Kick button

[Ling*]

I guess if leashing will be a thing to fight and remove rambo, the "follow me" command can be removed also. It's a degradation of the gameplay, and humans will find a workaround to do rambo anyway. It's a wrong approach to fixing the problem. It's more a punishment than a fix I think. And if ALL classes are going to be on a forced leash, then so many other tactical elements and situations, that has nothing to do with rambo, will disappear also. For instance, being able to delay charging inf alone, while giving your archers a waypoint. How freaking frustrating it would be if they only run like 10 meters, and then turn around to run back to me, into sure death.

I think we need to wait with this "fix", and work on the other stuff instead. Because rambo tactics have been possible since the EA release. But has only recently been discovered as a "tactic". I actually suspect that using ALL your cav as a support IS a viable and strong tactic in the mode right now. We just need to "discover" the right way to do it.

Using 1 unit to delay an entire formation is an exploit and is indeed considered to be Rambo. Any time you separate from your units to do anything you are ramboing, whether thats getting a bunch of kills or manipulating the enemy ai to distract them. Leashing requires the player to consider the risks of losing your ai in an unfavorable engagement vs the potential rewards. With rambo there is no real risk as at most you can only ever lose one unit which results in a non-commander focused playstyle which is not what captain mode should be. You will have to learn new ways to play and it will open up several new viable strategies and classes that were all previously rendered useless under the threat of rambo.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

Using 1 unit to delay an entire formation is an exploit and is indeed considered to be Rambo. Any time you separate from your units to do anything you are ramboing, whether thats getting a bunch of kills or manipulating the enemy ai to distract them. Leashing requires the player to consider the risks of losing your ai in an unfavorable engagement vs the potential rewards. With rambo there is no real risk as at most you can only ever lose one unit which results in a non-commander focused playstyle which is not what captain mode should be. You will have to learn new ways to play and it will open up several new viable strategies and classes that were all previously rendered useless under the threat of rambo.

From my point of view, the only unit that can do a rambo tactic is the cav unit class. Where 1 single unit can kill, own and damage all other unit classes 1v20. To delay units, as in my example, cannot, or should not be considered an exploit or manipulation of AI. Because it's more a desperate move to use as a last resort, where 1 single unit ofc will die 1v20. And there is also a simple counter to it, just ignore the single archer captain and push on to his units, and kill them. The only real thing that could save the archers in that example, is actually a full cav charge. It would be a grotesque overreaction to put this nerf on all unit classes. It might open up new tactics, but you can't be sure that it will. But, if this will be implemented, we can be very sure that many other good things will vanish or be super degraded. The way forward is not to limit all units classes with this super nerf, but to encourage cav players to use their entire squad on their own, as a support role. As they did back then before the 1.5.0 update. And the Key for this to happen is ~Archers~. Because back then, 1 single cav could not stop archers from doing damage on infantry, they needed to do full cav attacks for that to happen. And archers could also easy repel rambo attacks on their own.

There is also the situation, where a single inf captain want to look over the hill, or around the corner for the exact position of enemy range units. With the leash nerf, all or half of my squad will get exposed. There is 100 other situations like this, that has nothing todo with rambo tactic, exploits or abuse, that will get hit because of this.

 

[aLiaXXXanger]

How well you understand this game, buddy @Olaf The Cruel ! I even wanted to express myself additionally)). Here's what I want to point out:
Is the Rambo tactic really a problem, and if so, what order is it? Actively playing in the captains mode, I do not have any problems using the Rambo tactics by the players. I see it as one of the many tactics options, nothing more. Moreover, this does not happen very often (no more than once in 15-20 parties). At the same time, other players recently got the opportunity to kick Rambo. However, this does not always happen. Most likely because many players do not see this as a significant problem either. In my opinion, if someone considers Rambo to be a problem, then its importance is too overestimated. And if we consider Rambo as a problem, you need to understand that it is not the original problem. This is just a derivative (player reaction) of the unresolved primary gameplay issues (which @Olaf The Cruel and @Cek so admirably described). And trying to just fix Rambo without solving the gameplay and AI problems that stimulate the use of Rambo tactics, it looks like a hospitalized patient with bleeding from the mouth, the mouth is simply sealed with a plaster and sent home ... his problem is solved))). Therefore, dear @Callum and the entire TW team, please keep your inherent wisdom in making decisions about the priority, direction and way of developing your wonderful game! But don't cut down on enthusiasm either)

 

[Sigaretovic]

Using 1 unit to delay an entire formation is an exploit and is indeed considered to be Rambo. Any time you separate from your units to do anything you are ramboing, whether thats getting a bunch of kills or manipulating the enemy ai to distract them. Leashing requires the player to consider the risks of losing your ai in an unfavorable engagement vs the potential rewards. With rambo there is no real risk as at most you can only ever lose one unit which results in a non-commander focused playstyle which is not what captain mode should be. You will have to learn new ways to play and it will open up several new viable strategies and classes that were all previously rendered useless under the threat of rambo.

Looks like you're trying to convince some people who are oblivious of their surroundings. Its no use, but at least your lucky that TW shares your point of view.

 

[Ling*]

Looks like you're trying to convince some people who are oblivious of their surroundings. Its no use, but at least your lucky that TW shares your point of view.

It's not surprising, typically people who frequently and actively use rambo as their main strategy are afraid to lose it, and some will fight tooth and nail to preserve this obviously broken mechanic at all costs so that they can keep on using it to their advantage because it works for them.
There is so much wrong with both of their replies that I will not even begin to address each one because at this point it feels like they have their fingers in their ears and are humming so as not to hear the truth.

Thankfully as you say Taleworlds agrees that it is an exploit and the type of playstyle that it encourages doesn't fit within their vision of the mode.

 

[Ling*]

From my point of view, the only unit that can do a rambo tactic is the cav unit class. Where 1 single unit can kill, own and damage all other unit classes 1v20. To delay units, as in my example, cannot, or should not be considered an exploit or manipulation of AI.

 

[aLiaXXXanger]

It's not surprising, typically people who frequently and actively use rambo as their main strategy are afraid to lose it, and some will fight tooth and nail to preserve this obviously broken mechanic at all costs so that they can keep on using it to their advantage because it works for them.
There is so much wrong with both of their replies that I will not even begin to address each one because at this point it feels like they have their fingers in their ears and are humming so as not to hear the truth.

Thankfully as you say Taleworlds agrees that it is an exploit and the type of playstyle that it encourages doesn't fit within their vision of the mode.

I hope you don't mean me or @Olaf The Cruel , since no one who is active enough in captain mode and knows us can accuse us of using Rambo tactics. I also will not argue that there is so much wrong in your opinion, because I respect any opinion ... although, of course, sometimes I feel an inner horror, imagining the consequences of transforming someone's opinion into a final solution to the problem under discussion...
Wish you luck!

 

[Ling*]

I hope you don't mean me or @Olaf The Cruel , since no one who is active enough in captain mode and knows us can accuse us of using Rambo tactics. I also will not argue that there is so much wrong in your opinion, because I respect any opinion ... although, of course, sometimes I feel an inner horror, imagining the consequences of transforming someone's opinion into a final solution to the problem under discussion...
Wish you luck!

You and I must have vastly different definitions of what is and is not rambo.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

I know. My team was using this tactic in the tournament. And although I was the leader of that team, I actually was not a fan of the tactic, and was also, at first, fighting against to use it. But, the only counter to this horrible and exhausting rambo tactic is a rambo tactic itself. So, it left me no choice really. I am not fighting to preserve this tactic, I don't have my own secret agenda, I don't want specific classes to be useless so I can do "my thing", I am the complete opposite of a ignorant. I am faithful to this mode, it's integrity. And I believe a nerf of this magnitude will degrade it, and it would be the same as using a bardiche to do fine surgery, I think the patient will get super handicapped at least.

The definition of Rambo should be the situation where it's more tactical sound to use 1 unit, to own all other classes. And only with a cav unit is that is possible.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

How well you understand this game, buddy @Olaf The Cruel ! I even wanted to express myself additionally)). Here's what I want to point out:
Is the Rambo tactic really a problem, and if so, what order is it? Actively playing in the captains mode, I do not have any problems using the Rambo tactics by the players. I see it as one of the many tactics options, nothing more. Moreover, this does not happen very often (no more than once in 15-20 parties). At the same time, other players recently got the opportunity to kick Rambo. However, this does not always happen. Most likely because many players do not see this as a significant problem either. In my opinion, if someone considers Rambo to be a problem, then its importance is too overestimated. And if we consider Rambo as a problem, you need to understand that it is not the original problem. This is just a derivative (player reaction) of the unresolved primary gameplay issues (which @Olaf The Cruel and @Cek so admirably described). And trying to just fix Rambo without solving the gameplay and AI problems that stimulate the use of Rambo tactics, it looks like a hospitalized patient with bleeding from the mouth, the mouth is simply sealed with a plaster and sent home ... his problem is solved))). Therefore, dear @Callum and the entire TW team, please keep your inherent wisdom in making decisions about the priority, direction and way of developing your wonderful game! But don't cut down on enthusiasm either)

I agree. Since many new players are playing cap mode, and the veteran teams are gone, rambooing is not really a problem in pub games. It do take a little skill to be an effective rambo player. And when I see the enemy going for this tactic, I know that his teammates are without any real support from that cav player. Before the 1.5.0 update I always said "ignore the cav, go for the rest". And I also always send my own cav to do full attacks vs enemy archers, in support for my inf and especially if my poor poor archers were being run down by inf, so they had a chance of escape. But, the parameters of the games changed so drastically after the 1.5.0 update, that archers were so useless, that they were no factor to deal with on the battlefield anymore. And that made cav free of any supporting role.

Before 1.5.0 the true counter to achers was full Cav attacks. After 1.5.0 all units are a counter to archers.

"feels like they have their fingers in their ears and are humming so as not to hear the truth."

FIX ARCHERS AND RAMBO WILL DISAPEAR!

I dunno if shouting this will help. Feels like TW only listens to the players that agrees with them.

 

[Ling*]

The definition of Rambo should be the situation where it's more tactical sound to use 1 unit, to own all other classes. And only with a cav unit is that is possible.

You can rambo with any class and it is not limited to cavalry. Cavalry is simply the most effective class to rambo with, not the only class. You should see some of the players who use solo shock troops to rack up 6-7 kills by running off alone by themselves before dying.

Any time that you separate from your unit to either:
1. Kill enemy Ai without the presence of your troops.
2. Distract enemy Ai without the presence of your troops.
-Turn Ai's shields around without the presence of your troops.
-Soak up archer fire without the presence of your troops.
-Lead Ai who are charging to follow you away from the main fight with a single unit.
This is what Rambo is, and the exploits that result from it.

As Callum stated, you are never going to be free of these exploits by simply improving the Ai because the Ai can only ever be so good. No matter how good the Ai gets, the player will always be smarter and able to abuse it's targeting mechanics.

Take for example: "Turning an Ai's shields around with a single unit"
If you program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat that is within proximity, then the player is free to get behind the ai and kill them.
If you don't program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat, then the player will be able to turn the shields due to their proclivity for "Self-preservation", effectively distracting them and rendering them unable to function properly.

In either scenario the enemy formation is at a loss, and all that it cost the player is potentially 1 life. The point is that Ai will always have a behavioral pattern that will be easily identified and exploited by the player no matter how good you program it to be. Leashing doesn't prevent you from turning Ai shields, it prevents you from doing it with little-to-no risk by putting your friendly troops in harms way which is a more fair exchange.

I would also be in favor of restricting Captain respawns to 1-3 lives as it achieves the same thing, you will have to weigh the potential cost of the engagement (potentially dying and not being able to respawn) with the benefits (distracting or killing enemy ai) and then make the decision of whether or not you deem it worth it in any given scenario.

The problem with rambo tactics is that there is no real risk in using them, and that is why the most "efficient" use of your troops is to use them as extra lives. (If you can get 6 kills for every 1 life that you expend that is a good trade for you) There needs to be some form of risk added to using these tactics, which is why Leashing or Restricting Captain Respawns are such popular suggestions because they facilitate this risk. Leashing makes it so you risk your ai troops when you engage in combat. Restricting Captain Respawns risks you being shut out of the fight if you die while fighting. Both will incentivize the player to avoid ramboing and thus will push the gameplay in the proper direction of controlling and commanding Ai troops to work as an army to defeat the enemy army, which is what captain mode should be.

 

[Mad Vader]

Take for example: "Turning an Ai's shields around with a single unit"
If you program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat that is within proximity, then the player is free to get behind the ai and kill them.
If you don't program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat, then the player will be able to turn the shields due to their proclivity for "Self-preservation", effectively distracting them and rendering them unable to function properly.

A good AI would send a few troops after you (preferably cavalry, so they can catch you or chase you off), but the rest will maintain formation and heading towards the main body of the enemy. The Warband AI did this, so it's nothing new.

 

[Ling*]

A good AI would send a few troops after you (preferably cavalry, so they can catch you), but the rest will maintain formation and heading towards the main body of the enemy. The Warband AI did this, so it's nothing new.

If you're referring to the campaign battle commander Ai, I believe they already do something similar. This is not relevant for captain mode, however. If you as a captain can lure 4-6 units away from an enemy formation of 14 units while the rest of your units are engaged in the fight then you have the advantage in that fight.

 

[Ruthven]

Will cav get picked at all in serious matches if they can't rambo?

Edit: also what is meant here by "leashing"? If your units actually follow you in near lockstep that would be amazing, if it means you step 10 paces from your last inf and your damage output goes down to 10%...

 

[Ling*]

Will cav get picked at all in serious matches if they can't rambo?

Less frequently, maybe as a support class. As a result people will be more inclined to choose Archers and Skirmisher units as they will have more viability in that situation, currently they rarely if ever get picked at all, wheras cavalry is picked nearly every game. Cav will always have some form of use, especially for capturing objective flags.

Edit: @Ruthven Leashing means that if you leave your units, after certain distance they will start to follow you, the exact distance this should be is subject to debate. If it functions anything like the "Follow and Maintain relative position" mechanic from VC that @Terco_Viejo has suggested in the past, this would be an interesting and pretty cool way to go about doing it.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

You can rambo with any class and it is not limited to cavalry. Cavalry is simply the most effective class to rambo with, not the only class. You should see some of the players who use solo shock troops to rack up 6-7 kills by running off alone by themselves before dying.

Any time that you separate from your unit to either:
1. Kill enemy Ai without the presence of your troops.
1. Kill enemy Ai without the presence of your troops.
-Turn Ai's shields around without the presence of your troops.
-Soak up archer fire without the presence of your troops.
-Lead Ai who are charging to follow you away from the main fight with a single unit.
This is what Rambo is, and the exploits that result from it.

As Callum stated, you are never going to be free of these exploits by simply improving the Ai because the Ai can only ever be so good. No matter how good the Ai gets, the player will always be smarter and able to abuse it's targeting mechanics.

Take for example: "Turning an Ai's shields around with a single unit"
If you program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat that is within proximity, then the player is free to get behind the ai and kill them.
If you don't program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat, then the player will be able to turn the shields due to their proclivity for "Self-preservation", effectively distracting them and rendering them unable to function properly.

In either scenario the enemy formation is at a loss, and all that it cost the player is potentially 1 life. The point is that Ai will always have a behavioral pattern that will be easily identified and exploited by the player no matter how good you program it to be. Leashing doesn't prevent you from turning Ai shields, it prevents you from doing it with little-to-no risk by putting your friendly troops in harms way which is a more fair exchange.

I would also be in favor of restricting Captain respawns to 1-3 lives as it achieves the same thing, you will have to weigh the potential cost of the engagement (potentially dying and not being able to respawn) with the benefits (distracting or killing enemy ai) and then make the decision of whether or not you deem it worth it in any given scenario.

All your examples of "rambo", besides cav, has several easy counters.

1. Kill enemy Ai without the presence of your troops. - If you are passive waiting at the flag, and see 1 enemy captain coming for your troops, press f1 f3 and it's over. Ofc, you still need to assist your bot's in this case to minimize losses. I think, if you are passive with your units, waiting for this to happen, something is wrong with the overall tactic your team is using. And 99% of the time this only happen when the full rambo tactic is in play. Where the inf is reduced to a simple support to guard the parked cav.

2. -Turn Ai's shields around without the presence of your troops. - Again, If you get pinned down by archers with your shield unit, then you are using the wrong tactic vs archers. This situation happened all the time pre 1.5.0. And the only thing that could save you then was cav. Because archers would really punish you for standing there thinking you are 100% safe, and you would lose units the second you would move them. But after 1.5.0 that situation is no real problem for shields anymore. If archers would pin you down now, no cav is needed. You have two ways to get out of this situation. Just run to safety, because archers will miss you, or make no real damage on your troops. Or go out of shield wall and run to the archers, and simply kill them. In this situation the archers also have to think about the waste of arrows. And only open fire when the shield wall is being forced to turn around. And I really like that that is a possibility to do. You never see me standing there with my shields being passive, under fire and waiting for a single unit to turn my shields around. And if I for some reason would be in that situation, I would fight the incoming single unit on my own. Unless its a full cav attack, then you are in real real big trouble.

3. -Soak up archer fire without the presence of your troops. - This situation is ofc super annoying from the archer pov. 1 unit that attracts all fire, while so many other targets can freely move behind him. But, again, I think this is much more a tactic, rather than an exploit. From the archers pov, he can do two things. Hold fire and change position. Or keep hitting him with arrows. At some point one arrow will get through and hit, making him lose protection for a sec, while another arrow in that sec will kill him. You could also leave your archers and move away on your own, and flank him. That 1 unit can soak up fire was not really a thing before 1.5.0, because only 1-2 woollies would have killed him then, but now it's much more common, since archers are broken. From the inf pov this is a really good tactic to use. Especially if you want to help your own archers to get into a good position to combat enemy archers. Pre 1.5.0 this was only a tactic you could apply if you used your entire group of units.

4. -Lead Ai who are charging to follow you away from the main fight with a single unit. - When you are using rush tactics, you need to time when to use f1 f3 correctly. You need to have combat awareness. Where is you own units in relation to the target you want to rush? If you apply f1 f3 too soon your units will more or less scatter, and it would be easy for the enemy captain to trick a bunch of your group to leave the fight. And even if this happens, use the "follow me" command to bring them back into the fight again. If you time your charge command correctly, then it's impossible for anyone to lure your units away. And the right time to use that command, is after you have confirmed that the AI is engaged with the target.

 

[Ling*]

@Olaf The Cruel I don't believe anyone believes that these exploits cannot be countered, I agree that they can be dealt with.
The problem is that you shouldn't have to deal with them in the first place.

 

[aLiaXXXanger]

You can rambo with any class and it is not limited to cavalry. Cavalry is simply the most effective class to rambo with, not the only class. You should see some of the players who use solo shock troops to rack up 6-7 kills by running off alone by themselves before dying.

Any time that you separate from your unit to either:
1. Kill enemy Ai without the presence of your troops.
2. Distract enemy Ai without the presence of your troops.
-Turn Ai's shields around without the presence of your troops.
-Soak up archer fire without the presence of your troops.
-Lead Ai who are charging to follow you away from the main fight with a single unit.
This is what Rambo is, and the exploits that result from it.

As Callum stated, you are never going to be free of these exploits by simply improving the Ai because the Ai can only ever be so good. No matter how good the Ai gets, the player will always be smarter and able to abuse it's targeting mechanics.

Take for example: "Turning an Ai's shields around with a single unit"
If you program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat that is within proximity, then the player is free to get behind the ai and kill them.
If you don't program the Ai so that it ignores the single unit threat, then the player will be able to turn the shields due to their proclivity for "Self-preservation", effectively distracting them and rendering them unable to function properly.

In either scenario the enemy formation is at a loss, and all that it cost the player is potentially 1 life. The point is that Ai will always have a behavioral pattern that will be easily identified and exploited by the player no matter how good you program it to be. Leashing doesn't prevent you from turning Ai shields, it prevents you from doing it with little-to-no risk by putting your friendly troops in harms way which is a more fair exchange.

I would also be in favor of restricting Captain respawns to 1-3 lives as it achieves the same thing, you will have to weigh the potential cost of the engagement (potentially dying and not being able to respawn) with the benefits (distracting or killing enemy ai) and then make the decision of whether or not you deem it worth it in any given scenario.

The problem with rambo tactics is that there is no real risk in using them, and that is why the most "efficient" use of your troops is to use them as extra lives. (If you can get 6 kills for every 1 life that you expend that is a good trade for you) There needs to be some form of risk added to using these tactics, which is why Leashing or Restricting Captain Respawns are such popular suggestions because they facilitate this risk. Leashing makes it so you risk your ai troops when you engage in combat. Restricting Captain Respawns risks you being shut out of the fight if you die while fighting. Both will incentivize the player to avoid ramboing and thus will push the gameplay in the proper direction of controlling and commanding Ai troops to work as an army to defeat the enemy army, which is what captain mode should be.

I don't want to offend you in any way, but reading your reasoning (and your examples) one gets the impression that you simply do not know how to play this game well. You say "Turning an Ai's shields around with a single unit... cost the player is potentially 1 life". First, the squad maintains the direction of the shield wall by pressing F3-F1. Secondly, this detachment (and neighboring friendly units) also has captains who can easily kill all these "saboteurs" in turn (I emphasize: not 1, but all those who thus decide to test themselves - at least I am the only one would have killed you repeatedly). Of course, the level of understanding and vision of the game, as well as the skill of melee, is of some importance here. But isn't the ability to develop and use these skills to attract new players and keep veterans in captain mode? And from the point of view to the realism of this situation: in a potential real battle, the captain of archers would not have made a similar desperate attempt to save the lives of his warriors from inevitable death in melee with a squad of infantry approaching in the shields wall. I would do it. What about you?
In general, for me, your suggestions for some completely unrealistic arcade linking of a squad to captain look like an attempt for a lazy and unsuccessful recruit to undeservedly get chances against more experienced members of the community who have developed their skills with great diligence over a long period of time.
I hope wise @Callum and his team will not destroy the unique realism (albeit pseudo-historical) of the atmosphere of their wonderful game, introducing such arcade, absurd and unrealistic restrictions.

 

[Olaf The Cruel]

@Olaf The Cruel I don't believe anyone believes that these exploits cannot be countered, I agree that they can be dealt with.
The problem is that you shouldn't have to deal with them in the first place.

I disagree ofc. In any tactical game, applying a wrong tactic or counter, will make you lose. An exploit, is the definition of not being able to do any tactic or counter to combat it. That there is many situations to be in, where you are more or less done and dead before the round is over, is what makes this mode so damn enjoyable. The fact that you have to guess what unit composition the enemy will apply is also what makes this mode so so interesting. It's about having so many tactics available as possible, and not be restricted in anyway. That will open up the gameplay and make every round more interesting. The balance ofc, need to be ok, or the mode will die or be super boring. Then the same tactic will be used every time.

 

[Ling*]

I don't want to offend you in any way, but reading your reasoning (and your examples) one gets the impression that you simply do not know how to play this game well. You say "Turning an Ai's shields around with a single unit... cost the player is potentially 1 life". First, the squad maintains the direction of the shield wall by pressing F3-F1. Secondly, this detachment (and neighboring friendly units) also has captains who can easily kill all these "saboteurs" in turn (I emphasize: not 1, but all those who thus decide to test themselves - at least I am the only one would have killed you repeatedly). Of course, the level of understanding and vision of the game, as well as the skill of melee, is of some importance here. But isn't the ability to develop and use these skills to attract new players and keep veterans in captain mode? And from the point of view to the realism of this situation: in a potential real battle, the captain of archers would not have made a similar desperate attempt to save the lives of his warriors from inevitable death in melee with a squad of infantry approaching in the shields wall. I would do it. What about you?
In general, for me, your suggestions for some completely unrealistic arcade linking of a squad to captain look like an attempt for a lazy and unsuccessful recruit to undeservedly get chances against more experienced members of the community who have developed their skills with great diligence over a long period of time.
I hope wise @Callum and his team will not destroy the unique realism (albeit pseudo-historical) of the atmosphere of their wonderful game, including such arcade, absurd and unrealistic restrictions.

If you get close enough to the back of an enemy squad that is using shield wall and face direction(f3-f1), you will draw them into trying to attack you which will turn them around 2-3 units at a time as they attempt to strike you. You repeat this by simply walking down the line of enemy Ai to bait as many units as you can and quickly go back and forth to stay just out of reach of their blows, they will repeatedly turn to try and attack you, albiet briefly as long as you maintain proximity in their "zone of detection" which exposes their backside to archer fire. Don't believe me? Follow those directions and try it out yourself.

Yes, you can fight off a rambo by skirmishing his captain with your captain(s), but this takes time and effectively takes you away from commanding your troops for the remainder of this skirmish which opens up a window of opportunity for the other enemies who are not caught up in this particular altercation. I have 1200 hours in this game, I know how to play very well, and I also know many creative ways to abuse and exploit the ai. You can continue to tag Callum all you like, he has already expressed what he believes. Captain mode should be focused on controlling and positioning troops, not skirmishing with other captains.