Improved and reworked ZOC and pathing
- Thread starter Pyramid_Head
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Are you expecting to be able to walk straight through enemy forts?
We're never gonna get rid of every possible weird path caused by ZOC because if we did then forts would have to no longer block movement. You're trying to get all the way around an enemy fort, that is gonna cause some circuitous paths.
We're never gonna get rid of every possible weird path caused by ZOC because if we did then forts would have to no longer block movement. You're trying to get all the way around an enemy fort, that is gonna cause some circuitous paths.
- 56
- 29
- 2
Sounds like you've hit upon the solution to me! How many more iterations of unintuitive, poorly explained, dysfunctional movement rules will we have to get before we can ditch the ZOC disaster?
- 102
- 31
Seems all he wants to do is walk from a fort back into his own land that he controls. The indicators that say you can't walk somewhere aren't even on Viatka or Vetluga. Why does he have to take that odd path through Perm?
- 20
- 2
i feel like fully invested forts (actual siege progress ongoing) shouldn't be able to block movement anyways. I thought ZOC was to represent garrisons sallying forth to attack enemies marching by. But a fort (or fort system) that is encircled and invested shouldn't have that option.
Late game you'd be able to swarm over people, but if your army is that massive, then why not.
- 12
- 4
If besieged forts didn't block movement, fort blocking movement would be pointless.
- 47
- 9
- 3
You'd still have to leave significant forces behind that can be picked off. Keeping even close to force limit is really expensive too.
- 5
- 3
I think that forts blocking movement wasn't a very good idea, anyway. There should be more historical reasons instead to make it so you avoid walking all over a country, like an increased risk of attrition the deeper in you go.
Also, to prevent an invading army to just casually walk over new brigades, I think it should be possible to assemble an army in an invisible way and then deploy them, like in HOI.
- 25
- 8
My issue is I can't move into enemy provinces, that I just moved into. Then I built some mercs in some enemy occupied provinces, which I had moved in with no problem, but could not move the mercs out
- 3
If turning off movement blocking required leaving enough troops at the fort to actually lay a siege, and those troops remained blocked, then it wouldn't be pointless.
Is that any worse than the current situation in which building forts in adjacent provinces means that movement is completely unblocked?
- 6
- 5
That's necessarily untrue!
Rooting 6, 9, or even up to 40 regiments late game is non-trivial; those units would then be incapable of participating in battles outside that fort, making a run-by a risky proposition (especially if the force besieging got cut down). They absolutely would be weaker, but "pointless" is a stretch. Imagine trying to get through four level 6 forts like that; you'd need 120 regiments on siege duty just to "ignore" the forts, and 30 man armies are easily exposed/flanked.
I'm not saying it should go that direction, but it would be more intuitive than now, as would the "cheaper forts but only block movement out of that province into enemy territory". Even 1.13 is more intuitive than either 1.14 iteration thus far, despite that 1.13 isn't particularly intuitive either.
- 19
- 4
- 1
I believe forts should not block movement that is going away from their zoc. As an example. I was playing the Mamluks and the Ottomans had sieged up Halab while my army was in Rahka. I was unable to move to Rahba, away from the fort, and because of it the entire Ottoman army descended on the Mamluk army and stack wiped it. Oddly enough, the forces were able to move in, but could not move out.
Another issue is zoc on forts themselves. Currently there is no zoc on fort provinces. I think that zoc should be asserted over a fort in a neighbouring province when a siege begins, or hostile troops enter the province.
Another issue is zoc on forts themselves. Currently there is no zoc on fort provinces. I think that zoc should be asserted over a fort in a neighbouring province when a siege begins, or hostile troops enter the province.
- 2
That was essentially the thought behind it. Splitting stacks is a risky business these days with AI doomstacks stalking the land.
- 2
- 1
At least you should be able to go from Kazan to Vetluga in this case. Or at the very very least from Bashkortostan to Udmurtia to Viatka. That would be somewhat intuitive. Simply don't let ZOC mess up moving in your own territory. I guess that would fix the great majority of complains about it.
Last edited:
- 3
I don't mind ZoC right now. Maybe I'd change it so that forts apply ZoC to provinces that you own and control, or even just to provinces that you control. Honestly, it's better to just siege forts in the first few months of the war, wait for the AI to come to you, and beat them in battle when they do. Don't go too deep into enemy territory, since you're going to be restricting your own mobility for little gain. It's pretty basic strategy.
There can be value in it, especially because capitals are worth quite a bit of warscore, but yeah -- blitzkrieg cannot function here, nor should it be able to.
- 1
Then why can one now move from fort to fort? That change really bothers me as it doesn't make any sense. It makes it so that having more forts is often worse, not because it costs too much money but because it actually makes the forts not work as well. It also makes it way harder for small nations to utilize forts. Could you maybe explain to me why you guys made that change?
I'm trying my best not to sound like I'm just disagreeing with you completely, I actually would like to hear the reasoning so I can judge the decision based on that, instead of just the things I see.
- 9
Almost every ZoC bugs and unreasonable workings were fixed, and moving fort to fort is one of few exceptions. Problem is pathfinding.
Sieging fort will never allow ignore it. Detaching 6, 12, 18, 24 regiments to make it useless? Make 1 army having those regiments, put it on the fort you want to ingnore, lift it after your army passed, and put it on another fort you want to ingnore.. Who on earth considers it better?
Sieging fort will never allow ignore it. Detaching 6, 12, 18, 24 regiments to make it useless? Make 1 army having those regiments, put it on the fort you want to ingnore, lift it after your army passed, and put it on another fort you want to ingnore.. Who on earth considers it better?
- 1