Make forts great again

[Megadietie]

I don't know if people look at this forum, but let's give it a shot.

For the moment, I have one big problem with forts. If I would ever have build a fort in the given time region, I would probably have done so where it can benefit from the landscape (i.e. hilly, mountain land). However, with the current mechanic, if an enemy besieges your fort in a mountain region, you cannot really relieve the fort without a terrible modifier, since you are attacking. This means that building a ring of Alpine forts hurts you more than it hurts the enemy.

My suggestion is simple: when an enemy besieges a fort and your army enters the battle, let it join as DEFENDER. This feels kind of right, since you are lifting the siege / stopping the attack of the enemy.
Also, when your army stands on a fort tile and it is attacked, give it a defence modifier (or a negative modifier to the attacker). This also makes sense, since you can much more easily defend when you are having a fort to do so.

Benefits:
forts actually have a defensive purpose: having a fort will increase the defensive capabilities of your armies. Having an army stationed there will be tougher to fight and relieving a fort will be easier without combat penalties for the relieving army and possible combat penalties for the attacker (depending on the terrain).

adds a new layer of tactics: it matters where you build your fort. It will help holding choke points (defence boost) but can now also be used by countries with mountainous terrain (e.g. Caucasus, Alps, Pyrenees)

Just my 2 cents it's not a big overhaul but would, in my humble opinion, improve gameplay a lot

 

[pphair]

for 1.18

- Relieving a siege now makes the sieging force the "attacker" in the combat.

So if you attack an enemy sieging your fort by crossing a river, will the enemy have the river crossing penalty?

 

[Johan]

So if you attack an enemy sieging your fort by crossing a river, will the enemy have the river crossing penalty?

Not unless they crossed a river.

 

[Grand Historian]

Not unless they crossed a river.

So if they crossed a river to get to the province to siege it they'll have a penalty?

 

[Johan]

So if they crossed a river to get to the province to siege it they'll have a penalty?

Yes

 

[Maq]

Let me present an alternative suggestion: NO terrain penalties for both sides.
Why so? Normally, the defender is the one who can choose the battlefield. But not so if he's sieging or under siege. The battlefield is determined independently on participants' will. That's why no party should be given an advantage.
In such a scenario, I'd prefer the sieging army to be a defender, because they have got time to prepare for battle on the given spot.

 

[Grand Historian]

In such a scenario, I'd prefer the sieging army to be a defender, because they have got time to prepare for battle on the given spot.

Sieging armies historically have been ill-capable of offering up defenses from relief forces. Placing a besieging army under siege itself was a particularly devastating tactic.

 

[Canute VII]

Yes

So, following up on that, if we talk amphibious landing, will the sieging party receive a -2 attackers penalty, because some reckless guys get at them from a ship? (...Just trying to pinpoint possible weaknesses of the conception )

 

[Douglas Uppity]

well, this'll make those almost impossible to siege down mountain forts even more annoying to deal with. I really hope there'll be some strict rules to this mechanic. If i'm sieging down a fort in Aragon, a stack of purely Austrian soldiers attacking me, without any help from Aragon, should not become the defending stack on said fort province. The owner of the fort should have to be involved in the combat for it to take effect, imo.

 

[Grand Historian]

well, this'll make those almost impossible to siege down mountain forts even more annoying to deal with. I really hope there'll be some strict rules to this mechanic. If i'm sieging down a fort in Aragon, a stack of purely Austrian soldiers attacking me, without any help from Aragon, should not become the defending stack on said fort province. The owner of the fort should have to be involved in the combat for it to take effect, imo.

We need simpler fort rules and less forts, not more complication to the already confusing rules.

 

[SuicideSparrow]

for 1.18

- Relieving a siege now makes the sieging force the "attacker" in the combat.

Just relieving the fort? Or when you sortie?

(I'd prefer the latter, since it makes sense, and makes sorties useful).

At the least, do sorties get the defender position as well?

 

[ashmizen]

Yes

That makes more sense than it seems. Even if the sieging army merely crossed a river to attack 6 months ago, it's supply lines are still from across the river, and the river crossing penalty reflects how screwed the seigers are as they are now surrounded (by the fort and now the relieving force), with supplies across a river easily cut.

 

[Grand Historian]

That makes more sense than it seems. Even if the sieging army merely crossed a river to attack 6 months ago, it's supply lines are still from across the river, and the river crossing penalty reflects how screwed the seigers are as they are now surrounded (by the fort and now the relieving force), with supplies across a river easily cut.

Not to mention their backs are to the river as well.

 

[Megadietie]

for 1.18

- Relieving a siege now makes the sieging force the "attacker" in the combat.

Thank you for the feedback Johan, this is great news! Can't wait to check out the new patch !