Is this cheating?

[Callicles]

A lot of times when I am besieged and I don't have sufficient forces, while the enemy is moving to wall with the rams, I charge out with my family members to put the enemy's assault in disarray. It is very effective, especially when there are stone towers.

But every time I do it, it seems like an exploit. Thoughts?

[Horst Nordfink]

No. It is insane, but not cheating.

I generally use fire-arrows before the ram gets to the gate and a phalanx unit right behind the gate just in case they get through.

In my opinion, as long as you don't auto_win, it's not cheating.

[Intranetusa]

The only type of tactic that can be considered "cheating" would be fighting bridge battles by positioning units with the sarissa phalanx at one end of the bridge and allowing the enemy to march over (which disables their formation) and get slaughtered.

It's really an AI exploit, but it is "low." I've done it before, and I feel ashamed. >.<

[CaesarAugustus]

It's not as bad as having all of your units in the "cheat square" in the middle of town, when they can never rout and be run down by the enemy. As for the bridge battles, it's better to do that and just pretend that the enemy commander is an idiot or desperate than marching your phalanxes onto the bridge to break formation and be slaughtered.

[runes]

i was defending a city once and got caught off guard, all my units were killed (i had my FL and maybe 3 units in the city) except for my faction leader.

the ai chased me around the square until the clock ran out. i needed to keep this city so i sat there for 15 mins making my king run in circles.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

As for the OP, I wouldn't say that is cheating. However, if you feel it is an exploit, you can make a house rule about not doing it to make things more of a challenge.

For the bridge battles, that really isn't a cheat either, but I try to avoid it. Sometimes I will purposely do it, though. Like when an enemy won't stop sending stacks after me and I just want to end the war. It is a whole lot easier to not have to fight a real battle every single turn.

[Intranetusa]

As for the OP, I wouldn't say that is cheating. However, if you feel it is an exploit, you can make a house rule about not doing it to make things more of a challenge.

For the bridge battles, that really isn't a cheat either, but I try to avoid it. Sometimes I will purposely do it, though. Like when an enemy won't stop sending stacks after me and I just want to end the war. It is a whole lot easier to not have to fight a real battle every single turn.

As for fighting multiple stacks, when I encounter so many enemy stacks, sometimes I listen to some music/read a book and "mostly" let the battle run by itself...if I suffer huge casualties then so be it, it's more realistic that way since you can be expected to win every battle with minimal loses (due to AI's stupidity).

[runes]

i lost a bridge battle once :(

[Intranetusa]

i lost a bridge battle once :(

Fo shame! The only honorable course left for you to take is to fall upon your own sword!

[konny]

i lost a bridge battle once :(

Me too,twice. And that was not in one of the earliest games that made in EB.

In the first incident I had hired a unit of Merc Iphikratians as phalanx because I had none of myself around. That didn't do, Iphikratians are whatsoever but no real phalanx.

The second was a result of AI spamming elites: When 6 units of naked fanatics want to cross a bridge, there is nothing that can stop them from doing so.

[Watchman]

Regarding the OP, meh. Lightning sorties aiming to destroy the attacker's siege equipement and therefore factual ability to actually storm the fortress were very much par for the course historically. Heck, fortresses typically enough had purpose-built sally ports for the job, and canny defenders sometimes made holes in their own walls to mount a surprise attack... Granted they weren't usually done in the middle of an assault, but RTW sieges are somewhat abstract anyway.