We need a mechanism that allows the army to enter the fortress

[red1848]

I hope the new military mechanism can allow the army to enter the fortress



In this way, if the enemy's attacking force A and the stationed force B in the fortress are located on the same plot, there will be no battle unless the enemy's besieging force A defeats the defending force C in the fortress and captures the fortress, or the breakout force B * actively breaks out (the enemy's besieging force A will not immediately occupy the plot after capturing the fortress, and will only trigger the occupation mechanism of EU5 after winning the battle with the stationed force B in the fortress)



In addition, the entry of our own unit B will bring some defensive bonuses to our defending unit C and fortress, while the besieging side will cut off the logistics transportation and market access of the plot, and the defending side may consume a large amount of materials and manpower from the plot as a result



In the breakout battle, our breakout unit B * will engage in combat with the surrounding unit A * of the enemy's random soldier ratio in the surrounding area (the approximate range of the random soldier ratio can be influenced by the military instructions of the besieging party). If our breakout unit B * is not performing well during the breakout process, they can retreat back to the fortress. If the breakout is successful, they can transfer their own troops (except for our defending unit C) and leave the area



In addition, if the enemy's attacking forces avoid the protected areas of the fortress and take a different route to advance, the stationed troops can break through the enemy's logistics route from the fortress and engage in pincer attacks with other forces



I think this is the only way to simulate historical sieges more realistically, for example, it can be applied to the Great Wall offensive and defensive battles

 

[merokrl]

yep we need this

 

[cursorhiker]

Agree 100%. If I have a small army that's been raiding, why would I march out to meet a superior army in battle when I can retreat behind my fortress walls and laugh at their attempts to besiege me?

 

[ajv21]

Great idea!

Sieges could have other improvements like:
- the citizens lives are in risk to diseases, hunger, battle, etc.
- the supplies would drain faster if there is an army in the fortress (or if the siege is to a highly populated city)
- the location should not produce any good
- negotiate surrender the fortress in exchange that the army can leave without fighting (retreat)

 

[perceval350]

This is a great idea !

I would love for this to really impact winter warfare too, armies stationed in fortresses should fare much better than armies in the field during winter. That way, long wars would have another strategical depth added to them as taking a fortress in the warzone would be vital of you want to pursue your campaign during and after winter

 

[GDQuirm]

On the one hand, I totally agree. Garrisoning an army in a fort would make a lot of sense. However, the size of the army would have to be restricted by the size of the fort. You shouldn’t be able to garrison 20k men in a small fort.

That said, this is already partially simulated by the fact that forts stop army movement, so you can hide an army a tile behind a fort or two. This isn’t the same, but it’s similar enough in terms of gameplay impact that I feel like the devs won’t consider fort garrisoning to be worth coding as a gameplay feature. It’d be cool, but I doubt it’ll happen.

 

[Austregisel]

Like March of the Eagles

 

[Blackcat321]

On the one hand, I totally agree. Garrisoning an army in a fort would make a lot of sense. However, the size of the army would have to be restricted by the size of the fort. You shouldn’t be able to garrison 20k men in a small fort.

That said, this is already partially simulated by the fact that forts stop army movement, so you can hide an army a tile behind a fort or two. This isn’t the same, but it’s similar enough in terms of gameplay impact that I feel like the devs won’t consider fort garrisoning to be worth coding as a gameplay feature. It’d be cool, but I doubt it’ll happen.

Two main gameplay differences between hiding behind and in the fort is that if you hide behind the enemy can sometimes still circumvent the fort and still attack your army, and that your troops wont be part of the defence when the enemy is assaulting. I think those two factors are important enough that it's worth implementing, especially since it's probably not the most difficult thing to implement.

 

[Cephei80]

it can work but should have a downside . when the Austrians were forced to Garison Mantua to halt the french armies the troops got penalised because the garison was huge and kept getting bigger till reaching like 37k , so it got famine and illness and the troops couldnt defend well and the only reason it kept holding is because the french kept breaking siege to react to the austrian offensives from the alps .
since the game have ressources like weapons and food , the moment a town get besieged and an army deplete its own food it should start running the reserves of the city or fortress itself thus accelerating its downfall . attrition on the population should increase too since the soldiers will take priority of food consumption

 

[Metz]

This could be good so that you have units that can sally out and harass supply lines and then go back in to hide. This would force countries to conquer fortifications or cities in a way that would allow them to keep their supply lines intact. In EU4 you can go all over the place (if no enemy forts) and the only consequence is that of attrition if your army is too big for the province supply.

 

[Pirat6662001]

This is absolutely necessary for better warfare