Blatant Cheating With Reinforcements

[GrimmCro]

I just started a fresh campaign, playing Picts, legendary difficulty. I'm fiddling with taxes and construction, taking my time. Meanwhile, I got attacked. And then this happens:



Notice that I have a full stack with my heir camped in the city while the king is outside building a second army. AI hits me with three stacks, one full and two supporting. If it was me attacking the AI that's just outside the city, it would have access to both the army that's getting attacked, army within the city and the freaking garrison, but I only have one meager stack. How can CA do this? I get that their AI is horrendous and needs all the help it can get, but is this supposed to be fun? Is this how legendary difficulty presents a challenge? I'm a fan of TW series but they're testing my patience with crap like this. I'm gonna lose the king now because no matter where I retreat they'll catch him and kill him.

Something needs to be done about this, and not just this. Financial bonuses the AI gets are too much as it is, these sort of things need to go immediately.

I can't even begin to describe how much I hope someone sees where CA keeps ****ing up and makes a game without abundant incessant cheating to cover up pathetic AI. This is ********.

[AnonMilwaukean]

Is that settlement under siege? I see what appears to be a splash of fire just to the right of the 'Battle Deployment' box. If the settlement is under siege from the third stack of enemies, then anything in the settlement, including garrison + army, isn't able to reinforce your king. I only ask this because I see smoke and fire from the settlement, and you claimed three stacks attacked but I only see two actually attacking the king.

Seriously, I'm not 100% sure of the mechanics, here, but a besieged city cannot reinforce outside armies that are attacked by yet another enemy stack IIRC.

So, long story short, while the AI certainly cheats, the screenshot you have here leads me to believe that the reinforcement situation is probably a normal set-up, unfortunately, and not a cheat.

[Toho]

Yea bro, you just got outplayed by the AI.
One army is sieging the city while your army outside is cut off from the city's reinforcements.

There is no cheating. You got owned by the AI and I for one am impressed and applaud CA.

[RedGuard]

this is music. just wait until you play as the vandals and the Wre chases you all around the map in horde mode while it leaves gaul and italy undefended.

[GrimmCro]

I figured it out. One of the stacks did engage in siege but it didn't last past the turn so it wasn't registered. That's what confused me. Usually after a siege you have to repair some buildings and I had to do none of that. The full stack that was camped at the walls and engaged in a phony siege bailed when I retreated with my king.

The AI did in fact cut my reinforcements off to deal with my king and that is indeed impressive. Too bad it's not so clever with everything else.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

Keep make a backup of the save game if you can, sounds like a bug.

[Slaists]

Not a bug. One can clearly see the city is under siege. So, one AI army blocks the city garrison by laying siege while the other one attacks the stragglers in the field. I do it all the time myself, LOL.

The problem for the AI is; if the army laying siege is weak, they're leaving themselves expose to a sally and a counterattack.

[GrimmCro]

Not a bug. One can clearly see the city is under siege. So, one AI army blocks the city garrison by laying siege while the other one attacks the stragglers in the field. I do it all the time myself, LOL.

The problem for the AI is; if the army laying siege is weak, they're leaving themselves expose to a sally and a counterattack.

Not if they attack both targets mid-turn. That just dawned on me and I'm back at not being impressed and calling the AI out.

When the AI attacks any army/city belonging to the player you are immediately given the choice to fight. That said:

-If they besiege the town first I should have been given the option to sally forth and not only that, I should have had the king's army and the garrison as reinforcements since they're well within range.
-If they attacked the king's army first, I should have had the army in the city and the garrison as reinforcements since the siege hasn't happened yet.

Assault on one of the two has to come first and I have to be given the chance to fight back, but I wasn't. The siege I never had the chance to fight effectively blocked the army in the city from reinforcing the king which brings me back to my original question, how is that fair? Because I know for a fact, and all of you do as well, that when you attack the AI which has a stack in the city and a stack outside of it, the AI still gets both them as reinforcements. Even if you encircle first and then attack the outside army.

[Slaists]

Not if they attack both targets mid-turn. That just dawned on me and I'm back at not being impressed and calling the AI out.

When the AI attacks any army/city belonging to the player you are immediately given the choice to fight. That said:

-If they besiege the town first I should have been given the option to sally forth and not only that, I should have had the king's army and the garrison as reinforcements since they're well within range.
-If they attacked the king's army first, I should have had the army in the city and the garrison as reinforcements since the siege hasn't happened yet.

Assault on one of the two has to come first and I have to be given the chance to fight back, but I wasn't. The siege I never had the chance to fight effectively blocked the army in the city from reinforcing the king which brings me back to my original question, how is that fair? Because I know for a fact, and all of you do as well, that when you attack the AI which has a stack in the city and a stack outside of it, the AI still gets both them as reinforcements. Even if you encircle first and then attack the outside army.

The AI laid siege to the city; they didn't assault. You get the "sally forth on the AI's turn" only if they assault the city.

As long as they just lay siege with one army and attack your field forces with another it works as designed: your city army is effectively blocked until your turn when you can do as you please.

I agree it works a bit arcade like though: blocking a huge army in the city with a minor army "laying siege". Oh well, that's a turn-based game for you. At least, the AI "knows" that it can do this sequence now.

[GrimmCro]

I'll give that a go. Cause I just lost another stack in the making the same way. Funny thing, the town doesn't even have walls for the army to be besieged within and the stack that attacked had 7 units. The mighty seven held up the king's 20 in a village through sheer force of CA.

[GrimmCro]

It just happened again. Same thing. They lock the army in the city and wipe out the other one just outside. Strategy is sound but I'm calling ******** since when I lay siege of the city the AI can still be reinforced by troops inside.

[Slaists]

It just happened again. Same thing. They lock the army in the city and wipe out the other one just outside. Strategy is sound but I'm calling ******** since when I lay siege of the city the AI can still be reinforced by troops inside.

Nope, if you lay siege even with one unit and use another army to attack another AI army in the field right by the city the garrison will not be able to reinforce the army in the field.

[Tora]

The OP was outmanoeuvred by the AI in that instance, but another tactic that does involve 'cheating' is for a strong AI stack to skirt the city and any adjacent armies, ignore all ZOCs, and attack the player's weakest stack. This draws the garrisoned army into the open as reinforcements and thereby negating any defensive benefits the city might have. Tried the same tactic myself but computer say no.

[AlliedZero]

The OP was outmanoeuvred by the AI in that instance, but another tactic that does involve 'cheating' is for a strong AI stack to skirt the city and any adjacent armies, ignore all ZOCs, and attack the player's weakest stack. This draws the garrisoned army into the open as reinforcements and thereby negating any defensive benefits the city might have. Tried the same tactic myself but computer say no.

I agree, as the ERE I created a wall of stacks, I kept thinking of it as my Atlantic Wall, if the Sassanids wanted to hit Edessa or Antioch they would have to get through this. The units were all spaced enough so all red circles overlaped. The only way around was through the extreme south, through the red sea, and by the Nile. Or the extreme North through the black sea. I had that many stacks. Turn passes, Enemy ignored ALL of that somehow and was had a stack attacking Antioch. I just...what? Did they use C-130s and jump in behind my lines?!

[Slaists]

The OP was outmanoeuvred by the AI in that instance, but another tactic that does involve 'cheating' is for a strong AI stack to skirt the city and any adjacent armies, ignore all ZOCs, and attack the player's weakest stack. This draws the garrisoned army into the open as reinforcements and thereby negating any defensive benefits the city might have. Tried the same tactic myself but computer say no.

If the field army you're talking about is within the city's ZOC, you will drag the city garrison out. The only case it does not work is when the target it outside the city's ZOC or if there is some natural barrier between the city and the army in the field such as a river or a mountain. If it's a plain field, it works all the time for me (an exception would be if the target decided to run instead of staying put).

[Tora]

If the field army you're talking about is within the city's ZOC, you will drag the city garrison out. The only case it does not work is when the target it outside the city's ZOC or if there is some natural barrier between the city and the army in the field such as a river or a mountain. If it's a plain field, it works all the time for me (an exception would be if the target decided to run instead of staying put).

The point is that what the AI stack did, and I'm unable to do as the player, is wander unimpeded through the ZOC of a city and another enemy stack in order to pull off such a stunt. Combined with the AI's ability to travel enormous distances from beyond the range of my armies, extended by the vision of agents, and never seemingly be affected by forced march penalties, the playing field seems distinctly uneven.

The next time anyone happens to be out that way, try and figure out how an AI stack can emerge from the mists of Rhaga on Level 2 roads, sack Dahistan, and return to Rhaga all in the same move, apparently suffering no Forced March penalties. On a normal march in the reverse direction, I could only just get past the Great Wall of Gordan. (Which by the way is conspicuous by its absence on the battlefield map

[MagPiesRUs]

I agree, the ZOC mechanics in the last couple of games have just been frustrating. I don't understand why CA got rid of the Empire/Napoleon ZOC mechanics, where armies were able to intercept an enemy who entered their ZOC and immediately force a battle. Such a mechanic would have prevented the AI from exploiting the game and allowed the OP to meet the enemy on the field before they tried to block off the city.

It would also allow you to end a turn inside someone's ZOC, ending annoying scenarios where a tiny army is somehow able to stop a full stack from marching too close to them and is thus able to outrun them forever.

[Butan]

As others said, in the particular situation of the OP, its actually a genuine tactical AI move. Seals off your garrisoned army (with a possibly very weak stack), which also disable the ZOC of the thus besieged settlement, allowing for further piecemeal attack on surrounding allied armies.

The AI is a bit too smart on the campaign map, and can completely avoid ZOC by exploiting game mechanics, but this here is just him winning. To be real sure it doesnt happen, its best to have your to-reinforce-armies at the reinforce radius limit, behind the "main target" to protect (=the settlement) or placed at the very limit of the AI armies movement range.

[RGA]

Wasn't it the good old Marlborough's advice that strong field army should never be place inside citiy's wall?

[gregnaar]

Why do you recruit right outside a walled settlement with a weak army, if you have a whole stack chilling inside? If you change them you can defeat the enemy stacks in fortified stance. (Or they wont dare to attack.)