idk, just correcting their thought, to me forts should only do attrition, find whatever post I did at suggestions
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.
Wiz, admit it, you just like seeing armies taking long and silly walks around the country.
- 2
It is just not working now. It's not fulfilling any of advertised features. It's not blocking, it just messes pathing. It's not making forts a vital part of defenses as armies just take longer to do the same due to idiotic maneuvers as forts work rearded for both attacker and defender.
- 11
- 1
What a mess, I don't even understand the rules of fort's anymore. Moved into 2 enemy fort's zoc and started seiging an enemy fort, cancelled it and tried moving out of the fort's zoc the way I came in and land movement was blocked. so I was trapped in between 2 fort's. Had to siege it down to 'free myself' what a joke.
- 5
Oh come on wiz.
Usually I find you funny when you're being a douche.
This time however, there's literally no reason for it.
There is no defensible reason for that pathing. It's horrible, and if done manually could be shortened significantly.
Kazan -> Vetluga makes sense and would be a possible move if done manually.
That might even be where the army came from originally.
A 3 province detour can be quite a big deal, especially when fighting on several fronts.
That sort of shitty pathing can make you lose wars, especially on higher difficulties or in MP.
It's bad, and you should admit as much. Even a simple. "Yeah that sucks, but I haven't found a way to solve it." would be nice.
Or is this one of those problems that's going to be deemed a feature and ignored?
- 19
- 1
I like it as is. The only possible improvement I can see would be,
Forts completely blocking movement until sieged but have no zone so you would have to build up the entire border or sections, but cheaper. The problem is it would become tedious.
Forts completely blocking movement until sieged but have no zone so you would have to build up the entire border or sections, but cheaper. The problem is it would become tedious.
I'm not sure if I am correct however I feel like some of the younger, more inexperienced devs fell for the good old "dead soldier fallacy". They invested so much time and money in really awful features (like estates or ZOC) that they can't back down now or else they will suffer cognitive dissonance and get into trouble with the forums and with corporate if they cut out the root cause, which is the actual bad design.
I can hardly wait for Wiz or other young inexperienced devs to snark over my remarks, it will make my day.
I can hardly wait for Wiz or other young inexperienced devs to snark over my remarks, it will make my day.
- 14
- 5
Give reasons for your remark. Although the thread itself could be your argument for ZOC being bad, what is the problem with Estates?
The 1.13 system would be ideal if it just worked all the time. I liked the idea of only being able to walk to a fort if you are in an adjacent province. It blocked movements without causing armies to get stuck, since you always could retreat.
- 2
Seems pretty simple for me, take the fort and you'll have freedom of movement, as long as you don't take it don't expect to start rampaging through enemy territory (what an incredible concept right !).
Forts with zoc are way more interesting than before, now increasing the amount of forts on a border can be a good strategy (especially in the later era's) to gain time and defeat your enemies separately, all the same, it is also interesting now to siege a strategic fortress quickly to allow better troop coordination early in the war while before you would just start sieging when all enemy forces were destroyed.
Personally my only concern is regarding besieging armies in hills or mountains, it is uninteresting to put a fort in a mountain or hill province since once the enemy starts besieging it he will gain the terrain bonus making it really attractive to start sieging such forts with middle sized armies, but that is more the problem of attacking and defending bonuses more than anything else.
- 2
- 1
There are plenty of threads which state problems with both these features, why should I reiterate what has been said already countless times? Estates are incomplete, inconsistent, a bad rehash of factions and fiddly, even the devs admitted the Call Diet feature from the dev diaries was cut from the final release, and the ZoC issues have been dismissed with a snarky remark which was criticized above. Also Wiz is obsessed with rebels, without any sort of motivation. Nothing else to say really. Young devs make common mistakes, because they're blinded by ego and ambition, I've seen hundreds.
Also thanks, for the downvote, I'm sure it felt great.
- 10
- 6
How about simply allow us to always move through controlled provinces? But not provinces that are being retaken by an adjecent fort. That means the fort needs to be besieged and any province you want to move through either yours or occupied.
- 4
I did respectfully disagree with you. Isn't that the point of the button? Whether it felt great or not is not important. I think estates were created well, and while it is true that certain parts of it was cut out, they did try to make something important in a pretty short amount of time. People have different opinions on stuff. Some like developers to take their time to make sure everything works completely fine. Others, like me, want to try out features early, despite not being finished. Why I think so is not too important too. And about rebels, I think they are fine, personally. I don't ever see too much of a problem with them. Most of the time, only (AI) empires that stretches too far seems to have them, most of the time. I have already stated my opinion about forts. While there are plenty of thread which state problems with both these features, there is tons of opinions on the subjects.
- 1
Let's just hope the next expansion have some new realistic supply system that can be interrupted by forts or something.
Nah, next expansion will just be "moving onto a fort exits and relaunches the game".
- 6
- 2
- 1
Yeah I almost forgot about that 2.5 y/o bug that's been "fixed" by restarting the game. I can hardly wait for people for "respectfully" "disagree" with me, as if that's anything different that a downvote trying to drown dissent.
- 9
- 4
- 1
Without that button, people would have to reply to every comment they disagree with. Of course, it is pretty annoying when none states why they disagree, but everyone doesn't have to write individual comments. Anyways, that button is not the theme of the thread.
- 5
And this is why we need a funny button.
And why did you have to go and write that last part, I was so ready to agree with you until you wrote that.
yea, these are confusing. one army must have 'entered' via vienna. so it can go out that way.
the better question is: why can you go from krain to graz? normally, that's not allowed (moving between 2 zones of a fort). ;o
that's nothing though
have to go through muscovy to reach lubeck from holstein, because of fort in hamburg. however, even after i took that fort, no screenshot, still had to go around. even got access to brandenburg; nope - wismar only... can't even get to brandenburg, it just prevents you form leaving hamburg/holstein. :\
it's weird too, how i could attack hamburg, but not lubeck in any manner.
basically, how do you get to syria from france? by going thru england, of course: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/zones-of-control.894284/#post-20303292
Last edited:
- 4
- 1