EU4 - Development Diary - 22nd of November 2016

[Balesir]

And because it has an enemy fort adjacent, you can't march into it any more.

Okay, then explain why capturing a fort can cause you to have fewer movement options than when it had enemies in it.

Because that can happen in 1.18 rules.

Bugs are a problem either way, but in addition to the above you can have drastic changes to movement options in the game with no apparent change to the state of the board. That's not an intuitive design, at all.

Unless the system is bugged, you cannot have fewer movement options to and from what is now your fort. You might have no more options than you did before - that will depend on the configuration of surrounding provinces - but you won't have fewer. Can you give an example of where this is happening? The only case I can see where you might get "stuck" is if you did a naval invasion to get to the first fort and the only land exit is a shared ZoC province - but you could still go out by sea.

Just because something works doesn't mean that something else couldn't work better.

This is a good point, but the system was reverted because it wasn't. Letting an invading force wander all around a fort's ZoC (but not leave it) - whether you enlarge the ZoC or not - is fundamentally neither realistic nor productive of good play scenarios.

 

[grommile]

Unless the system is bugged, you cannot have fewer movement options to and from what is now your fort. You might have no more options than you did before - that will depend on the configuration of surrounding provinces - but you won't have fewer. Can you give an example of where this is happening? The only case I can see where you might get "stuck" is if you did a naval invasion to get to the first fort and the only land exit is a shared ZoC province - but you could still go out by sea.

As of 1.18:

Consider a chain of three adjacent forts owned by the same country (in the real situation I dealt with, the country was Ferrara and the provinces were Brescia (or was it Cremona? can't remember the map detail and don't feel like checking right this second), Mantua, Ferrara). Your convenient point of entry into their ZoCs is adjacent to all three of them (in this case, Verona).

You march an army from Treviso (which is not adjacent to any of Ferrara's forts, and through which you have military access whether explicit or conditional) into Mantua (through Verona) to occupy its fort. This is permitted by the rule that says "if you are in a province covered by a hostile fort's ZoC, you can (approximately?) always move into that fort's province", and as long as the fort in Mantua remains under Ferrara's control, you can march further troops from Treviso to Mantua to support your siege stack.

Once the siege completes, you can still march your army back from Mantua to Treviso under the "if you are in a hostile fort's ZoC, you can always march to the province you entered its ZoC from" rule... but, having left Mantua, you can't return.

Thus, your armies have fewer movement options after you occupied Mantua than they did before you occupied Mantua.

I haven't tested this in 1.19, because I haven't had the time and enthusiasm to set it up.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Unless the system is bugged, you cannot have fewer movement options to and from what is now your fort.

I can't move onto a captured fort, because I captured a fort. Not even retracing the route used to reach Toledo. This is in addition to grommile's example, and they aren't the only two.

The army in Cuenca is *literally* trapped inside enemy borders, despite occupying a line of forts to get there...and it's not because a new fort was made or one was retaken. The army got trapped as a direct result of capturing forts.

I know the esoteric rules that led to this situation, and they're a bad implementation. That outcome is not intuitive or reasonable.

 

[Balesir]

Consider a chain of three adjacent forts owned by the same country (in the real situation I dealt with, the country was Ferrara and the provinces were Brescia (or was it Cremona? can't remember the map detail and don't feel like checking right this second), Mantua, Ferrara). Your convenient point of entry into their ZoCs is adjacent to all three of them (in this case, Verona).

You march an army from Treviso (which is not adjacent to any of Ferrara's forts, and through which you have military access whether explicit or conditional) into Mantua (through Verona) to occupy its fort. This is permitted by the rule that says "if you are in a province covered by a hostile fort's ZoC, you can (approximately?) always move into that fort's province", and as long as the fort in Mantua remains under Ferrara's control, you can march further troops from Treviso to Mantua to support your siege stack.

Once the siege completes, you can still march your army back from Mantua to Treviso under the "if you are in a hostile fort's ZoC, you can always march to the province you entered its ZoC from" rule... but, having left Mantua, you can't return.

Thus, your armies have fewer movement options after you occupied Mantua than they did before you occupied Mantua.

As I see the system operating correctly, you should not be able to leave Verona to besiege any of the three forts until you have occupied Verona - which will flip back if you leave it empty. Once you are besieging Mantua, I actually think that you should have massive attrition applied unless you keep Verona occupied, but that is not part of the current system. Nevertheless, if you let Verona "flip back" then you are abandoning your lines of communication and so it's unsurprising that you should lose access to Mantua. If you want to recover access to Mantua, you will need to occupy Verona again (which is the same restriction as when you first moved in to besiege it) - but this time it won't flip back, because you have a fort (Mantua) adjacent to it. At least, that's how it should work, if it's a classic "ZoC" system with flip.

I can't move onto a captured fort, because I captured a fort. Not even retracing the route used to reach Toledo. This is in addition to grommile's example, and they aren't the only two.

The army in Cuenca is *literally* trapped inside enemy borders, despite occupying a line of forts to get there...and it's not because a new fort was made or one was retaken. The army got trapped as a direct result of capturing forts.

Of course, you are constrained by the fort in Murcia. You need to occupy Cuenca; it will not (or, at least, should not) flip back, because you have forts in Toledo and Valencia to "neutralise" the flip. Once you occupy it, you should be able to move to any province adjacent.

As an aside, similar to the case above, I don't think that you should be able to move from Valencia to Cuenca to Toledo if Toledo is held by Spain unless you occupy Cuenca first (taking one siege cycle). Cuenca in this case will not flip back once taken, because you hold a fort in Valencia.

The point you both seem to be missing (and maybe the developers do, too) is that the occupation of non-fort provinces (and whether or not they "flip back") is of crucial importance in this system, if it is to work well. If an army in an unoccupied province adjacent to two (or more) enemy forts is allowed to enter either/any fort province to begin a siege, then the system is working wrongly and this will invite issues. Occupied provinces adjacent to a fort should not be in the fort's ZoC, but should flip back to "unoccupied" if left empty even for a few days unless they are also adjacent to a fort held by the occupier. Yes, this means that lines of forts can be moved through without a siege by leaving a trail of occupied provinces with forces in them to stop them flipping back, but that takes time, depletes your field army and leaves line-of-communications guards that are very vulnerable to enemy field forces - which is exactly what happened in real life. Maybe the system does not (yet) work like this, but if so I think the devs should seriously consider the logic of it.

 

[TheDungen]

I just had a great example I sieged down a fort in magdeburg but couldn't go south to whatever bohemian province is there despite bohemia being my ally in the war, No I had to go north west and siege down Berlin first. Why? why can't I go from one fort I control to a friendly owned and controlled province?

I'm sorry the system is totally opaque and unrealistic, it has no reason for it's continued existence.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As I see the system operating correctly, you should not be able to leave Verona to besiege any of the three forts until you have occupied Verona - which will flip back if you leave it empty. Once you are besieging Mantua, I actually think that you should have massive attrition applied unless you keep Verona occupied, but that is not part of the current system. Nevertheless, if you let Verona "flip back" then you are abandoning your lines of communication and so it's unsurprising that you should lose access to Mantua. If you want to recover access to Mantua, you will need to occupy Verona again (which is the same restriction as when you first moved in to besiege it) - but this time it won't flip back, because you have a fort (Mantua) adjacent to it. At least, that's how it should work, if it's a classic "ZoC" system with flip.


Of course, you are constrained by the fort in Murcia. You need to occupy Cuenca; it will not (or, at least, should not) flip back, because you have forts in Toledo and Valencia to "neutralise" the flip. Once you occupy it, you should be able to move to any province adjacent.

As an aside, similar to the case above, I don't think that you should be able to move from Valencia to Cuenca to Toledo if Toledo is held by Spain unless you occupy Cuenca first (taking one siege cycle). Cuenca in this case will not flip back once taken, because you hold a fort in Valencia.

The point you both seem to be missing (and maybe the developers do, too) is that the occupation of non-fort provinces (and whether or not they "flip back") is of crucial importance in this system, if it is to work well. If an army in an unoccupied province adjacent to two (or more) enemy forts is allowed to enter either/any fort province to begin a siege, then the system is working wrongly and this will invite issues. Occupied provinces adjacent to a fort should not be in the fort's ZoC, but should flip back to "unoccupied" if left empty even for a few days unless they are also adjacent to a fort held by the occupier. Yes, this means that lines of forts can be moved through without a siege by leaving a trail of occupied provinces with forces in them to stop them flipping back, but that takes time, depletes your field army and leaves line-of-communications guards that are very vulnerable to enemy field forces - which is exactly what happened in real life. Maybe the system does not (yet) work like this, but if so I think the devs should seriously consider the logic of it.

Occupying Cuenca does not change my movement rules in this picture.

Real life forts functioned nothing like this whatsoever, nor did period warfare. This is a gameplay mechanic straight up, and a broken one.

 

[Prince Ire]

That'd be rear admiral Grace Hopper. And no it's not. sticking to the same old just for sticking to the same old's sake is a much worse idea, there's no such thing as staying the same, either you become better or you decline. Because everything always changes, clinging to the past is like trying to float on an anchor when shipwrecked.

Nonsense. If the same old same old didn't work, it would long since have been abandoned. You should only make changes if you see some flaw in the old way and believe that what you are proposing will both a) fix that flaw and b)not introduce an equal or greater flaw of its own. Change causes disruption, confusion, etc. It should always be made for a good reason, not just for its own sake. And change often menas attempting to float by tying yourself to an anchor while wearing a life vest made of lead if its a bad change.

 

[Balesir]

Occupying Cuenca does not change my movement rules in this picture.

A) It ought to, given the rules as described, and (B) it has for me in a similar situation in Brandenberg.

Real life forts functioned nothing like this whatsoever, nor did period warfare. This is a gameplay mechanic straight up, and a broken one.

Real life forts operated a lot closer to the ZoC version than they did to the area control version. They represent a threat, especially to lines of communication, and thus restricted movement around or past them. Even in Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812, he started out with an army of over 600,000 but was only able to field less than 200,000 at Borodino. Partly this was because of losses to disease and desertion, but much of it was due to besieging and covering forces protecting his lines of communication and garrisoning supply centres (towns, often with forts).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A) It ought to, given the rules as described, and (B) it has for me in a similar situation in Brandenberg.

Forts ought to work, but they do not work.

I speak from the experience of having made that province occupation.

Real life forts operated a lot closer to the ZoC version than they did to the area control version.

If we're to use that measure, 1.11 forts were the closest to realism of all.

 

[bbqftw]

I'm not sure what's the most fun part of forts: the recalculating ZoCs or the fact that you can trap yourself by successfully sieging forts.

But I promised not to mock 1.18 forts too much after the horror that was 1.19 forts.

There's actually a lot that could be fixed with a simple change - that change being "you can always move to a fort you have sieged down regardless of ZoC rules" - I think that removes most of the stacktrap issues.

 

[Balesir]

Forts ought to work, but they do not work.

I speak from the experience of having made that province occupation.

In that case, yeah, this is what I mean by "bug" (among other things; it's not just coder mistakes that create them).

If we're to use that measure, 1.11 forts were the closest to realism of all.

Not really. In earlier ages, possibly, but by the early 16th century effective (and intact) fortifications were not that numerous. The ZoC schema, properly implemented, would be a pretty good emulation (and a fun play mechanic as well, IMO).

 

[TheDungen]

In that case, yeah, this is what I mean by "bug" (among other things; it's not just coder mistakes that create them).


Not really. In earlier ages, possibly, but by the early 16th century effective (and intact) fortifications were not that numerous. The ZoC schema, properly implemented, would be a pretty good emulation (and a fun play mechanic as well, IMO).

Actually the area ZoC system is way closer to reality. With there being some sort of fort in most areas.

 

[Balesir]

Actually the area ZoC system is way closer to reality. With there being some sort of fort in most areas.

So, an army can wander around at will in the fort's "designated area", but some sort of invisible wall is going to spring up when it tries to leave for another fort's area unless is besieges the local fort first? That's complete rubbish! The major point about a fort is that you can't bypass it without investing it (up until WW2, when things change on a small scale quite markedly). The threat of a fort - unless either the fort has a particularly large garrison or you have a particularly small army - is to your lines of communication, not to your army. If the garrison sally out to open battle (as opposed to a raid) they are essentially committing suicide and surrendering their fort; what they do is raid your reinforcements, foragers and messengers and ambush isolated groups, so you have to leave substantial bodies of troops to protect them in the region of the fort. A classic Zone of Control where you can't move within the ZoC unless you physically hold the ground or cover the fort is much closer to the reality of facing a medieval or early modern fort. The "area ZoC" from that point of view is laughable; its only saving grace might be if it leads to a better game - but clearly it doesn't.

 

[TheDungen]

So, an army can wander around at will in the fort's "designated area", but some sort of invisible wall is going to spring up when it tries to leave for another fort's area unless is besieges the local fort first? That's complete rubbish! The major point about a fort is that you can't bypass it without investing it (up until WW2, when things change on a small scale quite markedly). The threat of a fort - unless either the fort has a particularly large garrison or you have a particularly small army - is to your lines of communication, not to your army. If the garrison sally out to open battle (as opposed to a raid) they are essentially committing suicide and surrendering their fort; what they do is raid your reinforcements, foragers and messengers and ambush isolated groups, so you have to leave substantial bodies of troops to protect them in the region of the fort. A classic Zone of Control where you can't move within the ZoC unless you physically hold the ground or cover the fort is much closer to the reality of facing a medieval or early modern fort. The "area ZoC" from that point of view is laughable; its only saving grace might be if it leads to a better game - but clearly it doesn't.

I'm sorry hos is that not exactly the same thing with the other ZoC system?
Except areas actually better represent the areas which fort commanded. For an example in Sweden Kalmar was the key to the entire borderland area, despite being of one side on the coast. Same thing with Elfsborg on the other side and Sveaborg on the other side of the Baltic. Despite being at the coast they still served as centres of authority for these regions.

 

[Balesir]

I'm sorry hos is that not exactly the same thing with the other ZoC system?

Um, because in the ZoC system I can't move past the fortress? Take southern Sweden as an example, from the start of the GC, 1444. Under the "Area" system, Denmark can move an army through Kalmar to Ostergotland without problems, but then cannot move into Stockholm - why not? If you have got as far as Ostergotland, moving on to take Stockholm (and its food stores) rather than traipsing back to besiege Kalmar seems like an excellent idea! In the ZoC system you get no farther than Kalmar (without successfully besieging Kalmar fortress first). Those seem pretty different, to me. But it gets worse. The area of Vastra Svealand has no fortress, so from Ostergotland Denmark can keep marching, under the Area system, all the way to Trondelag fortress, ignoring Kalmar and Elfsborg completely. How is that "controlling the region"?

Except areas actually better represent the areas which fort commanded. For an example in Sweden Kalmar was the key to the entire borderland area, despite being of one side on the coast. Same thing with Elfsborg on the other side and Sveaborg on the other side of the Baltic. Despite being at the coast they still served as centres of authority for these regions.

"Key to such-and-such a place" is a figure of speech used to convey a variety of factors - all of which are represented in the ZoC system but some of which are not in the Area system. First, there is the fact that fortresses are bases for mobile bodies of troops. These are what sally out to police the area in peacetime or disrupt enemy control and lines of communication in wartime (hence the provinces "flip back"). In this sense, the fortress "controls" its area because in the absence of significant enemy forces it will always take back the area in a ZoC system. Having control "flip back" in an Area system could cover much the same thing, although some fortress placements would seem a bit odd - a fortress in Ostergotland controlling Tioharad would be a stretch; the fortress was placed in Kalmar for a reason.

Another sense of "control" is that the fortress prevents passage through. As we have already seen, the Area system fails this test; a Danish army from Lund could march to Trondelag regardless of the fortresses of Kalmar and Elfsborg in the Area system, whereas with ZoCs they would need to besiege one or other fortress first. This is the heaviest and most damning flaw with the Area system. Even if the Vastra Svealand area had a fortress, Denmark could occupy both Skaraborg and Ostergotland while Kalmar and Elfsborg still stood - that really doesn't kake any sense. It gets even worse if we assume different placings of the fortresses within the Areas. Imagine if we have fortresses in Dal and Ostergotland. In the Area system, this is functionally identical to having them at Kalmar and Elfsborg. It is now impossible (without besieging one or other fort) for Denmark to move troops through Tioharad and Skaraborg (different Areas, each with a fort) to Narke, but it is quite possible to go Tioharad-Kalmar-Ostergotland-Narke, or (Halland)-Elfsborg-Dal-Varmland(-Narke). How does that make any sense? They can't go between the lakes, miles from either fortress, but they can happily bypass either fort in their near locality!

The final sense of "control" is that a fortress serves as a base for operations to (re-)take the region once the occupying army has moved on. Both systems could cover this feature; the presence of a "free" province (with the fortress in it) means that army units can be raised to liberate the whole area. I would say that the ZoC system does it marginally better, because the presence of the fort will "flip" the adjacent provinces, but you could have a "flip" mechanic in the Area system, too, so it's not a very serious point.

 

[TheDungen]

Um, because in the ZoC system I can't move past the fortress? Take southern Sweden as an example, from the start of the GC, 1444. Under the "Area" system, Denmark can move an army through Kalmar to Ostergotland without problems, but then cannot move into Stockholm - why not? If you have got as far as Ostergotland, moving on to take Stockholm (and its food stores) rather than traipsing back to besiege Kalmar seems like an excellent idea! In the ZoC system you get no farther than Kalmar (without successfully besieging Kalmar fortress first). Those seem pretty different, to me. But it gets worse. The area of Vastra Svealand has no fortress, so from Ostergotland Denmark can keep marching, under the Area system, all the way to Trondelag fortress, ignoring Kalmar and Elfsborg completely. How is that "controlling the region"?


"Key to such-and-such a place" is a figure of speech used to convey a variety of factors - all of which are represented in the ZoC system but some of which are not in the Area system. First, there is the fact that fortresses are bases for mobile bodies of troops. These are what sally out to police the area in peacetime or disrupt enemy control and lines of communication in wartime (hence the provinces "flip back"). In this sense, the fortress "controls" its area because in the absence of significant enemy forces it will always take back the area in a ZoC system. Having control "flip back" in an Area system could cover much the same thing, although some fortress placements would seem a bit odd - a fortress in Ostergotland controlling Tioharad would be a stretch; the fortress was placed in Kalmar for a reason.

Another sense of "control" is that the fortress prevents passage through. As we have already seen, the Area system fails this test; a Danish army from Lund could march to Trondelag regardless of the fortresses of Kalmar and Elfsborg in the Area system, whereas with ZoCs they would need to besiege one or other fortress first. This is the heaviest and most damning flaw with the Area system. Even if the Vastra Svealand area had a fortress, Denmark could occupy both Skaraborg and Ostergotland while Kalmar and Elfsborg still stood - that really doesn't kake any sense. It gets even worse if we assume different placings of the fortresses within the Areas. Imagine if we have fortresses in Dal and Ostergotland. In the Area system, this is functionally identical to having them at Kalmar and Elfsborg. It is now impossible (without besieging one or other fort) for Denmark to move troops through Tioharad and Skaraborg (different Areas, each with a fort) to Narke, but it is quite possible to go Tioharad-Kalmar-Ostergotland-Narke, or (Halland)-Elfsborg-Dal-Varmland(-Narke). How does that make any sense? They can't go between the lakes, miles from either fortress, but they can happily bypass either fort in their near locality!

The final sense of "control" is that a fortress serves as a base for operations to (re-)take the region once the occupying army has moved on. Both systems could cover this feature; the presence of a "free" province (with the fortress in it) means that army units can be raised to liberate the whole area. I would say that the ZoC system does it marginally better, because the presence of the fort will "flip" the adjacent provinces, but you could have a "flip" mechanic in the Area system, too, so it's not a very serious point.

Well That's realistic you could march straight past Kalmar and the Danes have done it plenty of times. It's just that without taking the fort in Kalmar the provinces in the area flips back to the owner of the fort so you pretty much have to take the fort anyway. Far more realistic than the fort serving as some kind of short range invisible wall.

 

[Subject15]

Can you make map modes mod able plz. My only request...

...for now

 

[Gamengervi]

In every game I've played since this patch came out, Poland has been losing it's war against the Teutonic Order who seems to have a lot of allies in the conflict. What ends up happening is that Poland relinquishes most of Mazovia to the Order and this eventually results in a Polish and Lithuanian collapse, sometimes even a rather large Moldavia. A lot of small states that shouldn't survive have been blobbing as well, such as Tabarestan, Shirvan, and some of the the single-province states in the Lower Countries. Has anyone noticed anything similar or is it just a strange occurrence on my part?

 

[TheDungen]

In every game I've played since this patch came out, Poland has been losing it's war against the Teutonic Order who seems to have a lot of allies in the conflict. What ends up happening is that Poland relinquishes most of Mazovia to the Order and this eventually results in a Polish and Lithuanian collapse, sometimes even a rather large Moldavia. A lot of small states that shouldn't survive have been blobbing as well, such as Tabarestan, Shirvan, and some of the the single-province states in the Lower Countries. Has anyone noticed anything similar or is it just a strange occurrence on my part?

Seems to be in all my recent games Poland utterly curb stomps the TO even the time I tried to help them by giving them subsidies and free condotierri. Slowly stripping them away piece by piece. That said twice I have seen the TO become Prussia with only Danzig and Köningsberg (well might have been some more province) left and from that point on taking Prussia back.

 

[Gamengervi]

Seems to be in all my recent games Poland utterly curb stomps the TO even the time I tried to help them by giving them subsidies and free condotierri. Slowly stripping them away piece by piece. That said twice I have seen the TO become Prussia with only Danzig and Köningsberg (well might have been some more province) left and from that point on taking Prussia back.

Seems to be the opposite for me, but maybe it's just a coincidence. I deleted my old games, but this time around it seems that the reason the Order is utterly destroying Poland is that it's allying Denmark almost right away. This current game is the fourth instance in a row for me where Poland is getting beat down. In both wars, Poland was the aggressor. Isn't the game supposed to take in account the vassals of an enemy's allies when declaring war? Because it doesn't seem to be acknowledging Sweden and Norway. Poland is attacking, but even with Lithuania there's no way it can beat both Orders, Mecklenburg, Denmark, and all three Danish subjects.