Cornering inquisitors. Exploit or legal maneuver?

I want to know what others think of using regular troops to surround and kill inquisitors. Do you feel it is an exploit or a legal "arresting the inquisitor" maneuver?

[For those not in the know, someone else found that you can kill an inquisitor by surrounding its square on all 8 sides, then moving in a 9th army unit onto its square. Since the inquisitor cannot go anywhere, it dies. I used it yesterday to avoid losing a high command general on top of a large stack. It felt too easy... I'd rather have an assasin do it, but I've not ever succeeded in killing an inquisitor that wary.]

A legal maneuver until psycho inquisitors are patched, along with feckless assassins.

After that, an exploit

It's your game, you paid for it and should be allowed to play it any way you want. If you feel Inquisitors detract from the game with their current power, then I don't see anything wrong with taking matters into your own hands.

Personally, it depends on how it is used. I wouldn't, for example, use it if there was only one or two or three Inquisitors running around my lands. If, however, they were being spammed all over my territory and getting a little match-happy, I wouldn't hesitate to send my army on some "training manouvres" in which any hapless bystanders might get marched on :whip:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by afrit

I want to know what others think of using regular troops to surround and kill inquisitors. Do you feel it is an exploit or a legal "arresting the inquisitor" maneuver?]

---

I'm not an expert on the period, but I think it was exceedingly rare for an Inquisitor to target the king or heir of a powerful faction, or the general in a crusading army. It was also rare to target priests, except maybe in a few politically motivated cases that had nothing to do with heresy, per se (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbain_Grandier).

Therefore I think the "exploit" is justified and realistic. It represents the way a king's retinue would respond to a too-aggressive Inquisitor, who started stacking firewood at the door of a faction leader, or one who tried to interrupt a Crusader army. The Inquisition targeted mainly civilian and low-prestige targets, where there were plenty of easy pickings without angering the powers-that-be.

I'm not sure CA will actually alter the way Inquisitors target family members and crusading generals, since the manual does mention that Inquisitors might go after your faction leader. It will be interesting to see if they remove this "exploit" or not, in the first series of patches.

I do think Inquisitors add something to the game. It's a random risk element, like storms or pirates when you're traveling at sea. It wouldn't be the Medieval period without the Inquisition in the game. But some targets really should be off-limits, for the sake of realism.

I'd say it's an exploit, but considering that it's pretty much impossible to do accidentally, I don't think there's any real reason to fix it. If people want to use it, of course they're free to.

Currently it is only an exploit if you are facing one or a few Inqs. However if you are fearing for the entire royal line then you should by all means do it. In fact I'm happy to hear about it, now I might also haev a chance in the beginning next time. And I might even use it when a Crusade-leader is in trouble (I really really hate inquisitions of them).

When they are nerfed a bit I would consider it an exploit.

But now the question remains, how do you feel about creating a wall, forcing the Inquisitor to go into 'enemy' lands and burn them. As it is I think I will try it out.

I used the trick on a Milanese merchant... but that's because it was like turn three and I checked his stats and he was like rank 7! I was like "Oh hell no!" and just used the corner and squash trick.

This exploit has been in since RTW.

Probably the fix for it will allow the agents to walk through armies instead of being blocked.....hopefully. As in RTW I'd occasionally pay the toll to get my diplomat through. Funny thing is the army made so much from the toll they dissapeared, I guess early retirement or something.

I never abused it but is much more needed at least until the patch. So far I've used it on inquisitors for sensesless stuff, killing royal blood, a 7 piety cardinal. Annoying asassins that have failed 5 times but still didnt die from thier failure. And of course merchants of lower rank taking out my higher ranked merchant.

I was fine with AI merchants until I found found out that lower ranked ones can easily take out yours, plus if the AI fails theres a 50/50 chance you will pick up a negative trait instead of a positive one. Really if I could'nt exploit it I'd have to ignore the merchants in the game all together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

plus if the AI fails theres a 50/50 chance you will pick up a negative trait instead of a positive one.

---

Really? I haven't gotten a single negative trait from 'winning' such fights (save the 'enemies' trait for big killers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Really? I haven't gotten a single negative trait from 'winning' such fights (save the 'enemies' trait for big killers).

---

Niether have I. And I have also found that merchants are much better on the offensive--a low ranked guy of mine can kill a high ranked foreign merchant easier than my high ranked mercant can defend. So, I've adopted the first strike doctrine for my merchants...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danfda

Niether have I. And I have also found that merchants are much better on the offensive--a low ranked guy of mine can kill a high ranked foreign merchant easier than my high ranked mercant can defend. So, I've adopted the first strike doctrine for my merchants...

---

It is also highly profitable.

You make more money by chasing merchants than actually trading... That is wrong to me.

Its an exploit, obviously. Doesnt mean you shouldnt use it if you feel it improves your enjoyment of a single player game though.

Sure, it's an exploit. But let's think about it for a second. Could an army general capture (and then kill) an Inquisition that was running about killing your KINGS and Royal line? Sure!


Not only are Inquisitors totally broken, their implimentation is flawed as well. Typically, Local authority was given permission by the Church to start an Inquisition in order to quell heresy in their regions (as well as to scare the living crap out of the commoners).

The ONLY case of a standing general (or other important person) being tried by an Inquisition that I'm aware of was Joan of Arc, and that Inquisition was performed AFTER she had been captured during a raid into Burgundian Territory. AND the Inquistors were Bergundian and English, NOT emmisaries sent from Rome. (Correction - There was a Religious University in Paris (which was held by Enland at the time) which provided at least some of the Inquisitors. But they were under massive political pressure from the English to execute her)

The idea of Inquisitors roaming around the countryside and burning whoever they want at the stake (particularly people of such great importance that they would be represented as a "person" in a strategic game like MTW2) is ridiculous.


Since CA has decided to make Inquisitors cartoonish representations of their historical counterparts (see here), I have absolutely no qualms about using the "surround the bastard with an army and then execute him" exploit to deal with them. Assuming they fix the code so at the very least they aren't killing anybody and everybody at will, then I won't use the exploit any more. Until then, any Inquisitors found on French soil had better watch their asses!

Quote:

---

I'm not an expert on the period, but I think it was exceedingly rare for an Inquisitor to target the king or heir of a powerful faction

---

Are there ANY historical instances at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis
Really? I haven't gotten a single negative trait from 'winning' such fights (save the 'enemies' trait for big killers).

Niether have I. And I have also found that merchants are much better on the offensive--a low ranked guy of mine can kill a high ranked foreign merchant easier than my high ranked merchant can defend. So, I've adopted the first strike doctrine for my merchants...

---

I find the total opposite :smash: - merchants on the defence are far more "powerful" in that a lower ranked merchant has a higher chance of surviving an attack than the same lower rank merchant has of succeeding attacking the higher ranked Merchant.

Indeed I think that's relatively easy to verify as "fact".

Quote:

---

It is also highly profitable.

You make more money by chasing merchants than actually trading... That is wrong to me.

---

Not if you avoid the "distance-to-capital" bug. I've regularly got merchants earning 500-1200 florins per turn on vh/vh - but that drops to about 100 per turn if you load/reload and dont avoid the bug.


(After a load/reload simply move your capital to another town and then back and the modifier kicks back in)

Overall I've found that it is pretty easy to earn 200-300 per turn per Merchant on average (over 10 merchants) without requiring any attention be paid to them chasing down other merchants and so forth... and once you are on a resource you've the better chance of surviving an attack than launching one.

But I play most of my turns without saving and reloading... and at best one of my top notch merchants have gained me about 58 florins a turn (full financial ability plus sitting on gold in a home province).
So the big question is if it is intended to give you such massive bonusses, or if it is you who is experiencing a bug when you do the move? I can't seem to figure it out.

I have no preferance to defensive/offensive actions to the merchants, only that offensive seems to be the only way to be sure to gain the money.

INQUISITORS!!!!!! This has been a major problem since MTW. Yes, the inquisition was just as nasty as you've heard, BUT, it must always be remembered that inquisitors--nor any other clergy--never had ANY secular authority outside, perhaps, the Vatican and Papal States. Period. If you research the era, you find that when heretics, or whatnot, were found quilty, three monks did not drag them to the stake. Sentences were executed by the state, if they chose, unless the inquisitor was mad as a hatter and acted on his own. There were a few instances of that, and the inquisitor usually came up missing if the victim had court favor. After all, remember the defendent was ALREADY in secular custody.

In my current campaign, I lost TWO kings, TWO heirs, and THREE high ranking family members in about fifteen turns to the same inquisitor. And one of the kings was on Crusade! Assassination? Impossible. A high valor assassin gets a 5% chance. This is NOT a bug; it's meant to inhance the game. Fine. Give me a way to mod it out.. I was able to do that in MTW simply by having those slimy little pests cost 1,000,000 florins and 100 years to build. :laugh4: Hey, it worked. So if I can use any means to improve (mod) my game to my historical liking, so be it. How does that differ from changing units or provinces? It doesn't.

It is inconceivable to me to even think that a king would allow himself or sons to be executed by anyone. It's absurd. What I would like to see, will obviously never happen. I would like to see inquisitions "fixed" so that a convicted toady, who was by fact already in secular custody, be punished by secular authority, IF THE AUTHORITY defers to Papal opinion. And the worst punishment for refusing the inquisitor's findings would simply be excommunication. That is the way it was. While most would consider that laughable today, it had a tad more weight during our period of play. And let's face it, the inquisition was used as a tool, not only by the church to cement their monopoly of the riches involved, but also by the peerage. Not all convicted were executed; the majority weren't. Instead, they were stripped of all their wealth. Golly-gee! Wonder who got the money and land? Most of you folks are aware of Phillip and the murder/theft of the Templars, and I'm sure most are aware that Joan of Arc was executed by secular authority (English) because she was a political/military threat, not a bloody witch. Those are rather well know examples, but hadly exceptional. Church and State have always had a symbiotic relationship. They didn't ruffle each other's feathers over minor issues.

Quote:

---

In my current campaign, I lost TWO kings, TWO heirs, and THREE high ranking family members in about fifteen turns to the same inquisitor. And one of the kings was on Crusade! Assassination? Impossible. A high valor assassin gets a 5% chance. This is NOT a bug; it's meant to inhance the game. Fine. Give me a way to mod it out.. I was able to do that in MTW simply by having those slimy little pests cost 1,000,000 florins and 100 years to build. Hey, it worked.

---

I love playing Muslims. :2thumbsup:

Look at it this way: You are using large portions of your army to cordon and search a specific area for an Iquisitor, Merchant, Diplomat, Priest, whatever...not unrealistic if the sought after character is being a real thorn in your side...if you have the resources to spare that large a force looking for one man then go for it...I don't see any problem at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Ovaat

It is inconceivable to me to even think that a king would allow himself or sons to be executed by anyone

---

I agree

What would be much better IMO would be if the inquisitor needed your permission to try somebody. If you give permission then the character takes his chance. If you deny permission then you take a large hit in your standing with the pope.

I also think that characters over (say) 5 or 6 piety should have a pretty good chance even against a level 10 inquisitor. If youre sufficiently pious, then you should be safe regardless.

This way you would have an interesting decision to make based on;

(1) the piety of the target vs the skill of the inquisitor, i.e. do you think the target has a chance?

and

(2) the value of the target to you w.r.t. the value of your standing with the pope. If its only a crap general and you cant afford the risk of being excommed then let the inquisitor do his work, if its your king and you dont really care, then deny them the chance.

Problem solved. Now somebody just needs to recode that bit of the game :wink: :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveybaby

What would be much better IMO would be if the inquisitor needed your permission to try somebody. If you give permission then the character takes his chance. If you deny permission then you take a large hit in your standing with the pope.

Problem solved. Now somebody just needs to recode that bit of the game :wink: :grin:

---

I agree with you, Davebaby, it looks like a good idea.

Inquisitors? My first campaign, no problem with them. The second one? After one heir on a crusade, a couple of generals, a bunch of priests, cardinals and merchants fried by those little buggers I lost patience with them. :furious3:

Guess who gets crushed now? :whip: :skull: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveybaby

I also think that characters over (say) 5 or 6 piety should have a pretty good chance even against a level 10 inquisitor. If youre sufficiently pious, then you should be safe regardless.

---

Actually, the entire concept that an Inquisitor can successfully try you should have NOTHING to do with the fact that he's more pious than you.


You should only be susceptible to an Inquisitor if your Piety is zero OR you become a heritic in some way or another.

There isn't a single way that the Inquisitors behave that I think is appropriate. They SHOULD be used to quell religious problems in a region. Currently they're just the Pope's private hit squad.:inquisitive:

I am not an expert on the Spanish inquisition but I know that elsewhere nobles were seldom if ever charged with heresy. That was because the church depended on them and the King for its very existence beyond the gates of Rome. Nobles gave them the land, money, and gifts. Even a dog knows not to bite the hand that feeds it. The few nobles charged and executed were not tried by the church but by the kings.

The Templar inquisition was entirely a fabrication cooked up by the French King. It came about after two popes opposed to him died in very short order. His man was elected pope and gave him permission to proceed. I believe (a bit fuzzy here) that the pope sent a pardon for those held those 7 or so years but it came too late. The king had burned them all…without finding the treasure he had been looking for. The much touted Baphomet was an anagram for the Sophia…referring to the relics of Mary Magdalene entrusted to them by a previous pope while her shrine was being reconstructed…Hence all the gibberish about skulls and what not.

James the V had a noble torched for heresy but it was much more of a personal vendetta than anything else…after all he kept a well paid alchemist on staff for a very long time…it is a very funny story if you can find it… The gent once jumped from the battlements attempting to fly and banged him self up really well…drank copious amounts of whisky, generally kept everyone in Scotland entertained with odd exploits.

At any rate, if a meddlesome monk came nosing round he had to call on the local lord before starting to burn the populous else thing would not be good for his own health. After burning a few peasants…or a hundred or so at times, these men usually had to hot foot it back to Rome to keep their own heads before local lords and bishops got their hands on them.

The entire mechanics behind inquisitors is highliy flawed, as someone stated they are pretty much the pope's personal assassination squad. Sure there were instances of such activities..but not with any faction leaders, or heirs etc. It simply was not possible. Highly flawed in their current form and put there just to throw a spanner in the works of strategy...ha ha we wiped your general out....

I for one would welcome them being dropped altogether..or least toned down so they didnt do daft things like kill your king, as if they could even get near a king no matter how unreligious he may be.

Sure religion plays a part in this era, but it the pope wasnt the powerhouse of world domination he is portrayed as in the game.

exploit or no, thanks for letting me know how to do this

Wizzy said it good, from my personal perspective. How can anything be a cheat or "exploit" if the only person involved is yourself playing the game you paid for?

If this was an mmo or there was some ability to compete on a campaign map in multiplayer, then sure, cheat and exploit would be an issue, otherwise, whatever gets you by and lets you enjoy your play time... that's all that really counts.

My chosen method of dealing with Inquisitors, unkillable heretics, etc etc is to banish them.

I'm the king. It's my lands and my rules. They piss me off, they get sent to that little strip of desert just to the west of the nile delta.

If I had my druthers, I'd make it a public spectical, the draw and quarter thing, everyone gets the day off, carnival, the whole shebang...but, alas, the game dont give me that option.