Delete impossibility to move because fort

[charlymi6]

Again,
It's stupid,
It's absolutly non-historical,
It's against all logic of gameplay,
Only stupid fanboys can support that system.

You can't move from a province without fort to an other province without fort, because there are a fort near this area = WTF

Ex : War Venice against Ottomans, Venice have south of greece and constantinople, you stay blocked in Salonik with your army from south.
You ask access to serbia, because ottomans have a fort in vallachia you can go everywhere in bulgaria/greece exepct Ottomans capital Edirne = WTF

How many time all regular players in europa are trap because it's impossible to help yours ally, to follow an ennemy army, or the worst when you have incredible movements to do : for going help one of your army/ally in an adjacent province you have to move back on several province, like in Prussia for ex Kulm/Marienbourg.

This system is only madness in a great great game. You know it's like think it's only here for make angry players.

Where is the logic when you can't do a simple movement between adjacent province because there are a fort in a third?

I don't want listen it's for gameplay, gameplay it's : move your ass and win battle, follow and destroy the ennemy army if you can for win war fastly if it's 1vs1 and move your army freely like before. If there are different country in the war or if it's a big country like russia, that don't change many things like in reallity and on old version because ennemy can rebuild an army or stay reenforcement or you don't will follow him because there are others ennemy to fight.

We need to have the possibility to move everywhere in ennemy territory freely with ours army.

We need the possibility like before to make an incursion inside ennemy country for engage a battle against ennemy army or support ally army.

Gameplay it's not see your ennemy rebuild all this army to the next province because you can't move because there are a fort somewhere. i don't care about this fort, i'm a true general, i show my ass to the defenders and i say hey i will destroy all army of your nation and come back for you coward soldiers hidden in castle don't worry.

Gameplay it's not see your ally army loose all battle in a adjacent province without possibility to help them if they are a fucking fort.

I don't understand really, this game is better and better with all dlc exepct for this shit.

Please just delete this system.

Fort as castle and for keep adjacent province freely if there are not ennemy ok, good idea.

Fort for block movements no, just forget this idea it's horrible, frustrating, worst gameplay ever seen, absolutly non-historical.

Move back and restaure free movement for army please it's not complicated and we will recover the fun on this game

 

[BrokenSky]

How about a compromise; being able to force your guys to do a punch through. Costs like a lot of mil points, maybe 25 per fort zone of control you're moving through, and you take major casualties. Like unlimited attrition (no 5% cap) or something?
Basically to stop the one scenario where a large army gets caught in a ring of forts and can't move.

So punching through a fort chain wall would cost probably something like 100-300 points, depending on routing... hmm. But yeah basically you take losses like you storm the fort, but you don't actually occupy the fort; you just force march your army through the killing fields...

Something like that.

 

[SolSys]

If you remove the blocked movement then there isn't any point at all to the new fort system. You'll have to built multiple forts like it was before the change was done.

If you don't mind a compromise, like BrokenSky suggested, then how about if you want to punch through you'll have to fight with forts garrison each time you pass through.
The garrison size won't change from the battles and you get to where you want if you're willing to pay the price [casualties].

 

[GiftGruen]

Well, what stopped armies in history from circumventing an unoccupied fort was not that the garrison stopped their passage or sth, but that the garrison sat in their fort and raided every convoy that followed that army. So there would be attrition (only 1x supply base, unless coastal, perhaps even no bonus from tech, some % of extra attrition) and no reinforcements.

 

[charlymi6]

Forbid reinforcements, and up attriction it could be a very good idea, just think it's not heart of iron (army don't need fuel/modern things, they need mainly food) and troops can use provincial goods for too

Move far inside ennemy territory without penalties is not fair and not historical.

But we need the possibility to move like in realty and for don't have stupid situation like can't help an ally army or finish an ennemy army in the next province

 

[grommile]

Forbid reinforcements, and up attriction it could be a very good idea,

No, it would be a terrible idea, because it would gimp the AI and further encourage player micromanagement.

 

[BrokenSky]

No, it would be a terrible idea, because it would gimp the AI and further encourage player micromanagement.

That is a valid point; the aI would be unlikely to be able to handle it well...
Aside from this though I can't think of any other major problems. Can you?

 

[charlymi6]

Watever, this system is a big problem in war, last exemple, Ottomans/Crimea ( with all balkans) against Ukraine/Russia/Prussia(me) :

I pass by serbia, i go fight an ennemy army in constantinople, i win. my ally fight to the next province in bulgaria, i have to pass again by serbia then moldavia for help them = WTF STUPID GAME
This system is only stupidity, it's a big piece of shit in a game almost perfect because we can't never know where we can go and war can be loose because this.

It's simple : delete impossibility to move freely our army across ennemy territory like in reality, then you can discuss about penalities or not, i don't care, i just want be free to move in the next province for join a battle and not have to trip 2/3k thousands kilometers for this, because it's totaly non-historical, totaly illogical and 100% STUPID !!!

 

[kviiri]

Gameplay it's not see your ennemy rebuild all this army to the next province because you can't move because there are a fort somewhere. i don't care about this fort, i'm a true general, i show my ass to the defenders and i say hey i will destroy all army of your nation and come back for you coward soldiers hidden in castle don't worry.

You seriously think being able to chase down enemy armies without giving them a chance to fight back was good gameplay? It was a terrible system where the winner of the first battle can churn out a steamroll victory by boring, pointless and unrealistic chases. I'm glad it's gone and I hope it'll never be brought back. Wars are far more tense, entertaining and realistic with the new fort system precisely because there's the possibility to recover from a lost battle.

 

[BrokenSky]

You seriously think being able to chase down enemy armies without giving them a chance to fight back was good gameplay? It was a terrible system where the winner of the first battle can churn out a steamroll victory by boring, pointless and unrealistic chases. I'm glad it's gone and I hope it'll never be brought back. Wars are far more tense, entertaining and realistic with the new fort system precisely because there's the possibility to recover from a lost battle.

While that is true, it is sometimes infuriating (when you have to spit your stacks due too attrition, for example) to have a battle in an adjacent territory and go to reinforce, only to find the routing requires you go through 2 other provinces. More so when you get there just too late; you lose the battle, but you're already locked into attacking again with your reinforcements...

Sometimes it can be pretty unintuitive which province borders are locked, especially where there is more than one fort.

The fact that you can recover is good though; most of what you've said I find I do agree with.

 

[charlymi6]

You seriously think being able to chase down enemy armies without giving them a chance to fight back was good gameplay? It was a terrible system where the winner of the first battle can churn out a steamroll victory by boring, pointless and unrealistic chases. I'm glad it's gone and I hope it'll never be brought back. Wars are far more tense, entertaining and realistic with the new fort system precisely because there's the possibility to recover from a lost battle.

But possibility to move everywhere it's realistic! wake up!

Where do you seen in history an army can't move for fight an ennemy army because there are a fucking fort somewhere?
Have the choice to siege fort province for occupate territory or to move for fight ennemy army, yeah this is realistic

When you win a battle against a little country you can finish this army and have a truce quickly = reality.
When it's a great country, follow one army take time and reinforcement, during this time ennemy can build troops in others province and invade your territory
When there are several ennemy it's the same.
Like in history, in some war win a battle and you win the war, in some other wars no.
Yes i know history is unfair

A good gameplay? stay blocked everywhere without possibility to help your ally or move in an adjacent province without fort???
Just look an ennemy have reinforcement to the next province without possibility to fight them? a good gameplay? realistic?
Defender have a big advantage for moving and can win in several battle a lot of different ennemy army only because they can't join together in an adjacent province or not quickly with incredible trip by 3/4/5/10 provinces! it's realistic maybe?

I repeat, when you're in constantinople (and you come from serbia) with 50k army, and have to move by serbia hungary and moldavia for going help your ally in the adjacent province of burgas in bulgaria ITS TOTALY STUPID.

If you say this is realistic and a good gameplay, you have absolutely no sense of history and your definition of gameplay it's something absolutely illogical.

 

[kviiri]

Just look an ennemy have reinforcement to the next province without possibility to fight them? a good gameplay? realistic?

Yes, as I explained in my previous post.

If you say this is realistic and a good gameplay, you have absolutely no sense of history and your definition of gameplay it's something absolutely illogical.

You apparently mistake late Medieval wars and Early Modern era wars for huge games of tag.

 

[charlymi6]

Yes, as I explained in my previous post.

You explain NOTHING kviiri.

You apparently mistake late Medieval wars and Early Modern era wars for huge games of tag.

Dude, during all history all army can move freely everywhere (i don't care about supply, weather, attriction, i talk about the possibility).

Where have you seen in history, an army don't have possibility to move in a close area (for help an ally army in a battle or finish a defeated army that have stop here) because there are a fort in an other close area???

Do you live in our world?

I say again the only thing to do : recover possibility to move freely everywhere. Your world with invisible wall doesn't exist in reality and it's a big piece of shit in the game.

 

[kviiri]

You explain NOTHING kviiri.

Uh, yes I did. I said it was poor gameplay and gave my reasons for thinking so. I don't think the current system is perfect but movement restrictions significantly improve the game compared to the old system where almost every war became decisive after the first battle and most of the time was spent carpet sieging after the enemy was crushed. If you think that's realistic, you're the one who's misinformed about history, not me. Real wars of the period often hinged on controlling strategic forts but rarely if ever on armies chasing each other down until one was annihilated.

Dude, during all history all army can move freely everywhere (i don't care about supply, weather, attriction, i talk about the possibility).

On one hand you're trying to appeal to realism and on the other hand you say you don't care about supply and weather, attrition and the like. You do realize that armies without supply lines would starve to death? And that with enemy forts intercepting their envoys, how would they receive their orders? Real life never ran on video game logistics where orders travel by telepathy and the men can eat air for sustenance.

I say again the only thing to do : recover possibility to move freely everywhere.

This possibility never existed in real life either, because your enemies would be very glad to deprive you of those movement options.

 

[charlymi6]

Uh, yes I did. I said it was poor gameplay and gave my reasons for thinking so. I don't think the current system is perfect but movement restrictions significantly improve the game compared to the old system where almost every war became decisive after the first battle and most of the time was spent carpet sieging after the enemy was crushed. If you think that's realistic, you're the one who's misinformed about history, not me. Real wars of the period often hinged on controlling strategic forts but rarely if ever on armies chasing each other down until one was annihilated.




On one hand you're trying to appeal to realism and on the other hand you say you don't care about supply and weather, attrition and the like. You do realize that armies without supply lines would starve to death? And that with enemy forts intercepting their envoys, how would they receive their orders? Real life never ran on video game logistics where orders travel by telepathy and the men can eat air for sustenance.




This possibility never existed in real life either, because your enemies would be very glad to deprive you of those movement options.

You obstinate and you say wrong things.
If you only fight against army, you can't take fort and occupate ennemy territory.
It's different to have the choice and the possibility to move that to stay blocked or have crazy trip to do for going to the next province.
Don't talk about how wars was win because i don't talk about this, i talk about the possibility to move everywhere in ennemy territory, specialy if it's in an adjacant pronvince directly without have to move in several others province before.

I don't want discuss with you about supply, i told you i don't care about this. paradox can fix penalties, supllies system like in heart of iron, more attriction, impossibility to have reinforcement OR NOT I DONT CARE because the main basic thing it's to have possibility to move, or it's absolutely not an historical game.

This game couldn't be 100% realistic, but hey wake up, move everywhere it's a basic thing of real world.

There are only a disturb brain for think it's normal to don't have possibility to move freely your army and it's realistic.

 

[GiftGruen]

Look, charlymi6, I also sometimes absolutely hate a feature of a game others seem to have no problem with. It also makes me wonder how they all cannot see how that feature is awful. So I feel with you on that. But in the suggestions forum, you try to convince the developers to implement your suggestion, so you are hurting your cause when you swear or say things like

If you say this is realistic and a good gameplay, you have absolutely no sense of history and your definition of gameplay it's something absolutely illogical.

because then everyone will think you're just flaming, and ignore you.


Do you know the saying "An army marches on its stomach"? It was considered a very important rule to leading armies: Always make sure you have enough supplies where you go, or bring them with you. It was so obvious to commanders, only the most desperate leaders broke it. Or the ones that really didn't care if their men died.

So I always think of it as the general of an army deciding: We will not go through there, it would be suicide. We'll take the long route around, so we won't be cut off.

Also, there is no way in EU IV to bring your army into a fortress, to hide them behind walls. That was the main reason there are so many more battles in EU IV than in history: The smaller army had a way to retreat in real life, but not in the game. Now that they finally have one, let's not take it away from them.

Lastly, battles IRL were much shorter compared to marching an army from a province to the next. Reinforcing a battle mostly happened when the other army was already very near, and it was clear they would arrive and attack as soon as they formed up, so their enemy decided to start the attack before the armies were combined.

 

[charlymi6]

Look, charlymi6, I also sometimes absolutely hate a feature of a game others seem to have no problem with. It also makes me wonder how they all cannot see how that feature is awful. So I feel with you on that. But in the suggestions forum, you try to convince the developers to implement your suggestion, so you are hurting your cause when you swear or say things like



because then everyone will think you're just flaming, and ignore you.


Do you know the saying "An army marches on its stomach"? It was considered a very important rule to leading armies: Always make sure you have enough supplies where you go, or bring them with you. It was so obvious to commanders, only the most desperate leaders broke it. Or the ones that really didn't care if their men died.

So I always think of it as the general of an army deciding: We will not go through there, it would be suicide. We'll take the long route around, so we won't be cut off.

Also, there is no way in EU IV to bring your army into a fortress, to hide them behind walls. That was the main reason there are so many more battles in EU IV than in history: The smaller army had a way to retreat in real life, but not in the game. Now that they finally have one, let's not take it away from them.

Lastly, battles IRL were much shorter compared to marching an army from a province to the next. Reinforcing a battle mostly happened when the other army was already very near, and it was clear they would arrive and attack as soon as they formed up, so their enemy decided to start the attack before the armies were combined.

I'm not here for find a solution, you explain (maybe good) about suplly and othhers things that can be modified, for exemple it could be an idea to hidde your army from ennemy in a fort; if ennemy don't finish siege of this fort, he can't finish this army.
You can imagin and suggest many other things for have a more historical game, BUT, the main basic thing in an historical game it's to can move your army freely like in reality.
The worst it's that is impossible to know at war where you can or can't go before try all possibility; 2 ally army in adjacant free province that can't join together, what kind of gameplay, of realistic logic can explain this???
We are not in a fantastic world, we are in a game about history, and in history you can move everywhere with your great army, even if you go to moscow in winter and if that finish bad on the berezina, you can move freely because you have the choice, because it's physics law.

Say the thuth about a basic thing it's flame?
That i ask is not complicated : i'm not against fort, i'm for recover the possibility to move everywhere in ennemy territory.

There are just one thing that can block an army in history, a short single pass between 2 provinces and 300 spartans
Where are these spartans when there are a fort in "A" province and when you want move your army from "B" province directly to "C" province.
Maybe these guy in fort are super sayens, they can teleport directly to border for forbid to you access?

OR Maybe this is just a very bad solution absolutely not realistic for upgrade defensor in a war?

=> Restaure free capacity of movement everywhere in a war
=> Works in others solutions if you want more longer wars or keep defeated army in safety

 

[GiftGruen]

I did NOT want to say it is flaming when someone isn't okay with everything Paradox did in their patches. But your tone, the way you say it, can still be respectful, to show Paradox that you had fun with their games and want the movement block gone, because without it you could enjoy the game even more.

I mean you created this thread so a Paradox employee can read it, and think: "Hey, he's right, the whole movement block mechanic we worked so hard on should be removed." Right now, things like:

Only stupid fanboys can support that system.
...
This system is only madness in a great great game.
...
I don't understand really, this game is better and better with all dlc exepct for this shit.
...
Fort for block movements no, just forget this idea it's horrible, frustrating, worst gameplay ever seen, absolutly non-historical.

will more likely make him think: "Oh, yes, please insult me and my work! That way I'm going to change my mind!" and just ignore you.


EU IV is an abstract game, there are many mechanics that are not like in reality. Louis XIV didn't have 200 ADM power and decided to use them to make his country an Absolute Monarchy. Trade doesn't all flow into the European markets, people had no direct control over their armies, unless they were personally leading them.

And that last one is the big problem: Armies are led in EU IV by you clicking on a province, and they immediately do that. We are used to that from earlier strategy games, but it's not historical. I'll show you what I mean with an example.

Imagine this situation: You are the monarch, uhmm, "Greg I" sometime in EU IV's timespan. Let's say 1640. You have to reign a country, so you are in your capital, taking care of your court and whoever comes to you. You are at war with France and General "Oliver" leads your main army. Now you can tell Oliver what he should do. But he will not execute your command until a messenger arrives who tells him. Let's say you want him to go to Paris. As he is a loyal commander, he marches for Paris immediately, through all the enemy forts and everything.
Now he sieges Paris, but the French have assembled a small army. What will you do? Send your big army after them, of course. You send for Oliver, but he never responds. Because every messenger you send is caught by the French. So your army stands before Paris without orders, and there is no way to get to them, because there is an army between you and them, and you have no army big enough left in your homeland to deal with it.

Alternatively, if you, Greg I, go to war yourself, not only might you die, but you could also do nothing about the court and all the diplomacy you were taking care of at home. You of course have appointed a steward, but he doesn't have as much power as you, so the nobles might rebel, the foreign contacts might be insulted that they have to deal with a steward, ... Basically everyone wants to have you in the capital, but you march off to Paris. Now, nobody from home can contact you because if they send messengers, again, they get killed on their way. If you ever take Paris, you might come back just to see your homeland has been burned, your cities pillaged, etc. etc. by the French.

So sending someone off into enemy territory and still being able to 100% control them, without any time between your order and the army responding to it, is not at all historical.

And, as many others pointed out, the gameplay overall is better, more balanced, more plausible with the movement block. So history is not really helping you in that. And there seem to be more people who enjoy the new fort mechanics than those who, like you, dislike them.

 

[charlymi6]

bla bla bla bla

Again

Impossibility to move your army to an adjacent province for help your ally is stupid situation.

Invisible wall in the game it's more plausible?
Have to move in 10 different province for going in an adjacent province it's more plausible?

Seriously there are one thning to do : RECOVER FREE MOVEMENT
Then paradox can think and try other way for have a more balanced game, it's not my job but supply/attriction/reinforcement or more easly have the possibility to put army inside fort i don't know.

I just know one thing : can't move freely in a free adjacent province it's fucking frustrating in many wars you loose battle only because this.

 

[SolSys]

There are just one thing that can block an army in history, a short single pass between 2 provinces and 300 spartans

So much BS and foul language in one thread.
You seem not to care for solutions or civilized discussions, just to get whatever you want and NOW.
Fine, here's a way to get your free movement everywhere and NOW:

1. Right-click EU4 on Steam and chose Properties.
2. On the Betas tab click the first drop-down menu and chose 1.11.4
3. Wait for files to download and... Viola, free movement for all.


Now, to those who had enough from this nice fella:
1. On the top-right under the sorting options, click Unwatch Thread.


Have a day.