The Great Sally Cavalry Controversy

[KittySN]

We all know that the cavalry are beasts on the battlefield in recent developments of Stainless Steel, thus reflected in their recruitment and upkeep cost. The question of the thread is if you lay siege to a settlement with an inferior cavalry force thus prompting the AI to sally, and you then crush them on the battle map using various lures, divisions, diversions, charge skirmishes and charge pincers, is it an exploit and thus cheating? (It naturally follows that you're really good at micromanaging cavalry.) The following question ensues if you feel it's an exploit: are AI sallies period cheating? What if you sally and the AI runs away to stand there, just waiting for your orchestrated pile of punishment? No sallies allowed? What about classic assaults? There are ways around everything! And can anything be an exploit? Should we just be auto-resolving?

Example: in my Teutonic Order guide I've recently begun, I've elected to neglect using AI sallies, rather only assaulting as I figure some might not be able to perfect this tactic and others may suspect cheating. However as the screen shots demonstrate in my 2 battles with the Visby garrison, there is no significant change in challenge. I annihilated the AI with my general's bodyguard and archers in my assault. With enough siege equipment, it's easy to outmaneuver a mid-sized AI garrison then subsequently crush them in the streets and city square. It's just more time consuming. So what about assaults? What about any battle? How far can this curiosity extrapolate? If winning anything with so few casualties is cheating, would the only way to properly plan battles without cheating be to behave like the AI?

What are your thoughts? Is there a way around this issue? This topic has spilled around different threads heating the waters a touch, prominently here and there. An interesting debate! There's no "right answer" though, just the commune of opinions. Keep it clean!

[Ridiculas]

it's kinda cheating, partly because the strength of cavalries in AI calculation is generally underestimated . a full mounted stack is REALLY hard to beat. unless you have VERY impressive levels of infantries (like a large stack of late pikes. ok yeah those guys might be a different story as if you make even the slightest error on your charges your screwed.)

[CrossSide]

0 losses?! That's a nice one! You only use archers for that?

I think we cannot decide it's cheating or not. The AI in this game acts always the same. The same as with a besiegment of a castle. It's for the AI almost impossible to win when you have some bowmen and prof. spears. It is just how you want to play the game.
Lately I play alot with autoresolve (except for very big, important battles and some siege batlles) to get some more realism. Because defeating 950 men without 1 loss on you're side is quite unrealistic

[KittySN]

0 losses?! That's a nice one! You only use archers for that?

No, the experience sums it up for both battle. The deadly general's bodyguard strikes again!

Lately I play alot with autoresolve (except for very big, important battles and some siege batlles) to get some more realism. Because defeating 950 men without 1 loss on you're side is quite unrealistic

I've debated only using auto-resolves in my guide just to demonstrate that any stupid idiot could crush on VH/VH, but there's a particular necessity for some intelligence to achieve the empire I have in mind in under 30 turns. (I try to win the game in as few turns as possible.) Plus I'm the sort of person who's always played every battle on the battle map since day one. The consequence is that I know the AI like the back of my hand. And I loathe the level of ingenuity behind auto-resolve. More like random-resolve, and it depends on unit placement in stacks!

Hey! 200 posts! Only took a year and a half!

[Akolythos]

Voted. Either way, it's not anywhere near as bad as that anti-jihad exploit I found out about recently ...

[KittySN]

Voted. Either way, it's not anywhere near as bad as that anti-jihad exploit I found out about recently ...

I saw that too. Now that's an exploit!

[Tyrenia]

I think that for realism's sake, it's unfair to exploit the AI's stupidity. I try to have a balanced force and defeat the AI at his (or her, lets not be sexist) own game. But then again, maybe this is why I suck at RT battles...

[King Siegfried]

Taking a settlement with a full stack is time-consuming, sure, but it means you have to produce that entire army. Taking 6-8 units of cavalry, tricking the AI into sallying forth, and then either crushing them or running around them and taking the square (I did that once when the enemy sallied at the last minute of a 6-year siege) is, IMHO, an exploit. You're taking advantage of the AI's script and underestimation of cavalry to lure them into a battle they would NOT normally enter. That's like taking advantage of the AI's script to prevent a siege. It's cheating.

[JorisofHolland]

It's cheating, but there are many things that are far worse. Like using the console, or the Jihad-exploit.

[StyggeKrumpen]

I mostly play the way i think it would have been back in the days of medieval warfare. Nobily set up army in front of enemy then a charge where battle lines clash. I know that this isnt realistic when it comes to things like small armies clashing, siege assault and ambushing which certainly would make a general change away from the classic big army setup. But like Wizav85 said i try too make my battles as real as possible. If a nother human player definetely can beat you your tactic is unfair and not challenging enough to be fun.

[Souka]

Most ppl on these forums are way to sensitive about exploits, btw my favorite exploit is putting stakes infront of the gate and watch the enemy cavarly get shredded to pieces

[Akolythos]

Most ppl on these forums are way to sensitive about exploits, btw my favorite exploit is putting stakes infront of the gate and watch the enemy cavarly get shredded to pieces

I don't feel like that's an exploit. That's just awesome.

[LemuelG]

It is the responsibility of game developers to annihilate obvious bugs and deficiencies, and gamers to play the game in the manner which provides them with the most enjoyment.

Personally, I believe the mechanics ought to be changed so that a fairly significant force is required to initiate an occupation of a city - can you see 10,000 pissed-off muslims welcoming a lonely crusader general who just killed their king? To think that a bodyguard of 20-odd men could simply assume ownership of a (presumably) hostile large city or castle under such conditions is preposterous - far more so than it is for a couple of elite H cav. units using hit-and-run tactics to take-out a larger force of militia or such.

So, it's an exploit (but not in the way I've seen anyone else state it) - by the technical definition, but if that floats your boat, I don't just recommend you do it, but insist - I'd rather see someone use it to make their experience more fun/interesting than for them to pay any mind to some dogmatic A-hole who has little better to do than browbeat/shame people who's gaming 'principles' don't mesh with their own.

[Ichon]

It is the responsibility of game developers to annihilate obvious bugs and deficiencies, and gamers to play the game in the manner which provides them with the most enjoyment.

Personally, I believe the mechanics ought to be changed so that a fairly significant force is required to initiate an occupation of a city - can you see 10,000 pissed-off muslims welcoming a lonely crusader general who just killed their king? To think that a bodyguard of 20-odd men could simply assume ownership of a (presumably) hostile large city or castle under such conditions is preposterous - far more so than it is for a couple of elite H cav. units using hit-and-run tactics to take-out a larger force of militia or such.

So, it's an exploit (but not in the way I've seen anyone else state it) - by the technical definition, but if that floats your boat, I don't just recommend you do it, but insist - I'd rather see someone use it to make their experience more fun/interesting than for them to pay any mind to some dogmatic A-hole who has little better to do than browbeat/shame people who's gaming 'principles' don't mesh with their own.

That is a valid point but unfortunately if you examine the game from that perspective all sorts of other things clamor to be mentioned such as movement rates, the economy, generals who are all personally good fighters with strong bodyguards more than a match for any other troops, 1 cardinal converting and entire region in only a few years then moving a little ways and doing it again and again. Sure there are a few St Patricks but that wasn't the normal course.

[LemuelG]

That is a valid point but unfortunately if you examine the game from that perspective all sorts of other things clamor to be mentioned such as movement rates, the economy, generals who are all personally good fighters with strong bodyguards more than a match for any other troops, 1 cardinal converting and entire region in only a few years then moving a little ways and doing it again and again. Sure there are a few St Patricks but that wasn't the normal course.

Sure, you're right - my aim isn't to pick holes in every aspect of the game though, the ability to occupy with only one or two units may be unrealistic, but more importantly it is detrimental to the gameplay, and penalizes the AI just for being a bit dopey (it should be altered, it would make for a more sophisticated strategic level).

Personally, it has never occurred to me to try such a tactic! People who play Darthmod complain of how easy it is to make powerful rivals into vassals - I's like, "what? What kind of player tries to offer a faction twice as powerful as them vassalage for $1000 in the first turn?" Who thinks of such behaviours? I would have no fun this way - it is why I tend to give-up most regions I conquer , keep myself artificially small.

I don't ascribe to the school of thought that a game based upon RL situations should be as realistic as possible - mostly, such games suck. Reality is unfair and arbitrary - games should not be.

(but hey - I started out with space invaders... hardly a realistic alien-invasion simulator, but damned riveting nonetheless.)

[JorisofHolland]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Souka
Most ppl on these forums are way to sensitive about exploits, btw my favorite exploit is putting stakes infront of the gate and watch the enemy cavarly get shredded to pieces

True. It is far from an exploit, it's just smart defending anyone does, probally.

[Souka]

True. It is far from an exploit, it's just smart defending anyone does, probally.

Actually many do think this is an exploit as the ai is forced to run into the stakes, a human player would of just taken another rout or have their horses walk in instead of run.

Btw does this qualify as an exploit. In my french campaign i defended a settlement with 3 cavalry units and 3 spear milita against a full stack (around 2k soldiers) I had my cavalry run out to engage their rams, siege tower and ladder and retreat as soon they dropped them. And when i had killed around ½ of their army i ordered my spear militia to destroy the siege equipment while the cavalry were defending them, resulting in a victory for me.

[JorisofHolland]

Btw does this qualify as an exploit. In my french campaign i defended a settlement with 3 cavalry units and 3 spear milita against a full stack (around 2k soldiers) I had my cavalry run out to engage their rams, siege tower and ladder and retreat as soon they dropped them. And when i had killed around ½ of their army i ordered my spear militia to destroy the siege equipment while the cavalry were defending them, resulting in a victory for me.

There are probally people who call it an exploit, but I'm not entirely certain. Did they try to defend their equipment-carrying units?

[Loose Cannon]

The "sally cavalry" TACTIC is not an exploit. It takes quite a bit of skill to use properly and is extremely difficult if the defenders have some archers and/or cavalry of its own. If the defenders never sally out the city will fall after the alloted number of turns. It is not my fault that the AI does not know how to and probably never will know how to relieve a city under siege.

I prefer using 2 horse archers, 1 heavy cav. and 1 General-that lineup can handle almost any garrison

[Souka]

There are probally people who call it an exploit, but I'm not entirely certain. Did they try to defend their equipment-carrying units?

After the first wave they retreated back away from my towers and sent 2-3 units to pick up the equipment and after they got killed they sent another 2-3 units to start over.