Why Common Sense lacks, well, common sense!

[Maldazar]

What people need to understand is that the fort is not really blocking the movement, but it blocks you from setting up lines of suplies, you can't safely do that without actualy conquering the lands, so your units would all die in enemy territory... It's like in HoI, where you CAN actualy go balls deep behind enemy lines, but then if you lose a battle you get auto stack whiped, because you can't retreat, etc... (also, your units start to lose all organization (morale) because of no supplies).

So, except if they totaly change the entire way armies/units/supplies, etc work, this is imho the most realistic alternative.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

What people need to understand is that the fort is not really blocking the movement, but it blocks you from setting up lines of suplies, you can't safely do that without actualy conquering the lands, so your units would all die in enemy territory... It's like in HoI, where you CAN actualy go balls deep behind enemy lines, but then if you lose a battle you get auto stack whiped, because you can't retreat, etc... (also, your units start to lose all organization (morale) because of no supplies).

So, except if they totaly change the entire way armies/units/supplies, etc work, this is imho the most realistic alternative.

It would actually be nice if they emphasised this more with some form of extra attrition for Armies who are cut off from their supplies so you can't just jump through a weak gap in a front line of forts then head straight for a capital to seige it down without theoretical chain of supply to where they are.

 

[cleef]

If you are in a fort that is under siege you CANNOT protect surrounding areas. Why ? Because you're under siege! So I think it makes sense for troops to be able to roam freely throughout the provinces that YOU CANNOT control.

 

[Chimerae]

If you are in a fort that is under siege you CANNOT protect surrounding areas. Why ? Because you're under siege! So I think it makes sense for troops to be able to roam freely throughout the provinces that YOU CANNOT control.

I think 'sieging' a province represents a front that your soldiers are pushing, rather than encircling a castle. As such, they cannot just run into enemy lands because they would get slaughtered by defenders.

 

[Wizzington]

If you are in a fort that is under siege you CANNOT protect surrounding areas. Why ? Because you're under siege! So I think it makes sense for troops to be able to roam freely throughout the provinces that YOU CANNOT control.

In other news, you cannot psychically give orders to armies that are 200 miles away from your capital and have them immediately follow them.

Realistically, armies do not in fact have the ability to instantly engage all other armies in the same administrative unit of a country the moment they arrive there.

It is also quite impossible to load 1000 men into a single cog.

Typically, it is not feasible to create a brand new unit of 1000 horse-mounted mercenaries in 15 days.

Fortunately, none of these realism breaking mechanics are a problem because realism is not a meaningful argument.

 

[TheRingisHot]

If you are in a fort that is under siege you CANNOT protect surrounding areas. Why ? Because you're under siege! So I think it makes sense for troops to be able to roam freely throughout the provinces that YOU CANNOT control.

While it could make sense from a realistic pov, wiz already gave an answer and I think it's not a bad one:

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

edit: ninja'd

edit2: never wrote 'ninja'd' before, it's odd

 

[LikeNothing]

This. Is. SPARTA!

[Kicks OP down a well]

 

[grumphie]

If you are in a fort that is under siege you CANNOT protect surrounding areas. Why ? Because you're under siege! So I think it makes sense for troops to be able to roam freely throughout the provinces that YOU CANNOT control.

that implies that fort = 1 fort. realistically, a frot represents a series of forts - i highly doubt only one very big castle was protecting paris. hence sieges sometimes last for years upon years, and hence why you cannot jsut march trhough. heck, even malta, that tiny little island had as much as 3 seperate forts defending parts of it. a siege abrstracts the important cities and foritfications you all have to siege down to really controll a province.

 

[Benjamintf1]

It is also quite impossible to load 1000 men into a single cog.

You sure about that? I'm sure you could find a lot of people who would be willing to try such things for a free sandwich or t-shirt or something.

Also I thought a cog wasn't supposed to represent just one small ship, but enough ships to ship an army.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

It is also quite impossible to load 1000 men into a single cog.

I'm sure you could if you actually tried, the world record for fitting people into a classic mini is 25, the cog might be a bit low in the water though, a bit low being somewhere on the bottom of the sea full of grumpy squashed people.

 

[happymix91]

You sure about that? I'm sure you could find a lot of people who would be willing to try such things for a free sandwich or t-shirt or something.

Also I thought a cog wasn't supposed to represent just one small ship, but enough ship to ship an army.

You couldn't make that ship and troops reach the goal safely and with preserving combat power.

If you think that one cog represents enough ships to ship an army, then why don't you think that ZoC system is abstract model of restriction from fort at real world?

 

[Benjamintf1]

You couldn't make that ship and troops reach the goal safely and with preserving combat power.

If you think that one cog represents enough ships to ship an army, then why don't you think that ZoC system is abstract model of restriction from fort at real world?

What I was saying is on the first hand, of course that ship would be crowded and wouldn't work well at shipping 1000 men.

What I meant with one cog, is that I thought 1 in-game cog unit represented not just a single cog(if a single cog isn't big enough, I have no idea how many men you ship on a cog) but represents a "unit" of cogs.

Also, I'm loving the new fort system. I played a game as aztecs(till Portugal stopped all ability for advancing), and am playing one as cusco to Inca. (although I do have to say, westernization is boring, just like sit there and do nothing for 20 years).

 

[Wizzington]

You couldn't make that ship and troops reach the goal safely and with preserving combat power.

If you think that one cog represents enough ships to ship an army, then why don't you think that ZoC system is abstract model of restriction from fort at real world?

Bingo.

 

[Zander]

realism is not a meaningful argument.

Speaking as someone who's historically been a Wiz fan, I'm not delighted to see him now spamming the forum with this phrase. It adds nothing to discussion, and I for one don't play EU because I hope to see were-bunny samurai casting ice magic.

 

[Wizzington]

Speaking as someone who's historically been a Wiz fan, I'm not delighted to see him now spamming the forum with this phrase. It adds nothing to discussion, and I for one don't play EU because I hope to see were-bunny samurai casting ice magic.

To qualify that statement: Realism is not a meaningful argument in itself. What matters is the overall level of immersion, which would clearly be broken if we added bunny samurai casting ice magic. The reason I 'spam' this phrase is because people seem to think that if they just point out how a particular mechanic is not 100% realistic, that is a sufficient argument to change that mechanic, but they only ever do it selectively for mechanics they personally dislike, and because we're talking about a game here you can always find a reason to call something unrealistic.

 

[Ame]

To qualify that statement: Realism is not a meaningful argument in itself. What matters is the overall level of immersion, which would clearly be broken if we added bunny samurai casting ice magic. The reason I 'spam' this phrase is because people seem to think that if they just point out how a particular mechanic is not 100% realistic, that is a sufficient argument to change that mechanic, but they only ever do it selectively for mechanics they personally dislike, and because we're talking about a game here you can always find a reason to call something unrealistic.

Sorry to be demanding but while you are here anyway would you mind explaining the point/the reason for "Defender of the Faith"? It seems like it is just a purely fantasy concept that is designed to place you against the leading catholic power early in the game.

 

[happymix91]

So if you want to talk about realism and historical accuracy, you should think about gameplay aspects before.

If you say 'ZoC should be gone!' with great substitutional system, which can be applied to the game without problems like performance issu, for present system, no one will say 'realism is not a meaningful arguement'. Rather than that, Dev will appreciate to you as you suggest great thing for the game.

 

[BFTeixeira]

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.

On that note, i can't wait to have ballistic missiles to floor my enemies!

 

[cleef]

 

[BFTeixeira]

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

Not if the fort is still being sieged.