Vuki's experience with IA V5.0, Using a special party composition Options

[Vuki]

I started a new party because I was a little bit tired and bored with the previous one. My previous party was a usual IA party: sorcerer protagonist + barbarian + blade + ranger->cleric (dual) + cleric/mage (multi) + monk. I will surely continue my old game later on but at the moment I concentrate on the new party. Ok, so this is the new party composation (and their current statistics):

Protagonist: Lothar, a half-elf Vagrant: Chaotic Good; lvl 9th; Axe++, Flail++, Club++, two-weapon style+++
Barbie, the half-ork barbarian (he is a male! ): Chaotic Good; lvl 9th; 2H Sword++, Spear+, Quater Staff++, 2H weapon style++
Ince, the Inquisitor: Lawful Good; lvl 9th; 2H Sword++, Halberd++, Quater Staff+, 2H weapon style++
Rancle, the Ranger->Cleric (dual class): Neutral Good; lvl 7/9th; War Hammer++, Club++, Flail++, Mace++, Quater Staff+, two-weapon style+++
Berti, the Berserker->Thief (dual): Chaotic Neutral; lvl 9/10th; Long Sword++, Scimitar+, Short Sword+, Dagger+, Club++, Dart+, two-weapon style+++
Cernd, the Auramaster: True Neutral; lvl 11th; Scimitar+, Dagger+, Quater Staff+, Sling+

Yes, there is no arcane caster at all! And there will be no arcane caster in the future as well. I will replace sometimes Cernd with other NPCs to trigger their quest but not arcane caster NPC. That was my intention from the beginning and it is a concept and not an accident.

I think in a lot of cases it will make my life harder but some battles will be easier. Also I do not have to prebuff as much because I am not able to do as much prebuff as with an arcane caster. Life is good.

I will write here my experience with this party as I advance in the game. I will update my second post here (so, not this one). I will write it from the viewpoint of Lothar. Btw, I have no idea how I was able to find such a name. Lothar. In the other cases I think the naming logic is clear.

Ps. Sorry for my not so good English! I hope it would be still enjoyable.

Update:
Part 1 is finished
Part 2 is finished
Part 3 is finished
Part 4 is partially entered

This post has been edited by Vuki: Sep 1 2008, 09:33 AM

[Sikret]

Well, I'm not going to interfere and talk about playing styles unless the case is a plain cheat or a very clearly cheesy method. This particular case is not one such case and I wouldn't write about it if you did not ask.

Personally, I don't use the mentioned method in my game, because as I've written in my "Started a v5 game" thread I avoid even debatable methods. As Vuki said, the mentioned method is not even usable in most cases unless you are facing a single enemy mage, but then if you see that you are misusing the engine limitations against that enemy, you should probably have a bad feeling about it as well. I think everyone can judge such special and debatable cases when they happen in his or her own game.

But let's put it in this way:

When your warrior is injured and you want to take him back to heal him, what course of action do you choose: Do you firstly send a new warrior to take the first warrior's position and just then you take the injured one back? Or do you straightly take the injured one back allowing the enemy mage to follow him and see the rest of your party?

If the latter, it's not cheesy, because the enemy mage will eventually have the chance to follow him and see the rest of your party.

If the former, then it is probably a tad cheesy in my opinion. At least, I don't use such a method in my own games. In general, I won't feel good if I sense that I'm somehow (even slightly) deceiving the game's engine.

[Vuki]

Personally, I don't use the mentioned method in my game, because as I've written in my "Started a v5 game" thread I avoid even debatable methods. As Vuki said, the mentioned method is not even usable in most cases unless you are facing a single enemy mage, but then if you see that you are misusing the engine limitations against that enemy, you should probably have a bad feeling about it as well. I think everyone can judge such special and debatable cases when they happen in his or her own game.

I have found out a slight modification of this tactics. In that case all (or most) of my characters are in the view area of the enemy caster but they are spread on the screen to avoid being damaged by area affect spells (I mean only one or maybe two can be damaged by them). That is definitely not cheesy (however not always useable).

When your warrior is injured and you want to take him back to heal him, what course of action do you choose: Do you firstly send a new warrior to take the first warrior's position and just then you take the injured one back? Or do you straightly take the injured one back allowing the enemy mage to follow him and see the rest of your party?

If the latter, it's not cheesy, because the enemy mage will eventually have the chance to follow him and see the rest of your party.

If the former, then it is probably a tad cheesy in my opinion. At least, I don't use such a method in my own games. In general, I won't feel good if I sense that I'm somehow (even slightly) deceiving the game's engine.

It is really funny. I was also thinking about these two ways when I developed this tactics and my idea was that the first one is not cheesy and the second one is cheesy. So, it is the opposite as you think. My reason was the following: in the former option one of my character is always defending the party and keep the enemy away and in the second case the retreat of my hero from the mage is similar than a run away. You mentioned in the cheesy pdf that run away is cheesy and tactical retreat is not. And also this flee to the party and then send the next fighter case can be done even while the mage is casting something and then he has no chance to follow my hero.

Btw, this tactical retreat is still not clear for me. Ok, let's examine the Tor'Gal case. You retrieve 2-3 of your backup characters to the other room while others are protecting them. That is ok. But then what do you do with the remaining characters? If you move them back to the other room then in reality they flee back and not just retreat. It is pity that retreat is not implemented in the game because it is implemented in the paper based game. As I remember if you retreat then you cannot attack and you only move half speed but the enemy cannot get any bonus attack (they get one free attack - or maybe one full round - if you flee). Hmm, may I ask yo to maybe make a video about this retreat and upload it to Youtube to make it clear for everybody?

This post has been edited by Vuki: Aug 25 2008, 07:46 AM

[Arkain]

[...]
My reason was the following: in the former option one of my character is always defending the party and keep the enemy away and in the second case the retreat of my hero from the mage is similar than a run away. You mentioned in the cheesy pdf that run away is cheesy and tactical retreat is not. And also this flee to the party and then send the next fighter case can be done even while the mage is casting something and then he has no chance to follow my hero.

Btw, this tactical retreat is still not clear for me. Ok, let's examine the Tor'Gal case. You retrieve 2-3 of your backup characters to the other room while others are protecting them. That is ok. But then what do you do with the remaining characters? If you move them back to the other room then in reality they flee back and not just retreat. It is pity that retreat is not implemented in the game because it is implemented in the paper based game. As I remember if you retreat then you cannot attack and you only move half speed but the enemy cannot get any bonus attack (they get one free attack - or maybe one full round - if you flee). Hmm, may I ask yo to maybe make a video about this retreat and upload it to Youtube to make it clear for everybody?

If I was a mage fighting someone who then retreats/flees and is replaced by another guy to hold me off I'd start to wonder where that guy came from and maybe ask myself whether I should get moving (as there may be more enemies lurking around) or not. It would be quite dumb to sit around and simply keep fighting the replacement hero, imho.

If my memory is correct Sikret's explanation was that when retreating the battle doesn't stop but goes on. So if you keep on fighting after retreating/fleeing it's still the same battle, thus you simply moved into a better position. Strategy and all that. Or something along those lines.

This post has been edited by Arkain: Aug 25 2008, 10:32 AM