Whoever in a battle alliance initiates a siege attack and wins takes the province?

[Civilopedian]

A situation arose in my campaign where I was friends with someone I wanted to invade and I didn't want a diplo hit so I started a riot in Uzen and a big stack of rebels came and took the province. My "friend" counters with a full stack, I move in range of the town so we siege attack at the same time.

I want the province and I know that if we win, he takes it. So I decide to let his army of line infantry and spear levies get annihilated. I then send in my traditional Aizu army and clean up. So he takes the province but loses his whole stack and general.

I felt I exploited the AI and cheated the game.

I would propose that the faction who caps the flag first should win the province - after all, it's their flag that they hoist during countdown timer phase - and if no flag is captured and all enemies are slain/routed, the initial aggressor faction takes the province as is current.

[PeonKing]

I don't know. Sounds like a good way to initiate backstabbing of an ally, like purposely waiting as you mentioned. It seems too exploitable as well, basically getting an extra siege even if your army is out of range. Additionally, it would be kind of annoying to have to deal with an AI managing to steal the province from you if your fighting a battle and they cap the flag when all of your units are tied up fighting the defenders.

[kronpas]

I would propose that the faction who caps the flag first should win the province - after all, it's their flag that they hoist during countdown timer phase - and if no flag is captured and all enemies are slain/routed, the initial aggressor faction takes the province as is current.

That leads to situation where both side compete for the flag but have no way to actually hurt the opponent - it s just not right.

[Humble Warrior]

A situation arose in my campaign where I was friends with someone I wanted to invade and I didn't want a diplo hit so I started a riot in Uzen and a big stack of rebels came and took the province. My "friend" counters with a full stack, I move in range of the town so we siege attack at the same time.

I want the province and I know that if we win, he takes it. So I decide to let his army of line infantry and spear levies get annihilated. I then send in my traditional Aizu army and clean up. So he takes the province but loses his whole stack and general.

I felt I exploited the AI and cheated the game.

I would propose that the faction who caps the flag first should win the province - after all, it's their flag that they hoist during countdown timer phase - and if no flag is captured and all enemies are slain/routed, the initial aggressor faction takes the province as is current.

It would cause more headaches on the battlefield, though. Sure, it suits YOU, for this moment and this time because you`re up to Shenanigins, but it would screw with the whole Allied thing. You are friends with him and the agreement is if you or he has problems with an enemy and you are `supporting` your `friend`, then it is agreed that when you help your `friend` he takes whatever it is you are helping him do. You don`t pretend to help then keep it anyway. It would cause instant war.

It works both ways. for instance, I`ve attacked a city I want to get back and had a big ally with a bigger army join me. I sit back and let him take the city (losing casualties and all), but at the end he must give the city to me. I even notice when he takes each flag the colour of it is MY colour.

Of course, CA could put an option in to betray your side on the battlefield (you could in STWoriginal). the only problem is, as soon as the AI did exactly the same to YOU, you`d be here to post it was unfair!

But if you were willing to accept that I actually wouldn`t mind it. It means you`d have to really be careful of your Allies on the field.

[fws2468]

PeonKing and kronpas raised some good points, which I'm inclined to agree with. I'm comfortable with the one initiating the siege taking the castle regardless of who takes the flag first for the reasons they mentioned.

I think the reinforcing allied force has the option to join or abstain from the siege. If so, you can exploit the siege in any case whichever option you choose. If you abstain knowing your ally will fail to siege the defenders and lose his whole army, then send your own to capture the castle, that is an exploit in itself. If you know your ally's army is strong enough to take the castle by itself but with heavy losses, you can choose to join and let him fully engage his troops with the defenders, while you sneak up from a weakly defended rear and capture the flag first, which would also be an exploit because the castle would have been your ally's if you had not joined the siege. As you can see, capturing the flag first does not necessarily mean no exploit.

Look at it this way, you wouldn't want the same to happen to your army if you and your ally's roles were reversed. And helping your ally without taking the castle is not totally useless as you could still get your general and troops some extra xp.

[StukaJr]

It's always been that way in TW games - even when you take the "flag" and initiating army gets destroyed. Whomever takes the flag, wins.

The only way to win the province in this case is either not to join in the assault or flee from the map once your "ally" takes enough of a pounding...