Do you want to put forts at the border or one province in?

[Thrake]

Overall, on border, because then when you conquer adjacent province, it's still under fort control. That being said, new mechanics mean that if a fort is in a mountains, you can park an army on it and the ennemy will have to attack you in the mountain, instead of just avoiding your army as it would use to. So depends on terrain, too.

I think they mentionned that France can afford 4 forts at start though, so you probably shouldn't expect to be able to entirely close your border until mid game though.

 

[Incompetent]

Just to clarify, there is a third case I think: they have a fort nearby and you have a higher level fort. In that case building that fort on the border gives automatic occupations, that would otherwise be impossible without sieging their fort. Under the right circumstances, that can be a war winning advantage, e.g. one of those provinces is war goal and armies are equal só nobody manages to siege anything.

Forts don't fight each other for control like that. An unoccupied fort exerts a zone of control over its *owner's* provinces. An occupied fort doesn't exert any kind of zone of control.

 

[GamingHUD]

Forts don't fight each other for control like that. An unoccupied fort exerts a zone of control over its *owner's* provinces. An occupied fort doesn't exert any kind of zone of control.

Unless it's been changed like garrison strength, they do fight each other for control over adjacent provinces between the two forts though. So he still has a point; it's beneficial to have forts on borders to potentially flip enemy border provinces and protect yours from a similar fate.

 

[Ixal]

Unless it's been changed like garrison strength, they do fight each other for control over adjacent provinces between the two forts though. So he still has a point; it's beneficial to have forts on borders to potentially flip enemy border provinces and protect yours from a similar fate.

No. Your forts do not affect enemy provinces.

 

[GamingHUD]

No. Your forts do not affect enemy provinces.

I already linked the DD that stated the below.

What is most important to know though, is that forts now have a Zone of Control. First of all, they will automatically take control of any adjacent province that does not have any forts that is adjacent and hostile to them. If two fortress compete over the same province, then the one with highest fort-level wins and in case of a tie, control goes to the owner of the province. Secondly, you can not walk past a fortress and its zone of control, as you have to siege down the blocking fort first.

So if it's been changed since then, got a link?

 

[Ixal]

I already linked the DD that stated the below.



So if it's been changed since then, got a link?

It was in the paradox livestream about the new features.
I will search a link later.

 

[Krajzen]

Keep in mind one has not to completely siege a fort to move past it, it only has to be under siege.

 

[arctus]

no, thats not true. you must siege a fort down before you can pass by. its just logical. its not enough to just lay siege to it. because then the hole new system would make no sense

 

[Daddl]

From the videos I've seen its fairly confusing what the actual rules for zones of control are. I've seen arumbas and DDRJakes games, and I just can't figure out a coherent rule that applies to all situations. Sometimes they are just able to make moves I thought they couldn't, and sometimes they can't move when I just don't understand why. So either its a bit bugged at the moment/needs tweaking or I'm just too dumb.

 

[pikaemperor]

I found the new forts to be fairly useless as you have to pay maintenance even if they are mothballed, so burning them all down seams like the right choice as with that money I can afford a larger army. The only places that forts are actually useful is rubbish mountainous choke point land with horrible attrition like tibet.

 

[zdlugasz]

It was stated very clearly in Paradox stream (Wiz and DDRJake) - you can not move past fort wiht defenders. SIeging is not enough. You must capture it first

 

[grommile]

I found the new forts to be fairly useless as you have to pay maintenance even if they are mothballed, so burning them all down seams like the right choice as with that money I can afford a larger army.

You'll have !!fun!! with zealot rebels from religions you don't want to follow, playing like that.

 

[arctus]

there is a fort in flandern, how can he just walk over it without sieging?

 

[arctus]

i wonder if mothballed forts have a zone of control too or are they just like provinces without forts?

 

[grommile]

there is a fort in flandern, how can he just walk over it without sieging?

Capital provinces get +1 Fort Level (meaning you have to siege them properly to occupy them, instead of just parking a single regiment there for a month), but Zones of Control are only provided by the Fort series of buildings.

 

[Andaries]

From the videos I've seen its fairly confusing what the actual rules for zones of control are. I've seen arumbas and DDRJakes games, and I just can't figure out a coherent rule that applies to all situations. Sometimes they are just able to make moves I thought they couldn't, and sometimes they can't move when I just don't understand why. So either its a bit bugged at the moment/needs tweaking or I'm just too dumb.

Their is a type of fort that does not have zone of control. All Capital get a free fort. To counteract opms from being a pain with zone of control they removed the zone of control from default capital forts. You have to upgrade the fort in the capital in order to get zone of control in them.

 

[tobias.mb]

I'll probably try to build them in defensive terrain as much as possible, border province or one behind doesn't matter.

 

[arctus]

also he occupys provinces without forts and i think i read in some dev diary that occupyd provinces are automaticly taken back if there is an friendly fort nearby, so shouldnt he loose the provinces then?

 

[Golladan]

Their is a type of fort that does not have zone of control. All Capital get a free fort. To counteract opms from being a pain with zone of control they removed the zone of control from default capital forts. You have to upgrade the fort in the capital in order to get zone of control in them.

Technically it's not a fort. It's a fort level.

The castle, which is the first fort building, is a fort. And it gives 2 fort levels (2000 garrison, 6 regiments to siege it). It also has a zone of control..
Capitals just have 1 fort level (1000 garrison, 3 regiments to sige it). And no zone of control.

Now there are capitals, such as Constantinople, that have a castle. So they have a fort. A zone of control. And 3 fort levels (3000 garrison, 9 regiments to siege it).

 

[Golladan]

also he occupys provinces without forts and i think i read in some dev diary that occupyd provinces are automaticly taken back if there is an friendly fort nearby, so shouldnt he loose the provinces then?

Only provinces in the fort's zone of control (adacent provinces). And only if the fort itself is not under siege.