What is going on with battles???

[Mrkew]

I agree that it should definitely not work this way in a 3-way war (Country A is in 2 separate wars with countries B and C. B and C are also at war with each other. Country A is sieging country B's fort. Country C interrupts the siege, and gets defender bonus). That's bullshit.

 

[grandad1982]

I agree that it should definitely not work this way in a 3-way war (Country A is in 2 separate wars with countries B and C. B and C are also at war with each other. Country A is sieging country B's fort. Country C interrupts the siege, and gets defender bonus). That's bullshit.

Not totally. The besieging army is still spread out and in a poor position to manoeuvre though the threat of a the fort defenders taking you in the flank or rear is pretty much zero.

From a purely game play point of view it's more doubtful but I do think that the increased risk of sieging outways other considerations.

 

[Mrkew]

Not totally. The besieging army is still spread out and in a poor position to manoeuvre though the threat of a the fort defenders taking you in the flank or rear is pretty much zero.

From a purely game play point of view it's more doubtful but I do think that the increased risk of sieging outways other considerations.

That would make sense if there always was a defender bonus (I personally think there should be one), but the bonus solely depends on the terrain and the river crossing.

 

[grandad1982]

That would make sense if there always was a defender bonus (I personally think there should be one), but the bonus solely depends on the terrain and the river crossing.

Touché

 

[Zwirbaum]

That would make sense if there always was a defender bonus (I personally think there should be one), but the bonus solely depends on the terrain and the river crossing.

On the flat terrain (no terrain penalty) it's much easier to spot approaching army, and harder for relieving force to 'mask' their movement + it's much harder to cut supply lines/foraging parties etc.

Gameplay wise - it's to put more incentive on fortifying defensive terrain, like mountains, hills and so on. Before this change - forts in the mountains was basically shooting yourself in the foot, if the enemy force would set up siege there, it was very, very, very hard to dislodge them as well.

 

[Mrkew]

On the flat terrain (no terrain penalty) it's much easier to spot approaching army, and harder for relieving force to 'mask' their movement + it's much harder to cut supply lines/foraging parties etc.

Gameplay wise - it's to put more incentive on fortifying defensive terrain, like mountains, hills and so on. Before this change - forts in the mountains was basically shooting yourself in the foot, if the enemy force would set up siege there, it was very, very, very hard to dislodge them as well.

Please remember that I'm talking about a third party attacking a sieging army, not the fort defender relieving the fort. Read the example I posted earlier.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Please remember that I'm talking about a third party attacking a sieging army, not the fort defender relieving the fort. Read the example I posted earlier.

Sieging army is still in unfavourable position. Part of your forces may be stuck near city, while rest of the army is spread across province in foraging parties etc. Battles in EU IV are not necessary one single battle, but can be series of skirmishes/engagements/maneuver war etc.