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.

 

[gia257]

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.

it is not impossible, would be damn hard though, I believe they do a lot of calculations already every single second (I mean updating the simulation every day and running AI on top) to be adding calculations of "whats a border" and "how deep you are" to it.

 

[Quaade]

it is not impossible, would be damn hard though, I believe they do a lot of calculations already every single second (I mean updating the simulation every day and running AI on top) to be adding calculations of "whats a border" and "how deep you are" to it.

How deep you are would be easy, it´s simply checking if neighbour_provice are controlled

 

[gia257]

How deep you are would be easy, it´s simply checking if neighbour_provice are controlled

yeah that works for depth 1 which is basically what they did on 1.13, but lets pick france, if the rule becomes "forts prevent from moving into the heartland, but dont block movement if retreating"

now you are castille, so to try the easiest use case we pick castille's capital, then pick france's, then we figure attacking would be moving towards paris, retreating would be moving towards... madrid it is I think?

Then we grab the shortest distance in province jumps (not EU4's distance in kilometers or whatever) from paris to our current location, then we find the distance to our desired destination province. If the destination is closer to paris than our original position it doesnt sound like we are retreating. Still we now test against madrid, if we are not getting closer to madrid then we are definitely not retreating so abort that move. If we are going away from paris and getting closer to castille then definitely allow the move, in the other remaining two cases, idk, this is the base use case anyway, it avoids other cases like border gore for instance.

Once you add all the use cases into the mix you probably end up doing a weighted map where -inf is castille, inf is paris, 0 is any province at the "border", and 1 any province that is next to a border province but is not the border itself, 2 any province next to 1 but not 1, and so on (negative if on castille's side). This map being a cached value to load as soon as war starts, then you overlap it with the "current state" map that shows your current position and owned provinces which modify the base "map" and make it so you cant move to a (much?) higher value province unless theres no zoc blocking you/you move into a fort that applies zoc to your army. And then fix whatever bugs because I obv typed this as I went I haven't really thought much about problems like idk giving infinite value to the capitals and given the rules I just said they would not be possible to be sieged until the very last... but that one can be fixed easily. But more or less that way you'd be able to move laterally and retreat while not being able to push forward unless you take some forts.

 

[Quaade]

yeah that works for depth 1 which is basically what they did on 1.13, but lets pick france, if the rule becomes "forts prevent from moving into the heartland, but dont block movement if retreating"

now you are castille, so to try the easiest use case we pick castille's capital, then pick france's, then we figure attacking would be moving towards paris, retreating would be moving towards... madrid it is I think?

Then we grab the shortest distance in province jumps (not EU4's distance in kilometers or whatever) from paris to our current location, then we find the distance to our desired destination province. If the destination is closer to paris than our original position it doesnt sound like we are retreating. Still we now test against madrid, if we are not getting closer to madrid then we are definitely not retreating so abort that move. If we are going away from paris and getting closer to castille then definitely allow the move, in the other remaining two cases, idk, this is the base use case anyway, it avoids other cases like border gore for instance.

Once you add all the use cases into the mix you probably end up doing a weighted map where -inf is castille, inf is paris, 0 is any province at the "border", and 1 any province that is next to a border province but is not the border itself, 2 any province next to 1 but not 1, and so on (negative if on castille's side). This map being a cached value to load as soon as war starts, then you overlap it with the "current state" map that shows your current position and owned provinces which modify the base "map" and make it so you cant move to a (much?) higher value province unless theres no zoc blocking you/you move into a fort that applies zoc to your army. And then fix whatever bugs because I obv typed this as I went I haven't really thought much about problems like idk giving infinite value to the capitals and given the rules I just said they would not be possible to be sieged until the very last... but that one can be fixed easily. But more or less that way you'd be able to move laterally and retreat while not being able to push forward unless you take some forts.

I think you over-complicate the issue? since taking capitol as base-line makes some more odd cases where you have an area, where you move towards paris, but in order to retreat you move away from paris If check on neighbour province are controlled, it works every time you control a neighbouring province, so taking control of province within any ZoC would allow you to move into the neighbouring province that you can move into... instead of moving back and into it... But still disallowing moving into the "other" side, unless you take the long route in which case you can move to adjacent provinces that are allowed to move into without going around...

Perhaps making the same check as they do now, but simply add a rule that you can pass to adjacent if not restricted by fort?...

 

[gia257]

ye

I think you over-complicate the issue? since taking capitol as base-line makes some more odd cases where you have an area, where you move towards paris, but in order to retreat you move away from paris If check on neighbour province are controlled, it works every time you control a neighbouring province, so taking control of province within any ZoC would allow you to move into the neighbouring province that you can move into... instead of moving back and into it... But still disallowing moving into the "other" side, unless you take the long route in which case you can move to adjacent provinces that are allowed to move into without going around...

Perhaps making the same check as they do now, but simply add a rule that you can pass to adjacent if not restricted by fort?...

yes I said it would be "very expensive" to calculate. But what you say does not work like what I say. It has holes. Lets say, idk, you are england now, and get military access from burgundy so you deploy troops there, then you go and siege a cheap french province, now you have access to any "lateral" province without having to retreat, so you pick another cheap province and that way make your way inside without taking a fort, eventually you get deep enough that the forts you skipped recaptured the provinces you entered from, so now you are stuck on your only conquered province, and to make your way out youd have to recapture all those provinces back while moving one province at a time (fine by me), but otoh, you are able to get deep into the enemy heartland without taking forts.

On my method (giving weights to provinces based on proximity to border) you'd be able to ensure that you can only push in if you take the forts in the way. It would also ensure that even if you get "trapped" at some point, your troops can actually retreat back to your land if they are pressed to do so.

 

[Quaade]

yes I said it would be "very expensive" to calculate. But what you say does not work like what I say. It has holes. Lets say, idk, you are england now, and get military access from burgundy so you deploy troops there, then you go and siege a cheap french province, now you have access to any "lateral" province without having to retreat, so you pick another cheap province and that way make your way inside without taking a fort

That´s because you see it as the only rule being applied, it´s meant to build on top of the current rules it´s an exception to the rule, not the rule in itself ;-)

 

[gia257]

That´s because you see it as the only rule being applied, it´s meant to build on top of the current rules it´s an exception to the rule, not the rule in itself ;-)

enemy province A adjacent to enemy province B, both adjacent to your province C

A has fort
you are an OPM without fort

the instant you declare war you are trapped and may only go to A

 

[Quaade]

You can go in the other direction, and yes, C should be able to move to B, but nut further

 

[gia257]

You can go in the other direction, and yes, C should be able to move to B, but nut further

According to current rules, and adding your new rule, you cant go to B, thats what i mean.

Other direction? theres no other direction only routes are C->A or C->B and C->B is blocked by A. You cant leave C other than to go to A because you are under zoc and your previous province is C itself.

 

[Quaade]

Let me paint you a picture ;-)

So perhaps the rule should be, any_adjacent_owned, adjacent_fort...

EDIT... I´m pretty sure you can do that under the current rules anyway?...

 

[gia257]

Let me paint you a picture ;-)View attachment 146928

So perhaps the rule should be, any_adjacent_owned, adjacent_fort...

EDIT... I´m pretty sure you can do that under the current rules anyway?...

Dont follow, you put a check mark on unnamed province "D", which makes me think we arent speaking the same language here. Under what I said, you can't go to D, and you shouldn't anyway.

 

[Quaade]

You should be able to move left and right and forward ... Well... I´m not a painter really, I´m more with laws :-D you get what you get ;-)

 

[Maq]

I rather like the idea of Zone of Control. It somehow simulates the difficulties with supplying your armies if they advance too far into an uncontrolled territory. But the current system leaves me often perplexed.
So I back the proposed scheme that an army can leave fortified province only in the same direction that it approached it. And another idea occured to me: You could advance further not only after conquering the fort, but alson when besieging it with sufficient troops. Par example, if your army has 20,000 men and 6,000 troops are enough to lay siege, then 14,000 troops can march further on. Enemy is 'locked' behind the walls and thus unable to disturb your lines of supply.
Obviously, it would require some more rules to implement. If you lift the siege and the rest of your army remain on the further side, you would risk their annihilation after a lost battle because they would have no way open for retreat.
Maybe... Basically, I believe there's a large field for improvement here, and Paradow will hopefully do.

 

[Sharp163]

I rather like the idea of Zone of Control. It somehow simulates the difficulties with supplying your armies if they advance too far into an uncontrolled territory. But the current system leaves me often perplexed.
So I back the proposed scheme that an army can leave fortified province only in the same direction that it approached it. And another idea occured to me: You could advance further not only after conquering the fort, but alson when besieging it with sufficient troops. Par example, if your army has 20,000 men and 6,000 troops are enough to lay siege, then 14,000 troops can march further on. Enemy is 'locked' behind the walls and thus unable to disturb your lines of supply.
Obviously, it would require some more rules to implement. If you lift the siege and the rest of your army remain on the further side, you would risk their annihilation after a lost battle because they would have no way open for retreat.
Maybe... Basically, I believe there's a large field for improvement here, and Paradow will hopefully do.

I think the best way would be to encourage front lines.

Paradox is trying to use all this fort business to make front lines happen, but they're overthinking it.

If you want front lines that badly, it should just be as it is in real life. If you try moving an army too far past the "front lines" (aka sieged territories) then you'll suffer an attrition penalty. That's kinda unnecessary as it is anyways though. They should just leave the current system it as it is, but fix the pathfinding and fort blocking.

Also, -1 karma for reviving dead thread.

 

[Luslter]

This is so broke. I went all Donald Trump and built a wall along the French/Spanish boarder and Spain just walked across to invade me like Mexicans crossing into the U.S. This isn't a ZOC discussion since there was no hole in my defense. This is broke since if I attack the AI I MUST occupy the territory that has a fort in order to proceed with my invasion.

 

[Quaade]

This is so broke. I went all Donald Trump and built a wall along the French/Spanish boarder and Spain just walked across to invade me like Mexicans crossing into the U.S. This isn't a ZOC discussion since there was no hole in my defense. This is broke since if I attack the AI I MUST occupy the territory that has a fort in order to proceed with my invasion.

The issue is, that building too close allows armies to negate some control when sieging, so in effect you can gain access to some provinces you couldn´t before... Have done this myself... Mostly by mistake, which is a drag when you need to reinforce a battle, lift the siege and suddenly you got a army stuck behind forts :-( Have done it on purpose a few times though... you can cross through forts into other forts, hence why I never build forts adjacent to each other... it´s too risky

To build the chinese wall, put forts with a space in between in two layers also with a space between

 

[Ilightmaster]

This is a interessant suggestion. Personnally i would like to see a visual indicator different by passing my mouse on a province.

 

[Sharp163]

This is a interessant suggestion. Personnally i would like to see a visual indicator different by passing my mouse on a province.

What do you mean?

 

[Jorlem]

I'd like it if when an army enters a ZoC, it would be tagged by that ZoC, and so long as it is "tagged", it could not be affected by any other ZoCs. That would stop armies from being able to move from a province with an unsieged fort to an adjacent province that also contains an unsieged fort.

 

[Kollatius]

*Sighs* This discussion never ends it seems...