EU4 - Development Diary - 22nd of November 2016

[TheDungen]

The easy thing would be making the TO historical friends with the Hansa. It's true enough the order had a seat on the hansaertag and it would make denmark less likely to ally the order.

 

[Balesir]

Well That's realistic you could march straight past Kalmar and the Danes have done it plenty of times. It's just that without taking the fort in Kalmar the provinces in the area flips back to the owner of the fort so you pretty much have to take the fort anyway. Far more realistic than the fort serving as some kind of short range invisible wall.

Mkay. Do you have any documented instances of the Danish army marching past Kalmar while the Swedes held it against them? I couldn't find any.

 

[TheDungen]

Mkay. Do you have any documented instances of the Danish army marching past Kalmar while the Swedes held it against them? I couldn't find any.

Northern Seven Years' War, Erik XIV of sweden march south into Blekinge and skåne and plunder and burn while the danish king does the same in sweden, neither engage the other's army or besiege any meaningful fortifications.
Please find me an example when an army did not march where it intended because it felt a need to siege down every fort in the area first.
As for Elfsborg it's only fallen a handful times, well known cases because they were rare. And that's usually how it is, if Kalmar or Elfsborg falls then thing are really really bad. in most wars they do not. In most wars a long siege is just not viable. Sure that decreases as fortifications become less useful in the later half of the game, but again holding a major military fort is about having a fortified strongpoint not about it actually preventing an army from going wherever it pleases.

If there is any such thing to be considered then it is that these fort usually are ports to, leaving for an example Kalmar unbesieged at you back means the Swedish army can land there and march up behind you but the fort garrison itself has no chance against a real army. And often enough they were content on just leaving a force to siege while pressing on.

 

[Balesir]

Northern Seven Years' War, Erik XIV of sweden march south into Blekinge and skåne and plunder and burn while the danish king does the same in sweden, neither engage the other's army or besiege any meaningful fortifications.

The movements of the Swedish army here are irrelevant, because they held the relevant fortresses, but the movements of the danish army are interesting. They did invest Kalmar, but did not assault it, apparently because of disputes with mercenary troops over pay. A small part of the army did go on to raid Stockholm (not actually possible with the Area system), but it left the bulk of the army covering the fortress of Kalmar - and here I find that you have a point regarding the game system as currently coded.

A very usual and effective way to stop a fortress from influencing the land around it was to "invest" it - basically to surround it with an army. A fortress so surrounded (besieged, but not necessarily very strongly) should not "flip" adjacent provinces and nor should it exert a ZoC as long as it remains invested. This will limit the besieging army, since the instant it moves the fort will reimpose a ZoC, but it will allow other armies to bypass the fortress (as long as the besieging army is kept in place). This appears not to happen in the game at present - which I found surprising, since it was a very noticable feature of the game in the past.

Please find me an example when an army did not march where it intended because it felt a need to siege down every fort in the area first.

Sure - I'll stick to two. First, in the Penninsular war (1808-1814) the fortresses of Almeida and Ciudad Rodrigo in the north and Albuera and Badajoz in the south constituted key "blockers" to both French and British/Portugese armies. Both Almeida and Ciudad Rodrigo needed to be held by the French before a thrust at Lisbon was practicable; all four needed to be held by the British and Portugese before any deep penetration into Spain could be contemplated, Both sides relied on this situation - it didctated much of the strategy of the middle period of the war.

Second, Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Some forts - mainly obsolete or weak ones, like Smolensk - were assaulted, but also several were "covered" by detached forces, this being part of the explanation why Napoleon had only six out of twelve army corps (including the Imperial Guard as one corps, which it pretty much was by that stage) with him at the battle of Borodino.

There are plenty of others, but, as I said above, "sieging down" was not always needed. Leaving a sufficiently large covering force investing the fortification could be sufficient, although it was in some ways leaving a bit of a hostage to fortune.

Sure that decreases as fortifications become less useful in the later half of the game, but again holding a major military fort is about having a fortified strongpoint not about it actually preventing an army from going wherever it pleases.

I fundamentally disagree; stopping opposing armies going where they please is very much what a fortification is for! From the earliest times, a fortification has been not just a static strongpoint, but also a base for energetic and disruptive forces influencing the surrounding area. The point of having a strongpoint is that the (small) forces based in them can effectively occupy the surrounding roads and settlements, safe in the knowledge that they have a stronghold to retreat to whenever a powerful enemy force puts in an appearance. As long as that enemy is about, they remain in the fortress, but when the threatening enemy has gone they can emerge again to reestablish local control and disupt any enemy activity in the area that is not heavily guarded. Actually, even guerilla or partisan troops, operating from natural "fortresses" in wilderness areas use much the same strategy; hide away in the stronghold when powerful enemy forces are about, then come out to create mischief as soon as they have gone. It's a very effective modus operandi.

If there is any such thing to be considered then it is that these fort usually are ports to, leaving for an example Kalmar unbesieged at you back means the Swedish army can land there and march up behind you but the fort garrison itself has no chance against a real army. And often enough they were content on just leaving a force to siege while pressing on.

A port is certainly a very useful asset for any fortress. Mainly, it allows the fort to be supplied by sea (or lake), making any siege last much longer unless a blockade by some sort of fleet is also put in place.

Certainly, a garrison has no chance against a powerful field army, but as I said above, the garrison just wait in the fortress until the powerful army have gone away before coming out to raid their outposts, foragers, supply convoys, reinforcement detachments, messengers and such like. Since it is these outposts, patrols and other "local representatives" that consitiute "control" of a province, this can be represented in the game by the local provinces "flipping back" to the control of the fortress holder's side when they are not held in force (or the fortress besieged). Similarly, the army cannot simply leave an uninvested fort in their rear, because communications with their home bases (supplying orders, intelligence, reinforcements, special equipment etc.) will be lost as the garrison sally out to attack messengers, reinforcement detachments, and so on. It's not that the attackers can't bypass the fort - but they must leave strong bodies of troops in the area to protect the lines of communications or invest the fortress if they do.

 

[grommile]

A very usual and effective way to stop a fortress from influencing the land around it was to "invest" it - basically to surround it with an army. A fortress so surrounded (besieged, but not necessarily very strongly) should not "flip" adjacent provinces and nor should it exert a ZoC as long as it remains invested. This will limit the besieging army, since the instant it moves the fort will reimpose a ZoC, but it will allow other armies to bypass the fortress (as long as the besieging army is kept in place). This appears not to happen in the game at present - which I found surprising, since it was a very noticable feature of the game in the past.

If investing a fort neutralized its ZoC, this would defeat the entire game-mechanical purpose of the ZoC system, which is to turn forts into barriers.

 

[Shock360]

If investing a fort neutralized its ZoC, this would defeat the entire game-mechanical purpose of the ZoC system, which is to turn forts into barriers.

I have to agree here. Instead of taking time to siege, you could just invest invest in one, then when you get past it leave it alone.

 

[chrnno]

If investing a fort neutralized its ZoC, this would defeat the entire game-mechanical purpose of the ZoC system, which is to turn forts into barriers.

While I don't think it is a good idea that is easy to deal with. Require a certain amount of troops be there to negate ZoC block scaling with fort level, technology and whatever. As long as the number required is high in most scenarios you would take the fort first anyway or risk being defeated in detail.

The obvious issue(and why I think it is a bad idea) is that the game already fails in figuring out where armies should be capable of moving to and this would only make it worse.

 

[TheDungen]

You'd still have to successfully take a fort in order to take provinces in a peace deal.
And quite frankly the fort blocking movement system is just another mechanic which favours big countries over small ones. Because small ones don't get that advantage anyway.

The movements of the Swedish army here are irrelevant, because they held the relevant fortresses, but the movements of the danish army are interesting. They did invest Kalmar, but did not assault it, apparently because of disputes with mercenary troops over pay. A small part of the army did go on to raid Stockholm (not actually possible with the Area system), but it left the bulk of the army covering the fortress of Kalmar - and here I find that you have a point regarding the game system as currently coded.

A very usual and effective way to stop a fortress from influencing the land around it was to "invest" it - basically to surround it with an army. A fortress so surrounded (besieged, but not necessarily very strongly) should not "flip" adjacent provinces and nor should it exert a ZoC as long as it remains invested. This will limit the besieging army, since the instant it moves the fort will reimpose a ZoC, but it will allow other armies to bypass the fortress (as long as the besieging army is kept in place). This appears not to happen in the game at present - which I found surprising, since it was a very noticable feature of the game in the past.


Sure - I'll stick to two. First, in the Penninsular war (1808-1814) the fortresses of Almeida and Ciudad Rodrigo in the north and Albuera and Badajoz in the south constituted key "blockers" to both French and British/Portugese armies. Both Almeida and Ciudad Rodrigo needed to be held by the French before a thrust at Lisbon was practicable; all four needed to be held by the British and Portugese before any deep penetration into Spain could be contemplated, Both sides relied on this situation - it didctated much of the strategy of the middle period of the war.

Second, Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Some forts - mainly obsolete or weak ones, like Smolensk - were assaulted, but also several were "covered" by detached forces, this being part of the explanation why Napoleon had only six out of twelve army corps (including the Imperial Guard as one corps, which it pretty much was by that stage) with him at the battle of Borodino.

There are plenty of others, but, as I said above, "sieging down" was not always needed. Leaving a sufficiently large covering force investing the fortification could be sufficient, although it was in some ways leaving a bit of a hostage to fortune.


I fundamentally disagree; stopping opposing armies going where they please is very much what a fortification is for! From the earliest times, a fortification has been not just a static strongpoint, but also a base for energetic and disruptive forces influencing the surrounding area. The point of having a strongpoint is that the (small) forces based in them can effectively occupy the surrounding roads and settlements, safe in the knowledge that they have a stronghold to retreat to whenever a powerful enemy force puts in an appearance. As long as that enemy is about, they remain in the fortress, but when the threatening enemy has gone they can emerge again to reestablish local control and disupt any enemy activity in the area that is not heavily guarded. Actually, even guerilla or partisan troops, operating from natural "fortresses" in wilderness areas use much the same strategy; hide away in the stronghold when powerful enemy forces are about, then come out to create mischief as soon as they have gone. It's a very effective modus operandi.


A port is certainly a very useful asset for any fortress. Mainly, it allows the fort to be supplied by sea (or lake), making any siege last much longer unless a blockade by some sort of fleet is also put in place.

Certainly, a garrison has no chance against a powerful field army, but as I said above, the garrison just wait in the fortress until the powerful army have gone away before coming out to raid their outposts, foragers, supply convoys, reinforcement detachments, messengers and such like. Since it is these outposts, patrols and other "local representatives" that consitiute "control" of a province, this can be represented in the game by the local provinces "flipping back" to the control of the fortress holder's side when they are not held in force (or the fortress besieged). Similarly, the army cannot simply leave an uninvested fort in their rear, because communications with their home bases (supplying orders, intelligence, reinforcements, special equipment etc.) will be lost as the garrison sally out to attack messengers, reinforcement detachments, and so on. It's not that the attackers can't bypass the fort - but they must leave strong bodies of troops in the area to protect the lines of communications or invest the fortress if they do.

All those are super late in the game, like the last 50 years,taking forts then was much easier hence that taking them was considered a much more feasible strategy.
Also the Swedish king marched by several danish forts on his way into skåne.

 

[Balesir]

While I don't think it is a good idea that is easy to deal with. Require a certain amount of troops be there to negate ZoC block scaling with fort level, technology and whatever. As long as the number required is high in most scenarios you would take the fort first anyway or risk being defeated in detail.

Sure - the investing force needs to be some minimum multiplier times the fortress' maximum garrison (to effectively man a complete circumvallation). Three might be a good multiplier.

The obvious issue(and why I think it is a bad idea) is that the game already fails in figuring out where armies should be capable of moving to and this would only make it worse.

The effective schema is actually quite simple, and comes straight from board wargame ZoCs:

- All land provinces adjacent to a fortress count as "in a ZoC" if they are controlled by the side that holds the fort. Provinces held by neutrals or enemies of the fortress holder are not "in a ZoC" from the fort in question.
- The fort province itself does not count as "in a ZoC", but it does have the special movement rule that an enemy unit can only leave the province the way it came in.
- A unit in a hostile ZoC cannot move to any other province in any hostile ZoC.
- A province that is adjacent to a friendly held fortress, is not adjacent to an enemy held fortress and is not occupied by enemy troops will flip back to friendly control at the next "control check" (in a boardgame this might be the end of the turn; in EU it would be whenever the program next checks control, or maybe with a few game days delay). This includes provinces that are owned by the enemy, but have no protection from an adjacent fortress or occupying troops - the rule excludes only provinces belonging to a state with which the fortress holder is not at war (because taking control of such a province would be an act of war!)
- A fortress that has a stationary enemy army "investing" it has none of the usual effects of a fort - it is as if the fort is not there until the instant the investing army starts to move (at which point all of the usual effects of a fortress are reimposed). The investing army may only move back out of the province the way it came in.

Note that this does actually allow passing fortresses slowly (by occupying one province after another), but has the potential to get you trapped if you don't guard the LoC with detached troops. Getting the AI to do this well might be an issue - but, then, the AI doesn't seem to deal all that well with the current or Area systems, either...

All those are super late in the game, like the last 50 years,taking forts then was much easier hence that taking them was considered a much more feasible strategy.

OK, try the Ottoman campaign in Hungary, 1532 - the main Ottoman army of 60,000 troops was held up besieging the fortress of Koszeg and failed to reach Vienna (its target) until the Hapsburgs has assembled a larger army. Or the later campaigns (~1552) where the Hungarian vegvars (border forts) were fought over one by one.

There are plenty of examples because it is simple military logic that leaving a stronghold full of potential raiders near an unguarded line of communication is not something you do.

 

[Balesir]

If investing a fort neutralized its ZoC, this would defeat the entire game-mechanical purpose of the ZoC system, which is to turn forts into barriers.

Forts are not barriers - that would be a wall (manned all the way along - rarely a practical proposition). Forts are strongholds full of dangerous raiders that will threaten your connection with home if you don't deal with them. "Dealing with them" can be done by either besieging them until they fall or splitting your army to leave some troops "investing" or "covering" the fort. Neither method is really too attractive, from an invader's point of view - which is kind of the point, from a defender's point of view.

 

[TheDungen]

Sure - the investing force needs to be some minimum multiplier times the fortress' maximum garrison (to effectively man a complete circumvallation). Three might be a good multiplier.


The effective schema is actually quite simple, and comes straight from board wargame ZoCs:

- All land provinces adjacent to a fortress count as "in a ZoC" if they are controlled by the side that holds the fort. Provinces held by neutrals or enemies of the fortress holder are not "in a ZoC" from the fort in question.
- The fort province itself does not count as "in a ZoC", but it does have the special movement rule that an enemy unit can only leave the province the way it came in.
- A unit in a hostile ZoC cannot move to any other province in any hostile ZoC.
- A province that is adjacent to a friendly held fortress, is not adjacent to an enemy held fortress and is not occupied by enemy troops will flip back to friendly control at the next "control check" (in a boardgame this might be the end of the turn; in EU it would be whenever the program next checks control, or maybe with a few game days delay). This includes provinces that are owned by the enemy, but have no protection from an adjacent fortress or occupying troops - the rule excludes only provinces belonging to a state with which the fortress holder is not at war (because taking control of such a province would be an act of war!)
- A fortress that has a stationary enemy army "investing" it has none of the usual effects of a fort - it is as if the fort is not there until the instant the investing army starts to move (at which point all of the usual effects of a fortress are reimposed). The investing army may only move back out of the province the way it came in.

Note that this does actually allow passing fortresses slowly (by occupying one province after another), but has the potential to get you trapped if you don't guard the LoC with detached troops. Getting the AI to do this well might be an issue - but, then, the AI doesn't seem to deal all that well with the current or Area systems, either...


OK, try the Ottoman campaign in Hungary, 1532 - the main Ottoman army of 60,000 troops was held up besieging the fortress of Koszeg and failed to reach Vienna (its target) until the Hapsburgs has assembled a larger army. Or the later campaigns (~1552) where the Hungarian vegvars (border forts) were fought over one by one.

There are plenty of examples because it is simple military logic that leaving a stronghold full of potential raiders near an unguarded line of communication is not something you do.

But it's not impossible. So what you should get is increased attrition not a block.

 

[chrnno]

Sure - the investing force needs to be some minimum multiplier times the fortress' maximum garrison (to effectively man a complete circumvallation). Three might be a good multiplier.


The effective schema is actually quite simple, and comes straight from board wargame ZoCs:

- All land provinces adjacent to a fortress count as "in a ZoC" if they are controlled by the side that holds the fort. Provinces held by neutrals or enemies of the fortress holder are not "in a ZoC" from the fort in question.
- The fort province itself does not count as "in a ZoC", but it does have the special movement rule that an enemy unit can only leave the province the way it came in.
- A unit in a hostile ZoC cannot move to any other province in any hostile ZoC.
- A province that is adjacent to a friendly held fortress, is not adjacent to an enemy held fortress and is not occupied by enemy troops will flip back to friendly control at the next "control check" (in a boardgame this might be the end of the turn; in EU it would be whenever the program next checks control, or maybe with a few game days delay). This includes provinces that are owned by the enemy, but have no protection from an adjacent fortress or occupying troops - the rule excludes only provinces belonging to a state with which the fortress holder is not at war (because taking control of such a province would be an act of war!)
- A fortress that has a stationary enemy army "investing" it has none of the usual effects of a fort - it is as if the fort is not there until the instant the investing army starts to move (at which point all of the usual effects of a fortress are reimposed). The investing army may only move back out of the province the way it came in.

Note that this does actually allow passing fortresses slowly (by occupying one province after another), but has the potential to get you trapped if you don't guard the LoC with detached troops. Getting the AI to do this well might be an issue - but, then, the AI doesn't seem to deal all that well with the current or Area systems, either...

Yes that was what I was thinking of, it works in boardgames because the players are the one handling the entire thing and there is no AI. Ingame several problems will show up when you have multiple armies(not counting the bugs like armies forgetting where they came from here). Two examples below.

You have two armies with an hostile ZoC in the way and you move both to the fort then merge them. Where should you be capable of moving it? The only reasonable way to deal with this I can see is preventing them from merging in the first place which still leaves things rather nonsensical.

You have an army investing a fort so that another(either from elsewhere or split from this one) can cross the ZoC. It is engaged in battle or you move it away. How does the game decide where the other army should be capable of moving in all possible variations of this scenario in a way that is easily understandable without newbie traps, fucking over the AI, rendering forts too easily bypassed and such. Don't think this is even possible to do without spending far more effort than it's worth.

Not getting into the subject of multiple forts because it is even more complicated and the game already fails in that aspect. One of the reasons I liked the idea of area forts, even if the execution fell flat, is precisely because it side-stepped this major issue.

 

[Balesir]

Yes that was what I was thinking of, it works in boardgames because the players are the one handling the entire thing and there is no AI. Ingame several problems will show up when you have multiple armies(not counting the bugs like armies forgetting where they came from here). Two examples below.

You have two armies with an hostile ZoC in the way and you move both to the fort then merge them. Where should you be capable of moving it? The only reasonable way to deal with this I can see is preventing them from merging in the first place which still leaves things rather nonsensical.

This is a fair point; here is a simple suggestion: make the fort provinces simply ZoC provinces also.

This would mean that you need to occupy an adjacent province before you could move into the fortress province, but if siege times were reduced that would not affect things too much. Once you were investing the fort the province you came from would not flip back to enemy control (unless they take some action to occupy it or have another fort adjacent to it), so you could always go back out that way. Other armies arriving and merging could go out the way they came in only if they occupied the province they came from on the way in - in which case the whole (merged) army could go out that way. An army that has its occupied line of communication taken away by enemy action (i.e. an enemy army or another fort) is stuck until rescued by friends (or they succeed in capturing the fortress).

You have an army investing a fort so that another(either from elsewhere or split from this one) can cross the ZoC. It is engaged in battle or you move it away. How does the game decide where the other army should be capable of moving in all possible variations of this scenario in a way that is easily understandable without newbie traps, ****ing over the AI, rendering forts too easily bypassed and such. Don't think this is even possible to do without spending far more effort than it's worth.

I don't see a problem now that the "way you came in" bit is removed with the suggestion above. Now we have a "state system" rather than a "dynamics system"; a province either is a ZoC province or it's not. An army can move into a ZoC province from a non-ZoC province, or into a non-ZoC province from a ZoC province, or from non-Zoc province to non-ZoC province freely, but cannot move from a ZoC province to a ZoC province. Mark ZoC provinces with the "circled tower" symbol or whatever, and that should be pretty easy to see.

Not getting into the subject of multiple forts because it is even more complicated and the game already fails in that aspect. One of the reasons I liked the idea of area forts, even if the execution fell flat, is precisely because it side-stepped this major issue.

Again, I think this is addressed by the above system. A province is either ZoC or non-ZoC; the number of fortresses around is relevant only insofar as it determines what is a ZoC province when.

 

[Balesir]

But it's not impossible. So what you should get is increased attrition not a block.

That would just be a newbie trap; no competent general would leave an uninvested fort behind them.

 

[TheDungen]

That would just be a newbie trap; no competent general would leave an uninvested fort behind them.

Losing a few men to attrition would be a newbie trap but losing them all to a stackwipe is not? And no history is full of generals who have done just that I have given you examples. History are full of these "impossible marches" in fact I would say that the ability to know when to move with speed and being able to do so is what makes a great commander.

Also the whole besieging forts would be more acceptable if it didn't take months and years in game to siege down a fort. Which again, like I said favours large countries over the weaker ones.
The area system is better because if I have a fort in an area and my enemy has one it means I can move freely in that area giving me room to maneuver while the adjacency ZoC means I have the potential to be in a mighty two different provinces, almost immediately resulting in a stack wipe.

 

[Balesir]

Losing a few men to attrition would be a newbie trap but losing them all to a stackwipe is not? And no history is full of generals who have done just that I have given you examples. History are full of these "impossible marches" in fact I would say that the ability to know when to move with speed and being able to do so is what makes a great commander.

Also the whole besieging forts would be more acceptable if it didn't take months and years in game to siege down a fort. Which again, like I said favours large countries over the weaker ones.
The area system is better because if I have a fort in an area and my enemy has one it means I can move freely in that area giving me room to maneuver while the adjacency ZoC means I have the potential to be in a mighty two different provinces, almost immediately resulting in a stack wipe.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "stackwipe"? Are you thinking of getting your army wiped out by a huge enemy stack? While you are stuck in an enemy ZoC? If so, two comments:

1) You shouldn't let yourself get stuck. It should always be possible to avoid this, but it might mean your offensive movements are restricted or you need to use caution - knowing when to be cautious is the mark of a great commander, too.

2) Part of the reason that "stackwipes" are so common in EU is that escaping or evading the enemy is far more difficult than it needs to be. A large part of Napoleon Buonaparte's great skill was that he was expert at trapping his (inferior) opponents and forcing them to fight on his terms. Even he failed, in 1812, however, to trap the Russian army. He tried really hard, but had to chase them all the way to 70 miles outside Moscow before they fought - and the battle was a phyrric victory only. Forcing the enemy to fight should be a challenge; at the moment it is evading and surviving that is the challenge - but at least that provides a fun game.

Finally, the "impossible marches" you refer to just about always involved leaving a covering force; this should always be possible (but it means that, if you are challenged by a strong force, you have to retreat on your detached forces). Oh, and the characteristics required of a great commander are similar to those of a great swordsman (boldness, firmness, speed and forethought), plus a thorough understanding of logistcs and supply and the art of what is possible with these.

 

[TheDungen]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "stackwipe"? Are you thinking of getting your army wiped out by a huge enemy stack? While you are stuck in an enemy ZoC? If so, two comments:

1) You shouldn't let yourself get stuck. It should always be possible to avoid this, but it might mean your offensive movements are restricted or you need to use caution - knowing when to be cautious is the mark of a great commander, too.

2) Part of the reason that "stackwipes" are so common in EU is that escaping or evading the enemy is far more difficult than it needs to be. A large part of Napoleon Buonaparte's great skill was that he was expert at trapping his (inferior) opponents and forcing them to fight on his terms. Even he failed, in 1812, however, to trap the Russian army. He tried really hard, but had to chase them all the way to 70 miles outside Moscow before they fought - and the battle was a phyrric victory only. Forcing the enemy to fight should be a challenge; at the moment it is evading and surviving that is the challenge - but at least that provides a fun game.

Finally, the "impossible marches" you refer to just about always involved leaving a covering force; this should always be possible (but it means that, if you are challenged by a strong force, you have to retreat on your detached forces). Oh, and the characteristics required of a great commander are similar to those of a great swordsman (boldness, firmness, speed and forethought), plus a thorough understanding of logistcs and supply and the art of what is possible with these.

You shouldn't let yourself be attritioned to death either but we were talking about newbie traps weren't we. Also you can easily be caught with nowhere to go if you play say an opm or a minor nation. Because you can't go into enemy territory and yours isn't big enough to hide you, with the area system you'd be able to move freely in the same area as your capital fort meaning you'd get some mobility in enemy territory.

And there's no maneuvering in the game right now there's hiding behind your own forts if your enemy has the advantage and them hiding behind theirs if you do. Being able to move more freely will add to the tactical aspect of the game.

 

[Balesir]

You shouldn't let yourself be attritioned to death either but we were talking about newbie traps weren't we. Also you can easily be caught with nowhere to go if you play say an opm or a minor nation. Because you can't go into enemy territory and yours isn't big enough to hide you, with the area system you'd be able to move freely in the same area as your capital fort meaning you'd get some mobility in enemy territory.

With a ZoC system you can always move at least one province into your enemy's territory, even from an opm. For an opm it's most assured, in fact, since your one province must be your capital and thus must be a fort, so (a) you can move into adjacent enemy areas, even if they are ZoC provinces, because you start out outside any ZoC, (b) if you move into an enemy province and occupy it, it will not automatically flip back to their control because you have a fort adjacent to it (your capital), and (c) you will always be able to retreat to your capital unless it is captured, because it's your land and a fort.

The main problem you face as an opm, actually, is that any (larger) enemy has no incentive to send in anything but their full army - in which case you are very likely to get crushed. Some sort of incentive to fight "limited wars" (prestige, threats of retaliation from other big nations, or military tradition, maybe?) would help a lot, I think.

And there's no maneuvering in the game right now there's hiding behind your own forts if your enemy has the advantage and them hiding behind theirs if you do.

Or buying time to join up with allies or raise a bigger army (mercenaries?), or channelling the enemy into terrain your army can best defend from, or tying up parts of the enemy army covering fortifications and guarding lines of communications, or...

 

[TheDungen]

With a ZoC system you can always move at least one province into your enemy's territory, even from an opm. For an opm it's most assured, in fact, since your one province must be your capital and thus must be a fort, so (a) you can move into adjacent enemy areas, even if they are ZoC provinces, because you start out outside any ZoC, (b) if you move into an enemy province and occupy it, it will not automatically flip back to their control because you have a fort adjacent to it (your capital), and (c) you will always be able to retreat to your capital unless it is captured, because it's your land and a fort.

The main problem you face as an opm, actually, is that any (larger) enemy has no incentive to send in anything but their full army - in which case you are very likely to get crushed. Some sort of incentive to fight "limited wars" (prestige, threats of retaliation from other big nations, or military tradition, maybe?) would help a lot, I think.


Or buying time to join up with allies or raise a bigger army (mercenaries?), or channelling the enemy into terrain your army can best defend from, or tying up parts of the enemy army covering fortifications and guarding lines of communications, or...

Except you can't meet up because you have to all seige downa huge number of forts between you and your allies leaving a larger single enemy time to deal with you separately.
And you kind of ignored the fact that the area system will at minimum allow you movement in the area where your capital is, while the old zoc system has a minimum of your capital and provinces directly adjacent to it.

 

[Balesir]

Except you can't meet up because you have to all seige downa huge number of forts between you and your allies leaving a larger single enemy time to deal with you separately.

Well, you should select your allies better!

And you kind of ignored the fact that the area system will at minimum allow you movement in the area where your capital is, while the old zoc system has a minimum of your capital and provinces directly adjacent to it.

Not really - it depends how many provinces an "Area" has. Many of those currently there have only 3-4 provinces, anyhow. If you're pretty "gamey" and place a fort where you own one province of an area and your rival/enemy owns all the rest, you might get fairly extensive access (unreasonably extensive, I would say, but that's just one among many of the "oddities" of the Area system).