Improved and reworked ZOC and pathing

[Axe99]

If besieged forts didn't block movement, fort blocking movement would be pointless.

What about if you had to 'invest' a fort - so if you had the forces, you could siege a fort with one army, negating its ZOC, and march past with another - but you'd need a sufficiently large army to do it, you couldn't just drop 1000 people there and forget about it? That said, I don't mind the ZOC thing, definitely preferable imo to the pre-ZOC situation.

 

[NightKev]

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?

You wouldn't be able to do that because the army you used to remove the ZoC would be blocked by it once it lifts the siege. Assuming this theoretical system were implemented properly, anyway.

 

[Scottx105]

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.

Well apparently people do not agree, the last 2 DLC's paradox have released have gotten mixed reviews showing you are doing something seriously wrong. I think a rethink is in order.

 

[Promanco]

Well apparently people do not agree, the last 2 DLC's paradox have released have gotten mixed reviews showing you are doing something seriously wrong. I think a rethink is in order.

Sales speak a lot louder than reviews, clearly Paradox things this path is good for sales therefore they will keep going this way, which I am happy about the Fort rework is awesome and I wish Victoria has a similar system :/

 

[Kwami]

Well apparently people do not agree, the last 2 DLC's paradox have released have gotten mixed reviews showing you are doing something seriously wrong. I think a rethink is in order.

Some people don't agree. Many others quite like the ZoC idea. I certainly do!

The only problem that I see in the screenshot is that he can't move from Kazan to Viatka or Vetluga. The rest is fine.

I'd imagine that making a set of rules that always works is hard, though.

 

[Scottx105]

Some people don't agree. Many others quite like the ZoC idea. I certainly do!

The only problem that I see in the screenshot is that he can't move from Kazan to Viatka or Vetluga. The rest is fine.

I'd imagine that making a set of rules that always works is hard, though.

I would like it if it WORKED. And another point I would like to make is the fact that no matter what features that are in a DLC, regardless of if they are major or not, is no excuse for a buggy release. Paradox should have delayed the DLC till it was finished or actually done some comprehensive testing.

 

[FrigidSoul]

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.

Yep, way more intuitive. If the fort is under a proper siege, then presumably its defenders can't project power. Regardless, you'd think that you could always retreat from an enemy-fort-controlled province to territory you control.

 

[Kwami]

I would like it if it WORKED. And another point I would like to make is the fact that no matter what features that are in a DLC, regardless of if they are major or not, is no excuse for a buggy release. You should have delayed the DLC till it was finished or actually done some comprehensive testing.

Who is "you" here? I didn't develop the game.

 

[Scottx105]

Who is "you" here? I didn't develop the game.

Lol yeah sorry, just a bit angry with paradox atm. I'll reword it to what it should mean ^^.

Yep, way more intuitive. If the fort is under a proper siege, then presumably its defenders can't project power. Regardless, you'd think that you could always retreat from an enemy-fort-controlled province to territory you control.

That isn't intuitive, because all you need to do is have troops laying a path into enemy territory in the example that they have a giant line of forts. IMO you should not be able to move through forts, and due to the AI not being able to handle AOC (area of control) they should allow armies to move around forts and still allow forts to recapture friendly territory if occupied. But should then reduce fort cost and maintenance as you would then be required to build more forts.

 

[hyperjoe]

From Bashkortostan to Kandey.
Truly improved and reworked

I like Zones of Control. I believe they add a layer of complexity that requires you to be patient and allows your enemy time to recover from a loss and respond to an attack. The previous system of being able to carpet siege a country with 1-2(k) stacks after you stackwipe an army was totally OP (for the player) and destroyed the challenge. It just made wars loooong wait-fests.

The problem I have with this screenshot is with PATHING. I believe that since his (Muscovite) army is already within the ZoC of the fort, his path should either be:

Bashkortostan -> Kazan -> Vediv-Suvar -> Alatyr -> SimBirsk -> Kanedey

or

Bashkortostan -> Ar-Chally -> Vediv-Suvar -> Alatyr -Simbirsk -> Kanadey

The argument for the former would be that he should be able to move directly from the edge of the ZoC to the fort back out to the edge of the ZoC and then OUT of the ZoC.

The argument for the latter would be that he should be able to move within Kazan's ZoC and then OUT of the ZoC wherever there is no enemy ZoC present (ie Alatyr).

I would NOT propose a path that went from Bashkortostan -> Ar-Chally -> Samara -> Kanadey because that would mean he'd be able to move out of an enemy ZoC onto enemy OWNED (though not controlled) territory.

My feeling is that you should always be able to move from an enemy controlled ZoC to your OWNED territory. But not from an enemy CONTROLLED ZoC to enemy OWNED territory.

My proposed pathing would cut the path almost by half, but still require quite a bit of movement around the fort.

Thoughts?

 

[Pyramid_Head]

Improvement intensifies

 

[themunck]

Improvement intensifies

I think the OP's was worse. At least you're not moving into an entirely third country this time.

 

[seriousgigi]

sth weird thing happened to me yesterday. i have two different army in istra and i ordered both of them to go to venice but one of them was goint to straight way (like there is no enemy fort around there) but the other one going to get around of krain... :S (and istra had an enemy castle)

 

[uncldead]

How it should be.
I do not know why we even discuss it. It is so obvious.

 

[gia257]

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?

no because the besieging army would not be able to follow

 

[gia257]

I like Zones of Control. I believe they add a layer of complexity that requires you to be patient and allows your enemy time to recover from a loss and respond to an attack. The previous system of being able to carpet siege a country with 1-2(k) stacks after you stackwipe an army was totally OP (for the player) and destroyed the challenge. It just made wars loooong wait-fests.

The problem I have with this screenshot is with PATHING. I believe that since his (Muscovite) army is already within the ZoC of the fort, his path should either be:

Bashkortostan -> Kazan -> Vediv-Suvar -> Alatyr -> SimBirsk -> Kanedey

or

Bashkortostan -> Ar-Chally -> Vediv-Suvar -> Alatyr -Simbirsk -> Kanadey

The argument for the former would be that he should be able to move directly from the edge of the ZoC to the fort back out to the edge of the ZoC and then OUT of the ZoC.

The argument for the latter would be that he should be able to move within Kazan's ZoC and then OUT of the ZoC wherever there is no enemy ZoC present (ie Alatyr).

I would NOT propose a path that went from Bashkortostan -> Ar-Chally -> Samara -> Kanadey because that would mean he'd be able to move out of an enemy ZoC onto enemy OWNED (though not controlled) territory.

My feeling is that you should always be able to move from an enemy controlled ZoC to your OWNED territory. But not from an enemy CONTROLLED ZoC to enemy OWNED territory.

My proposed pathing would cut the path almost by half, but still require quite a bit of movement around the fort.

Thoughts?

Any kind of rule that uses zoc will have issues. For yours, if you are deep in territory and the enemy manages to siege back the fort that gave you entrance in the first place, means that you are trapped until you siege the current fort, then go back and siege the previous one, assuming theres no more forts around that could lock you in forever as you are surrounded by enemy territory.

 

[Neoton]

PD should just remove these movement restrictions and keep the forts' ability to reoccupy undefended adjacent provinces. They could even add more attrition to an army that is besieging a fort. This way forts will still retain their strategic importance and we will no longer witness travesties like the screenshots in this thread.

 

[Krajzen]

For me 1.13 movement blockades made perfect sense, now I don't understand anything

 

[happymix91]

You wouldn't be able to do that because the army you used to remove the ZoC would be blocked by it once it lifts the siege. Assuming this theoretical system were implemented properly, anyway.

no because the besieging army would not be able to follow

So what? If attacker has more armies, tens of inf regiments can't make big difference even if they can't participate.

And what if armies used to ignore removed from the fort? What mechanism should be applied to previously passed armies? Stuck at enemy territory? Suffer attrition? And how to clarify armies which passed ZoC? How many efforts should be put on that system? If Paradox releases dlc which has nearly no features due to create new ZoC, how many people would by it? Will you fund Paradox?

 

[Allurai]

So Wiz...

He has sieged and occupied (thus controls) every surrounding territory, if the fort was able to project power while under siege, it should be automatically unsieging the territories around it right? No, that doesn't happen because the fort is under siege, in which case, why can't the occupying force move through said territory that is occupied and controlled?

Forts reoccupying sieged non-forted territories only when not being under siege themselves seems makes sense, but when compared to forts under siege still managing to block movement it does not.