Like to get some thoughts about a couple of gameplay mechanics that seem... inappropriate, and bug () the hell out of me. If you're interested, or just bored then please read on. In the first screen we see what I'm certain is a familiar sight after an attempt to coerce an agent away from another faction;
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Now let's discuss specifics and how this feature can negatively affect the intelligence and special operations game-within-the-game. In this particular scenario, I represent Epirus and I'm protecting one of my client states Pontus at their settlement in Sinope. Pontus is at war with Galatia, Armenia and Colchis and have asked me repeatedly to enter the war on their behalf against all 3 of these factions. Pontus has been a long time trade partner and my relations with them have been very good, quick to support me in conflicts against other states and willingly submitted themselves as a client to come under my protection.
Keeping Pontus in the game is very useful to me right now, after I captured Nicomedia from Tyllis they not only served as a buffer state, but also helped keep the balance of Hellenic influence in the province while I developed my settlement. Galatia is growing strong, and they've formed alliances with Rhodes, Cypress and Egypt (who are not very friendly towards Epirus to begin with) as well as being very friendly with Armenia and are currently in possession of Cabira in the province. I want to protect my client and strengthen my presence in all of Asia Minor, but I'm currently involved in a rather large scale war with Cimmeria, up north subjugating the Dacians on 'behalf' () of military ally Macedon, and consolidating my holdings in all of Greece while keeping an eye on Rome who is openly hostile towards me (in my Epirus campaigns I don't attack Rome in Magna Graecia or the Apennine Peninsula so they stay in the game longer, but they can quickly become a threat to Apollonia if they get the upper hand in their other numerous conflicts).
In order to effectively protect my client and interests in the area without becoming openly involved in wars against 5 or more factions, I decide to use military presence, subterfuge and agent action. I send a fleet to protect the port at Sinope and park a force outside the settlement (obscured by the alert window), now enemies of Pontus have to think very carefully before attacking Sinope again (which they were taking turns doing continuously before I showed up). I also used my spy to poison the provisions of approaching forces to seriously reduce their fighting effectiveness and stun them in place so they can't support other armies and become vulnerable to counterattack by Pontic forces. This worked like a charm until the AI began spamming agents, which of course I expected. To stop these agents and keep the peace I had a converted champion from Tyllis in-play and my highest level spy who has at least 19 cunning through an attached dancer buff and literally never gets discovered.
So how does this game mechanic obstruct these types of strategies? The way the game works now, I can send a champion to literally slaughter another faction's agent in plain sight of everyone, or assassinate them through any other means without the need to declare war on that faction. I can also fail to coerce them to my faction without the need to formally declare war, but the minute I'm about to successfully manipulate them I'm forced to either declare war or cancel the mission. How is this a reasonable game mechanic? You can overtly assassinate agents of another faction and at the most incur some diplo penalties, but the minute you succeed at stealing them away through some backroom deal veiled from prying eyes you have to declare war? I feel that this in not only an irrational game design, but also seriously limits the nuances of the intelligence game by basically leaving you with one choice if you need to take proactive action against other agents.
The rules also don't seem to apply to the AI, as they can manipulate an agent away from you without declaring war. The alert in the screen also states that I'm "attempting to manipulate a non-hostile agent over to my faction", which is not the case. While maintaining my military presence the AI continuously tried to attack my force so I wouldn't be able to support the settlement if they attacked (foiled repeatedly by my embedded spy). At that point shouldn't any action I take against that agent be justifiable?
Next up we have a tactical scenario on the campaign map;
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
In the first screen I had a general's unit of cav that I had to force march back towards Larissa as support for an expected attack from Athens. In the pic stand 2 more forces, the one closest to the general in question is mustering, and the other is in standard stance and has an area of influence that covers the entire approach to the area. All of these forces are in reinforcement range to the settlement. During the AI's turn, Athens attacks the lone general in forced march, who of course cannot be supported as a result. Nothing surprising here, as ambushed armies cannot be supported. But, they traveled right through the area of influence of 2 other forces to do so.
In the second screen we see the result of the attack. My defeated general retreats back behind the province, but the other 2 forces, that were not allowed to participate in the battle by design, were also immediately forced to retreat as if they suffered losses. They were moved out of range of the settlement and then attacked by another force sent up from Athens (that was now conveniently in range to attack since my forces were moved towards them). The force that was mustering also now cancelled all recruitment as a result of this displacement as it counted as if it was attacked. Now, I crushed these forces so this event was not really a problem at the time, but if this isn't some bug how is this even remotely fair to the player? Especially if this was some late game battle that I wanted to auto-resolve.
How does the tactical placement of forces on the campaign map make a difference if the AI can move right through an area of influence whenever it benefits it? (Another example is when you 'trap' an enemy fleet against a coastline with no place to beach and they move right through the area of influence of your pursuing fleets as if they weren't there on the AI's turn). But getting back on point, why should armies that weren't even attacked suffer penalties in the fist place? I find these things to be some real boowshiiit that I think need to be addressed and I'm interested to get some thoughts on it.
Bookmarks