Fort trolling

[Chief Iacid]

Maybe the level of the forts plays a role here. If the fort in Marienburg is level 3, and the fort in <that province just to the south> is level 2, then the Marienburg fort can exert its power over the other fort, but not vice versa.

 

[apg]

Maybe the level of the forts plays a role here. If the fort in Marienburg is level 3, and the fort in <that province just to the south> is level 2, then the Marienburg fort can exert its power over the other fort, but not vice versa.

ye pretty sure wiz said thath the higher fort levels takes precedence and exerts its control over any adjacent AND lower forts.

 

[Krypheonix]

Isnt marienburg just a capital fort? It could be that hostile forts will retake their capital fort as soon as you leave it, but not other "true" forts

 

[mic-dk]

Well, the dev diary said:

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.

That indicates that provinces with forts are exempt from the ZoC rules. But I dunno, will test more tonight.

 

[mic-dk]

Isnt marienburg just a capital fort? It could be that hostile forts will retake their capital fort as soon as you leave it, but not other "true" forts

Aha! I think you may have won a cookie Königsberg is the T.Os original capital, but I took this in a previous war, so it could be they relocated to Marienburg. Will keep you posted!

 

[Destinyfaker]

I am very happy about the changes to the forts, IMO the best change so far since release. But...

Is it really WAD that forts are able to "cover" each other? I had a hell of a time trying to beat down the Teutonic Knight, mainly because I had to siege the forts in Marienburg and <that province just to the south> simultaneously. If I sieged and captured just one of the provinces, it would flip back as soon as my army left.

I get that is how non-fort provinces are controlled, but should that extend to provinces with forts as well?

On a side note; mothballing my capital fort in Berlin does not seem to make the garrison leave - that has to be a bug, right?

so i just conquerd the teutons and had no such need i just sieged marienburg and then the other fort next to it
although i waited 1 month after the sieg so a garrision could be generated amybe that was it ?

 

[mic-dk]

Isnt marienburg just a capital fort? It could be that hostile forts will retake their capital fort as soon as you leave it, but not other "true" forts

Give that man a ci-gar! You were right!

The provinces were Ermland and Osterode and TO had moved their capital to Ermland. Ermland behaves exactly like a non-fort province, and my sanity is restored. Finish siegeing the (real) fort in Osterode first and Ermland stays occupied with or without troops.

So it all boils down to me mistaking TOs new capital fort with a regular fort.

@Krypheonix - here's an IOU for a beer of your choice whenever you are in my neck of the woods - cheers mate!

PS. There is still something fishy with mothballing capital forts!

 

[LittleFido]

Hello, thank you for your reports.
There is currently a known bug that causes regular forts to retake Capital Forts (if there is no regular fort in the province).
You cannot mothball capital forts, and they should not cost you money (The regular fort in the province does however).
Capital Forts should not exert a ZoC.
Also, forts retaking provinces is going to be changed to not be instant.
When this change will be implemented has not been determined yet.

 

[User4035]

Hello, thank you for your reports.
There is currently a known bug that causes regular forts to retake Capital Forts (if there is no regular fort in the province).
You cannot mothball capital forts, and they should not cost you money (The regular fort in the province does however).
Capital Forts should not exert a ZoC.
Also, forts retaking provinces is going to be changed to not be instant.
When this change will be implemented has not been determined yet.

I hope you guys take note that the higher fort level taking control of lower forts is a pretty bad design. Tactically you should always siege the highest fort first and then you get a cascade effect? ...that's not even logical. Why would forts start surrendering when a bigger fort in the next province was sacked?

...I was tryign to write more to explain this but the more I think about it the more I realize that it really is just a very bad design. Just go with no cascade effect except for the no fort provinces and it should be fine. Like, what are you trying to achieve game wise/ fun wise/ strategy wise by having a cascade effect?

 

[Tacticus101]

I hope you guys take note that the higher fort level taking control of lower forts is a pretty bad design. Tactically you should always siege the highest fort first and then you get a cascade effect? ...that's not even logical. Why would forts start surrendering when a bigger fort in the next province was sacked?

...I was tryign to write more to explain this but the more I think about it the more I realize that it really is just a very bad design. Just go with no cascade effect except for the no fort provinces and it should be fine. Like, what are you trying to achieve game wise/ fun wise/ strategy wise by having a cascade effect?

As Wiz just said, that wasn't the cause of the problem. Normally forts will not flip, even if the fort is a higher level, but there is a bug with capital forts.

 

[mattkunz]

I hope you guys take note that the higher fort level taking control of lower forts is a pretty bad design. Tactically you should always siege the highest fort first and then you get a cascade effect? ...that's not even logical. Why would forts start surrendering when a bigger fort in the next province was sacked?

...I was tryign to write more to explain this but the more I think about it the more I realize that it really is just a very bad design. Just go with no cascade effect except for the no fort provinces and it should be fine. Like, what are you trying to achieve game wise/ fun wise/ strategy wise by having a cascade effect?

I'm pretty sure this didn't make it into the final build. In my games forts don't automatically occupy their zone of control, with forts or without. A fort just retakes its zone of control, if provinces in the zone have been occupied, there are no troops in those occupied provinces, and the fort itself is not being sieged. Also apparently there is a bug, that forts will retake a capital fort in its zoc, other criteria being the same.

 

[User4035]

As Wiz just said, that wasn't the cause of the problem. Normally forts will not flip, even if the fort is a higher level, but there is a bug with capital forts.

....but what I just said(and you quoted it) - I wasn't talking about the problem. I am talking about higher forts having a cascading effect as bad game design because what does it doesn't add to the experience of the game, it takes away.

 

[Tacticus101]

....but what I just said(and you quoted it) - I wasn't talking about the problem. I am talking about higher forts having a cascading effect as bad game design because what does it doesn't add to the experience of the game, it takes away.

And I was saying that higher level forts having a cascading effect wasn't the cause of the problem and wasn't in the game, so it doesn't matter whether it would be bad game design or not.

 

[AdAstra]

How can forts under siege have any zone of control...outside of the walls?

 

[ciadude2]

How can forts under siege have any zone of control...outside of the walls?

If an army bypasses a fortified place with a significant number of soldiers within(say, hundreds or thousands rather than dozens), they are at risk from being attacked from multiple sides, or while vulnerable in marching order. Armies typically marched in long trains of men with large groups of noncombatants(prostitutes, merchants, quartermasters, engineers, and so forth) following as part of the overall baggage train. Even if the advancing army is far larger than the garrison they bypassed, that garrison could still sally forth all sneaky and attack the vulnerable parts of the force.
For a historical example, when Marc Antony tried to invade Parthia during his reign over the Eastern Mediterranean, a much smaller Parthian force attacked his siege equipment before the main army could respond to it, dooming his entire invasion from the start.
The siege of Constantinople also had several examples of smaller Byzantine forces trying to catch the Turks off guard(several of which succeeded, and several which ended disastrously).

 

[VarangianStudios]

I'm experiencing a similar issue as ArschGranate. I'll completely occupy Hudavendigar which has a fort for it to flip back to Ottoman control by the fort in Ankara.

I don't know if this has something to do with Hudavendigar being the capital or not.

Is it possible that Hudavendigar isn't counting as a fort because it doesn't have a legitimate fort built in the province only the freebie capital fort?

This might be causing the Ankara fort to act as if there is no fort at all in Hudavendigar and flip it the second I leave.

I checked the Marienburg issue and both provinces ArschGranate is talking about have forts. So I don't know.

EDIT: Ah, saw this was already addressed while I was typing this up!

 

[Shadowstrike]

To speak more broadly, it doesn't make sense why a higher-level fort would automatically take over a captured lower-level fort. It makes sense why the higher-level fort's zone of control should take precedent (because they have more men to cut off supply routes). But it's illogical that it would immediately be able to recapture a less developed fortified position that the invader had captured and presumably manned.

 

[AdAstra]

If an army bypasses a fortified place with a significant number of soldiers within(say, hundreds or thousands rather than dozens), they are at risk from being attacked from multiple sides, or while vulnerable in marching order. Armies typically marched in long trains of men with large groups of noncombatants(prostitutes, merchants, quartermasters, engineers, and so forth) following as part of the overall baggage train. Even if the advancing army is far larger than the garrison they bypassed, that garrison could still sally forth all sneaky and attack the vulnerable parts of the force.
For a historical example, when Marc Antony tried to invade Parthia during his reign over the Eastern Mediterranean, a much smaller Parthian force attacked his siege equipment before the main army could respond to it, dooming his entire invasion from the start.
The siege of Constantinople also had several examples of smaller Byzantine forces trying to catch the Turks off guard(several of which succeeded, and several which ended disastrously).

I appriciate great answer, but it does not actually answer the question.

I siege castle. No enemy troops nearby. My second army cannot move into province next to castle because invisible barriers says so. Sense? None.

 

[ciadude2]

I appriciate great answer, but it does not actually answer the question.

I siege castle. No enemy troops nearby. My second army cannot move into province next to castle because invisible barriers says so. Sense? None.

That is true. IMO if a castle is under siege, a secondary force should be able to keep moving past the zone of control. I was mostly just trying to plausibly explain the mechanic in general, my bad .

 

[Tacticus101]

I appriciate great answer, but it does not actually answer the question.

I siege castle. No enemy troops nearby. My second army cannot move into province next to castle because invisible barriers says so. Sense? None.

I find imagining it as a (abstracted) version of supply lines works. The fort controls whatever river, valley, road or dirt track the local supply lines go through, until you capture the fort it blocks any attempts for your armies to go through. Attempting to transport supplies for your army cross country is too difficult.