You explained part of it and ignored me waltzing through after Castille sieged it back.
- 1
Why Do People Say Forts Aren't Bugged?
- Thread starter Damedius
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I've done this 3 times in the past with esoteric edge cases and the "wizards" failed all 3 times.
Anyway, the OP's particular scenario as described is known/intended behavior consistent with the wiki and is just a bad design interaction. Capturing a fort can reduce your movement options because you get a new return province. Despite that ordinarily a hostile fort would limit movement more than a friendly one.
AFAIK you can still return province swap them out of it, which showcases one of the core issues with EU 4 ZoC (two armies on the same province fighting the same battles for the same nation have different movement rules, by design).
Well, you guys fixed one of them not TOO long ago (maybe a year or two now?). It used to be possible to deliberately exile troops, then queue movements in a way that would bypass ZoC after clearing exile. I'm pretty sure that wasn't intended! Nowadays the game will interrupt that rather than let troops calmly march through infinite ZoC via continuing exile orders.
Assaulting forts is still bugged today. The game claims only X number of people can assault. But there is no cap on casualties; clearly > 10k are participating in the assault. You therefore get WILDLY different outcomes if you just order an assault...versus if you order a fraction of the army to move and regroup/merge army on each battle tick to keep ~max soldiers assaulting (and not much more). In one case, you get a failed assault and massive casualties. In the other, you get a consistently successful assault with still-significant but much lesser casualties. The only difference is some extremely painstaking swap/merge micro. Is that REALLY intended, and not a bugged interaction with assaults?
If only 10k can assault, either that's true or it isn't. I don't see any design benefit to forcing tedious micromanagement of army swapping/merging in the middle of assaults to get a better outcome.
~~~
Also, you can still mess with return provinces via army swapping, and there is still a bug that associates movement lock with the presence of a fort (causing same or adjacent province shattered retreats even in regions of the world with all forts deleted). If you mouse over it will even say "land movement blocked by hostile fort"...in your own territory with literally no forts anywhere in 5-10 province radius. Not easy to reproduce, but it's still happening as of current hotfix. This is sort-of a fort bug? One the one hand, there is literally no fort. On the other, the game seems to think there is?
I also have an old screenshot lying around where I couldn't queue a unit to return to the province it was presently in because returning to the province it was already in was blocked by a hostile fort (???). This one resolves if you stop the unit and re-order it, but can be annoying if you're in MP/not wanting to pause. I was never able to pin down the steps for this one, but I run into it from time to time. Rarer than the above.
Best suggestion I've seen is still to make ZoC slow units rather than hard block them. If you slow enough then big armies can't catch smaller ones w/o sieging the fort, and there are no meaningful tricks with overlapping ZoC, capturing forts or army swapping. For hostile/friendly forts both influencing one province you could either make them offset or have it slow both sides, either would work. Also solves the issue of "what happens when two armies enter from different origin provinces and merge", because it wouldn't matter anymore.
But it would be a big gameplay change and would shake up reactions a lot, again. So I can see why they might not want to do something like this again in EU 4. Still, ZoC remains a mess right now, and somewhat at odds with how the game's movement/threats of armies/positioning were originally designed.
The bug with assaulting forts is bad too. It takes a LOT of micro to avoid it, and assaulting forts is otherwise a legit way to punish armies being far out of position.
- 9
- 2
- 1
- 1
No, I explained both parts. If both forts are hostile, Vizcaya is in the ZoC of both, so you can move into either. If only Navarra is hostile, you can only move from Vizcaya into Navarra. That's all there is to it.
I'm all in on being frustrated with how the rules play out in this instance (like I said, I've been caught out in a late-game war where I got one siege stack stuck behind the line vs. all of Spain's armies and wasn't able to send in reinforcements until Navarra fell), but this is exactly what you should expect from a close reading of the rules.
- 4
- 1
I said through, as in ignore both as if they weren't even there.
- 1
So before I sieged Burgos/after Castille sieged it back I could go through and ignore those forts.Can you explain the problem again please?
You went from Labourd to Vizcaya to Burgos - that's all fine, Vizc is in the first province ZoC of Burgos AND Navarra, so from there you can go to either of the forts that ZoC's it. It looks like a loophole around being able to get 'past' Navarra's ZoC, even though it isn't really.
Then what did you try to do?
You can't go to ANY of the red lines now because you still need to siege the fort at Navarra as you entered it's ZoC and haven't cleared the fort.
Your only allowable route from here should be back to Viz and then to Navarra or back to Labourd - is that what is able to be done? If so, the ZoC works perfectly as it should, you just misunderstood it. If not, please explain the situation
View attachment 697119
After I sieged Burgos I couldn't go through that area.
- 1
What part of got through the forts in Burgos and Navara do you not understand?
What part of ignore them like they weren't there do you not understand?
- 8
- 1
There are some who will never be helped because they don't want help, just want to complain about something they don't understand. I think we can close this thread now.
- 8
- 1
Actually, you've got it backward. Once you siege Burgos, you are outside any hostile ZoC and are blocked from going back to Labourd by the Navarra ZoC in Vizcaya. You can go along any of the red lines you've drawn, but you have to take Navarra (or Madrid) to get out of Castile either to the east or to the north.Can you explain the problem again please?
You went from Labourd to Vizcaya to Burgos - that's all fine, Vizc is in the first province ZoC of Burgos AND Navarra, so from there you can go to either of the forts that ZoC's it. It looks like a loophole around being able to get 'past' Navarra's ZoC, even though it isn't really.
Then what did you try to do?
You can't go to ANY of the red lines now because you still need to siege the fort at Navarra as you entered it's ZoC and haven't cleared the fort.
Your only allowable route from here should be back to Viz and then to Navarra or back to Labourd - is that what is able to be done? If so, the ZoC works perfectly as it should, you just misunderstood it. If not, please explain the situation
View attachment 697119
The part where you tell us where you started and where you ended. "Through" is not descriptive.
- 1
It's like I stumbled into some crazy Religious cult.
We got people already asking to burn me at the stake.
We got people already asking to burn me at the stake.
- 12
- 4
Definition of through | Dictionary.com
The definition of Through is in at one end, side, or surface and out at the other. See additional meanings and similar words.
www.dictionary.com
1)in at one end, side, or surface and out at the other:
2)past; beyond
- 10
- 2
Well in my crazy religious cult, none of the provinces are named Through, so that still doesn't tell me any new information.Definition of through | Dictionary.com
The definition of Through is in at one end, side, or surface and out at the other. See additional meanings and similar words.
1)in at one end, side, or surface and out at the other:
2)past; beyond
Look, I'm working very strenuously to be helpful instead of doing the usual internet thing and reciprocating your obnoxiousness, but if you don't answer my questions with any effort whatsoever, then @Blizzrd33 is right; you don't want to be helped.
- 9
- 3
This could be avoided if you provided a screenshot of "walking through the ZOC of both forts."
Do you mean you can walk back to Burgos once Castile takes it back?
Or do you mean you can walk from Vizcaya to Soria between the two forts?
Do you mean you can walk back to Burgos once Castile takes it back?
Or do you mean you can walk from Vizcaya to Soria between the two forts?
- 1
I did post a screenshot.
I mean through the Western side of the Pyrenees. For instance Castile tried to siege Labourd when one of my stacks was in Valencia after it sieged Burgos. I could go through the Western side to get to them.
You were in Valencia, Burgos was controlled by you but Navarra was not, and you were able to walk "past" Navarra to go back to Labourd, is that what you're saying ?
If that's the case, I think I can explain what happened. (Note that I'm not 100% sure though, but I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong.) From the wiki :
- You cannot move beyond ZoC even to your own territory, unless you have a fort (including just a capital fort) there and you are moving from a province without an enemy fort
Burgos was not controlled by me when I could go through. It was controlled by me when I couldn't.
Stop saying "through". It is not clear. Specify which province moving from and to.
- 2
Main thing that confuses people is the fact that you can always walk back to the provience you came from (can be used to your blackflag an army) mixed with the fact the ZoC doesnt just project to all adjacent tiles. Hence why u can enter a provience with 2 ZoC on it from 2 forts go 2 one fort siege it down then return to the previous provience then not be able to return back to the point of entry.
- 1
The overlapping fort bouncing problem-- its a known issue in EU4 that has existed for a long time now. Its more an oversight in the Fort mechanic, and they may not know how to reprogram it without breaking or replacing the game mechanic. For Castile, it also happens at the Strait of Gibraltar, if they or an ally owns the other side.
The mechanic allows for an army to always be able to walk from a Fort province, to another Fort province, that is less than two provinces apart and under the same country's control I should say. It also allows for an army to always be able to return to the last province they occupied before entering a hostile zoc, marked as the Return Province.
What happens is, because Vizcaya is covered by both the Burgos and Navarra fort, their zoc allows you to freely travel to either one, as they are less than two provinces apart from the return province your army entered their zones from. When forts are overlapping their zones, an enemy army can simply keep walking from fort to fort by that mechanic, and totally ignore zone of control, its known as fort hopping (and can be quite annoying if you have a large country that starts this way like Ming or Mamluks, while the enemy army just keeps running away from yours all across your land indefinitely off it).
Since your army stopped in Burgos and sieged it, there is now only one Zone, Navarra's and that blocks you from returning to your fort at Labourd, as Burgos is now your return province instead of Labourd. The same would occur if you sieged Navarra instead, Burgos would then block you from returning to Labourd, as Navarra became your return province and you now occupy it.
In that particular setting, it may also have been intentionally placed, to counter France from blobbing--- France focusing on military ideas grew to be pretty op in EU3 and would quickly blob, hence the Big Blue Blob achievement and reference in 4. There are a few other things in 4 implemented mostly to weaken France early on.
PS: Return Province is set when the army stops in a province, not when they siege the fort in the province.
The mechanic allows for an army to always be able to walk from a Fort province, to another Fort province, that is less than two provinces apart and under the same country's control I should say. It also allows for an army to always be able to return to the last province they occupied before entering a hostile zoc, marked as the Return Province.
What happens is, because Vizcaya is covered by both the Burgos and Navarra fort, their zoc allows you to freely travel to either one, as they are less than two provinces apart from the return province your army entered their zones from. When forts are overlapping their zones, an enemy army can simply keep walking from fort to fort by that mechanic, and totally ignore zone of control, its known as fort hopping (and can be quite annoying if you have a large country that starts this way like Ming or Mamluks, while the enemy army just keeps running away from yours all across your land indefinitely off it).
Since your army stopped in Burgos and sieged it, there is now only one Zone, Navarra's and that blocks you from returning to your fort at Labourd, as Burgos is now your return province instead of Labourd. The same would occur if you sieged Navarra instead, Burgos would then block you from returning to Labourd, as Navarra became your return province and you now occupy it.
In that particular setting, it may also have been intentionally placed, to counter France from blobbing--- France focusing on military ideas grew to be pretty op in EU3 and would quickly blob, hence the Big Blue Blob achievement and reference in 4. There are a few other things in 4 implemented mostly to weaken France early on.
PS: Return Province is set when the army stops in a province, not when they siege the fort in the province.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1