"You won't need to sieged down that last province to make a peace deal"

[slackerpants]

In my experience the wars can go a lot faster than before. You just need to focus on taking the forts, and with artillery now giving +1 per unit vs early forts, they can be taken quite quickly. Additionally, I declared war on a broken Hungary who couldn't afford the fort maintenance, so I just had to park a unit on each province. That was the fastest war I have ever done, they offered me their wargoal province after about 2 months.

 

[valanna]

i find it that AI are willing to peace out alot quicker than in previous patches, as long as you have occupied a fort of theirs

 

[Wizzington]

You'll have to siege a fort to take land. This is not REMOTELY the same as having to siege every province you want to take, and you full well know this, so cut the drama.

AI issues are being worked on.

 

[Mef]

I would love to hear the justification for "no forts occupied in the area" while the nearest fort to occupy is half a continent away.

You have to occupy the nearest fort to demand the province. Doesn't matter if it's far away as long as it's on the same continent.

 

[valanna]

You have to occupy the nearest fort to demand the province. Doesn't matter if it's far away as long as it's on the same continent.

halfway across china seems like a bit too far to be "a fort in the area".

 

[Shadrol]

In the area means a continous part of the country. For example.
I attack France as the Netherlands. France has unfortified colonies in America and a fortified colony in Africa.
From the get go I can demand american provinces, since they are not protected. Sieging a fort in continental France is enough to ask for a province anywhere in continental France, but I am still unable to demand any african provinces.

Another example I just tested. Scotland has destroyed England in my game. England only holds Essex(capital), Norfolk and Lincoln as one continous block and Marches(fort). Scotland occupying Marches allows them to only take Marches, since they haven't sieged a fort in the other area.

 

[Sch4tzmeister]

You can have your enemy on the ropes, but he would still not give up that one remote province you hold because you did not capture the one fort. Of course you can walk the extra mile and take it but I think its very unreasonable. Just imagine that Ming example. Capture all but the fort, and you still would not get any province? Doesn't sound right.

 

[Mef]

halfway across china seems like a bit too far to be "a fort in the area".

If there is only one fort in China than "the area" is all of China.

 

[valanna]

If there is only one fort in China than "the area" is all of China.

you seemedto have missed the point i tried to make. I know that is the fact, but it seems a bit rediculous.
let's say you have all of southern ming sieged down, maybe even the rich eastern coast. you won't be able to take even one southern province unless you march your army to the north and siege that one fort they have in Beijing.

 

[Pigeoncount]

halfway across china seems like a bit too far to be "a fort in the area".

I would guess this is just something that will be patched soon enough, with a maximum range added to that modifier.

 

[beckermt]

Interesting. Makes sense to need to occupy a fort, since otherwise you can just run around taking tons of land thats not protected and rack up warscore. The modifier is a little band-aid-y, but I would assume that AI will have forts in relevant areas.

Effectively, you took an extreme situation, that should never occur in the game to test the extremes of the modifier, but it's a computer. Garbage in, garbage out. Your tests are interesting to see the mechanic, but in no way do they justify complaints about the mechanic.

In your first war, you say you don't have enough men to siege a province? Well, you should probably hire some mercs. You've gone trooping through their land, burning their crops and "sieging" a few provinces, but you haven't actually dashed their defensive military power.

 

[beckermt]

you seemedto have missed the point i tried to make. I know that is the fact, but it seems a bit rediculous.
let's say you have all of southern ming sieged down, maybe even the rich eastern coast. you won't be able to take even one southern province unless you march your army to the north and siege that one fort they have in Beijing.

I'll go ahead and point this out again, explicity. The point you tried to make is made through an absurd abuse of the system. It doesn't stand. The AI will never leave half the country completely without forts.

 

[zdlugasz]

I think so too. I can take Crete and Istria from 1444 Venice with no forts taken, but nothing else. Also, it seems that you can take vassal's provinces with no limits on forts, as I could annex Corfu if I wanted.

But you had to occupy them first?

 

[zdlugasz]

You'll have to siege a fort to take land. This is not REMOTELY the same as having to siege every province you want to take, and you full well know this, so cut the drama.

AI issues are being worked on.

Well, we would love to know exact rules, and how areas are defined (instead to go through experimentation process).
From what I gather the rule is: you need to take fort if there is direct land connection to fort

what exactly make direct land connection? is it like owned land bridge for LA floor?

is it true for Russia with the only fort on Kamtchatka as well? (other continent)
what about disjoint provinces on the same continental mass (like Burgundy or Venice)
it looks like islands/oversea territory without forts are "free"

 

[Azikiel]

You'll have to siege a fort to take land. This is not REMOTELY the same as having to siege every province you want to take, and you full well know this, so cut the drama.

AI issues are being worked on.

I'm totally fine with this, but can you re-do the wording to something that will let players that are new/don't use the forum know how to deal with the modifier. i.e "You must occupy the nearest fort to demand this province" or something that you feel more correctly describes the mechanic.

I feel you on the drama though.

 

[ringhloth]

But you had to occupy them first?

No, you don't need to occupy non-fort provinces unless you want more warscore.

 

[HerrStarr]

You'll have to siege a fort to take land. This is not REMOTELY the same as having to siege every province you want to take, and you full well know this, so cut the drama.

AI issues are being worked on.

I hope that portugal will not built forts in trade companies or in st. helena

 

[Witto]

You'll have to siege a fort to take land. This is not REMOTELY the same as having to siege every province you want to take, and you full well know this, so cut the drama.
AI issues are being worked on.

Uh oh, I feel Wiz is annoyed, seems days working on the bugfixes are taking it's toll.

 

[zdlugasz]

No, you don't need to occupy non-fort provinces unless you want more warscore.

Thanks, I know, I was not sure if they have castles there. Although that vassal thing makes me little sad. I will have to check how it works on releasing.

 

[zdlugasz]

Uh oh, I feel Wiz is annoyed, seems days working on the bugfixes are taking it's toll.

What bugs?