Zones of control

[mcmanusaur]

Between the last two patches I've heard a lot of complaints about how zones of control often lead to counter-intuitive and even utterly nonsensical movement paths. I appreciate that Paradox was trying to introduce another level of strategic depth to war with zones of control, but as it stands (even taking 1.14's tweaks into account) their implementation is in desperate need of re-evaluation.

The fundamental issue with zones of control is that they run counter to the general tendencies for how the game otherwise operates, namely that virtually all other systems treat provinces as entirely separate and distinct (some aspect of one province's status doesn't typical affect the status of other provinces). While in some sense abandoning that general principle could result in some welcome additions to the game (ex. if the religion/culture of adjacent provinces affected rate of conversion), I don't think army movement is the best place to be imaginative. If this were a game with tiles like Civilization then it might be different, but with EU4 the idea that forts restrict movement through adjacent provinces is far too arbitrary ("that single pixel touching the fortified province means I have to go siege that fort?").

The solution I would identify is to only have zones of control apply to the individual province where the fort is located. So in other words, if a province has a fort, you can move into that province to siege the fort but until that fort is sieged your army can only retreat in the same direction that it originally advanced. That said, you should be able to bypass a fortified province by taking a detour around that province, and therefore in order to fully block an advancing army you would need a continuous frontier of fortified provinces. Then to preserve balance you would simply need to make forts cheaper than they are currently and possibly also set fortifications apart from normal building slots. It's still not 100% ideal but I think that would be vastly better than the current implementation.

 

[Quaade]

Nah... Like how you can´t advance past the fort... Would however like not to having to retreat back in order to siege the next province, when you are full able to pass it. The restriction should loosen up in those cases... If you can enter it, you should if it´s not past the fort

 

[mcmanusaur]

Come again?

 

[gia257]

I like the suggestion, it doesn't make sense to me how a fort can restrict movement miles away, if you could make more forts, so that the meta was to fortify everything you could, then made sieges faster due to extra forts...

 

[mcmanusaur]

so that the meta was to fortify everything you could, then made sieges faster due to extra forts...

Sure. Personally I think there's far too stark of a contrast between sieging an unfortified province and a province with level 1 fort, so I'd like to see something more approaching a middle ground for siege duration, especially if forts are made more numerous as I suggest.

 

[Sharp163]

They should just remove the feature that forts block the movement of troops. It is simply not historically accurate, and the only reason it was implemented was to try to get a semblance of front lines. (Ironically enough, front lines only became a prominent aspect of warfare following the rise of firearms, which caused a gradual decline in the use of castles, as they had become more obsolete.)

I can only think of one example of a castle blocking troop movement:

Other than that, however, the feature should be removed.

 

[rizla7]

what are you doing in england?

bloody pathing... trying to get to syria.

ZoC is fine in some respects, but in other just fails, like when moving away or parallel through zones you already control: Invisible walls.

or obviously when the fort is besieged, and the defenders teleport out of garrison to prevent movement. ;o

 

[josh127]

+1 Hope it gets considered.

 

[SgtFraggers]

I 100% agree. I think tactical accuracy should be put above balance as it doesn't make any sense that I must move all around Europe just to get behind a fort any renaissance general would've assaulted head on.

 

[Quaade]

Forts and castles did excert a form of control on the area though I do believe their influence is too great, I do however doesn´t see another way of making forts having an impact on the war if not adding the ZoC so it´s sensible in the terms that it have an impact. However they should differentiate between provinces past and provinces before, as I stated it doens´t make sense that a province within ZoC would have you go back 2 provinces in order to move into another, the movement should be allowed from the fort and from the neighbouring province directly, when you are allowed to move to it indirectly. Meaning that provinces you can´t reach behind the fort you cannot move to, but provinces in front of you can move to freely, this is the case when you can control of one of the provinces, so the ruled might be able to be made.

However i dislike that you should be allowed to move past the fort and I dislike having to build the "wall of china", it´s senseless and doesn´t really make good gameplay only gives reason to stack up on forts with only restriction being money, to which it becomes unbalanced towards smaller nations who can´t afford putting forts in the majority of provinces. But perhaps hordes should be allowed to move through ZoC when not reformed, it was the tactic of mongolians where they only took fortifications where they surrendered since they could get more loot by not sitting in the same place in 6 months sieging down the walls (they did have siege equipment).

 

[gia257]

Forts and castles did excert a form of control on the area though I do believe their influence is too great, I do however doesn´t see another way of making forts having an impact on the war if not adding the ZoC so it´s sensible in the terms that it have an impact. However they should differentiate between provinces past and provinces before, as I stated it doens´t make sense that a province within ZoC would have you go back 2 provinces in order to move into another, the movement should be allowed from the fort and from the neighbouring province directly, when you are allowed to move to it indirectly. Meaning that provinces you can´t reach behind the fort you cannot move to, but provinces in front of you can move to freely, this is the case when you can control of one of the provinces, so the ruled might be able to be made.

However i dislike that you should be allowed to move past the fort and I dislike having to build the "wall of china", it´s senseless and doesn´t really make good gameplay only gives reason to stack up on forts with only restriction being money, to which it becomes unbalanced towards smaller nations who can´t afford putting forts in the majority of provinces. But perhaps hordes should be allowed to move through ZoC when not reformed, it was the tactic of mongolians where they only took fortifications where they surrendered since they could get more loot by not sitting in the same place in 6 months sieging down the walls (they did have siege equipment).

while that is fine of course if you have to build the great wall forts would have to cost much less in build cost, maintenance and building slots (development)

Also getting trapped is a bad point of not being able to cross a fort, when you should be able to, it doesn't have to be free, it can cost you manpower (attrition), time, and / or military power (directly or indirectly by requiring high maneuver on a general), but it should be possible regardless. And then you give the horde a bonus so they pay less of this "crossing penalty". I dont mind being trapped if the enemy has their actual stack there, actively trapping me, but if its just the fort which could be near empty for all i care (just out of mothball) and I outnumber their guys 10 to 1 I dont see why my guys cant march.

Its not good strategy when the rules are too tight and the consequences too harsh, it basically leaves only way to act, so no strategy whatsoever. And this game is full of tight rules with harsh consequences.

 

[Quaade]

Also getting trapped is a bad point of not being able to cross a fort, when you should be able to, it doesn't have to be free, it can cost you manpower (attrition), time, and / or military power (directly or indirectly by requiring high maneuver on a general), but it should be possible regardless. And then you give the horde a bonus so they pay less of this "crossing penalty".

Attrition i could be fine with, mainly because I want attrition to be much more effective to limit massing armies and give them a more localized effect (would have an impact on revolt risk when you withdraw every army from across the empire) but in effect the fort would limit your "supply line" and make them forced to "feed of the land" by looting. But having attrition modifiers this way, might be difficult? (haven´t checked in the files)

 

[gia257]

I cant be difficult, it would basically be"have zoc but zoc doesnt block marching, just projects attrition"

speaking of supply lines, they could have your provinces produce "supply", then you add up all the adjacent supply and share this total supply among all the connected land, follow me so far?

then when you occupy a city you can project your supply further away, and if you have the "bad" strategy of starting a siege from an amphibious attack on the other side of the world your army wouldn't have access to the supply line (at least until they capture land), you could project your supply with port access (sea) or military access (land) / allies in war (this also means if you arent connected to your ally then the ally/you would have to pay for both armies if they are all on one side of the battle.

If enough supply doesnt reach your army you get attrition just like with boats, looting could generate some supply so that this attrition can be countered if you are looting a lot/from a high development province. Active forts could block supply lines all around so that you could only get supplies from looting until the forts go down. This would most likely be harder to do as its basically a new map mode and yet another variable to keep track of though.

 

[Quaade]

speaking of supply lines, they could have your provinces produce "supply", then you add up all the adjacent supply and share this total supply among all the connected land, follow me so far?

My thoughts of a simple system is mainly using the ZoC as template, or use the "area" implemented.
ZoC: A province has a low base supply like 3, this is modified by the surrounding provinces by a third (represent skirmish parties that loot for main army), so if 4 provinces have in base each, the total number would be 7 before attrition sets in. If another army are in the vicinity, this will have an effect on the total supply based on the base from the province they stand in. So in the example, this means that the two armies consumes the supply in the province ans "shares" the provinces that overlap, meaning army A will have 6 supply before attrition instead of both being able to have 7 sized armies both. The provinces that doesn´t overlap will provide normally.

Add to this the other modifiers and adjust the number to make resonable armies, but the beauty of this is it takes into account that 2 armies close together will have to feed on the same loot and thus could have an collective negative effect and it takes into account that some high-dev provinces provide more, but if not actual in that province they will still have a limited effect.

Could be nice if continued standing would decrease the supply if the army were too large, since the provinces would simply lack food and due to the army can´t trade it in either.

Area: The area has collectively a supply, no matter if the other provinces are bordering it, each army will consume this amount and both will suffer attrition (friendly will of course have a bonus), but this will mean armies can stand close to each other with no effect, as long as they stand in another area...

then when you occupy a city you can project your supply further away, and if you have the "bad" strategy of starting a siege from an amphibious attack on the other side of the world your army wouldn't have access to the supply line (at least until they capture land), you could project your supply with port access (sea) or military access (land) / allies in war (this also means if you arent connected to your ally then the ally/you would have to pay for both armies if they are all on one side of the battle.

Supply lines were less of a thing for most of this period, as having armies that couldn´t loot the supply were quite costly and difficult to forward to them. There are however cases were the army was sent off with 3-6 months supplies in order to field and use larger armies, especially in areas that had limited supply naturally. Ottoman did this a couple of time, but it was quite costly compared to the "usual" warfare where he only paid for their salaries and a more limited supply.

Could be nice to add in a costly prepare supplies, in order to attack Russia or fielding larger armies where they drain on the supplies and if not being careful you could end up with suffering heavy attrition. This could be useful initially when you need to gain the upper hand by numbers, but when times goes the need to spread out your armies increases.

However I do like the notion of amphibious sieges, perhaps tying it to blockade efficiency and if ships are within supply. If both are negative, the army would have to rely on the provinces to provide, if blockade i 50 % and in supply, they would be modified with this, if 100 % and without supply they would still be negative.

If enough supply doesnt reach your army you get attrition just like with boats, looting could generate some supply so that this attrition can be countered if you are looting a lot/from a high development province. Active forts could block supply lines all around so that you could only get supplies from looting until the forts go down. This would most likely be harder to do as its basically a new map mode and yet another variable to keep track of though.

Supply lines wasn´t really a thing before later on, with the increased professionalism of armies and it still took time before the shift from looting the provinces into supplying from a central location. Mainly because the cost to prepare and administer this, added with the cost to secure it reached the army were great, and they needed to stock up in advance aswell. Which did happen on occassion, but in order to minimize the cost to make the supply reach the army (by having a small army follow supplies) those cases were that the supply wagons followed the army instead, at the risk of losing it all if the army was defeated.

 

[Lateralus]

My opinion is that while I understand Wiz's point, there should be some kind of change to the ZOC mechanic as it is overly complicated/unintuitive, and even bordering on absurd in some specific circumstances. Most players seem to agree that the current system is merely annoying and does not add "positive compexity" (if there is even such a term - thinking about how to best attack a certain area). I don't see why the simple solution that was proposed that you can always freely move into territory you control is not viable? It would still prevent the player from entering deep into enemy land while ignoring forts?

 

[rizla7]

simple solution that was proposed that you can always freely move into territory you control

unfortunately, it isn't that simple, and that would certainly not fix the problem in the slightest. that's just 2%-5% of the problem.

although, preventing forts from controlling zones in other countries, who are not on the defender's side as part of the war, may solve some of the issues (this will allow you to move in your own territory), which actually leads to some of the more nonsensical issues.

several key issues:

1. you cannot move AWAY from a fort or its surrounding zones, except using the EXACT same province you entered from. makes ZERO sense.
2. you cannot move laterally from zone to zone controlled by a fort, even if you control (or own) those zones.
3. defenders can teleport out of garrison even when it is under siege by your stack to maintain their zone of control?
4. in cases where 2 forts control 1 zone, and both border it, you cannot move to the fort not in control, only the one in control. however, you cannot tell which fort without testing paths.
5. in related cases where 2 forts control adjacent zones, you cannot move between them

after giving it some thought...

some of these issues 'simply' cannot be fixed using the current system due to being unable to determine which zones are 'in front' of the fort and which are 'behind'.

a human can make that determination, but for an AI to do it, even knowing where their 'borders' are, would be an immensely complicated task given all possible scenarios.

essentially? it CANNOT and WILL NOT be fixed. any attempt to fix the system will render it useless, as it will no longer be able to fulfill its purpose, hence: ill-conceived.

i could come up with a dozen examples for why fixing a certain aspect will completely break it in other ways, allowing you to bypass forts completely.

 

[Lateralus]

unfortunately, it isn't that simple, and that would certainly not fix the problem in the slightest. that's just 2%-5% of the problem.

...

1. you cannot move AWAY from a fort or its surrounding zones, except using the EXACT same province you entered from. makes ZERO sense.
2. you cannot move laterally from zone to zone controlled by a fort, even if you control (or own) those zones.

after giving it some thought...

...

i could come up with a dozen examples for why fixing a certain aspect will completely break it in other ways, allowing you to bypass forts completely.

I think you are right that there is no perfect solution here, but I don't understand what speaks against the "can move freely to/from provinces you control" approach. It does not fix every weird scenario, but it certainly does not make the current situation worse? Your points 1 and 2 would be addressed, would they not? And these, I contend, are not 2-5% of the cases, but more like >50% of the annoying scenarios.

So while it is not the end-all-be-all solution, I would be interested why you think it does not at least improve the current situation? Maybe I am still missing something here - quite likely even, since Paradox staff have probably been thinking about these issues for a while now, so I would like to be educated what I am missing

 

[rizla7]

so I would like to be educated what I am missing

it doesn't solve 'most' of the problem, because 'most' of their forts are not on your border.

you'd still be stuck with all the same routing issues, except they would not carry across border in this case (which would go a long way to eliminating some confusion in that sense); but the confusion would still persist in all other cases.

it would however eliminate dumb cases like not being able to move from holstein/hamburg to attack lubeck (which is nonsensical to begin with), even after you own holstein (since lubeck fort controls brandenburg land too). but that could be a completely unrelated bug.

 

[Lateralus]

it doesn't solve 'most' of the problem, because 'most' of their forts are not on your border.

you'd still be stuck with all the same routing issues, except they would not carry across border in this case (which would go a long way to eliminating some confusion in that sense); but the confusion would still persist in all other cases.

it would however eliminate dumb cases like not being able to move from holstein/hamburg to attack lubeck (which is nonsensical to begin with), even after you own holstein (since lubeck fort controls brandenburg land too). but that could be a completely unrelated bug.

I guess we come at this from different angles If you look at the ZoC thread in the main forum, all of the "look at this crazy pathing" examples given in the screenshots involve owned/controlled provinces - which would be fixed this way - which I think qualifies as addressing it as "most of the problem" (since these are the cases most of the community is unsatisfied with, from my humble impression). And when you are deep into enemy territory away from your own lands, I think moving around should be hard, so no complaints with the general concept of forts. I agree that this proposal does not solve any issues you mention with overlapping ZoCs/multiple forts - I am merely saying it does not hurt, or I don't see how it does. If it opens a new can of worms I am not seeing, I am all for Paradox taking their time in coming up with a more comprehensive solution.

 

[rizla7]

I guess we come at this from different angles

i'm not saying that one issue shouldn't be fixed. in fact, it's the only one that can be fixed. i complained about it in a bug report just last week.

the issue is whether it will be fixed: it would require a rework of the way in which fort data is transposed onto the map (currently in a static fashion). it would need to be dynamic, based on participation in wars; and that is unlikely to happen.

simply your own territory wouldn't be sufficient, as it affects others who you gain access rights to, etc... including allies, countries not part of the war, etc...