helping allies in battle

[Jason X]

do you need military access to fight alongside an ally without taking a rep hit for stepping on their turf?

[St.Jimmy]

Im not sure. But while your on the subject. How do you get military access? Even my closest allies turn this down even when i have to pass through there lands to reach our enemys. The only way iv managed to get military acces is making someone my vassle which you think should be harder to obtain

[FactionHeir]

Well, if you are on hostile ground and helping an ally, you'll likely only take the hit if you continue roaming their lands afterwards. Generally speaking, you don't need access unless you plan on passing through their lands a lot.

MA is fairly alright to obtain usually for between 3-10k florins should secure it.

[Jason X]

on hostile ground it's ok, i was just wondering about going in to their lands to relieve a siege or something.

sounds like i need MA - grr!

[HopAlongBunny]

I don't think so; or at least not all the time.

I stopped on Crete to relieve the Byz under seige; did not have the mp's to do more than push the other army back. The next turn I got back on my boats and sailed away...no rep hit.

[Galain_Ironhide]

In fact, from my experience your relations can get better after releiving your allies from a seige or backing them up in a fight - Just make sure you don't hang around in their land for too long after that. I have seen this many times. The only problem is getting stuck in your allie's 'red zone' (around settlements and armies) when you trek through their lands.

As far as securing a military access treaty with your allies. I have found offering up a neighbouring province that you don't strategically want in exchange for Military Access works quite nicely. Plus if they have any cash they will most likely part with that too.

[ArtistofWarfare]

In fact, from my experience your relations can get better after releiving your allies from a seige or backing them up in a fight - Just make sure you don't hang around in their land for too long after that. I have seen this many times. The only problem is getting stuck in your allie's 'red zone' (around settlements and armies) when you trek through their lands.

As far as securing a military access treaty with your allies. I have found offering up a neighbouring province that you don't strategically want in exchange for Military Access works quite nicely. Plus if they have any cash they will most likely part with that too.

Hey Galain!

How reliable is the AI faction in honoring said military access they've granted you?

Like, do they ever just ignore the fact that they granted you access? Or perhaps just attack you at random a few turns later...ignoring the treaty you've just signed together?

How does it work out?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I've never seen the AI use military access properly. Or trade rights.

Or coordinate a strategy with you as your ally against a foe.

Invariably, they betray you. That's all. These aren't people we are dealing with... there is no reasoning with a program. It will do what it was told to do, which is get in your way until it is ready to try to kill you. They will ignore any treaty eventually and just attack you as if your relations were abysmal and your reputation was despicable.

[Galain_Ironhide]

I've never seen the AI use military access properly. Or trade rights.

Or coordinate a strategy with you as your ally against a foe.

Invariably, they betray you. That's all. These aren't people we are dealing with... there is no reasoning with a program. It will do what it was told to do, which is get in your way until it is ready to try to kill you. They will ignore any treaty eventually and just attack you as if your relations were abysmal and your reputation was despicable.

Well, yes and no. The AI is way too dumb to co-ordinate a relief effort or help you out in a battle, other than if they were already co-incedently in the same area of the game map as you and your enemy were. Military Access in my line of thinking is more or less an option for you if you want to be a friendly neighbour and help out (the neighbour borrows your tools, your lawnmower, your chainsaw and even in some cases your wife, AND NEVER RETURNS THEM or the favor! ). I don't think CA ever intended for it to be so useless - but in some cases it has its uses, primarily if your ally has some nice cushy real estate next door that you want to get to.

Hey Galain!

How reliable is the AI faction in honoring said military access they've granted you?

Like, do they ever just ignore the fact that they granted you access? Or perhaps just attack you at random a few turns later...ignoring the treaty you've just signed together?

How does it work out?

In my experience, I havent had the AI turn against me before once I have signed a Military Access deal. However you really have to choose who you are going to ally with and ultimately who you are going to ask a Military Access with. - For example if you were playing as the English, you would never try and be allied with the French, they will backstab you everytime!

Once the deal is set, you are free to move your troops through with no rep penalty, also the 'Red Zones' around their settlements and Armies disappear too, so there is no getting stuck. Lastly IMO you don't need to ask for Military Access until you have no option and definately need troop movement through their lands. It's usless otherwise.

[Galain_Ironhide]

do you need military access to fight alongside an ally without taking a rep hit for stepping on their turf?

One last thought with regards to helping out an ally that you do not have military access with. It really is only benificial to help your allies out in their lands that are directly adjacent to yours. Because otherwise if you go too far into their territories, you will then of course take the rep hit, due to the length of time it wwill take to get out. The idea is still to get out of their lands as soon as possible.

POST 300

[Askthepizzaguy]

I recently passed post 2700... I didn't even notice!

[Proserpine]

What's the effect (if any) of cancelling a previously agreed MilAcc agreement?

[ArtistofWarfare]

What's the effect (if any) of cancelling a previously agreed MilAcc agreement?

I guess nothing right? As ATPG said, it's simply a program. There's no effect to anything. It's just a coded program and these are not people we're playing with.

I guess as you sit there at your computer screen, there really is no effect to anything. You're just tapping buttons on your keyboard with a graphical overlay on your screen. The actual activity you're participating in would be the same if you turned the computer's power off and did the same thing in your chair. It's a program, a game, and nothing means anything.

Of course, I don't know if people would find the game entertaining if they put this fact in the forefront of their mind every time they loaded the game up.

So - some people try to immerse themselves in the fictional geopolitical world that exists within the game...and try to have a little fun with it.

Basically, all we're establishing here with these repeated posts pertaining to this is that there is no reason for discussion on the .org regarding battle tactics, diplomacy, factions, units, construction, endgame, ...anything. We're basically saying - it's a program and the only thing that really matters is how fast you can call a jihad and blitz peasant AI armies with 8 star generals on turn 2.

It's a shame too because before this obsession with this around here - there were some interesting posts circulating. Now, one has to go to TWCenter to find posts like that. Seriously - we're thinning the discussions out here.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I guess nothing right? As ATPG said, it's simply a program. There's no effect to anything. It's just a coded program and these are not people we're playing with.

I guess as you sit there at your computer screen, there really is no effect to anything. You're just tapping buttons on your keyboard with a graphical overlay on your screen. The actual activity you're participating in would be the same if you turned the computer's power off and did the same thing in your chair. It's a program, a game, and nothing means anything.

Of course, I don't know if people would find the game entertaining if they put this fact in the forefront of their mind every time they loaded the game up.

So - some people try to immerse themselves in the fictional geopolitical world that exists within the game...and try to have a little fun with it.

Basically, all we're establishing here with these repeated posts pertaining to this is that there is no reason for discussion on the .org regarding battle tactics, diplomacy, factions, units, construction, endgame, ...anything. We're basically saying - it's a program and the only thing that really matters is how fast you can call a jihad and blitz peasant AI armies with 8 star generals on turn 2.

It's a shame too because before this obsession with this around here - there were some interesting posts circulating. Now, one has to go to TWCenter to find posts like that. Seriously - we're thinning the discussions out here.

I'm sorry, but I have to say something here to correct a misunderstanding we're having.

There are (at the present time) 3 threads on the citadel page, out of 30, that discuss blitzing. And the other 27 discuss other aspects of the game. There will be far fewer discussions of blitzing as you go further back.

It's ok to dislike blitzing, but you know, we are allowed to talk too. And out of the 3 discussion threads on blitzing, you've made it clear you dislike the concept on all of them. Point taken. There's no need to bring it up here as well.

[ArtistofWarfare]

The point is that just a short time ago - there wasn't even one thread on it.

It was never a TW term. Not until a few people showed up here a short time ago and started these "blitz challenges".

I just want you to understand that. It's like going to a first person shooter forum and giving "grenade kill challenges" because "aaaargh i love to see things blow up!!!! I NEEED to see explosionss!!!!".

It's like a form of trolling since it has nothing to do with the game. It's a game within a game, that exists within some player's heads.

Go ahead with it (as you will) but ...can it end at some point? When you've taken 112 provinces in 3.2 seconds after 4,585 hours of play time - Is it done then?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

No, it's not a form of trolling. What you just did is in fact a form of trolling.

That was off-topic.

And some people like to discuss turtling, or building their economy, or creating house rules, or doing an assassination only campaign, or a chivarly-strategy campaign. Others, like myself, enjoy most of those things but also post on the topic of blitzing. And it's all part of the wonderful experience that is life, such that people with different tastes can all have what they want and still get along.

I am asking nicely, please allow us to enjoy our playing style, as it certainly doesn't detract from your enjoyment of your game.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Expressing my opinion doesn't ruin your enjoyment of the game either.

I mean clearly: You've played 4800+ hours. You couldn't do that unless you REALLY were enjoying blitzing the AI that you call totally irrelevant.

Now that you've taken 112 provinces in .32 seconds - What are you looking forward to in your next campaign? 113 provinces in .31 seconds?

After that: 114 in .30?

Is that on topic? It pertains to blitzing.

For the record: Sorry, but I do think that "aarrrrrrrrrrgggh I need to blitz!!! I can't control myself!!! I have to just take 4 stacks of spearman and crush the world!!!!!! AAAAARRRRRGHHHH!!! I'm a pizza man!!!! AAAARRRRRGHHH!!! CONQUEST BLOOD Console Exploits!!!! I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Total War" is a little bit off topic itself...yes.

You must realize: There are a lot of new players who come to these forums daily. When they read the posts of someone who hasn't moved out of their chair in 6 weeks and has played total war beyond the point that the developers even thought was humanly possible, and holds the opinion that the AI is "worthless" and "dumb beyond belief" and "there's no point to the campaign but to blitz since there's ZERO chance of you not winning the game on VH/VH anyway!!!" - yes, it has an impact on their enjoyment of the game.

You can spend 98 percent of your time in your chair and memorize literally every line of code in the programming, every settlement on the map, every event that transpires during a campaign, every unit's stats, etc - and still acknowledge that THIS has more to do with your "success" on the campaign map than what an utterly horrible, useless, pointless campaign AI the developer's have bestowed upon us.

To the brand new player, VH/VH can be a significant challenge. So can M/M. Look around the internet- there are a lot of players enjoying the game and finding it challenging. When they've completed hundreds of campaigns and their chair has a 3 foot well sunk into it from them sitting their, they'll probably be a lot better at the game and when it becomes painfully easy - they'll probably just move on.

I mean, if the AI is so horrible and there is NO chance that anyone with an IQ of 30 or higher could lose the campaign - Why are we touting these blitzes so much? A chimpanzee could blitz the campaign map...so what is there to see here?

p.s.- Remember, this thread is regarding helping allies in battle. You chimed in with some thought you have about programs and how they're not people and that you have some kind of mental rush when you sit down to the game and begin shaking uncontrollably at the thought of blitzing the map. That's off topic, not the guy explaining to you that you're off topic.

[FactionHeir]

Alright, I'd like to stop that right there. Keep on topic and do not attempt to attack another player, or face the consequences. You have been warned.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Alright, I'd like to stop that right there. Keep on topic and do not attempt to attack another player, or face the consequences. You have been warned.

I'm just tired of the "LOLZZZZZ" and "omgz why would you TURRRTLE!!!?" garbage that shows up 3 times a day now.

It wasn't here 2 months ago. The .org existed for years without seeing one post like this. Now we have a few former WoW/CS kiddies around and - well some of us think it's lowering the quality of the forums slightly.

[Galain_Ironhide]

Perhaps you fella's might want to open a thread with regards to this. It makes good debate and doesnt detract on this one.

just keep it clean.

[FactionHeir]

Simple, don't read it if you don't want to hear it. If you want to continue talking about the pros and cons of people's topics, do it via PM.

End of discussion.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ON Topic...

I believe there was one time I actually used a military alliance with the AI to do something. England had invaded Castle Town on Brittania, and I had as well. I forged an alliance with Britain so their armies would appear on the battlemap with mine. I destroyed the two large standing armies of Norway in one battle. And although my English allies were utterly useless, it was fun seeing a friendly AI for a change.

I definitley backstabbed them after the battle, the same turn I forged the alliance. Because that's how I roll.

[Lancome]

anyways I wouldnt bother to help them out... On my Russian Campaign the Hungarians came to help in a battle against the HRE... All they did was stand there and get picked off by HRE Xbow men bolley after bolley after bolley. Ofcourse I lost due to my inferior amount of men/ inferior quality of men. soooo yea... Getting Helped by AI allies is worthless.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I love the innovation in Kingdoms where you can more or less control AI reinforcement.

Holy god it's brilliant. If you make it simple, like make thier army all-cavalry and no general, they will destroy routers and charge the enemy's flanks while you do infantry and archer stuff. It's like having 40 or more units more or less under your direct control.

More ideas like this, please. I mean seriously, this part kicks serious ash.

EDIT: If the AI were programmed to control 2 armies on the field and on the campaign map kept a pair of armies together (with night fighter, preferably) then they could actually deflect an early blitz attack.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Simple, don't read it if you don't want to hear it. If you want to continue talking about the pros and cons of people's topics, do it via PM.

End of discussion.

Which discussion...this thread, or ...what?

[Lancome]

I love the innovation in Kingdoms where you can more or less control AI reinforcement.

Holy god it's brilliant. If you make it simple, like make thier army all-cavalry and no general, they will destroy routers and charge the enemy's flanks while you do infantry and archer stuff. It's like having 40 or more units more or less under your direct control.

More ideas like this, please. I mean seriously, this part kicks serious ash.

EDIT: If the AI were programmed to control 2 armies on the field and on the campaign map kept a pair of armies together (with night fighter, preferably) then they could actually deflect an early blitz attack.

ATPG If I bribe you for 20,000 florin. Would you bow to my WILL!?

[Galain_Ironhide]

One of my more favorite battles was in my KOJ Broken Crescent campaign where I parked about 10 units of my best cav (1 general unit and a mix of Templars and Hospitallers - plus a couple of archers) next to my allies (the Armenians) settlement which was under siege by the ERE (byz). The Armenians only had 3 units of infantry and 2 units of archers defending the city against a full stack of ERE troops. When the battle began it was kind of like when the Horse Lords came to the aid of Gondor at the White City in the Lord of the Rings Movie, it felt brilliant to be a part of. I ran most of the ERE infantry down out the walls as they tried to climb ladders, and then had a good fight against their heavy cav. I did the final mop up inside the city where the ERE almost had the armenians on the ropes. All in all I think I lost probably just over half of my force (cav vs spears was my biggest killer) and the Armenians lost about 90percent. The ERE survivors fled back to their homeland. My rep became amiable after that fight.

Backing up the AI can be fun.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG If I bribe you for 20,000 florin. Would you bow to my WILL!?

If we were in a hotseat game, I will give you my 100% guarantee that I would accept the gift, and my 99%* guarantee that I'd honour any agreement we might have.













__________________________

Guarantee not valid in 48 states.

[Galain_Ironhide]

Always read the fine print Lancome.

[anweRU]

I have a question about this:

I fought two battles within a couple of turns of each other, and got two very different results in controlling allied AI reinforcements:

1. Cagliari (Moors) was besieged by my good ally, the Pope. My army, with siege weapons, disembarked and attacked Cagliari. My spy (who had been in Cagliari for several turns) opened the gates. I fought the battle on the map, had the option to control the two Papal army stacks. I sent them in ahead of mine to slaughter the Moors, didn't lose a single of my own troops (I had only a weak stack). All worked as planned.

2. A Papal stack and a Portugese stack were outside of Valencia, both my allies. One of my crusader armies, on its way to Marakesh, attacked. Again, a pre-positioned spy opened the gates. This time, I did not have the option to control the two AI stacks, even though they participated in the battle. Just to double check, I reloaded, hired a full stack of crusader mercaneries and attacked again. I could control my second stack, but not the two allied AI stacks.

What determines if I can control an allied AI stack in battle?