Can't demand because fort isnt occupied is so wrong

[Simoleum]

I actually fail to see how this is relevant in most cases. Several times in history forts (and provinces) have been annexed without being occupied by an attacker. But my main problem is how it is extremely unrealistic in most cases: I am Austria and I am occupying all of Papal States EXCEPT Avignon. My warscore is 99%. I still can't release Avignon as independent state (-1000 due to un-occupied fort). I could understand potentially a slight negative modifier, but -1000 is surely absurd. I mean, if a nation is utterly beated and defeated except a remote fortress, with its capital and all core lands under occupation, how can they deny until the end of time the transfer of an unoccupied fortress?

 

[Soyaman]

I think it's to prevent a scenario where you could annex all of pope land including the fort.
Where realistically, if the land was annexed the pope could retreat to Avignon.

So you're both right and wrong.

But.
This truly becomes an issue when you as, I dunno. Say the Ming have to fight Russia who has zero forts anywhere near you. Having to walk all the way to Europe to take any land.

 

[makaramus]

Well if papal state beliving he is not dominatingly lost and can have better peace deal it makes sense
I mean ... if you are dominating war allready then occupy 1 more fort and finish war

 

[iquabakaner]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-bad-enough-for-peace-deals-with-ai.1062900/
Try this.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's a useful modifier, but probably too strict. 1 tile islands getting the shield is ridiculous (often amounts to throwing). I'd be okay with occupied capital removing the penalty, or making it weaker. Maybe a WS cost penalty. This creates real incentive to protect the capital and signifies the inability to be choosy when your enemy is pitching a tent in your palace.

 

[Rocketskates]

its fine, occupy forts if you want to redraw maps

 

[Dukjlanin]

The worst is "cannot request province because no nearby fort is occupied" or whatever that will apply even if the target has no forts nearby, and you have to march 5 provinces to besiege a fort so you can request a province you're already occupying.

 

[cuendillar]

I guess it's designed to prevent things like occupying England's continental possessions and instead demand a foothold on their island to circumvent their naval power. In many cases, it does indeed result in absurdity though.

 

[Simoleum]

I guess it's designed to prevent things like occupying England's continental possessions and instead demand a foothold on their island to circumvent their naval power. In many cases, it does indeed result in absurdity though.

I do believe however that if you occupied all of England, and you said, all I want is this island over here and some money, they would in everything realistic accept that offer.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

It's a situation where the historicity and the gameplay aren't able to reconcile with each other. Because wars in this game tend to be all out total wars, it's far easier to occupy enemy territory than it was in real life. So something needed to be done in game to make it so stronger countries couldn't just full-annex in a six month war, hence the forts.

What could be done is removing island fort penalty, unless the territory requested is specifically for the island. You could also do some sort of combination of if there is a fort in a state and you want territory in that state, you need to occupy the fort, and then fort within certain geographical proximity. Not sure how difficult that would be to implement or balance, but it might alleviate the frustrations with having to walk from Beijing to Moscow just to siege down one Russian fort.

 

[jahodaradek]

There needs to be some geographical limit. In my game of Castile I waged war with England. While their navy kept killing my ships I managed to get on british isles and occupy all the old England.
But all I wanted was single colony in mexico. And their land was from mexico to brasil. With single fort in brasil. And i could not demand colony in mexico because of fort in brasil.20 provinces far away.

 

[Troopperi]

Could it be tied to regions? So that you have to occupy a fort in a region to take provinces from that region. Might be a bit arbitrary and silly sometimes though since the regional borders are strict.

 

[Simoleum]

I still believe best option would be gradually reducing fort negative based on how much your occupy. If you occupy lots of land, it should go down to -50 or -20, perhaps all the way down to -5 for a fully occupied mainland

 

[bradles0]

I guess it's designed to prevent things like occupying England's continental possessions and instead demand a foothold on their island to circumvent their naval power.

But you can always demand Meath, because no forts with a land border!

 

[inreadible]

I guess it's designed to prevent things like occupying England's continental possessions and instead demand a foothold on their island to circumvent their naval power. In many cases, it does indeed result in absurdity though.

Could this possibly be circumvented by only having the "need to occupy a fort -restriction" apply when the demanded province doesn't connect to you on land. So for example, if France occupied the British Isles but not England's continental provinces, they could still demand the continental provinces as they connect to France's lands. But if France occupied England's continental lands but not the Isles, they could only take the continental lands.

 

[szmik]

easy solution is to limit unoccupied fort restriction to region it's in and neighbouring ones