Why Common Sense lacks, well, common sense!

[wolffrnd]

Having played around with thee new DLC Common Sense, I have finally figured out what annoys me the most about it.

It is not the loss of the special buildings (though, that also annoys me). The increase of coring cost and diplo-annexing are also not the primary issues (I can live with both of those--even if I don't like them--especially the diplo-annex). The AE seems a bit high too (again, I can live with this).

No, what annoys me most about Common Sense is the fact that a fort with 2000 men can stop my 40k doom stack from going into a province that they "control", even though they are being sieged by another 10k man army. THIS makes no sense to me. Especially, not common sense.

If a fort is under siege by enough troops to siege it down, then it should lose its zone of control.

Anyone else have this same issue? Why or why not? I'm curious what others think about this?

 

[cleef]

I have to admit that if you siege a fort, it should no longer have a ZoC and you should be able to (at least) pass through those provinces.

 

[Wizzington]

Sure, we'll change this as soon as we implement realistic logistics and have half of your 40k doom stack die from dysentery while you are trying to get it into enemy lands.

That, or we'll just keep the current system because realism is not a meaningful argument.

 

[Anthedon]

There was a thread about this a few days ago if I remember correctly. I can't seem to find it again of course.

 

[Chimerae]

You should be able to move past it, but you then should get HEAVY attrition for a broken supply line.

 

[Woifee]

Wouldn't that make ZoC absolutly useless?

Go to fort, leave enough men behind and go to next fort.

Taking the Fort is more about securing supply lines.

So maybe you should be able to pass ZoC but your troops won't regenerate moral unless the needed forts are sieged down and the supply lines are opened again.

But I like the actual System. Before that ot was winning first battle, hunt them down and carpet sieging.

 

[Koivin]

Sure, we'll change this as soon as we implement realistic logistics and have half of your 40k doom stack die from dysentery while you are trying to get it into enemy lands.

That, or we'll just keep the current system because realism is not a meaningful argument.

You guys are pretty open when it comes to your design philosophy so I am not asking for any absolutes, but are you guys at the office at least open to the idea of a logistics/expanded supply system somewhere in the future? Has there been any talk about it at all?

 

[Nyrael]

You should be able to move past it, but you then should get HEAVY attrition for a broken supply line.

It would be annoying for new players and in case you don't notice a fort. One could argue that map display could be updated, but it is a waste of time and effort seeing as passing through should result in quick death of the army so there is no strategic gain in this option.

 

[Wizzington]

You guys are pretty open when it comes to your design philosophy so I am not asking for any absolutes, but are you guys at the office at least open to the idea of a logistics/expanded supply system somewhere in the future? Has there been any talk about it at all?

Maybe, it'd have to be something that wouldn't break up the current flow of gameplay, so no overcomplicated logistics officer simulator stuff.

 

[jjjdddsss]

You should be able to go past a besieged fort but if the siege is lifted you get huge attrition on the now supplyless army. Makes sense to me.

 

[Wizzington]

You should be able to go past a besieged fort but if the siege is lifted you get huge attrition on the now supplyless army. Makes sense to me.

This would make the whole 1.12 fort system pointless. The entire point is to be able to create safe zones for your army even if massively outnumbered, if we did this we might as well roll back to 1.11's fort system (and we're not).

 

[grandad1982]

Nothing to do with the main topic inhand but do you tihnk that MotE supply system would work in EU4?

 

[grumphie]

balancing the new forts is a thin line. sure - it might feel strange soemtimes when you cannot advance, but honestly, if forts were easly dealt with - noone would ever bother building them. theyre a large investment in gold due to their high initial cost and maintenance that ramps ever up, need to be kept up-to-date or they'll get smashed by any decent sieging force, and once a hole falls in your line everyoen can just pour through that hole.

if anything the ZoC should extend to allied/occupied territory(no need for auto capture, although it can cancel it out) and occupied forts shoudl exert their ZoC as well. that'd make forts both more dangerous in advanced positions, amkign you care more about where your rivals build forts, as well as making holding occupied territory easier. right now occupied forts are just a waste of gold and don't really offer much perks.

 

[Maria Theresa]

Couldn't agree any less. There's already so many ways to neutralize the fort's ZoC (Military access through neighbouring province for example.) that forts feel quite pointless half of the time. Last thing we need is to make them completely useless.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Sure, we'll change this as soon as we implement realistic logistics and have half of your 40k doom stack die from dysentery while you are trying to get it into enemy lands.

That, or we'll just keep the current system because realism is not a meaningful argument.

Such sass, did someone watch Mean Girls this weekend?

 

[Anthedon]

You should be able to go past a besieged fort but if the siege is lifted you get huge attrition on the now supplyless army. Makes sense to me.

Biggest issue with this is probably the AI.

 

[happymix91]

This would make the whole 1.12 fort system pointless. The entire point is to be able to create safe zones for your army even if massively outnumbered, if we did this we might as well roll back to 1.11's fort system (and we're not).

How about making it easy to occur first wall breach effect but making assault at first wall breach occur more casualties so that 40k doomstack can assault with bearing heavy casualties?

And warfare of EU4 at Napoleonic era doesn't reflect improvement of sieging and logistics(also late game is too boring), so I think that more obsolete fort penalty at late game, and non-linear increase of fort mainenance and cost will be good for late game.

But maybe you think that more siege memory is enough..

 

[Hodge_Hodgson]

Such sass, did someone watch Mean Girls this weekend?

This made me chuckle, he is quite a sarcastic bugger isn't he

 

[Pellucid]

If a fort is under siege by enough troops to siege it down, then it should lose its zone of control.

Anyone else have this same issue? Why or why not? I'm curious what others think about this?

This would make forts effectively pointless for small nations.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

This made me chuckle, he is quite a sarcastic bugger isn't he

Yeah I really like the humour Wiz and Johan inject into the forums.

On a more serious note after watching a playthrough on spectator mode there are some things that worry me a bit but this is not one of them the things that do worry me are there seems to be a lot of cyclical gameplay going on where big nations get chipped away and fall to a couple of small nations, I saw Florence form Italy, Venice move continents and destroy the ottomans and there still seems to be too much early colonisation of africa. France never got a look in at colonising either, not sure why.