• 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.
 
Well what I'm trying to say is that my opinion is that occupation of a province that's not fortified should take up to a couple of months depending on size and manouver skills of a general and if fort is hold by enemies the garrison if not under siege will retake it if no enemy army is parked there.
 
By the sounds of the rules presented, if a country is spammed full of forts and can actually afford to run them all (instead of having them mothballed with ten-man garrisons), it has already won the game anyway.
Not necessarily. If the country spends all their money in forts they might be annoying to deal with but essentially harmless as they can only delay the inevitable.
 
The tragedy of these DDs is, seeing that fundamental huge changes to warfare and economy means patch 1.12 will not be released until weeks pass

it's already a bit irritating to spam pointless buildings in huge numbers when I know next update will make buildings much more interesting, similar point with warfare
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not sure if this was already asked but will exiled and retreating armies be able to move past forts? Also if now armies won't be able to move past forts (regular, not exiled or retreating), they can easily get stuck in enemy territory (no escape route) so could we have to option to force retreat so the players or AI's army can escape to friendly territory if trapped behind forts? Otherwise this will be an exploit to trap armies behind forts and take lands elsewhere (which is why a force retreat would be handy).
 
That actually makes sense. With Vauban striving to build an iron belt of forteresses around France to secore its territory. Does that also mean that a naval invasion could be undertaken to circumvent the problem?
 
I have some issues with these proposed changes.

1. Most provinces in Europe had fortifications. For example France in 1815 had 90 active fortresses or around two per province with around 196,000 men assigned to defend them.
2. Fortresses did not have permanent garrisons of up to 35,000 men. They had much smaller garrisons but could act as refuges for defeated or over-matched field forces. I'd suggest a level 3 fort (15,000 men) should have a 3,000 man garrison but also enable 12 field regiments to take shelter in it. These extra mouths to feed speed up the surrender of the fort due to starvation meaning relief forces need to be mobilised and despatched.
3. Fortresses did not prevent an army from moving past them. What they did was leave a threat in the army's rear if they were bypassed and not besieged. It would be fine to slow down the movement of an army trying to bypass a fortress, but not prevent it. If an army isolates itself in enemy territory it should not be possible for losses to be replaced.
4. To gain control of adjacent provinces, a part of the garrison has to leave the safety of the fort for some days and expose itself to risk from enemy field forces. With what I suggested in 2, it should be necessary for troops in the garrison to leave and travel to the adjacent province before control changes.
5. A bigger fortress is not automatically better than a smaller one. There are two metrics - size and quality. For example in the early period of the game a large city may have medieval (fort quality 2) walls behind which 35,000 men can hide while late in the game a province may have a small fort built by Vauban (fort quality 4) that can only have a maximum of 5,000 men but it is much more resistant to sieges than the large city if it hasn't been upgraded.
 
  • 10
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
I have some issues with these proposed changes.

1. Most provinces in Europe had fortifications. For example France in 1815 had 90 active fortresses or around two per province with around 196,000 men assigned to defend them.
2. Fortresses did not have permanent garrisons of up to 35,000 men. They had much smaller garrisons but could act as refuges for defeated or over-matched field forces. I'd suggest a level 3 fort (15,000 men) should have a 3,000 man garrison but also enable 12 field regiments to take shelter in it. These extra mouths to feed speed up the surrender of the fort due to starvation meaning relief forces need to be mobilised and despatched.
3. Fortresses did not prevent an army from moving past them. What they did was leave a threat in the army's rear if they were bypassed and not besieged. It would be fine to slow down the movement of an army trying to bypass a fortress, but not prevent it. If an army isolates itself in enemy territory it should not be possible for losses to be replaced.
4. To gain control of adjacent provinces, a part of the garrison has to leave the safety of the fort for some days and expose itself to risk from enemy field forces. With what I suggested in 2, it should be necessary for troops in the garrison to leave and travel to the adjacent province before control changes.
5. A bigger fortress is not automatically better than a smaller one. There are two metrics - size and quality. For example in the early period of the game a large city may have medieval (fort quality 2) walls behind which 35,000 men can hide while late in the game a province may have a small fort built by Vauban (fort quality 4) that can only have a maximum of 5,000 men but it is much more resistant to sieges than the large city if it hasn't been upgraded.
Add to this list: shipyards.
I doubt every coastal province was building ships.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
EU4 is finally becoming a game with its own flavour; I felt as though EU4 lacks unique taste compared to VC2, CK2, and HOI3. This DD sounds the like the greatest overhaul for EU4 since release.

I always thought EU4 needs notion of 'fronts.' Armies shouldn't march all the way across enemy lands without first securing control of adjacent provinces. And apparently this concept will be (partially) introduced with the new DLC. Woohoo!

Please minimize micromanagement with new mechanics, though. There should be a tab in quick build interface that switches mothballing fort on/off instead of clicking each province.

Next, I would love to see notion of 'total war' and 'limited war'(the latter should be most of the cases) because sending 100% of your regiments to enemy territories while you are bordering multiple nations is just silly.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Some suggestions:
1. let attacking army advance beyond uncontrolled fortress after leaving siege army to the fortress, as done in history. If the siege army is attacked and routed, the army that advanced past the fortress will lose supply/communication line and either become less combat effective or suffer extremely high attrition until they gain the line of communication back.

2. reinforce garrison from manpower pool.

3. army's movement speed should be decreased. After that make march mode/combat mode you can set for regiments. March mode has current army speed and you can use it to redeploy armies from one end of the border to the opposite end within your land; they are very vulnerable, though. Armies deployed in combat mode has 100% combat efficiency but they can't change to march mode in enemy territories, and even doing so in your territories take months. This change will extend on a the notion introduced in this DD of 'fronts' and create a notion of a 'limited warfare', because if you send 100% of your armies to attack a small nation, when your neighbours invade your borders, you are slower to pull away and defend your empty borders. As a result, you will only utilize portion of your army in each war instead of zerg-rushing enemies in every single war.

You will determine the importance of the ongoing war with the risk of being invaded and decide accordingly. This should be accompanied with AI aggression increase in case you pour a huge portion of your army into enemy territories, leaving rest of your lands undefended.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I've got one very simple question: is Île-de-France, the province name, now Paris by default?
 
Does paradox have a release date?
 
No need, just put a fort on every third province on your border and you're good.
People seem to forget about rebels. Am I the only one who ever sees any?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: