It's time to reevaluate fort costs

[Ashwraith]

There is something really wrong design wise when the standard play as a small nation or horde (or even worse, as an opm) is to delete your fort so you're able to use your economy to create a decent sized army (within your FL).
For example, if the standard play as Cyprus, The Knights, Corfu or Trebizond is to delete your fort, why make them start with a fort? Gameplay wise it doesn't feel right. In fact, almost every single time you start the game you have negative balance, mainly because -1 ducat is a lot of money early game for small nations.

I think the fort system costs have to be revisited at the very least.
My suggestion is to implement one of these:

• Give the first fort of a nation a discount/free;
  
• Give the free capital fort zones of control;
• (My favorite)Make the costs relative to time. You could start it with 0.10 or 0.20, increasing it according to time, just like advisors;

I think currently the fort system only work for developed medium/great nations.
Do you guys agree? What you think?

Edit: typo

 

[Virupaksha]

There is something really wrong design wise when the standard play as a small nation or horde (or even worse, as an opm) is to delete your fort so you're able to use your economy to create a decent sized army (within your FL).
For example, if the standard play as Cyprus, The Knights, Corfu or Trebizond is to delete your fort, why make them start with a fort? Gameplay wise it doesn't feel right. In fact, almost every single time you start the game you have negative balance, mainly because -1 ducat is a lot of money early game for small nations.

I think the fort system costs have to be revisited at the very least.
My suggestions are:

• Give the first fort of a nation a discount/free;
  
• Give the free capital fort zones of control;
• (My favorite)Make the costs relative to time. You could start it with 0.10 or 0.20, increasing it according to time, just like advisors;

I think currently the fort system only work for develop medium/great nations.
Do you guys agree? What you think?

Would definitely agree except current system doesn't work for big nations either. fort costs need to be reduced by a factor of five, maybe ten.

Look at England. If they delete their forts on Normandie Calais and Labourd France gets virtually no war score unless it invades the British isles. Majority of forts are actively detrimental to their owners. Being asked to pay for this on top is bizarre.

 

[Big Bad France]

Would definitely agree except current system doesn't work for big nations either. fort costs need to be reduced by a factor of five, maybe ten.

Look at England. If they delete their forts on Normandie Calais and Labourd France gets virtually no war score unless it invades the British isles. Majority of forts are actively detrimental to their owners. Being asked to pay for this on top is bizarre.

I think this is a separate problem that needs to be addressed. It's ridiculous that you don't get as much war score for holding a province with no adjacent fort as you get for holding a fort.

 

[Gratak]

Would definitely agree except current system doesn't work for big nations either. fort costs need to be reduced by a factor of five, maybe ten.

Look at England. If they delete their forts on Normandie Calais and Labourd France gets virtually no war score unless it invades the British isles. Majority of forts are actively detrimental to their owners. Being asked to pay for this on top is bizarre.

Not true. A decent country with everything stated, low autonomy and decent trade can afford their forts. It's just suboptimal in SP as you better but that money into being more aggressive.

@OP: Agree on limited free forts. Maybe 1 fort per government rank?

 

[StefanFan]

I'd just add something to them. Tax income bonus and trade bonus, to simulate the influence a fort has over a province/state. So when you build them, you will either choose to build them in strategic defensive locations, or in populated areas where your soldiers can protect and enforce the taxation and get rid of trade afflictions ( thieves, cheaters and Thieves ). Also, I would give an extra boost for the capital fort. It will be easier for small kingdoms to hold one.

 

[YuriiH]

It's been time since the fort system introduction

 

[Big Bad France]

I'm not sure forts really need to cost less or provide economic benefits. I just think that going without forts should be a lot more risky than it is. It definitely shouldn't be to your benefit in a defensive war to leave overseas territories without forts so you don't have to worry about defending them.

 

[Bibor]

You're looking at forts from the wrong perspective. They *are* providing economic benefits, in shape of "not getting your land razed into oblivion".

Elaborate fortifications do cost a lot of money.

Fort costs presume your economy will at least quadruple when you reach level 8 forts. I think it's a fair assessment.

I do think, however, that fort cost should be zero for nations with 30 or less development.

 

[YuriiH]

Elaborate fortifications do cost a lot of money.

Or a lot of slaves.

 

[grommile]

Or a lot of slaves.

Chattel slaves still cost money, it's just that the cost structures are different those of wage slaves.

 

[peleliu]

Costs could be tinkered with, but I think they are about right considering the benefits:

1. Devastation reduction.

2. Holding a key province until you can gather armies for an active defense/offense.

3. Free troops! Well almost. If the odds are even and you need to turn a fight in your favor let the enemy siege your fort. Then send your army into the province. Make sure you are in the siege view. As soon as the battle starts hit the Sortie button. For 10 MIL you get the whole garrison added to your fight. For example, a level 2 fort will give you another 2k troops (minus current garrison casualties). After your glorious victory you now have 2 new regiments in your army. If you don't need two more regiments or are seriously depleted then consolidate and delete the two "free" regiments. Instant reinforcements for no manpower or ducat costs. After the fight you may well have enough strength and morale to go immediately on the offensive. I've used this tactic to great effect as OPMs or otherwise militarily weak nations to turn the tide and win many wars.

I have NEVER deleted a fort. I find them too valuable.

 

[Lacost]

The real problem is the AI which isn't punishing an unprotected player. The AI should send 1k looting armies into your land if it has the opportunity to be a real pest while having little risks on it's own. It is already carpet sieging your unprotected lands but with looting parties which simply devastate and occupy everything quickly, forts would be far more important for the sake of player sanity and warscore.

 

[Ashwraith]

@OP: Agree on limited free forts. Maybe 1 fort per government rank?

Great ideia! I like it!

 

[Arilou]

The problem is with how fort works in general, in that fort can't let you win wars. (and in general the trouble with fighting defensive wars in this game, getting even a status quo often requires you to go on the offensive, rather than just holding out)

A well defended fort in the right position could absolutely wreck an invading army via attrition, etc. Something the game doesen't really represent because of how the way manpower/reinforments work.

Historically, a small nation would probably be *more* likely to invest in a fort than an army. (there are plenty of in-game nations that are basically "The guy who controls that one castle and the surrounding area.")

The problem is that the terms of war tends to favour the attacker (where you just have to wait and any resistance will be sieged out) while historically it was often more closely the reverse (the attacker was on a time limit since they had to pay their army and possible siege stuff before weather changed/something else happened)

 

[durbal]

Forts would be a lot more beneficial militarily without merc spam since the attrition damage they'd do would make them a more important deciding factor in wars. Mercspam makes them little more than speed bumps.

 

[raikaria]

The Forts to development ratio for tradition is also a little out of line.

It's not unusual to need forts on 50% of your provinces for the full tradition.

However; we also don't want fort spam grinding wars to an absolute halt. Especially with just how much fort defense some nations can stack.

 

[MrParadux]

(the attacker was on a time limit since they had to pay their army and possible siege stuff before weather changed/something else happened)

It's more difficult to model these problems in EU4-warfare since time is very wonky in that regard anyway. Most battles take weeks and winter is just a very short period during a war without much consequences. Also infinite mercenaries

 

[Rocketskates]

Its wrong all around, i simply dont pay for them, even at war unless theres a good chance of siege. A new player can wreck his own economy by winning since he has to pay for the forts hes occupying, so i dont pay for those either and usually just transfer it to an ally unless i want them or its close to the action. Then comes that 1 rogue merc band out of nowhere...
The AI is drawn to it though like a shark if theres blood in the water, dont know how many times i played that trick to provoke a battle in my favour.

I dont see the issue with siegeing them down either, you can use edicts and if you are running your armies as you should youll have enough cannons, you have barrage and blockade/napoleonic warfare in their respective eras.

It costs too much to build, too much to maintain and not enough benefits. Although i have this looming suscipions ppl still build maginot lines then complain its unaffordable. Dont know what would be a decent solution to them, maybe have a maintance slider for them? Could affect defense and garrison size and some incentive for the surrounding provinces or a combat bonus you can get from discovery era.

 

[Regaccio]

Forts would be way more useful if you could actually keep armies inside them like in reality. As of right now you can use an army to refill a fort's garrison, and you can have the garrison of a fort sortie for a battle in the province, but you can't actually station an army inside the fort. Imagine the possible mindgames, parking a large army inside an important fort to deter sieges, or force the enemy to park a large stack there (instead of the bare minimum) to defend the siege? Or using forts like rallying points for freshly raised troops, protecting them until the army is assembled. Or let's say you navally invaded an enemy and captured a fort, but need to hold your position until reinforcements arrive - just take up residence in the fort until then, then sortie for a huge breakout.

The drawback to this would be the army (and eventually garrison) taking attrition once the fort's limited supplies are consumed. Maybe Professionalism can increase the amount of supplies kept in a fort, or let you supply it directly, maybe connected with the Supply Depots mechanic.

I also think there should probably be a Fort Limit mechanic, similar to Force Limit but based on total Fort Level of all forts. The base cost of forts could be lowered, but going over your Fort Limit would incur exponentially higher costs, just like going over your Force Limit. This means smaller countries can afford what few forts they need, while larger countries must either make due with fewer, or spend extra money for the same level of protection. (This would also help alleviate the massive amounts of extra money in the latest patch)

 

[StefanFan]

@Regaccio Well, it would depend on the army size. But, the fort at least should give a big bonus to artillery ( you can place it in key locations not available to the attackers ), and a medium bonus to the infantry ( you can place shooters too on key locations, but they are limited by range ). Also, a reinforcement speed bonus.