Peace Deal: Destroy fortresses

[Mr Schnabel]

in history, peace treaties often included the point that fortresses of the defeated should be destroyed. It would therefore be desirable if this feature could also be included in eu4.

 

[Fire6all]

Absurd. You don't ask a country to kindly destroy a fortress. You tear it down yourself, that's the only way to proceed. Do you have historical exemples, as you say ? If you have at least three taken in different wars, I'll change my mind.

Actually, a good idea could be to add an option to "unbuild" captured fortresses in foreign territory, for exemple at the cost of twice their price, in order to keep it both reallistic ( it's costly to destroy ) and to avoid game-breaking mechanics.

 

[Mr Schnabel]

Absurd. You don't ask a country to kindly destroy a fortress. You tear it down yourself, that's the only way to proceed. Do you have historical exemples, as you say ? If you have at least three taken in different wars, I'll change my mind.

Actually, a good idea could be to add an option to "unbuild" captured fortresses in foreign territory, for exemple at the cost of twice their price, in order to keep it both reallistic ( it's costly to destroy ) and to avoid game-breaking mechanics.

Nine Year Wars
Heidelberger Castle and other castles

Nine Years' War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Heidelberg Castle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Treaty of Versailles
all forts between the rhine and france

War of the Second Coalition
Ehrenbreitstein Fortress

Ehrenbreitstein Fortress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"By the Treaty of Lunéville, the French were eventually forced to withdraw from the right bank of the Rhine. Hence, they blew up Ehrenbreitstein in 1801[1]:2,17 to prevent the enemy from taking hold of a fully functional fortress just a few meters away from French territory on the left bank of the Rhine"

There were many more examples with the Turks in the Balkans, but you can certainly research this better

 

[Fire6all]

So I apologize, and support this proposal.

But what about this mechanic in game ? How do you think that it should work ?

 

[Iyâsû of the East]

in history, peace treaties often included the point that fortresses of the defeated should be destroyed. It would therefore be desirable if this feature could also be included in eu4.

Either the game should only allow fortresses on the border between the two nations to be destroyed, or it should only allow you to severely damage the fort, making it unusable, but it can still be rebuilt at a reduced price, after the truce runs out.

 

[drawar]

The problem is that the AI already badly manages the forts, it seems to find them too expensive and it is true that they are very expensive for the poor regions. The AI also seems to improve the forts very little, probably a question of money. Which often makes AI very vulnerable. However, yes, at first the forts are too vulnerable to the artillery, as it is the numbers and not the firepower that counts.

It seems to me that with the arrival of artillery, the forts, even the bastion are quite vulnerable during wars between "great" powers which can easily aligned multiple cannons. Especially with the possibility of automatically opening a breach.
I wonder, if it would not be more interesting to put an offensive “siege” value for the artillery. And a defensive “siege” value for the forts.
The aim would be to achieve a certain balance between great powers and smaller powers for the forts.

Imagine that each fort level provides 10 fort's defensive power (at the beginning for example).
Imagine that the first artillery has an offensive siege value of 3. In fact, there are two basic types of artillery so one could be more siege-focused and the other combat-oriented, which could offer a strategic choices, example:
- Large Cast Bronze Mortar: +3;
- Houfnice: +2.

As a formula we could have offensive siege power divided by defensive siege power. Certainly that could be a more "complex" and with a maximum value for the siege bonus.
Certainly, the values would be adjusted according to the balance of power between the offensive and the defensive that we want.

An important difference would be that the siege power of the artillery increases over time allowing faster sieges (for an equal number of artillery) if the forts are not upgraded accordingly (without needing to put an obsolete fort penalty). Even though the forts are up to date, having wars that could take a more offensive turn with sieges that tend to get a bit faster.

We could also add a siege power value for infantry for example, admittedly quite low compared to artillery, but which would also give an advantage to having a large army that besieges.
Afterwards, we can imagine bonuses via doctrines (terrain and others) and the like that would increase the siege power of artillery, infantry, forts...

The great powers will always be able to seek to line up a lot of artillery to bring down a fort more quickly.
The "smaller" powers will be able to maintain their siege power up to date, even if the forts are improved without the need to increase the number of artillery significantly.