Attacking after Retreating

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Attacking after Retreating

This topic contains 70 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by  NINJEW 7 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 71 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #219353

    cbower
    Member

    So if your opponent spends his cp on buffs, is out of mp, and you have extra units in the area. Is it just a good move to retreat and re attack with the extra guys, or does this just kill the fun of the game. Is it just low class. On one hand partisan has an entire skill to this ability, on the other it prolongs the game, and is a little underhanded. Just looking for general thoughts. It recently decided a match I was playing, I don’t know if this should be avoided or just part of the game. I would like some perspective.

    #219354

    Ericridge
    Member

    if static electricity went up. I would retreat unless my army was mostly ranged.

    #219357

    NINJEW
    Member

    if static electricity went up. I would retreat unless my army was mostly ranged.

    but would you then attack the same army with the same units + 1 scout who was hanging by in the very same turn? thus depriving your opponent of their cp for the same battle?

    #219364

    Hatmage
    Member

    Ideally, battle enchantments cast by the defending player, and also buffs if possible, would stay in effect unless the armies that cast them moved to new hexes.

    #219366

    NINJEW
    Member

    the question here is one of etiquette. essentially, “is this a dick move to pull” if you are playing against another human

    #219375

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    If I understand this correctly, two possible cases: a) you attacked him: this doesn’t make much sense, though, because in this case you could have brought in the reinforcements from the get-go; in any case, opponent should have known, you CAN, as attacker, retreat – and will possibly do it if things look too dire.
    b) you have the Partisan spec. This, opponent should have known, because you can see that in the Diplomacy screeen; so opponent should have known you can pull that and not committed CPs at all, unless you did.

    So, since this is probably b), I think it’s first and foremost a grave error on your opponent’s side, either ignoring that possibility or not informing himself about your specs – while you picked the spec precisely for being able to pull something like that; or maybe you just picked it in order to try and see what exactly you CAN pull off and how useful it may be.

    So. Don’t let opponent talk you out of the fact that you won because of a serious oversight of his, and not because you pulled some dirty trick on him.

    EDIT: I just realize it may be a) with a twist. You were the attacker – so you can retreat. You attacked – he started casting; once he was out of points, you retreated and rekindled the battle by attacking again with a lonely Scout, thus starting the battle anew.

    Same reasoning. Opponent should have known that you do have this option as the attacker. You CAN, after all simply retreat, and while this will reduce all your MPs to 0 (I assume you didn’t have partisan), should you be able to Summon a new unit (or have a reinforcement, you could start the battle again.

    Same reasoning. Opponent MUST know, that an attacker who is likely to lose, may retreat, and if battle starts anew, for whatever reason, he’s out of CP. So, same error: Opponent shouldn’t have committed fully with CP, unless you as the attacker did.

    #219379

    Ericridge
    Member

    the question here is one of etiquette. essentially, “is this a dick move to pull” if you are playing against another human

    I would, its better to retreat and attack than let my entire attack force get massacred by stuns.

    #219423

    Gloweye
    Member

    To retreat and re-engage is tactics, not dirty tricks or anything.

    IMHO, the only “dirty tricks” in existence is the abuse of a bug. With bug being the obvious bug type, imbalances are fair game.

    So maybe not open up with your strong spells if you think your opponent may retreat….or try and reengage a part of his forces, since he’ll lose his movement and maybe be prone to split-stacking.

    #219426

    Host
    Member

    Yeah, this is a legitimate strategy.

    Basically both attacker and defender need to be aware that the option exists, and the defender needs to just… not shoot their load on the first turn when the attacker can just turn and run away. If the defender waits until the first turn where the attacker is actually engaged with them (or until the turn when the defender themselves decides to charge into the attacker’s line) before casting their big RIP’N’TEAR spells, then retreating will be far too painful an option for the attacker. At the very least, the defender will get good strikes of opportunity against the retreating attacker, meaning that the second attack will be done with much less health than the first.

    #219442

    cbower
    Member

    Thanks, I thought it was just tactics as well. However, I am not always sure about the unwritten rules of etiquette. I don’t run partisan, so this was the first time it made sense to do it. It was just the situation, he kept moving back and casting so I couldn’t engage early.

    #219478

    NINJEW
    Member

    If I understand this correctly, two possible cases: a) you attacked him: this doesn’t make much sense, though, because in this case you could have brought in the reinforcements from the get-go; in any case, opponent should have known, you CAN, as attacker, retreat – and will possibly do it if things look too dire.

    no, actually. the case being used here is “i attacked with my 3 stack army, and he casted a bunch of buffs. i retreated, then used a nearby scout that i initially didn’t want in the battle to re-engage and fight him after he blew all his cp, because he was under the mistaken impression that i was planning on fighting that battle that i initiated”

    To retreat and re-engage is tactics, not dirty tricks or anything.

    IMHO, the only “dirty tricks” in existence is the abuse of a bug. With bug being the obvious bug type, imbalances are fair game.

    So maybe not open up with your strong spells if you think your opponent may retreat….or try and reengage a part of his forces, since he’ll lose his movement and maybe be prone to split-stacking.

    the mindset that results in frustrating abuses like clocksniping. this is more or less why i’m not generally actively seeking games with people from around here, the idea that there is no etiquette when it comes to frustrating abuses of game mechanics is pretty lame. just be a decent dude and don’t play in a way that drags the game down just because you want to win. the desire for victory is the path to having fun, not the goal in itself. if you’re winning in a way that just isn’t fun for anyone (clocksniping is a good example here, again) then you’re putting winning over everyone enjoying the game, in which case i think you miss the point of playing a video game.

    to put it in another way: there was a pretty massive argument in the official tourney thread early on about stack splitting rules. if you were to move your 3 stack army up to attack a defending player, and, after the moving your first stack but before you have time to click to move your second stack, the defending player attacks your single advanced stack to crush it before your other stacks can move in, that’d be a huge dick move. “opportunistic split stacking,” is i believe what it was called.

    i’d hope that playing like that would be frowned upon, and it sounded like it was greatly (the only reason that rules governing such a case are not present in the tournament is because actually making good rules that would cover edge cases as well is basically impossible)

    so the question is, is initiating a battle, letting your opponent spend their cp, then leaving, only to reinitiate within the same turn with the same army something that should be similarly frowned upon? does this create an interesting meta, or is it simply frustrating in the cases in which it applies? is it a reasonable action to take within the confines of friendly competition?

    #219486

    LordCameron
    Member

    I find myself agreeing with NINJEW. I am all for tactics, but having fun must take precedence over winning. A mind game that arises from I view to be an abuse of mechanics (bringing in a single scout to attack again with an entire army that is too tired to fight) is not my idea of fun.
    If a player can cast one high tier spell to defend themselves, say Gift of Nekron or something, they should not be punished for getting it up as soon as possible, it is more effective early, even more so summoning spells that bring in a troop every turn.

    I would, its better to retreat and attack than let my entire attack force get massacred by stuns.

    What ericridge suggests here is entirely reasonable. If you attack and your opponent shows force with a spell that changes the balance of battle I see nothing wrong with retreating, I think the problem is attacking them again when they can no longer do this using the same army.

    I think Hatmage offers an interesting solution:

    Ideally, battle enchantments cast by the defending player, and also buffs if possible, would stay in effect unless the armies that cast them moved to new hexes.

    This would allow a player to be safe from an abuse of tactics (as I view it), but still allow partisan players to bait their opponent to cast heavy spells and then run, wasting their cp and mana. This allows for mind games still, but a far less abusive kind.

    #219491

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    While Eric’s suggestion might be reasonable, it’s not the current situation – and the current situation should be kn own to everyone.
    What happened to cbower’s opponent was easily avoidable – he just acted rash, over-confident, whatever, not thinking about this option and heavily committing before his opponent did.

    I call that a serious error that has nothing to do with honour or etiquette. It was a simple mistake and bad judgement.

    #219497

    Ninjew, what you describe is not opportunistic but deliberate split stacking iirc, because it relies simply on faster clicking when you KNOW the other guy is bringing his forces in.

    Ergo not good.

    The other split stacking is if, for example, I have a concealed stack there, and you leave your armies not adjacent, and out of mp. Now I attack.

    Problem is it all comes down to intentions which are hard to prove and can be argued all day long.

    But your point about edge cases and rules therein is a good one. It also applies to this particular situation IMHO.

    But what’s to stop the defending player moving once the attacker disengages? Just one hex and he is safe…

    Also, it’s IMHO pointless appealing to ‘fun’ in this instance as it might well be glorious fun to bait a Sorc or Druid into using his spells and then killing him at your leisure.

    I’ve done something similar in concept, but not with an extra Scout.

    I had an extra stack that on it’s own was insufficient, and started the fight with my main stack. I fought long enough to force spell usage, lost some troops, ran my leader away, then attacked with the weaker stack.

    Also, why are you obliged to let your opponent use his spells?

    From what the OP says, it seem his opponent was playing in a very “boring” manner by running away and buffing.

    I might well have done the Same thing.

    Anyway, possible solution is to allow buffs last until the end of the strategic turn.

    #219498

    NINJEW
    Member

    what cbower’s opponent did was say “i’m a warlord, i better put lion’s courage on a few key units early in the fight.” 3 turns later, before fighting had begun, cbower retreated, then immediately attacked again, leading the warlord to exclaim “fucking shit all my cp is gone and now i don’t have lion’s courage on my important units”

    i don’t think that’s a very unreasonable position to be in. from talking with cbower privately, my understanding of the situation is that cbower was at an army advantage before the buffs, but after the buffs came out he found himself at a disadvantage and retreated. he then discovered that he could get a nearby irregular into the fight to attack again, this time without his opponent having the opportunity to cast buffs.

    i have actually never heard of someone retreating after buffs were casted early in a fight, and then immediately attacking again within the same turn, so i don’t think it’s reasonable to say “his opponent should have known and predicted this” when it’s not exactly a common situation. afterall, cbower is the one who initiated the fight, cbower was clearly the one with a power advantage. his opponent was simply seeking to close the powergap so his units wouldn’t get massacred, “what if the guy who initiated this fight decides that he isn’t actually committed to it” isn’t really a train of thought that most people will be having in that situation, and isn’t exactly being “overconfident.”

    plus, that same logic leaves “opportunistic split stacking” as a fine and dandy way of playing. “his opponent should have known that this is possible, so he should’ve waited a turn and potentially let me get reinforcements to take advantage of the 15 second rule to get his positioning in order, or done the clocksniping trick and queued up his unit orders before running down the turn timer and dragging out the game just to ensure that he’s able to properly initiate an attack.”

    justifying the use of tactics that abuse the mechanics of the game with “well he should have been aware that this could happen” isn’t really a good argument, since the point of etiquette is that you are intentionally avoiding using abusive tactics because it doesn’t make the game fun to play. it lets you play comfortable in the assumption that your opponent won’t pull Stupid Abusive Bullshit, and enjoy the game more because you don’t have to countercheck every action you take over “but what if he splitstacks me as i’m moving up” or “but what if he retreats and then attacks again with a random scout that i may or may not know exists.” (i believe that the exact situation is that cbower didn’t have a nearby scout, but was able to use raise militia on a nearby city to pull in an additional irregular to reinitiate the fight)

    #219504

    Wallthing
    Member

    I would rate this tactic “gamey.” It would belong in what I think of as a ‘hardcore’ rules setting, that is, an environment where winning is what’s important and the rules are designed such that judging is a matter of observation, not opining about whether something is ‘unfair.’

    In a friendlier setting more concerned with balance, fairness, realism, and other such things, this wouldn’t fly. It stinks.

    If the attacker had gotten a bloody nose in the battle before retreating with whoever he could salvage, then reengaged because he knows the opponent is out of CP – and especially if he had a significant second force to bring in (say, a half stack in a 1 stack v 1 stack battle) – I would say that’s fine. Of course, that would come down to rules where a judge is really making, y’know, a judgment on stuff – it wouldn’t really be suited for hardcore pvp. For hardcore pvp I’d rather that units that retreated couldn’t be pulled back into combat that round unless partisan is involved.

    #219506

    NINJEW
    Member

    Ninjew, what you describe is not opportunistic but deliberate split stacking iirc, because it relies simply on faster clicking when you KNOW the other guy is bringing his forces in.

    Ergo not good.

    i thought deliberate was splitstacking someone who’s armies are out of mp and in a poor strategic position, while opportunistic splitstacking is being “opportunistic” of a weakness in simultanious turn mechanics and taking advatage of move order delay

    But what’s to stop the defending player moving once the attacker disengages? Just one hex and he is safe…

    probably the assumption that someone who retreated from a fight doesn’t actually want to have that fight?

    Also, it’s IMHO pointless appealing to ‘fun’ in this instance as it might well be glorious fun to bait a Sorc or Druid into using his spells and then killing him at your leisure.

    “fun” being “actions that do not serve to put winning the game at a higher value than both parties enjoying the game.” i.e. someone who splitstacks opportunistically isn’t looking to have a good battle, they’re looking to win above all else, even if that means pulling moves that result in their opponent being unable to execute moves that they both intend to do and, in any reasonable setting, would be fully able to (it’s pretty unreasonable to say “you can’t expect to attack with a multistack army”). it’s sacrificing “people should be able to play without being paranoid of their opponent being a huge dick and not letting them execute any 2-or-more-step move” for “i want to win right fucking now, screw the other guy”

    in that sense, it isn’t “fun” to draw an opponent into using up all their cp and then abusing game mechanics to get the same battle sans enemy cp, as you are sacrificing your opponent’s ability to enjoy themself so you can have a blast. which isn’t really a good way to play video games, personally i wouldn’t be interested in playing a game against someone who wasn’t at all interested in whether i’m having fun or not too.

    Also, why are you obliged to let your opponent use his spells?

    From what the OP says, it seem his opponent was playing in a very “boring” manner by running away and buffing.

    yes because as we all know it’s very boring for the defending player at a power disadvantage to try to back up into a more favorable position and quickly utilize the tools at their disposal to lessen the gap as much as possible. some might call this “taking a defensive position” but i suppose “boring” is another way to put it

    the point of this discussion isn’t about hard rules or how said rules could be taken advantage of. acceptable etiquette is generally something that is loosely defined that will vary from person to person. the point isn’t “how could the defending player have mitigated this situation,” it’s “is this an acceptable way to play for two people looking to have a fun game together, where both parties enjoying the game is a higher priority than a single party gaining victory.” it’s not a hyper competitive environment like the tournament, there are no stakes on the game, it’s “for fun.” is this move a reasonable move under the idea that “opportunistic split stacking isn’t fun. moves that are also unfun for similar reasons aren’t acceptable, because opportunistic split stacking isn’t acceptable in a friendly game.”

    #219509

    Gloweye
    Member

    Well, when you’re retreating from a fight because he casts a big spell, you’re taking a risk – you know you’re out of MP, and you know you’re vulnerable to split stacking. Defender can use this opportunity to counter-engage, outnumbering the attacker.

    Therefore I don’t think it’s a bad idea. Retreats are part of the strategic part of the game, clicking faster is not.

    On the other hand, if the defender waits until round 2 with Static Electricity, and engages the attacker in melee, retreat is going to cost a lot more troops, and therefore it might be a better plan.

    #219510

    NINJEW
    Member

    retreating isn’t the issue here. the issue is initiating a fight, backing out of the fight, and then reinitiating the exact same fight in the exact same turn using the exact same units for an advantage.

    #219559

    Fenraellis
    Member

    I would argue that a besieging a city with something like two Chain Lightnings per turn, along with other random hero spells, then retreating, and repeating for four strategic turns in a row is a bit more lame. It’s also technically legitimate strategy if you know the enemy can’t win a field battle, but would cause definitely losses with their ranged defenders behind the wall, and with a defense structure.

    Didn’t happen to me, but it did happen in an FFA game I was playing in once. Every turn, the same guy would attack the other’s town, cast Chain Lightning and/or Magic Fist twice, and I think he might have had an Archdruid for Root Spears, too, then retreat. Killing at least a couple of defenders, and hurting others. The defender had no effective way to bring reinforcements aside from produced units(with -400 Enemy in Domain+At the Gates penalty to the city).

    After the fourth turn in a row of this, the defender simply surrendered from the game, because he felt the other player was being immensely lame when he could have won the battle in the first place, albeit with a few losses.

    #219565

    NINJEW
    Member

    yeah i wouldn’t want to play with someone who was pulling that shit either. good call

    #219572

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    retreating isn’t the issue here. the issue is initiating a fight, backing out of the fight, and then reinitiating the exact same fight in the exact same turn using the exact same units for an advantage.

    That is bull. The issue is, that defender gave him that option.

    And what you wrote in your post before,

    “i have actually never heard of someone retreating after buffs were casted early in a fight, and then immediately attacking again within the same turn, so i don’t think it’s reasonable to say “his opponent should have known and predicted this” when it’s not exactly a common situation. afterall, cbower is the one who initiated the fight, cbower was clearly the one with a power advantage. his opponent was simply seeking to close the powergap so his units wouldn’t get massacred, “what if the guy who initiated this fight decides that he isn’t actually committed to it” isn’t really a train of thought that most people will be having in that situation, and isn’t exactly being “overconfident.””

    THis is also bull because winning and losing in gaming often involves defeat because a “what if” wasn’t a train of thought the loser followed, while the winner did.

    I think, a couple of weeks ago we were involved in a discussion where EXACTLY this situation was debated: I complained about the fact that you can ENTER one-stack sites repeatedly with 0 movement left and retreat, and NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT – except you and me:

    http://aow.triumph.net/forums/topic/request-please-make-it-impossible-to-enter-mystical-sites-with-0-mp-left/

    Basically, the same problem, basically the same discussion:

    There are 3 stances here:

    1) No problem with it;
    2) Game should be changed so that this is impossible (because everything you can do should be allowed, because it’s simplest)
    3) We don’t need the devs to waste time with fixing possible exploits because we should all play “honorably”.

    In an ideal world, Eric is right, and spells cast on a unit should last that turn as long as that unit didn’t move (it’s technically still on the battlefield) – with the current mechanics of attack and movement, that is.

    The only real point against this is – there is a Spec for this kind of behavior and stuff belonging there shouldn’t be pulled without it -, but in fact this is only a point for changing the mechanic to make that effect impossible.

    As it is, the phenomenon as such should be clear: retreat is something only the ATTACKER can do under regular circumstances. Also, initiating combat AGAIN is something VERY possible: the fight could have happened, only for the survivors to become engaged again (by a stack that needed a hex to be cleared to be able to take part, for example).

    So before the defender started to run from the attacker and casting buffs onto his units, he should have stopped thinking what áttacker’s options would be.

    It was an error of judgement alright, and good thinking by attacker.

    Try to reverse things a bit: say, ATTACKER was low or out of CP, attacking because of having a slightly better force, but knowing full well CPs might make a crucial difference. Defender sees that. Is retreating and running around the battlefield to gain time in order to use CP to gain an advantage fair?
    And what if attacker retreats in that case?

    It’s a possibility that has to be considered, and not doing it is an oversight, in this case a costly one, not more.

    #219574

    NINJEW
    Member

    this isn’t a thread asking for a dev solution. it’s literally just asking “is this a dick move?” it’s not a call for something in the game code to be changed, it’s just asking for people’s opinion on whether this is good sportsmanship or not.

    see also: clock sniping and opportunistic split stacking, neither of which are good sportsmanship, both of which involve abuse of game mechanics, and neither of which have seen any recent call for game changes to be made to accommodate that.

    #219579

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I would argue that a besieging a city with something like two Chain Lightnings per turn, along with other random hero spells, then retreating, and repeating for four strategic turns in a row is a bit more lame. It’s also technically legitimate strategy if you know the enemy can’t win a field battle, but would cause definitely losses with their ranged defenders behind the wall, and with a defense structure.

    Didn’t happen to me, but it did happen in an FFA game I was playing in once. Every turn, the same guy would attack the other’s town, cast Chain Lightning and/or Magic Fist twice, and I think he might have had an Archdruid for Root Spears, too, then retreat. Killing at least a couple of defenders, and hurting others. The defender had no effective way to bring reinforcements aside from produced units(with -400 Enemy in Domain+At the Gates penalty to the city).

    After the fourth turn in a row of this, the defender simply surrendered from the game, because he felt the other player was being immensely lame when he could have won the battle in the first place, albeit with a few losses.

    Of course that wouldn’t have worked if defender could have brought something comparable into play as well (and might in fact have backfired in that case, depending of the reinforcement situation) , so you might argue here that the problem was a disparity of weapons combined with the fact that one player made extensive use of it, rubbing it really in for the other player without giving him the chance to draw blood as well. You might also argue that this kind of behaviour would be in line with an evil pragmatic kind of Sorcerer often described in popular fiction lots of people know, and what *I* would have done is the exact opposite. I’d simply convey this to the other players, telling them that I’d try to delay the guy as much as possible (after the second retreat), that the guy had this and that forces here at my door at this point on the map, and that, by all means, they should use the situation and attack him.

    I mean, I fully understand the frustration coming with technical inferiority leading to powerlessness, but simply pulling out after enduring that shit, isn’t that even more frustrating? The way to go is suicide rage against the offender and trying to make him pay as much as possible, by helping the others and trying to damage him.

    #219584

    NINJEW
    Member

    jj i can’t believe that you or anyone else would look at that and go “that is a person i want to continue playing games with, this will lead to a fun gameplay experience”

    do you feel similarly about opportunistic split stacking too

    #219585

    NINJEW
    Member

    the fun thing about multiplayer is that generally you can pick and choose who you play with and also whether the current game is worth your time or not. i’d think that most people interested in having fun in this game wouldn’t choose to play with people who use tactics that suck all the fun out of the game like that and create only a frustrating experience for everyone (including the other players in the FFA, since they all are having their games paused each turn so this jackass can pull his stupid annoying bullshit)

    #219595

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Well, what do you think why I quit playing Live MP, WAY back, when I was playing the hell out of HoMM 3?
    Because playing against strangers wasn’t “fun” – so I played with friends and people who I knew having the same idea of a fun game than myself.

    However – I think you have to rethink your stance on “dick moves”. You can generally call everything a “dick move” that has nothing to do with playing a game and playing it well in the sense of making best use of game elements and tools, but only with WINNING the game.

    I answered to Fen’s post, but let me add, it’s not opponent’s task to make your defeat “fun” for you. The defeat was seemingly sealed anyway, and no matter what, and why is it a dick move to waste time in order to save men? It wasn’t fun for the defender, but allowing defender to slay a couple of units, giving him the “at least I made him pay” feeling is expecting a little much, imo. It’s like an English Imperial army fighting a band of primitives. Granting them a fight to THEIR conditions would just be silly – but probably in line with smart club talk about “bloody sportsmanship”.

    I mean, attacker could ask: “Hey, I can retreat now and repeat this as many turns as it takes to destroy you or you can save us all time and effort and surrender the fight and this town now.” But what he SHOULDN’T do is fighting on defender’s condition, at least not unless this is fight for Throne City, you have reserves coming and you want to end it with some good old bloody fun fight. Otherwise there is more on the line.

    If you play Sim Turns you add a real-time element and fast-clicking counts. I mean, WHAT ELSE? If two obviously power-different forces see each other and one is fast enough to engage the other, bevor they can react, that’s perfectly fine – otherwise why play SiMTurn at all? So don’t split stacks, but move in a way so that your stacks keep together. If you want people to hold still until you’ve surrounded them, play old-fashioned.

    So if you want to play with certain “fairness” rules that exclude certain behaviour, your only option is to found your own Steam Group and make those official rules that everyone who joins agrees with – play with friends only and have fun.

    The move in question isn’t even a dick move in the widest sense. Why would attacker allow opponent to delay until opponent has buffed all of his units, if he can easily avoid it? And why should opponent do that without first making sure attacker is engaged?
    Is it sportsmanshiplike to basically say, “hey, would you please sit around and wait a couple of turns until I’ve buffed my units to superiority, thank you very much?”

    If there was no retreat option – would it be fair to run in circles in order to do that?

    So, imo, this is all bollocks. Losers complaining – actually about being so silly to play with people they don’t know who obviously play for different reasons and with a different understanding.
    Play with “friends” – no problem.
    See it from a practical point of view. Do you really want to waste time with wondering whether opponent(s) are really keeping to spoken or unspoken rules without a way to actually check it?

    #219607

    NINJEW
    Member

    So if you want to play with certain “fairness” rules that exclude certain behaviour, your only option is to found your own Steam Group and make those official rules that everyone who joins agrees with – play with friends only and have fun.

    you say this as if i don’t already do this dude. “i play with a group of people who have all agreed to not be dickholes to each other and are good enough at not being dickholes that we’ve never had to draw up a proper list of rules because none of us are interested in exploiting hard defined rules in the first place” is the perspective i’ve been speaking from this whole time.

    If you play Sim Turns you add a real-time element and fast-clicking counts. I mean, WHAT ELSE? If two obviously power-different forces see each other and one is fast enough to engage the other, bevor they can react, that’s perfectly fine – otherwise why play SiMTurn at all? So don’t split stacks, but move in a way so that your stacks keep together. If you want people to hold still until you’ve surrounded them, play old-fashioned.

    is this you speaking in defense of opportunistic split stacking? because lol if so

    the reason to use simul over classic is that classic takes literally twice as long man. i don’t know if you’ve noticed but a lot of things about live MP (auto vs AI, 3 minute turn timer, simul turns) aren’t there because “this is how we want to play the game” and actually there because “if we don’t have this the game will be full of sitting around and doing nothing and we’ll all be bored out of our skulls.” have you ever played aow3 live mp classic turns? i suspect not, because you don’t play live mp, so let me fill you in on a little secret: it’s boring as hell. it takes twice as long to get through and half your time is spent sitting around doing literally nothing. it sucks, and that’s basically the only reason simul is ever played over classic. so the advantage that clicking faster gives is actually a “dick move” because it’s taking advantage of the fact that the only reason such a move is even possible is because of a concession that must be made in order to enjoy the game, and things like opportunistic split stacking are taking advantage of that concession that no one actually really wanted to make, but was absolutely necessary to make so we could enjoy the game.

    #219612

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    @ NINJEW
    If you already have your group – what are you complaining about?

    Second, if you read my last post, you may have noticed that I’ve been playing HoMM 3 a lot, and I suppose you know that game or at least that it had no simturns.

    So, considering that thousands played and STILL PLAY turn-based games where 1 moves and the other(s) sit around, your point is null and void. playing turn-based IS fun enough, if you play with a strict time-limit. Sure, things take more time, but heck, you are sacrificing most of the fun anyway by playing autocombat.

    Your whole argumentation, playing simturn would be just to accelerate the game, but should otherwise have no simturn mechanics, because that’s “dick move”, could be countered by saying, that in HoMM 5 SimTurns ended at contact, making the question of who’d draw faster obsolete.

    Look, FOR ME, the idea of playing a turn-based strategy game with tactical battlefield that is centered around combat with SimTurns and autocombat is the antithesis of having fun, dick moves or not, so don’t expect any understanding from my side for your idea of fun.

    No one is forcing you to play MP the way you do, it’s just that the younger generations have no patience. See it this way: if you enjoy the fucking game and a tussle with friends, relax, take your time and enjoy it. Play two games at the same time, read a book while the others move, play single – doesn’t matter.

    But don’t go and tell others what is a dick move and what not because you play a certain mode only to save time. It’s not about racing through a game – that could be described as “dick move” as well because it amounts to the question who can perform best under time pressure. Keep in mind, I’ve been playing that crap for a long time – automatism more than anything else and actually not that much fun.

    #219613

    All boils down to it being a dick move if you think it is…

    And it not if you think not.

    Personally, I’d just move my stack if the attacker retreated.

    That’s click army and click destination. Attacker has to bring in extra units and reinitiate.

    Cbower used raise militia well here.

    IMHO, not a dick move.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 71 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.