Is this a cheat?

[Longstreet]

Does anyone know the units or where a list of the units that are able to actually create stakes ?

[Maltacus]

I have actually been drawn after a fleeing enemy only to have them turn about and see me off. Cavalry does aim for gaps in a line and weak points. It can wheel its front in all but sallies, which I regard as an exploit and have specifically coded to counter this.

Lucky you.
I have not yet seen any real wheeling except before battle is joined, and enemy cavalry is so random in its decisions that I can't make out any particular aiming. Against a line with stakes mixed with open areas they showed no real intention of avoiding the stakes.

One thing the ai does reasonably well is to spread out spearmen as a kind of rear/flank guard. In return, sadly, it is very bad in situations that would require wide, thinner lines or amassment of troops in a coordinated advance.

One thing I have wondered for some time is whether it is possible to mod the running behaviour of the ai - making cavalry walk across the stakes would be the most needed? I suspect the answer is no since it hasn't appeared yet as far as I know.

Literally lol to your film reference btw. Stakes, like snakes are considerably more deadly when used in confined spaces, trains, planes and settlements, hence the poor reception of the film "Snakes Dispersed Thinly Over A Continent"

I have not yet seen that cinematic masterpiece, do you think it is out on dvd yet?

The AI is also completely bound by the same RR restrictions as the player, it does not get access to units that are 'denied' to the player.

I never refuted that.

I said the ai in RR/RC with BGR IV get access to "spammed elite troops", which a player is denied because of the recruitment restrictions associated with zeal and war councillors in BGR. A player can not spam those since he will either lack enough castles or, with more provinces, lack recruitment authorization - war councillors in enough castles (or PTS in enough huge cities).

Has anyone found that defective AI siege behavior correlates with the presence of auxiliary siege units in their army? In my experience, if they bring Ballista, Catapult, Mangonel, cannon, etc. to the siege they act really stupid and often stop advancing until the timer runs out. When they have standard equipment and succeed in battering down the gate they behave with greater focus.

Good question, it certainly causes the ai to waste time since it likes to fire every shot before stoming the walls. And many of those shots are wasted since ammo is too low to bring down the wall that is targeted, for example. Also, catapults etc are sometimes brought too close to the walls, being burned down by fire arrows from towers. Lack of movement, useless pathfinding and so on seem to happen occasionally whether the ai bring artillery or not.

[Byg]

...Against a line with stakes mixed with open areas they showed no real intention of avoiding the stakes.

There you go...so we agree, they can't deal with stakes and they should be removed.

I said the ai in RR/RC with BGR IV get access to "spammed elite troops", which a player is denied because of the recruitment restrictions associated with zeal and war councillors in BGR. A player can not spam those since he will either lack enough castles or, with more provinces, lack recruitment authorization - war councillors in enough castles (or PTS in enough huge cities).

PB did the army balance for the ai, via preferences for each unit I think, and I must say that he has done an excellent job of ensuring that the ai produces balanced armies. The ai has that, we have WCs and PTS and various recruitment restrictions. The human player still usually, ultimately wins so I'm still developing more restrictions for the player and will continue until most of the human player advantages are cancelled out. I'm currently trying to cancel out the human player massive advantage of retraining troops.

I don't get spammed armies of elite ai troops in my games so can you show me one you have had as I'm quite interested. Do you perhaps mean that when an ai faction is more advanced than your own that it has better troops?

[Prince Valiant]

All those who feel bad about wining to often. In your next battle deploy your troops with their backs turned on the enemy, when enemy charges do-nothing! That will give you a crushing defeat and cure you!
Whit all due respect, it’s one thing to try making Ai more smarter, it’s another to reward it’s stupidity with bonuses and to impose every possible restriction on a player, and then judging somebody for using a few dirty tricks to snatch victory? That’s hypocrisy at its best!
Personally I don’t give a rats ass about who thinks this is a cheat and who doesn’t, and Zlikovac, you shouldn’t either. If it’s there, use it!
Edit: Although, it deserves to be said that in RR/RC player is much on the same foot as Ai so there’s really no need for dirty little tricks, but should the need arise I see no problem. It’s all fair in love and war.

[Maltacus]

There you go...so we agree, they can't deal with stakes and they should be removed.

Not necessarily. There is a lot of other things that the ai can't deal with either, and removing all leaves you handicapping yourself so much that the game is much less fun. It is up to everyone what kind of balance they wish between challenge and realism and choice of tactics and many other things. My point is essentially that it is impossible to draw the line for everyone at any specific point.

I don't get spammed armies of elite ai troops in my games so can you show me one you have had as I'm quite interested. Do you perhaps mean that when an ai faction is more advanced than your own that it has better troops?

I'll try to clarify. In a late Lithuanian campaign the mighty France bring up army after army with around 30-60% feudal knights in each. Because of the recruitment restrictions and lack of money I can only field one army of a similar composition; Lithuanian nobles and noble sons. The ai simply produce more troops. While each army often is decently balanced (I agree on that point) the ai has many more armies than me. Armies of peasant and militia forces are less dangerous which is why I only take the elite troops into consideration, but these can also be said to be spammed although a player can spam those as well.

Example: In a period of about five rounds of war I have seen 4-5 French armies with a total of maybe 30 feudal knights walking around the French-Lithuanian borderlands. That is a strong force even if the armies are not combined and it kept France safe for the moment.

[chris7ian]

Sun Tzu say to use an enemies stupidity against them is no cheat it is the path to victory

[Iforgot]

I prefer to think of them as caltrops and so they are had for the AI to see.....

[Point Blank]

Not necessarily. There is a lot of other things that the ai can't deal with either, and removing all leaves you handicapping yourself so much that the game is much less fun. It is up to everyone what kind of balance they wish between challenge and realism and choice of tactics and many other things. My point is essentially that it is impossible to draw the line for everyone at any specific point.



I'll try to clarify. In a late Lithuanian campaign the mighty France bring up army after army with around 30-60% feudal knights in each. Because of the recruitment restrictions and lack of money I can only field one army of a similar composition; Lithuanian nobles and noble sons. The ai simply produce more troops. While each army often is decently balanced (I agree on that point) the ai has many more armies than me. Armies of peasant and militia forces are less dangerous which is why I only take the elite troops into consideration, but these can also be said to be spammed although a player can spam those as well.

Example: In a period of about five rounds of war I have seen 4-5 French armies with a total of maybe 30 feudal knights walking around the French-Lithuanian borderlands. That is a strong force even if the armies are not combined and it kept France safe for the moment.

France is categorised as 'strong' in Feudal units, so has a 50% higher replacement rate for those unit types. Combined with the high recruitment_priority of those unit types, you will tend to see French armies with high proportions of heavy Feudal units - but they aren't cheap.

[Byg]

I prefer to think of them as caltrops and so they are had for the AI to see.....

Funny you should say that. I was thinking about what else one could do to make stakes fairer for the ai and concluded that as the ai can't see them, then if using Germanicu5 ai stakes mod, it would be useful if stakes were made invisible to a humanplayer too. I don't know if it is possible to alter the graphic for stakes, but if they could be made visually either very small or opaque or some thing then that would seem fairer, although still weighted against the ai.

I suppose this would be good when the ai does not have stakes too as the humanplayer may accidentally run into his own and get his just deserts for cheating.

[Maltacus]

I don't know if it is possible to alter the graphic for stakes, but if they could be made visually either very small or opaque or some thing then that would seem fairer, although still weighted against the ai.

Do stakes have the same model "structure" as units, like a model file with corresponding texture files etc?

Invisible stakes all along, where is the realism in that? If possible, I think it would be better to have an tiny stake type as an alternative to the standard ones, representing hidden obstacles like pits. The normal stakes should remain to represent the "normal stakes" (standardised by the Royal English Stakes Comittee of course, led by mr Edgar Allan Pole) used by some longbowmen and others.

I suppose this would be good when the ai does not have stakes too as the humanplayer may accidentally run into his own and get his just deserts for cheating.

Why on earth are you so bothered about how someone else play the game? If someone, like yourself, consider stakes unjust, nothing is more easy than removing the ability from the EDU or, even easier, never to use it. Alternatively, never to zoom out in order to make it harder to spot the stakes. If someone wants to play with them for whatever reason, why care about it at all?

After all this is not a competition, except in multiplayer where by definition the opponent is not ai. There is nothing else at stake (sorry, couldn't resist it) here than your personal entertainment.

[Byg]

...

Invisible stakes all along, where is the realism in that? .

My argument would be that if the stakes are invisible to only one side then that is both unrealistic AND unfair particularly as the one who cannot see them is the weaker player (the ai).

It's a discussion thread about views on cheating, so why would I not express my views on cheating in a thread entitled "is this a cheat?"

I'm bothered by exploits or cheats or whatever you want to call them because I have spent years trying to obliterate them in one way or another and I'm bothered by how other people play to the extent that that is what modders do, otherwise we would just write mods for ourselves and not share them with anyone. I could easily remove stakes from my personal game, but then I would be helping no one. Better to persuade others that the mod needs changing, because like someone said earlier, if a feature is in a game then people think they are supposed to use it. I enjoy trying to explain that playing a tougher game can be far more rewarding than an easy one. If a few people try it and prefer it then I think that benefits all players of a similar mind because mods need users and users eventually become modders.

[Ichon]

Has anyone found that defective AI siege behavior correlates with the presence of auxiliary siege units in their army? In my experience, if they bring Ballista, Catapult, Mangonel, cannon, etc. to the siege they act really stupid and often stop advancing until the timer runs out. When they have standard equipment and succeed in battering down the gate they behave with greater focus.

I agree with that. If AI bring siege artillery it essentially becomes a sally AI- gathers around that equipment and doesn't react to the player moves until all the ammo is used and sometimes even that is weird. I've seen Really Bad AI by Germanicus help AI in sally a little bit but it is still totally reactive. At least it stays away from arrow tower and attack unit that attacks it units but it is completely passive while you move your sally army into position.

If there were a way to script all sally battles away from the walls onto normal battlefield that would be best solution to me.

[Ichon]

My argument would be that if the stakes are invisible to only one side then that is both unrealistic AND unfair particularly as the one who cannot see them is the weaker player (the ai).

I thought there is a way to get AI to "see" stakes. In latest Really Bad AI it surely seems AI reacts to stakes. Pulling up its cavalry short and going around etc. It can still be tricked a bit because it uses the center of the unit to judge distance and if the cavalry are spread out easily half can still run into stakes or in pursuit you can take a cheap light cavalry that is already wounded and run it into your own stakes... AI cavalry often kill themselves chasing it.

Putting stakes in towns... eh- however you want to do it if you are fighting in the central square I already consider that an exploit due to the morale issue. Fight on the walls or outside the town in a fair field battle- though sally is a bit harder vs Germanicus re-worked AI its still pretty big advantage for the player.

[Maltacus]

I thought there is a way to get AI to "see" stakes. In latest Really Bad AI it surely seems AI reacts to stakes. Pulling up its cavalry short and going around etc.

Yes definitely. It is a real shame that the ai hasn't learned to walk the cavalry across the staked area after stopping. It usually end with riders charging anyway or being shot down by the archers unless it finds a gap.

Better to persuade others that the mod needs changing, because like someone said earlier, if a feature is in a game then people think they are supposed to use it. I enjoy trying to explain that playing a tougher game can be far more rewarding than an easy one.

Hehe, I was under the impression that people played with all features they knew of until they get bored and start to discard some for more challenge, all by their own. But by all means, maybe you're right, some people might need the persuasion of various mod features to play a harder game.

I'm bothered by exploits or cheats or whatever you want to call them because I have spent years trying to obliterate them in one way or another and I'm bothered by how other people play to the extent that that is what modders do, otherwise we would just write mods for ourselves and not share them with anyone. I could easily remove stakes from my personal game, but then I would be helping no one.

Your help is appreciated Byg, and your mod is great in many ways. The thing with helping players do such things they could do by themselves, like abstaining from obvious exploits, is that it is easily mistaken for an attempt to force mod players (at least those without modding knowledge) to do it. Combined with comments like the one below it gives the impression of a somewhat zealous disdain of such playing May I suggest that any altered stakes and other battlefield modifications be made as an optional extra to the campaign-centered BGR if they are included?

.....the humanplayer may accidentally run into his own and get his just deserts for cheating.

[Ichon]

Yes definitely. It is a real shame that the ai hasn't learned to walk the cavalry across the staked area after stopping. It usually end with riders charging anyway or being shot down by the archers unless it finds a gap.

Hehe, I was under the impression that people played with all features they knew of until they get bored and start to discard some for more challenge, all by their own. But by all means, maybe you're right, some people might need the persuasion of various mod features to play a harder game.

May I suggest that any altered stakes and other battlefield modifications be made as an optional extra to the campaign-centered BGR if they are included?

So cavalry can walk past stakes? Ha, never knew that.

It is more difficult to "discard" features than play a mod that removes them. I have no temptation to open console for example but it is hard to not use something available like stakes or forts. Though I have no trouble limiting the use of either, not to use them ever at all is beyond my self control if they are available. So I appreciate mods that does that for me.

Also the biggest factor beyond anything that BGR deals with is money. This game is much much easier when you have vanilla money amounts. BGR also makes things more interesting to plan around which I enjoy- more like chess to me is a good thing.

However making a few of the most "controversial" changes optional if it is easy to do makes sense. BYG already does that most of the time. Just what is controversial isn't always obvious on first release though I think some things can be anticipated.

Finally- without playing mods like BGR and reading the forums I probably never learn that AI has trouble dealing with stakes in most BAI. I might have eventually suspect that is the case but not be 100% positive. When you don't know that your opponent (AI) has certain demonstrable disadvantage then it doesn't occur to limit yourself.

Like center camera on general... it does make the game more difficult but also for me removes realism not adds it because none of your units have initiative. In pure RTS games usually units will at least react somewhat. Here all units will do is defend themselves in melee and sometimes not even that. For me keeping camera restricted to what any of my units see is enough... no zooming over the battlefield to other side of the map to check out enemy deployed unit, though I suppose even that could be rationalized as "scouting" reports from outriders or something. So of course every person is different but we all play to what is allowed by the overall structure. Arguing that mods that restrict actions is somehow in poor spirit is weird since the whole game already restricts actions based on the hardcoded original programming teams ideas and time.

[Byg]

I once tried the general restricted view method of battle as in theory it sounded realistic and challenging, however, how do you manage to issue orders to units, say to make a unit on the right pull back and move over to the left? Is the idea that you race you general over to the destination on the left then click the unit's unit card and then the ground near your general? Stretching units out into line can also be impossible.
I think if the game makers could make unit placement a little more easier in that mode it would be great. You would lose all those micromanaged horse archer tactics though unless your general was fortunate enough to find a complete vanatage point.
Currently I just keep my camera like you say above, semi-restricted.

[merocaine]

I once had a battle with the Timmys way back when I only knew vanilla, I was using a restricted camera and watching two full stacks of Timmys merge together at the edge of the map and start to advance. It was the first time fighting them and I didn't know what to expect. It was just this vast black blanket creeping closer and closer, until suddenly they were among my men, total chaos. It was amazing, the only time I've ever really been unnerved by the game. My army ran away suffice to say, it was a total massacre.
Well thats neither here nor there, I just felt the urge to share that story.

[Point Blank]

I once tried the general restricted view method of battle as in theory it sounded realistic and challenging, however, how do you manage to issue orders to units, say to make a unit on the right pull back and move over to the left? Is the idea that you race you general over to the destination on the left then click the unit's unit card and then the ground near your general? Stretching units out into line can also be impossible.
I think if the game makers could make unit placement a little more easier in that mode it would be great. You would lose all those micromanaged horse archer tactics though unless your general was fortunate enough to find a complete vanatage point.
Currently I just keep my camera like you say above, semi-restricted.

And you'd have to account for factions with improved command and control, such as the Mongols with their battle flags etc.

[Prince Valiant]

I think that there is a big difference between exploit and a cheat, none the less no matter how hard you try to disable all possible exploits, people will simply invent new ones, because people are inventive…so should someone embark on a crusade to purge the game of all possible exploits, from lowering taxes for few turns to gain good traits to pressing “pause” during the battle X times, he would soon find himself fighting a losing battle…eventually game would have so many restrictions it would be frustrating and zero fun.
I mean it doesn’t get worse than pressing “Pause” 10 times during a single battle!
Now THAT’S cheating…

[Maltacus]

once tried the general restricted view method of battle as in theory it sounded realistic and challenging, however, how do you manage to issue orders to units, say to make a unit on the right pull back and move over to the left? Is the idea that you race you general over to the destination on the left then click the unit's unit card and then the ground near your general? Stretching units out into line can also be impossible.
I think if the game makers could make unit placement a little more easier in that mode it would be great. You would lose all those micromanaged horse archer tactics though unless your general was fortunate enough to find a complete vanatage point.
Currently I just keep my camera like you say above, semi-restricted.

Yes, this is how that restriction adds difficulty. I am also a great fan of light cavalry and mourn the loss of their supreme reign. However this creates the need to find good vantage points and prevent you from doing extremely coordinated attacks, making battles harder and costlier, thereby adding to the overall game difficulty. Clicking on unit cards could represent sending a rider to fetch that company, risky thing if you can't see what might intercept it. So yes, at least I do find myself racing back and forth, which adds to the tension; "should I take the risk to leave my left flank and not be able to counter-charge those scary knights if they close, or do my right flank waver so much that I must be there to stabilize it?"

I once had a battle with the Timmys way back when I only knew vanilla, I was using a restricted camera and watching two full stacks of Timmys merge together at the edge of the map and start to advance. It was the first time fighting them and I didn't know what to expect. It was just this vast black blanket creeping closer and closer, until suddenly they were among my men, total chaos. It was amazing, the only time I've ever really been unnerved by the game. My army ran away suffice to say, it was a total massacre.
Well thats neither here nor there, I just felt the urge to share that story.

This is the real beauty of restricted camera! My own fovourite is when my Norwegian general was standing in a dense forest being bombarded by fireballs from English catapults. Night battles - I don't want to talk about them (shudder)