The fort system ruined this game.

[Glen_Runciter]

I couldn't keep up with all the DLC-s, so I haven't played this game in quite a while, jumped back to it a few weeks ago.
REALLY wanted to like it, I loved both EUII and III and the early stages of IV, but the new (to me) fort system destroys every ounce of fun there is in waging war.

I absolutely love the idea of forts actually constricting movement, I abhor the way it's implemented.
When I can't move to an already occupied neighbouring province, because some third province on the other side of the frontlines have a fort, so my armies take a multiple province long detour, I lose almost all control I have during wars.

I'm extremely sad, but I just can't play the game until this is not changed.
I don't give a shit about historical accuracy, or any other bullshit, this is simply not how army movement should feel like in a strategy game.

 

[Tacticus101]

You cant have a fort system that constricts movement without odd cases that don't make sense. Its just a product of any adjacency based system with irregularly shaped provinces.

 

[erneiz_hyde]

The fact that you had to take a detour means the fort system is doing it's job really well if anything.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You cant have a fort system that constricts movement without odd cases that don't make sense. Its just a product of any adjacency based system with irregularly shaped provinces.

There are several massive problems with forts in EU 4:

1. They were not there on release and they interact badly with mechanics/design that existed for release.
2. Their rules are obscure and far from discernible in-game. The most definitive source on their functionality comes from 3rd party sources that discovered it via trial and error gameplay. A game that styles itself under "strategy" has no business implementing fake difficulty, and this one is a serious barrier to people learning the game. I know more than one person who quit over it. Not just threatened to do so, but got hosed by hidden rules and straight up stopped playing, going on years now.
3. Even now, discerning mobility options in real time for your army + enemy army...which is a gameplay rule, mind you...is a complete nightmare to attempt in real time.

Maybe the answer was to not implement it. Maybe the answer was to constrain effects to individual provinces and make them cheaper. Maybe the game just needs to stop hiding its rules. I don't know. It clearly remains a failed experiment though, because it's a heavy fake difficulty element in a strategy game.

 

[Katsuki126]

There are several massive problems with forts in EU 4:

1. They were not there on release and they interact badly with mechanics/design that existed for release.
2. Their rules are obscure and far from discernible in-game. The most definitive source on their functionality comes from 3rd party sources that discovered it via trial and error gameplay. A game that styles itself under "strategy" has no business implementing fake difficulty, and this one is a serious barrier to people learning the game. I know more than one person who quit over it. Not just threatened to do so, but got hosed by hidden rules and straight up stopped playing, going on years now.
3. Even now, discerning mobility options in real time for your army + enemy army...which is a gameplay rule, mind you...is a complete nightmare to attempt in real time.

Maybe the answer was to not implement it. Maybe the answer was to constrain effects to individual provinces and make them cheaper. Maybe the game just needs to stop hiding its rules. I don't know. It clearly remains a failed experiment though, because it's a heavy fake difficulty element in a strategy game.

1) To which mechanics do you refer ?

2) The rules changed during the chaotic implementation of the fort. Today, they are clear and pretty simple...

3) Yes, it is a bit long if you didn't think the situation through, personally I like it, the feeling that I have to plan my campaign. Then again, it is a very personal opinion

 

[CplKatie]

I kinda wish they would make every province block movement till its sieged down. Every province made into a capital level fort.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1) To which mechanics do you refer ?

2) The rules changed during the chaotic implementation of the fort. Today, they are clear and pretty simple...

3) Yes, it is a bit long if you didn't think the situation through, personally I like it, the feeling that I have to plan my campaign. Then again, it is a very personal opinion

1. Shattered retreat, manual retreat (can bug out and claim ZoC prevents retreat when ZoC doesn't exist, causing you to retreat onto same-province even with no forts at all), attrition, interaction with transports, ability to trap your units outright as a result of taking a fort (...), but also to change your ZoC rules by re-organizing armies (...). Two armies on the same province on the same side of the same war can't go to the same places. These are not good mechanic interactions.

2. Hahaha! By re-organizing an army after unloading a unit off a single transport, you can completely bypass all ZoC within that seazone even with 80+ regiments, walking through half a dozen forts, but only if you re-organize your army in one direction, not the other...if you do that you can't move. Also, your allies can't follow you during this. This is all valid according to the rules too.

Just as one example. "Clear and pretty simple"...the above TOTALLY describes just the kind of behavior a player might anticipate if you told him/her that forts give ZoC .

3. If you look at the game board, it is impossible to determine where each army is allowed to move, just selected one via return province icon (even then you must infer). That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of hiding the gameplay rules behind the UI...or rather the UI was never brought up to the standard of a functional mechanic. I guess you could toss this one back into #1.

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

It's good that the fort system is complicated and obscure. You can't learn it in a moment and having a good understanding of it gives you a significant leg up. It's possible for it to surprise you if you don't know it well or don't pay close attention. it should be possible to surprise an enemy who either hasn't gained familiarity by experience, or isn't paying close attention right now. This end result, in what it demands from the player, is realistic and engaging. That's a big accomplishment in a game involving such huge provinces as the basic unit of movement. A kindergarten fort system wouldn't have any of those benefits.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hiding rules in a game that purports itself to be about strategy or skill is garbage. That same argument used to defend it could be used to make any UI element lie or simply not tell you what will happen. At the extreme levels, no rules to the system = no gameplay. So far, there's no rationale to separate this rule as exceptional to others, so that's the logical implication.

What makes one arbitrary rule better to hide than another? The devs can't answer this one so far, so I'd be surprised if anybody else can answer it in their stead. Still, there's an easy way to show me I'm mistaken of course, and that's to demonstrate coherent criteria whereby forts are special and should be hidden as a gameplay rule.

Coherent criteria, not an argument that is generally applicable to any potential game mechanic.

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

I'd rather a lot more information were hidden, really. You couldn't do it without consideration, you'd have to consider gameplay and redesign things to match, but even so.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd rather a lot more information were hidden, really. You couldn't do it without consideration, you'd have to consider gameplay and redesign things to match, but even so.

I'll leave that request for coherent criteria as a standing offer, on the off chance that someone actually attempts the discussion .

 

[CoolSpin]

there should be some green overlays or red ones where you can and can't walk respectively.

 

[NightKev]

there should be some green overlays or red ones where you can and can't walk respectively.

There are (when you have a unit selected), though they're not obvious (they're somewhat small icons and can blend in with the terrain... but they exist).

I'd rather a lot more information were hidden, really. You couldn't do it without consideration, you'd have to consider gameplay and redesign things to match, but even so.

Even having all of the information that we do have you still have to be good at the game to fully utilize it; hiding more information just makes bad players worse.

 

[brifbates]

While there are issues with the implementation / movement rules, personally I prefer the new system, even with its current warts, to the old system.

 

[Dominion]

You can always revert to an older patch if you personally feel like the system is worse.

Generally it is well received. Not saying it's perfect, but it's definitely an upgrade over the old system.

Personally I recommend you give yourself a bit of time to get accostumed to it, but reverting is also an option.

 

[JorgeP]

I would love that forts in eu4 would work more or less like enemy troops in hearts of iron. You can´t move to the province until you defeat (in this case siege) them. I think it would be much more intuitive.

 

[holyvigil]

I couldn't keep up with all the DLC-s, so I haven't played this game in quite a while, jumped back to it a few weeks ago.
REALLY wanted to like it, I loved both EUII and III and the early stages of IV, but the new (to me) fort system destroys every ounce of fun there is in waging war.

I absolutely love the idea of forts actually constricting movement, I abhor the way it's implemented.
When I can't move to an already occupied neighbouring province, because some third province on the other side of the frontlines have a fort, so my armies take a multiple province long detour, I lose almost all control I have during wars.

I'm extremely sad, but I just can't play the game until this is not changed.
I don't give a shit about historical accuracy, or any other bullshit, this is simply not how army movement should feel like in a strategy game.

You can always revert to an older patch if you personally feel like the system is worse.

Generally it is well received. Not saying it's perfect, but it's definitely an upgrade over the old system.

Personally I recommend you give yourself a bit of time to get accostumed to it, but reverting is also an option.

What he said. Don't like change then you don't have to play with it.

 

[Glen_Runciter]

What he said. Don't like change then you don't have to play with it.

"Hey I've finally all bought 24 DLC-s!
Well, they are shit, but I COULD ALWAYS REVERT, SO THAT'S FINE!"

 

[Dell19]

"Hey I've finally all bought 24 DLC-s!
Well, they are shit, but I COULD ALWAYS REVERT, SO THAT'S FINE!"

I generally agree with your post as forts were introduced quite a long time ago so its not exactly helpful to tell someone to revert to the version before that as they will then miss out on lots of other features.

I don't think forts are shit though as they are considerably better than the old version of carpet sieging and chasing armies around until they are stack wiped. It would be great if they were improved so that it is clearer where armies can move as I guess we've all run into instances where we have two armies standing next to each other and then find out that one of them can't reinforce the other without going through 20+ provinces.

 

[YuriiH]

No. Carpetsieging was ultimately worse.