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

 

[charlymi6]

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.

Dude it's not my job to find a solution for have a very balanced game with free movement, first because it's not balanced like this, only a big advantage for defender

My suggestion is to recover it because impossibility to move in an adjacant province for help your ally for exemple it's a very stupid and unbelivable situation.

I play in ironman and with different mod too and enjoy all new things from last versions exepct this stupid thing, thanks you.

I see only one advantage to this : if you're very unskilled and stay in your country and let your ally made the war that change nothing for you.

When you have a good level and fight in big important war, you can make the difference if you save your ally from defeat, but sometimes you can't, or it's to long because you have to move in several province just for going to the next province (someone understand really in real time how this system work??? i don't think so very often you understand it's impossible to join ally army near you at the last moment).

If i hate so much this shit system it's because i like so much many others things in this game.

How it's possible to think for a big historical game that have used free movement always before, just for try to balance war for defender you forbid with invisible wall movement between adjacent ennemy province for attacker that have to back up on several province?

Where is the logic if you can go to 2 differents adjacent province but you can't move between these 2 province directly???

This is a nonsense.

 

[boogeyman025]

I have to agree with charlymi6 on this one... but Paradox will never give a "frog" about customers requests

 

[BrokenSky]

Where do you seen in history an army can't move for fight an ennemy army because there are a fucking fort somewhere?

If I remember correctly in the first world war, the french had a chain of forts along the border so German soldiers couldn't get in. They couldn't get Mil access from Belgium, so they No-CB'd them to move through, and we were allied with Belgium so we got pulled in.

treu stroy

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 think what he means is that it was possible, if costly, and that a compromise that left your forces in the weak position of overextending would be acceptable. Not that he doesn't care, more that he doesn't mind?

 

[charlymi6]

If I remember correctly in the first world war, the french had a chain of forts along the border so German soldiers couldn't get in. They couldn't get Mil access from Belgium, so they No-CB'd them to move through, and we were allied with Belgium so we got pulled in.

treu stroy

Chinese wall / Roman Limes / Trench in world war 1 / Maginot Line in world war 2 : i know a lot about history but this is different period.
And many fortifications in borders like a wall (that you have to broke or to get aroud) it's different than single fortress that you have to siege like in europa. So it's 2 different things.

 

[BrokenSky]

Chinese wall / Roman Limes / Trench in world war 1 / Maginot Line in world war 2 : i know a lot about history but this is different period.
And many fortifications in borders like a wall (that you have to broke or to get aroud) it's different than single fortress that you have to siege like in europa. So it's 2 different things.

You asked in history

But yeah If I build a chain of forts in every province along a border I mean it to be a wall. In my mind it is the great wall of ulm. That's how I represent it in game.

 

[charlymi6]

You asked in history

But yeah If I build a chain of forts in every province along a border I mean it to be a wall. In my mind it is the great wall of ulm. That's how I represent it in game.

If you build a chain of forts in ulm, and there are 2 ennemy army around, for exemple in wurtenberg and ansbash, what reason forbid these 2 army to move freely between these 2 provinces? the great wall of ulm is not the great wall of wurtenberg and ansbash

 

[BrokenSky]

If you build a chain of forts in ulm, and there are 2 ennemy army around, for exemple in wurtenberg and ansbash, what reason forbid these 2 army to move freely between these 2 provinces? the great wall of ulm is not the great wall of wurtenberg and ansbash

Well I'd get bigger first...

 

[FurorGermanicus]

Well, instead of the disagree's, his message is true.
It makes no sense that you can't move from a territory to another because a fort is near it, the fort isn't the chinese wall.

 

[Zelius]

Well, instead of the disagree's, his message is true.
It makes no sense that you can't move from a territory to another because a fort is near it, the fort isn't the chinese wall.

Are you suggesting that the nomads were unable to cross the Great Wall of China? Admittedly some of the terrain there is impassable, but that doesn't account for the whole length.

I'm against removing the movement blocking feature of forts, for gameplay reasons. Maybe I'm biased, having played with the old system, but I rather prefer the new system c.f. attacking the enemy army when they're on flat terrain and then chasing+killing the retreating army while I micro 2-regiment stacks everywhere, like some sort of bee swarm. Every. Single. War.

Also makes the position of your country actually matter: instead of each side rolling into a doomstack every war, where your own nation's provinces are just places where your enemies have Military Access with a small dose of attrition. Sieges actually matter, allowing penetration into an enemy, instead of just being there to pump up the warscore meter, since the war is practically decided after the first battle. In fact, most strategies revolved around having as much of your army standing next to the enemy army as possible before declaring war, the better to stackwipe with.

 

[FurorGermanicus]

Are you suggesting that the nomads were unable to cross the Great Wall of China? Admittedly some of the terrain there is impassable, but that doesn't account for the whole length.

I'm against removing the movement blocking feature of forts, for gameplay reasons. Maybe I'm biased, having played with the old system, but I rather prefer the new system c.f. attacking the enemy army when they're on flat terrain and then chasing+killing the retreating army while I micro 2-regiment stacks everywhere, like some sort of bee swarm. Every. Single. War.

Also makes the position of your country actually matter: instead of each side rolling into a doomstack every war, where your own nation's provinces are just places where your enemies have Military Access with a small dose of attrition. Sieges actually matter, allowing penetration into an enemy, instead of just being there to pump up the warscore meter, since the war is practically decided after the first battle. In fact, most strategies revolved around having as much of your army standing next to the enemy army as possible before declaring war, the better to stackwipe with.

I just want to mention, no wall is unpassable and for sure, the same counts for territories like mordor
And in multiplayer I dont have problems with bee swarms xD

 

[markros50]

Alright hmm in short, a list of reasons why not:

- Food won't come through , and while You're fine with it, it takes 2-3 weeks to march on foot from Moldavia to say, Krakow (blocked by Podolia fort). Without food, Your army would die/desert. You want to FORCE them to do so? Well thats the game's way of enforcing common sense of commanders and soldiers.
- Orders and messages also can't come through, so what? Loose control of said army? Even worse, couriers might get intercepted with plans, and then? Army You lost control of gets stackwiped in a battle AI "knew" about and gathered all allies to do it?
- Reinforcing is impossible obviously
- There are no other roads ... You expect 30 thousand army to walk 'crosscountry'? No! Wagons, horses and men needed roads to go through, and silly castle blocking that road would also block army trying to pass. Even today, armies need roads to travel. Too slow? That's why You have assaults (shame about having to have a breach, should be as it was before, just upp the losses, condemn the assault to fail, make someone have to do several assaults on unbreached fort). Same with crossing rivers. No mobile-bridge building engineers back in 16th century.
ie in given example, Your prussian army couldn't reach battle and had to go around, because the direct way was being blocked.

 

[grommile]

- Food won't come through , and while You're fine with it, it takes 2-3 weeks to march on foot from Moldavia to say, Krakow (blocked by Podolia fort). Without food, Your army would die/desert.

"Hello, peasants. You have food. We have guns and are hungry."

 

[Camarada78]

I really like the new fortification system since now you must go eating the borders and reaching for the capitals or important cities. Before that in difficult wars, you had to mainly focus on capital of enemies, white peace them until you can eat alone a single target. Pretty unrealistic to insanely march up to Moscow leaving tons of land untouched. As someone pointed:

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.

Getting rid of it will cause more bad than good.

But we could add a restrictive way to do that:

- Costing 1 MIL point per army to advance to a blocked path, plus massive attrition.
- Requiring Leader Maneuver of 2 pips

But return to the free movement phase would be disastrous.

By the way. Your aggressive whining will not help your cause.

 

[markros50]

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

2. Where do you seen in history an army can't move for fight an ennemy army because there are a fucking fort somewhere?

3. 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? If you say this is realistic and a good gameplay, you have absolutely no sense of history(...)

1.

- "Go" through there, should wake You up before drowning, along with Your 30 thousand prussians who could do whatever they wanted. It's even in Bulgaria!
if not convinced, google some swamp/march pictures, or mountains.

2. I don't know, lets check a few
Eighty Years' War
Winter War
Khotyn Fortress in 17th to 19th centuries' wars.

enter any war You like, it was always about capturing fortresses

3. Visit 2

 

[markros50]

"Hello, peasants. You have food. We have guns and are hungry."

Yeah, cause 17th century country was just like school with peasants being fat rich kids just waiting to get robbed out of lunchmoney...
Nevermind famine being as common as in Best Korea and villages being far from each other with say 300 souls living in them, sure, "Give us enough food for 30 thousand men and horses to last for 3 weeks. What? The other soldiers already took the food? Well poop.."
You could forage, but food would be enough for those foragers and some others at best.
That was so ridiculous ...

 

[moscal]

Smolensk - gate of Moscow (Смоленск. "Врата Москвы"). The most important city-fortress in the easiest way to/from Moscow, Without control of the city-fort nor the Polish-Lithuanian or Russian forces could not make an effective military intervention.

 

[charlymi6]

You support unrealistic system and stupid system for defender gameplay, don't say it's realistic please you lie.
I haven't take a screenshoot for my stupid situation in game but i've find in a forum one pretty that can explain the stupidity of this system:

Now, imagin you have an army in Lifeland and an other army(or your ally) is attacked in Dorpt.
WHAT IS THE FUCKING LOGIC THAT EXPLAIN THIS MOVEMENT???

I say again, this system is stupid and it's NOT a better gameplay, it's an illogic and stupid gameplay.
Again : We need to recover free movement because this is a NONSENSE.

Of course if an allied army is attack in an adjacent province you need to going help him directly (and here you can see you from a controlled province so fuck off with your suplly).
What kind of retard brain can imagin you have to move by an ennemy uncontrolled province with fort defense then 5 others provinces for going in this province.

This is typically the kind of situation that i have i all my games, and this is very frustrating.

Check mate guys, if you defend that, you are stupid.

 

[grommile]

Now, imagin you have an army in Lifeland and an other army(or your ally) is attacked in Dorpt.
WHAT IS THE LOGIC THAT EXPLAIN THIS MOVEMENT???

That looks like a bug to me. Exactly how severe a bug depends on whether Novgorod's on your side in your war with LIV. (It's moderately severe if they aren't, and very severe if they are.)

It's apparent to me that you are so incandescently angry about this game mechanic that you are incapable of believing anything it does to be unintended.

 

[BrokenSky]

Ok three things.

1. You seem to be being really confrontational about this. Please don't be.

2. The situation described is stupid, and does need to be fixed, but completely removing the entire system would be far into the excessive. Sledgehammer swatting fly etc.

3. The whole system is overall mostly realistic. It is realistic in that forts have historically restricted free movement into a country, and restricting movement into a battle could even be realistic if the battle were on the province on the opposite side of the fort, perhaps. Forts blocking movement into a battle in an adjacent province would be unrealistic though (except possibly if straights were involved).

To reiterate; simply because one consequence of the mechanics is unrealistic does not mean that the entire system is unrealistic, but that it needs a small change to fix the problem. Moving stacks into adjacent battles is such a problem.

Also Novgorod is neutral in the above picture. It isn't a glitch; movement is being blocked by the unoccupied fort in Lettgallen, I think.

 

[markros50]

You support unrealistic system and stupid system for defender gameplay, don't say it's realistic please you lie.
I haven't take a screenshoot for my stupid situation in game but i've find in a forum one pretty that can explain the stupidity of this system:

WHAT IS THE FUCKING LOGIC THAT EXPLAIN THIS MOVEMENT???

1. That is kinda weird, imagine there are no roads from Liefland to Dorpat... But that is still a poor excuse. Forts were built in strategic places, so maybe Lettgallen was a road conjunction .. Ofcourse, the player can put Forts wherever he/she wishes, and that would have to represent creating roads?
That example is proof that the system isn't perfect, and requires improvements, but still, better than unrestricted movement chase-through-siberia without holding any land to stackwipe.
2. BTW most good players kill almost all if not all of their forts anyway, preferring more soldiers on the field for the cost. Especially late game with dozens of lvl 3-4 forts it gets too expensive.