EPTEuropa Universalis IV - Page 133
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6144 Posts
| ||
|
cythaze
830 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4656 Posts
 (( | ||
|
cythaze
830 Posts
(entered province A which has a fort from province B, now sieging it, now i want to send a small force to province B, but have to go around province A which would be the direct path because there is a fort somewhere? i dont get that :/ ) | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
On June 12 2015 06:28 cythaze wrote: it´s basicly: ally castile/aragon and austria, take/cancel missions until claim throne on france is available, declare on france and watch them die. you even should be able to more or less take france by yourself if you fight correctly (fort mechanics suck but its ok), so with 2 major power allies it´s pretty easy atm Indeed; as England I allied Castile and Burgundy from the start. Never have to abandon your mainland provinces again. Fort system owns though, best addition to EU4 since release. The coring/annexation costs are kinda meh though. Imagine if they completely removed "Overextension" system, and instead made coring/annexing MUCH longer/costlier. Maybe then "Cores" actually meant CORES and you wouldnt have to worry about this artificial barrier called overextension. | ||
|
Fildun
Netherlands4118 Posts
On June 12 2015 19:14 KaiserJohan wrote: Indeed; as England I allied Castile and Burgundy from the start. Never have to abandon your mainland provinces again. Fort system owns though, best addition to EU4 since release. The coring/annexation costs are kinda meh though. Imagine if they completely removed "Overextension" system, and instead made coring/annexing MUCH longer/costlier. Maybe then "Cores" actually meant CORES and you wouldnt have to worry about this artificial barrier called overextension. Well, with enough unrest reduction and province warscore cost reduction you could just literally eat a country in one go and not care about unrest at all. You could snowball even harder than right now. | ||
|
nimbim
Germany983 Posts
| ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Once you figure out how zone of control works to your advantage, you will never get into a bad fight and they need forever to siege anything. Movement lock is amazing too, managed to take on 1 to 3 odds as Trebizond by baiting them into attacking in mountains. Going for Komnenoi Empire, pretty legitimate start. 100 years in and still poor. | ||
|
Nomzter
Sweden2802 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4656 Posts
On June 12 2015 19:14 KaiserJohan wrote: Indeed; as England I allied Castile and Burgundy from the start. Never have to abandon your mainland provinces again. Fort system owns though, best addition to EU4 since release. The coring/annexation costs are kinda meh though. Imagine if they completely removed "Overextension" system, and instead made coring/annexing MUCH longer/costlier. Maybe then "Cores" actually meant CORES and you wouldnt have to worry about this artificial barrier called overextension. LOL, fort system makes me cringe. Instant -50% to game quality. Its shitty, i constatly get stacks in positions they cant move in ANY direction, and my AI allies become stuck so often is beyond belief. In 1445 i am sieging neapol and my allies are stuck on neighbouring province in 80k stack, they canot move down the Italy and are dying of attrition while enemy is sieging their homeland. Fort system sucks. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2550 Posts
On June 14 2015 21:38 Nomzter wrote: ai muscovy is soooo bad now holy shit Maybe it's just my luck but I haven't seen AI Muscovy do well since like, two expansions ago or something. And I don't get the hate on fort mechanics... there are some negative aspects to it for sure but imo it adds a nice bit of depth and is far better than the old carpet siege bullshit. | ||
|
TerransHill
Germany572 Posts
I also dont like the fact that England (also albania) isnt at war anymore. I mean i made the experience that castille, burgundy and aragon usually rival England right from the start but still france ai has kind of a hard time now (maybe thats ok since they have been a little to strong).but Also it is anti historic. | ||
|
Lysteria
France2279 Posts
On June 15 2015 18:14 TerransHill wrote: Dont like the fort system either. Atleast the movement part about it. It makes sense that you Dont have to siege unfortified provinces forever, but why should forts stop you from moving past them, especially while sieged? I think the best answer would be to be able to go past them at the cost of attrition, the further you are from an allied frontier. It would allow for more possibilities while limiting the carpet sieging of a country. It would makes sense too, since the supplies can't be as easily dispatched without control of the cities/forts behind. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4656 Posts
On June 15 2015 18:36 Lysteria wrote: I think the best answer would be to be able to go past them at the cost of attrition, the further you are from an allied frontier. It would allow for more possibilities while limiting the carpet sieging of a country. It would makes sense too, since the supplies can't be as easily dispatched without control of the cities/forts behind. Yeah i could tottaly get behind such solution. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
There's a lot of potential for utilizing the movement blocks of forts, I don't think much has been looked into it. | ||
|
Xafnia
Canada874 Posts
Looking at it from the supply line point of view. It could be neat if something like espionage let you ignore zone of control on forts though. Smuggling supplies through and all that. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4656 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6144 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4656 Posts
| ||
| ||
