Improved and reworked ZOC and pathing

[grommile]

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.

I think the post-1.12 system, where forts (a) are a real obstacle (b) are not something you build in every province is a considerable improvement on the pre-1.12 system, because I loathed carpet-sieging.

This belief is not inconsistent with thinking that the current system has problematic outcomes of its own.

 

[Sindai]

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.

Note that under this proposal if the enemy has a chain of forts in neighboring provinces you can walk back and forth along the chain as much as you want.

ZoC rules are a particularly impressive manifestation of Wiz's sig.

 

[Neoton]

I think the post-1.12 system, where forts (a) are a real obstacle (b) are not something you build in every province is a considerable improvement on the pre-1.12 system, because I loathed carpet-sieging.

This belief is not inconsistent with thinking that the current system has problematic outcomes of its own.

I think he meant removing just the moving restrictions, not the ability of forts to reoccupy undefended neighboring provinces.

 

[grommile]

I think he meant removing just the moving restrictions, not the ability of forts to reoccupy undefended neighboring provinces.

Movement restrictions are what elimnates carpet sieging.

 

[FleetingRain]

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)

Maybe not Alatyr, but Nizhnv-Novgorod, as that's where Alatyr's fort is.

What matters is that OP's scenario really makes zero sense.

 

[seriousgigi]

why i can't go münchen? which castle blocks my army? and i think the castle's name should be written in tooltip what do you think?

 

[zdlugasz]

Maybe not Alatyr, but Nizhnv-Novgorod, as that's where Alatyr's fort is.

What matters is that OP's scenario really makes zero sense.

Why N-Novgorod? It is his fort. IMO it would be completely inane if the movement depended not only on enemy forts, but also his forts.

Some simple and sensible proposals were presented before, but as Wiz is so fond of "wrong answers" as long as they are his, we wont see much better rules anytime soon.

Simple solution
1) mine fort - I can go always (which is actually subset of 2)
2) province controlled by me, I can go in
3) enemy controlled province, I can go in if movement is not blocked by fort or it is fort itself, otherwise I have to capture fort first - so I can enter enemy ZOC, possibly from many sides, and if I capture provinces I can move between them.

We could add stipulations or variations that e.g. in order to move from one controlled to another controlled enemy province fort must be (actively?) besieged, or add restrictions for movement when enemy captures our fort, or whatever.

But it can be clearly seen, also in bug forum, that requirement that army can go ONLY back is stupid one.

Btw. IMO assumption that garrison can do anything against enemy army, especially if province is hundred km wide, is ahistorical, but game must have some rules. Whatever threat to supply lines we imagine it was not infantry (or city militia) from garrison, but cavalry and desperate peasantry.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Movement restrictions are what elimnates carpet sieging.

Or you could have eliminated carpet sieging by requiring a certain ratio of siegers:defenders, as is status quo now for forts, or by requiring manpower to garrison controlled territory, meaning you can't siege everything if you don't have enough manpower, or by requiring sieges to effectively be mini-battles where the defender has absurd defensive boni rather than just "sit and wait" affairs (which is essentially what sieges were, attacking through a breach was how almost all sieges concluded, it usually wasn't practical to starve out cities when your own troops would return home after 6 months had passed for the harvest season). Literally all of these are better options than movement restriction.

 

[grommile]

Literally all of these are better options than movement restriction.

Literally all of those can be defeated by throwing manpower at them. (And some of them by throwing ducats i.e. mercenaries at them.)

 

[Daddl]

I like the fort system and don't want it to be removed. But after some games, I get the impression that ZOC was overall better in 1.13.2 than it is now.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I too like the fort system, and while the ZoC concept could use some optimization, I don't want it removed. However, it is a bit silly, in my opinion, that forts are unable to be neutralized in any way besides sieging down the whole province. So here's my suggestion: a fort that is besieged with at least triple the required force to besiege the fort can neutralize that fort's zone of control. So, for example, a level 3 fort (castle on a capital) would require 27 thousand people, but it would be neutralized.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Literally all of those can be defeated by throwing manpower at them. (And some of them by throwing ducats i.e. mercenaries at them.)

Well, yes. That's how wars worked in the period.

 

[grommile]

Well, yes. That's how wars worked in the period.

As such, you have not actually removed carpet sieging.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Well, yes. That's how wars worked in the period.

As we all know, the side with the most men won every war from 1453 to 1821.

 

[CrabHelmet]

As such, you have not actually removed carpet sieging.

You have, because if every province took 3,000 men to siege and involves a battle which we'll say on average kills a quarter of them and the garrison then has to be restocked from the remaining men, sieging 10 provinces requires 30,000 men and leaves you with 12,500 by the end. That's beyond the means of the vast majority of countries. Sufficiently large and rich countries can carpet siege once they've wiped out the opposing army entirely... but the only difference but this and history is that in real life nations conceded once their main army was wiped out entirely to avoid this issue, whereas EU4 AI is stupid and has to be 100%'d before conceding to demands.

 

[favonius]

why i can't go münchen? which castle blocks my army? and i think the castle's name should be written in tooltip what do you think?

You're in Straubing (province north of your army)'s ZOC.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

The ZOC feature for the time being is absolutely ridiculous. Blocking and intersecting could, in theory, work, should it follow some general rules. Now you can't predict even how your two armies will move from province A to province B.

 

[Pitt The Elder]

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

Still though, the particular path selected by the Muscovite army seems really strange. My intuition tells me that the selected army should be able to move into Kazan, and then further into Vetluga, which is clearly under the control of a Muscovite fort. Why the detour through Perm at all?

 

[seriousgigi]

 

[FleetingRain]

I blame that fort to the north you're besieging (the one with 0%). The 31.4k army must have come from Smolensk so they're under the northern fort's ZoC, while the 55.5k ones must have come from Bryansk.

Yeah, we need the UI to tell us this. It's frustrating.