Border sieges

[Pyske]

In the current siege system, it is no more difficult to besiege a capital province buried deep in the heart of my territory than it is to conquer lone, vulnerable, or surrounded provinces.

Would it be feasible to add a siege modifier to account for neighboring friendly provinces? The modifier could be relatively small, but encourage conflict along the borders of an empire, where they could more realistically be supported and fed, rather than deep in the heart of enemy territory.

I'm thinking something along the lines of +0.25% attrition and +1% defensiveness per adjacent friendly (unoccupied) province. Enough to be noticeable without completely changing the current siege landscape.

 

[BFTeixeira]

Theoretically +1
But:

Entire theory (and practice) of fortification system is that you have border regions which are fortified, and they are protecting vulnerable underbelly...
They only country I remember which was not really following that idea were Netherlands - at some point one big fortress.

I would propose few changes to current system:
1. The warscore gain for capturing province should be modified by fortress size. So capturing important fortress (like level 5 + march) should mean A lot.
2. Loose of heavily fortified province should impact War Exhaustion.
3. Movement from unoccupied province to another province should have be slower (fortress size should be a factor here).
4. Supply lines should be simulated (EU 2 style).

That would probably boost FM indirectly, but also maneuver would be more important.

I never got to play EU2. How did supply lines worked in that game?

 

[saegoto]

+1

 

[Y. D. Dandy]

Rushing for Moscow is something the Poles and French both tried in this time period. Someone should ask Sigismund and Napoleon how that turned out.

And yes, I tend to rush for the capital too when I can't carpet siege, including with Russia. I also take roving assault-stacks to the poorly-fortified interiors of large countries without even bothering to overrun the well-fortified border (usually I have vassals and allies to take care of that). I should not be able to do either of these things.

Interestingly, when the AI does share a border with the enemy it acts like supply lines are an issue. Rather than rush for high-value provinces but takes one province after another, moving in from the border. It only targets interior provinces if I'm already sieging all the border provinces.

Theoretically +1
I would propose few changes to current system:
1. The warscore gain for capturing province should be modified by fortress size. So capturing important fortress (like level 5 + march) should mean A lot.
2. Loose of heavily fortified province should impact War Exhaustion.
3. Movement from unoccupied province to another province should have be slower (fortress size should be a factor here).
4. Supply lines should be simulated (EU 2 style).

I don't know how EU2 supply lines work so I can't comment on that, but I second the first three suggestions wholeheartedly.

 

[Andrzej2]

I completly agree. They should also add supply lines. I haven't played Hearts of Iron much but I think that in this game there was something like that. Unit without connection to friendly territories should be more vulnerable. To fight at full strenght you should first conquer provinces that are on the way from your country to your goal, not rush for capital without consequences.

 

[grommile]

I completly agree. They should also add supply lines. I haven't played Hearts of Iron much but I think that in this game there was something like that.

HoI3 has a complete supply tracking system (which is, um, computationally intensive).

EU2 apparently had some kind of supply-lines mechanic, but I have no idea what it was.

Unit without connection to friendly territories should be more vulnerable. To fight at full strenght you should first conquer provinces that are on the way from your country to your goal, not rush for capital without consequences.

There are consequences for rushing someone's capital, if you violate supply limits along the way. When you enter a province in which you would take attrition, you immediately take attrition even if you're just passing through. Rushing from the Euphrates to Samarkand with a large army will really sting your manpower pool (and WE level).

 

[Andrzej2]

There are consequences for rushing someone's capital, if you violate supply limits along the way. When you enter a province in which you would take attrition, you immediately take attrition even if you're just passing through. Rushing from the Euphrates to Samarkand with a large army will really sting your manpower pool (and WE level).

I know that. I meant that there should also be some additional penalties for being cut off from your friendly provinces.

 

[Pyske]

It is worth noting that boosting the siege defense of internal provinces would also increase the value and usability of the scorched earth feature.

 

[grommile]

It is worth noting that boosting the siege defense of internal provinces would also increase the value and usability of the scorched earth feature.

And, it should be noted, the value of mercspam assaults.

 

[BFTeixeira]

I know that. I meant that there should also be some additional penalties for being cut off from your friendly provinces.

In my opinion, armies with no connection to friendly provinces, shouldn't be able to reinforce, and attrition should increase over time like when you have a fleet for a long time not docked.

 

[Pyske]

And, it should be noted, the value of mercspam assaults.

Not sure I followed that. Does that just mean assaulting with disposable troops in order to quickly gain occupied territory (and thus reduce the attrition and defensiveness penalties)?

 

[Freudia]

Not sure I followed that. Does that just mean assaulting with disposable troops in order to quickly gain occupied territory (and thus reduce the attrition and defensiveness penalties)?

Yes. This is already a pretty good tactic later in the game when your income is large enough to support it; making sieges even more obnoxious will only magnify the value of this tactic.

The side effect is that while you're making sieges take longer, wars in the second half of the game become shorter by mandatory virtue of attrition gouging. This is a game where enough restrictions and mechanics are at work where the standard practice is to circumvent them in some fashion.

 

[Incompetent]

EU2 apparently had some kind of supply-lines mechanic, but I have no idea what it was.

There was a distinction between provinces 'in supply' and 'out of supply'. To be 'in supply', you had to be able to trace a path of covered/occupied provinces back to friendly territory (and in EU2, you can't park an army in an enemy-controlled province unless you have enough troops to siege - any less, and your army will immediately be forced to retreat). Out-of-supply armies suffered severe penalties to supply limit and maximum attrition. (There were also special rules for port provinces, so you could trace supply back through a port, and blockaded ports gave a very high supply limit to the blockading force.) So if you wanted to send a big army deep into enemy territory, you basically had to either roll out a siege carpet behind your army, or watch your soliders start bleeding out of every orifice at once. (Attrition generally was brutal in EU2 - you suffered 1% attrition just for moving an army, even through friendly territory, and in winter you could lose as much as 25% of your army in a single month.)