(TLDR go to "Points of the idea")
Hi there!
There have been some changes to discourage players from getting rid of forts, such as increased warscore from provinces without forts. But many of us still believe that they are not worth it, especially now that they've been made so expensive. As such, I came up with a new mechanic called "Devastation" that will encourage construction of forts without arbitrary penalties and truly revolutionise the gameplay,
Points of the idea:
1) Cut at least in half the cost and maintenance of all forts.
2) Add X% chance that friendly provinces outside of friendly fort zone of control will suffer Devastation losing X% development if:
2.1) A battle takes place in them where the number of regiments is X% higher than the local supply limit.
2.2) They are fully looted.
2.3) Devastation can also occur in provinces where a fort is successfully occupied, the chance is low after a siege, but significantly higher after an assault.
2.4) Provinces that suffer Devastation will have X% lower development cost until their development matches the one they had before Devastation.
2.5) Devastation of especially rich provinces will add more aggressive expansion.
3) Remove all requirements for assaults.
4) Devastation would not fire in provinces of neutral countries that only gave military access.
Explanation of the points:
1) As it is forts are just too expensive. Their costs has been readjusted to increase the value of money, but it simultaneously debased the value of forts.
2) The chance could be something like 50% or 10% depending on the amount of development lost. Whereas the amount of lost development could be 30% or random between 10-70% with at least 1 development lost. Also, forts would protect adjacent provinces of war allies from Devastation.
2.1) This means Devastation will not kick in when combat occurs between two scout regiments, but it might after a massive battle. This requirement will make sure Devastation threatening and not annoying. It might be interesting to tie the amount of development lost to the amount of battling regiments.
2.2) This point is simple.
2.3) The difference in chances should be great enough to create a choice between an attempt to Devastate a province and an attempt to prevent it.
2.4) This is meant to enable and encourage reconstruction of important provinces. The amount of lower cost should be high, say 50% or more, or it could be tied to the amount of lost development. It could be even higher in capital provinces.
2.5) Devastating provinces that are say 25+ development will earn the invader some aggressive expansion, perhaps it could scale with the amount of development. This is meant to discourage Devastation of highly developed provinces that the invader is not interested in taking.
3) The other changes will discourage assaults. For instance, more forts will make assaults less painful for the defender and less efficient for the attacker. Also, Devastating provinces that one wishes to conquer is undesirable.
4) Surely no explanation is needed here.
Historical Fluff:
The mechanic would expand strategy and tactics enabling distinct styles of warfare, Russia could capitalise on their vast but empty spaces whereas Italy could create an impenetrable buffer along the Alps. Players would have to consider more than just terrain of provinces, and quantified war zones such as the Hungarian countryside during the Austro-Hungarian wars would be created naturally as game progresses. Similarly to the Polish-Teutonic war, battlefields could be settled upon between enemies or not! Religious leagues would be closer to the The Thirty Years' War that reduced German city-states to smouldering ruins as they would be dynamically reflected within the game. Siege and assault would become an actual choice, such as in case of the Austrian siege of Venice where the monotonous way was chosen to ensure the precious city is unharmed, or Devastation could become a war goal like during the Swedish Deluge. With hyper aggressive Devastating nations like the Ottomans gaining a reputation as the escapees spread stories of the horror.
Gameplay Fluff:
With development and fort mechanics the game is almost begging for something like Devastation, which could even be connected with Scorched Earth. With something more permanent than money at stake, war would become a more serious matter. There would be a choice between spending manpower to battle another army or trying to Devastate and permanently cripple the enemy. What I mean by permanently is that it's something that go away on its own like low manpower.
It could be used to strategically reduce development to reduce coring costs. Things like weakening a centre of trade that can't be taken, but blocks trade flow would be possible! But it would not be taken lightly as the objective of war is usually to take land, not destroy it. With Devastation in the game you wouldn't allow yourself to send literally all of your forces towards one far front leaving the rest and the heartland of your nation exposed. Unlike EVER before, you would have to commit to the defence - this is the revolutionary part. This would also add meaning to the state of borders, keeping them defensible rather than snaking through continents would be something to consider. Tall vs wide would finally have a tangible significance in terms of war. Devastation would make you question if the ends truly justify the means as results of war could become a real consequence even before any peace deals.
Thanks for reading! Please leave a response if you like the idea as it's not getting much attention . Perhaps mechanics like war exhaustion or rebel risk could be somehow connected with Devastation. I also wanted Devastated provinces to get Scotched Earth, but that needs a rework of its own.
Hi there!
There have been some changes to discourage players from getting rid of forts, such as increased warscore from provinces without forts. But many of us still believe that they are not worth it, especially now that they've been made so expensive. As such, I came up with a new mechanic called "Devastation" that will encourage construction of forts without arbitrary penalties and truly revolutionise the gameplay,
Points of the idea:
1) Cut at least in half the cost and maintenance of all forts.
2) Add X% chance that friendly provinces outside of friendly fort zone of control will suffer Devastation losing X% development if:
2.1) A battle takes place in them where the number of regiments is X% higher than the local supply limit.
2.2) They are fully looted.
2.3) Devastation can also occur in provinces where a fort is successfully occupied, the chance is low after a siege, but significantly higher after an assault.
2.4) Provinces that suffer Devastation will have X% lower development cost until their development matches the one they had before Devastation.
2.5) Devastation of especially rich provinces will add more aggressive expansion.
3) Remove all requirements for assaults.
4) Devastation would not fire in provinces of neutral countries that only gave military access.
Explanation of the points:
1) As it is forts are just too expensive. Their costs has been readjusted to increase the value of money, but it simultaneously debased the value of forts.
2) The chance could be something like 50% or 10% depending on the amount of development lost. Whereas the amount of lost development could be 30% or random between 10-70% with at least 1 development lost. Also, forts would protect adjacent provinces of war allies from Devastation.
2.1) This means Devastation will not kick in when combat occurs between two scout regiments, but it might after a massive battle. This requirement will make sure Devastation threatening and not annoying. It might be interesting to tie the amount of development lost to the amount of battling regiments.
2.2) This point is simple.
2.3) The difference in chances should be great enough to create a choice between an attempt to Devastate a province and an attempt to prevent it.
2.4) This is meant to enable and encourage reconstruction of important provinces. The amount of lower cost should be high, say 50% or more, or it could be tied to the amount of lost development. It could be even higher in capital provinces.
2.5) Devastating provinces that are say 25+ development will earn the invader some aggressive expansion, perhaps it could scale with the amount of development. This is meant to discourage Devastation of highly developed provinces that the invader is not interested in taking.
3) The other changes will discourage assaults. For instance, more forts will make assaults less painful for the defender and less efficient for the attacker. Also, Devastating provinces that one wishes to conquer is undesirable.
4) Surely no explanation is needed here.
Historical Fluff:
The mechanic would expand strategy and tactics enabling distinct styles of warfare, Russia could capitalise on their vast but empty spaces whereas Italy could create an impenetrable buffer along the Alps. Players would have to consider more than just terrain of provinces, and quantified war zones such as the Hungarian countryside during the Austro-Hungarian wars would be created naturally as game progresses. Similarly to the Polish-Teutonic war, battlefields could be settled upon between enemies or not! Religious leagues would be closer to the The Thirty Years' War that reduced German city-states to smouldering ruins as they would be dynamically reflected within the game. Siege and assault would become an actual choice, such as in case of the Austrian siege of Venice where the monotonous way was chosen to ensure the precious city is unharmed, or Devastation could become a war goal like during the Swedish Deluge. With hyper aggressive Devastating nations like the Ottomans gaining a reputation as the escapees spread stories of the horror.
Gameplay Fluff:
With development and fort mechanics the game is almost begging for something like Devastation, which could even be connected with Scorched Earth. With something more permanent than money at stake, war would become a more serious matter. There would be a choice between spending manpower to battle another army or trying to Devastate and permanently cripple the enemy. What I mean by permanently is that it's something that go away on its own like low manpower.
It could be used to strategically reduce development to reduce coring costs. Things like weakening a centre of trade that can't be taken, but blocks trade flow would be possible! But it would not be taken lightly as the objective of war is usually to take land, not destroy it. With Devastation in the game you wouldn't allow yourself to send literally all of your forces towards one far front leaving the rest and the heartland of your nation exposed. Unlike EVER before, you would have to commit to the defence - this is the revolutionary part. This would also add meaning to the state of borders, keeping them defensible rather than snaking through continents would be something to consider. Tall vs wide would finally have a tangible significance in terms of war. Devastation would make you question if the ends truly justify the means as results of war could become a real consequence even before any peace deals.
Thanks for reading! Please leave a response if you like the idea as it's not getting much attention . Perhaps mechanics like war exhaustion or rebel risk could be somehow connected with Devastation. I also wanted Devastated provinces to get Scotched Earth, but that needs a rework of its own.
Last edited:
- 13
- 3
- 1
Upvote
0