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

[Retetop]

What does the army do when it stands inside the ZoC of a fort? Does the army siege that one province, or is it looting it?

And if you siege a fort, will the ZoC become occupied instantly?

 

[Golladan]

Behold! My amazing paint skills!

This assumes that Castile is not involved in any way in this war. Not even military access. And Aragon owns Navarra.

Remember that if you enter a fort's ZoC, you can only move to the fort, or back the way you came.

This assumes a fort in Urgell and Valencia. I forgot to draw the naval landing arrows for Valencia and Tarragona, but it should be easy to see what would happen.

This assumes a fort in Barcelona and Valencia. And that the Valencia fort is higher level (which I believe would give it control over Tarragona).

 

[Aries666]

If you put forts at the borders, you have less time to react in case of sudden DoW. I assume that if it takes less than a month to march into a fort, you may not have enough time to unmothball and regarrison it. It doesn't matter against the AI though, because it's very obvious when it's planning an attack, but it would matter in MP.

It wont matter regardless as for fort requires fort level*3 regiments to siege and can't be assualted unless breached therefore a fort with 10 men is just as effective as a fort with 10000 men.

 

[Randomblaofdoom]

The logical thing to counter this while still keeping the intended effect would be enabling assaults when there is a breach OR a certain numerical advantage (e.g., your army size is double that of the besieging requirement)

 

[Homusubi]

If you have an extremely long, linear border, a fort in every third province is sufficient due to ZoC. As for the main question, it depends on location. For example, if we're talking Pyrenees here, from Aragon's perspective it makes sense to put the fort one province in (Barcelona probably - it blocks all the Pyrenees provinces plus a few more, and also defends massive base tax), whereas from France's perspective it makes sense to put the fort at the border in Bearn, as it is a fairly long province running parallel to the border.

 

[Tweakee]

Well, once my army is large, I probably won't be building any forts, as I'd expect my borders to expand faster than forts could keep up. As, say France or England, why bother with forts when your army/navy should be crushing anyone that comes near you?

For smaller nations, the posts suggesting a fort every 4 provinces, a province away from the border, sounds optimal. But that assumes resources allow. If not, I'd want to cover my best provinces first, and try to place forts in mtns.

It'll be interesting to see how the changes work. Under the old system, I never fortified a province unless a mission requested it.

 

[Krajzen]

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

Too late, I already got a heart attack

 

[billclintonmask]

If I have freshly conquered territory, and I'm planning on taking more again soon, I'll build them on the border so that investment protects the additional territory. If I'm planning on expanding elsewhere for a while, I'll put them a province in.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Ooh, how about (for the rich merchant state) a zig-zag pattern?

 

[Flush62]

This thread just shows how confused everyone is about the fort mechanics, myself included.

 

[lolada]

This thread just shows how confused everyone is about the fort mechanics, myself included.

Just read again WIz's reply, its simple.

1. You can enter with your army to fort province to siege it. You can't go past it deeper into enemy territory it will block you. To move further conquer the fort. Thats the main concept.

2. If you don't want to siege you can go back the same province from wher your army came in the first place. You CAN'T dance around the fort through zone of control. This is logical because you would circumvent the fort and could then go deeper into enemy territory.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

That doesn't make any sense, though. One network of forts affecting all of the counties around it? Poorly thought out.

 

[Willem IV]

If you have an extremely long, linear border, a fort in every third province is sufficient due to ZoC. As for the main question, it depends on location. For example, if we're talking Pyrenees here, from Aragon's perspective it makes sense to put the fort one province in (Barcelona probably - it blocks all the Pyrenees provinces plus a few more, and also defends massive base tax), whereas from France's perspective it makes sense to put the fort at the border in Bearn, as it is a fairly long province running parallel to the border.

I would place the Fort in Armagnac instead of Bearn (5 provinces within ZoC, instead of 3 with Bearn)

 

[Lemont Elwood]

This just sounds terrible. And I supported the original idea. There'll be basically no room to maneuver now.

 

[Szim]

I wonder if building a fort in an Alpine province with low supply and high attrition would make sense. I guess it depends on how the AI is going to handle such an obstacle and whether it still tries to siege with a ridiculously large stack of troops.

 

[echolot]

Correct, though you can double back and enter a different province if you border other provinces in the fort's ZoC.

Basically, whenever inside a hostile's fort ZoC (including standing on the fort) you may only do one of four things:
1) Go to the fort (if not already there)
2) Go back the exact way you came
3) Go to an adjacent seazone if you have transports there
4) Go to an adjacent friendly-controlled province that is not in a hostile ZoC

- Assuming a situation there are two forts close to each other and a province between them is in ZoC of both forts. If I sieged down one of the forts this province is still not owned by my faction and I'm still unable to move my troops there without limitations. Is it correct?
- Are there any different mechanics in regards to the vassals? For example the forts are able to control not only the provinces with the same owner but also vassal's or colonial nation's provinces.

 

[jockedahl]

This just sounds terrible. And I supported the original idea. There'll be basically no room to maneuver now.

I actually like the change, I'm just slightly worried it will lead to too much trench warfare way before its time.

 

[NADster]

I would really love if an owned and controlled fort in a province would give the defender a small fighting bonus (5% morale per fort level?).

 

[WeissRaben]

That doesn't make any sense, though. One network of forts affecting all of the counties around it? Poorly thought out.

A "fortress" probably means something like this.

 

[neaiskink]

military access>forts