Army zone of control

[t6.28]

It always feels wired to me, how you, in some situations, can just completely ignore enemy armies and move past their lines, so I'm proposing the following change:
Armies should, similar to forts, have a zone of control, how ever, they should not completely block movement within this area, but, instead, significantly slow down movement adjacent to them (representing the enemies armies effort to avoid encounters), as well as increase attrition (representing smaller encounters between the two armies).
The strength of those effects could then also be based on size, as well as composition of the armies. Bigger armies should slow movement and increase attrition more, armies heavy on cavalry could be more effective at slowing enemy movement and artillery heavy armies could increase attrition more.

 

[magnusvejby]

Well it really doesn't make scene if a army in Kola stops a army in Finnmark 500 KM away. So its a disagree for me.

 

[t6.28]

Well it really doesn't make scene if a army in Kola stops a army in Finnmark 500 KM away. So its a disagree for me.

Well, Kola and Finnmark are a bit of an extreme example, but if you look at the HRE (or other place with many small provinces) and consider that the armies are not really concentrated at one point (and might even send some little troops to different parts of the provinces) it becomes more reasonable that they should in some way affect other armies in the area.

 

[magnusvejby]

Well, Kola and Finnmark are a bit of an extreme example, but if you look at the HRE (or other place with many small provinces) and consider that the armies are not really concentrated at one point (and might even send some little troops to different parts of the provinces) it becomes more reasonable that they should in some way affect other armies in the area.

Well that's the point if this should be implemented paradox should fix every individual province that would take way to long...

 

[t6.28]

Well that's the point if this should be implemented paradox should fix every individual province that would take way to long...

Also, the same logic also applies to forts. Why should your army care about a fort that is 500km away? I think it would, for simplification purposes, be better to just have the same effect strength between all provinces.

 

[magnusvejby]

Well the fort CoZ is stupid too if you ask me.....

 

[Mattius]

Should be based on a colonial range type thing.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

It's a disagree for me too. Back then, there were no lines to be broken (if you're not talking about sieges) through and it happened that an army would march right pass the enemy.

I'm a proponent of the opposite of what you are suggesting, I would like to be able to march into the same province as the enemy and not having to engage him if my commander is skillful at maneuvering.

Also, the same logic also applies to forts. Why should your army care about a fort that is 500km away? I think it would, for simplification purposes, be better to just have the same effect strength between all provinces.

Well, to be honest the fort Zone of Control is just as ahistorical, or even more so. There was no real problem for an army to simply bypass a fort, and they certainly didn't begin to starve as a consequence of doing so, as some poeple here might believe.

I can see the point with ZoC for forts though, from a sole gameplay perspective, and I do think it's an improvement to carpet sieging. But it does naturally lead to ahistorical defensive play, it's discussed in another thread how a mechanic of potential destruction of development could balance this. As some other users have pointed out: there is no real incentive not to hide behind the forts at the moment and let the enemy bleed itself dry with attrition.