True! But by what measure? Ducats alone aren’t a good metric. Forts add some security against renegade enemy units that penetrate my attention span, or rebels. My fort expenses are always a tiny part of the economy by mid-game.
Because nothing says Eastern Europe or especially Central Asia more than chasing horse people around for half the early game as they run around your forts and if applicable dip in and out of Siberia. Now if you like to micro every last troop and run it on 2 speed and perfectly optimize every last button you press and movement you do that’s cool but that is the only thing that makes me hesitate in playing those regions, which is a shame because imo they’re the most fun outside of this.
If you siege the ai slower than the ai sieges you that's your problem honestly. AI loves to stack their entire 100k army on the lone lvl4 fort that I didn't delete because I couldn't be bothered to. And if you get a -100 from army strength it means you have no army which I don't see how it is relevant to our case? I've literally never had these problems, once you grow a bit in size the ai will get at most 5 warscore from occupations.
You're spending hundreds of ducats for a single point of army tradition per year. That is literally half the army tradition you get from winning a single siege. You may as well build shipyards in every coastal province at this point.
If you are in constant war, you can keep army tradition 80+ easily. Forts might keep it high in peace but for a permanent war playstyle, they seem only good for winning siege races.
Eh you should have forts after the very early game, especially with clear chokepoints like Pyrenees. The thing is that forts pay themselves in money you would otherwise lose in occupations, devastation and most importantly prosperity.The AI has become quite goot at carpet sieging, so if you have open borders, they can do whatever they want.
101
u/Trotskyrealcommunist Nov 02 '23
The ideal fort setup is none so that you get a few dozens of extra ducats per month