Armies should have a zone of control to occupy neighbouring territories

[Denkt]

Given that small size of territories compared to provinces in for example EUIV and the fact there are so many of them I think an army should not only occupy the territory they are in but every territory next to it if no enemy forts or army have a zone of control over that territory. It would make stuff a little less tedious than they are now.

Also another change I would like to see is if all forts and the provincial capital is occupied, that all territories in that province will be automatically occupied by the controller of the provincial capital, this make alot of sense since cities often surrendered in order to avoid being sacked and if all military capacity of the province is gone I don't see why they would not surrender and it would make war a bit less tedious since you would no longer need to move an army to every single territory in the province to get it fully occupied for the wargoal to start ticking down.

 

[CaptinObvious]

Yes, this would save from so much micro/wrist pain

 

[GurenGaaze]

These are good suggestion to lessen the micro managemen with little to no negative effects.
It should take a little bit more time to occupy nearby territories, which would take about the same as actually sending 1k armies over there.

 

[Denkt]

These are good suggestion to lessen the micro managemen with little to no negative effects.
It should take a little bit more time to occupy nearby territories, which would take about the same as actually sending 1k armies over there.

You can simply add 15 or so days to it if you want to.

 

[Apologist]

Bump.

 

[Efimer]

I suggest to consider centralization of the target too: more decentralization would mean more time for the occupation.
Btw, that's not really a zoc.

 

[Vohen]

I like the second idea much better than the first one, and I see them as solving pretty much the same problem.
The issue I have with the first one is that players could easily cheese the attrition system with that, increasing even further the advantage we already got from food.

 

[Denkt]

I like the second idea much better than the first one, and I see them as solving pretty much the same problem.
The issue I have with the first one is that players could easily cheese the attrition system with that, increasing even further the advantage we already got from food.

The second solution also use the exact same rules as what is used for a nation to annex a province so it is just development upon that logic

 

[Vohen]

The second solution also use the exact same rules as what is used for a nation to annex a province so it is just development upon that logic

Indeed, but it's less exploitative, as you have to actively go into enemy territory to siege the province's capital and forts.

 

[Denkt]

Indeed, but it's less exploitative, as you have to actively go into enemy territory to siege the province's capital and forts.

It also make forts a bit more valuable which may be a good thing.