Why didn't Paradox go through with Fort occupation plans?

[LRDK]

Originally, when the Dev diary came out, forts were going to occupy provinces, and there would be fort skirmishes. This sounded awesome, but Paradox decided to limit that by release and make it that forts can only free occupied territory. Now, this fort system is still far superior to the old one, but I was curious why did they not go through with what they originally intended. It sounds much more strategic, with wars having border skirmishes with forts, etc. Were there coding difficulties, or unsatisfactory gameplay?

 

[lolada]

Maybe forts being too op.

Does it really matter? It would only speed wars a bit and maybe look weird or exploitable. Wars are already quite quick (which is a good thing). Carpet sieging was tiring and not fun at best.

 

[Wizzington]

People didn't enjoy it during playtesting... found it very frustrating to have provinces taken by enemy forts, etc.

 

[Autoclave]

People didn't enjoy it during playtesting... found it very frustrating to have provinces taken by enemy forts, etc.

Is that also true for occupied forts zone of control? Did you try it and they didn't like it as well?
The system is rather counter-intuitive now for new players. There situations when you think you are supposed to be safe from enemy marching through your provinces and occupied stuff, but you are not.

 

[Dodanodo]

People didn't enjoy it during playtesting... found it very frustrating to have provinces taken by enemy forts, etc.

Really, I would think it adds strategy to where you build your forts. I think I would have liked the system, allow you to just capture enemy forts and then let the forts do the rest. Reduces carpet seiging significantly. And weren't you gonna add a timedelay to forts recapturing provinces? You could also make so a fort only captures provinces without enemy armies on it, so you could counter the effect of a fort before starting the war.

Anyway, I think the idea has promise. I'd urge paradox to reconsider this, once you're done patching the game as it is.

 

[lmw]

On the topic. Wasn't there a way to code occupied forts not to take adjacent provinces, while still exerting their ZoC. It's single worst "feature" of this patch, to see AI pass through lvl 9 fort you besieged for two years like it didn't even exist. I can't believe it's WAD.

 

[grumphie]

there's also the thign that only one fort can exert a ZoC to a province at once, resulting in both behaviour that's not consistent and wierd. such as being only able to adavnce unto one of the two forts if they share a ZoC, or at one province corridors, forts being worthless altogetehr for exterting a ZoC.

 

[Haccoude]

Is that also true for occupied forts zone of control? Did you try it and they didn't like it as well?
The system is rather counter-intuitive now for new players. There situations when you think you are supposed to be safe from enemy marching through your provinces and occupied stuff, but you are not.

It is counter-intuitive (I thought occupied forts had ZOC before I learnt they hadn't on the forums), it is unrealistic, it prevents historical strategies, and it removes some of the danger of letting the enemy occupy your territory. Why does it work that way?

 

[LRDK]

Really, I would think it adds strategy to where you build your forts. I think I would have liked the system, allow you to just capture enemy forts and then let the forts do the rest. Reduces carpet seiging significantly. And weren't you gonna add a timedelay to forts recapturing provinces? You could also make so a fort only captures provinces without enemy armies on it, so you could counter the effect of a fort before starting the war.

Anyway, I think the idea has promise. I'd urge paradox to reconsider this, once you're done patching the game as it is.

It seems like that to me, but Paradox has tested it, and they generally make quite good decisions

 

[Morwys]

People didn't enjoy it during playtesting... found it very frustrating to have provinces taken by enemy forts, etc.

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Players find everything frustrating. If some of the forum views on forts are to be considered, the end is nigh and PI is to blame for everything.

 

[Wizzington]

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Players find everything frustrating. If some of the forum views on forts are to be considered, the end is nigh and PI is to blame for everything.

There is a big difference between 'some people didn't enjoy this' and 'nobody enjoyed this' during playtesting. This fell into the latter category.

 

[justin6477]

Perhaps implement the features with higher level forts? It seems natural that a Napoleonic fort would have greater regional authority than a feudal castle and that allowing it to fall should have much direr consequences.

 

[zamieo]

Perhaps implement the features with higher level forts? It seems natural that a Napoleonic fort would have greater regional authority than a feudal castle and that allowing it to fall should have much direr consequences.

Yeah, except Napoléon in particular frequently ignored forts and went off to destroy the enemy armies instead.

 

[colourfulbeast]

Its just like East vs West. Paradox wasn't "ready to release it." They didn't "have the technology" to fulfill their promise.

 

[justin6477]

Yeah, except Napoléon in particular frequently ignored forts and went off to destroy the enemy armies instead.

It's a good thing that Napoleonic, without any qualifiers, refers to the period rather than the man

Wow. The new forum emoticons are ugly... anyways, the point does remain that in our relatively static combat and warfare system, a later fort should have greater benefits over a more primitive one. That said, it would be ideal for game mechanics to evolve over the course of our games. For example, just as we unlock things like forced march, we might unlock something reflecting the Napoleonic doctrines of ignoring forts and smashing armies, permitting us to bypass ZoC. As a result, forts would still be valuable in the RotW, as they were in history, but diminish somewhat in the late European theater.

 

[zamieo]

It's a good thing that Napoleonic, without any qualifiers, refers to the period rather than the man

Wow. The new forum emoticons are ugly... anyways, the point does remain that in our relatively static combat and warfare system, a later fort should have greater benefits over a more primitive one. That said, it would be ideal for game mechanics to evolve over the course of our games. For example, just as we unlock things like forced march, we might unlock something reflecting the Napoleonic doctrines of ignoring forts and smashing armies, permitting us to bypass ZoC. As a result, forts would still be valuable in the RotW, as they were in history, but diminish somewhat in the late European theater.

I wrote Napoléon in particular, other generals during the same period did the same as well, although there were also generals that focused on holding strategic points rather than on the decisive battles (like Archduke Charles, for example).

 

[Dodanodo]

There is a big difference between 'some people didn't enjoy this' and 'nobody enjoyed this' during playtesting. This fell into the latter category.

Ok, this particular idea didn't turn ou as intended. That's fine, it happens. But the fort system as it is now does need some tweaking with regard to the zone of control. Occupied forts should also block movement, for starters.

 

[Sindai]

Its just like East vs West. Paradox wasn't "ready to release it." They didn't "have the technology" to fulfill their promise.

Uh, Paradox didn't develop EvW.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Uh, Paradox didn't develop EvW.

Don't worry, that won't stop some people from being bitter.

 

[Mauer]

Occupied and owned forts should work the same, whether they occupy surrounding provinces or not.