What is going on with battles???

[JSparks101]

As Austria at war with Venice and Naxos. Year is 1448.

Equal discipline and tactics, my morale is 2.9 to their 2.7.

I had 8k Inf and 4k Cav. Venice sends 12k Inf and 6k Cav but only 16,000 as not fully reinforced. In neighboring province, I have another 8k Inf 4k Cav.

I send my second army to the province where the battle will occur, expecting him to stop the movement and if not, I will have 6k more than them. He keeps going, I arrive first. So all my 24k vs his 18k. With better morale, a 4,1 leader vs his 2,1 leader, I should theoretically win.

I am in a hills province and he crossed a river, yet I get -2 from terrain. Why? He should. He attacked. Am I forgetting something?

Now I am loosing, quite big time. Rolls have been relatively similar. My main point is why do I have the negatives, why am I the attacker.

 

[Zwirbaum]

As Austria at war with Venice and Naxos. Year is 1448.

Equal discipline and tactics, my morale is 2.9 to their 2.7.

I had 8k Inf and 4k Cav. Venice sends 12k Inf and 6k Cav but only 16,000 as not fully reinforced. In neighboring province, I have another 8k Inf 4k Cav.

I send my second army to the province where the battle will occur, expecting him to stop the movement and if not, I will have 6k more than them. He keeps going, I arrive first. So all my 24k vs his 18k. With better morale, a 4,1 leader vs his 2,1 leader, I should theoretically win.

I am in a hills province and he crossed a river, yet I get -2 from terrain. Why? He should. He attacked. Am I forgetting something?

Now I am loosing, quite big time. Rolls have been relatively similar. My main point is why do I have the negatives, why am I the attacker.

Were you sieging a fort?

 

[JSparks101]

Again. Same province, similar situation. He attacked. I get -2!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JSparks101]

Were you sieging a fort?

Yeah?

 

[Zwirbaum]

Yeah?

When sieging fort, 'relieving' army will be treated as defender. 'Relieving' because it means any hostile to the force sieging it, no matter if garrison is also hostile to the 'relieving' army.

 

[henzington]

Then the relieving army counts as defending

 

[JSparks101]

That doesn't feel right. It explains why it is occuring, but if I am camped outside a city, and an opposing army crosses a river into hills, they should still be disadvantaged!

 

[henzington]

That doesn't feel right. It explains why it is occuring, but if I am camped outside a city, and an opposing army crosses a river into hills, they should still be disadvantaged!

I believe this was changed in Mandate of Heaven but also imagine the army is encircling the fort so in a worse position

 

[Zwirbaum]

It is supposed to model uncertaintity of what will do the garrison in the fortress, threatening to do sortie/break the siege/attack from the behind and so on + if you're camped outside the 'city' you need to gather the forces located around the city, and so on, so on.

+ Gameplay reasons to not penalize mountain forts as they used to.

 

[Zwirbaum]

I believe this was changed in Mandate of Heaven but also imagine the army is encircling the fort so in a worse position

1.18 Rights of Man brought this change.

 

[Amadeu of Savoy]

It makes controlling forts much more important, particularly in mountains.

 

[WeissRaben]

That doesn't feel right. It explains why it is occuring, but if I am camped outside a city, and an opposing army crosses a river into hills, they should still be disadvantaged!

Because you are not moving around to get the best terrain - you are besieging the fort. The enemy, on the other hand, can come from whichever direction, whenever it wants, and while hanging on the enemy's head the threat of the garrison sallying forth and taking them in the back. Sieges are not good positions to be forced to fight into - just ask the Ottomans.

 

[netherlink]

While i have no real problem with the current system, i can still see a point here.

When i move through a enemy mountain fort, i do still get the attacker penalty, even tho i'm obviously not sieging the fort.

I wonder if a "start siege"-button would be helpful? So you only get that penalty if you really ordered your army to take sieging position. I guess it would be quiet micro intensive if you had to manually start every siege, but maybe this could be made like a toggle or smh.

 

[Rebel1776]

While i have no real problem with the current system, i can still see a point here.

When i move through a enemy mountain fort, i do still get the attacker penalty, even tho i'm obviously not sieging the fort.

I wonder if a "start siege"-button would be helpful? So you only get that penalty if you really ordered your army to take sieging position. I guess it would be quiet micro intensive if you had to manually start every siege, but maybe this could be made like a toggle or smh.

They would need a "Breaking Siege" time frame as well, else this would be abused constantly.

 

[ahyangyi]

While i have no real problem with the current system, i can still see a point here.

When i move through a enemy mountain fort, i do still get the attacker penalty, even tho i'm obviously not sieging the fort.

I wonder if a "start siege"-button would be helpful? So you only get that penalty if you really ordered your army to take sieging position. I guess it would be quiet micro intensive if you had to manually start every siege, but maybe this could be made like a toggle or smh.

That means any besieging army could click to cease besieging that province one day before the relieving army arrives to avoid that penalty. That would be a bit too micro-heavy and maybe also a bit too abusable?

EDIT: ninja'd

 

[netherlink]

They would need a "Breaking Siege" time frame as well, else this would be abused constantly.

That means any besieging army could click to cease besieging that province one day before the relieving army arrives to avoid that penalty. That would be a bit too micro-heavy and maybe also a bit too abusable?

EDIT: ninja'd

Well, i did not mention a button to turn it off The whole point would be gone that way, you are right.

Just like OPs incident, where he just moved there to fight, not to siege.
You should only be able to "not" besiege a fort, just because you happen to have a battle there. It makes no sense that an army, which is aware of an opposing threat, starts to siege and makes itself vulnerable.

The "besieging" army should have the option to be there, but not besiege the fort.
That's my conclusion to this thread.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Well, i did not mention a button to turn it off The whole point would be gone that way, you are right.

Just like OPs incident, where he just moved there to fight, not to siege.
You should only be able to "not" besiege a fort, just because you happen to have a battle there. It makes no sense that an army, which is aware of an opposing threat, starts to siege and makes itself vulnerable.

The "besieging" army should have the option to be there, but not besiege the fort.
That's my conclusion to this thread.

OP post and what later he replied indicates that he was sieging there. Second reinforcing army joined ongoing battle.

 

[Ironside121]

This is probably the best thing they've changed to warfare since release.

It's better this way. Actually makes forts useful instead of just a pointless money sink or Army Tradition farm.

 

[Yxklyx]

That doesn't feel right. It explains why it is occuring, but if I am camped outside a city, and an opposing army crosses a river into hills, they should still be disadvantaged!

Yeah, I didn't like the idea of this rule when they implemented it either - but it actually works better this way in the grand scheme of things.

 

[peleliu]

Yeah, I didn't like the idea of this rule when they implemented it either - but it actually works better this way in the grand scheme of things.

Same for me despite some clear fort ignore bugs for the AI...although most seem to have been cleared up recently.

In my new game as Portugal I have been fighting a series of evenly matched wars vs Morocco. The mountain forts are a bear to take and dangerous to siege because of the Atlas Mountains and tight ZOCs. I have to play cat and mouse by starting a siege then retreating when the Moroccan army starts marching in. Many marches and counter-marches later I can pin an army on the coastal plain and force a battle on even terms. I lose some and win some, but eventually I can push him far enough back that my reserves can siege the fort and the covering army can protect the siege. When the fort falls I move to the next province over and repeat the process.

The key is always to fight on even or better terms as often as possible even if it means giving up a few months of siege progress. I usually prefer to drop a siege than burn manpower and war exhaustion in a bad odds fight. I even tend to choose high maneuver generals over high shock at these times just to get my army where it needs to be. Early period manpower recovery is painfully slow, but if you can pull the fights away from the defender's forts and minimize losses then you have an advantage and can move on to the next war even sooner.

At any rate, I find the war of maneuver is fun and a good challenge and hope you can try it out.