What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT?

What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> The War Room

Message

springer -> What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/19/2011 7:12:50 PM)
It often happens in the life of wargamers who play human-to-human games that they face opponents who should have been (or may are) crafty defense lawyers. These opponents know the cracks in the system so well that they can get away with the stretching or breaking the laws of physical reality or just doing the absurd through exploits in the system. Often these moves spell utter defeat for the side that experiences these "exploits". What is the most "gamey", egregious or absurd exploit that you have ever experienced in AT? (Or, if you don't mind sharing a "secret", you have ever inflicted.) How'd you respond and how'd the game end?

Iron Knight -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/19/2011 7:38:20 PM)
Sadly, I found early startegic bombers on smaller 1v1 maps can shutdown your opponent fast.

british exil -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/19/2011 8:38:56 PM)
On larger maps building a unit with 1 horse then using it as a recon unit. This was considered as very gamey, as in some scenarios a creating a unit didn't have any cost, so in effect you could recon and conquer cities with only a few horses quite fast. But I never encountered any players using this tactic, neither would I employ such a tactic even playing against the AI. Mat

rjh1971 -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/20/2011 2:37:55 PM)
Creating units and leaving them empty to form a defensive line, in the end we agreed that was a game killer so we decided all units should at least have 5 sft of at least infantry, it was ok to have only one or two tanks as those were harder to destroy. I would have liked to see my opponents face when he saw lots of russian units popping up from nowhere only to discover they were empty shells, nonetheless he had to attack them to clear the terrain and keep advancing. When I came upon this Russia was in a very very bad state, desperate measures had to be taken [:D][:D] it was a WaW game with AT.

Tac2i -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/20/2011 5:43:26 PM)
Hmmm, I thought that empty units cost you no Action Points (AP) when attacking them so in effect it is like they don't exist. quote: ORIGINAL: rjh1971 Creating units and leaving them empty to form a defensive line

Ande -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/20/2011 6:32:13 PM)
I thought that, since there are no zone control points in the unit, the unit would simply disapear as enemy units comes sufficiently close to capture the hex.

Jeffrey H. -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/20/2011 7:49:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: british exil On larger maps building a unit with 1 horse then using it as a recon unit. This was considered as very gamey, as in some scenarios a creating a unit didn't have any cost, so in effect you could recon and conquer cities with only a few horses quite fast. But I never encountered any players using this tactic, neither would I employ such a tactic even playing against the AI. Mat I've done this against the AI and I wouldn't hesitate to do it against a human. Of course, now that we have cavalry it might make more sense to use it for early expansion. Maybe even more gamey was paradropping in to capture neutral cities.

rjh1971 -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/20/2011 10:11:29 PM)
@Webizen, @Ande I haven't tried this in ATG only with AT... but you had to attack them, I also suffered the same tactic , the surprise only lasted one turn [:D] and I was payed back with the same coin [:D]

ernieschwitz -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/26/2011 4:48:42 PM)
Neutral sea hex blocking. It´s one of the most annoying things you can do when not at war, and you can´t declare war. What you do is this. Move a sea unit to some point that needs to be passed in order for ships to move past that area. For instance, the area between norway and denmark, could be blocked by putting sea units (subs for instance, or even cargoships) from the coast of denmark, to the coast of norway. No enemy (no vessels at all in fact but yours) can cross this line. I´ve seen and used this tactic in 1933 for instance, and it would be possible to use in alot of other scenarios. EDIT: How i responded. Well, the game was with Tweber among others. We discussed it briefly, and I decided to keep on using it, because he was using it too. I was playing Soviet union and blocking the entrance to the northern baltic by putting a line of subs out there. He responded by putting a thin line of destroyers out there blocking my movement further south and he also blocked part of the black sea by doing the same. In the end, it was more his problem than mine. You have to understand tho that in 1933, Germany can´t be attacked until they have done an act of aggression. So by putting up a wall of submarines, I was being provocative, ... and he responded by using the same tactics. I think that the game should be fixed so that at least subs can pass through hexes with enemy ships in them, not stacking with them, but just moving past them.

Vic -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/26/2011 10:10:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz Neutral sea hex blocking. It´s one of the most annoying things you can do when not at war, and you can´t declare war. What you do is this. Move a sea unit to some point that needs to be passed in order for ships to move past that area. For instance, the area between norway and denmark, could be blocked by putting sea units (subs for instance, or even cargoships) from the coast of denmark, to the coast of norway. No enemy (no vessels at all in fact but yours) can cross this line. I´ve seen and used this tactic in 1933 for instance, and it would be possible to use in alot of other scenarios. EDIT: How i responded. Well, the game was with Tweber among others. We discussed it briefly, and I decided to keep on using it, because he was using it too. I was playing Soviet union and blocking the entrance to the northern baltic by putting a line of subs out there. He responded by putting a thin line of destroyers out there blocking my movement further south and he also blocked part of the black sea by doing the same. In the end, it was more his problem than mine. You have to understand tho that in 1933, Germany can´t be attacked until they have done an act of aggression. So by putting up a wall of submarines, I was being provocative, ... and he responded by using the same tactics. I think that the game should be fixed so that at least subs can pass through hexes with enemy ships in them, not stacking with them, but just moving past them. quote: o. I was playing Soviet union and blocking the entrance to the northern baltic by putting a line of subs out there. He responded by putting a thin line of destroyers out there blocking my movement further south and he also blocked part of the black sea by doing the same. In the end, it was more his problem than mine. You have to understand tho that in 1933, Germany can´t be attacked until they have don In the ATG random games this gamey tactic should not be possible. You should be able to share sea hexes with regimes you are not at war with. For modders: There is a rulevar that allows you to enable sea hex sharing. Best, Vic

ernieschwitz -> RE: What is the most "Gamey" exploit you have experienced in AT? (6/26/2011 11:17:30 PM)
Been searching for that rulevar, before i wrote this down... but so far haven´t found it... I´ll take another look... Found it: Under disable/enable. Rulevar 525.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375