A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Ancients] >> Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War



Message

Raidhaennor -> A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/9/2010 12:44:01 PM)

Hello everyone.

In my lastest game (playing with the 1.02 beta patch on hard), I encountered a situation I haven't seen before :

Here's what happened : I seiged Rome with one army, and left the other in the field to protect it. The romans then moved a force in this province ; I had the opporunity to intercept, but the roman force declined combat. On my turn I tried attacking it again, it declined once more. So far nothing out of the ordinary. But when roman turn came again, that force in the field attacked my seiging army, whithout any opportunity for me to intercept it (as would happen if the Romans had attacked a city under my control, for example).

[image]local://upfiles/31775/C6252144B6C44E39B6F89CAA55332C61.jpg[/image]

I really expected to be able to intercept it, and I think it makes sense that I should, as the only way this situation could occur is if the ennemy declined combat and stayed in camp. It's not like they can sneak past my army in the field after that. On the other hand, that might create problems, considering how the game engine works, when it comes to deciding which forces should then be involved in the battle. When a city is attacked, and the attacking force is intercepted, the garrison of the city joins the battle ; here I expected to be able to intercept the ennemy before the actual attack (after the decision to attack, but that the game would still only consider it a standard pitched battle between the 2 armies in the field), but I don't know if the game can work like that.

So is this a bug, a limitation of the game engine, or something I missed in the rules ?

PS : I have a save game at my disposal, I took the screenshot from that point, in fact.




SteveD64 -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/9/2010 1:43:22 PM)

From what I can understand, if two armies start the turn in a province together the active one can move without being subject to interception by the inactive one.  It's only when entering a province is it subject to interception.  I think.



Raidhaennor -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/9/2010 2:27:08 PM)

From the manual : "When a hostile force is trying to storm a city and can be intercepted, it will be placed with a siege tower against the city and given a similar kind of highlighting" (followed by a picture with a red siege tower).

So when two armies start the turn in the same province, if one attacks a city (tries to storm it) the other has the opportunity to intercept. That's what the rules say, and that has been my experience. I was expecting an attack on a sieging army to work the same way as an attack on a city. I might be wrong in my interpretation of what the rules imply in this case, but since I don't see anything about it in the manual, I thought I would ask.



NefariousKoel -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/9/2010 8:10:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

From what I can understand, if two armies start the turn in a province together the active one can move without being subject to interception by the inactive one.  It's only when entering a province is it subject to interception.  I think.



Yep.

When entering a province from a neighboring one. I believe you get the option when they leave a city there too. I believe it'll do that if the AI attacks a city, too. [&:]

I think a better way to handle that situation, once the enemy is already in the same province and attacks, is to have the extra army reinforce during the battle phase.

The problem with changing either one to work is that the AI will have to be worked on, too, to get the AI side making good choices. Could be a lot of work. [:(]



mercenarius -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/9/2010 10:41:49 PM)

It's working as designed, but I do see that it's a little unexpected. I have experimented with allowing interception when an army attacks another army, including an army conducting a siege. But I didn't really like it. And what NefariousKoel said is correct. To change this would require changes in the AI because the AI is not built with this ability or liability in mind.

Here is my working theory:

It takes time to set up to assault a city. For a major city that might actually be a couple of months. So when an army moves to attack a city the intercepting forces would have some time to get there.

But to attack a besieging army would usually be a shorter preparation.

Most notably, you can attempt combat on your turn - as you noted. If the Romans decline, you may then reinforce the siege with your field army because the declining leader forfeits any interference in concentrating or dispersing. That is the real point. If you want another army to be committed to defending a siege you will have to join the two forces together. I suppose that I need to add something about this in an addendum to the manual.

Finally, there is (usually) no way that one field army could protect two separate sieges simultaneously as you would like to do. It's a good ploy that you tried, though.

Not to criticize: why didn't you join Hannibal's force to the siege of Rome and take it by storm? I suppose that you didn't know that you could do this after the Roman field army refused combat? Or did you just want to enjoy starving Rome out? [;)]



Raidhaennor -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/9/2010 10:57:18 PM)

Alright then, thank you for the clarification. I was a bit surprised, but what you are saying makes sense, especially about not being able to protect 2 sieges at the same time, I didn't think of that.

As for the reason I didn't storm the city, I actually only thought of that when I saw my own screenshot . Storming Rome can be quite taxing, so I sieged it as a matter of reflex. Plus also a little bit because I enjoy starving Rome : when I win after a long siege, it's like I've given my ennemy a chance, and they still lost, that's makes it that much more enjoyable. [:D]



SteveD64 -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/9/2010 11:21:50 PM)

I've been seeing some pretty huge Carthaginian armies in Italy in some of the screenshots. I've never been able to get that many troops to Italy but it seems rather ahistorical that Hannibal could have over 100K soliders (if a unit is, say 3-5k). Not really a criticism, per se, but if this is routinely happening then maybe something to consider.



vonRocko -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/10/2010 4:40:25 AM)

I don't how Raidhaennor did it, but I get those numbers when I make my big push for Rome. I bring everything from Africa and Spain over and can get some big numbers.



hondo1375 -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/14/2010 11:38:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel
I believe you get the option when they leave a city there too.


I had an army in a province and a Roman army in a non-border city in the same province left the province and I did NOT get an option to intercept. I'm a bit confused: is this WAD?



Raidhaennor -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (11/14/2010 1:54:08 PM)

You only get to intercept armies who come in the province (or storm one of your cities), not the ones who leave. NefariousKoel was referring to an army who leaves a city but stays in the same province ; an army that goes in the field.



nalivayko -> RE: A question about interception : is this working as intended ? (1/14/2011 12:04:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

I've been seeing some pretty huge Carthaginian armies in Italy in some of the screenshots. I've never been able to get that many troops to Italy but it seems rather ahistorical that Hannibal could have over 100K soliders (if a unit is, say 3-5k). Not really a criticism, per se, but if this is routinely happening then maybe something to consider.


70-80k is quite realistic, considering Capua could provide 30k-strong army and considering that at least half of Hannibal's numbers were tied up as garrisons (in RL they did not grow up magically). To add to these numbers, a little what-if: Hadsrubal does not lose his head and makes it to S. Italy.

Thus, if Handsrubal jojns his brother, Capua does not fall and provides reinforcements and Hannibal recalls all the garrisons (a lot of 'ifs' now), Carthaginian army could have reached 100k and over... Although I doubt Hannibal would keep all these numbers together for long - the attrition would have been a killer.

EDIT: As for the unit size, my guess would be 2-3k for units with defense factor 1 and 4-6k for units with defense factor 2. Looking at Hannibal forces on turn 1, I would favor 2k per factor. Studying Roman consular armies, 2.4-2.5 per factor.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.933594