Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Possible bug, port attack.

  1. #1
    Member Member Vulgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default Possible bug, port attack.

    I`m playing Warlord Edition and I notice that AI does not uses ports for attack, but I can attack them in their distant ports. Is there something wrong with my version or they are not programed for that. How to fix this?
    I have played only Sengoku Jidai campaign.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Senior Member gollum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,114

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Hi and welcome to the forums. Its normal. The AI in warlord edition does use the port raid option - but very very rarely. I've seen it twice happening and i've had my fair share of campaigns. To be honest with you, i dont use port raids, as i consider it an exploit.
    The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign

    Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
    Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings

    Download v3.3
    Info & Discussion Thread

  3. #3

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
    To be honest with you, i dont use port raids, as i consider it an exploit.
    +1

    The AI does rarely use port raiding, but not often. When it does it can come as a huge surprise and lose you the campaign if your "backwater" provinces are not well defended.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    I would not consider it an exploit if used to counter the Hojo hoard issue, but then I'm one of those people who consider the Hojo hoard a fun spoiler rather than a challenge.
    In those simple times there was a great wonder and mystery in life. Man walked in fear and solemnity, with Heaven very close above his head, and Hell below his very feet. God's visible hand was everywhere, in the rainbow and the comet, in the thunder and the wind. The Devil too raged openly upon the earth; he skulked behind the hedge-rows in the gloaming; he laughed loudly in the night-time; he clawed the dying sinner, pounced on the unbaptized babe, and twisted the limbs of the epileptic. A foul fiend slunk ever by a man's side and whispered villainies in his ear, while above him there hovered an angel of grace . . .

    Arthur Conan Doyle

  5. #5
    Senior Member Senior Member gollum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,114

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    I, on the other hand, love the Hojo horde. Especially in the original game where its bigger.
    The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign

    Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
    Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings

    Download v3.3
    Info & Discussion Thread

  6. #6

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    I'd be more tolerant of the purple monstrosity if the game allowed you to save in the middle of a battle, but its hard for me to get enough time at a strech for huge battles, except maybe if I limit myself to one game turn per session, which I don't like to do. Even if I had plenty of time, I don't really want an epic battle every turn any more than I want a huge banquet every time I eat. But I would like to know what you like about it. The drama of fighting battles when you are heavily outnumbered by wave after wave?
    In those simple times there was a great wonder and mystery in life. Man walked in fear and solemnity, with Heaven very close above his head, and Hell below his very feet. God's visible hand was everywhere, in the rainbow and the comet, in the thunder and the wind. The Devil too raged openly upon the earth; he skulked behind the hedge-rows in the gloaming; he laughed loudly in the night-time; he clawed the dying sinner, pounced on the unbaptized babe, and twisted the limbs of the epileptic. A foul fiend slunk ever by a man's side and whispered villainies in his ear, while above him there hovered an angel of grace . . .

    Arthur Conan Doyle

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member gollum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,114

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    You get huge battles every turn if you develop slow enough and give the Hojo time to grow to the point you get the battles you speak of, which are indeed tedius. I play the Sengoku campaign in full rush mode - when i want a slower game i play medieval. In full rush mode you basically horde on the horde and there is a hell of a lot of challenge in doing that, because to reach that stage you need to take risks financially as well as on the field in the early/middle early game. That's the part of a TW campaign i enjoy best: every koku, every battle counts and things are on the line.

    Check out Maltz's stories for rush tactics and strategy. There is a link in the stickies here in the sword dojo.
    Last edited by gollum; 04-18-2012 at 18:10.
    The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign

    Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
    Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings

    Download v3.3
    Info & Discussion Thread

  8. #8
    Senior Member Senior Member gollum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,114

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign

    Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
    Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings

    Download v3.3
    Info & Discussion Thread

  9. #9

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    The hojo horde are not an issue in STW MI/WI 1.02 - if you dislike the phenomenon then play that version.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Senior Member gollum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,114

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Another way to reduce tediousness of battles is to play in huge. You get less units to play with and less reinforcement. However, you need wider camera swipes to see the field and that in large battles can be an issue if you aren't used to it and also your units are less maneuvrable and so battles become more strategic and less tactical.
    The Caravel Mod: a (very much) improvedvanilla MTW/VI v2.1 early campaign

    Please make sure you have the latest version (v3.3)
    Since v3.3 the Caravel Mod includes customised campaigns for huge and default unit settings

    Download v3.3
    Info & Discussion Thread

  11. #11

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Actually I think Large (100) is better than Huge (120) for keeping the numbers down, since you can only recruit 50 men per season rather than 60. It makes for a very interesting game in the early stages and less numbers in battles at the end.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    I've played on huge in both STW and MTW from the start, so that's what I'm used to, but huge adds a different dimension to unit training as units take two seasons to raise. In "per season" terms that 100 men per season on large and 60 per season (as one unit every two seasons) on huge.

    It's all horses for courses however - there is no "correct" way.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Absolutely - there is no right way.

    But 100 man units also take two seasons to recruit (at least in STW). The 80 man units only take one season. So in turns of speed of manpower recruitment quickest to slowest goes 80, 120=60, 100. This means that the slowest horde build up is with 100 man units all other things being equal.

    Of course it is somewhat more complicated as more men recruited means more men die in battle, and retraining also factors in (at least for the human player) being easier/quicker on 100 and 120 as it still only takes one season - hence you can actually retrain very small units faster than you can recruit new units... you still have to take movement to and from the front lines into account though. Also garrisons are larger with larger units so koku is tighter.

    Personally, I like the tactical battlemap manueverability of the 60 man units but the strategic pacing and possibilities of the 100 man units. (I never play with 80 now.) With 100 you can, for a large part of the game, get better manueverability by not reinforcing your units. Of course facing end game hordes this is no longer very wise to do.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    I haven't played STW in several years so I decided to fire up a game and clean the rust off. It's a 1530 start date as Uesugi. Shimazu is already over-running the southern half of the map and decided I made an enticing target. He sent quite a sizable force on a port attack into Echigo. In the past, I've seen the AI send small forces on port raids but retreat before battle can be joined, so this is a first...sending a major force led by an heir.

    Needless to say, I'm not that rusty....not a single soldier made it home to the wife and kids

    Oh...and I'm returning the favor in spades.....hordes of high-level shinobi are causing mass rebellions throughout his rear areas
    Last edited by ReluctantSamurai; 08-28-2012 at 21:19.

  15. #15
    Camel Lord Senior Member Capture The Flag Champion Martok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In my own little world....but it's okay, they know me there.
    Posts
    8,227

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Wow, don't think I've ever seen that myself. Nice to see the AI take a risk for once (even if it didn't work out)!
    "MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone

  16. #16
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    The strangest part of it was that his port raids didn't count on the screen that shows who's at war with whom

    I don't check that screen every turn so several turns later when I decided to return the "favor" I got the message about 'do you wish to attack a neutral faction'? Hmmmm....I thought we were already at war.........

    ...........well if we weren't, we are now

  17. #17
    Member Member DEB8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Bristol England
    Posts
    132

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    The strangest part of it was that his port raids didn't count on the screen that shows who's at war with whom

    I don't check that screen every turn so several turns later when I decided to return the "favor" I got the message about 'do you wish to attack a neutral faction'? Hmmmm....I thought we were already at war.........

    ...........well if we weren't, we are now
    It's a rather "wild" guess; but as the raid was by sea and they all got killed - perhaps it was "considered" that they were "lost at sea" ( sunk in a storm ) ??!!

    Or - maybe it was considered a "Pirate" raid and therefore not an "official" attack.

    [ Do you get a "Do you wish to make War" message for a Port raid ( I can't recall )? If not then I guess it's correct that it does not count. If you do.... ?!?! ]
    Last edited by DEB8; 09-09-2012 at 03:25. Reason: Additional thoughts

  18. #18
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    It happened again in a different campaign...Shimazu again (in fact, for all the times I've seen the AI do a port raid, it's always been Shimazu...never any other clan).

    This time I checked the diplomatic screen and it said we were now at war, but....a few turns later when I attacked one of his provinces, I again got the message "Do you wish to attack a neutral clan?". One of those STW oddities, I guess

  19. #19

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    The diplomatic status does seem like an 'oddity'.

    I have had Hojo make a port attack against me in the past. And I am pretty sure it was Uesegi who did it to me once as well. Both times were mid-end game and I had left unprotected territory behind my war front. Mind you they are the only two times I have ever experienced this. I basically assume that it won't happen.

    Have you installed a different patch/version recently? Just wondering if that's what triggered this.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Have you installed a different patch/version recently?
    No. It's the same version I've been playing for years [Sold Out Warlord Edition] patched to 1.02. The only other modifications are the replacement of the original Owari map with a version that eliminates the group of buildings on the opposite side of the river, and some troop stat modifications along with the "No-geisha" and "No BFN" changes to the building preference file.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    It happened again in a different campaign...Shimazu again (in fact, for all the times I've seen the AI do a port raid, it's always been Shimazu...never any other clan).
    My memory is failing me, but port raids can only occur if the invader has an agent in the target province...? I can't remember if your counter spies can counter that as well. We have over 10 years of archives here is you're tempted to search...

    Quote Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai View Post
    This time I checked the diplomatic screen and it said we were now at war, but....a few turns later when I attacked one of his provinces, I again got the message "Do you wish to attack a neutral clan?". One of those STW oddities, I guess
    Well if you have no common borders with them, then perhaps - auto ceasefire?


  22. #22
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    port raids can only occur if the invader has an agent in the target province...?
    I would assume that's the case....

    then perhaps - auto ceasefire?
    Again, I would assume that to be the case, but...the diplo screen still shows a state of war exists so.....

  23. #23

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    The status on the diplomatic parchment can go a bit out of sync in STW, especially in situations where a war begins and ends quickly due to contact (mutual borders) being lost, etc - apart from that, no clue...


  24. #24
    Member Member DEB8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Bristol England
    Posts
    132

    Unhappy Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by asai View Post
    The status on the diplomatic parchment can go a bit out of sync in STW, especially in situations where a war begins and ends quickly due to contact (mutual borders) being lost, etc - apart from that, no clue...

    Yes, I remember noticing that too ( lack of sync that is, not sure re the rest )...

  25. #25
    Member Member DEB8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Bristol England
    Posts
    132

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by asai View Post
    My memory is failing me, but port raids can only occur if the invader has an agent in the target province...?
    That ( and my garrisons ) may well explain why I have never had one launched by the AI in my games.
    However, this "rule" only applies to the AI, right ?? As I do not recall always having an agent present....

  26. #26
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    However, this "rule" only applies to the AI, right ?? As I do not recall always having an agent present....
    You must have an agent of some sorts...shinobi, ninja, or emissary present in the province before you can send an army from one of your ports to one of an enemy (or enemy-to-be).

  27. #27

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Are you sure? I thought it was enough if you had put an agent in the target province at one time, even if the agent has left or been killed since then.
    In those simple times there was a great wonder and mystery in life. Man walked in fear and solemnity, with Heaven very close above his head, and Hell below his very feet. God's visible hand was everywhere, in the rainbow and the comet, in the thunder and the wind. The Devil too raged openly upon the earth; he skulked behind the hedge-rows in the gloaming; he laughed loudly in the night-time; he clawed the dying sinner, pounced on the unbaptized babe, and twisted the limbs of the epileptic. A foul fiend slunk ever by a man's side and whispered villainies in his ear, while above him there hovered an angel of grace . . .

    Arthur Conan Doyle

  28. #28
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Are you sure?
    Positive. Try it without an agent and see

  29. #29

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    I could have sworn I'd done it before, but I tested and you are right.
    In those simple times there was a great wonder and mystery in life. Man walked in fear and solemnity, with Heaven very close above his head, and Hell below his very feet. God's visible hand was everywhere, in the rainbow and the comet, in the thunder and the wind. The Devil too raged openly upon the earth; he skulked behind the hedge-rows in the gloaming; he laughed loudly in the night-time; he clawed the dying sinner, pounced on the unbaptized babe, and twisted the limbs of the epileptic. A foul fiend slunk ever by a man's side and whispered villainies in his ear, while above him there hovered an angel of grace . . .

    Arthur Conan Doyle

  30. #30
    Senior Member Senior Member ReluctantSamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,278

    Default Re: Possible bug, port attack.

    Thank you for confirming that this old farts' memory isn't failing him like some of his other body parts

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •