Countering Master Enslave...

[K]

Baalz said:

That's actually not true. Several nations get access to S4 mages (Marverni, Arcoscephale, R'yleh off the top of my head)

S4 + cap + coin + crystal shield + ring of sorcery = S8

Heck, even cheaper is to drop the ring and have a second mage carrying the light of the northern star - bonus he can cast vortex of returning after the master enslave if you want. Slap an eye of the void and rune smasher onto your main caster for +4 penetration. Drop those two where you expect an enemy army to move and they'll act first so no anti-magic and no retaliation at all. Yoink!

I've found that the AI gets very twitchy when casting spells with 200+ fatigue (50/50 of not casting). That being said, it tends to mean that only high astral or communions get the job done reliably.

But, you may have had a different experience. I'd be interested in other people's experience with this aspect of high fatigue spells.

[ano]

I made a thread once about my starspawn ignoring scripted Undead Mastery. I teleported 2 starspawns on a big Ermorian army aiming for casting UM and then Vortex of Returning. It went very well in test but in practice Death Starspawn just ignored the order and they both were successfully returned home with VoR. (Acting order was correct - I checked it many times) Next turn I repeated that trick and again had 8 astral games wasted as well as a turn of two good mages. After that I decided to stop trying

[cleveland]

Suggested Solution: Randomize the casting order in the magic phase.

The root of the problem is that the casting order is completely predictable.

Randomize the casting order like monthly rituals (why should the defender have any "first-move" advantage for magic...its MAGIC for godsakes) and the problem (along with several other gamey phenomena) is solved.

[DonCorazon]

I agree with Twan, having been the beneficiary of the first cast in an enslave situation and seeing it totally reverse what should have been an even battle.

The current situation tends to lead to standoffs where hordes are unwilling to press the attack. There are certainly ways to deal with that but I think the game would be more interesting with Cleveland’s proposed randomizer so you should always be willing to attack knowing that you have just as good of odds as being the beneficiary of initiative as the victim of it.

[MaxWilson]

On the one hand, I like the concept that the defender has a tactical advantage (even though the attacker has a strategic advantage). On the other hand, it does seem that the defender advantage in late game is too strong; arguably free chaff from PD is sufficient tactical advantage to be thematic. On balance I support the notion of randomizing which side goes first. It would be a HUGE change in the game--do you think we have any chance at all of getting this in a patch? It would probably have to be an option like "Events: Common/Rare" or "Site Frequency: 40/45/50". "Initiative: Classic/Randomized."

-Max

[Xietor]

There are ways to counter master enslave. But since i am about to do it in a mp game, I am not offering up free advice. Suffice to say there are counters.

[thejeff]

It would be a dramatic change, breaking all sorts of strategies. I'd love to see it though.

Actual what I'd really like would be simultaneous, random ordered turns. Units (or at least squads?) from both sides act in a random order.
Far more like the chaos of a real battle. No polite standing around, taking turns being killed.

[MaxWilson]

I wonder if Xietor is talking about pre-emptive attacks, like teleporting in a mage squad set to Retreat? (Apparently the attacking army is considered "big enough to use gems" if at least one mage is attacking.) And of course you can always fall back on artillery spells and/or SCs with high MR. I still find the idea of randomizing turn order compelling.

On truly simultaneous, randomly-ordered turns: I would like that a lot too, on thematic grounds. It would probably need to be done on a per-squad basis because of the way the battlefield AI works.

-Max

[JimMorrison]

I would tend to have to disagree with this, on principle.

The art of warfare, is to work with known quantities - be they positive or negative for your cause - and engineer a situation that is likely to result in victory for your cause.

If 2 armies are unwilling to engage - a scenario that has historical precedence - then other tactics such as stealthy/flying raiding, and assassination, need to be implemented to either force an unfavorable maneuver by your enemy, or erode their position of strength so that your assault has the weight of success already in your favor.


Introducing any wholly random element takes this away, it says that no matter how well you plan and organize your decisive strike, you may be throwing everything away - not because you failed to accurately predict your opponent's behavior, but because you could not rely on a known quantity.

The great leaders of history, often were credited as achieving astounding victories through the taking of "great risks". I would argue wholeheartedly against this assertion. It is a simple fact that a mind that weighs everything in abstract possibilities will see a situation from that perspective, where the reality is that the highly ordered and focused mind of that great leader, took every possible factor into consideration, and as if the battle were a giant chessboard, predicted the reactions of his opponent to each of his moves, thereby engineering a dramatic victory over a numerically stronger opponent.


Thus, rather than requesting that your opponent be divested of a known quantity, it would better suit a commander to better plan for the implementation of that tactic. Know thine enemy. As many battles are lost because someone pursued a tactic that wasn't able to compete with their opponent's tactic, as were won because someone learnt what tactic their opponent was developing, and specifically arranged to render that tactic less effective, ineffective, or detrimental.

[DonCorazon]

Jim,
Have you been in the situation where you don’t want to attack the other guy because you know he can enslave you?
It sounds very strategic and Sun Tzu-like in theory to have to rely on other tactics like raiding, remote damage spells, or assassination but my experience is that, by the late game, a powerful nation has so much gem income and resources that resolution of the standoff will not be found easily with these types of maneuvers. Instead you get a boring cold war with neither nation willing to cede the huge tactical advantage of going first. (check out Twan’s thread a while back for an example of the magnitude of defeat simply from going 2nd – I saw the same thing happen in Alexandria). So you get increasingly long turns as the micromanagement of the endgame bogs down. My preference would be to fight and get the game over with and anything that helps encourage that would be welcome.