Trading commanders, exploit or not?

[Zeldor]

I am trying to get a list of house rules for MP games, with things that should be banned [like Sickle farming, suiciding mages with Ankh etc], of course for game admins to decide it's usage.

So the question is - do you consider trading commanders via Charm as an exploit that spoils the game?

[Tollund]

Most definetly not. It's not only impossible to enforce such a rule, but it also implies that diplomacy and trading are not allowed in general. How does ond enforce this rule. Are no commanders allowed to be in provinces by themselves at all ever? Is the charm spell to be banned?

[rdonj]

No, I don't think it's an exploit. If you want to go through that much effort and coordination to pick up a commander from another player, go for it. Commanders are just another form of resource.

[thejeff]

I'd also say that the other things you list: Sickle farming and Ankh suicide aren't commonly considered exploits.

If you were planning on a game where many common borderline cases were banned, trading commanders might fit.

[Maerlande]

Suiciding mages with the ankh sounds pretty hard to enforce too. How do you tell if it's planned or just a regular fight? Sickle farming is much easier to spot. At least that's how it looks to me.

I don't think trading commanders with charm or enslave should be banned. Like rdonj said it's a big pain to do and the gain is not unbalanced. Each trades a commander. Not like sickle farming which is basically free death gems.

I only just discovered the anhk trick and I've been using that idea during regular fights. If I lose a few mages during a castle assault that's not an exploit. It's just sensible use of an artifact.

[Gandalf Parker]

Ive often suggested that there should be a list of standardized rules for MP games. Too many arguments break out where the gist of it is something along the lines of "everyone knows" when obviously everyone doesnt know or agree.

However I have also added that there will never, and should never, be just one. There should be a number of them. One single collection point for such rules would really help. Threads could refer to "and everything on Rule Set #4" and link to that site or thread. It would also help people who are starting games to remember items that they did want to ban from their game. Or at least cut way down on some of the pre-game conversations by being able to say "I browsed the rules list and considered everything some people ban".

To answer the initial question: No I dont think its an exploit. In fact its one of my favorite things to do. But I can see where it might be considered unfair in duels and such where the winner is expected to win based just on their own strategies without help from others.

Oh and added note: it IS possible to enforce such rules. If the game has logging switch turned on then the log file makes it fairly obvious. All the game admin has to do is setup an automated search for the things they have banned and check the hosting log each turn.

[Ink]

outside of conspiring with another player, I don't think either of those are exploits. If you go to _genuine_ battle with another player and have the Ankh and purposefully cast a spell to suicide your mages, so what? Any spell will probably be battlefield wide and something to which undead are immune (like Foul Vapors); as such is it simply a viable strategy for winning a battle too.

I in fact recall one GLORIOUS battle between me as LA Agartha and another player who was LA Pyth. Pyth was attacking me with overwhelming forces of Hydras, Elemental Royalty, and summoned creatures. I knew that Foul Vapors would also be cast. I took all the mages and troops I had into battle, and cast Life After Death, Heat from Hell, and Rigor Mortis. The reincarnated troops meant the Hydras had to mow twice as long (giving more time for fatigue to wear at them). The LAD also protected the mages, simply turning them into undeads as they fell to Foul Vapors and fatigue. In the end, all my troops died and almost all my mages fled, but two or three were passed out from fatigue and say stayed on the field. Fortunately, by that time every Hydra, mage, elemental, and summoned creature of Pyth's were also passed out, so the two sides just sat there, approaching death from fatigue. I literally had three soulless mages facing down an armada of Hydras and Elemental Royalty! Pyth autorouted. However, I had flown in an SC to the province they moved from (knowing this all would happen), that province was taken and so in the autorout, they all autodied. After the battle, all those mages remained as soulless mages (I had about 15 of them or something).

So, was that an exploit? or just a winning strategy?

[Psycho]

I wouldn't consider it an exploit. It is merely a different kind of trading after all.

The ankh thing, now when I have some experience with it, I would definitively consider an exploit. Maerlande and Ink, the ankh trick is not about saving your commanders, but about cheaply raising tons of undead. OTOH, Lanka, for example, once the research is done, can do the same with regular commanders, so against them maybe it's justified. I would like to see the ability removed from demons.

The sickle farming was not such a big deal with gem gens. Without them I think it should be banned from games.

[rdonj]

@Ink - It would be pretty damn hard to argue that properly using a spell is considered an exploit :P

@Gandalf - I don't think I'd trade mages with someone in a duel. Actually I don't think anyone would, what's the gain in trading with the only other player on the map? Your definition of duel is a bit odd ;). I'm sure that in a RAND game that would be considered cheating, but I don't think there's any other game type where that would be considered an exploit.

[Sombre]

Nah, commander trading isn't an exploit. Of course if the game is no diplo then it's against the rules.

I think sickle farming is probably an exploit, but it doesn't seem very degenerate. It could be that someone is able to do something really ridiculous with it, but no-one has so far to my knowledge.

Giving your commanders to another player (rather than trading) is also not an exploit, but could well be a total douche move if you're doing it to throw the game, or because of something someone did outside the game.

[Zeldor]

Yes, I am going to make a list of things considered exploits, so game admins can just include them in their games. There were some discussion about it already and certainly Sickle farming and suiciding mages on purpose via Life after Death will surely be on the list.

[chrispedersen]

lab filling
Bogarus orders (except on bogarus type, old units)
chayot RoW
chayot RoR

are exploits to my mind.

[Sombre]

I think you mean Bogus. The clue is in the name.

[Maerlande]

@Psycho

Yes, that's why I was talking about using it in a real fight. Rather than throwing priests at big PD to kill them off or something.

[Sambo]

Beginner questions: what is Sickle Farming and Ankh suicide?

[DonCorazon]

hmm, not an exploit but reminds me of a wily vet trick that is discouraging to learn about halfway through the game

[Ink]

I'm still not sure how you can hold suiciding mages in a battle with an opponent while you have LAD up can be an exploit. Is using the Sickle in a battle with an opponent an exploit too?

[Zeldor]

You suicide your mages against remotes, indie attacks, an ally, etc. And you create upkeep free mages and undead reanimators out of priests to create endless chaff.

[Gandalf Parker]

Wouldnt that be a tactic? The response would be the same as late Ermor?

[Baalz]

Meh, my views are well known on this, but how about...

Exploiting archer screens?
Exploiting switching the Armor of Virtue to somebody else after the returning has stuck?
Exploiting using a death bless on mages (including ritual spells)?
Exploiting sneak, attack, sneak, attack to avoid almost any retaliation?
Exploiting (potentially) blocking enemy movement by moving a large chaff force into them?
Exploiting moving a smallish force in on the magic phase to get your opponent to burn through gems before the main event in the movement phase?
Exploiting globals going into effect the round they go up?
Exploiting sticking cursed items on suicide commanders to get the enemy to pick them up?
Exploiting IRC all day to gain a big diplomatic advantage?
Exploiting casting spells in combat to take advantage of the deterministic order they go off in a round (reverse communions, etc.)?
Exploiting casting ritual spells to take advantage of the semi-deterministic order they go off?
Exploiting pooling gems for a mutually beneficial global? Dispels?
Deliberately trying to make the target route in an assassination?
Using vengeance of the dead to auto route targets after 50 turns?
Donating gems/items to an ally on your defeat?
Donating gems/items to the guy fighting your next target?
Using scorched earth and metagaming to get a leg up in the next game?
Exploiting autosummoned units (maenads, slaves, etc.) to make your forts practically unstormable?

I could go on. Seems like an exercise in both futility and likely to end in bad blood to try and dictate all the things that "gentlemen" are not supposed to do in war. If it doesn't break the game (and in fact everything discussed in this thread are examples of the quirks that make this game) I think it does far more harm than good to try and claim tactics available in the game are invalid.

[Gandalf Parker]

Heehee. Great list.

Altho, admittedly that IS a list of the type of items that some people do take offense to.
I have no problem with the idea that the person who is creating the game might list any or all of those as not-allowed as long as its done clearly and publicly before people join the game so people can agree and join, or not.
Which is kindof the purpose here.

(on the other hand if someone wanted to ban them all then I would again suggest a perfectly balanced contest where exactly duplicated nations are used)

[Ink]

@ Zeldor: right if you are doing stuff like attacking your ally to suicide your mages, that's one thing, but using LAD in a battle against an opponent (even you do so with hopes of getting some undead mage-priest reanimators) is another.

@ Baalz: Could you explain the "sneak, attack, sneak, attack to avoid almost any retaliation?" exploit?

[Gandalf Parker]

One of my favorite tactics. Nations which have full armies of stealth ability (leader, infantry, archer, mage, priest, possibly mounted) doing guerilla tactics. Sneak behind front lines, take a province, sneak out, move two or three provinces before attacking again. Buy PD there, recruit units, drive taxes to 200. Force the enemy to buy heavily into PD or maintain large armies farther behind his lines than he had planned to. Particularly useful when combined with an ally who is doing the standard action such as marching a large army toward them.

[Trumanator]

If you sneak away from a province you won't be hit by any rituals or teleporting thugs except for Mind Hunt. At least that's how I've heard it.

[Squirrelloid]

Meh, my views are well known on this, but how about...

Exploiting archer screens?

This is sort of fundamental to how game logic currently works, and arguably just how combat works. I don't consider it an exploit.


Exploiting switching the Armor of Virtue to somebody else after the returning has stuck?

Definitely an exploit. Item effects should end when the item is removed.


Exploiting using a death bless on mages (including ritual spells)?

Uh, what? That's just how death bless works? Is it an exploit to use shrouds + N4 bless to stop diseased commanders from dying?


Exploiting sneak, attack, sneak, attack to avoid almost any retaliation?

That's how sneak works... There are plenty of forms of retaliation that still work (eg, mindhunt, earth attack).


Exploiting (potentially) blocking enemy movement by moving a large chaff force into them?

I'm not sure I can consider that an exploit. Its just part of the existing game logic and arguably WAD.


Exploiting moving a smallish force in on the magic phase to get your opponent to burn through gems before the main event in the movement phase?

Seemingly WAD. No way to really enforce since there are other reasons to send a force in the magic phase.


Exploiting globals going into effect the round they go up?

I'm not even sure what this means. Globals just work the turn they go up. You can't change that - how can you exploit it?


Exploiting sticking cursed items on suicide commanders to get the enemy to pick them up?

Agree that its an exploit.


Exploiting IRC all day to gain a big diplomatic advantage?

Lol what? Diplomatic rewards are usually commensurate with diplomatic effort - that's true whether you spend all day on IRC or sending PMs... IRC is just less annoying.


Exploiting casting spells in combat to take advantage of the deterministic order they go off in a round (reverse communions, etc.)?

Not an exploit, its interesting strategically and WAD. Consider horror mark and call horror? How else would you have it work? Predictable spell-casting order is a feature, not an exploit.


Exploiting casting ritual spells to take advantage of the semi-deterministic order they go off?

Well, its 50% top down or bottom up the unit ID list, so I'm not sure how exactly you exploit this unless you feel like wasting gems to cast something twice to ensure a third spell happens after one of them?


Exploiting pooling gems for a mutually beneficial global? Dispels?

How is this an exploit? Its a basic part of diplomacy.


Deliberately trying to make the target route in an assassination?

I imagine its WAD, especially since there's one assassin who seems to be designed to do just that. (Mujina).


Using vengeance of the dead to auto route targets after 50 turns?

This is definitely a balancing feature. Don't kill so many units with your SC pretender already =p


Donating gems/items to an ally on your defeat?

Diplomatic advantage? not an exploit.


Donating gems/items to the guy fighting your next target?

... Diplomacy? Also, payment for services rendered =)


Using scorched earth and metagaming to get a leg up in the next game?

What if you use scorched earth just to spite your killer?


Exploiting autosummoned units (maenads, slaves, etc.) to make your forts practically unstormable?

No way to control this? Your pans make them whether you want them or not... Is also a valid way to build a defense force for if/when your walls are cracked.

[Micah]

Meh, my views are well known on this, but how about...

Exploiting archer screens?
Exploiting switching the Armor of Virtue to somebody else after the returning has stuck?
Exploiting using a death bless on mages (including ritual spells)?
Exploiting sneak, attack, sneak, attack to avoid almost any retaliation?
Exploiting (potentially) blocking enemy movement by moving a large chaff force into them?
Exploiting moving a smallish force in on the magic phase to get your opponent to burn through gems before the main event in the movement phase?
Exploiting globals going into effect the round they go up?
Exploiting sticking cursed items on suicide commanders to get the enemy to pick them up?
Exploiting IRC all day to gain a big diplomatic advantage?
Exploiting casting spells in combat to take advantage of the deterministic order they go off in a round (reverse communions, etc.)?
Exploiting casting ritual spells to take advantage of the semi-deterministic order they go off?
Exploiting pooling gems for a mutually beneficial global? Dispels?
Deliberately trying to make the target route in an assassination?
Using vengeance of the dead to auto route targets after 50 turns?
Donating gems/items to an ally on your defeat?
Donating gems/items to the guy fighting your next target?
Using scorched earth and metagaming to get a leg up in the next game?
Exploiting autosummoned units (maenads, slaves, etc.) to make your forts practically unstormable?

I could go on. Seems like an exercise in both futility and likely to end in bad blood to try and dictate all the things that "gentlemen" are not supposed to do in war. If it doesn't break the game (and in fact everything discussed in this thread are examples of the quirks that make this game) I think it does far more harm than good to try and claim tactics available in the game are invalid.

No, no, no, no of course not, that's the whole POINT of stealth, yes, yes, unavoidable so no, yes, no, no, no, no, no, your number is wrong and no since that's the only real niche the spell has, no, no, depends on the type of metagame, no.

[Trumanator]

Squirrel, I think thats exactly the point. LADing your priests is arguably WAD, as is sickle farming, etc.

[Gandalf Parker]

I think that was the point. Some of these will be considered just part of the game. And others would be considered exploits. Its all a sliding scale of how much or how little it is. Where on the scale is your "cross the line" mark?

But, for a collection of different sets of "game rules" that people can point to we would first need a list of acceptable/not items that cover the full range from gentlemans game of fun to cutthroat no-holds-barred. This is one of the most complete lists Ive seen.

Before deliberating it, can we expand on it? Does anyone have any others that have ever been "declared uncool tactics that should not be allowed"? whether you agreed or not. Just the fact that it made someone whine is enough.

[Psycho]

@Maerlande: It's not about the way you acquire the undead priests, it's about what you do with them afterwards. There's the other problem about not paying upkeep, but that's a significantly lesser issue than reanimating.

@Baazl: Nothing on that list is an exploit. Some things are examples of bad sportsmanship, but nothing else. Out of curiosity, are there actually any cursed items that you can exploit by suiciding commanders?

[Trumanator]

Lync ammies I know

[Baalz]

@Psycho - Sure, drop some guys with eyes of aiming in that cyclops' path, or black hearts for guys now sporting chest wounds. Of course, the gold standard is the slave collar, which seems to have no other purpose in the game...

[vfb]

Eyes and Hearts and Collars won't be picked up by the enemy side.

Trum is right: Lychantropos' Amulet can be picked up by the enemy. But he probably won't care. If your enemy is using a buffing SC, it's going to have the misc slots filled. If it's just a pathless thug, well I'd be overjoyed to have a Bane snag one of those. If it's a mage in the backfield, unless he has flight then he'll probably survive the fight, at which point you can retire him from battle and use him to research/forge.

There's probably a few more items that you can do this with. Dimensional Rod, at least. Nothing that's worthwhile that I know of.

Edit: Doh! You don't have to worry about items during the fight of course, since they are picked up after the battle. You'd need an enemy mage to pick up the Lychantropos' Amulet in a failed assassination or magic battle or the arena in order to force the enemy mage to be wearing it in a fight.

[AdmiralZhao]

Typically, sickles are used in farming. Therefore, Sickle farming seems to be WAD.

[militarist]

Hot discussion :)
I see games like "no Hinnom/Ashdod". Playing these nations becomes exploit as well.
I think the only real way to manage such "exploits" is through CBM author, or to make another CBM-like mod, is author of CMB is not active anymore, with several authors who can make chages to new vesions.
It is a big list of things that it would be nice to be changed in game balance, and I believe it would be a good idea if community could do it fast. through this mode, by simple voting of authors, for example. I don't think it's a big deal to create a mod which just changes some stats and some prices.

Or, better idea - to do additional mod, complimentary to CBM (though I don't know if it will work - if one mode can change something after it was changed by another mod).

[Trumanator]

problem being that none or nearly none of these "exploits" could be modded out even if it was warranted.

[Squirrelloid]

Ashdod is certainly still a balance problem, although CBM hit them with more nerf bat. Hinnom seems to have been dealt with for the most part.

[Psycho]

Eyes and Hearts and Collars won't be picked up by the enemy side.

That's why I asked. The only thing that sounds like an exploit on that list cannot be done.

[vfb]

Armor of Virtue has an exploit, but it's not as described:

At the end of round 1 movement, all friendly units in the square the Armor of Virtue started in gets Ritual of Returning. (This also means that if you move in the very first turn instead of buff when wearing Virtue, Ritual of Returning doesn't stick to you.) But you could stick 6 MARKATA in that square on 'Hold','Attackx4'. And they will ALL get Ritual of Returning. :eek:

If that exploit doesn't scare the pants off you, you're probably just already not wearing pants.

[Stavis_L]

@Zeldor - this is probably a good deal too late to save this thread, but if the intent is to generate a list of frequently applied house rules in one place for convenience sake, it might have been politically expedient not to use the term "exploit" even if some of them do apply to practices some consider to be so.

SO, here is a list of commonly applied "house rules" and settings in no particular order that someone starting a new game might wish to consider, as a starting point:

Settings
1) Use 'X' mod(s)
2) Use 'Y' map
3) Modified Hall of Fame limit
4) Modified resource/gold/supplies/site frequency/research settings
5) Commander Renaming on
6) Score graphs disabled
7) Victory conditions other than default
8) Turn timing

House Rules
1) Ban diplomacy
2) Random nation assignment
3) Ban commander trading or selling (via mutually agreed upon charm/hellbind/etc. swaps)
4) Ban item/gem/gold/other trading
5) Ban "sickle farming"
6) Ban particular nation(s), (Ashdod, Hinnom, LA Ermor, LA R'yleh commonly)
7) Ban water nations
8) NAPs - disallowed
9) NAPs - all players bound by implied NAP for start X turns
10) Use of Bogus and Co.'s default scripts disallowed.
11) Use of Bogus and Co.'s default scripts only allowed for Bogus and Co. (no copying)
12) No "mass sharing" of Armor of Virtue just to apply Returning
13) No blood magic / blood hunting

I'm sure there are others, but I feel this might be more helpful than continuing to debate whether such-and-such practice is an "exploit" or not.

[Zeldor]

Some things are clearly exploits and there should be a list of things like that. Some tricks can also be spotted by vets and newer players may have no idea what's going on. Many people had nothing against gem gens because they have not faced real clamming.

And it brings another question - should wishing for Armageddon really exist? Or be allowed? It may be a good strat, but messes things so badly... and requires insane amounts of micro when preparing for it.

[DonCorazon]

I think the game is most fun when you are a noob and playing with noobs. The more you learn about all the ways to get an edge, the more tainted you become. Its like the ring of power.

I know about a fair amount of stuff but would prefer to play with what I'd call casual players, the ones that are too lazy to take advantage of some of these things like coordinating to trade commanders or farm death gems. Gem generators are so inherently powerful I think they have to be removed. Even a casual player like me can't resist tons of off the charts gem income even with the micro-pain it can bring.

[Sombre]

I agree with don. Big fan of the casual gaming. I'd be happier if no-one ever archer decoyed, for instance. As soon as one person does it, it kinda forces other people to though.

I also think if you need to specify a long list of rules you aren't playing with the right people. I prefer to just ask people not to be douchebags. Even with all the rules you can think of, there are certain people who are still going to try and weasel and rule-laywer and whine.

[WraithLord]

I agree. The game has too many MM intensive loose ends. I'm not saying I'm not doing them myself but I'd be much happier if the game was more streamlined and these MM heavy ways to make an extra buck were removed.
I personally can't resist the temptation so I end up working harder and spending more time on a mere game.

That said, some exploits are too much even for me - like Ankh priests reanamitors 4 example.

[Ink]

WHAT IS THE "SNEAK ATTACK SNEAK ATTACK" EXPLOIT?!?!?!?!?!?!?

tell me now

[vfb]

I think it has something to do with Markata, and how they are OP, especially with the sneaking. Did you ever think what would happen if you gave one a Black Heart? Especially since it is empowered in N? Heh? Hergnhhgh? That's right!

[Ink]

I think you're in the wrong thread with that.

I really want to know though. I once had a situation where I was almost certain that Pan had those unrest causing sneaking units in a couple of provinces of mine, but despite patrolling with _hundreds_ of soldiers for almost ten turns, I never found a thing.

Is this exploit something whereby sneaking units cannot be found? If that is so, I would certainly call it an exploit, especially for an unrest causing unit.

[thejeff]

As far as I know, no.
But Dryads are Stealth 25 and thus hard to find to start with.
Normally, leading stealth units subtracts from the commander's stealth, but Satyr Sneaks are Stealth 20(?) and thus don't.
Unrest also drops the chance of stealth units being found. If they were able to keep the unrest up high enough, your chances of finding them could be low, even with hundreds of patrollers.

Or, they could have not been there.

[Ink]

As far as I know, no.
But Dryads are Stealth 25 and thus hard to find to start with.
Normally, leading stealth units subtracts from the commander's stealth, but Satyr Sneaks are Stealth 20(?) and thus don't.
Unrest also drops the chance of stealth units being found. If they were able to keep the unrest up high enough, your chances of finding them could be low, even with hundreds of patrollers.

Or, they could have not been there.

In that case then: What is the "sneak attack sneak" exploit?

[Benjamin]

What it is is that if you have a commander that is doing as written, sneak one turn, attack next, then sneak, then attack again, etc, they are very very hard to catch. The only thing that will catch a sneaking commander is mind hunt, or happening to patrol in the province he is GOING to. I'm a little shaky on that last point, but it's as I understand it.

So teleporting thugs won't catch him, neither will seeking arrows, normal armies have no chance, I don't think remote assassination spells work either. It can be a pain.

[Debaser8]

Couldn't you catch them if you were able to predict which province they had snuck to and were about to attack? Well you would have to move the troops in after they snuck to the province, but before they attacked.

[Psycho]

I really want to know though. I once had a situation where I was almost certain that Pan had those unrest causing sneaking units in a couple of provinces of mine, but despite patrolling with _hundreds_ of soldiers for almost ten turns, I never found a thing.

If they were constantly moving, it would be hard to catch them. You need to patrol the province they are going to. You cannot catch them in the one they are moving from (the one that got unrest increased).

[Jarkko]

Exploiting sneak, attack, sneak, attack to avoid almost any retaliation?
Exploiting (potentially) blocking enemy movement by moving a large chaff force into them?
Exploiting moving a smallish force in on the magic phase to get your opponent to burn through gems before the main event in the movement phase?
I agree with the rest of your list, but you consider these exploits? Err huh? Basically you don't like Pangaea that much then, do you? These are the standard tactics for Pangaea (raid with sneaky armies, block armies with maeanads, cast call of the wild before the main attack)?

If these would be considered exploits, I'd like to see someone explain how you can play with Pangaea. Using sneaky forces and maenads and remote spells *is* what Pangaea is about, at least in my opinion. Means Pangaea can recuit Minotaur commanders and Minotaurs trooper only, huh?

I am honestly quite baffled.

[Tollund]

I doubt that Baalz thinks that anything on his list are exploits. He was using sarcasm I believe.

[vfb]

I doubt that Baalz thinks that anything on his list are exploits. He was using sarcasm I believe.

Yeah, quite a few people missed this:

If it doesn't break the game (and in fact everything discussed in this thread are examples of the quirks that make this game) I think it does far more harm than good to try and claim tactics available in the game are invalid.

[Jarkko]

I doubt that Baalz thinks that anything on his list are exploits. He was using sarcasm I believe.

Yeah, quite a few people missed this:

If it doesn't break the game (and in fact everything discussed in this thread are examples of the quirks that make this game) I think it does far more harm than good to try and claim tactics available in the game are invalid.

You are correct at least on my part on that: I missed that totally. My jaw dropped when I saw the basic pangaen tactics on the list of exploits, and when my jaw drops my eyes and brain cease to function.

[Sombre]

Trying to abuse the ability to cancel movement with attack+retreat orders seems like an exploit to me to be honest. It's incredibly irritating, the counters are far, far harder than what you need to do it (you only need a commander, maybe some troops) and a lot of the time it's completely unintuitive and feels buggy (like when a single commander and 10 troops with retreat orders attacks your advancing army of 100 guys turn after turn and they get stuck, unable to actually move over the border, for several turns).

I get that it doesn't work every time but that only makes it seem more random and unfair. It also introduces a lot of micro and deluges both players with battle report messages for basically 0 cost.

[Dimaz]

Personally I find the problem of gem burning much more irritating than movement cancel. Makes lategame castle storming much harder.

[Zeldor]

Yeah, and AI can execute whole script against 2-3 Ghost Riders, using all gems [I've seen people lose over 100 gems in one battle, because mages decided to spam living earth/fire].

[Maerlande]

The more I read this thread the more I find myself aggreeing with Baalz. Other than exploiting bugs, I don't think anything that is WAD by the engine is an exploit. So sickle farming may be obnoxious but isn't an exploit. Should it be banned in some games? Sure. Every game can have themes and methods of play.

Burning gems is just good strategy. If someone can afford to put 100 gems into an army you are probably desperately trying to stay alive. Again, it's annoying but that's the risk you take.

A real exploit would be the Admin looking at people's turns. That's clear cheating. Or an admin forcing host to make his opponents stale.

Or using a hack to generate gems or gold. Or running bots to automate the game to enhance the economy.

So far, from what I've seen folks here play like any good munchkins. They min/max the settings to the extreme and I that's what I would expect in a hardcore MP strategy game. This isn't a role playing game, but clearly house rules can be set up to play a RP scenario. However, I would expect good opponents to use every trick in the book. It's how I've always played hard strategy games. Finding that nifty rule that gives an edge is classic. Not exploit.

I clearly remember my first games of ASL and my friend teaching me pulling out hidden mines when I didn't even know they existed in the game. Annoying yes. Exploit? No.

[WaltF4]

Or running bots to automate the game to enhance the economy.

Pardon my noobishness, what is the bot doing?

I clearly remember my first games of ASL and my friend teaching me pulling out hidden mines when I didn't even know they existed in the game.

What is ASL and "pulling out hidden mines?"

[Squirrelloid]

I mostly agree with Maerlande.

However, a few things seem to be unintended and may Work as Implemented, but not as Designed. Certainly the way Armor of Virtue works cannot be right. The returning effect is supposed to effect the wearer of the armor. Instead, it effects everyone in his square, and they *retain* that effect until discharged, even if the armor is moved to a different commander. Taking advantage of the way it currently works really does feel like cheating. How would you feel about an entire army of thugs/SCs that all had a returning effect on them? Because of an item working inappropriately?

Similarly, Life after Death/Ankh giving you upkeep free mages also feels like an exploit rather than something that works as it was intended. I don't feel nearly as strongly about this one, its just an annoying amount of micro to get a pretty obscene gold advantage.

[vfb]

I'm Oceania in an "anything goes" game, but I'm not blood hunting underwater, because it just seems lame to me. Breaks my suspension of disbelief or whatever.

I think Life ater Death could be fixed if all your zombies lost their magic paths when they came back to life. If you weren't using it, your guys would be dead anyway. Pretenders (and immortals) should just not be affected. Needs an application patch, unfortunately.

[Maerlande]

WaltF4

Pardon my noobishness, what is the bot doing?


I've not heard of any bots in Dominions. But I've seen lot's of other bots in games. The classic was Diablo II where folks built bots to kill the bosses 1000x an hour and grab the treasure. No human could do that. It broke the game.

I suppose there is no real reason a person couldn't make a bot to scan everyone's turn files or hack llamaserver. My point is just that those are real cheats. Not just pushing the game rules.

ASL = Advanced Squad Leader The classic board game from Avalon Hill that spawned Steel Panthers and numerous other hex based wargames. I'm dating myself here but there are some still play it.

[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.

[chrispedersen]

ah yes, the Dzherjinsky tractor works.. my favorite scenario..
well except for the weekend ones we used to setup with 26000 pts to a side..

[Squirrelloid]

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.

[Maerlande]

Micah

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...)


I'd rate these as viable real world tactics. Sending a sacrificial unit of infantry to cause the opponent to burn ammunition is perfectly valid. It may be a bit calous but it's not like human wave attacks are new or rare. Wave after wave of guys getting killed will eventually cause the opponent to run low on ammunition. Now, it's not quite the same, but frankly, Dom 3 is missing a whole bunch of movement restricting techniques. Sending fighter bombers to interdict movement is classic. Much like air dropping Ghost Riders. Much the same functionality. It is sad that there isn't a counter. You can't put up CAP.

But if a large dangerous army was moving to attack, a flanking probe is a classic maneuver to force it to turn and engage, providing time to reorganize your main force or collect the remnants. That's the functionality I see provided by the interception capability.

One of the things I really notice missing in Dom3 is zone of control. For a game of land armies, it plays much more like fleets. You can't hold a line with light skirmishers to allow the formation of a counterattack. Those tricks are the closest I've seen. And flank attacks do not cause significant disorganization in the armies. In reality they mess up formations and disturb plans.

But, I hope I was clear. I see nothing wrong with specific games setting specific house rules. Nor do I see anything wrong with modding out the truly annoying and enjoyment reducing problems. I am playing one gem gen game of my 6 games and I can see the problem with that.

I just don't think that you can set up a list of meta rules that can be broadly used. Unless it's through a mod.

Clearly if a game has house rules that I don't like, I have the choice to not play. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of games available at any time.

[Micah]

Yeah, but in real life you don't use up your entire stock of anti-tank weaponry on your opponent's sacrificial infantry, you use machine guns. The Dom AI skips straight to dropping nuclear weapons if they happen to be lying around. (Assuming the gemuse condition is satisfied, which isn't hard.) As it stands it's about 1 part valid tactic to 9 parts abusing the AI, and that's a pretty poor ratio.

Interception is provided by teleportation attacks, which will disrupt movement during the normal move phase, so I'm not sure what parallel you're trying to draw, but I'm not seeing it. Similarly, pulling back a province gives you time to reorganize your forces. I feel like you're digging for functionality that the Dom engine simply doesn't support, like flanking attacks and zone of control...the tricks that are described have nothing to do with them in my mind, but that could just be a difference of opinion.

[Jarkko]

I fail to see the problem of sending in chaff armies to slow down hostile armies. If you scripted commanders to burn hundreds of gems, then maybe the scripting wasn't that well thought out? I mean, it is not like only your opponent can do the Ghost riders attack, or? Do unto thy opponent what they do to you.

Harassing attacks, even suicide harassing attacks, have been the norm through out the history of warfare. If the harrassers can destroy a supply-wagon or blow up a fuel dump or whatever, would that too be an exploit? "Forcing" (ie if the opponent so has wished to equip and script his commanders) an opponent to burn lots of gems are in my opinion the closest thing in Dom to harassing attacks used in real life.

[Micah]

You can't ghost rider an army in a fort, and you can't effectively storm a fort in the late game without burning gems. "Not ever attacking" isn't an acceptable solution here.

Supply wagons and the like are able to be defended, it's not a good comparison. Stealth raiding on an opponent's lands IS supported though. Likewise, mages in the back can sometimes be massacred by flying or fast cavalry units.

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.

[Jarkko]

Stealth raiding on an opponent's lands IS supported though. Likewise, mages in the back can sometimes be massacred by flying or fast cavalry units.
But aren't you basically claiming such attacks too should be considered exploits? If I send a sneaky army to attack your mages, but you wipe them out while burning your gems, you would cry foul game?

I don't think you want to claim any attack which fails but that burned your gems to be exploits, do you? If you don't, then where is the line? Who decides which attack are legitimate and which ones are not? I've seen Ghost Riders wipe massive armies (mostly because the opponent mages nuked their own troops which resulted in a rout), but should using Ghost Riders be always considered foul play if they do not wipe the army? What guerrilla attacks would be legitimate, should all remote spells that target an army be exploits?

Is using assassins an exploit? How many times have I, and I bet you too, used assassins from inside a besieged fort to attempt assassination as the last desperate move; but if the target is a mage and has scripted spells that burn gems, wouldn't that too be an exploit?

What about fires from afar or seeking arrow spam, they can kill many mages with lots of gems, isn't that an exploit too?


I am sorry, but I do not agree with your view.

[vfb]

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

It's unrealistic to completely prevent forward movement of an entire huge army for possibly several consecutive months, by attacking it with some trivial force that immediately retreats. I can't think of how the developers could have implemented this differently. But it's still a lame tactic.


If you scripted commanders to burn hundreds of gems, then maybe the scripting wasn't that well thought out? I mean, it is not like only your opponent can do the Ghost riders attack, or? Do unto thy opponent what they do to you.

The game mechanics do not allow you to script for several different situations. The game mechanics do not allow you to limit the number of gems a mage can use from his supply, per battle. It's unrealistic that a mage in the backfield would really burn all his gems summoning up fire elementals in an easily winnable fight.

Edit: About Assassins: yeah, assassination targets can do some dumb stuff too. But I can write this off as caused by their surprise when attacked by the assassin. Does not break my suspension of disbelief.

[Zeldor]

Micah was really clear, I think. Sending attacks that have no chance of doing any harm. It's really obvious.

When you are about to storm any fort, he can just cast some remote-attack spells, so your mages execute the script meant for storming. And there is nothing you can do about it. And you can't do the same to your enemy, as he is in the fort. Good luck winning without BEs or buffs.

Sure, it's sometimes hard to decide when you want to really weaken someone before storming and when you want to burn his gems. But many situations are obvious. You don't send GRs to kill few chaff units. You don't send one weakly equipped thug to attack 30+ mages, without even scripting it.

[Micah]

Jarkko, are you deliberately being obtuse? Flanking attacks can be stopped by putting troops on your flanks. Fliers can be stopped with storm or putting decoys behind your squishy mage types so the attack rear hits them instead.

I admit that enforcement of a rule like this would be problematic, but I don't think it's a bad thing to put in an expectation that it not be done, at least as a potential house rule. If someone feels the need to cheat and do it anyhow, well good for them.

Additionally, as with many of the issues I've been bringing up of late the borderline cases do not break the game. If someone sneaks in 5 reanimating priests with LAD it's not a problem, but when they have 100 of them the game breaks. People continuously bring up borderline cases and point to them with a great deal of hand-wringing about unfairly persecuting people. I'm not advocating for anything of the sort, just house rules against clear cut abuse of the AI. The truly abusive cases will be visible as such, the borderline cases don't provide enough of an advantage to cause a major problem.

Assassins and remote spells both fall back into the obtuse camp, since those are clearly some of the intended uses for them, and they are, again, counterable with bodyguards or resistance items. (Though I REALLY wish the assassin AI script was better.)

I wouldn't agree with my view the way you're interpreting and presenting it either, so I guess there's not much of a problem.

[Squirrelloid]

You know, strangely enough, assassins *are* the counter to armies which intercept and then retreat, blocking your army movement. Since his commanders are scripted to retreat, they auto-die to assassins. So you can 'protect your wagons', or whatever analogy we're trying to make. The counter doesn't really fit the above metaphor, but it is a counter...

Is it an exploit to drop a remote attack spell on a fortress with sufficiently low PD that the remote attack spell will win, thus stopping any armies inside from moving?

[Jarkko]

Ok, so my previous examples were not exploits. So who is the judge of what is obvious exploiting (as that seems to be agreed term, "obvious exploit") and what is not? Is the first suicide attack an obvious exploit, or the third, or fourth attack?

Is the usual Pan harassing tactics of Summon Lammashtas Retreat an exploit? Is it an exploit if 10 Pans does it? Is it an exploit only if done against a besieging army? If Lammashtas are not an exploit, then why is Ghost Riders an exploit (they are effectively the same thing, send in suicide troops to cause maximum carnage).

[Micah]

Again, I'm not concerned with policing this stuff, if someone decides to cheat and violate house rules they can go ahead, it's not any better than busting out a file editor. Cheating is cheating, and I'd hope the community would be mature enough to not do it, at least the players that are good enough to really abuse such exploits, or play well enough in a larger context for abuse to win a game for them.

I still think "don't abuse the AI by casting spells to bleed gems without any chance at actually hurting the army you're attacking" is a good house rule, even if it's hard to prove. I'd like to play with people that can be taken at their word, is that so much to ask?

[Dimaz]

Micah, I agree with you, but the point is that it has to be explicitly specified in game house rules, because otherwise it gives unfair advantage to players who exploit these tricks. So even if I dislike gem burning very much, when I see that someone in a game where I play goes that way, I will certainly use it myself (if house rules say nothing about it). However, as it's really sometimes tough to say if it was abusing or not, such rules may become too strict. So I see no good solution here.

[Jarkko]

@Micah: No, it is not too much to ask.

But as people, maybe even some good players, see things differently, and you apparently have no desire to define *what* exactly you consider cheating, then it might be very difficult for others to know. To me it seems you are on a crusade against perfectly valid and reasonable tactics which work exactly as designed, and I find it very hard "the mature community" would accept those ideas without some blinking of eyes. Snarl as much as you want along your nose about cheaters, but it is a guarantee everybody won't be thinking similarily to you about some unwritten and undefined code.

And yet, if you have such good players who think as you do, then more power to you! :) I for one am not very good at this game, and I intend to use sneakers and remote summons in the future too, even if some good players would go pale of the thought. There are after all already games where the diplomatic agreements are binding (which I consider weird), and there are no-diplomacy games too (and they are even more weird to me) out there, so one more sneaker-and-remote-summons-are-cheating group (whome I would consider weird ;) ) won't topple the "mature community", or so I hope at the very least :)

[Micah]

@Jarkko - "you are on a crusade against perfectly valid and reasonable tactics which work exactly as designed" Please provide me a dev quote on that. Until then I'm calling BS on you attributing the ****ty AI gem use to intended design.

You also say you're not a very good player, and yet you insist on knowing which tactics are "reasonable" without a solid grasp on late game play at high levels of competition. Yes, I'm an elitist jerk, thanks for asking. =)

What I consider cheating is breaking the house rules that are set up in a game. I'm currently arguing in favor of certain rules being adopted on a widespread basis because they make for a better game, in my not at all humble opinion. Again, the hand-wringing comes out in force in your response. I'm not saying people that use these tactics in current games are dirty cheaters, I'm saying that *going forward* the game is better off if they are removed via house rule. No need to refer to an unwritten and undefined code, just a simple post by the admin. The whole point of this thread was to start a discussion so house rules can be made more explicit and easy to implement, since the current system of just leaving it unspecified has led to some nasty situations.

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of cheating for stuff that's in a gray area or undefined in a game. Of course people will be angling for whatever advantages they can find if they're playing competitively, and I do it myself. I'm not trying to insult anyone for playing as hard as they can, but I do think I'm in a good position to point out what feels to me like flaws in the game engine, since I've got a pretty good understanding of the game, and a lot of play experience in terms of what makes for a good game.

Just for a guideline, here are some rough guidelines in terms of what feels legitimate to me vs what feels like an exploit/tactic that is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game:
I feel like tactics that interfere with other players' units and orders without actually interacting meaningfully with them (retreating vs fighting a battle, or dying to artillery without doing a single point of damage to bleed gems) are problematic.
Tactics which break the economy (by getting something for nearly nothing or getting something which will pay for itself before long) in an open-ended fashion are problematic.

Hm, that covers most of it actually. Breaking other people's units without actually fighting them, and breaking the economy. Might be something else I'm forgetting, but those are the big ones. There is some rhyme and reason to my crusade.

[Jarkko]

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of cheating for stuff that's in a gray area or undefined in a game.
But you are, in that very sentence. You claim some perfectly valid tactics (but not *which* tactics or game elements) to be "gray area". My mindreading capabilities are quite poor, and I will make a wild guess most people reading this thread have about same amount of PSI powers as I do.

You can't just assume people know what you think are cheats or exploits if you are unwilling to tell what you think cheats and exploits. Othewise you are just a person who basically reserves himself the right to after a lost game the right to say "Yeah, well, the others were cheating."

I feel like tactics that interfere with other players' units and orders without actually interacting meaningfully with them (retreating vs fighting a battle, or dying to artillery without doing a single point of damage to bleed gems) are problematic.
So if you cause my troops/commanders to die/rout while I am buffing up, and thus I was never able to do a single point of damage, then I am cheating? But if I had a single slinger up front doing 1 point of damage on one of your screening units I was not cheating?

You provide some general handwaving at "gray area" tactics; that is really insulting the intelligence of the people who read your posts, because nobody can know what you think, even though you make it sound like these things are obvious to everybody and no listing are needed. So please, could you provide a list of the tactics *you* consider cheating? I for one would be very interested in that, because so far I have got (the apparently very wrong) impression you don't like sneaking troops or remote attack spells.

[Illuminated One]

I do not think that using a decoy army to force the enemy to use gems is an exploit. It is used in reality (canvas tanks anyone?). In fact I'd love it if the illusion spells just worked for that purpose.
What doesn't make sense is archer (especially when set to guard rear commander) and mage decoys (well, the latter do to some extend, but it can get ridiculous).
Blocking an army is an exploit imo, but in that sense also cutting of retreat routes is when the thing that cut of the retreat is not significantly stronger than the disorganized fleeing army.

[Zeldor]

Jarkko:

We are not advicating punishing people for doings things like that now. All we want is to CREATE a list of house rules, so game admin has a CHOICE to include them in a game. Of course it may be impossible to make sure they are not abused, but now most people consider copying Bogus orders as a cheat that is not allowed - and you need to look at turn file to spot it. Dominions multiplayer is played mostly by mature players, people that can respect things like house rules. We cannot count on devs to fix problems like that, surely not in dom3. And limiting some things make game more interesting and gives you more fun, freeing you from doing stupid strats that are necessary otherwise.

[Jarkko]

Zeldor, I understand very well the intention (or so I believe) of the discussion. What I do not understand is that people should be aware of what others *think* are cheating. Say the game admin writes that "Breaking other people's units without actually fighting them, and breaking the economy" are cheating -> that would be a masive can of worms, wouldn't it? I bet there are in any MP game dozens of battles where one side doesn't make a single casualty before they are broken, and apparently the losers should be thus considered cheaters if such a home-rule was in effect?

Also, I wonder who decided it is a stupid and un-fun strategy to use sneakers or remote summoning spells, and why the devs even *should* consider changing those? Orders of Bogus&Co I understand, and I would go as far as claim that any charmed/seduced commanders should lose their scripted orders and that would be nice to fixed in a patch. However, in this thread the discussion hasn't been about Bogus orders, but about perfectly valid tactics all of the sudden being declared "grey area" and even cheating or exploiting. *That* is simply something I have a very hard time to stomach.

Now if you set up a game where no sneakers and remote summons are allowed, then that would be ok to me. But to somehow try to forcefeed to the community the opinions of a couple people as the absolute moral truth is a bit little too thick, isn't it?

[Dimaz]

Jarkko, please, try to hear what others are trying to tell before judging. Consider following scenario: you are going to storm a castle of another player in late game with all 9th in research. There are some 20-30 mages inside and tons of summons and whatnot. You have something on the same lines. You have a good battle plan involving playing on other player's race weaknesses: for example, he's vulnerable to cold, or fire, or whatever. He has the same against you. Now, you both need gems to realise your plan. You surely want to cast antimagic, some Army of, perhaps Mass regen etc. He too.
Now, castle storming goes after the magic phase. So he casts 3-5*GR on this castle. Your troops are perfectly capable of destroying all the horses in 10 turns without any magic at all. Still, your mages start casting all scripted spells and after that there are several possibilities: if you gave them just enough gems for their script (usual practice to stop AI from crazy things) you storm the castle without gems and lose. If you gave them many gems, they start doing crazy things and spend all their gems and storm and lose. If you gave them really many gems so they still have them after GRs are killed and the things they were doing were not crazy enough to kill them or your army, you finally have some chance to actually storm the castle, not taking into account that the opponent will be able to use much more gems in the battle.
And you have absolutely no way to do anythinng about it.
Have you experienced it, Jarkko?

[Tollund]

I've experienced what you described and it's a perfectly acceptable tactic. He fixed you to expend resources in his attack by putting a fairly significant chunk of his own resources into play.

[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.

[Jarkko]

Have you experienced it, Jarkko?
Zeldor, it appears I have played this game and Dom2 slightly bit longer than you have, so don't you go and think that I am a noob :)

But to answer your question: Yes, yes I have. Many times. And I don't see where the problem is. Which is exactly why I don't understand your eagerness to claim something cheating when it clearly and obviously simply is not.

If you don't know how to plan your strategies against your opponents, then maybe you should play some easier game, like Tetris for example?

[Belac]

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.

[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]

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)

[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 (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44797) mod I just put in the mods sub-forum.

[Dimaz]

I described one of the situations as fully as I can given my poor English. If it's still handwaving I think the discussion is useless. I don't have anything against stealth troops, GR airstrikes or anything else in general; rather there are some common scenarios that look like abuse of game rules to me (and perhaps to some others). Using *GR* during *castle storm* to *burn gems* is one of such situations. There are some others less annoying.

[Baalz]

Hmmm, I don't know if I'd categorize it as there being no counter. Sure, it might slow your conquest, but I think that's perfectly valid. If you 1) expect it 2) Are in very late game and 3) Have a couple turns to feint then it's not that hard to set yourself up so that a couple ghost riders (or whatever) dropping before you storm is just an annoyance. It should be pretty easy to wipe out/route/enslave a smallish force in 1 or 2 turns, and script your mages to account for that - particularly if you hold off a couple turns and see what your opponent is likely to throw at you. If he's dropping ghost riders I think a single boosted undead mastery will stop any other gems from being cast (maybe? I dunno.)- or a couple life for lifes, or soul slays, or a few just man's crosses firing at large enemy monsters, or, well use your imagination. if you can manage to get an the appropriate mages up in your casting order you're golden...if not, you still only need to double up the gems for spells that need to be cast 1st round and push anything you can to the second round (where plenty of spells will be fine going off). If you're prepared for this tactic and you've got the type of army that you're burning that many gems you really shouldn't have much trouble ending this sort of maneuver by your enemy before it gets too expensive.

[Jarkko]

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.

[TwoBits]

Um, you know, you can give key BE mages a ranged weapon and double the gems, and script them to: cast spell X, hold x 4, fire closest (or some such). They'll ride out any irritating Ritual Attacks, and still be able to cast during the 'normal' combat phase.

Costly? Sure. First off, obviously you'll need double the gems. And those casters wont be able to do much more to help after casting the BE. Then they might do something stupid in the 'main' fight after running out of ammo, if the battle runs long. And they'll have at least one, and most likely both, hand slot(s) full, so no Elemental Staves, etc.. So you'll probably need lots of extra mages along to compensate, for that really important fight.

But it's doable, and in a fortress-storming situation, very fair - you should have to bring along a lot extra, if the ultimate prize (say, the enemy's capital) is worth it.

As far as 'CAP' goes, while it's not available in siege situations (you'll have to resort to the above or some other technique), it is available in open-field provinces, at the cost of time, money and gems: Build a lab, and throw up some Domes, before you move on. That'll keep the Ritual attacks at bay while you advance. Slow, but doable.

Of course, that wont help against "suicide squads". But don't you have options of your own to deal with that? Someone mentioned assassination. What about your own flying? Or flanking? How about your own Ritual attacks?

So I'm not saying anything in general about the whole meta-question of how to deal with 'exploits' and what not. I just don't think GR, etc., and 'suicide squads' are a valid to the argument though - sure, they're irritating tactics, but I think they're valid, and they can be dealt with.

[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]

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]

...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.

:fire: :troll:

[Squirrelloid]

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]

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]

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.

But I got him in the end, didn't I? =) When you have 20 assassins, losing a few is not a big deal...

[Fantomen]

Trading Commanders is only cheating if you're playing a no diplomacy game, as would ANY sort of trading be a sign of cheating in such a game so meh.

Sickle farming. The Sickle is a unique artifact and should offer exeptional possibilities. I would only consider it a problem if it wasn't unique, after all the amount of gems you can get isn't game breaking. And you have to make quite an effort to get there, so the reward is within reasonable limits.

Ank/LOD. In most cases where I've seen it or used it I just found it a cool and useful spell. I could understand the frustration if it is turned into some kind of unstoppable strategy, but I've never seen that happen.

Bogus. I actually think this is a lot of work for minimal reward. No problem if someone does it, myself I wouldn't bother unless the opportunity was served within the range of immediate response (what I could do the same turn without changing my overall plans much)

I've certainly had commanders pick up two eyes of aiming, but that has been from my own dead. Very frustrating. I would consider it broken if someone met my big EA agartha army with scouts wearing EoA and turned all my oracles blind, so I hope the word is right that it won't work. The ultimate mechanic would be if commanders would pick up eyes as long as it doesn't turn them blind.

Throwing chaff units to slow armies doesn't spontanously sound broken, but I understand sombres point. The ultimate mechanic IMO would be it there was a strength treshold to it. So to slow down a big army you would need a decent bunch of kamikaze chaff relative to that size.

[Foodstamp]

I've certainly had commanders pick up two eyes of aiming, but that has been from my own dead. Very frustrating. I would consider it broken if someone met my big EA agartha army with scouts wearing EoA and turned all my oracles blind, so I hope the word is right that it won't work. The ultimate mechanic would be if commanders would pick up eyes as long as it doesn't turn them blind.

Throwing chaff units to slow armies doesn't spontanously sound broken, but I understand sombres point. The ultimate mechanic IMO would be it there was a strength treshold to it. So to slow down a big army you would need a decent bunch of kamikaze chaff relative to that size.

If not at release, I thought the two eyes thing was fixed pretty early on. Maybe it just doesn't work when picking up friendly items.

I absolutely agree with you on the second point. Slowing down the army with chaff should not be considered an exploit but if there is ever a Dominions 4 the devs should consider changing the mechanics to work more like you two are suggesting.

[Sombre]

Yeah except it isn't really 'throwing chaff units'. I could understand it if armies were bogged down by hordes of chaffy units. The point is it doesn't seem to matter how many units there are on either side and the chaff units down have to be 'thrown' or sent 'kamikaze' style, they just have to appear then retreat. I've also seen it work with just scouts, so it could more accurately be described as constantly attacking with cheap commanders, rather than chaffy troops.

[Jarkko]

Yeah except it isn't really 'throwing chaff units'. I could understand it if armies were bogged down by hordes of chaffy units. The point is it doesn't seem to matter how many units there are on either side and the chaff units down have to be 'thrown' or sent 'kamikaze' style, they just have to appear then retreat. I've also seen it work with just scouts, so it could more accurately be described as constantly attacking with cheap commanders, rather than chaffy troops.

I've never seen Earthquake or any other BF damaging spell cast against a single target, even when scripted to do so. The AI does override the script if the opposition is not big enough.

Unless you meant a single unit is able to "lock down" an army from moving?

[Zeldor]

Fantomen:

Sickle - hidden income of 30D/turn is not game breaking? It's more than you can get from Well of Misery, and that globals is "I want to win" sign already. There should be no hidden gem profit. Also there shouldn't be a way to kill your own troops for some gains. With Sickle you can just happily turtle and use huge D income for nasty stuff.

Ankh/LoD - sure, I have nothing against that thing, if used as supposed - to get back some fragile afflicted mages as they had bad luck in one battle. But not to create tens of reanimators for nation that is not supposed to have them. Or for having upkeep-free researchers.

Bogus - have you ever seen it in action? Scouts or air mages with bows scripted to 'fire mages'? Flying anti-thugs scripted to attack commanders? I have. And it's not cool and there is no way to use it against your enemy, unless you find another Bogus around. I've heard about people contemplating plans on what scales to pick with N nation to get the most chance for Bogus to appear, so he can be charmed.

Jarkko:

I have, many times. Just put 1-2 really cheap items on a diseased mage, it should be enough to trigger the script.

[Gandalf Parker]

A few skirmishers causing an army to move more cautiously I can understand.
But just a scout? That should be fixed.
But then it would be hard to recognize SCs who should be able to cause an army to stop (at least it does in the movies)

[Foodstamp]

Yeah except it isn't really 'throwing chaff units'. I could understand it if armies were bogged down by hordes of chaffy units. The point is it doesn't seem to matter how many units there are on either side and the chaff units down have to be 'thrown' or sent 'kamikaze' style, they just have to appear then retreat. I've also seen it work with just scouts, so it could more accurately be described as constantly attacking with cheap commanders, rather than chaffy troops.

ok. The sky is blue btw.

[Sombre]

Unless you meant a single unit is able to "lock down" an army from moving?

Yep. Not reliably, just randomly.

[Sombre]

ok. The sky is blue btw.

I wasn't responding to you. Apparently you already knew that, but others don't and are easily misled when people describe it as 'bogging down armies with chaff' or 'delaying the enemy with kamikaze troops'. These aren't accurate descriptions of what's happening at all.


A few skirmishers causing an army to move more cautiously I can understand.
But just a scout? That should be fixed.
But then it would be hard to recognize SCs who should be able to cause an army to stop (at least it does in the movies)


I don't think it needs to be fixed. I'm just identifying what feels like an exploit to me - far easier to ask people not to do it.

[Baalz]

Fantomen:

Sickle - hidden income of 30D/turn is not game breaking? It's more than you can get from Well of Misery, and that globals is "I want to win" sign already. There should be no hidden gem profit. Also there shouldn't be a way to kill your own troops for some gains. With Sickle you can just happily turtle and use huge D income for nasty stuff.

Ankh/LoD - sure, I have nothing against that thing, if used as supposed - to get back some fragile afflicted mages as they had bad luck in one battle. But not to create tens of reanimators for nation that is not supposed to have them. Or for having upkeep-free researchers.

Bogus - have you ever seen it in action? Scouts or air mages with bows scripted to 'fire mages'? Flying anti-thugs scripted to attack commanders? I have. And it's not cool and there is no way to use it against your enemy, unless you find another Bogus around. I've heard about people contemplating plans on what scales to pick with N nation to get the most chance for Bogus to appear, so he can be charmed.

Jarkko:

I have, many times. Just put 1-2 really cheap items on a diseased mage, it should be enough to trigger the script.


I think you exaggerate quite a bit Zeldor. The sickle is not 30 free D gems every turn after you forge it. You need to have a thug - with probably some other equipment which adds cost on top of the sickle. You also need an ally you trust, to manage the micro of shuffling everything around, pay the gold for PD (or whatever) to feed the sickle, lose the income from the provinces turning over. Also, at the point in the game you're forging artifacts it's virtually assured that your use of the sickle won't go unnoticed for very long so if you're using just a thug fighting chaff it's not too hard for somebody to drop in, soul slay you and take off with your sickle. Is it a useful artifact? Sure, but hardly a game breaking 'I win' button. It's about as good as having 2 provinces full of decent bloodhunters.

Ankh abuse is more of a 'I win' play, but it's also easy to spot and takes a good deal of ramp up time to really be a problem. You wouldn't leave a strong player alone with the Forge of the Ancients, I don't really see this as being any different. Again, a worthwhile strategy but hardly something that breaks the game.

Bogus' orders - yet again, useful but far from game breaking. This is a game where you can drop wrathful skies, get mount chaining or put up Gift of Health, so having something that gives you an edge along one angle is part of the game. It's silly to say their is nothing you can do about the orders.

1) Have a bunch of chaff commanders, guarded by thug killing bodyguards
2) Have a bunch of cheap, nasty commanders like banes to smush the guys trying to take out commanders very economically. Or just use indie commanders with things like hammer forged doom glaives (or whatever makes sense)
3) Put cheap shields on your mages and/or rings of tamed lightning - this will make them virtually immune to arrow fire
4) You don't need to find another Bogus - you just complained about being attacked by units who have the orders you want! Charm/HB them if its worth your trouble...
5) Assassinate/mind hunt/earth attack/manifestation/seeking arrow..etc. etc. etc. can go a long way towards reducing snipers.

Again, certainly it can be useful but you're just not trying if you think there's not much you can do about it.

[Jarkko]

I have, many times. Just put 1-2 really cheap items on a diseased mage, it should be enough to trigger the script.

I just ran twenty times (on twenty consequtive turns, so not a save game) a test with an Ulmish Cyclops (E9) scripted Earthquake&cast spells with 20 earth gems in his inventory. Ulm also had in the province 250 warriors and 20 PD. I attacked that with a single Pan (plus a random number of maenads, between 0 and 20) who had equipped a Snake Ring, Bear Claw Talisman, Stinger and Thorn Spear, scripted with Summon Earthpower Retreat.

The Cyclop didn't once cast Earthquake in those twenty tests.

Now if you see WMD spells cast often in similar situations and I haven't, and didn't see even once in this test (with CBM 1.6 btw), then either of us has encountered a weird fluke. I wonder if others have time to run similar tests to check which one of us two has encountered the fluke.

[Trumanator]

Jarkko, if you're doing tests do you think you can also do it with the movement impairment issue? As in script the clops the same but have him and the warriors set to attack a prov, with the pan attacking their originating province.

[Jarkko]

Jarkko, if you're doing tests do you think you can also do it with the movement impairment issue? As in script the clops the same but have him and the warriors set to attack a prov, with the pan attacking their originating province.
Sure, I can do that, although I expect a series of ten tests is not enough for that sort of a test. The number of maenads would have to be standard too, and it would actually require several tests with different set-ups (maybe three test series would be enough; a lone Pan, a Pan with 10 maenads, a Pan with 50 maenads) to get any stastical validity.

However, that will have to wait for tomorrow or Monday, as I'm about to hit bed now :)

[chrispedersen]

I have, many times. Just put 1-2 really cheap items on a diseased mage, it should be enough to trigger the script.

I just ran twenty times (on twenty consequtive turns, so not a save game) a test with an Ulmish Cyclops (E9) scripted Earthquake&cast spells with 20 earth gems in his inventory. Ulm also had in the province 250 warriors and 20 PD. I attacked that with a single Pan (plus a random number of maenads, between 0 and 20) who had equipped a Snake Ring, Bear Claw Talisman, Stinger and Thorn Spear, scripted with Summon Earthpower Retreat.

The Cyclop didn't once cast Earthquake in those twenty tests.

Now if you see WMD spells cast often in similar situations and I haven't, and didn't see even once in this test (with CBM 1.6 btw), then either of us has encountered a weird fluke. I wonder if others have time to run similar tests to check which one of us two has encountered the fluke.


I'm willing to bet that if you look at the log you will see a malus for gem cost.

Basicly, the ai rates the success of various spells, and then downgrades the effectivess of the spell for the gem cost. Oh, and excessive fatigue too.

[Lingchih]

Heck, I would probably use the Bogus Commanders orders at this point, if I could. I have never managed to do it, nor seen anyone else do it. I think it would be a bit like a home run, if someone managed to use it effectivly