but there is a fort why u are cheating

[rdbfnhxm]

 

[Astalic]

They can go from fort ZoC to unocupied allied province.
IIRC if you take the province they can't do it anymore.

 

[grotaclas]

They can move to Montferrat, because it is a fort which is owned and controlled by a country on their side of the war. You could do the same if you would be in their situation

 

[Aurum Watch]

while looking through the modifiers i noticed that there was an age bonus unused that is bypassing forts. unless this was just a joke i wonder if the ai has some usage of it.

 

[rdbfnhxm]

They can go from fort ZoC to unocupied allied province.
IIRC if you take the province they can't do it anymore.

but player cannot do this

 

[durbal]

but player cannot do this

Yeah they can. It's just not obvious to the player whereas the AI knows all the places it can possibly go.

 

[cuendillar]

while looking through the modifiers i noticed that there was an age bonus unused that is bypassing forts. unless this was just a joke i wonder if the ai has some usage of it.

This sounds a lot like an April Fool's joke.

The AI cannot do anything with/against forts that a player can't do under the same circumstances. What baffles me is that so many seem to see something they don't expect and think "the AI is cheating" rather than the more accurate "apparently I still haven't understood this mechanic fully, so I probably should find out where I got it wrong."

 

[grotaclas]

This sounds a lot like an April Fool's joke.

I don't think it was an april fools joke even though it was announced on Marcn 31st 2017 and the patch came out in April. But it actually works. It is unused in the unmodded game, but I tried adding can_bypass_forts = yes to the rules of the transfer subject age ability and it this allowed me to completely ignore the zone of control of forts. But I'm pretty sure that the AI does not use this feature, because if they would not have any ZoC rules, they would act differently. And so far I have not seen a single case in which the AI was proven to cheat with ZoC in any recent version(I regularly ask people who claim that the AI cheats in this way if they can provide a proof and nobody was able to do it).

The AI cannot do anything with/against forts that a player can't do under the same circumstances. What baffles me is that so many seem to see something they don't expect and think "the AI is cheating" rather than the more accurate "apparently I still haven't understood this mechanic fully, so I probably should find out where I got it wrong."

I completely agree with this.

 

[Less2]

This sounds a lot like an April Fool's joke.

The AI cannot do anything with/against forts that a player can't do under the same circumstances. What baffles me is that so many seem to see something they don't expect and think "the AI is cheating" rather than the more accurate "apparently I still haven't understood this mechanic fully, so I probably should find out where I got it wrong."

The catch-22 is that no one understands fort mechanics fully, not even devs with source code access.

 

[FocusedHope]

Savoy (theirs, non-ZoC) -> Torino (yours, in range of your fort, ZoC) -> Montferrat (fort). One of the ZoC rules is "you can go from a ZoC province to a fort province", which is what's happening here. The move is legal.

I assume the point of the rule is to prevent a situation where two forts each prevent you from moving on to the other, thus making it impossible to siege either. But it doesn't actually say "you can move from an enemy ZoC province onto an enemy fort province", so this move is legal. As is an annoying thing that happened in a Byzantium game of mine, where the Ottomans walked Biga (theirs, non-ZoC) -> Gallipoli (owned by them occupied by me, fort) -> Edirne (owned and controlled by them, capital fort), killing my sieging stack and forcing a restart. But whatever, that's how the rule works.