Huge unfair feature in the game?

[Sirrvs]

I may be wrong about that but I've always been puzzled by the way the turn based part of the game works. Say you attack a province. After you've placed your attacking army on the province and end your turn, the enemy has the ability to move troops in and out of the province (like if it was weakly defended, it can move troops from another province over to match your forces). What I don't get is the human player doesn't seem to have this option. Once an enemy moves their piece onto my province, the only way for me to bring reinforcements is if my troops retreat to the castle. Perhaps this is the only way possible with a turn-based game but it seems the human is at a huge disadvantage here.

[desdichado]

possibly it is a disadvantage for the human but considering the AI is less than stellar I don't think it is much of a problem. Also it seems to me be inconsistent, sometimes the AI seems to be able to move pieces in response and other times it doesn't.

[Tomcat]

In addition to your example Sirrvs, I have also had the situation where after moving my attacking forces into an enemy Province during my turn to attack it, the AI has moved some of my attacking forces back into their original Province to fight a defence in that original Province where the AI moved forces in to attack during its turn . This has happened both in STW-WE and MTW-VI and is certainly not what I wanted.

Tomcat

[English assassin]

@ Sirrvs, yes the AI gets to move after you and I am quite sure it looks at what you have done before it does so. If you can invade a potentially reinforcing province with 100 peasants at the same time it seems to me more of the forces stay put to fight that invasion.

@Tomcat I think what happens is igf your province is invaded that battle is fought first. Certainly I have had that happen to me, but I don't know if it always happens of if its random. If it does the troops you moved out to invade somewhere else are moved back to fight the invasion. It can certainly lead to some tricky attacks...

[Tomcat]

English Assassin - yes, it certainly does not seem to happen every time, just very occasionally and usually when you are doing several troop moves in one turn into different "adjacent" Provinces. I guess it is the AI's way of getting its own back at you lol !

At least you can always withdraw from an attacking battle if you are significantly outnumbered without losing anything, while on defence, if you decide to withdraw and have no castle, you stand a very good chance of losing the buildings you had in the Province, unless you can counter-attack the next turn, so it definitely "costs you". Can lead to some "interesting" situations as you say.

Tomcat

[Sinner]

Tomcat: Withdrawing from a battle might save your units, but your general can easily start to acquire a reputation as a coward, acquiring vices that can devastate the morale of your troops.

[Tomcat]

Sinner - Maybe I was a little ambiguous . I meant withdraw from the battle on the "pre-battle setup screen" before committing to the battle itself, not withdrawing from the battlefield once the battle has commenced. I do not think your Generals get V&Vs from withdrawing before the battle starts - as opposed to withdrawing from the battlefield itself once battle has started when sure, he will likely earn the "coward" or "runner" reputation.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Tomcat

[MerlinusCDXX]

[QUOTE=Tomcat]Sinner - Maybe I was a little ambiguous . I meant withdraw from the battle on the "pre-battle setup screen" before committing to the battle itself, not withdrawing from the battlefield once the battle has commenced. I do not think your Generals get V&Vs from withdrawing before the battle starts - as opposed to withdrawing from the battlefield itself once battle has started when sure, he will likely earn the "coward" or "runner" reputation.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Tomcat[/Q]

From what I've seen in my games, withdrawing on the pre-battle screen will often get the general the "hesitant" vice (-3 morale...I think).

[The Grand Inquisitor]

In addition to your example Sirrvs, I have also had the situation where after moving my attacking forces into an enemy Province during my turn to attack it, the AI has moved some of my attacking forces back into their original Province to fight a defence in that original Province where the AI moved forces in to attack during its turn
Tomcat

I've used this in reverse to my advantage. If I know where the AI's relief force is coming from, I can throw a single sacrificial unit over the border in the opposite direction to force them to stay to fight a battle in their territory. Very useful to ensure a siege reaches its planned conclusion.

[Lonewarrior]

I agree its a little annoying and fustrating at some times, but it rarely happens on my copy of mtw, so I just ignore it when it happens.

[English assassin]

I might be wrong but calling off the attack before entering the battle gets you the "hesitant" vice whereas starting the battle but marching your whole army straight off the battlefield does not. I am not quite sure though because once I am on the battlefield I usually think I might as well have a go. I am sure that if you withdraw your general, rather than have him rout, he doesn't get "good runner" (but if he goes too many battles without combat he eventually starts down the "not so bold" line).

[Ulair]

Hi folks,

On Sirrvs 's original point, all moves are actually taken simultaneously; what you do on your turn is lay down orders for your moves. The comp doesn't actually move after you, so its perceived advantage isn't real.

Actually, word is (from a answer from one of the CA devs ages ago) that the comp does peek at you moves but "doesn't make use of that information". Now, take from that what you wish . It does seem to me that sometimes the comp really does look like it cheated, but sometimes it does something really dumb instead, so I think any effects even out over time.

Cheers,
Ulair

[Tomcat]

That makes a lot of sense Ulair. As you say, you are only giving orders to your troops but in order for you to do this you have to move the unit so it appears as if you are going first, when the reality is the real moves are being made simultaneously . Now why couldn't I have thought of that ?

I also presume there is a little bit of randomness in when the units move since it always takes a full game year to move from one province to another but the weather for battle can be for any time of the year. That would then explain the fact that sometimes, if the enemy moves into your province slightly before you move out during the year, your General can have a "change of heart" and stay put to defend the province. At least that seems a reasonable way of looking at things.

If you know where the enemy is coming from Inquisitor, you can also move troops into one of his provinces on the turn you expect him to move into your province with the intention of never actually joining battle there - by withdrawing before battle commences on the pre-battle screen - thereby delaying him a turn. I have done this a few times too.

And thanks guys for the feedback with hesitant, coward, runner, etc. It all makes good sense.

Tomcat

[The Grand Inquisitor]

On Sirrvs 's original point, all moves are actually taken simultaneously; what you do on your turn is lay down orders for your moves. The comp doesn't actually move after you, so its perceived advantage isn't real.

Unless one of your 'orders' involves declaring war - then your enemy's boats will block subsequent 'orders' on the same turn to move across sea lanes - even though they are 'simultaneous'.

[Sir William Wallace]

I have also had your problems occur in my games,, i have also encountered another problem,, it always seems that the CPU factions always have more units within their armies than i do, no matter what i do, i am always outnumbered,, the only way i win is having a few units that are pretty much battered to death,, maybe 5 or 6 (one time i had 1 left out of the Viking Berserkers with v 12) left out of a unit of 60,, and having them survive each battle and having an insanly high valour, has anyone else encountered the CPU having full armies attack you?

[econ21]

Ulair, I am pretty sure the computer does peek and cheat on occaision. However, it is greatly toned down in MTW from STW (where it was a great pain). If you save after every turn, occaisionally reloading and trying a different move can reveal that current reinforcements can deterr AI invasions in the same turn while your invasions can prompt AI reinforcements in the same time. However, as other posters said, I think it is necessary to get a decent AI and no longer worries me so much.

One point to notice is that the computer does not seem to cheat when you launch a "Pearl Harbour" style sneak attack. If you launch an unprovoked war in my experience, you can reliably empty your border provinces into your neighbours without worrying about home defence. Once there is open warfare, such a tactic would risk immediate counter-invasion (and in STW, a destructive exchange of provinces).

[Ludens]

Unless one of your 'orders' involves declaring war - then your enemy's boats will block subsequent 'orders' on the same turn to move across sea lanes - even though they are 'simultaneous'.

Regarding this, I think that the game treats ships in the same way as agents, and the AI knows when you target one of their agents with an assassin, so this may be the same process. Probably this was added to compensate for the AI being relativily stupid with its agents and continually sending them into a province where four high-valour assassins were waiting (because the AI still regularily loses large numbers of spies and assassins by sending them into provinces that are guarded by borderforts). This off course gives the AI the annoying ability to take counter measures to your moves where you can't.

[lancer63]

I've used this in reverse to my advantage. If I know where the AI's relief force is coming from, I can throw a single sacrificial unit over the border in the opposite direction to force them to stay to fight a battle in their territory. Very useful to ensure a siege reaches its planned conclusion.

Been there, done that, have a T-shirt And not much help has it brought to my domination games. The VI AI either confronts the sacrificial unit but still sends a sizable reinforcement to the other prov. or it ignores my puny attack and retreats to the castle some units but still sends reinforcements.
Better to have a 'secondary' expeditional force invade reinforcing provinces and treat it as a valid target. The AI goes nuts dealing with multiple invasions + you get to have snow battles pretty fast. Love those blinding blizzards and wolves howling.

[Tomcat]

Talking of sieges, I am very surprised in MTW that if an enemy sallies forth from a castle to attempt to relieve the siege and although you win that defend battle, you cannot kill/capture all the enemy forces, you then lose more troops during the SAME turn for besieging the castle which has not yet fallen.

Now I understand both you and the enemy lose some troops for besieging the castle and not attacking it during a turn, but when you are "forced" to defend because the enemy sallies forth to try and relieve the siege, either with or without his external reinforcements coming into the province, it is a bit galling for you to lose more troops because you did not/could not attack the castle that turn since he came out to meet you!

Tomcat

[EatYerGreens]

I might be wrong but calling off the attack before entering the battle gets you the "hesitant" vice whereas starting the battle but marching your whole army straight off the battlefield does not. I am not quite sure though because once I am on the battlefield I usually think I might as well have a go. I am sure that if you withdraw your general, rather than have him rout, he doesn't get "good runner" (but if he goes too many battles without combat he eventually starts down the "not so bold" line).

By way of a footnote to this, I'm playing my first ever MTW campaign at the moment and I've had princes who have the 'good runner' vice right from the first turn where they have appeared in the game, which at least one has retained through his period as king, even though he either hasn't been in battle or at least hasn't lost any of them.

I've read elsewhere that the V&V's are somewhat random. The number of characters I've seen where they have two completely contradictory V&V's (eg 'courageous' and 'good runner') at the same time is quite surprising to me.

It's also true that these can be acquired through combat results though. Having checked the stats of an AI general I've just beaten, they do pick up 'good runner' when they definitely didn't have it previously.

I have aborted an attack (see next message) but haven't come across 'hesitant' V&V yet - at least not on any of my generals.

[EatYerGreens]

With regard to AI responding to moves after you've committed yourself, here's an example I had yesterday.

English, early, Normal difficulty (my first campaign. I'm just learning the ropes - that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! :D )

I have all my starting provinces, plus Scotland, Wales, Sweden and Norway. I've recently finished off the last of the French in Isle de France and have near-full stacks along the border with HRE (I have Flanders, Champagne, I-de-F, Anjou, Aquitane). The Spanish have Navarre secure and the Aragonese have Aragon and a couple of half-stacks (actually 16 units each but, strangley a lot of AI stacks have several ballista units in there, reducing the numbers) in Toulouse.

Various long-standing alliances which had been in place since William II have been dropped as a consequence of an unprovoked attack on me, by the Aragonese! They lost that battle but I couldn't attack back without leaving an opening for the Spanish. I couldn't re-establish old alliances because my recent kings have too low an influence rating. So the Germans and the Spanish are neutral to me. The Aragonese have not attacked again but are losing assassins almost every year in Aquitane, as are the Germans in Flanders. After about 20 years of this they finally got around to building their own ports as I think that's all they were trying to do.

Anyway, I finally get around to launching a 'punitive' assault (smash and grab as opposed to invade and occupy) on Toulouse but, after pressing 'End Year', the Germans, hitherto neutral, see their chance and slap 2000+ troops into one of my provinces - Isle de France. Fortunately, it wasn't the one I was launching my attack on the Aragonese from. I considered myself lucky to have had the option to cancel the Toulouse attack at the pre-battle screen (no V&V's acquired as a consequence, it seems) and THEN go to the pre-battle screen for the German's attack and not the other way around.

I had 930 versus 2032 but thought I'd at least put up some resistance. As it turns out, the quality of my troops won the day so this did pay off for me. The fools had put about 6 ballistas on the field, which soon became vulnerable to my cav and barely inflicted any casualties. The initial rout by the invaders scattered my forces all over the field and they were knackered from chasing this way and that. Finally the enemy reinforcements show up. At first lots of militia and peasants, which didn't stay for long. Finally about FIVE units of archers show up! These could have done my lot a real mischief if they'd been there at the start (I had only two units of archers, who killed about 40 each and somehow didn't lose a single man). These archers made a move towards where I'd parked about four sizeable infantry units, to give them a rest, but the archers didn't stay for long. I'd ordered a unit of spears to move to this position without knowing precisely where it was at the time and it appeared in the distance, coming towards these archers from behind. I got the resting units to advance on them and the remnants of my cav and royal k'nichts were moving in on what was now their flanks so they all scarpered, barely firing any arrows.

The reason for calling off my attack on the Aragonese was the knowledge that I'd need to re-stock whatever was left in the province where I was attacked and the one I attacked from was one of only two where I could safely resupply from. Repairing two depleted forces would have meant lots of troop shuffling, weakening several provinces at once while I retrained and Toulouse would have put that force two moves away as well.

As far as realism goes, you have to consider the fact that the AI factions are using watch-towers/border forts and agents to keep informed about what you are doing. Your troop build-up may have taken several years, which gives it a clue something is up. In real-life the actual march into a neighbouring territory would not go unnoticed either. If this action by you fits the last of their criteria for an attack on you by them, then that's the response you get. I forget if the Aragonese and HRE were actually allies but this example shows that it's not just the faction you are attacking which will respond to your moves.

The lesson to all of this is to assemble your attack army somewhere out of sight of the enemy (if possible, what with agents here and there), move it to its launch territory giving the enemy only one year to prepare a response, then make the attack but leave the force which was previously defending your front in its place. I realize it's tempting to attack with two stacks but how realistic is it to make an attack leaving behind a totally empty province or just a token garrison?

[Bob the Insane]

In MTW you could see this alot but then in MTW a spy in a enemy province could tell you was going to attack you in 3 turns and you could prepare, the AI had no such adavantage so some was built in I believe...

MTW worked in phases...

First phase was planning movement and construction where yo maved things around and planned what you built, then you hit End Turn and it performed the same logic for each AI faction in turn..

Secondphase was carrying out movement where it would show the other factions pieces moving where they planned, note that movement could be blocked by the movement of opposing armies if they where bigger...

Third phase was consquences of the moves, if you moved a piece into someone elses province then the fight was there, if they moved into yours there was a fight and if you moved into each others the fight occurs in the smaller army's province...

The first section after you pressed the Enf Turn was where the AI had an opportunity to "cheat"...

But I think RTW is a bit different... The turns function differently with battles occurs when forced.. Basically there are no phases just turns, move and fight a battle during your turn (or even several battles if you have enough movement points) and if the enemy attacks you in it's turn you fight again... and after a couple trips around the turns wheel it is easy to forget who went before who..

[EatYerGreens]

But I think RTW is a bit different... The turns function differently with battles occurs when forced.. Basically there are no phases just turns, move and fight a battle during your turn (or even several battles if you have enough movement points) and if the enemy attacks you in it's turn you fight again... and after a couple trips around the turns wheel it is easy to forget who went before who..

I've always thought of the TW series as being a souped-up version of RISK(tm), with the difference of simultanous moves but, if your description of RTW is right, then it's even more a case of 'back to the old days'. You each get your turn to make moves but if you get attacked on someone else's turn, you still have to do the dice-rolling for that battle.

You have to wonder which method best represents reality. If a battle occurs, news spreads fast and various sides may take actions which are in response to that - because they are allies of one side or the other, or because they are rivals of one of the belligerents and want to take advantage of them having to fight on two fronts at once if they launch an attack of their own.

With simultaneous movement/battle resolution, a stand-off situation can develop and no one dares to move because they can't launch an attack without simultaneously weakening themself in a critical area. Some of these attacks end up being called off due to 'unexpected' actions elsewhere. It's like you're issuing orders to your generals while totally oblivious to world events. In game terms it seems fairer but in certain ways it isn't entirely realistic.

With turn-based moves you can respond to ongoing events and send in your troops against an essentially static deployment of opposition. The flipside of this is that, when you have had to move additional troops into an area prior to launching an attack on your next turn, the opponent can observe the maneuvre and has time to redeploy their defences in time to receive the attack. Except, of course where they simply lack the resources to meet that demand. In RISK, once one player gets a little ahead, it takes astonishingly bad luck with the dice, or just poor overall strategy, to lose from that position as the troop bonuses mount up fast.

Of course there are occasions where you can take advantage of this ability of the defender to respond to your actions, causing the enemy to redeploy to defend an area where you actually have no intention of attacking, in order to make them draw troops away from somewhere else, where you do

Better yet if the arrangement of province borders makes it ambiguous where your attack is going to go. They may end having to use one unit per province to counter each one of yours stacked against it. If nothing else, this perceived need for troop resources reduces their ability to expand elsewhere.