How near a fort has to be so that the AI will agree to surrender it in a peace deal?

[DanielPrates]

Well... what the title says. As Ming I attacked Manchu. Had war score enough to annex one single occupied province that was all I wanted. But the tooltip says I didn't occupy a fort in the area. However the closest fort was some 5 provinces away!

I understand the machanic and agree to its. What I want to know is how far exactly the fort has to be taken into acount. Same state etc.?

 

[Maxxie42]

I'm pretty sure you only need to have occupied one fort that has a land connection to the province you want to be able to take it. The distance itself doesn't matter, against Russia you could occupy Novgorod and ask for Eastern Siberia.

 

[wingren013]

you need to be able to draw a path from your borders to the province with the path not being allowed to pass the ZOC of another fort (following ZOC rules). So unsieged forts will protect the provinces behind them from being taken. You also need to occupy at least one fort connected to the province via land.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Nothing like having walk all the way up into Siberia to take back Transoxiana's cores on Uzbek ...

 

[Battlex]

Nothing like having walk all the way up into Siberia to take back Transoxiana's cores on Uzbek ...

Why would you waste your time doing that when you could get a reconquest war for kazakhs cores

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Well... what the title says. As Ming I attacked Manchu. Had war score enough to annex one single occupied province that was all I wanted. But the tooltip says I didn't occupy a fort in the area. However the closest fort was some 5 provinces away!

I understand the machanic and agree to its. What I want to know is how far exactly the fort has to be taken into acount. Same state etc.?

You need to occupy one fort of the owner connected by land to the province you want if there is any for connected to it.

alternatively if rebels or someone else occupies theirforts you dongg to need to.

The thing that vexes me is that it seems inconsistent whether this rule applies across straits or not. I swear I have had cases where there are no forts on one side of the straight can I could just take the provinces and others where I needed to occupy a fort across the straight.

 

[DanielPrates]

Ok guys thanks. In other words, if the AI still holds all forts in the same patch of land, they wont agree to surrendering any province. Take one single fort though, and the objection vanishes.

Final question: assume I took one fort, and very very far away from it, another province, this second province being the only thing I will ask in the peace deal. In the rule we are discussing, the AI shouldn't oppose (except for other broader causes like lack of suficient warscore etc.). But what if the province I am asking is adjacent to another, untaken fort? Will it still refuse or the first, far away fort I've already taken clears the impediment?

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Ok guys thanks. In other words, if the AI still holds all forts in the same patch of land, they wont agree to surrendering any province. Take one single fort though, and the objection vanishes.

Final question: assume I took one fort, and very very far away from it, another province, this second province being the only thing I will ask in the peace deal. In the rule we are discussing, the AI shouldn't oppose (except for other broader causes like lack of suficient warscore etc.). But what if the province I am asking is adjacent to another, untaken fort? Will it still refuse or the first, far away fort I've already taken clears the impediment?

Shouldn’t matter. Hold one fort connect by land to the province and you should be fine.

The thing is to basically prevent the human from turtling and getting warscore from battles or something then demanding their land without actually going on the offensive.

 

[Maxxie42]

Final question: assume I took one fort, and very very far away from it, another province, this second province being the only thing I will ask in the peace deal

Not only will it work, you don't even need to occupy the actual province to ask for it in the peace deal. (Unless the owner of that province is a secondary participant in the war, but that's another problem.)

 

[Alyosha]

Shouldn’t matter. Hold one fort connect by land to the province and you should be fine.

The thing is to basically prevent the human from turtling and getting warscore from battles or something then demanding their land without actually going on the offensive.

Player couldn’t do that effectively anyway if the war was waged with a province as the war goal. Not holding the goal would gradually tank the player’s war score.

If you’re writing about a Superiority war goal that makes more sense. However requiring a player to win battles to ge the ticking bonus AND capture a fort province (for no reason other than the -1000 modifier) seems like overkill for the rule.

It’s a bad mechanic that solves edge cases. It would be better for the AI to surrender territory earlier in a war that it is losing. All this modifier does is prolong the AI’s agony.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Player couldn’t do that effectively anyway if the war was waged with a province as the war goal. Not holding the goal would gradually tank the player’s war score.

If you’re writing about a Superiority war goal that makes more sense. However requiring a player to win battles to ge the ticking bonus AND capture a fort province (for no reason other than the -1000 modifier) seems like overkill for the rule.

It’s a bad mechanic that solves edge cases. It would be better for the AI to surrender territory earlier in a war that it is losing. All this modifier does is prolong the AI’s agony.

It would generally be pretty easy to set the war goal as a border province and take it just long enough to negate the negative war score. I have certainly done that in wars where I don’t want to take land.

Or in a scenario like France vs England gain warscore by holding a continental province and then take England without any navy.

It is absolutely an inelegant solution but it does manage some issues and not just fringe cases.

 

[LordHoth]

There should be a distance limiter though. It feels ridiculous to have to march all the way from one end of a continent to another, as has happened so many times (refer above to the Siberia notes). Alternatively, perhaps there could be a regional limiter? But, right now, I recently had a case where I took Paramaribo and had to then conquer Bogota or something near there, because Colombia had built a fortress there and nowhere else. It's more than a thousand kilometres away!

 

[DanielPrates]

Things would make much more sense from the logic point of view if the AI wouldnt surrender the province if it still has a fort in the STATE area, or perhaps if the province you want is in the zoc of an intact fort - and the mechanic would still serve the same purpose, better perhaps.

 

[Alyosha]

It would generally be pretty easy to set the war goal as a border province and take it just long enough to negate the negative war score. I have certainly done that in wars where I don’t want to take land.

Or in a scenario like France vs England gain warscore by holding a continental province and then take England without any navy.

It is absolutely an inelegant solution but it does manage some issues and not just fringe cases.

Why should that be limited though? If a human player wants to use gamey tactics on the AI he/she has plenty of ways to do so, for example the naval/military access trick with Scotland in your scenario. If I as the player want to take Cornwall as opposed to my cores in mainland France why should that be impossible vis diplomacy?

I’ll give you a counter example: I as the Ottomans am at war with the Mameluks. I’m absolutely destroying them on the mainland, with all of the Levant and lower Egypt (including Cairo and Alexandria occupied). However, they have naval superiority and I cannot get to Cyprus, which I want in this peace deal (it wasn’t my initial war goal so I’m not losing ticking war score). I cannot demand that province because of a -1000 modifier (it has a fort) but it would be much better for the Mameluks if I could demand it. Instead I’ll wait a couple years milking their provinces of loot and attempting to land some soldiers on Cyprus.

If you’re that worried about a player being able to conduct diplomacy in that manner, make the “no controlled fort” modifier -10, which means a greater cost but not an insurmountable one. -1000 is lazy.

 

[atwix]

you need to be able to draw a path from your borders to the province with the path not being allowed to pass the ZOC of another fort (following ZOC rules). So unsieged forts will protect the provinces behind them from being taken. You also need to occupy at least one fort connected to the province via land.

this is NOT the way it works. Unoccupied forts do NOT prevent provinces from being taken in a peace deal. If you occupy one fort, any province connected to it can be taken, barring colonial range.

example: if you invade england from scotland and occupy the fort in northumbria, you can ask for london WITHOUT occupying it, provided you have enough warscore.

Well... what the title says. As Ming I attacked Manchu. Had war score enough to annex one single occupied province that was all I wanted. But the tooltip says I didn't occupy a fort in the area. However the closest fort was some 5 provinces away!

I understand the machanic and agree to its. What I want to know is how far exactly the fort has to be taken into acount. Same state etc.?

if you want a province in a region that is not connected to the target nation capital, you need to occupy a fort in that enclave in order to ask a province inside it. That is all there is to it.

If you occupy Bejing, in theory you could ask for canton fort ALSO, without ever getting occupations there. If you occupy one fort anywhere, you can ask for any province connected to it, if you have the warscore, and barring colonial range.