Game-breaking DLC exploit?

[primevalangel]

In one of my MP games, I play as Etrusci, and together with my ally Carthage, we besieged Rome for a few turns until we almost breached all walls (to force Roman army to lift siege on our Tarentum ally). But Rome does not need to defend its capital (or any region), since it used the following exploit: it released the Rome region as a client-state, and the siege was automatically cancelled! It took 2-3 more turns until we could start the siege of Rome again, but it was a turning-point, as now it is too late and Rome has basically won the game.

This issue is only present in MP games with DLC features, as they allow the "release region" option. I thought this option was one of the best (and realistic) features of the DLC, as it allows your armies to temporary conquer regions (for various reasons), but not keep them. But cancelling a siege by making the region a client-state is extremely unrealistic and breaks the gameplay. I'm pretty sure in reality no besieger will lift siege just because the ruler of the settlement was given more autonomy by its overlord. Or not continue to see them as the enemy. If given more autonomy (become vassal), the new client state should be immediately at war with all the overlord's enemies, and siege must continue (same if independence was given).

This exploit is becoming popular, as it was used first by Tarentum, in the same game, to cancel a siege by Rome on its capital. I am forced to use it, since everyone will use it. But it makes the game much less realistic than without the DLC, so I might just no longer play MP games with DLC features until this is fixed.

Am I missing something? What do you guys think?

20211101215435_1.jpg (553.59 KiB) Viewed 1205 times

[elmegaduque]

Yet another exploit, such as the one that allows freely transferring all the territories and resources of a power that leaves the game, another that continues it (And that by the way is the one you used just before).

Both the one and the other should be corrected.

[Pocus]

The players are so imaginative!
I'll fix it by disallowing a besieged region to be given.

As for the other exploit elmegaduque, it should be a house rule when you start MP. I don't see how the game engine can read the player mind and knows he is giving stuff because he plans to quit. I believe that even if somehow this can be fixed, and really I doubt, people who plays dishonestly will always find new tricks along this trend. You can always have a player that plays with the intent of always favoring his buddy playing the game and gives him stuff or placing himself in such position that this mostly favors his friend. This is 'high level behavior' the game engine can't fix.

[primevalangel]

I'll fix it by disallowing a besieged region to be given.

Thank you so much, Pocus; I'll be looking forward for this fix.

Yet another exploit, such as the one that allows freely transferring all the territories and resources of a power that leaves the game, another that continues it (And that by the way is the one you used just before).

Yes, you are referring to Boii giving all his regions to Etrusci (me). Indeed if you consider he "sold" them, it would have been unrealistic, since such transactions were extremely rare in history (list), and all were mostly depopulated territories/colonies (also relatively recent, after 1266). Selling a populated region would have been basically impossible, since the population/local elites would have revolted and not accept the new authorities (I think).

That's why I considered the transaction as a "unification" of our nations. Though even this was very rare in history (list, look at "successful"=Yes, and exclude personal unions), and most unifications of big states were formations of confederations, where each member state still retained some autonomy (and even in this case, all had very similar culture).

it should be a house rule when you start MP.

Unfortunately house rules are not always respected (assuming you can write them in the game's name, which is truncated anyway in the list of MP games).

I don't see how the game engine can read the player mind and knows he is giving stuff because he plans to quit. I believe that even if somehow this can be fixed, and really I doubt, people who plays dishonestly will always find new tricks along this trend. You can always have a player that plays with the intent of always favoring his buddy playing the game and gives him stuff or placing himself in such position that this mostly favors his friend. This is 'high level behavior' the game engine can't fix.

Well since historically I can't seem to find examples of nations selling regions or nations merging together, in the time period of the game, I think it is safe to assume that these 2 situations are unrealistic (for Antiquity) and exchanging regions/provinces in transaction, while at peace, should be removed.

As for war time, peace treaties should not allow exchanging for more than 100% or 200%(?) of the war-score (realistic explanation would be that population/local elites would have not accepted and revolted). This should fix situations like one I've seen in one of my MP games, where Egypt is loosing to Antigonus, because Seleucid made peace, so Egypt accepted total annexation in peace treaty and Antigonus almost won the game just by 3x legacy (still, we all had to ally to prevent him from winning by 3x legacy in the next turns).

I would keep "become client-state" even in peace time, to simulate formation of confederations (maybe allow only same-culture in peace time?).

What do you guys think?

[elmegaduque]

"....This should fix situations like one I've seen in one of my MP games, where Egypt is loosing to Antigonus, because Seleucid made peace, so Egypt accepted total annexation in peace treaty and Antigonus almost won the game just by 3x legacy (still, we all had to ally to prevent him from winning by 3x legacy in the next turns)...."

I led Egypt and gave the crown to Antigonus (from Hellenistic pretender to Hellenistic pretender) after having been totally defeated losing the army in battle against Alexandria fighting alone against Antigonus without any of his opponents doing anything against him in the meantime. Something totally logical and that occurred in history (see Seleuco IV and Popilio Lenas).

All this while observing in each and every one of the games how players are AFRAID of facing others of similar potential. Time and time again you can see eternal alliances between Antigonus / Seleucus, Rome / Carthage to dedicate themselves to crushing NPCs and players who run small countries.

Frankly, I don't see the point in playing multiplayer games this way.

[primevalangel]

I led Egypt and gave the crown to Antigonus (from Hellenistic pretender to Hellenistic pretender) after having been totally defeated losing the army in battle against Alexandria fighting alone against Antigonus without any of his opponents doing anything against him in the meantime.

Hi elmegaduque, great move you did there (completely submitting to Antigonus) to "teach" the others the consequences of not helping you. The result would have been the same in 15-20 turns (as you said yourself in game chat), but the conclusion might not have been so obvious if you (or AI) continued fighting. Your move (and my pleas) motivated almost all of us to unite and (almost) defeat Antigonus, who was played by IrishGuards, one of the best players (thus becoming the most interesting MP game I'm currently playing, so thanks). Sorry if I gave you as a negative example (you played fair), but I had no other example to give, and someone else could have done the same just to help Antigonus, and this is what I wanted to point out.