Fortress.... arggg...

[unmerged(5627)]

In my current game as the Ottomans (I've got all my core provinces + a few others) I can hardly have any succesful wars. It is 1753 right now, but for the past 200 years I've had to deal with massive forts everywhere. It took me forever to get a province from Poland becuase I had to fight them off and seige medium or large fortified provinces. I understand this to slow down expansion in late game, but with the cheap costs of forts (relatively cheap to large powers) I could update my entire empire to medium fortresses within a few years, and as in the case in my current game, maximize my borders forts with Austria, Poland, and Russia.

So in any case, offensive or defensive war, it takes huge amounts of troops and time to both capture a province by sieging and defending it against the huge armies Austria can throw against my armies in their low troop capacity provinces with huge forts. I am full offensive, but even with full defensive, I don't see the point in making fortresses so unhistorically strong that pitched battles don't even matter, as long as in the time it takes for the enemy to capture your province, you can rebuild your armies.

So, how exactly should I go about my wars? My empire is 90% Sunni, with a few orthodox provinces, and 1 catholic province(Venice, I won't even waste 3,000 on converting that thing, its huge). I can sustain relatively long wars, but not the kind of long wars that would enable me to crush Austria (that spans half of Europe).

I think if forts are going to be this strong, at least make them alot more expensive. Hopefully when I get to revolutionary army tech. I can rampage Austria, but Austria is only a few techs behind me.....

P.S.: So many minors and even non-Euroe minors have small up to large forts on ALL of their provinces, with army tech up to 25!. So either forts should be made more expensive, or make it so forts are weaker, or that it takes higher mil. tech to get those fort levels.

 

[Vortigern]

I think this sort of thing has come up before, but......

Perhaps the cost of fortresses should increase geometrically rather than arithmetically. So for progressively larger fortresses, the cost would run (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200), rather than (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600). Throw inflation in on top of that, and I don't suppose there would many mighty fortreses around. Would this model work?

 

[FrosT37]

Originally posted by Vortigern
I think this sort of thing has come up before, but......

Perhaps the cost of fortresses should increase geometrically rather than arithmetically. So for progressively larger fortresses, the cost would run (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200), rather than (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600). Throw inflation in on top of that, and I don't suppose there would many mighty fortreses around. Would this model work?

3200 for a maximum fortress?! no way!

 

[JohnMK]

EDIT: Yes way!

It would work just fine, provided the AI weren't stupid enough to build the 3200 ducat fortresses everywhere.

 

[unmerged(7041)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
EDIT: Yes way!

It would work just fine, provided the AI weren't stupid enough to build the 3200 ducat fortresses everywhere.

I agree. There are far too many "max" fortresses towards the end of the game.

 

[Xanadu]

Originally posted by JohnMK
EDIT: Yes way!

It would work just fine, provided the AI weren't stupid enough to build the 3200 ducat fortresses everywhere.

I wouldn't call it stupid really.
I look at it as the AI making itself very very tough to beat .

 

[JohnMK]

Another possibility might be to introduce maintenance costs for fortresses (all of them, even minimal), including a separate slider so you could set maintenance between 50-100%.

 

[JohnMK]

Originally posted by Xanadu


I wouldn't call it stupid really.
I look at it as the AI making itself very very tough to beat .

There are more realistic ways to be tough to beat.

 

[Xanadu]

There has also been the talk of bringing the the repairing feature to the fortresses because as it stands right now one you take a fortress it is instantly garrrisoned, and the walls have been totally fixed.

An element of Lords of the Realm should be implemented here.

 

[Castellon]

There is already the possiblity of the level of the fort being reduced after a siege/assault.

 

[Xanadu]

I know that, but the fact that it is instantly repaired one second after taking the fortress is what is unrealistic.

 

[JohnMK]

And the fact that they cost nothing to garrison and maintain.

 

[Altuar]

Last time these threads began to be posted in EU1, I tried to keep it at the top for a time. Lets do it again an perhaps we'll see it included in 1.05!

I agree wholeheartedly: the costs should be increased for forts!

All those who are at one mind in this with me, keep bumping!

 

[unmerged(2178)]

There should be an upkeep cost for the larger forts. We are not talking about a wooden picket or anything but major fortifications are the provincial capitals. They require supply, pay for the permament garrisons, upkeep for the walls etc. The amount of $$ it takes to build a mighty fort is not high enough.
I think the suggestion of a slider would be good, and a monthly upkeep charge associated with the number of forts and there size.

 

[unmerged(5314)]

Originally posted by JohnMK


There are more realistic ways to be tough to beat.

Hardly any of them as cheap and effective as upgrading your fortresses. Quite possibly the only deterrent that even works against the human player himself! (see Ariel's wonderful AAR and his retreat from Spain)

 

[unmerged(5389)]

I agree completely! Increase the cost to build fortresses from 100 200 300 400... to 100 200 400 800... That will really add a great perspective to the game.
I absolutely LOVE the idea of maintenance for forts... damn why didnt i think of that?

 

[Secret Master]

Ok, ok, ok... Lets talk about fortifications.

First, to answer the original posters questions before this thread was hijacked, what to do as the Ottoman's against Austria in the situation described.

Answer: Wait until they get in a long war with someone else, then sneak in and DOW after they have been fighting for about five years. But thats not enough. Second, you will want cannons... I mean alot of cannons, with your armies. Now what you do is assault fortresses. With alot of artilery behind you, assaults will work much better. Third, try and crush Austrian armies in the field, and then cover/siege several provinces at once, to hurt their taxes and troop building. Then, you have your main asasult army assault one fortress, then another, and another, and so on. Depending on your DP sliders, taking out war taxes every few years can enable you to recruit over 100,000 men a year, and that kind of firepower, combined with pre-built armies, should enable you to crush them.

If you are playing at vrey hard, be warned! The AI cheats on war exhaustion on very hard with the latest patch. So, you will likely get wiped out by war exhaustion before them.

Now, to move on to the fortress problem. I will say this: In the late game, all max fortresses are not such a big deal, particularly in Europe. If you have noticed, when you get Revolutionary Technology for your land units, and their uniforms change to Napoleonic, they siege twice as fast. What I mean is that they check for breaches twice a month rather than once a month. The result is that even minimal siege forces will take down max forts in a reasonable amount of time. If you employ massive cannons (which are cheaper than a max fort anyway) you can reduce them to rubble in no time. I will note that in the late game, you should focus on annihlating enemy armies in the field, leaving only small forces to cover/siege forts. This is appropriate because, in that era of war, the battles were more decisive than the sieges anyway. If you clear the enemy from the field completely, the sieges are no problem.

In ROTW, max forts can be a real pain, but that has more to do with low support value in provinces than fort sizes. This is where navies come into their own, allowing you to blockade enemy ports, preventing large troop movements to relieve your overseas sieges and allowing you to maintain blockades of those same big forts for longer periods. (AI attritionless fleets are VERY unbalanced in this regard, though the AI doesnt seem to like blockading very often.)

The problem with making them more expensive is that it will hurt the AI way more than the player. The AI has enough problems with its finances already. Making them even more expensive would end up with players having max forts everywhere, and the AI having a few poorly placed ones.

I think a better solution, already heard here, is the support cost for garrisons. I have suggested this very thing before, precisly because it is fair to both big and little countries. The idea with forcing you to pay support for garrisons, though, is that garrison sizes are way off from their historical sizes. I would suggest forcing nations to pay only 50% of the support cost for the number of defenders in a garrison. The extra-large garrison sizes have more to do with game balance regarding assaults and the CRT, so this isnt such a big deal. This would also help eliminate the instant garrison problem, by at least forcing you to support the garrisons you leave behind in occupied enemy lands. Incidentally, forcing nations to pay support costs of some sort for garrisons will help eliminate the ahistorically huge armies we always see.

 

[unmerged(6603)]

Originally posted by Xanadu


I wouldn't call it stupid really.
I look at it as the AI making itself very very tough to beat .

or adding a new way for the AI to bankrupt itself. I think the costs could be increased as well... but the AI would need to be educated on how to use them

 

[unmerged(5389)]

I think that maintenance costs should be implemented, i can live with current prices

 

[unmerged(6816)]

200k infantry with good moral and some cannon backup can slice through max fortresses like a hot knife through butter.