• 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.
Today is thursday, the day of the God of Thunder, so what is a more appropriate way to celebrate than with a development diary for Europa Univeralis IV. We’ve talked about development and politics the last few weeks, so now its time to talk a bit more about warfare again, before going back to more peacetime-related activities.

All of this mentioned in this development diary will be in the free update accompanying the next expansion.

Fortress Rework
Connecting a bit to the previous reveal of our change to how building works, we have overhauled the fortress system.

There are now four different forts, one available each century, providing 1, 3, 5 and 7 fort-levels each. A newer fort makes the previous obsolete, so you only have 1 fort in each province. Each fortress also provides 5000 garrison per fort level, so besieging a fortress now requires a large investment.

Forts now also require maintenance to be paid each month, which currently costs about 1.5 ducats for a level 1 fort per month in 1444. Luckily, you can mothball a fortress which makes it drop to just 10 men defending it, and won’t cost you anything in upkeep.

Garrison growth for a fort is also a fair amount slower than before, so after you have taken a fort, you may want to stick around to protect it for a bit.

What is most important to know though, is that forts now have a Zone of Control. First of all, they will automatically take control of any adjacent province that does not have any forts that is adjacent and hostile to them. If two fortress compete over the same province, then the one with highest fort-level wins and in case of a tie, control goes to the owner of the province. Secondly, you can not walk past a fortress and its zone of control, as you have to siege down the blocking fort first.

Each capital have a free fort-level, but that fort will not have any ZoC, as most minor nations can not afford a major fortress.

fH0WehV.jpg



Looting
As we promised, we have now completely revised how looting works. Now there is a “pile” of possible loot in a province, which is directly tied to have developed the province is.

At the end of each month, all hostile units in a province attempt to loot, and the amount they loot depend on how many regiments you have there, and what types they are, where cavalry is by far the best. Some ideas and governments increase the amount you loot each month, where for example Steppe Hordes gains a nice boost.

A province starts recovering from being looted when 6 months have passed since last loot, and it takes up to a year until it has fully recovered.

Of course, the penalty on a province from being looted is still there until it has fully recovered, but it is scaled on how much have been looted.

Ea5YCKh.jpg


Committed Armies
One of the major complaints we have had on the combat in Eu4, has been the fact that you can fully abort your movement whenever you liked. This have been changed, and now you can’t abort your movement if you have already moved 50% of the way. After all, its just common sense that a unit that have already moved halfway between the centers of two provinces is already in the second one.

Force Limits
We felt that the calculations of forcelimits where far too hidden from the player, Players saw stuff like “+25.87 from Provinces”, which based based on projections of base-tax amongst other things, and sometimes those dropped for no obvious reasons.

Now you will be able to see in each province how much it provides to your forcelimits, and we have cleaned up the logic.

Each level of development gives 0.1 land and naval forcelimit.
Overseas will provide -2 land and -2 naval forcelimit
Inland provinces will not provide any naval forcelimit.
However, a province will never be able to provide negative forcelimits.

A nation also have a base value of +3 land and +2 naval force limit, and there are some other ways to get direct forcelimit increased, that are not just percentage increases.

IRmTjoZ.jpg



Next week, we'll be back and talk more about The Devout.
 
This is truly a revolutionary change to the game and I hope PI takes their time balancing it because it touches so many different areas that have mostly already been brought up. Army tradition, maintenance, rebels, army size, siege progress, assaults, sorties, autonomy, AI logic, artillery power, maneuver value, national ideas and traditions, shattering, war score, manpower, attrition, amphibious actions (do zones of control stretch across straits? What if I block those straits with a navy?), fort costs and income generation, and I'm sure more that I'm not thinking of.

I'd like to echo a few things: I do hope that I'm reading it correctly that a siege allows you to move past the zone of control, because a fortress cannot project power if it is besieged. What happens to armies that then become cut-off if the siege is lifted I don't know, but I would think something bad :).

War score for controlling key provinces definitely needs to be changed.

Provinces with high LA and fortresses should be more likely to simply give their fortress to an attacker, especially if the province is not an accepted culture or different religion (attacker shares same culture and/or religion) or the attacker has a core on the province. This has the benefit of being historical and good for gameplay. This would also be a great place for espionage, if it increased or decreased the chance of this happening. I'd actually consider taking the idea group.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Think twice about you wrote. Devs said that non-fortified provinces in a zone of control of a fortified one get instaocuppied. What's the difference? Walking into that territory with a 10k army to occupy it? We suppose that the sailors that do the blockade are the one who captures the provinces under blockade.

If you have a fort inside you have to capture it and after, all of the unfortified surroundings fall into your occupied provinces. Is a very sensible suggestion, and I algo suggest thinking twice before disagreeing something that is a valuable addition to the game.
The difference is that you're not occupying anything besides a sea tile. And why not give control of a province without a fortress to an army that is stationed in a neighboring province? Could we assume (hate assumptions as they always tend to f*** things up) that scouts that shows you what's present in neighboring provinces also take control of those provinces?
One thing is controlling a province via the nearest fortress. It's quite a different one give control of a province via a naval blockade. That doesn't make any sense.

And i want to thank you for suggesting to "thinking twice before disagreeing something that is a valuable addition to the game". The problem is, i don't see that as a valuable addition to the game, but rather a senseless suggestion. I suggest you to think twice before defending adding a feature that doesn't make sense.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Awesome new concepts, seems like warfare is finally getting some love and my annoyance will finally come to an end!

I remember reading the thread you started a while back and I shared a lot of your annoyances myself. Logistics and the concept of a 'front' were literally non existent and this new fort system looks like it will finally make warfare a little more historical and realistic. Blitzing your way through your enemy's borders straight to the capital with no regard to supply lines or logistics is ridiculous from a realism point of view. Game wise it wasn't exactly game breaking but this new change definitely adds more strategy to warfare - a part of the game that still needs a lot of love. It seems like the devs have really taken all the complaining to heart and have given us an almost completely new game now. Very optimistic about the features we still haven't been told about. So far so good.

The only thing that has me really thinking is how rebels function with this new mechanic. If rebels spawn in one of the provinces in your heartland, which is less likely to be fortified like your borders, then you're potentially facing insta occupation of a fair amount of provinces before the rebels are ZOC'd by a fort. Ofcourse the player can now predict when rebellions will spawn so it's not like you're going to be blindsided completely but still this makes them considerably more dangerous. There's just way too much potential for espionage in this new update. They really need to give it some attention - it's probably one of the easiest ways to make peace time more interesting.

Lastly, I'd like to raise the question of how army tradition will work in the next patch. We all know that the most efficient way to gain army tradition is through carpet sieging. At this point I don't think anyone will be able to fully digest the implications of the new fort system before playing, but I think it's reasonable to say that there will be far more major battles and far less minor skirmishes? Think about it, the majority of wars are going to be a tug of war around key fortresses and for the most part you're going to be sieging with pretty big stacks now. Couple that with the fact that you wont be able to chase down shattered armies so easily anymore and you have far less battles per war. So perhaps battles will now net you a hefty amount of army tradition scaling with the size of the forces engaged?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I dont think tying up the defenses of a zone with its development is a necessarily a good thing.

Historically it was more common for defense to be planned around the geography of a region than how populous or rich it was.

I feel like the development of a defense system separated from production and wealth is a good thing. You'll be able to have more "realistic" sates where a core region of very developed provinces provides men and money to keep the borders stable and well defended.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
This all sounds very nice, but I have one big concern:

What happens to building/conversion/coring/etc. in a province that is occupied? It was bad enough when you lost 150 ADM power and 15 months of build time to an occupying army in the old system, but when that happened it was your fault for letting them siege out that province in the first place. With the new system I can imagine a horror scenario where you lose hundreds of ADM power of years of missionary progress, just because 2 regiments managed to slip through gap in your defenses.

And what if your newly conquered provinces border a higher level fort and that fort's owner declares war on you? OPM Ulm could in theory instantly do decades worth of damage in ADM power to Mega-Blob-of-Death-Conquered-Spain-and-Britain-France simply by pressing the Declare War button and having a fort in the right place.

Now if they change it to that occupation merely holds construction progress instead of resetting it, then I'm all in favor.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
(Haven't read the whole thread yet, so maybe my concern was already voiced).

I hope that developers will also change the effect of forts on supply limit. Currently if I build a fort, this will add supply limit for that province - for both me the enemy troops. I don't think it makes sense. I think the forts should only add supply limit if they are controlled by you/allies'. I hope that in a new patch, armies will be subject to "base" supply limit when sieging a fort or being in a enemy fort's ZOC.

Question: can I move my army from one ZOC to another ZOC (either by the same enemy fort or another)?
 
  • 8
Reactions:
I dont think tying up the defenses of a zone with its development is a necessarily a good thing.

Historically it was more common for defense to be planned around the geography of a region than how populous or rich it was.

I feel like the development of a defense system separated from production and wealth is a good thing. You'll be able to have more "realistic" sates where a core region of very developed provinces provides men and money to keep the borders stable and well defended.

"Realistic" is one thing you can use, however that dosen't mean that forts strength should not be separated from your manpower development. If you build a fort you will also be encouraged to develop its manpower and build other military buildings. Uberforts should be very very rare, not something you can build in every desolated province if you are rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 1
Reactions:
I like these fort changes!
Granted, they might play out horribly, but we'll find out soon enough.
 
Can you mothball captured forts/do you have to pay for captured forts? Like if I'm winning a war i don't want to have to pay 20 ducats a month to pay for a bunch of captured forts i don't care about because i'm carpet seiging because the AI won't give me the two provinces i want so i have to capture all 50 of their provinces before they'll consider it
 
  • 5
Reactions:
This fort level thing, and zone of control. Looks ridiculously amazing. I've always had an issue with AI randomly sneaking massive groups of tiny armies behind my line.

With force march on everyone, it got quite tedious to hunt them down while fighting large wars.

It'll be great now, to centralise defences. Thank you.

Also, when is it expected to come out?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hey guys, many of you have seen the changes to burgundy and bavaria. But really there is no one who has noticed that bordeaux is no longer a end trade node? :)

BTW: note the power projection for France during the HYW.
So both England and France strengthened. I wonder; with Burgundy gone, should Austria get the same treatment. As far as I know, Styria had its own Habsburg ruler in 1444. Same with Tyrol, I believe.
 
I think that mothballing forts will add more boring micro into the game. Like if I have 15 forts I need to mothball-demothball them in every serious war. It would be better to add the fort maintenance slider that will affect all of them like with armies/navies with leaving possibility to mothball some of forts manually. And ability to "mothball" armies can be great addition too.

BTW, nice changes. I just got the last #120 achievement and I feel really tired of playing vanilla presenting alomst the same gameplay since release.
15 forts? That would be 22.5 ducts a month granted all of them are level 1. You probably won't be having forts all over your country and and even if you do you will want to unmothball them only when the border forts start falling.
 
"Overseas will provide -2 land and -2 naval forcelimit"
I assume that this is on top of the bonuses they have from development? It would suck if they reduced your FL :/

High level forts are great, especially with that fancy zone of control, but there'll have to be some changes to attrition surely.
I look forward to the next dev diary!


Also, Burgundy!
EDIT: Speaking of Burgundy, why don't they get FL from vassals? That sucks.
They'll be easy pickings for France now. :(

EDIT2: What is "The Devout"?
Provinces can at the very least give 0 FL. They can't reduce it.
 
Amazing rework on forts. And next week Theocracy mechanics? Perhaps. Also, Bavaria has many more provinces! And two Augsburgs (?)(Free-city and Bishopric?). But Altmark still not divided into alt and magburg and part of bradenburg as it should ç-ç
 
Several of the proposed fort mechanics aren't good. They don't make much common sense, are wholly ahistorical, and make conquest absurdly easy without a complete rework of warscore and conquest mechanics.

First, the proposed army blocking mechanic treats major forts like some sort of magical behemoths that, by their mere presence, somehow block all routes of communication and protect all settlements at all times, and which an attacking army must siege in order to move on. This has never been the case, aside from a few very rare circumstances, from the beginning of warfare until the present day.

In every single war, armies have been able to outmaneuver forts and their garrisons. During the Hundred Years War, English armies raided the French countryside at will while French garrisons looked on. During the Eighty Years War, both Dutch and Spanish commanders bypassed forts and selected which forts and cities to siege and which to leave hanging on the vine. The exceptions occur due to exceptional geography, where there is only one route which the army must take.

Suggestion:

Instead of acting as magical roadblocks, forts should reduce movement speed of hostile armies and increase hostile attrition. This will represent the need to take less-optimal routes against forts and fairly accurately represent forts for what they were and are: means of slowing the enemy until defending forces can be mobilized. This will also allow combatants to send small armies through the forts to loot and pillage the countryside, so that defenders and attackers both have meaningful choices beyond just sieging down fort after fort.

Second, fort level "contests" make no sense outside of a highly abstract board game. Fort garrisons generally did not collapse because the fort in a neighboring province was bigger and newer. A fort is a fort, and even an old fort can create headaches for invading armies. This also creates perverse incentives to invade right after upgrading forts in order to be able to immediately seize enemy frontier defenses. It is both nonsensical and bad gameplay in one awful package.

Suggestion:

Get rid of fort contests entirely.

Third, insta-occupation is ahistorical, allows attackers to grab huge swathes of land at minimal effort, forces the defender into a weird game of whack-a-mole, and turns frontier defense into an all-or-nothing proposition.

Historically, at least in Europe, all towns of any substance had some sort of fortification, even if it was a crumbling medieval wall. Those fortifications could fairly rapidly be bolstered with earthern walls and bastions which would require substantial time and effort to take. A hundred soldiers could not have simply walked around taking "control" of anything more substantial than a barn.
 
  • 15
  • 12
Reactions:
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha........

That's England laughing all the way to the Bank. Sounds like maintenance will be very expensive for some. Imagine a small rich nation fortified the eyeballs, it will be a bitch to defeat.
That'll be the Netherlands in the 16th, 17th & 18th centuries.

I do like the idea of fort dismantling being in a peace treaty, please add that, pretty please, go on add that.
 
  • 3
Reactions: