HUGE bug: Enemy intercepts, then doesn't attack. timer runs out, and I lose?!?!?!?

[Prussian to the Iron]

well, its all in the title. heres the story:

so in my Prussian campaign, sweden is dangerously expanding, and have taken lithuania from my ally poland. so, once they DoW on me, i build up a small army of 7 infantry and 2 arty. i march these into the former courland, and am intercepted by a much smaller swedish army. 'ok,' i thought, 'ill just kill them here, then wipe out the mobs guarding the city'. so i went into the battle, wanting to test out a formation i was recently told about.

so i spend like 5 minutes putting my men into the perfect formation, and press 'end deployment'. the enemy garrisons a couple buildings, then sits there. it doesnt even move its horse arty to shoot me. nor does it move its horses.

so i quit, then re-load the pre-battle save. this time, i turn on a 30-minute time limit, thinking 'well, at least now if they st there ill still win.' oh but how wrong i was. they sat there again, for 30 fast-forwarded game minutes, and i got my arty to destroy a garrisoned building of theirs, killing 66 men.

well, the time runs out. and I LOSE!!!!!! how does that make any sense at all?

now, luckilly it didnt take any of my men but still killed 66 of theirs, so it wasnt disastrous like i imagined when it said 'crushing defeat'. ive encountered this before, but now im starting to get really pissed off.


however, so far ive only seen this happen if i am 'intercepted'. if i am simply attacked or the enemy sallies from the siege, i actually get to battle.


why is the a.i. so stupid? i mean, at least in previous titles they actually attacked you. and if they attacked and the timer ran out, then they were defeated, not you.

[Slaists]

It's not a bug, but rather, a feature. That's how CA has implemented interception. The party getting intercepted is the attacker. In this case, it was you. If the player gets to intercept, then the AI is the attacker and timer running out means the player wins.

One might argue that it would be logical for the party doing the interception to be the active one, but that's not how it is in the game.

One might argue that CA had not actually made up their mind whether the interceptor should be the defender or the intercepted... Currently, the interceptor (the defender) does not get to deploy field defenses whereas the intercepted (the attacker in the game) does...

Actually, I am having a battle on the other PC here where I am defending against an AI party intercepted by me. The actions of the AI are kind of indicative of the designer confusion. Initially, the AI almost walked off the map and then sat for a while behind a fence... Then, it ran back to my fort and attacked...

[Prussian to the Iron]

wow. but i thought features are suposed to be good things. i mean, it seems like its more of a fluke on their part.

i cant believe that. i mean, its just stupid as stupid gets.

on the bright side, at least i cant lose an entire army like you would if the timer ran out like in previous titles.

[Slaists]

wow. but i thought features are suposed to be good things. i mean, it seems like its more of a fluke on their part.

i cant believe that. i mean, its just stupid as stupid gets.

on the bright side, at least i cant lose an entire army like you would if the timer ran out like in previous titles.

Well, in the community there have been arguments on both sides (that the interceptor should be the attacker and the reverse). I kind of side with your reasoning that the interceptor should be the active one; however, in the game, that would remove any sense in having forts/fortifications in crucial places. I guess, while coding, CA could not differentiate between two types of "passing": 1) very close to the fortification (a mountain passage, for example); in that case, the intercepted party should be the attacker in order to "cross". This is how it is now in the game; 2) passing via remote roads that are still accessible to the host army in timely manner; so, it can intercept (attack) if it chose to.

The way it has been implemented currently in the game, a cavalry-only army, if intercepted by a fort based force, would lose automatically upon loading the battle. In ETW, cavalry cannot attack fortifications... I know, it's silly, cavalry should always be able to dismount if they chose to, but that's a different point. Try playing Prussia and build a fort near Lithuania. Soon enough, cavalry-only raids will start. You'll win 'by default' as long as you press "intercept" and the Poles send only cavalry

[Beskar]

The idea is this.

Your army is marching along all happy, then the inceptor moves out to "dig in" a defensive line while you are happily marching towards them. As you can only go through them or turn back, you have to do that choice. If you fall back, you simply not go that way and try going a different way instead.

[Slaists]

The idea is this.

Your army is marching along all happy, then the inceptor moves out to "dig in" a defensive line while you are happily marching towards them. As you can only go through them or turn back, you have to do that choice. If you fall back, you simply not go that way and try going a different way instead.

I guess, the problem is that the AI does not know how to fall back