New impassible barriers in 1.19? Bad or good?

[Atlantians]

So, Norway the Iberian Pyrenees now have impassible mountains blocking routes, as well as other areas that have not been shown yet.

Are these good changes, or would you prefer more free movement?

 

[Chagall]

Mountain passes would be great yes. Pyrenees, Alps, Carpathians etc. Some provinces getting blocked so they can move from province 1 to 2 but not from 1 to 3 as well. (sideways) or you can move sideways but not straight on some points.

 

[Atlantians]

Mountain passes would be great yes. Pyrenees, Alps, Carpathians etc. Some provinces getting blocked so they can move from province 1 to 2 but not from 1 to 3 as well. (sideways) or you can move sideways but not straight on some points.

So you like the changes?

Why?

 

[Muki13]

So you like the changes?

Why?

Strategy/more realistic.

 

[makapse]

Its more logical that you cannot move entire armies through those mountain except at passes(the breaks in the wasteland chain) at the times when the supply chain was what decided wars. Its like you are asking the himalayan wasteland was not there and you are arguing why it was added.
Historically, these mountain ranges have defined national boundries because it was too dificult to pass armies to capture and maintain them.

 

[Bics93]

I love them! Now natural borders are really powerful, much more realistic
The only thing that seems strange to me is that Savoy is completely separated from Piedmont, so if Savoy loses his foothold in Switzerland (that is what happened historically) there is no way to reach the other part of the duchy without asking access to France or Switzerland...
Also I read that this feature has not been implemented for Andes mountains, I hope they will find a way to place this wastelands without screw Incas gameplay...

 

[grommile]

So you like the changes?

Hell yes.

Why?

Because I do not subscribe to the bizarre belief held by certain users of this forum that we should be able to march armies into places through which period technology would not allow an army of meaningful size to pass.

 

[Atlantians]

I love them! Now natural borders are really powerful, much more realistic
The only thing that seems strange to me is that Savoy is completely separated from Piedmont, so if Savoy loses his foothold in Switzerland (that is what happened historically) there is no way to reach the other part of the duchy without asking access to France or Switzerland...
Also I read that this feature has not been implemented for Andes mountains, I hope they will find a way to place this wastelands without screw Incas gameplay...

Hell yes.

Because I do not subscribe to the bizarre belief held by certain users of this forum that we should be able to march armies into places through which period technology would not allow an army of meaningful size to pass.

Fair points. They really should work on implementing these impassible zones more liberally, if they are going to do it in the new areas.

The Piedmont/Savoy separation concerns me, however.

 

[Juggernaught]

I like them.
Aside from certain places like the Himalayas, they could rework some NI to make impassable terrains. -passable for residing natives of the area.
American natives should be able to enter their wastelands. Causcausian nations too, if there will ever be an impassable terrain there.

 

[queermobile]

I like them a lot, but I would prefer if some of them (the Alps in particular) were represented as they are in CK2 as opposed to grey wastelands.

 

[Atlantians]

I like them a lot, but I would prefer if some of them (the Alps in particular) were represented as they are in CK2 as opposed to grey wastelands.

Yeah, they are a graphical eyesore. That is what prompted my post, actually.

 

[Honon]

I'm not a fan of impassable terrain generally as I like to go everywhere. I don't mind, however, provinces that simply prevented you from moving through them. So you could not go from province a to province b or back, but there isn't simply an unused area of the map sitting there. (Of course if there was large swaths of simply unusable land like in western Africa, that would be a bit different. Another option I would prefer is limited force limit territories where you could move one unit at a time or 5 at a time into it, but not move whole armies. That would allow for countries split around these terrain features to move armies from one side to another while preventing you from marching 300k troops through the himilayas.

However, Impassable Terrain is better than no natural boundaries at all as the game is currently largely devoid of tactics so I'm happy to see the change.

 

[Kryndude]

I generally agree with the change. One problem though, is that there were instances of armies crossing those mountains despite the high attrition and laying a surprise attack on the enemy. But that would be difficult for the AI to handle so I understand making them completely impassable. I just hope they got things right and only blocked places that were nearly impoosible to pass and didn't leave out other hazardous areas in RoTW.

 

[toroltao]

The entire Tibetan plateau should be surrounded by impassible terrain.

 

[Koramei]

I like it a lot.

It's a shame the new fort changes (which I otherwise think are really good) will mean people'll be able to just walk past a fort on a chokepoint anyway, but even with that they'll offer important defensive barriers.

 

[Honon]

I like it a lot.

It's a shame the new fort changes (which I otherwise think are really good) will mean people'll be able to just walk past a fort on a chokepoint anyway, but even with that they'll offer important defensive barriers.

Personally, I think that a hostile fort should impose it's terrain penalty on every province in the area. That would prevent armies from just walking by.

 

[Atlantians]

Personally, I think that a hostile fort should impose it's terrain penalty on every province in the area. That would prevent armies from just walking by.

How do you handle multiple forts with multiple terrain penalties?

 

[Xinkc]

The Piedmont/Savoy separation concerns me, however.

Where are the images for this? I haven't noticed anything.

I like them a lot, but I would prefer if some of them (the Alps in particular) were represented as they are in CK2 as opposed to grey wastelands.

They're not done that way? Time to riot outside of Paradox HQ.

 

[makapse]

I'm not a fan of impassable terrain generally as I like to go everywhere. I don't mind, however, provinces that simply prevented you from moving through them. So you could not go from province a to province b or back, but there isn't simply an unused area of the map sitting there. (Of course if there was large swaths of simply unusable land like in western Africa, that would be a bit different. Another option I would prefer is limited force limit territories where you could move one unit at a time or 5 at a time into it, but not move whole armies. That would allow for countries split around these terrain features to move armies from one side to another while preventing you from marching 300k troops through the himilayas.

However, Impassable Terrain is better than no natural boundaries at all as the game is currently largely devoid of tactics so I'm happy to see the change.

Sadly, it has been proven that one can kill an AI by allowing it to march its entire army through low supply provinces and wipe its manpower out. I think it happened in Africa and the reason the wastelands were introduced there in EU3

 

[Gaamel]

Its more logical that you cannot move entire armies through those mountain except at passes(the breaks in the wasteland chain) at the times when the supply chain was what decided wars. Its like you are asking the himalayan wasteland was not there and you are arguing why it was added.

Supply chains didn't exist before Napoleon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_logistics#16th_century ), so I don't see how this could have affected the outcome of wars. In the EUIV era, armies lived off the land, devastating the countryside to provide for their own keep. (Watch a movie like Barry Lyndon to see what it meant during the 7 Years War) The only challenge was resupplying bullets, gunpower, cannonballs and later shells. The huge increase in the rate of fire of artillery is what really started to demand supply chains in the 19th Century.

Historically, these mountain ranges have defined national boundries because it was too dificult to pass armies to capture and maintain them.

In the 19th Century yes, but once again this is very anachronistic. Savoy spanned both sides of the Alps, and before the nationalists movements in the 19th Century both in France and in Italy, both sides were inhabited by the same people.