-1000 reasons to accept peace nonsense plus AI cheating on peace offers.

[TheMeInTeam]

So your suggestion is that new mechanics should only be implemented if they are absolutely perfect and bug-free? (if you mean that by "finished")

Perfect/bug free? I wish but reality isn't that kind.

Functional? Yes, we should at least be reaching that standard. There are 1000+ hour vets trying to explain to me how this thing works and in the process of doing so demonstrating they don't know all the nuances. That's not functional.

I strongly disagree that fort system net-improved the game compared to alternative implementations. There was more than one way to kill carpet sieging, and not all of them were engine-breaking.

I realize that, but usually, if you beat up an AI to the point of a favorable peace deal, they are hardly a threat anymore. If you can beat an AI once, you can do it again, specially since said "again" includes you chipping off a good chunk of development away from them into you. Might be helpful to knock down a major power like Ottomans or Russia down a peg for an easier round 2, but given, round 2 isn't supposed to be too hard anyway.

It's not a huge deal, just a nice time saver. Bankrupting someone into smaller bites/less war score to completely remove them later is helpful. -3 stab might not doing, but if it procs disaster too it might and the price on this one is not exactly high.

 

[Twoflower]

Functional? Yes, we should at least be reaching that standard. There are 1000+ hour vets trying to explain to me how this thing works and in the process of doing so demonstrating they don't know all the nuances. That's not functional.

And this is where we diverge. Functional to me means "working alright in normal circumstances and without major errors". The fort system does that, in my humble opinion. It has some weird side effects, but these are not game breaking, to me. That, however, might be because I am perfectly fine with not understanding everything that goes on under the hood, and because I do not mind playing suboptimally (which is, if I'm being honest, not being able to predict some moves essentially is).
The game is fun to me even if sometimes I am not sure why my army cannot make a certain move, or why sometimes the AI is able to take a move I reckoned it wouldn't be able to take.
This small element of uncertainty and intransparency is much better than carpet sieging, and I personally also like forts as a strategic element. Varying mileage doesn't mean that either of our opinions is invalid

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And this is where we diverge. Functional to me means "working alright in normal circumstances and without major errors". The fort system does that, in my humble opinion. It has some weird side effects, but these are not game breaking, to me.

I watched two people quit playing the game over being screwed by it, one of them very experienced.

The fact that you can lose movement ability as a consequence of capturing a fort is a major error. The fact that different units on the same spot have different movement possibilities and you can't see them all at once is a major error. The fact that to this day players who want to do so can trivially use one of a few techniques to simply walk through ZoC is a major bug with significant consequences.

And it was actually more broken when initially released, since they could magnetize you while you're in your own borders back then.

It's reasonable to say that this mechanic is not enough to completely ruin this game by itself for most of the players. It is, however, still a net detriment to this game at this point and it's disappointing to see it given so little priority for years on end despite its opaque nature and consistently nonintuitive interactions.

 

[Dominion]

It's reasonable to say that this mechanic is not enough to completely ruin this game by itself for most of the players. It is, however, still a net detriment to this game at this point and it's disappointing to see it given so little priority for years on end despite its opaque nature and consistently nonintuitive interactions.

Lol. Playing the game is enough to quit the game. I've been back for maybe three patches and dislike it again already.

Never understood the fixation on ZoC. Half the mechanics either can not or should not be used because they're broken or riddled with exploits. CNs, tributaries, rebels, general diplomatic inferactions, culture conversion, POI, peacedeals, CtA, PUs, IA, events, formable nations, etcetcetc. Not much of the actual game left other than mindless blobbing and vassals.

If you were to ask me to answer from the top of my head I could only name three high level players that aren't massive exploit users with everyone finding new excuses to justify the behavior of abusing broken mechanics, mainly "it's normal to do that" and "everyone is doing it".

Think that's saying all there is to say about the state of the game.

Sure, ZoC is broken, but it's the only broken mechanic where you can't abuse it in your favor.


Five bucks that that's the true reason players are pissed.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sure, ZoC is broken, but it's the only broken mechanic where you can't abuse it in your favor.
Five bucks that that's the true reason players are pissed.

What are you talking about, of course you can. Despite players complaining about AI ignoring ZoC here and there, it is possible for players to do it blatantly and consistently, blowing clean past 100% maintained forts with a little setup.

I suppose you could also just stand on a mothballed fort with something behind it to bait AI past then trap it, but considering that most of the mid-late game this is going to cost time rather than saving it and that you can still micro to stackwipe targets on the spot if you really want there's not much utility. You can do it though.

Forts are just annoying. In addition to the opaqueness and all the other criticisms I've thrown, it doesn't help their popularity that they're basically a big c-block with an otherwise terrible cost proposition in single player.

And yes, I've mostly gone over to HOI 4. That game is just as mechanically broken if not more so, but as you say playing anything long enough makes it lose luster. I think I got my money's worth here and will probably revisit the game more often later.

 

[Dominion]

We all got our money's worth, but it's still a joke that there isn't a single patch for me to play on where I can use at least most functions.

Every time something big gets fixed something of equal importance gets broken.
Or the fix isn't a true fix. Like POI, which finally got the fix we needed just to introduce 2 new bugs and one exploit.

I'd revert to a patch from 2016 and lose out on all DLCs if I could just get a game where I don't have to learn to avoid certain mechanics because they're instawin buttons.

 

[Sharples88]

Sure, ZoC is broken, but it's the only broken mechanic where you can't abuse it in your favor.

Five bucks that that's the true reason players are pissed.

What? That's not the reason at all. It's the fact that ZOC rules aren't properly explained and the special rules are confusing to understand. Even right now, in patch 1.24, movement is still not cancelled when you make the movement before the fort is turned on, when you enable it, armies still move through the forts.

Or the fact that massive sea zones, where you land from ignore ZOC all together as Reman explained in his own video, this is silly and causing problems where two armies are in the same exact province but one army can move to the province next door while the other army can't because it's in the same sea zone.

Or how overlapping ZOC forts make you trapped and you have to conform template to escape it

Or how you move a unit around ZOC, (as intended) into a desired province, while the main army sieges down the fort, then use conform template for that army into the one regiment army, which now allows you to move through that area for free.

Or how you can at times move right past forts that are on A BORDER because of the movement rules in place.

Or how four armies that are in the same province have to all take different routes to get to the next province.

I mean, do you not see a problem here? I certainly ain't using ZOC as an excuse to abuse the AI. It's badly constructed. Reman's video only helped reinforce how convoluted the system is, before this there was little information fully explaining it. I HATE this kind of mentality, where you have to find out what these mechanics do and don't do based on assumptions and trial and error.

 

[Badesumofu]

Count me as one the people who think the admittedly messy, convoluted, and poorly explained (to the extent that they even are explained at all) ZOC are a relatively minor concern. I mean, usually start my games by deleting forts. When I conquer existing forts they mostly are kept around just long enough to deal with the devastation and rebels (if I'm expecting any). They are a horrible way to spend your precious ducats, just an awful investment. Unless you're planning to be invaded, why pay money for them?

Now, that's not great game design in itself - forts are basically a noob-trap outside of some specific cases where they are worth it. But it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of the game.

Dealing with wonky ZOC when on the offensive - well you just deal with it. Siege them down and move on. There are much more annoying things to deal with than ZOC. Forts aren't that annoying since MoH and its breach button, Napoleonic Warfare, and free +1 siege ability from Age of Reformation anyway.

I'd be more concerned about Estates being an annoying minigame and the completely underwhelming nature of things like Professionalism bonuses, Trade Policies, and Edicts. We need more real game-changers in there like some of the Age bonuses are. Things that lead to really hard choices between compelling options rather than which mostly irrelevant setting to pick and then forget to change for a few decades because it isn't really worth caring about.

 

[Ironside121]

"I don't like it, therefore it must be a majority opinion" (also, is there a compelling need to be profane?)

I never said majority. Many =/= majority. I will not say that it is a majority opinion either, despite my comment being 4 Agrees, 3 Disagrees and 1 Helpful. The forums aren't the whole playerbase and even all the forumers probably don't make a majority of the playerbase even. But it has widely angered many in the community.

And profane? Would you preferred I typed out "bullshit"? It's just a word. Try not to get too offended by someone on the internet typing out "BS".

 

[Twoflower]

I never said majority. Many =/= majority. I will not say that it is a majority opinion either, despite my comment being 4 Agrees, 3 Disagrees and 1 Helpful. The forums aren't the whole playerbase and even all the forumers probably don't make a majority of the playerbase even. But it has widely angered many in the community.

Well, the implication was clearly that it is a feature that should be removed without a second thought. Which I, and I believe a non-insignificant part of the player base disagree with. The game is better with the new fort system than without it, warts and all.

And profane? Would you preferred I typed out "bullshit"? It's just a word. Try not to get too offended by someone on the internet typing out "BS".

Oh, offended? No, not at all. Displeased by this being the apparent standard of discussion in a forum which used to have (not really the EU4 forum, which has always been poisoned by pseudo-leet-gamer-types) a notably higher, more civil, adult and intelligent standard of discussion than that. Yes. I was just trying to point out that you could have voiced your (legitimate) opinion in a less toxic and aggressive way
But never mind.