- 4
- 3
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.
I just 'agreed' this post. You will have online validation whether you need it or not *defiant stare*
- 3
- 1
Well played, sir. *tips fedora*I just 'agreed' this post. You will have online validation whether you need it or not *defiant stare*
I have found that the more someone denies their need for validation the greater it really is.
- 4
Here's another weird one. I'm Hamburg, at war with Lubeck and others. Lubeck has a level 3 (capital + castle) fort, not mothballed. Due to my enemies having military access, I have temporary access through Brunswick and Brandenburg. I do not have access through Saxe-Lauenberg. I want to move my units from Hamburg to Wismar. The path generated is Hamburg -> Stade -> Hannover -> Braunschweig -> Altmark -> Ruppin -> Wismar.
However, if I move my units to Stade (note that this is actually the first step in the above path), I can then move Stade -> Holstein -> Lubeck -> Wismar.
I've given up hope of ever understanding the fort rules, but at the very least if the second path is legal from Stade, then that should be the generated path when I try to move from Hamburg.?
EDIT: One more piece of information. The validity of the Holstein->Lubeck->Wismar branch seems to change. If I move my troops to Stade, and then to Hamburg, I can go Hamburg->Holstein->Lubeck->Wismar. If, however, I move my troops to Holstein and then to Hamburg, I can go Hamburg->Holstein->Lubeck, but am blocked from continuing on to Wismar. Why does the province where I was prior to being in Hamburg affect whether I can move through Lubeck?
EDIT2: Holstein -> Stade -> Holstein -> Lubeck -> Wismar is invalid (cannot go Lubeck -> Wismar). But, Holstein -> Stade -> Hamburg -> Stade -> Holstein -> Lubeck -> Wismar is valid.
However, if I move my units to Stade (note that this is actually the first step in the above path), I can then move Stade -> Holstein -> Lubeck -> Wismar.
I've given up hope of ever understanding the fort rules, but at the very least if the second path is legal from Stade, then that should be the generated path when I try to move from Hamburg.?
EDIT: One more piece of information. The validity of the Holstein->Lubeck->Wismar branch seems to change. If I move my troops to Stade, and then to Hamburg, I can go Hamburg->Holstein->Lubeck->Wismar. If, however, I move my troops to Holstein and then to Hamburg, I can go Hamburg->Holstein->Lubeck, but am blocked from continuing on to Wismar. Why does the province where I was prior to being in Hamburg affect whether I can move through Lubeck?
EDIT2: Holstein -> Stade -> Holstein -> Lubeck -> Wismar is invalid (cannot go Lubeck -> Wismar). But, Holstein -> Stade -> Hamburg -> Stade -> Holstein -> Lubeck -> Wismar is valid.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
If anyone still thinks ZOC work fine, here is another example.
As you can see, the Netherland army that came from Artois can just walk onto Paris fine, as it's now possible to move freely from fort to fort. ZOC now are a complete mess, and I have to say I'm wholly unsatisfied by the fact that the situation is considered "WAD"
As you can see, the Netherland army that came from Artois can just walk onto Paris fine, as it's now possible to move freely from fort to fort. ZOC now are a complete mess, and I have to say I'm wholly unsatisfied by the fact that the situation is considered "WAD"
- 8
So... has anyone found out WHY the game made that path in OP? I'd kind of understand it if OP was Kazan (as nonsensical as it is, at least we "know" that getting into a province under two ZoCs force you to walk to the second fort before leaving its ZoC), but this... this only makes sense if Perm has a fort in Kudymkar and somehow it's exercing its ZoC.
Because it also depends on where they came from. I'd guess the second army came from Sopron's ZoC... maybe.
what about this? why the second army goes to sopron?
Because it also depends on where they came from. I'd guess the second army came from Sopron's ZoC... maybe.
I think few still believe the current fort system is good. It is more of a discussion whether the ZoC system should be reworked or removed.
- 3
Building more forts makes your lands less fortified. EU4 logic.If anyone still thinks ZOC work fine, here is another example.
As you can see, the Netherland army that came from Artois can just walk onto Paris fine, as it's now possible to move freely from fort to fort. ZOC now are a complete mess, and I have to say I'm wholly unsatisfied by the fact that the situation is considered "WAD"
- 11
Yes because EVERYONE who is a homophobe is secretly gay, EVERYONE who opposes communism is secretly a Nazi and so on and so forth. Just because there are people in the world who deny they need validation because they secretly crave for it, doesn't mean EVERYONE EVER on the Internet who denies they need validation, secretly craves for it. Generalization is bad, mkay?
- 3
- 3
Seems i hit a nerve... And wait are you saying generelization is always bad?
- 5
The forts ZOC has no business in a game of this scale. Terrain/Forts should only give bonuses to the prov. they are in period. Adjacent prov. getting ZOC is plain silly. Ever had a really great looking meal that took hrs to prepare and aunt Hilda comes in and throws a dash of her favorite spice in there because thats whats she thinks it needs................whammo!! Once you get a taste of it your no longer hungry, case in point. Talk about taking a good game and mucking with it too much. Sometimes less is more.
- 9
- 1
Being stuck in two overlapping zones of control has been an issue ever since the introduction of the ZOC mechanic in Common Sense. Even though this issue is somewhat rare, it causes problems with what should be the most fundamental principle of zones of control: It always has to be possible to walk back the way you came. I was hoping that the ZOC rework in 1.14 fixed this issue, but apparently it didn't.
- 4
- 1
Yes, I'm saying that generalization is bad and that if I generalized something willingly or unwillingly I should be embarrassed.
- 2
- 1
Maybe a good alternative to ZOC blockig movement would be a huge reduction of movement speed. That way, the forts would still be useful and at the same time less annoying.
This is actually pretty funny to me, since you're generalizing generalization, but that's neither here nor there.
Combine that with crippling attrition simulating attempting to get supplied past a stocked and defended area of the enemy country,and you may be on to something.
Forts are definitely strange now. I've been stuck at forts and had my ally just walk past the same fort without any problems.
I don't understand why it was changed to this system. Imo it should be like this:
- When you move into a forts ZoC you can move to the fort or back where you came from.
- If there's more then one fort having a ZoC you can move to either of them, or back where you came from.
- All forts work for friendly or neutral territories, not enemy. So your fort doesn't affect movement through your enemy's land, but does block movement through a 3rd. parties.
- If you take a fort, that fort is considered to be yours as far as ZoC goes. Any sieged land is "yours", none sieged are enemy
This should cover basically every case I believe, makes sense and easy to understand. Honestly I though that was what they where going for in last version, but that it didn't quite work right yet.
I don't understand why it was changed to this system. Imo it should be like this:
- When you move into a forts ZoC you can move to the fort or back where you came from.
- If there's more then one fort having a ZoC you can move to either of them, or back where you came from.
- All forts work for friendly or neutral territories, not enemy. So your fort doesn't affect movement through your enemy's land, but does block movement through a 3rd. parties.
- If you take a fort, that fort is considered to be yours as far as ZoC goes. Any sieged land is "yours", none sieged are enemy
This should cover basically every case I believe, makes sense and easy to understand. Honestly I though that was what they where going for in last version, but that it didn't quite work right yet.
- 2
My incredibly simple proposal would be to make it so that each province can only have one fort's ZOC on it, and no building will be permitted where it would double ZOC, but that would result in all kinds of weirdness for smaller or island nations, plus a minigame about optimizing fort placement, so shrug.
That was the point of my post too, hence the use of the word always.
Why it should be impossible to move troops from Kazan to Vietluga or Viatka? They are both his own provinces.
Frankly, in my books, it should be possible to go from Kazan to Vedr-Suvar and from Vedr-Suvar to Alatyr (assuming that we insist that he must visit Kazan in the first place, because fort there is still under siege)