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".

 

[Gratak]

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

Can't comment on MP since I never played that. But SP late-games fort are both too expensive and take too long to siege. Sounds contradictive but:
- Those super long siege times are mostly hurting your enemies without helping yourself. Prolonging a losing war is the worst thing you (or AI) can do. More countries will declare war while you are losing...
- As the video says, the costs are crazy.

edit: btw, same holds for very early game forts. Costs are lower but people have less money. Forts are weaker but people have no cannons.

In summary: Same amount of forts but cheaper and weaker would be better for everyone except countries who like to die slowly. With one exception: Should all forts be weakened, lvl 2 forts needs to be buffed with the military tech that gives cannons. lvl 2 forts again cannons are already very weak. For example one could

 

[Topias]

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

If lvl 8 forts are too strong, nerf them. If carpeting with forts is a problem, introduce a soft cap for forts similar to force limit.

In my experience, fort maintenance is too high. This is particularly true if you own a great deal of low-development provinces, since the number of forts you need is related more to your total number of provinces rather than your total development. Mothballing helps with managing the costs, but it's also discouraged by active forts contributing to army tradition and, as of recently, score.

 

[ruzen]

I would be ok with It If this don't destroys castles for balance issues. Maybe forcing to mothball unless they start war each other again. This could create strategies by planning a fast attack before forts working full function again. Rather than completely destroys expensive castles.

 

[grommile]

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).

In SP, the human - to a first approximation - does not build forts. They steal them from the computer (which does build them), then knock them down 30 years later, by which time the border has moved on past those forts.

 

[Incompetent]

The way things are now, I end up demanding as many low-dev provinces with forts as I can. You don't even pay any extra for those provinces AFAIK, so it's the logical thing to do if you want to weaken the enemy in future wars. Some option to just tell them to dismantle the forts would save on a lot of border gore though. Obviously there should be some warscore cost attached per fort, so you can't just dismantle all the forts with no effort.

Alternatively: when you occupy a fort, you can spend MIL (and possibly time) to tear it down, like how you can currently seize/burn colonies. I'm sure there is historical precedent for this, and enough monarch point cost would mean it couldn't be spammed.

 

[alphamikefox]

Why not have it be that you can only demand dismantling a fort in a province in which you have a claim? Or a bordering province. Though I think claim is better since then you could use it to dismantle annoying forts in the New World and trade company areas with completed exploration/expansion ideas...

 

[Martynios]

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

Then fix that by telling the AI not to place a fort on every island they own just to troll the player. Forts are too expensive to be good, but the AI doesn't realise that, resulting in the AI having many more forts than the player.

 

[Rikissa]

Before RoM and especially 1.19, I would just delete all forts - I think player forts are now in a much, much better place than they were before Rights of Man

But sieging down Bengal and Southeast Asia when it's cluttered with lvl 8 forts is hair-pulling

 

[flogi]

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

Depends on the cost I guess. It would be very good to be able to get rid of mountain and hill/wood forts.
So get something like that balanced you probably have to scale depending on tech (is the fort you are destroying outdated) and fort level.
Thinking about it: With as much money as there currently is it could be something like this:
Beginning (only Level 2 available)
10 warscore/fort
Level 4 available:
10 warscore for level 4
8 for level 2
Level 6 available:
10 ws for level 6, 8 for 4 and 6 for 2.
Level 8 available:
10 for level 8, 8 for 6, 6 for 4 and 4 for 2.

With a system like this in mind I don't think your stabhit strategy would be op.
You'd have to push the enemy over 50 warscore to stabhit him and would then probably be able to delete 4 modern forts or more outdated ones. It could be beneficial to stabhit, but I think this could work still. The political situation in mp might change as well.

 

[Granathar]

Limit similar to forcelimit seems good. We would want to have as much fort as we can (to get +1 AT), but it should be development-based limit. For example 1 fort per 50-75 development + 2 forts of base, just like with base manpower. Or maybe some limits based on number of active states?

 

[Dracolithfiend]

Limit the number of forts that may be dismantled by force.

 

[Wagonlitz]

lvl 2 forts again cannons are already very weak.

Pretty sure that's WAD, since when cannons became common fort construction techniques had to change, since old designs were really weak against cannons.

 

[Gratak]

Pretty sure that's WAD, since when cannons became common fort construction techniques had to change, since old designs were really weak against cannons.

Yes. But in reality also the adapted fort designs failed against the newer artillary design. So there is no reason why late game forts should be much stronger against artillery of their time than the lvl 2 fort against early artillery. Just saying that the current siege duration for lvl 2 forts with full artillery should not be reduced further, while any other combination should get reduced siege times.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Yes. But in reality also the adapted fort designs failed against the newer artillary design. So there is no reason why late game forts should be much stronger against artillery of their time than the lvl 2 fort against early artillery.

True.

 

[Grand Historian]

Limit the number of forts that may be dismantled by force.

Then people would complain about that as well.

 

[Dracolithfiend]

I totally disagree. In the 1400's castles were just starting to be designed with cannon artillery in mind. By the 1600's you have incredible star forts that were virtually impervious to direct fire artillery.

 

[Johan]

Then fix that by telling the AI not to place a fort on every island they own just to troll the player. Forts are too expensive to be good, but the AI doesn't realise that, resulting in the AI having many more forts than the player.

I was talking from a multiplayer perspective.

In my opinion and experience. Level 8 forts are way too cheap, and as a player you place them everywhere.

 

[Martynios]

I was talking from a multiplayer perspective.

In my opinion and experience. Level 8 forts are way too cheap, and as a player you place them everywhere.

Good point. I don't play competitive multiplayer though so I can't provide anything meaningful to the discussion from here.

 

[Granathar]

I was talking from a multiplayer perspective.

In my opinion and experience. Level 8 forts are way too cheap, and as a player you place them everywhere.

1 lvl 8 fort has the same price in maintenance as half of standing army (20k infantry) of smaller nation, assuming they don't have any discounts.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

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

But why would you? I mean unless dismantling key-forts is going to be dirty cheap WRT WS you´d be better off taking the provinces with forts; then breaking truce and finish him/her off. At least this is what I would do unless ofc I simply wanted to troll him/her.

@OP that is a great idea that IMHO will only enrich the game.