Does the fort system from EU4 really fit the timeperiod?

[Chlodio]

If I'm not mistaken during this period fortresses did not provide the same extent of protection as they did later, because siege techniques and technology were relatively advanced; the Romans and Greeks were able to seize heavily fortified strongholds with ease. Meanwhile, the forts are everywhere in this game and they always take eight months to besiege, making carpet besieging essentially mandatory practice and it isn't that fun IMO. If I'm not mistaken, most forts of this period didn't actually expect to stand up to a large invasion force but would seek to surrender quickly.

 

[Chlodio]

I'd like to see more forts and less besieging.
I'd do this by reducing the fort maintenance by a factor of 10, and making it so sieges are restricted to the capital. Meanwhile, in all non-capital forts there wouldn't be besieging but the fort would automatically surrender if the enemy army outnumbers the garrison by the factor 5, the garrison would be redacted from the army so that capturing 10 forts would cost 10,000 men, otherwise, the fort would not surrender. That way the purpose of the forts would go from stalling to weakening the invader.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I'd like to see more forts and less besieging.
I'd do this by reducing the fort maintenance by a factor of 10, and making it so sieges are restricted to the capital. Meanwhile, in all non-capital forts there wouldn't be besieging but the fort would automatically surrender if the enemy army outnumbers the garrison by the factor 5, the garrison would be redacted from the army so that capturing 10 forts would cost 10,000 men, otherwise, the fort would not surrender. That way the purpose of the forts would go from stalling to weakening the invader.

Was this a thing? Armies lost men in every town/citiy conquest?
From the game point of view, loosing men this way, would be fun? The invader will always lose. When reconquering your own forts, will you lose also men?

 

[Chlodio]

Was this a thing? Armies lost men in every town/citiy conquest?
From the game point of view, loosing men this way, would be fun? The invader will always lose. When reconquering your own forts, will you lose also men?

Yes, armies shranks as the invasion push forwards. For example. Belisarius invaded Italy with 9,000 men, he faced little resistance from the Ostrogoths but by the time he reached Rome he only had 5,000 men because the rest of his army to be left behind to garrison occupied cities.

I can't say what would be fun, but I know carpet sieges aren't fun.

How would invader lose? Even if they run out of the means to continue their invasion, there is no certainty that the defender has enough men to recapture the lost forts.

Yes, when recapturing forts the same rule would apply. Alternatively, in both cases, the surrendered garrison could automatically be raised as light infantry and be forced to do a shattered retreat.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Alternatively, in both cases, the surrendered garrison could automatically be raised as light infantry and be forced to do a shattered retreat.

And the fortress lost? With this change, fortress are crucial, you may obtain the opposite result, as players will build as much fortress as they can.

 

[Chlodio]

And the fortress lost? With this change, fortress are crucial, you may obtain the opposite result, as players will build as much fortress as they can.

Yes, I did say:

I'd like to see more forts and less besieging.​

 

[IsaacCAT]

Yes, I did say:

I'd like to see more forts and less besieging.​

Yes, sorry. But if I want to end a siege losing men I can storm the fortress now. With this suggestion I cannot besiege if I want to preserve my men.

 

[Chlodio]

Yes, sorry. But if I want to end a siege losing men I can storm the fortress now. With this suggestion I cannot besiege if I want to preserve my men.

Really not. Assaults are ridiculously costly expensive assaulting a level 1 fort will cost around 10,000 men.

 

[Blaccraw]

For the sieges during the Peloponnese wars, according to Thucydide, the majority took place before the harvests so the cities surrendered quickly. Cities like Athens with naval access could hold a really long time, but it was not the case for cities in the lands. Armies just waited for the assieged city to surrender when they run out of food.

Since it hapened 200 hundred years before the game , i don't know if sieges changed in greece in the game period.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Really not. Assaults are ridiculously costly expensive assaulting a level 1 fort will cost around 10,000 men.

For the sieges during the Peloponnese wars, according to Thucydide, the majority took place before the harvests so the cities surrendered quickly. Cities like Athens with naval access could hold a really long time, but it was not the case for cities in the lands. Armies just waited for the assieged city to surrender when they run out of food.

Assaults should cost less men, going for your suggested 1,000 men for each level of fort.

Sieges could last as long as there is food stored in the territory (granaries). This way we can keep sieges but make them faster if the city has no food stored. When food is finished, the city surrenders. Meanwhile there is a siege, no food arrives from the territories to the capital. If the capital has a port, food can arrive by sea if there is no sea blockade.

This could be a nice improvement to the game, giving blockades and food more significance.

 

[Decius]

Did you read the Dev Diary about warfare changes? Though they not gonna change sieges in the way you suggest in the OP, I'm pretty happy with their solution.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Did you read the Dev Diary about warfare changes? Though they not gonna change sieges in the way you suggest in the OP, I'm pretty happy with their solution.

You mean this DD:

Imperator: Rome Developer Diary - 19th of October 2020

Hello and welcome to another development diary for Imperator: Rome. Today I will be talking to you about some of the changes that are coming in the Marius update. It is still early days, so take any and all numbers and screenshots as what they...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

No need to carpet sieging but you need to take all forts. The engineers unit giving +1 to every siege roll, divided by the fort level +1 is nice, but they could add the food limit as an internal factor to reduce the siege time.

 

[WillemDeZwijger]

Lilybaeum held out for 9 years. Sieges should really only be about food, with fort level only mattering if you want to storm it.
But that would require a lot of new mechanics like naval supply lines to simulate. If sieges take long it would be nice if there was more of a 'minigame', somewhat like in Bannerlord. Unlock new siege engines or tunneling via inventions, smuggling, raids, stuff like that.
Give sieged coastal castles a set amount of trade routes you can use to import food from other places in your empire, provided you have control over the required sea zones.
To reduce micro you can delegate all that to generals and governors by default, but it would be a lot more immersive to siege a crucial fortress if it was an actual operation rather than just parking an army for a year.
Surrender chance of smaller fortresses could be a function of food stores, relative army size, province loyalty, (relative) culture happiness, and governor traits. I'd expect some disloyal Greek cities under barbarian rule to submit to Macedon a lot more willingly. Maybe you could even offer them terms? Like a variable amount of money or PP?

 

[Decius]

You mean this DD:

Imperator: Rome Developer Diary - 19th of October 2020

Hello and welcome to another development diary for Imperator: Rome. Today I will be talking to you about some of the changes that are coming in the Marius update. It is still early days, so take any and all numbers and screenshots as what they...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

No need to carpet sieging but you need to take all forts. The engineers unit giving +1 to every siege roll, divided by the fort level +1 is nice, but they could add the food limit as an internal factor to reduce the siege time.

Exactly!

Are you sure that food doesn't already have impact on sieges? Even if it's not siege time directly. Also with the upcoming fort limit, I think it's already a huge nerf on forts. So I would recommend to wait and play 2.0 before suggesting further changes to forts and sieges.

 

[NoUsernamesHere]

The fort system from EU4 doesn't even fit EU4's time period.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Exactly!

Are you sure that food doesn't already have impact on sieges? Even if it's not siege time directly. Also with the upcoming fort limit, I think it's already a huge nerf on forts. So I would recommend to wait and play 2.0 before suggesting further changes to forts and sieges.

Yes food has an impact on fort defense, but not as a timer.

Food - Imperator Wiki (paradoxwikis.com)

Monthly food surpluses or deficits goes into the supply of province food, which allows a province to store extra food during periods of higher production as a buffer for when the food balance falls into deficit. The monthly food production balance is the way that the province food supply can grow or shrink, though there are also various events and missions that interact with it. Province food is always capped at the province food capacity.

For every 12 months of total food consumption stored, up to a maximum of 120 months (i.e. 10 times), a province will get the following modifiers:

• +0.05% Local Population Growth
• +2.5% Local Fort Defense

 

[Decius]

Yes food has an impact on fort defense, but not as a timer.

Food - Imperator Wiki (paradoxwikis.com)

Monthly food surpluses or deficits goes into the supply of province food, which allows a province to store extra food during periods of higher production as a buffer for when the food balance falls into deficit. The monthly food production balance is the way that the province food supply can grow or shrink, though there are also various events and missions that interact with it. Province food is always capped at the province food capacity.

For every 12 months of total food consumption stored, up to a maximum of 120 months (i.e. 10 times), a province will get the following modifiers:

• +0.05% Local Population Growth
• +2.5% Local Fort Defense

If I'm correct than Fort Defense influence the duration of a siege tick. So this would just require rebalancing I guess.

Please continue the discussion, if you like, but I think it's an good example of a feature we should wait to arrive with 2.0 until further discussion makes sense as we have no idea how all the changes turn out.

 

[Iosue Yu]

The fort system from EU4 doesn't even fit EU4's time period.

This.

(Usually I just click like but I have to give an extra reply to show how much I agree.)

 

[Iosue Yu]

If I'm correct than Fort Defense influence the duration of a siege tick. So this would just require rebalancing I guess.

Please continue the discussion, if you like, but I think it's an good example of a feature we should wait to arrive with 2.0 until further discussion makes sense as we have no idea how all the changes turn out.

Just to list some of the current situation I know.

Food impacts Defense Modifiers, and therefore the length of each round of dice.

But...

When under siege, the local Food production will cease while the Pops continue to eat. So if the food actually runs out, you'll get Critical Food Shortage modifier for the Fort and get a giant reduction to round length.

Also I think some dice results also have a deduction of stored food.

 

[IsaacCAT]

If I'm correct than Fort Defense influence the duration of a siege tick. So this would just require rebalancing I guess.

Please continue the discussion, if you like, but I think it's an good example of a feature we should wait to arrive with 2.0 until further discussion makes sense as we have no idea how all the changes turn out.

When under siege, the local Food production will cease while the Pops continue to eat. So if the food actually runs out, you'll get Critical Food Shortage modifier for the Fort and get a giant reduction to round length.

Also I think some dice results also have a deduction of stored food.

You are both right:
Siege - Imperator Wiki (paradoxwikis.com)
(NOTE: the food outcome dice, it only modifies garrison size, strange to simulate this when we have food implemented)

The simulation on the Imperator Wiki says that it would take 8 months on average. Food could play a role not as a modification of time between dice rolls but as an end date. But I am afraid that cities will have stored food for more than the 8 months average duration of a siege. Should food be scarcer? Did we have 8 months of food in all cities at that time?

​