Design: Fort Rebalance and Improvement

[Edmon]

Document Goals:
1) Forts actually useful to "Gamers" subtype of player.
2) Forts consistant with world logic for "Roleplayer" and "Casual" subtype of player.
3) Forts provide net benefit for "Casual" and "Roleplayer" subtype of player.
4) Resolve ZoC type problems for AI and players.

Constraints:
1) It is not wanted to be the case that it is desirable to have a Fort in every province.
2) Forts restricting movement in a consistant way is a developer design goal.

Current Implimentation Problems:
1) Fort is not mathematically nor tactically useful, so they will never be built by "Gamer" subtype players. "Gamer" subtype player will quickly realise this and delete/remove all of their forts.
2) Knowing that forts are sub-optimal, "Gamer" subtype players will often annihilate each other due to a lack of defenses, as well as crushing "Roleplayer" and "Casual" subtype players much more easily, due to the military and economic negative impacts of forts on such players.
3) Forts weaken all A.I. players considerably, by stripping them of the money they need to have a competitive military. It can actually cause, in some cases, the complete economic collapse of an A.I. nation.
4) Zone of Control is inconsistant and frustrating for players to deal with. It also frustrates the AI in certain cases, causing undesirable behaviour.

Proposed Changes:
1) Revise Fort cost down to 100G/level. This will price it at just slightly more expensive than the mercenaries needed to siege it. We do want to favour attacking over defense, but not so considerably. This will make a fort consistantly priced with other buildings.

2) The cost to maintain a fort will decrease to 0.25G per fort. This will make them less economically damaging to all types of players and the A.I. This pricing will ensure that forts will not be built in all provinces as it will still present some level of economic damage. "Gamer" Subtype players are still likely to delete many or all of their forts, but it is less rewarding and possibly more tactically punishing to do so. The chances of A.I. economic meltdown due to forts is greatly reduced.

3) Forts will prevent movement past themselves only. So if you move into a fort from any tile, your only move will be to go back to the tile from which you came while the fort stands. The idea will be to make a "wall" of forts. Their functionality on movement is more obvious, more realistic for "Roleplayer" subtypes. Forts on their own can be circumvented easily, by going around them. ZoC inconsistances are eliminated. Since the only available move into a hostile fort, is to move away from it into the previous tile, problems with movement from "fort to fort to fort" will also be eliminated. "Great wall of China" is now a thing.

4) A relief army arriving to assist a besieged allied Fort shall be considered the defender. Conferring useful tactical advantage for "Gamer" subtype players to exploit. This will likely also benefit other player types to some degree.

Other notes:
1) Simplification of existing rules is also a benefit.
2) Possible graphical change to show (an arrow?) from where an army attacked a fort (and thus the tile to which they may retreat).
3) If the attack is from a water tile and the transports are gone, do we wipe the attacker out? This would be the most consistant move, but also very punishing.

 

[Chaos_TLW]

I like these. A question, though, in regards to mothballing forts: Is the 0.25 ducat cost for an active fort, correct? If active, I think having 0.125d cost for an inactive fort rather weird and unwieldy, so the value for inactive might be something like 0.10 or 0.15 ducat/month.

 

[Edmon]

I think with the reduced cost, mothballing may not be necessary and the button could be removed. This further simpifies things for players and removes another silly button from the interface.

 

[grommile]

The basic reason why forts are insufficiently useful is that they almost never change the result of a war in the owner's favour. It's not clear to me that the proposal addresses that.

(Also, you haven't engaged with the opportunity cost of forts.)

 

[Edmon]

The basic reason why forts are insufficiently useful is that they almost never change the result of a war in the owner's favour. It's not clear to me that the proposal addresses that.

Proposed Changes:
4) A relief army arriving to assist a besieged allied Fort shall be considered the defender. Conferring useful tactical advantage for "Gamer" subtype players to exploit. This will likely also benefit other player types to some degree.

 

[Hairy Dude]

I personally like the zone of control system. The issue is that it broke horribly in 1.14 and no longer acts predictably or, in many cases, reasonably. It seemed fine in 1.13, just with a few weirdnesses such as enemies being able to walk through a fortified province to the other side if both are controlled - the cure turned out to be worse than the disease, but that doesn't mean the solution is amputating the limb.

That said, I do like the idea of siege stacks always being the attacker.

 

[Edmon]

I personally like the zone of control system. The issue is that it broke horribly in 1.14 and no longer acts predictably or, in many cases, reasonably. It seemed fine in 1.13, just with a few weirdnesses such as enemies being able to walk through a fortified province to the other side if both are controlled - the cure turned out to be worse than the disease, but that doesn't mean the solution is amputating the limb.

That said, I do like the idea of siege stacks always being the attacker.

You can still control movement and now do so much more predictably. You can maintain 4 forts for the price of a current one, so you can now build a wall to block movement exactly how you desire to. There is no amputation of the limb here, you can make your very zone "Zone of Control" exactly how you want it.

 

[Milith]

I don't think your assessment of the current situation is accurate. A large fort system might not be that useful against the AI because the player is rarely in a defensive position for very long, but they're very strong in multiplayer. You said it yourself:

Knowing that forts are sub-optimal, "Gamer" subtype players will often annihilate each other due to a lack of defenses

If people don't build forts, they risk getting quickly annihilated by other players. Which is why they should build forts.

What are the benefits of forts at the moment?

1. They force the enemy army to take specific paths inside your territory. By building your forts you chose the paths the enemy can take.
2. They make it harder for the enemy to occupy your land, which means you don't lose income from occupied provinces and your war exhaustion doesn't go up.
3. A huge network of forts make war score harder to obtain. This is really important since 1.14 because at 50% warscore you can lose stability if you refuse a peace deal that the AI would have accepted.
4. They force the enemy to siege them down, i.e park an army on top of the fort for a large amount of time. This one is interesting because it allows for a lot of long term thinking and strategic depth.

• You can build forts on plains, which forces the enemy to place his army in a tile without defensive modifiers. If you have a superior army that can take a fight, this is a good option.
• You can build forts on mountains, which increase the time it takes to siege them down. If you feel like long wars might favor you for some reason, this is a good option.
• You can build forts on terrain with attrition modifiers. If you feel like you need to deplete your enemies manpower in order to win the war, this is a good option.
• You can build forts on either sides of straits. Since 1.14, as long as you control one side of the strait and you have naval superiority, you control the strait. If your navy is stronger, this is a good option.

All of those options are complemented by your strategy and ideas. Full defensive increases local defensiveness and attrition. Offensive and quality increase your fighting capability. Quantity means you're more willing to trade manpower with your enemy. Espionage means you can force your enemy to divert troops from the front to deal with rebels if the war lasts long enough. Humanism means you probably won't have rebel problems yourself.

I very much consider myself a "gamer type" as you put it, and the usefulness and strategic depth of the fort system is very apparent to me. My only complaint is that zones of control have such a complex behavior that I (and most people, according to the forums) sometimes have a hard time predicting what paths an army can or cannot take until I actually try them. It should definitely be streamlined, but it's not an easy job.

 

[TheDanishRaven]

If people don't build forts, they risk getting quickly annihilated by other players. Which is why they should build forts.

Only true if they are not able to take advantage of the bigger economy they have.

1. They force the enemy army to take specific paths inside your territory. By building your forts you chose the paths the enemy can take.
2. They make it harder for the enemy to occupy your land, which means you don't lose income from occupied provinces and your war exhaustion doesn't go up.
3. A huge network of forts make war score harder to obtain. This is really important since 1.14 because at 50% warscore you can lose stability if you refuse a peace deal that the AI would have accepted.
4. They force the enemy to siege them down, i.e park an army on top of the fort for a large amount of time. This one is interesting because it allows for a lot of long term thinking and strategic depth.

1) That's true, but is it really worth the cost of maintenance+build cost? You can get a lot of temples/workshops/docks/barracks/mercs for that kind of money.
2) You do however lose money due to the forts. Provinces with a fort on them will be looted as well further decreasing your income after the war.
3) Which cost a lot of money to maintain. If you instead spent your money on improving your army and make sure your economy can handle buying mercs you will be the one attacking, quickly sieging the forts your opponent had to mothball to be able to expand his own economy.
4) Not really a problem, if your army is superior to your opponents (also offensive+innovative makes sieging a breeze).

Forts might be worth it if they are rebalanced, but at the moment they are simply not cost effective when compared to the alternatives (the opportunity cost).

A way to make forts worthwhile could be a combination of the following: lower the cost (maintenance + build), make them increase manpower (recovery and/or total), morale damage/negative modifier for besiegers, give synergies with other buildings.

I also REALLY(!!) like the idea of a supporting army being the defender when aiding a besieged fort.

 

[Milith]

I think you really underestimate forts. They give you positional advantage which is absolutely massive in multiplayer. Sure, there's a small opportunity cost but if you're a decent administrator you should be able to field an army as big or slightly bigger than your force limit (as long as you only buy infantry mercs) while paying for a decent amount of strategically placed forts. It gets harder if you also want to maintain a fleet with a lot of heavies but then you need to chose, and meaningful choices are good game design.

Forts can also act as a deterrent. Nobody wants to spend 10 years sieging high level forts in arid parts of a country with max defensive ideas, bleeding manpower. If you're not able to match someones army, you can make your country so hard to conquer that it's not worthy anymore.

Also nobody mentioned army tradition. Fully maintained forts give you 20 army tradition, which roughly translates to +2 PIPs for your generals.

The advantages really add up.

 

[Edmon]

I think you really underestimate forts. They give you positional advantage which is absolutely massive in multiplayer. Sure, there's a small opportunity cost but if you're a decent administrator you should be able to field an army as big or slightly bigger than your force limit (as long as you only buy infantry mercs) while paying for a decent amount of strategically placed forts. It gets harder if you also want to maintain a fleet with a lot of heavies but then you need to chose, and meaningful choices are good game design.

Forts can also act as a deterrent. Nobody wants to spend 10 years sieging high level forts in arid parts of a country with max defensive ideas, bleeding manpower. If you're not able to match someones army, you can make your country so hard to conquer that it's not worthy anymore.

Also nobody mentioned army tradition. Fully maintained forts give you 20 army tradition, which roughly translates to +2 PIPs for your generals.

The advantages really add up.

No, they don't. If you build even one fort and all other things are equal, I am going to absolutely steam roll you without question. Force limit is a suggestion, not an actual limit and the money you saved could be used to expand not only your force limit, but your manpower and your economy as well.

Start a game as France and play the first 10 years. Now start another game as France and obliterate all those forts you start with (except the capital one).

See the amazing difference? (It's a massive 600 ducats even if you don't reinvest any of it and let me tell you, that kind of wedge buys a lot of boots in cheap uniforms).

 

[doktorstick]

You should not be allowed to combine armies that have different "from province" flags. Otherwise, you could exploit the movement restrictions.

 

[Milith]

Deleting most if not all of your forts is optimal in a lot of single player settings, I'm not denying that. However, multiplayer is a different beast altogether and, correct me if I'm wrong, you don't seem to have a lot of experience in it.

Five well placed forts can be way more beneficial to you than a dozen regimental camps in some circumstances, because if you play your cards right those forts can make the invasion last way too long and put the invader in a vulnerable position other players can take advantage of. On top of that, Espionage is a lot more prevalent in multiplayer, which means expansionist players really need to fight quick wars so they can deal with massive rebel stacks. Large fort networks act as a deterrent.

 

[doktorstick]

Also nobody mentioned army tradition. Fully maintained forts give you 20 army tradition, which roughly translates to +2 PIPs for your generals.

Have you played later into the game and maintained the 100% bonus to tradition? I'm assuming you haven't because both the number of fully upgraded forts required to get the full bonus is quite substantial, and at 8 ducats/month/fort, you are spending literally hundreds of gold in fort upkeep. Unless you are already steamrolling the game and money is no issue, I argue that this is not realistically achievable.

 

[doktorstick]

2) The cost to maintain a fort will decrease to 0.25G per fort. This will make them less economically damaging to all types of players and the A.I. This pricing will ensure that forts will not be built in all provinces as it will still present some level of economic damage. "Gamer" Subtype players are still likely to delete many or all of their forts, but it is less rewarding and possibly more tactically punishing to do so. The chances of A.I. economic meltdown due to forts is greatly reduced.

Have you generated models to suggest that this is the appropriate cost for small/medium/large nations? If you pulled the number out of your arse, then it's just a number... if you have math to backup your claims, it'll hold more sway, IMO.

 

[Milith]

Have you played later into the game and maintained the 100% bonus to tradition? I'm assuming you haven't because both the number of fully upgraded forts required to get the full bonus is quite substantial, and at 8 ducats/month/fort, you are spending literally hundreds of gold in fort upkeep. Unless you are already steamrolling the game and money is no issue, I argue that this is not realistically achievable.

Oh I absolutely agree, the cost for AT during lategame is ridiculous. I actually wouldn't mind if they scaled it back (or increased the AT bonus). You can still get a substantial AT boost as long as you don't have the tech for lvl 3 forts.

 

[Edmon]

Have you generated models to suggest that this is the appropriate cost for small/medium/large nations? If you pulled the number out of your arse, then it's just a number... if you have math to backup your claims, it'll hold more sway, IMO.

A province with 4 base tax and 25% autonomy produces an income of 0.24. This is effectively 3 base tax, which means 3 base tax is always too little.

The cut off for a province paying for it's own fort readily is 4 base tax and no autonomy.

There are very few provinces in the game where this is the case in 1444 and most of them are in europe.

This seemed a reasonable cut off to me of what a Fort should cost. Rounded to 0.25 because we love round numbers.

Don't forget that higher level forts have higher costs, so that will somewhat offset the benefits you'll get from province improvements over time.

 

[Crenickator]

All of that.

 

[Hairy Dude]

A province with 4 base tax and 25% autonomy produces an income of 0.24. This is effectively 3 base tax, which means 3 base tax is always too little.

The cut off for a province paying for it's own fort readily is 4 base tax and no autonomy.

This entirely ignores production (which IIRC is unaffected by autonomy) and the province's contribution to trade income.

 

[Edmon]

This entirely ignores production (which IIRC is unaffected by autonomy) and the province's contribution to trade income.

We're not trying to cripple a country here economically as Forts do now, just make it so that forts are expensive enough that it would be inadvisable to have them in every province. We're ignoring trade income because it would be impossible to calculate in a general case anyway. Between blockades, embargos, war exhaustion and over extension all crippling trade, trade cannot be relied on as a source of income unless you are supermassive as a country and/or have a defacto unstoppable navy (like perhaps, England does in 1444). Even then, trade income will be seriously crippled during periods of coring (which is significant time for most aggressive players).

Direct income from internal production is pretty low in the early and mid game, once again unless you are massive or have acquired some nice mercantilism bonuses.

Tax is a nations only reliable and/or relatively un-punishable income source, barring the +1 you get for being a sovereign nation.