Mountains...

[Shadowstrike]

...should mean something. At the moment, all it means is narrower combat width, and fewer buildings. There's nothing of the sense that mountains are strategically important to control - you can just pretty much willy-nilly march armies right over them, just as though they were flat land.

Instead, mountains should strongly, strongly favor the defender, and indeed, controlling mountain provinces should make it obscenely difficult for enemies to get through them (and also make it valuable to break through mountain passes at great cost). I'm not sure how this might be implemented - maybe mountains should automatically count as fort levels, or give the defender a tactics bonus (but not if one is marching to relieve a mountain fort).

 

[Necurok]

I wouldn't go that far...

More like if you have a fort it get's a significant buff and way more attrition

 

[GiftGruen]

M&T does that very well. Not sure about the combat dice penalty, but combat width is like 4 or 5 in mountains at starting tech, and mountains are actually small strips of wastelands so only certain passes (like Tirol->Trent for the Central Alps) can be traversed at all. Also, mountains and plateaus give a high defensiveness bonus.

 

[saegoto]

moving armies in a mountain province should be longer and makes attrition. force march should not be possible

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

M&T does that very well. Not sure about the combat dice penalty, but combat width is like 4 or 5 in mountains at starting tech, and mountains are actually small strips of wastelands so only certain passes (like Tirol->Trent for the Central Alps) can be traversed at all. Also, mountains and plateaus give a high defensiveness bonus.

I would say VeF does it better than M&T, there are considerable boosts for defensiveness, Give the mountains this kind of thing and it would be fine.

 

[BrokenSky]

Would be good if mountains gave -1 penalty to siege rolls.

moving armies in a mountain province should be longer and makes attrition. force march should not be possible

Should be possible, but the attrition should be murder. Like 30+% or something obnoxious. The AI shouldn't use it unless they had a really good reason to.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Would be good if mountains gave -1 penalty to siege rolls.



Should be possible, but the attrition should be murder. Like 30+% or something obnoxious. The AI shouldn't use it unless they had a really good reason to.

The trouble with that is not all mountains are murderous to pass through, there are a lot which are just difficult to navigage, then there are the dangerous types.

 

[BrokenSky]

The trouble with that is not all mountains are murderous to pass through, there are a lot which are just difficult to navigage, then there are the dangerous types.

Not to pass through, no. But to rush through? At a forced pace so fast you skirt death from exhaustion at the best of times, in hostile terrain with unsure footing? Then even the nicest mountains are gonna tear up your stuff to a worrying degree.

the 30% attrition applies to forced marching through mountains. I just realized that might not have been clear.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Not to pass through, no. But to rush through? At a forced pace so fast you skirt death from exhaustion at the best of times, in hostile terrain with unsure footing? Then even the nicest mountains are gonna tear up your stuff to a worrying degree.

the 30% attrition applies to forced marching through mountains. I just realized that might not have been clear.

even the difference between mountains is too high to rush through too, the alps are nothing like the dolomites which are nothing like the appenines despite being in roughly the same area.

 

[BrokenSky]

even the difference between mountains is too high to rush through too, the alps are nothing like the dolomites which are nothing like the appenines despite being in roughly the same area.

Fair point. Different mountains could have different attritions though. Maybe just having it so you can't force march would be simpler though...

 

[GiftGruen]

even the difference between mountains is too high to rush through too, the alps are nothing like the dolomites which are nothing like the appenines despite being in roughly the same area.

The dolomites are part of the Alps, the Alps are the whole mountain range from the Italian-French border (starting right at the coast) to Salzburg and Carinthia, with foothills up to Vienna.

But aren't hill-like mountains considered highlands or hills ingame anyway?

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

The dolomites are part of the Alps, the Alps are the whole mountain range from the Italian-French border (starting right at the coast) to Salzburg and Carinthia, with foothills up to Vienna.

But aren't hill-like mountains considered highlands or hills ingame anyway?

I was always taught that the alps are the kind of collective term but really only count the western french italian border, they are technically not the alps but counted as the alps on the western side. I was just trying to use a distinctive example close together to show how different they could be, it would have been much clearer if I had said the Scottish mountains vs the atlas mountains vs the Himalayas.

 

[GiftGruen]

And the scottish mountains are really mostly highlands ingame iirc.

 

[Anatur]

And the scottish mountains are really mostly highlands ingame iirc.

To be honest the mountains ingame are horribly inconsistent.

For example in croatia the province of lika is forest while dalmatia is grasslands.

This ignoring the fact there is a gigantic mountain range going through the area and continuing into the balkans.

We literally had to blast tunnels through the thing to get proper highways going and every time i play croatia venice happily jumps back and forth over them.

 

[regne_valencia]

In ck2 some mountains are impassable terrain i dont understand why it not happen in eu4,it will be nice that if you develop X level of technology that some mountains can be passable in late game