy fix tho the problem, but I think the targeting system is less intent on 'THE' closest nowdays. The order 'fire at - none' is less likely to target stray archers and can be used if you are expecting decoys.

[LoloMo]

Problem is, it is impossible to formulate a house rule to define archer decoys.

If you have 1000 troops, a squad of 50 troops up front is an archer decoy. Or is it? So how many troops up front would make it NOT an archer decoy?

If you have 5 troops, 3 soldiers in front is not an archer decoy. Or is it? How many troops up front would make it an archer decoy?

If your rule is 3 soldiers up front make a decoy, what about 4? 5? 6? What about 2 squads of 3?, what about 6 squads of 2? What about 4 squads of 5?

So when is it an archer decoy, and when is it chaff? One can argue all tactics employing chaff are actually archer decoy tactics.

See, even with the above posted two extremes, you can get a debate going on which is an archer decoy and which is not. What about all the situations that are less extreme? Who wants to define all the possibilities and work out all the gray areas?

Therefore you can not make a house rule banning archer decoys, and I have yet to play in an MP game where it is banned.

[archaeolept]

rules on archer decoys are impossible to enforce. its just an accepted part of the game; not out of desire, but necessity.

Maltrease had the best archer decoy set-up i've seen - in domII - a single unit in every second square, checkerboarded, for the whole front half of his battlefield deployment

I was in awe, but i guess not ever desperate enough to ever mimic it ;p

after all, doing something extremely boring is a cost itself...

[Valandil]

That and they'd probably all run together after about three turns anyways...

[Jazzepi]

Kristoffer O said:
From a thematic point of view it feels ridiculous to have archers fire at three gyus up close, when there is a whole bunch of threatening archers firing at you from the enemy ranks.

I dislike the current possibility to place an arrow-magnet up front just to disable the first enemy arbalest volley, making them practically useless.

There is no easy fix tho the problem, but I think the targeting system is less intent on 'THE' closest nowdays. The order 'fire at - none' is less likely to target stray archers and can be used if you are expecting decoys.

I have a really simple solution. The targeting AI could just look at each squad that it's considering to fire upon for "fire closest" then the AI would compare the size of that squad to the size of the army, and possibly with other squads nearby. If the size of the squad they're firing at is found lacking RELATIVE to that of both the opposing army, and the alternate squads, then they would simply ignore the tiny squads up front.

I don't think this would be difficult to code. All you need to do is...

-Gather up all the targets within range
-Compare relative sizes of squads with those of the army they're with
-Select a target out of the available based on that information

Jazzepi