• 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.
 
I'm not going to read through all 26 pages, but I don't get it.

What does this Zone Of Control do? What happens if you occupy the fort? Do all the provinces in it's ZOC become occupied as well?
Looting. What happens when your provinces have been looted and the bar is empty? What is the benefit to keeping that full?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Don'
I'm not going to read through all 26 pages, but I don't get it.

What does this Zone Of Control do? What happens if you occupy the fort? Do all the provinces in it's ZOC become occupied as well?
Looting. What happens when your provinces have been looted and the bar is empty? What is the benefit to keeping that full?

You don't keep it full, as in you as the player don't do anything to fill it up, it just shows the amount of lootable goods (food, cattle, riches) in a province at a given moment, a full bar just implies the province is operating normally and there's crops in the fields and sheep in the hills. When the bar is empty, an enemy army just won't be able to grab anything from the province. the benefit therefore of keeping it full is that that is the natural state for a healthy province.

With regards to Zone of Control, yes that is right, Forts project power and control to all adjacent provinces. If a province that is adjacent a) Doesn't have an enemy fort in, b) isn't within the zone of control of an equally strong, or stronger nearby enemy fort, Then you will automatically occupy that province.
 
So in your same example, an army which has marched 19 days into a province which contains an enemy army, should then be able to turn back on day 19, and walk 9 days out of the province and we're supposed to simply imagine that the enemy army just sits in the province wondering where they got to. The point is, once you're 50% through, you've crossed the rubicon so to speak, there's no turning back as you're already committed to the move.

Replacing a system that doesn't make sense if you over-think the province based movement with a system that also doesn't make sense and makes the game more annoying is an improvement?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Will forts be able to exert control over sea zones? Gibraltar, for example, or perhaps the Straits of Dover, or the Bosporus, or any of the great canals? Would add some very interesting strategic considerations.
 
  • 16
Reactions:
Having thought about it I think what calculates your ZOC strength should be the number of troops you have garrisoned in the fort. As long as you have more troops than in any neighbouring province you exert control there.

This would mean you'd have to allow garrisoning of your forts.

Instead of forts costing maintenance just make it so that when you build a fortress you gain forcelimit for your nation. Recruiting the extra men to garrison your fortresses will be the extra maintenance cost.

Maybe have a reserve garrison level that you can top up with regular troops when required?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Will forts be able to exert control over sea zones? Gibraltar, for example, or perhaps the Straits of Dover, or the Bosporus, or any of the great canals? Would add some very interesting strategic considerations.

Maybe building forts in certain locations should give you trade power?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Two sea zones? I've had fleets in the Baltic Sea (when I've controlled every coastal province there) and selected them to move to occupied sea zones in the English Channel only to see their navies instantly begin moving away after having sat there for a while. Now I select to move them next to their sea zone, but that too often causes their navies to flea. Although, recently a bug has occurred where navies are easy to destroy. If they are in port and you've had them blockaded for a while, then as you attempt to leave, they inexplicably decide to attack you. I've noticed this sometime after 1.10 was released but don't remember it from before that.

Yup, devs said so, and i could observe it well around Brasil in my Inca game. Once my fleet were two zones away and i move towards them they start to run away. But there were x issues there, for example i would dock, they come to blockade, presumably not aware where my fleet is, and i could catch and kill them reliably. Used this many times to kill Spanish fleet.
Also there was the case where i move to their sea zone along the coast, but they also move right through my units to my sea zone - practically we exchange positions - no fight occurred o_O. Probably some kind of same day movement bug.
Not sure if they fixes some of those weird thing.
 
When did countries build 5k - 20k fortresses in every province?
Never, to my knowledge.
And filling / emptying huge forts is not strategy. Look at the French, in WW2. Why they did not build a Maginot Line from 200 to 200km?
Because:
  • They imagined the Maginot Line as it was might actually be sufficient to stop a German offensive in its tracks.
  • They couldn't, or didn't want to, pay the capital, operational, and opportunity costs of building so many fortifications.
  • Fortifying the Belgian border would have created the implication that they weren't going to defend Belgium and the Netherlands from potential German aggression.
The "opportunity cost" part of the second point will of course apply in EU4 Next - if you build a fort in a province, you've consumed one of its small finite number of building slots.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
It seems to me that particular siege was more of a naval siege than anything, hence why it lasted so long. I kind of wish naval units had more of a role in this game other than taking away two added defense points. For example, why can't a partial blockade take away one of those points? Why can't super large naval armies turn that former positive number into a negative? Why do winning naval battles that sink an entire opposing fleet provide almost no warscore and thus have little affect on your eventual victory? I would think losing an entire naval fleet would have to be an ultimate morale blow for a nation.

The Ottomans controlled the whole rest of the island and had a large army parked there, so it was a land siege with inadequate naval support. If the Ottomans had dominated the seas as well, it would have been over quite quickly.

I don't think coastal forts should get a penalty for being blockaded, only a defensive bonus for being unblockaded (and maybe that defensive bonus is reduced pro rata by a partial blockade). Even a perfectly blockaded coastal fortress is about as easy to defend as an inland fortress. The fort is more dangerous to nearby enemy ships than the other way around. I liked the way it worked in earlier games, where inland and blockaded forts steadily lost strength over time (representing starvation and so on, so even the biggest fort would eventually fall), whereas unblockaded coastal forts did not get softer over time (so an unblockaded fort could literally hold out forever if it was huge and/or the besieging forces didn't have enough artillery).
 
Replacing a system that doesn't make sense if you over-think the province based movement with a system that also doesn't make sense and makes the game more annoying is an improvement?

I find it to be an improvement generally because it will lead to less ping pong and trying to trap an army that magically knows what my army is doing and when it will arrive so as to avoid it completely.
 
The new system is a VAST improvement. Fort placement, army placement, and strategies will mean a lot more. A high manuvere general leading a cavalry heavy army running through the back lines while you block their entrance with forts, for example. Planting down a small army with boats behind forts to wreck their back lines, for examples.

The fort system will allow far fewer men to guard your territories and stop the blobbing the biggest army to win. If you HAVE to attack in to a fort to win then people will use their armies smartly.
 
Can straits now exert ZOC If they have a fortress of a certain level? Being able to control gibraltar would actually be a thing then.
 
To all the players that want a maintenance slider on mothballed fortresses, I want to remind you that actual garrison size have a much smaller impact on siege length than CK2. Its only effect are:
  • How many troops you need to besiege it -> only meaningful if you are planning to do carpet sieges (less likely to happen in the new system), or if you want to detach a besieging army while hunting the opponent army (not possible anymore if the opponent is deep in its own protected territory).
  • Whether a sortie can win against the besieging army -> not very relevant if you have enough troops to besiege it already.
  • Whether an assault against unbreached walls will be too costly or not -> only the case for very small garrisons.
  • Whether an assault against breached walls will be too costly or not -> only the case for small garrisons.
My point is that as soon as the garrison is above the level where the besieging player won't try to assault it, any further increase in garrison size will only have a very limited benefit. Starting a war with all your garrisons at 20% (of minimum 5000 full garrison sizes) is almost as good as starting a war with all your garrisons at 100%. This is where a slider won't work, since the optimal solution would be to always put it at low (but not too low) levels, to barely avoid assaults, thus saving money with barely any disadvantage. A toggle between full garrisons and infinitesimal garrisons (10 men), however, is much clearer in its impact: if you want to save money, then you will allow your forts to be assaulted.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
These changes are... HUGE.
I don't know how I feel about them to be honest. The fact you can't cancel a movement anymore is bothering me the most. Damn, I don't know how this will play out.

I can't say I like this...
 
  • 6
Reactions: