Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Fortifications

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Savant

Savant

Victoria's boyfriend
5 Badges
Jan 4, 2001
1.848
4
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
Good discussion of fortifications in the main IGC thread may be appropo to have it's own.


I think this is a good idea. Would require editing the 1492_IGC.inc file, but not too tedious if are selective. Here are some of the things mentioned that I picked up from the posts in that thread about forts:

  • upgrading major/minor's forts
  • upgrading COT forts
  • terrain issues involving the location of forts (mountains, etc)
  • border location of provinces
  • specific level upgrades that are most appropo (2,3, etc)
  • effect on AI (playtesting)
  • any historical data available to peg fortress strengths?
 
Portugal should have a level two in Tago. Basically to stop a human from easily doing a "map stealing war" but also because it was actually hard to conquer the province - Spain never did in 3 wars despite being right next door.
 
The Fortification around Visby.
It is very famous but I dont know about the strenght, might be worth looking at it thou.
 
Always difficult to balance gameplay with historical accuracy. So, how do you guys interepret the fortification levels?

My interpretation:
Level 1 - Medieval style walls and castles not built to withstand cannon or to incorporate cannon in its defence e.g the Visby city walls on Gotland.

Level 2 - Early rennaissance fortifications incorporating cannon and "guntowers" e.g the Venetian fortifications in modern Heraklion, Crete. Another example might be the Ottomans Rumeli Hisar which also was purpose built for incorporating cannon.

Level 3 - Trace italienne with bastions and flanking fire etc. e.g Gothenburg, Sweden and most continental 17th century fortifications.

Level 4 - Enter Vauban.

After that my history classes fail me...
Oh, and allow for a +1 for extremely good "natural fortifications".

So, in my thinking level 1 should dominate the first years of the game just as it is now, and any tinkering with these settings is more a way of raising the difficulty for expert players rather than a way to improve historical accuracy (?).

Cheers,
Vandelay
 
So, in my thinking level 1 should dominate the first years of the game just as it is now, and any tinkering with these settings is more a way of raising the difficulty for expert players rather than a way to improve historical accuracy (?).
Click to expand...
In a word...yes, well and no. Is the current map historically accurate? Should anyone possess a level 3 fort (in the mountains) in 1492? Should someone like Spain only have minimal fortifications while England starts will all smalls?(I think).

This topic started when I asked a question about the initial fortifications for the IGC. How a human playing a very minor-minor like Granada could take advantage of Spain's lack of key fortifications for the first few decades to basically cripple or take them out completely because of that. While Helvetica is a level 3 fort in the mountains in 1492 (GC and IGC I think). The thrust of this is can we better protect 1 or 2 key points(capitals/CoTs) in some countries that seem under protected?

I was going to put together an initial cut of possible changes so we (the community) could discuss them. As it happened I was very distracted in developing a Sicily scenario and now am out of time for a few days. Been enjoying playing it far more then I really had time too (read game addict).

Bottom line is looking at this with a mix of play balance and historical accuracy. Is anyone honestly convinced the current setup is 'historically' correct for all the world? We are pretty limited as it is with fortification types


ErrantOne
 
I see the mmore as symbols to create historical accuracy. For example a big fort in Tago not because it had a big fort there but because no one was able to take it. Back in those days field trip wars to get some maps weren't the standard way of conducting things.
 
Back in those days field trip wars to get some maps weren't the standard way of conducting things.
Click to expand...

LOL...field trip wars.
 
IMO, it's not the fortifications that are the problem, but the too large armies (too easy to raise, too easy to maintain) and too high foraging/ support values. It is also much too easy to project power across the sea.

/Vandelay
 
Vandelay,

/agree

since we cant do much about army size, maintainance costs, etc... tweaking forts seems like about all we can do at this point (besides quit playing :eek: )

ErrantOne
 
a list.....

Ok, here is a first cut at CoT/Capitial provinces that could be changed (mostly from level 1 to level 2 forts). Note, there may be a couple missing as I did this kind of quickly.

All Euro-Capitals/CoTs changed from minimum to small. There are few already smalls right now
----------------------------------
Andalusia (SPA, cot)
Castille (SPA, cap)
Tago (POR cot/cap)
Ile De France (FRA cot/cap)
Helvetia (lvl 3 in mtns. Downgrade to lvl 2. Was lvl 1 in GC)
Malan
Modena
Rome
Naples (make Apula minimum, it is mtns)
Bavaria
Wurtemburg
Baden
Thurgaden
Saxony
Hesson
Hannover
Cologen
Mecklenburg
Austria
Bohemia
Brandonburg
E. Pommeriana
Sjaelland (DAN, cap)
Svealand (SWE cap)
Livonia (kurland is cot, both to small could be unbalancing. Kurland may be priority)
Mozovia
Wallachia
Moldavia
Crimea

Misc fortification question/issues:
Nyland/Savolaks are med forts (SWE boarder with russia). These are powerful enough that russia CAN NOT take them with the AI playing. Consider downgrade to lvl 2. When playing SWE I was able to totally ignors the russian hoards attacking lvl 2 - 3 forts in finland for years while SWE chewed up the DAN armys/forts. Even at lvl 2 russia is hard pressed to take the fort. Seen quite a few 50+regiment army die over the winter while sieging Nyland.


Mid-east
--------------
Isfahan (PER cot/cap)
Sochi (Georgia cap)
Volgograd (golden horde cap)
Kurgan (sibir-cap)
Ryazan (ryazan-cap)

North Africa
--------------
Morrocco (cap)
Al-djazair (cap)
Tunisa (cap)
Egypt(cap)
Alexandria(cap)

India
---------
Delhi (cot/cap)
Hyderdad (cap)
Mysore (cap)


In general we all know the AI is clueless about protecting its key strategic points (cap/cots, mostly). This minor upgrade to should make it it harder for the human to quickly seize key point with very small armies the first couple of game years. Once the all the alliances get setup, things are stabilize a bit more.

This is only a first pass. Please feel free to comment. Would really like to get doomdark's input here. Once we come up with a finalized list is it possible to make the changes, test them and (assuming they pass) get them into the next IGC release?

ErrantOne
 
Do states like the Horde for example really need those ? Or even those one province German minors ? They have to spend their money on sommink and not much chance of initial landgrabbing after u annexed 2 German minors at the start as ur BB will skyrocket, the problem is more taking a few provinces from the bigger nations, as I experience it anyway.

If u want to take advantage of the starting situation u hit on a major as a minor to get ur stuff. Usually they're ven better provinces too. Flanders and Andalusia being good examples of that. Not many people will take Baden and Thuringen.

Oh, and I dunno if u noticed but some provinces in Spain start unfortified. Methinks that's pushing it a bit, esp if England is giving level 2 forts all around. Seems strange to me that there wouldn't be a single fort in Extremaduras hosting some 5000 men.
 
oh? I did not look at much of anything beyond capitals and CoTs. England has lvl 2s in the IGC and lvl 1s in the GC (Ireland none in both) and the SWE-RUS border has lvl 3. The only reason I knew those was from playtesting the event stuff the other day.

This thread it to look for balance issues dealing with fortifications, so all is fair game IMO.

About the one province minors....

Speaking without playing testing anything, why should 1 province minors be so easy to grab within the first year or two of a 300 year scenario? That easy start has a huge amplification over 300 years. Seems like the only reason a small province could stay alive pre-1492 was alliances and not being worth taking over vs the difficulty in dealing with them. Otherwise why weren't they all ready annexed?

ErrantOne
 
That's just it, the reason they weren't annexed/shouldn' be in this game is fear of badboy. IF in this game u really want too then a one province minor can take a one province minor whether it has a level 1 or 2 fort. The reason it shouldn't do it is that it'll get sommink along the lines of near 10 BB for a province that isn't *that* good. If it then takes another one province minor, it'll have a huge early BB and will have much trouble staying alive. That's why even with a level 1 fort, no one will really grab them. It's not worth it :D

In that situation just setting some starting allainces seems better to me if u really want to protect them more (but I rarely see them go early on and if they get attacked a one level diff in fort won't help much against a bigger nation nor is it the way to victory for a human player IMO. Maybe he can get away with one but 2 early annexations will kill u.

Let's take Bayern for example. It can easily run over the neighbouring states run by a human player. But a bit clever human won't do that (if he takes BB in account). He will attack Austria. Better provinces and not too hard on BB (no annexing). A human player can outmanouver an AI major with a minor. He can get 3 provinces with a smaller BB hit than annexing Wurttemberg and immediately cripple its only big neighbour.

That sort of behaviour should be stopped IMO. The easy way of taking advantages of big countries lack of forts/preparedness. Small states really aren't worth it but taking 3 provinces of France/Spain/Poland/whatever is.
 
where's our spell checker?! oops, wrong thread ;)

No problem Bib, I am not attached to having all the little guys on the list get lvl 2 forts. The bigger problem like you said is nibbling away at the big boys.

The bad thing about having those starting alliances is that it makes the game much more static. With different alliance structures in each game it keeps it fresh. Not having played a little one country minor the german area, I really dont much of a feel for them.

ok, I showed you my list. Know you can show me yours. :) In the end we both want the same thing...a better playing game. Only question is how to get there.

ErrantOne

PS Bib, if you have not tried playing Uzbeks yet you should. they are in a fun position, Muslim tech, with Persia and after 30-50years russia both want to make sweet luvin to you on a regular basis. oh, a good special rule to make them fun is use event 17 to give yourself three colonists. Then with each captured province that you convert to the true faith (Sunni of course), you earn 6 additional colonists (to be added anytime you choose.) I did ok tonight until in the 1550's was at war with RUS and the Persians slammed me on the otherside. It was kind of fun playing in a different part of the world. Darned persians were kicking my behind with alot better land tech for their troops. :(
 
Last edited:
Good point about the allying. Maybe just give them starting diplomats and let them sort it out.

Just a quick first try then :

Andalusia (SPA, cot)
Castille (SPA, cap)
Toledo (goldmine)
Tago (POR cot/cap)
Ile De France (FRA cot/cap)
Helvetia (lvl 3 in mtns. Downgrade to lvl 2. Was lvl 1 in GC)
Rome (there shouldn't be many nations taking it then. I know there's similar stuff that happened for real but that is still possible but it's to prevent the more often than not annexation of it)
Apulia (to lvl. 1)
Austria
Styria (goldmine)
Brandenburg (maybe get them to be stronger to amount to sommink historical)
Sjaelland (DAN, cap)
Svealand (SWE cap)
Mozovia
Mecklenburg (COT)
Flanders
London
Moscow
Novgorod (depends where the COT is)
Venice (this one is really easy to take :D )
Thrace
Isfahan
Delhi
Mysore
Hyderabad

This is just a very quick glance.
 
In the last few games I have been paying attention to how the AI handles fortifications. The word...poorly, for the smaller countries with limited budgets. They tend haphazardly fortify and often leave their capitial under defended. Everyone's capitial should start at last as a small (vs minimum). This is mainly to make it slightly harder on the human.

The larger countries seem to do on OK job of fortifying their Capitials/CoTs if they are near a border. otherwise they tend to lag behind by one or more fortificaiton levels (example boarders have lvl 4-5 fortifications and cap/cot has 2-3.)

In my current game (1750s) there are still AI counties with minimum fortifications for capitials/CoTs while some of their other provinces are medium or higher. The AI really does a poor job of fortifying strategic points. Maybe we can help this a small bit.

ErrantOne
 
Shame u can't edit their building behaviour.

Aren't there soem sort of limitations on upgrading early on ? Or what are those text thingies near forts for in the .inc file?
 
Aren't there soem sort of limitations on upgrading early on ? Or what are those text thingies near forts for in the .inc file?
Click to expand...
Is 'text thingy' a technical term? ;) In the .inc file you can change the fortification level easily. Just find the owner of the province (example, SPA starts with sicily) You can search for SPA and scroll down and find sicily (ID 395 i think) and edit the fortification level for that province. Or if you know the province ID just search for that ID specifically. Typically, I just open province.csv search on the name to find the ID then go make any changes in the .inc or savefile as desired.

ErrantOne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back