Dismantle forts at the negotiating table

[Riekopo]

I think that we should be able to force our enemies to dismantle their forts at the negotiating table. Anyone else agree? This is a function that is in Victoria 2, but it would also be historical and relevant for the EU4 timeframe.

Edit: I'd like to add another idea to my post. Along with being able to force your enemies to dismantle their forts. I would like to be able to force them to limit their army and navy size through a "disarmament" or "arms treaty".

 

[iquabakaner]

I do recall that treaties between the Dutch and French or Spanish occasionally had arrangements regarding their forts at the borders.

 

[Martynios]

YES YES YES YES YES

 

[User4035]

If there is historical precedent then I'm for it.

Keep in mind it will be expensive warscore wise. The ducats to build a fort should be factored in the demands to dismantle it. And obviously they aren't allowed to built a fort in that AREA for the duration of the truce.
....hey, a good use for the Area mechanic.

 

[grommile]

This seems like it would have... noxious interactions with the forthcoming Devastation mechanic.

And, yeah. Forts are crazy expensive, yo.

 

[Gratak]

This seems like it would have... noxious interactions with the forthcoming Devastation mechanic.

And, yeah. Forts are crazy expensive, yo.

The warscore would have to scale with income/development. Otherwise it would indeed be a bit strong against small nations and/or useless against larger ones.

 

[Johan]

Evil!

 

[Red John]

This would ruin nations. You'd dismantle all their expensive forts and any neighbour can now full cap them in a year or less.

Would also need to be outright banned in MP.

 

[Zerodv]

This would ruin nations. You'd dismantle all their expensive forts and any neighbour can now full cap them in a year or less.

Would also need to be outright banned in MP.

It would obviously have quite a cost attached to it, and maybe they only reduce the rank of a fort.

 

[shinshin variety]

Would also need to be outright banned in MP.

Considering MP most nations are effectively dead in 1-2 wars it won't really be that impactful.

 

[Zorlin_Shape]

How about enforcing having all the forts in the area mothballed for the duration of the truce?
Also you should move this to the suggestion sub.

 

[Johan]

This would ruin nations. You'd dismantle all their expensive forts and any neighbour can now full cap them in a year or less.

Would also need to be outright banned in MP.

I'd stabhit for dismantling key-forts, and then trucebreak as soon as my armies are un-exiled..

 

[Granathar]

And, yeah. Forts are crazy expensive, yo.

Their maintenance should be lowered by at least 50%. Everyone knows that.

 

[Red John]

It would obviously have quite a cost attached to it, and maybe they only reduce the rank of a fort.

If the cost is too much, it's better to just take the land and thus isn't worth dismantling. If the cost is too little, you can kill a major power simply by dismantling all their forts and then either truce breaking or goading neighbours into ravaging them.

Reducing the fort rank makes sense, but then why ever take it past level 2 forts? It's better to either release a nation that'll encompass those forts or take the land for yourself.

Forts are incredibly important for the player and the AI (though apparently people run without any forts in SP because it's efficient or something). They force enemies to siege land and thus let you/the AI recover a bit if you've been forced from the front and allow you to counterattack.

Letting people remove forts through a peace option that presumably grants no AE is pretty ludicrous. If it's simply reducing its rank, it's honestly still pretty strong from a pure monetary standpoint, even if it doesn't let people full cap them in a year. What other peace option forces you out of hundreds of ducats, bar the take ducats option?

 

[Mortheim]

I think that we should be able to force our enemies to dismantle their forts at the negotiating table. Anyone else agree? This is a function that is in Victoria 2, but it would also be historical and relevant for the EU4 timeframe.

No. No. No. NONONONO. You don't understand what you're asking for! With current simple war mechanic of EU4 and pretty small provinces this will destroy any nation. At the start this will be too OP and it would be practically unreal to recover after it. And if you be able to destroy only one fort...meh. If you remember, in Victoria 2 there wer more space for maneuver and forts weren't THAT important as they are in EU.

 

[Johan]

Their maintenance should be lowered by at least 50%. Everyone knows that.

Everyone? in the late game the bigget complain is how people carpet their countries in lvl 8 forts, making wars insanley slow.

 

[shinshin variety]

I'd stabhit for dismantling key-forts, and then trucebreak as soon as my armies are un-exiled..

Well you're paying 4 stab, 5 war exhaustion for 150% warscore, where 100% of that warscore is effectively locked behind a second war you might not be guaranteed to win because of the cost. (assuming fort break is 50% warscore.)

Everyone? in the late game the bigget complain is how people carpet their countries in lvl 8 forts, making wars insanley slow.

Could you guys at least de-tach fort level and maintenance in the game files? If you nerf forts to 2/3/4/5 you nerf their maintenance which in turn makes it easier to fort spam...

 

[Mortheim]

Everyone? in the late game the bigget complain is how people carpet their countries in lvl 8 forts, making wars insanley slow.

Because, at the start, you don't have tons of ducats. And, by the end, you don't know what to do with money.

 

[Red John]

Well you're paying 4 stab, 5 war exhaustion for 150% warscore, where 100% of that warscore is effectively locked behind a second war you might not be guaranteed to win because of the cost.

It's not hard to time a truce break right. 3 stab and a few diplo points to absolutely cripple your hostile rival is almost always worth it in the long run. The biggest dissuading factor is the AE hit, and that's really only in the early game.

There's also the diplomatic backlash which may occur, but so long as you're secure in your diplomacy there shouldn't be too many issues.

From an MP viewpoint, anyway. From an SP viewpoint, breaking a truce is rarely worth it bar a few exceptional circumstances.

 

[Phelan]

Everyone? in the late game the bigget complain is how people carpet their countries in lvl 8 forts, making wars insanley slow.

Then maybe you could introduce something like a "base inflation" that is growing slowly over time and cannot be reduced beyond this level. Just like the increasing tech costs over time.