1.33 AI Fortification is broken

[Ascarel]

I started new campaign on current patch and after few years almost every single got level 3 fort on their capital.
Bigger countries like ottomans or mamluks are now mantaining dozens of forts all the time, very often next to each other.
Is this intended? This is making it into basically Siege Universalis.
As player I can handle it somehow, but even small OPM wars are now taking even years of constant siege with 10K men.
Small AI countries which can't maintain 10k army aren't basically expanding on each other anymore, even bigger countries are stuck for years on it wihtout doing much.
Fighting as small/mid-size country against great power is literally war of attrition now, as even if you win battles in the time you try to siege one of their forts they are done rebuilding their forces and fe. in my current campaign ottomans got 15 forts without expanding much.

 

[holyvigil]

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 25th of January 2022

Hello folks, Gnivom here. Today I’ll talk about some of the many AI updates coming in the next patch, 1.33. At the end I’ll also mention some minor but impactful changes to the rules of land combat. Our last major update, we shipped some AI...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Read this. This was the announcement of Fort Universalis.

 

[Ascarel]

Thanks for link, instead of fixing problem we had we got opposite problem now
I was hoping that era of making game less fun and more annoying with every patch ended with last EU4 team leader, but it seems I was wrong

 

[regne_valencia]

Since the release of art of war, forts has been always a broken feature.

I hope for eu 5 we dont see again broken features like forts, expelling minorities etc...

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Thanks for link, instead of fixing problem we had we got opposite problem now
I was hoping that era of making game less fun and more annoying with every patch ended with last EU4 team leader, but it seems I was wrong

Players actually need to commit to wars rather than being a stack wipe and carpet siege. Now players use up manpower and the ai has a chance to recover from hyper aggressive play making the strategy less optimal
Neighbouring tags can now dog pile the attacker weakened by siege losses and not just the defender

 

[ArtFart]

Much better in 1.33 than 1.32 for me. I enjoy having an actual challenge against the AI now, adds tension especially when sieging a large nation, no idea when a 50K stack could jump scare you

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I prefer the AI to build more forts than it should logically build, than to not build them where it definitely should.

Always disliked stack hunting and carpet sieging.

 

[Vin55]

This just makes it a siege battle with rng thrown into the mix, not all nations had forts, could maintain one or where willing to pay for one. Most wars where not decided on sieges, but chokepoints like river crossing, when for example prussians and english held back the french behind the rivers in the 7 Year war, it was a major victory for them.

 

[PDXJon]

This just makes it a siege battle with rng thrown into the mix, not all nations had forts, could maintain one or where willing to pay for one. Most wars where not decided on sieges, but chokepoints like river crossing, when for example prussians and english held back the french behind the rivers in the 7 Year war, it was a major victory for them.

There was a time when combat width was tied to terrain. This allowed you to fight strategicall and hold off larger foes. It’s one of the changes that I truly hate. I’m doing a WC in 1.32 and it’s too easy. I’m fully annexing tags in two to three years. It’s a bit nuts. It may need some adjusting, but I think more forts is better than a few or none.

Edit: Strategicall? Should be strategically.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The number one problem with forts, especially advanced forts, is how much they cost to build and maintain relative to a standing army.

10 level 4 forts cost 4000 ducats up front. For the same price tag, you can improve your base force limit by 20 (modified by NIs and idea groups), and almost certainly will maintain them less expensively. Fully maintaining 10 level 4 forts is 20 ducats/mo. Even if you inflate force limit with quantity ideas, you can maintain 30 more troops at a fraction of the cost, even if some of them are cannons. Probably even if you mothball the forts...which the AI was recently instructed not to do.

When talking about challenge, I wonder how many people really believe that using extra time to siege forts is a greater challenge than 20-30 more regiments (per nation in the conflict!). Especially if the nation in question is joining the war as an ally against them, and needs its wartime investments to be capable of leaving borders to be relevant.

I’m fully annexing tags in two to three years. It’s a bit nuts. It may need some adjusting, but I think more forts is better than a few or none.

Forts are only a minor speedbump to late game WC, because with -cost modifiers + capital sieged player can take vast majority of them in first conflict vs the target, while simultaneously tanking enemy's capability to rebuild either those or an army.

 

[MatthewP]

The number one problem with forts, especially advanced forts, is how much they cost to build and maintain relative to a standing army.

10 level 4 forts cost 4000 ducats up front. For the same price tag, you can improve your base force limit by 20 (modified by NIs and idea groups), and almost certainly will maintain them less expensively. Fully maintaining 10 level 4 forts is 20 ducats/mo. Even if you inflate force limit with quantity ideas, you can maintain 30 more troops at a fraction of the cost, even if some of them are cannons. Probably even if you mothball the forts...which the AI was recently instructed not to do.

When talking about challenge, I wonder how many people really believe that using extra time to siege forts is a greater challenge than 20-30 more regiments (per nation in the conflict!). Especially if the nation in question is joining the war as an ally against them, and needs its wartime investments to be capable of leaving borders to be relevant.

20-30 extra regiments to kill or 10 extra level 4 forts to siege? My reaction is definitely the forts are a bigger challenge and it’s not close.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

20-30 extra regiments to kill or 10 extra level 4 forts to siege? My reaction is definitely the forts are a bigger challenge and it’s not close.

Forts without armies don't accomplish much.

Before you trivialize income late game, do YOU carry forts as 25-50% of your military budget? If you don't think it's good play to do so, why do you consider the AI doing so to be good play for the AI?

 

[leefnmajors]

Considering an AI with hundreds of regiments is routinely referred to as "the Bank of Ming", I'm pretty sure most players would consider an AI spamming forts a bigger challenge.

It REALLY helps the AI compensate for the inability to choose favorable terrain to stage pitched battles, and if they're of inferior size/quality to you it ensures that there is always a manpower price to be payed for conquering a nation by making you siege a certain amount of forts every time you go to war with them and their allies.

 

[MatthewP]

Forts without armies don't accomplish much.

Before you trivialize income late game, do YOU carry forts as 25-50% of your military budget? If you don't think it's good play to do so, why do you consider the AI doing so to be good play for the AI?

Ikd, it’s obviously not the real case but in most situations I will take much longer and lose more troops fighting an enemy with 0 troops and 10 level 4 forts than one with 30k troops and zero forts. If there is a decent army to threaten siege stacks the relative effect of forts is even greater.

On your other point, I don’t keep tons of forts because I’m a hyper-expansionist who basically only fights wars where I’m at an advantage. Also because I’m much better tactically, the flexibility of troops is a much greater advantage versus the static defense of forts than it is for the AI.

 

[Seruman96]

I am in love with the current fort emphasis of AI to say the least. I get to fight actual battles and have some tense sieges along our shared borders. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the previous iteration when no AI country had any proper forts to halt people's advance? Yes!

I understand why and how the new system may cause some issues, but I would prefer not to jump to any conclusions and instead try to figure out a way to make it even better by collaborative brainstorming. It may be more "annoying" but after all it is objectively better and more realistic when it comes to the fact that the AI is now actually making an effort to defend itself against enemy invasions. Can it be improved? YES! As anything else in this world, it can be further improved. Perhaps limiting the forts as one per area could be useful, or making sure that they are not built next to each other. Moreover, changes can be made to the cost of forts, both building and maintaining them.

I for one hated the whole cat and mouse scenario of previous iterations, or how fighting against a bigger foe I would start as easily carpet sieging half of their country. Though I am not a historian of warfare (just an MA student still), I know enough to argue that it was ridiculous. There has to be defensive efforts both alongside the border, and further inland in advantageous positions. Now the AI does exactly that. If the majority of players argue that it is more annoying than fun, then I suppose some nerfing can be in order. Before that though, I would ask my friends in the community to give it some more time, and see if it grows on them through the fun memories they have of memorable actual sieges, huge battles fought alongside forts, and lovely chokes in the battlefield that actually ask you to plan ahead before a war.

 

[MachopPower69]

At least this makes Offensive and Espionage ideas better because more spy network decreases siege time plus the -20% siege time from Offensive ideas. Plus if you are a theocracy you get +20% siege ability from Espionage-Divine ideas; and +10% from innovative-Offensive

Basically with normal modifiers and plains terrain, max army tradition, 100% spy network, improve inland routes trade policy, Tengri with Coptic, max army professionalism, siege specialist, 6 siege pips (7% x 6 based on a reddit source), Luxembourger ambition (Not the only nation, there is Ferrara, Ormond, plus more)

100% SN = 20%
100% AT = 5%
IRTP = 10%
Tengri-Copt = 10%
100% AP = 20%
Siege Specialist = 15%
6 Siege Pips = 42%
Lux Amb = 10%
Offensive Ideas = 20%
Espio-Divine = 20%
Inno-Off = 10%
Plains = 0%

Result = 182%

This doesn't include the dice rolls and phases and events because I'd have to write a book as thick as the bible to explain that.

Basically with those modifiers, sieging forts would be faster than sieging a province without a fort

Source of the reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/8keqne

 

[FrogCrusher]

20-30 extra regiments to kill or 10 extra level 4 forts to siege? My reaction is definitely the forts are a bigger challenge and it’s not close.

I think you mixed up challenge and tedious. Lots of things were added to the game to slow down the player and the blob. But when looking deeper, most of them are not additional challenge but additional tediousness. As for court house spam for gov. capacity.

However, I have to say that it is better now than before where Ottos deleted there forts on Constantinople... Or even the patch before where any AI upgraded their level 2 forts.

 

[bokorthedust]

Basically with those modifiers, sieging forts would be faster than sieging a province without a fort

Except it wouldn't, because you can't go below 3 day ticks. And non fort provinces would fall in 3 days, forts would need a couple of ticks depending on fort level, cannons, siege pips and the dice rolls you mention. So sieging a fort can never be faster then occupying a non-fort province, but if you stack everything you can and/or are willing to spend mil to breach the walls, low level forts could fall on the first 3 day tick.

 

[grommile]

Since the release of art of war, forts has been always a broken feature.

Your memory is playing tricks on you.

Art of War/patch 1.8 had no major effect on forts; they were at least mostly the same in 1.8 as they were at release.

It was patch 1.12 (alongside Common Sense) that introduced the new fort system.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

The number one problem with forts, especially advanced forts, is how much they cost to build and maintain relative to a standing army.

10 level 4 forts cost 4000 ducats up front. For the same price tag, you can improve your base force limit by 20 (modified by NIs and idea groups), and almost certainly will maintain them less expensively. Fully maintaining 10 level 4 forts is 20 ducats/mo. Even if you inflate force limit with quantity ideas, you can maintain 30 more troops at a fraction of the cost, even if some of them are cannons. Probably even if you mothball the forts...which the AI was recently instructed not to do.

When talking about challenge, I wonder how many people really believe that using extra time to siege forts is a greater challenge than 20-30 more regiments (per nation in the conflict!). Especially if the nation in question is joining the war as an ally against them, and needs its wartime investments to be capable of leaving borders to be relevant.



Forts are only a minor speedbump to late game WC, because with -cost modifiers + capital sieged player can take vast majority of them in first conflict vs the target, while simultaneously tanking enemy's capability to rebuild either those or an army.

If we are talking 10 level 4 forts we are talking 1600 onwards.

By that point you will be lobbing around a force limit of at least 200k, i don't think the enemy having another 30k stack makes much of a difference, but having to siege down 10 level 4 forts will wipe out your manpower reserves by the end of the war and probably catch one of your stacks off guard in an unfavourable siege battle at least once.

Now of course if the argument here is the relative value of forts vs conscription centers, granted i would definitely want to build conscription centers in every province, i would never do the same with forts, but that doesn't mean a conscription center is always more worthwhile than a fort.