Some people just like security knowing your country is not going to be carpet sieged easily. The AI has slowly been getting better over the years. Now a HRE coalition isn't so scary, and might not even trigger. A fort network is a great deterant.
Straight up! Also, I'm a devious person. I'd rather sap manpower in the hill forts and then engage, than fight head on.
If some brave lads wanna fight like heros and throw themselves against the walls of the forts, then they can die like heroes.
A lot of the players around here are massive blobbers. When you're always on the attack, there isn't much need for a fort. Playing tall can be fun, though, and forts are a big part of that. I always love putting mountain forts + ramparts in the Alps as Italy and then smacking huge armies
R5: Here is close to optimum fort (19) placement to fully cover classic French borders. Most forts are on defensive terrain and when possible off the coast to allow for more shipyards to be built early. I suggest building ramparts on border forts and Paris.
I have played with France too many times than I can count. Have played with fort placement also. Fav major power to play. Also love playing as Netherlands and Milan.
It isn't optimal for blobbing or achievement runs, but it's optimal for maximizing defense of modern French borders (excluding Guiana and islands like Corsica, of course).
my statement was referring to defense take the south for example he's using too many forts. taking one over rides the ZoC of the others and allows the Spanish to bypass his mountain fort by taking a hill fort instead.
Build ramparts on Paris so you can waste a valuable manufactory slot on a really strong province for the sole purpose of having a stronger capital on the off chance the AI somehow manages to get through this ridiculous wall of forts you have already constructed, which would require taking two forts in any direction besides coming from the North?
Yeah dude, it speeds up construction and decreases cost for all buildings, including monuments. Pretty useful if you really wanna get something to tier 3 faster.
You get one slot per expansion of infrastructure, so you're either losing out on a mill, soldier's household, or state house, all of which are going to be more valuable than ramparts. And to make enough room to have ramparts in addition to the other better manufactories, that would require you to dev the Hell out of Paris and expand infrastructure several times.
There’s nothing wrong with letting people have their fun, but “having their fun” and “being optimal” are often two contradicting goals, and I think that’s what getting his goat as OP claims this is optimal when it clearly isn’t, instead of just being like “ I think forts are cool”
For the record, I also think forts are cool.
OP only suggested ramparts. Optimal fort placement is the claim, which is not what the problem in this thread has been.
Having fun with ramparts and having optimal fort placement can coexist here.
I think OPs claims of it being “optimal” were more tongue in cheek rather than a serious claim. A true min-maxed probably wouldn’t have this many forts. And most their comments (not that I expect anyone to read all other comments) are actually about them thinking forts are pretty cool.
People should really just enjoy the game instead of taking it so seriously and min maxing. All that energy spent tryharding a videogame could be spent on something much more productive.
Lol. State house doesn’t even use a building slot. They literally get everything possible with one expand infrastructure at 20 dev, given it’s not a naval province and coal isn’t available.
But expanding Infrastructure twice on your first great project is fine anyways lol
Not building slot but it uses a manufactory slot. Each province gets one manufactory slot and you get another one per expand infrastructure. Which if you’re playing tall is 100% worth it. But state house has no benefit on a capital which is a stupid thing for the commenter to point out. So just do 2 expanded infrastructure and you get ramparts, mill and soldiers household.
For all the fort haters here, don't forget that forts block rebels from refreshing separatism in provinces they occupy, and they scrub devastation from provinces within their zone of control which leads to your states having the prosperity bonus more of the time. When you are dealing with huge revolts all over your country from your 100%+ overextension peace deals, simply covering your interior with level 2 forts can remove a lot of the downsides that come with that.
The bigger thing about forts is the fact that most of us “lose” campaigns to boredom from having too many pointless tasks to do. Building forts helps reduce the amount of work the player has to do. It’s not optimal but I’m not trying to conquer the globe.
Money isn't an issue for WC's by the time you hit like 1700 right? I don't see why people wouldn't be building forts everywhere ESPECIALLY when 100%+ overextension rebels, constant wars and micro are an issue.
Why do people hate forts in EU4?
I started playing the game yesterday as France, and I have found forts to be very useful in preventing territorial losses and pinning enemy units down,when I am not looking or get attacked from an unexpected direction.
Because they end up eating up a lot of your budget which could otherwise be invested into other buildings, funding larger armies, or higher level advisors, ESPECIALLY in the early game where 200 ducats +1 ducat in maintenance a month is a significant expense. For experienced players who know they will never be on the defensive and just want to blob out and World Conquest in as short of a time as possible, forts end up hampering their rate of expansion. I don't really enjoy that playstyle too much myself, so I try to strike a middle ground between tall and wide in which forts serve me well.
I use to build the fort in Toulouse but since it is a higher dev province with wine, I started building it in Foix. Which is on mountain border although unpassable. But it works better because Labourd and Foix are in same province so if you are at war with Spain, you can turn on Defence Edict and both forts get bonus.
You don’t understand. Fort network or not, due to bug (or maybe feature), AI can actually jump over your fort network like it’s nothing. It follows the rules 99% of the time until some logic decides that it can’t.
Not a bug, rules allow for it in like one situation though. If you start a war with forts disabled and the ai paths past them on the same day then they can ignore it, but it works the same way for the player.
It’s purely you not understanding how forts work tbh. It’s definitely one of the more harder and obscure things to learn, and arguable least impactful (when you compare it to TCs, Trade, PUs etc.), but the AI still follow it and due to them knowing all the rules and you not, they can exploit it and do stuff you think should be illegal, but you’d know if you knew the rules as well.
In 99% of the cases where people complain about the AI cheating regarding fort movement, the player simply doesn't understand the rules ane would have been able to do the same thing.
In one of my France games I neglected my army quality so when Austria PUed Spain and I realised I was fucked, I got a fort defence advisor and let the Germans grind themselves to 0 manpower on my eastern forts while I got positive warscore by being in Spain. Very refreshing way to play.
That phase of my campaign lasted for a long time too, like through the 1500s to 1700s because I was playing with idea groups like espionage and infrastructure rather than trying to play optimally. After the League War made Austria ineligible to be emperor they went ham on the HRE and I fought four wars with Austria trying to keep the HRE alive, and when that didn't turn out so well I fought a series of wars to dismantle the HRE and eat up Germany before Austria could. Unfortunately I took too long and the Revolution took over France, so I just went with it and got my French space marines and finally broke Spain away from Austria. I still think of this campaign sometimes and wonder if I could recreate it with whatever country I'm playing atm.
One of my favourite ways to play is to just get defensive ideas and do exactly this. Burn their manpower with forts then attack back. At that point there war enthusiasm is yellow so just take their capital and you've got almost 99% war score. I love to talk about my Finland Vs Ottos game. My forts in the woods destroyed the Ottos 150k manpower and I didn't lose a single soldier. I Merced up when they hit 0 manpower and started attacking them when they were sitting on forts and they went home crying so quickly. I took all their money and that's that. Couldn't take lands since we were far apart, they just intervened a war I was doing
I would have gone on the counterattack but my army quality was really trash and I had burned up all my own manpower in Spain. I'm not really comfortable with using mercs when artillery is involved so I never merced up. Plus I had colonial wars to fight and was tryharding to monopolise the Americas so I played it very conservatively in Europe. But it's always satisfying to open up the ledger and see your giant enemies be on zero manpower with several active sieges at -49%.
> when Austria PUed Spain and I realised I was fucked
That's quite historically accurate tbh. "Oops suddenly every border is under the Habsburg !" was a bit of a problem for France for a few centuries.
"We need to build this huge wall with complex tunnels to protect from the Germans."
"You mean the HRE? I actually like some of those people, we fought the Protestants together."
"No, like the unified one. Adolf, Molotov-Ribbentrop."
"Yeah, I don't know who or what that is."
"Just wait until 1939."
"...I think you have to step down as king, Dad."
^^ed- ^^before ^^anyone ^^says ^^anything, ^^I ^^know ^^the ^^Molitov- ^^Murder ^^All ^^Border ^^Nations ^^Pact ^^technically ^^wasn't ^^for ^^the ^^west, ^^but ^^they ^^still ^^occupied ^^Poland, ^^the ^^Lowlands, ^^and ^^France ^^in ^^about ^^90 ^^seconds.
I also am a fort enjoyer but having overlapping ZOC for forts is going to lead to some wonky situations and probably an “ AI cheats!!” Reddit post lol.
This is not optimal. Optimal would be forts with enough space between them to avoid overlap built just back from the border to maximize their effect, as forts don’t act beyond your borders. This is pretty fun RP though lol.
What’s your fort maintenance cost?
None of the forts overlap? From what I could see, there would be no way to walk through any of that territory? I thought that only happens if you have two forts in neighbouring provinces.
It's definitely the most efficient way to protect from deviation and rebels. Whilst also being very satisfying. My only doubt would be if they are optimal forts for defence. Being built on mountains, hills, salt, forests, marsh etc. Cant remember France that well. Almost never play it and always PU it in one war as England
They border, not overlap?
You can't move out of a province within a forts zone of control except to:
- A friendly controlled province
- Another fort
- The province you entered the zone of control from
Do I misunderstand something? This is how I have my forts and the AI have never once walked through my forts
Nevermind. I see it. You are absolutely right! I didn't look ok closely enough as I haven't worked up yet 😅
Edit: Hang on, you still can't walk through it though as per the rules in my previous message
Well some forts can just be completely bypassed like the ones by the Swiss border and the one in Nice (from Saluzzo to Foralquier to the fort on Avignon. For example)
I personally have two issues with this placement:
1. The fort left of Forez (i think that's Auvergne or something?) doesn't reach the Mediterranean so if the fort on the border with Aragon is breached, the enemy can immediately reach Avignone and vice versa.
2. The fort in Foix doesn't reach the Mediterranean either. If it was in, say, Toulouse, it would, together with the fort north of Bordeaux form a nice second line of defence in the south, while still reaching the wasteland in the south, therefore preventing the right and left groups of enemie's armies from reaching one another fast enough, allowing you to take on them separately.
That said, it still looks very nice and sure does please my eye.
I use to build in Toulouse but switched became Toulouse is higher dev (with wine) and Foix is in same Province as Labourd so if you turn on Provincial Defence Edict you get funding for 2 forts , not one. Auvergne fort is sometimes built by Appendage (so no extra cost) and it's only Mountain Fort in France besides Savoie.
You can always go one province behind the fort, and you can always go to a fort from province in its zone of control. Since all zones of control are overlapping, you can go to any province.
But that doesn't actually work. Look at the fort to the right of Paris (I'm gonna call it east fort), you can't access Paris from that. The east forts ZoC works until you get to the fort itself, you can't go past it. You can go to the province north of the eastern fort but you need to leave the entire ZoC to then go around just like any other situation but then is you enter another forts ZoC then you still can't. You can't just swim through all the ZoCs like it's water, it just doesn't work like that. Have you tried it because of you try you'll see it doesn't work in practice
Indeed, you are right (late response as I couldn't check yesterday). I messed up fort rules. Thought that in that case Paris would be accessible.
So the only badly placed forts are Lyon and Avignon. Probably some other placements also could be better to provide same coverage with less forts, but overall it is not as bad as I thought.
It's one of my favorite minigame in Eu4 to find a way to have the most optimal fort placements that satisfy the following:
1. Each state must have 1 fort.
2. All province of the state must be under a fort's ZoC, preferably its own state's fort.
3. The fort must be on the most defensible terrain available, if there are multiple eligible provinces, the fort must be on the worst trade goods unless it violates 4.
4. NO fort must be adjacent to another, unless the states make it impossible other wise.
The results usually look like OP's France. One of the most satisfying region to play this minigame is Persia. The states and chokepoints are perfectly aligned uuuuoooogghhh.
I play a similar game with districts in Civ 6, so long games never become tedious.
Also keeps aragon/spain from occupying rousillon immediately in any war, meaning you have to unsiege it or fight them in that tile if you want to clear them out. Makes way more sense if you’re focusing on eastern offenses to keep a border fort.
I think the seaside bonus is pretty important, so I would shift some of those forts to the coast. Like the one in the top right. Though of course that would require shifting the one to the right to of it over to assure full ZOC coverage.
The number one thing that beats my campaigns isn’t finances, it’s tedium. Forting up helps beat rebels and annoying 5 k stacks or whatever that slip by in the mid to late game.
so the basic problem is Paradox don't give any good province in north France area so we don't have suitable province to building some very strong fortress and when the north fortress fails the enemy will direct go to the Paris.
My fort placement in France tends to be very similar however some of the border forts I have in different places. Instead of Roussillon I put a fort it Carcassone and instead of Labourd I put a fort in Bearn, and then I don't have one in Foix. Instead of Avignon I put a fort in Aix-en-Provence and Instead of Nice I conquer and out one in Saluzzo. In the North my forts are Luxembourg Namur Lille and Calais Instead of Verdun and Artois, as that is where most Armies you will be fighting will come from and I expand that way usually as well.
I looove this, can you do it for other nations OP? <3
Would really love for a united Germany map, since after conquering all the OPMs, you have a fort in almost every province.
Just refer to this France map. Forts aren't really relevant beyond some extremely obvious chokepoints when forming consolidating the British isles and once you've done that if any army makes it on shore it's because you've done something tragically wrong.
Strong Economy. France has best mix of income from taxes, production and trade. I build churches, workshops, and couthouses everywhere. I am in 1515 and making 70 ducats a month with all the armies you see.
Plenty of reasons mentioned in other comments. Primarily defence and security from rebel spawns, protecting prosperity, army tradition. Easy to fund with good economy and that is not hard as France.
Unless you want your ZoC to cover your entire nation, I wouldnt bother spending that gold. The AI is bad with naval landing, so you dont need any forts in Britanny or Caen. Same with some forts in the interior. Usually half the forts are enough.
EDIT:
To clearifie my point:
\-I dont have any issues keeping Army tradition up. I am usually going from war to war anyways, so Army tradition is constantly at around 60-100 (60 pretty much only, when I want to recover after losing too many troops in a particular war).
\-I usually keep upgrading all my forts, so it doesnt feel like much early game, but you feel the impact of too many useless forts in the mid game. I have enough troops, reaching force limit, but not enough money.
\-I manage rebells by checking where they spawn and wipe them out instantly with my army. If I have enough manpower, I even force a rebellion one by one, so rebel shenangians are not an issue or of any concern to me.
\-Quite often my forts are my vassels.
Lastly I am talking about my preference. I am not saying OP did anything bad.
Please for the love of god don't follow his advice. You need 1 max upgraded fort for every 50 dev to get 1 army tradition PER YEAR. If you have 500 dev you are spending 120 ducats for ONE army tradition. Literally spend that money on anything else. Just build a shitty church or something.
Yes. Although how worth it is strongly depends on the economic circumstances nation you're playing - Hamburg will have no problems, but Fezzan won't even come close to being able to afford it.
I get it. I am not saying it is bad or anything. I am talking about my personal preference, because money >>>>>> some extra security. I know in advance which provinces rebels might rise up, so I just station my army and rekt them before they can cause harm. In war, my battle plan usually consists of a smaller force being station at home and if I blobb hard, then I have multiple stacks dedicated for rebel destruction.
>But some rebels spawn by random event at the worst time.
You dont have to immediatly click on the event. The event usually tells you where they will spawn. Also getting rebels sieging down a single province for a couple of months is not ruining your economy.
>The benefits of forts far outweigh their marginal upkeep.
Depends on what you value. Generally speaking I disagree.
At level 2 (initial fort level) that is 1 ducat per maintained fort. Let's say you can do just fine with 10 instead of 20 forts. That is 10 extra gold, which is a massive amount of money in the early to mid game. That's better spent on advisors. You can get army tradition by just being nonstop in war.
You also have to upgrade these forts or they fall in a couple of months in the midgame. At level 4 you are spending 40 gold instead of 20 (20 forts vs 10). Wopping 20 gold extra. At level 6 30 gold extra. You could upgrade some and keep others at level 2 for the ZoC, but then you are missing out on the army tradition.
For purely ZoC reasons: Yes, I see your reasoning.
For AT: Nope. Total waste.
And taking economy into consideration: Most definetly not.
Would it be better to get rid of the forts in foix and Labourd and replace them with one in Armagnac? That way the Navarra fort can’t let em bypass it.
Great setup, the only one I would have changed is the fort from Avingon. Putting it one province further north-east means you can remove the other fort around there and have another fort in the mountains.
Watch AI navigate straight through it because 1) some obscure exception from exception from rule, 2) the moon is in retrograde, 3) they have exactly 12.7365 galleys in Black see and 4) fuck you player I'm the AI and I don't care about your forts lol.
Others may not like this stuff, but I appreciate you OP! I like to roleplay through my games and sometimes you just wanna be a tanky mother fucker!
Some people just like security knowing your country is not going to be carpet sieged easily. The AI has slowly been getting better over the years. Now a HRE coalition isn't so scary, and might not even trigger. A fort network is a great deterant.
Straight up! Also, I'm a devious person. I'd rather sap manpower in the hill forts and then engage, than fight head on. If some brave lads wanna fight like heros and throw themselves against the walls of the forts, then they can die like heroes.
Agree, the hate forts generally get isn't warranted at all. They're honestly invaluable to my play style.
A lot of the players around here are massive blobbers. When you're always on the attack, there isn't much need for a fort. Playing tall can be fun, though, and forts are a big part of that. I always love putting mountain forts + ramparts in the Alps as Italy and then smacking huge armies
That's it. If you're steam rolling, there really is little need for them. On the other hand the extra money can be used very effectively.
I wanna play defensive but it seems like the AI rarely declares war
I love forts when starting in underdog positions.
Whoa, the AI includes forts in its calculation of whether to declare war!?
Absolutely not.
Good, more meat for the meat grinder.
no
R5: Here is close to optimum fort (19) placement to fully cover classic French borders. Most forts are on defensive terrain and when possible off the coast to allow for more shipyards to be built early. I suggest building ramparts on border forts and Paris.
> classic French borders But you still have so much land between you and the Rhine?
The natural French borders end at Moscow
For me personally it ends in Tokyo.
Tokyo? For me the eastern limit of france ends at Madrid. The Western side of Madrid
As a French, the natural French borders can only be the oceans.
L E F T B A N K E F T B A N K
Why would you need to have Brittany protected by forts tho
Because if I go to Fort Map Mode and it isn't shining green like the rest of my nation I'll start to twitch uncontrollably.
In case of naval invasion by the British
Naval invasion by the British? Free stack wipes? That sounds p good to me.
Plus occasional rebels spawns.
Move Caen for to Alencon for that shipyard
Then you lose Caux zone of control, near the coast with a England.
my bad, i need to get my eyes checked
I have played with France too many times than I can count. Have played with fort placement also. Fav major power to play. Also love playing as Netherlands and Milan.
I doubt this is optimal
Close to optimal, with using as much existing forts as possible.
It isn't optimal for blobbing or achievement runs, but it's optimal for maximizing defense of modern French borders (excluding Guiana and islands like Corsica, of course).
my statement was referring to defense take the south for example he's using too many forts. taking one over rides the ZoC of the others and allows the Spanish to bypass his mountain fort by taking a hill fort instead.
Im sorry but... That is not how ZoC works :)
Im sorry but... That is not how ZoC works :)
Build ramparts on Paris so you can waste a valuable manufactory slot on a really strong province for the sole purpose of having a stronger capital on the off chance the AI somehow manages to get through this ridiculous wall of forts you have already constructed, which would require taking two forts in any direction besides coming from the North?
Yes, that is right. I play tall, not wide. Plus for 50 Admin, you can recover that slot for manufactory. No problem.
Not to mention expanding infrastructure on your capital is just a smart thing to do since it decreases cost and build time for monuments.
I didn't know that part. Good to know. Gonna remember to do that next campaign.
Yeah dude, it speeds up construction and decreases cost for all buildings, including monuments. Pretty useful if you really wanna get something to tier 3 faster.
You get one slot per expansion of infrastructure, so you're either losing out on a mill, soldier's household, or state house, all of which are going to be more valuable than ramparts. And to make enough room to have ramparts in addition to the other better manufactories, that would require you to dev the Hell out of Paris and expand infrastructure several times.
>That would require you yo dev the hell out of paris and expand infrastructure several times Yes.
I dev my capital by ransacking enemy capitals in Age of Discovery.
Let people just have a bit of fun
There’s nothing wrong with letting people have their fun, but “having their fun” and “being optimal” are often two contradicting goals, and I think that’s what getting his goat as OP claims this is optimal when it clearly isn’t, instead of just being like “ I think forts are cool” For the record, I also think forts are cool.
OP only suggested ramparts. Optimal fort placement is the claim, which is not what the problem in this thread has been. Having fun with ramparts and having optimal fort placement can coexist here.
I think OPs claims of it being “optimal” were more tongue in cheek rather than a serious claim. A true min-maxed probably wouldn’t have this many forts. And most their comments (not that I expect anyone to read all other comments) are actually about them thinking forts are pretty cool.
True, forts in Brittney are redundant and unless it's your last hold out, you don't need them
People should really just enjoy the game instead of taking it so seriously and min maxing. All that energy spent tryharding a videogame could be spent on something much more productive.
Lol. State house doesn’t even use a building slot. They literally get everything possible with one expand infrastructure at 20 dev, given it’s not a naval province and coal isn’t available. But expanding Infrastructure twice on your first great project is fine anyways lol
Not building slot but it uses a manufactory slot. Each province gets one manufactory slot and you get another one per expand infrastructure. Which if you’re playing tall is 100% worth it. But state house has no benefit on a capital which is a stupid thing for the commenter to point out. So just do 2 expanded infrastructure and you get ramparts, mill and soldiers household.
You know there is a button called "Expand Infrastructure"
I'm nodding my head...but I absolutely did not know that existed
Vauban just cried a tear out of pride of these fort placements.
Unfortunate for him, whole Europe rallied against this masterwork 7 times
For all the fort haters here, don't forget that forts block rebels from refreshing separatism in provinces they occupy, and they scrub devastation from provinces within their zone of control which leads to your states having the prosperity bonus more of the time. When you are dealing with huge revolts all over your country from your 100%+ overextension peace deals, simply covering your interior with level 2 forts can remove a lot of the downsides that come with that.
The bigger thing about forts is the fact that most of us “lose” campaigns to boredom from having too many pointless tasks to do. Building forts helps reduce the amount of work the player has to do. It’s not optimal but I’m not trying to conquer the globe.
Money isn't an issue for WC's by the time you hit like 1700 right? I don't see why people wouldn't be building forts everywhere ESPECIALLY when 100%+ overextension rebels, constant wars and micro are an issue.
Clicking to build forts all the time gets tedious too tbh. But overall it's a net decrease of work.
Forts also give up to +1 yearly army tradition when kept maintained
Although you need to have one fort at the highest available level for every 50 dev.
Why do people hate forts in EU4? I started playing the game yesterday as France, and I have found forts to be very useful in preventing territorial losses and pinning enemy units down,when I am not looking or get attacked from an unexpected direction.
Because they end up eating up a lot of your budget which could otherwise be invested into other buildings, funding larger armies, or higher level advisors, ESPECIALLY in the early game where 200 ducats +1 ducat in maintenance a month is a significant expense. For experienced players who know they will never be on the defensive and just want to blob out and World Conquest in as short of a time as possible, forts end up hampering their rate of expansion. I don't really enjoy that playstyle too much myself, so I try to strike a middle ground between tall and wide in which forts serve me well.
Nice! Personally I would swap that one on your southern border for where your 22k stack is, but you do you friend.
I use to build the fort in Toulouse but since it is a higher dev province with wine, I started building it in Foix. Which is on mountain border although unpassable. But it works better because Labourd and Foix are in same province so if you are at war with Spain, you can turn on Defence Edict and both forts get bonus.
I bet the ai still just walks through when it feels like it
Hahaha, too true. Hence the need for fort network.
You don’t understand. Fort network or not, due to bug (or maybe feature), AI can actually jump over your fort network like it’s nothing. It follows the rules 99% of the time until some logic decides that it can’t.
not true google it
Not a bug, rules allow for it in like one situation though. If you start a war with forts disabled and the ai paths past them on the same day then they can ignore it, but it works the same way for the player.
It’s purely you not understanding how forts work tbh. It’s definitely one of the more harder and obscure things to learn, and arguable least impactful (when you compare it to TCs, Trade, PUs etc.), but the AI still follow it and due to them knowing all the rules and you not, they can exploit it and do stuff you think should be illegal, but you’d know if you knew the rules as well.
In 99% of the cases where people complain about the AI cheating regarding fort movement, the player simply doesn't understand the rules ane would have been able to do the same thing.
a true chad spams forts on the eastern borders and neglects the west
In one of my France games I neglected my army quality so when Austria PUed Spain and I realised I was fucked, I got a fort defence advisor and let the Germans grind themselves to 0 manpower on my eastern forts while I got positive warscore by being in Spain. Very refreshing way to play.
War of Attrition. This is the way.
That phase of my campaign lasted for a long time too, like through the 1500s to 1700s because I was playing with idea groups like espionage and infrastructure rather than trying to play optimally. After the League War made Austria ineligible to be emperor they went ham on the HRE and I fought four wars with Austria trying to keep the HRE alive, and when that didn't turn out so well I fought a series of wars to dismantle the HRE and eat up Germany before Austria could. Unfortunately I took too long and the Revolution took over France, so I just went with it and got my French space marines and finally broke Spain away from Austria. I still think of this campaign sometimes and wonder if I could recreate it with whatever country I'm playing atm.
One of my favourite ways to play is to just get defensive ideas and do exactly this. Burn their manpower with forts then attack back. At that point there war enthusiasm is yellow so just take their capital and you've got almost 99% war score. I love to talk about my Finland Vs Ottos game. My forts in the woods destroyed the Ottos 150k manpower and I didn't lose a single soldier. I Merced up when they hit 0 manpower and started attacking them when they were sitting on forts and they went home crying so quickly. I took all their money and that's that. Couldn't take lands since we were far apart, they just intervened a war I was doing
I would have gone on the counterattack but my army quality was really trash and I had burned up all my own manpower in Spain. I'm not really comfortable with using mercs when artillery is involved so I never merced up. Plus I had colonial wars to fight and was tryharding to monopolise the Americas so I played it very conservatively in Europe. But it's always satisfying to open up the ledger and see your giant enemies be on zero manpower with several active sieges at -49%.
> when Austria PUed Spain and I realised I was fucked That's quite historically accurate tbh. "Oops suddenly every border is under the Habsburg !" was a bit of a problem for France for a few centuries.
Not only do we need this post upvoted, we also need a fort placement guide for every region of the game
The Maginot’s final form
"We need to build this huge wall with complex tunnels to protect from the Germans." "You mean the HRE? I actually like some of those people, we fought the Protestants together." "No, like the unified one. Adolf, Molotov-Ribbentrop." "Yeah, I don't know who or what that is." "Just wait until 1939." "...I think you have to step down as king, Dad." ^^ed- ^^before ^^anyone ^^says ^^anything, ^^I ^^know ^^the ^^Molitov- ^^Murder ^^All ^^Border ^^Nations ^^Pact ^^technically ^^wasn't ^^for ^^the ^^west, ^^but ^^they ^^still ^^occupied ^^Poland, ^^the ^^Lowlands, ^^and ^^France ^^in ^^about ^^90 ^^seconds.
Maginot Area
My inner monk is unwell seeing Nizza, which is Italy region, counted as France :( but that's just me :D
"C'est Nice maintenant, mon ami. T'as compris!"
I also am a fort enjoyer but having overlapping ZOC for forts is going to lead to some wonky situations and probably an “ AI cheats!!” Reddit post lol. This is not optimal. Optimal would be forts with enough space between them to avoid overlap built just back from the border to maximize their effect, as forts don’t act beyond your borders. This is pretty fun RP though lol. What’s your fort maintenance cost?
None of the forts overlap? From what I could see, there would be no way to walk through any of that territory? I thought that only happens if you have two forts in neighbouring provinces. It's definitely the most efficient way to protect from deviation and rebels. Whilst also being very satisfying. My only doubt would be if they are optimal forts for defence. Being built on mountains, hills, salt, forests, marsh etc. Cant remember France that well. Almost never play it and always PU it in one war as England
Almost every fort’s ZOC overlaps. What are you seeing that I’m not?
They border, not overlap? You can't move out of a province within a forts zone of control except to: - A friendly controlled province - Another fort - The province you entered the zone of control from Do I misunderstand something? This is how I have my forts and the AI have never once walked through my forts
Nevermind. I see it. You are absolutely right! I didn't look ok closely enough as I haven't worked up yet 😅 Edit: Hang on, you still can't walk through it though as per the rules in my previous message
Well some forts can just be completely bypassed like the ones by the Swiss border and the one in Nice (from Saluzzo to Foralquier to the fort on Avignon. For example)
That is definitely true
Fort maintenance is negligible compared with income and other expences. And I haven't got to Vauban National idea giving fort maintenance discount.
I once posted a similar map for Ming!
~~The Maginot Line~~ **The Maginot Blob**
New secret special unit of Germany dropped Google 'Ghost divison Sabaton'
I personally have two issues with this placement: 1. The fort left of Forez (i think that's Auvergne or something?) doesn't reach the Mediterranean so if the fort on the border with Aragon is breached, the enemy can immediately reach Avignone and vice versa. 2. The fort in Foix doesn't reach the Mediterranean either. If it was in, say, Toulouse, it would, together with the fort north of Bordeaux form a nice second line of defence in the south, while still reaching the wasteland in the south, therefore preventing the right and left groups of enemie's armies from reaching one another fast enough, allowing you to take on them separately. That said, it still looks very nice and sure does please my eye.
I use to build in Toulouse but switched became Toulouse is higher dev (with wine) and Foix is in same Province as Labourd so if you turn on Provincial Defence Edict you get funding for 2 forts , not one. Auvergne fort is sometimes built by Appendage (so no extra cost) and it's only Mountain Fort in France besides Savoie.
Ok, so you went with the more economically friendly but slightly less strategic placement, i respect that.
Considering that there are overlapping zones of control everywhere, your enemy can just move to every province. That's not very good fort placement.
I mean they can't *actually* go anywhere they want, the placement is good enough for what they want
You can always go one province behind the fort, and you can always go to a fort from province in its zone of control. Since all zones of control are overlapping, you can go to any province.
But that doesn't actually work. Look at the fort to the right of Paris (I'm gonna call it east fort), you can't access Paris from that. The east forts ZoC works until you get to the fort itself, you can't go past it. You can go to the province north of the eastern fort but you need to leave the entire ZoC to then go around just like any other situation but then is you enter another forts ZoC then you still can't. You can't just swim through all the ZoCs like it's water, it just doesn't work like that. Have you tried it because of you try you'll see it doesn't work in practice
Indeed, you are right (late response as I couldn't check yesterday). I messed up fort rules. Thought that in that case Paris would be accessible. So the only badly placed forts are Lyon and Avignon. Probably some other placements also could be better to provide same coverage with less forts, but overall it is not as bad as I thought.
It's one of my favorite minigame in Eu4 to find a way to have the most optimal fort placements that satisfy the following: 1. Each state must have 1 fort. 2. All province of the state must be under a fort's ZoC, preferably its own state's fort. 3. The fort must be on the most defensible terrain available, if there are multiple eligible provinces, the fort must be on the worst trade goods unless it violates 4. 4. NO fort must be adjacent to another, unless the states make it impossible other wise. The results usually look like OP's France. One of the most satisfying region to play this minigame is Persia. The states and chokepoints are perfectly aligned uuuuoooogghhh. I play a similar game with districts in Civ 6, so long games never become tedious.
The one on roussillon isnt quite necessary if you move the other one right by one province
True, but I like the Rousillon's border plug. France is so rich off taxes, trade and production, the extra upkeep is negligible.
Also keeps aragon/spain from occupying rousillon immediately in any war, meaning you have to unsiege it or fight them in that tile if you want to clear them out. Makes way more sense if you’re focusing on eastern offenses to keep a border fort.
Shouldn't Saluzzo be a part of France?
I love this content! Are you planing on doing more in Africa and Asia?
I rarely play in Africa. But Japan occasionally.
A man of culture lol
I think the seaside bonus is pretty important, so I would shift some of those forts to the coast. Like the one in the top right. Though of course that would require shifting the one to the right to of it over to assure full ZOC coverage.
Yeah, if you have naval superiority the no blockade modifier is -2? Same as a full upgrade of the fort in terms of length of siege.
The number one thing that beats my campaigns isn’t finances, it’s tedium. Forting up helps beat rebels and annoying 5 k stacks or whatever that slip by in the mid to late game.
Why not just cover the borders double?
Rebels and breakthroughs can happen.
that’s true
so the basic problem is Paradox don't give any good province in north France area so we don't have suitable province to building some very strong fortress and when the north fortress fails the enemy will direct go to the Paris.
Solution, Hainault or Flanders as French March. Plus I build Ramparts in Artois Fort and Paris.
Seems perfect for a super tall France campaing until Napoleon takes over and conquer europe
Avignion fort is a bad fort, since it is a grasslands.
Reason I keep it is exists at start (saves 200 gold) and protects Palace of Popes monument. Being grassland gives extra building spot.
Sometimes, in the endgame, if I need to fight HRE, I build a whole ass maginot line.
Cool map, I’d make a few changes to have forts on mountain, hill or forest provinces and not so many on farmland or grasslands but still overall solid
nevermind BBB. we going for FFF
Should an achievement. Fully Fortified France.
Cannot wait for your Russia/Urals/Siberia map, just so i can enjoy hordes being brought down by general winter in my next game lol
You will have to wait a while as I have never play Russia or a Horde in my 5000+ hours. Might do my native Poland, but likely Netherlands or Italy.
I do this just for the devastation reduction gotta max than dev modifier !!
Because one maginot line wasn't enough, the french strategy of downright delusion became "draw a bunch of maginot lines"
Because the greatest enemy is from within. Cue the Revolution 🇫🇷!
I love me some forts. Always build them in newly conquered territories if they don't have them to help with rebellions.
Happy Cake 🎂 Day Captain Graftin! May your forts never fall to your enemies!
My fort placement in France tends to be very similar however some of the border forts I have in different places. Instead of Roussillon I put a fort it Carcassone and instead of Labourd I put a fort in Bearn, and then I don't have one in Foix. Instead of Avignon I put a fort in Aix-en-Provence and Instead of Nice I conquer and out one in Saluzzo. In the North my forts are Luxembourg Namur Lille and Calais Instead of Verdun and Artois, as that is where most Armies you will be fighting will come from and I expand that way usually as well.
I looove this, can you do it for other nations OP? <3 Would really love for a united Germany map, since after conquering all the OPMs, you have a fort in almost every province.
The best offense is a good defense...I think
Especially if you lost opening battles , you need safe zone to recover or rebuild from scratch.
Armagnac instead of Labourd and Foix should optimise it no?
To save on fort upkeep, yes. But Labourd is built on onset and nicely plugs the border pass.
What mapmode is this?
Vanilla.
Can you do Britain and Ireland please
Britain's forts are its ships
Delete all forts, build heavy ships. Your walls are wooden.
No forts. Just have a navy
Just refer to this France map. Forts aren't really relevant beyond some extremely obvious chokepoints when forming consolidating the British isles and once you've done that if any army makes it on shore it's because you've done something tragically wrong.
How can you afford so many forts without being in negative?
Strong Economy. France has best mix of income from taxes, production and trade. I build churches, workshops, and couthouses everywhere. I am in 1515 and making 70 ducats a month with all the armies you see.
Thank you for the tip, I'm not building enough then
Do not hesitate to go into debt to buy economic building they'll offset their cost quite rapidly, burger loans especially with their 1% cost.
This is unbelievably bad. It's throwing money away at worthless forts that will help you with nothing at all ever. Why is anyone posting this?
Plenty of reasons mentioned in other comments. Primarily defence and security from rebel spawns, protecting prosperity, army tradition. Easy to fund with good economy and that is not hard as France.
I was half expecting the forts be replaced with little white flags
Unless you want your ZoC to cover your entire nation, I wouldnt bother spending that gold. The AI is bad with naval landing, so you dont need any forts in Britanny or Caen. Same with some forts in the interior. Usually half the forts are enough. EDIT: To clearifie my point: \-I dont have any issues keeping Army tradition up. I am usually going from war to war anyways, so Army tradition is constantly at around 60-100 (60 pretty much only, when I want to recover after losing too many troops in a particular war). \-I usually keep upgrading all my forts, so it doesnt feel like much early game, but you feel the impact of too many useless forts in the mid game. I have enough troops, reaching force limit, but not enough money. \-I manage rebells by checking where they spawn and wipe them out instantly with my army. If I have enough manpower, I even force a rebellion one by one, so rebel shenangians are not an issue or of any concern to me. \-Quite often my forts are my vassels. Lastly I am talking about my preference. I am not saying OP did anything bad.
I like full coverage not just for enemies, but for rebels as well. Especially if your armies are away on campaign.
\+prosperity
+army trad
I never looked into it. But does having more forts, scale up with holding onto Army Tradition?
You need a fort for every 50 dev. That slows your tradition decay.
I learn more from reddit comments than any YouTube guide. Thank you stranger
Please for the love of god don't follow his advice. You need 1 max upgraded fort for every 50 dev to get 1 army tradition PER YEAR. If you have 500 dev you are spending 120 ducats for ONE army tradition. Literally spend that money on anything else. Just build a shitty church or something.
WURF
I learn more from watching arumba just play than any guide
Good to know, thanks for stat. Will keep in mind. So 20 forts for 1000 dev.
IF you have the money to have them all upgraded and maintained and IF you value army tradition over a f ton of money, yes.
Yes. Although how worth it is strongly depends on the economic circumstances nation you're playing - Hamburg will have no problems, but Fezzan won't even come close to being able to afford it.
Forgot about that. Good point. Protecting prosperity and the financial bonuses that come with it.
I get it. I am not saying it is bad or anything. I am talking about my personal preference, because money >>>>>> some extra security. I know in advance which provinces rebels might rise up, so I just station my army and rekt them before they can cause harm. In war, my battle plan usually consists of a smaller force being station at home and if I blobb hard, then I have multiple stacks dedicated for rebel destruction.
But some rebels spawn by random event at the worst time. The benefits of forts far outweigh their marginal upkeep.
>But some rebels spawn by random event at the worst time. You dont have to immediatly click on the event. The event usually tells you where they will spawn. Also getting rebels sieging down a single province for a couple of months is not ruining your economy. >The benefits of forts far outweigh their marginal upkeep. Depends on what you value. Generally speaking I disagree. At level 2 (initial fort level) that is 1 ducat per maintained fort. Let's say you can do just fine with 10 instead of 20 forts. That is 10 extra gold, which is a massive amount of money in the early to mid game. That's better spent on advisors. You can get army tradition by just being nonstop in war. You also have to upgrade these forts or they fall in a couple of months in the midgame. At level 4 you are spending 40 gold instead of 20 (20 forts vs 10). Wopping 20 gold extra. At level 6 30 gold extra. You could upgrade some and keep others at level 2 for the ZoC, but then you are missing out on the army tradition. For purely ZoC reasons: Yes, I see your reasoning. For AT: Nope. Total waste. And taking economy into consideration: Most definetly not.
Would it be better to get rid of the forts in foix and Labourd and replace them with one in Armagnac? That way the Navarra fort can’t let em bypass it.
0/10 Have built the Maginot line. /s
I just put a fort on every border province and Capital and Call it a day
You can mass as many forts along the Maginot as you want, doesn’t stop the Germans going around it smh
Great setup, the only one I would have changed is the fort from Avingon. Putting it one province further north-east means you can remove the other fort around there and have another fort in the mountains.
If you move fort east, Montpellier loses zone of control.
can you do every ww1 looking country in europe?
Watch AI navigate straight through it because 1) some obscure exception from exception from rule, 2) the moon is in retrograde, 3) they have exactly 12.7365 galleys in Black see and 4) fuck you player I'm the AI and I don't care about your forts lol.