Is this an exploit?

[fluffyunbound]

With the new supply rules, I have discovered that since supply is part of the traits system, if you're in a long siege and your army gets to "starving", if you remove the commanding general and replace him with a fresh one, your army is instantly resupplied.

I'm torn between considering this an exploit, and just considering it an enhancement - because you could always just say that the new general might have arrived with fresh supplies in train.

[Zaknafien]

i would consider it exploit, unless your new general has an army with him sufficient enough to administratively move a train of wagons of supplies with him.

[I of the Storm]

I agree. Just exchanging the general seems to be some kind of an exploit. Exchanging whole armies, i.e. bring a fresh legion to the siege just before the last turn of it and bring back the first one would be ok I think.

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

Well a general could have brought supplies, despite the lack of troops. But the risk is shown since the general could just as easily have been ambushed himself.

In the end, you're the only one who can say for yourself though.

[Zaknafien]

a general by himself could not bring supplies without the logistical and administrative means to do so, plus the hordes of hired help in drovers, wagoneers, etc.

[fluffyunbound]

a general by himself could not bring supplies without the logistical and administrative means to do so, plus the hordes of hired help in drovers, wagoneers, etc.

So far the only context in which I used it was as Carthage besieging Syracuse. That 2 year siege is tough. The general came by ship, so I guess I could say that the fleet brought the supplies.

To a certain extent that's historical, and gives fleets a logistical function, which they kind of should have.

[Wolfshart]

I agree with the above posters that it goes against the reasoning behind the logistics trait system. It is the price of war and that is the only way to reasonably represent the logistical problems involved with a long siege or campaigning through enemy land with little succor from the locals. I guess it is up to you weather you do it or not but it defeats the purpose of the trait. To me it is akin to cheating.

[fluffyunbound]

I also would have to note that I was a little surprised by the passiveness of the AI during my siege.

That stack in Syracuse is a pretty good stack, with leadership, and they just wouldn't sortie, even while my guys were at "starving".

Is there a worse level of non-supply than "starving" that I might have reached, or that they could have been waiting for? They just sat there until the city fell.

[Pharnakes]

In my expreince the Srykousai are total cowards, it dosen't make any diffrence what size of army you besige them with they never come out. Of course all the rebels seem to be a little wary of salying but none compare to the Srykousai for some reason.

[Ludens]

In my expreince the Srykousai are total cowards, it dosen't make any diffrence what size of army you besige them with they never come out. Of course all the rebels seem to be a little wary of salying but none compare to the Srykousai for some reason.

This seems to be the case with all most all sieges I've had so-far in my Casse campaign. The A.I. only sallies at the last turn. Haven't tested it by leaving a single unit in front of the city, but they don't seem to respond to apparent numeral and qualitative inferiority.

[mAIOR]

Well, I can say that in my Romani campaign I've suffered my fair amount of sallies at the hands of the Aedui...


Cheers...

[Suraknar]

I personally..think it is an exploit, defeating the initial purpose of the EB inceptors.

That being said..I dont like this trait personally, I been playing it as is...but it annoys me...I think its one of these things that make the game less of a game and more of a simulator, the lack of realism in some games is there precisselly because they are suposed to be games.

Fortunently, It only happens few times to me as it matches most of my gameplay style to begin with, I expand very slowly usually one province at a time, one war at a time, one battle at a time.

[Orb]

I like this trait, it does add some strategic depth (OK, and fort abuse) but since I'm a team traiter/bum that's to be expected ;)

[The Celtic Viking]

That being said..I dont like this trait personally, I been playing it as is...but it annoys me...I think its one of these things that make the game less of a game and more of a simulator, the lack of realism in some games is there precisselly because they are suposed to be games.

While you may argue that certain realistic things may make a game less fun, that is only an opinion and not a universal truth. There is nothing that says games can't be both realistic and fun, because if that was true, games like Operation Flashpoint, Red Octobre or various flight sims wouldn't exist; or at least they wouldn't be played and loved in the extent that they are. It's simply not true.