Is this should be considered cheating?

[Emperor VI]

I know that a person can build a fort on the resource and pack in as many merchants as he wants. But by many it is considered as cheating.

What about if player restricts himself to build such resource forts only in his own lands and not to send merchants to foreign countries. Usually resources in own lands generates much less income (combined with that in SS merchant number is restricted), so it cannot give huge benefits to players and even can put player into disadvantageous situation.

Disadvantage for the game and AI, of such enterprise would be:
- AI would not be able to acquire your merchants
- (I could not find any other disadvantage If you know, remind me please.)

Advantages
- This will require player to think about resources when they expand
- Loosing one merchant fort can cause direly to the player.
- Reduction of income from merchants.
- Less hassle getting merchants to far away regions (also diplomats in order to get trade right)

So what do you think about it? Is it still cheating?

[ginger_hammer]

I would err on the side of yes. Forts are for troops, not merchants.
Also I consider stakes behind gates cheating as that is more of a CA bug than anything else.

But hey each to their own

[Santiago de Pola]

Forts are for troops, not merchants.

Agreed..AI can't even use forts for troops properly.

Also I consider stakes behind gates cheating as that is more of a CA bug than anything else.

That's an uber cheat..as AI never ever deploys stakes!

But hey each to their own

But..as you said it!

[Heathen Hammer]

I would err on the side of yes. Forts are for troops, not merchants.
Also I consider stakes behind gates cheating as that is more of a CA bug than anything else.

But hey each to their own

I don't. If I was a medieval general, thats what I would do in every siege. Its cheap and hurts the horsies.

[Caesar Clivus]

I don't. If I was a medieval general, thats what I would do in every siege. Its cheap and hurts the horsies.

Yes but when the AI can't do it, then it's an exploit and a cheat.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes but when the AI can't do it, then it's an exploit and a cheat.

I rarely use cavalry in sieges, mostly I rely on heavy infantry and spearmen, so that makes my usage of cavalry somewhat equal to the one of AI.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I know that a person can build a fort on the resource and pack in as many merchants as he wants. But by many it is considered as cheating.

What about if player restricts himself to build such resource forts only in his own lands and not to send merchants to foreign countries. Usually resources in own lands generates much less income (combined with that in SS merchant number is restricted), so it cannot give huge benefits to players and even can put player into disadvantageous situation.

Disadvantage for the game and AI, of such enterprise would be:
- AI would not be able to acquire your merchants
- (I could not find any other disadvantage If you know, remind me please.)



Advantages
- This will require player to think about resources when they expand
- Loosing one merchant fort can cause direly to the player.
- Reduction of income from merchants.
- Less hassle getting merchants to far away regions (also diplomats in order to get trade right)

So what do you think about it? Is it still cheating?

Everyone has there own views but I believe that if your restricting your "resource forts" to your own lands that's certainly some kind of honorable... I'm much more sinister in this regard... I have SS6.1 and I don't think forts can be built over resources any more. Then again I am also a "Reload Prince" in terms of Merchant & spy building.

In the military we say...."If ya ain't cheating ya ain't trying" good luck...

[Staffen]

I wouldn't consider it cheating. After all, within your own lands one should be able to optimize the use of resources. IMHO, merchants would flock to places where valuables can be traded. In the end, considering it cheating probably comes down to whether you consider a merchant to represent 'one merchant' or 'economic activity'. With the latter, an individual agent on the map represents the total activity around a resource: mining, processing, packaging, selling, etc. In that case, placing multiple merchants on a resource would be cheating. Me, I consider a merchant to be 'one merchant', so I don't have any feelings of guilt when stacking them.

But, to prevent unbalanced games, I do stick to the 'only inside my own borders' rule.

(As for stakes, I don't consider them an exploit either. Here's why: in medieval times, not every horse in an army was a highly trained warhorse (which would only be available to the nobility with the cash to breed, buy, train and maintain the best horses). This means that cavalry was vulnerable to the following popular tactics:

1. Scare the horse
2. Cripple the horse
3. Trip the horse
4. Distract the horse
5. Force-the-horses-into-crowded-spaces-where-they-can't-manoeuvre

You can hardly do those things in MTW. In addition, in a medieval siege, breaches in the walls are stormed by infantry, not cavalry (because at the very least the rubble, stones, bodies etc. surrounding the breach would make it almost impossible for horses to enter).

In other words: the unrealistic part is cavalry happily galloping into a breach and succesfully engaging the defenders. Realistically, cavalry would have an extremely hard time getting through the breach.

Therefore, IMHO, stakes serve to counterbalance the fact that without them, the AI is capable of pulling off an extremely unrealistic move: the taking of the walls with mounted cavalry.)

[delra]

We already talked about this a few times and always agreed it indeed is cheating.

[Inhuman One]

If its singleplayer cheating doesnt really exist. The only person that could be hurt by it would be the person thats using the so called cheats.

[axnsan]

personnaly,i don't give a if people call me a cheater,its a sp game for god's sake!
i don't give a if people dont believe(sp) i conquered 22 provinces in 10 turns, nor that i maxed my prince's chivalry and command in 14 turns, neither that i have 66k by turn 12, i just tell them to learn blizting and try it by themselves.
as for the merchant fort, if you're fine with it then feel free to use it. i don't restrict myself from doing various things just because person x and y who i never heard about says its cheating, as long as its in a singleplayer game
</irritation>

[rootje]

personnaly,i don't give a if people call me a cheater,its a sp game for god's sake!
i don't give a if people dont believe(sp) i conquered 22 provinces in 10 turns, nor that i maxed my prince's chivalry and command in 14 turns, neither that i have 66k by turn 12, i just tell them to learn blizting and try it by themselves.
as for the merchant fort, if you're fine with it then feel free to use it. i don't restrict myself from doing various things just because person x and y who i never heard about says its cheating, as long as its in a singleplayer game
</irritation>

I personally on the other hand think alot of people can't imagine playing the game as you do and just basicly dislike abusing every avaliable exploit to overpower the already very weak ai...

[axnsan]

I personally on the other hand think alot of people can't imagine playing the game as you do and just basicly dislike abusing every avaliable exploit to overpower the already very weak ai...

Yes, I do believe there are a lot of people that think so and they are free to do what they want in a singleplayer game.

every aviable exploit is not the right word...
I don't use the merchants fort, but i have no problem with those that do.
I use stakes at the gates, and I would be more than happy if the ai would do it too. I never enter breaches in the wall with cavalry- i dont find it realistic-, except if they have no other units near the wall and they have alot of units in the centre.
I used to use the crusade exploit, and didn't like it but also couldn't stop using it.
So now I'm playing as byzantium to restrict myself from using it
also, blitzing isn't an exploit. I still move my armies at the same rate a turn, and I still fight battles. I just do it earlier than others. what's wrong with that?
The Byzantines in late era start with about 10 settlements and enough units to assemble them into 4 full stacks.... is that not enough to take down the Hungarians and the Turks in 10 turns? Why do people call things they never manage to do cheating

[rootje]

Yes, I do believe there are a lot of people that think so and they are free to do what they want in a singleplayer game.

every aviable exploit is not the right word...
I don't use the merchants fort, but i have no problem with those that do.
I use stakes at the gates, and I would be more than happy if the ai would do it too. I never enter breaches in the wall with cavalry- i dont find it realistic-, except if they have no other units near the wall and they have alot of units in the centre.
I used to use the crusade exploit, and didn't like it but also couldn't stop using it.
So now I'm playing as byzantium to restrict myself from using it
also, blitzing isn't an exploit. I still move my armies at the same rate a turn, and I still fight battles. I just do it earlier than others. what's wrong with that?
The Byzantines in late era start with about 10 settlements and enough units to assemble them into 4 full stacks.... is that not enough to take down the Hungarians and the Turks in 10 turns? Why do people call things they never manage to do cheating

Forgive me iff it looks like I'm starting a discussion here,which I'm not, but I would like to defend myself because that last sentence seemed abit provocative.

Honestly, I could probably outblitz most players here in terms of ''omg-i-roxorz-at-rtses'' because I've played way too many of those and aquired quite the tactical &[and on this subject most important] micromanagement skills. But the first thing I myself found out after playing alot of other rts-es besides Total war games was that people will ALWAYS abuse bugs/exploits to win(in multiplayer/''ow loook at me im so good at singleplayer'' games), it's a pity really, Personally that attitude made me quit most other rts-es and enjoy the wonderfull world of Total War where I could boost the ai as much as possible,restrain myself from exploits and feel proud after an achievement.

To then here some punk here brag about how he can abuse the fact that the ai is programmed to be pretty clueless in the first 15-20 turns(it's a known fact for experienced players that iff you let the ai build up it does get alot of stronger,maybe it's different in 6.2 because i havn't played that one, but it's the same principle in RTW aswell) and other exploits like using all-killing-stakes right infront of the only chokepoint the ai suicides his general at or putting 8 merchants in a fort to maximize income and preventing the ai to do anything about it...well it's just totally the opposite of all the positive and respectfull discussion I've seen and learned to like on this forum. Even the best players out here seem to go to the furthest extend to make the ai challenging while restraining themselves, not abusing some mistakes/weaknesses of the ai and then bragging about it...


Iff you want to blitz your ai and rule the world in under a 100 turns, sure, fine, go have your fun. But never look down on people that play the game differently just because they don't choose to make it easy on themselves...

[Viscule]

Forgive me iff it looks like I'm starting a discussion here,which I'm not, but I would like to defend myself because that last sentence seemed abit provocative.

Honestly, I could probably outblitz most players here in terms of ''omg-i-roxorz-at-rtses'' because I've played way too many of those and aquired quite the tactical &[and on this subject most important] micromanagement skills. But the first thing I myself found out after playing alot of other rts-es besides Total war games was that people will ALWAYS abuse bugs/exploits to win(in multiplayer/''ow loook at me im so good at singleplayer'' games), it's a pity really, Personally that attitude made me quit most other rts-es and enjoy the wonderfull world of Total War where I could boost the ai as much as possible,restrain myself from exploits and feel proud after an achievement.

To then here some punk here brag about how he can abuse the fact that the ai is programmed to be pretty clueless in the first 15-20 turns(it's a known fact for experienced players that iff you let the ai build up it does get alot of stronger,maybe it's different in 6.2 because i havn't played that one, but it's the same principle in RTW aswell) and other exploits like using all-killing-stakes right infront of the only chokepoint the ai suicides his general at or putting 8 merchants in a fort to maximize income and preventing the ai to do anything about it...well it's just totally the opposite of all the positive and respectfull discussion I've seen and learned to like on this forum. Even the best players out here seem to go to the furthest extend to make the ai challenging while restraining themselves, not abusing some mistakes/weaknesses of the ai and then bragging about it...


Iff you want to blitz your ai and rule the world in under a 100 turns, sure, fine, go have your fun. But never look down on people that play the game differently just because they don't choose to make it easy on themselves...

Indeed, i like taking it slow. Makes everything alot harder as they seem to really micromanage their cities to their maximum potential at all times. Alot of fun fighting tons and tons of stacks instead of just blitzing a lousy stack and go "lol, i winzor you die early".

I'm up for any challenge and change everytime i lose. As i have noticed on VH/VH as kingdom of jerusalem vs fatimid caliphate/egypts. They can really break you, but once you find out something. It makes it worth just that much more. It took me to the point of trying to get help because i was clueless. Then i started thinking about how they move, where they move because after 10 times of trial and error i sort of made up a working tactic.

Cheers.

[Caesar Clivus]

So what do you think about it? Is it still cheating?

Most definitely.

[Vae victis]

For me a game is fun so long as it is challenging. When it becomes too challenging, and more frustration than fun, that is when cheating can be ok. I've used the fort and unit on resorcse cheat before, and in SS the money you get from it is not substantial enough to counter the AI cash or settlement script on harder difficulties. I also use ~toggle_fow to save me the time from micromanaging my spies to explore the map.

If a person can justify their cheats and not feel guilty about it, it should be fine. Just dont come to the forums and brag about your game when you are using them.

[Madden]

This would be a great mod, if we could get the AI to blitz all forts.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

This would be a great mod, if we could get the AI to blitz all forts.

How would you blitz a fort. The definition of blitzkrieg is: Blitzkrieg German, "lightning war" is "a headline word applied retrospectively to describe a military doctine of an all-mechanized force concentrating its attack on a small section of the enemy front then, once the latter is pierced, proceeding without regard to its flank."

[nazutul]

When one's merchants are secured indefinitely, how can that be any fun? I'd say that's borderline-cheating if not wholly cheating.

This isn't a slight to you but is English your second language? I have trouble with your grammar.