Bug or WAD: unexpected enemy reinforcements

[dm99]

The neighbors revolution: the large country split in two. I have to capture one province from revolutionaries. There is CB and let be war. Revolutionaries have no allies, but a large army. Legitimate ruler has smaller army, but he called the two allies.

I'm aware that the war with the revolutionaries not only has high risks of unexpected end, but this war is actually war with both sides. But I was completely convinced that the allies did not participate in this. But suddenly it turned out that it is not so.

First they fought with each other and when their number decreased then turn came to me. Battle with the revolutionaries I won. But then the sabj happened. When ruler's allies wandered alone we have not had any fights. Gray color is neutrality. When they attached to ruler's army they still have a gray color. According to my logic in the battle with the such combined army all neutral allies had to stand on the sidelines without intervening. But these freaks piled on top of me with all his might and I was defeated in fact by a completely neutral troops. It is somehow wrong and sad.

Is it now the rules or yet one other bug?

 

[cephalo]

Did the revolutionaries win the war? The rules of this game get really complicated at times.

 

[dm99]

No one has yet won or lost. War is in full swing. But it does not matter. It is important that the neutrals suddenly and secretly cease to be those. That is, they are still neutrals (the color is not changed) but can fight against you. Interestingly, this is by design or not?

 

[Tom013]

Declaring on a revolting vassal group makes you hostile to the overlord. It may not be WAD that his supporting allies are not, but it honestly doesn't strike me as something that should be disallowed either. Ideally, he would be able to call them in to support in wars against folks attacking his rebelling vassals, but that is mechanically impossible.

 

[dm99]

The fact that both sides hostile to me it is clear. It is written, it can be seen, with this you can oppose something. But with allies harder. Originally they were neutral and can move arbitrarily, they can even stand without conflict in one province with my army. But once they are attached to the enemy army they immediately can fight on her side, even against neutral parties. And it is not visible, because their color does not change.

They can will join to any small army. And it is impossibly prevent such reinforcement because of their neutral status. In my case, the balance of forces of the ruler and his allies who attacked my army was 1:3. That's enough to completely change the balance.

 

[Tom013]

Yeah, I agree that it's a strange implementation. But I couldn't say for certain that it's a bug. I'd say go ahead and report it like it's a bug and see if there's any response. Again, I think the ideal situation would be to allow a call-to-arms for the overlord and his allies in some sort of side-bar war so that they could ALL fight you, but that's currently not a mechanic the game supports.

 

[Rudolph]

It is WAD that neutral armies participate in the battle of their allies. Makes no sense to me the way this is implemented, could easily be fixed to be a lot more user friendly(tho I'm for removing it all together and adding the ability to call to arms).

 

[dm99]

In the bug report thread discussion are rare and responses from developers appear very long. And the more active discussion leads to the more long wait, as they go from the oldest messages to newest.

And by the way the following consequences may appear for example

• Several opponents declare war on one country and not at once, but with a delay and with their own goals. The situation is quite common, if you can acquire the profit on a foreign war then you will attack.
• When the defending side urges allies against the first invader, it can not always summon them again opposite the second. That is another advantage of the attack on the one of the warring parties, because its allies in the war against you do not participate. It's not fair, but it's right.
• But now when the allied armies attached to the main army, they can actually participate in the battles against sides which considered neutral. This is completely wrong.

I am quite sure that if the allies are not attached to the main army, everything work as it should and the battle between neutral parties is impossible. This means that the most likely mechanism of attachment is not working properly.

 

[dm99]

It parcipate only when attached, otherwise no. Neutral parties are called neutral exactly because that does not fight each other.

 

[dm99]

Again, I think the ideal situation would be to allow a call-to-arms for the overlord and his allies in some sort of side-bar war so that they could ALL fight you, but that's currently not a mechanic the game supports.

Did I correctly understood you, that during the revolution do not need to make automatically hostile ruler, but give him the choice of this hostility and the ability to call allies?

 

[Tom013]

Did I correctly understood you, that during the revolution do not need to make automatically hostile ruler, but give him the choice of this hostility and the ability to call allies?

That would be an improvement, yes. Basically, allow him a defensive pseudo-CB against people attacking his rebelling underlings. Sort of like EU4's enforce peace interventions.

 

[Pilot00]

Are you sure they participated in the battle though? The fact that they were tied doesnt mean they fought. Its like having attached holy orders and fighting enemies of the same faith, the army is tied but the Holy orders troops in the war dont count at all.

 

[Dr Gonzo]

I believe that an otherwise neutral army will fight you if they are an ally of your enemy in another war and they have attached themselves to your enemy's troops. You can exploit this for yourself sometimes as well.

 

[Pilot00]

I believe that an otherwise neutral army will fight you if they are an ally of your enemy in another war and they have attached themselves to your enemy's troops. You can exploit this for yourself sometimes as well.

Indeed, whiped a 10k stack today this way.

 

[dm99]

That would be an improvement, yes. Basically, allow him a defensive pseudo-CB against people attacking his rebelling underlings. Sort of like EU4's enforce peace interventions.

Maybe it would be good, I just have not seen how it looks like. And for me it's still enough existing wonders.

Are you sure they participated in the battle though? The fact that they were tied doesnt mean they fought. Its like having attached holy orders and fighting enemies of the same faith, the army is tied but the Holy orders troops in the war dont count at all.

They are definitely involved. Ratio of my army and the enemy was 2:1 and when during the battle it turned into 1:2 it was hard not to notice. Particularly distinguished leaders of neutral who headed the battle.

Indeed, whiped a 10k stack today this way.

Prediction came true, this attachment mechanism is broken.

 

[dm99]

Incidentally yesterday watched as several hundred neutral allies were attached to the army consisting of only one fighter.:huh:

 

[Lhutien]

Sadly something like this happened to me also.

Good for me was that my liege lord declared war on the same guy for my claim (while I was trying to press it myself) and totally destroyed the army that attacked me.

 

[Rudolph]

Prediction came true, this attachment mechanism is broken.

I'll try say it again; it is WAD.

 

[dm99]

I'll try say it again; it is WAD.

Not worth repeating, you just need say why it's WAD? Can you?

Now I will try say why it's bug.

• Firstly, based on the game mechanics. In the game there are you, your allies, your enemies and a bunch of other characters. All characters has relationships with each other. They take their decisions based on these relations. It is bulk of this game.
  
  Now look at the allies. They are your allies only because of family ties, but their participation in any your war is determined by the balance of relationship to you and your opponent. They always have a choice to participate in this war or not. Therefore, your allies always involved only in a particular war against a specific opponent. In the war on which they agreed.
  
  Participants of other wars are neutral for them and vice versa. So it is conceived and the way it works. Neutral armies at the war theater not interfere with each other achieve their own goals.
  
  But everything changes when allies attached to your army. Now it is not allies, but just additional troops that you can use whatever you like. They can be used even in those wars on which have not given their consent. But allies is full participants of the game and must act in accordance with its objectives and relations as opposed to those troops which provide your vassals.
  
  There is a contradiction between the essence of the game described above and the result of work one particular algorithm. And this suggests that it's just a bug. If developers are wanted achieved such a result as now, they would did so to the allies contributed troops the same way that your vassals.
  
  
• Secondly, based on real life. Imagine a situation from which the discussion started. In Andalusia revolution and Sultan calls his allies to help in the fight against the rebels. King of Navarre agrees, because the Sultan is infidel, but he is kinsman, but revolutionaries are only infidels. Armies gathered in a bunch and after their long wandering across the Spain suddenly announcement tomorrow battle with an army of Asturias.
  
  For the King of Navarre the King of Asturias is looked like worthy man and also he is catholic. And that will make the King of Navarre in such case? Will come on the battle or will stand away?
  
  
• Thirdly. I have a theory of how and why did this bug. Attachment mechanism was always. Just earlier the AI ​​is not so actively used it . As a means of improving the AI, developers greatly raised priority of attachment. Thus having identified a bug that was always. Most likely the reason for this that they did not taken into account that the theater of war may consist of more than two forces with complex relations. If this error is realy old, it is quite possible that in the game that was then, probability of appearance of such situation was too small and aggressiveness of attachment was low.

Now your turn

 

[Rudolph]

Not worth repeating, you just need say why it's WAD? Can you?

No, because unfortunately I do not possess the ability to read the minds of PDI's developers(I have seen nothing other than a confirmation it is WAD from QA, with no reason given). And it is not up to you to judge whether a thing is bugged or WAD, that is a decision all up to PDI and no one else(you can influence it, but it is still theirs).

It is WAD that neutral armies participate in the battle of their allies. Makes no sense to me the way this is implemented, could easily be fixed to be a lot more user friendly(tho I'm for removing it all together and adding the ability to call to arms).