Is this considered Cheating?

[wtiberon]

I was playing a recent ladder game and another player was attempting to land an amphibious assault...so I set up immortals to block him from landing. I thought it was quite clever but he got enfuriated and accused me of cheating and playing cheap. BTW he was losing at the time.

Here are some screen shots to illistrate what I was talking about

 

[Ben E Gas]

Definitely NOT cheating! It is like creating an "Iron Curtain" or in your case an "Iron Coastline". It is a favorite tactic of mine, especially along enemy borders.

The other guy must have been a sore loser. He may have been mad that his sad navy couldn't land his puny army onto your territory.

 

[DogBoy]

Cheating? No. Innovative? Yes. Cheap tactic? No. Was the guy being a whiner? Yes. Who doesn't use tacitcs like that to block the enemy? I use it all the time.

 

[Ville]

Absolutely NOT. Why would it be?!??!

 

[WildFire]

Great tactic

 

[col]

Of course with that many immortals, I dont see what he could land from one galley that you couldnt take out immediately.

I think it IS an exploit if you do it with non combat units but Ok if you do it with combat units. Just a personal opinion with no real justification though.

Until marines, all amphibious assualts can be prevented by 'coastguards'. Its well known. A one square island can keep you in the game for a long time.....

 

[Ben E Gas]

I have to disagree with you on one point, Col.

Col wrote:
"I think it IS an exploit if you do it with non combat units but Ok if you do it with combat units. Just a personal opinion with no real justification though."

I disagree because if my homeland was being attacked, I too as a civilian would defend it. I don't agree that the civilians should be forced to fight, so maybe that is the way you are looking at it.

 

[Kevinicus]

I consider that tactics. And he is a sore loser.

 

[FortyJ]

First off, from the looks of the screenshot, it doesn't appear that you have the means necessary to 100% block him from landing in the first place. Specifically, he could move due west and land on the mines south of Sardis, or he could move three tiles SE and land to the south of your "shore patrol".

Also, a savvy player would more likely look at the waste of resources he's forcing you to deploy to prevent his units from landing and see that as a tactical advantage to be exploited elsewhere rather than whine and cry foul play.

Either way, unless there's infantry on that galley, it doesn't look like he should be too eager to make landfall anyway.

 

[ProPain]

Normal tactics imo.

Have to agree with FortyK that he can land west west of his current galley position anyway. From your point of view I really don't understand why you block that landing. What can possibly be in there that you can't beat with those immortals?

 

[Isak]

Funny - if the AI used those tactics, i'm sure there would be infuriated players all over the place

But it's currently possible to do it, and thus is not cheating. It's a small dent that needs to be repaired, as it makes absolutely no sense to be able to block a landing with a wall of units, IMHO, but that's a different story.

I'm sure next time you play with that guy, he'll want to make up house rules though

 

[Ben E Gas]

It is a great tactic. If he tries to land south, you just move all units down, if he tries to land west, you shift units to west before he gets there.

In real life it is similar to using a column of tanks to defend or take a position.

 

[Isak]

But the game already has another way of simulating that - using Attack and Defense values to calculate a winner and a loser.

This little built-in game of action isn't really appropriate within the simulation. It seems very out of place and unintentional IMHO.

A good way to fix it, would be to allow all units to attack from boats, just not into cities, and then give defenders a bonus for defending against 'landing' troops. But that discussion is for a different thread, I guess

 

[The_Oakster]

This is a great tactic especially good when wanting a ROP agreement without letting the AI into yours....

 

[Sgt.Hellfish]

id have let him get 1 landin square and massacre him with all those wonderful imortals

 

[Strider]

Defiantly not cheating... I've used this tatic quite often when I want to stop an AI from expanding. I block there settlers with my units intill I can build a settler of my own and claim the land for myself.

 

[Isak]

Originally posted by Strider
Defiantly not cheating... I've used this tatic quite often when I want to stop an AI from expanding. I block there settlers with my units intill I can build a settler of my own and claim the land for myself.

But that's a bit different since the opponent could send along offensive units in an attempt to exterminate your defensive ones, if they wanted to expand. In the case wtiberon mentions, the opponent doesn't even get that chance unless he has a unit with amphibious ability.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Isak


But that's a bit different since the opponent could send along offensive units in an attempt to exterminate your defensive ones, if they wanted to expand. In the case wtiberon mentions, the opponent doesn't even get that chance unless he has a unit with amphibious ability.

True.... I guess you can consider my way even less cheating, but still has the same idea behind it.

 

[Ben E Gas]

but the gally still has the option of going to another part of the coast. the entire coastline is not protected.

 

[The_Oakster]

Chance to land or not i wouldnt fancy getting off that boat, knowing the ass whuppin' i was gonna get - 10 immortals on show, 1 being constructed and 1 warrior. No thanx!