How can castles be made important in your opinion?

Users who are viewing this thread

Totalgarbage

Sergeant Knight
While the addition of the castellan building and the change to trade bound settlements have helped castles a good deal, there's still little purpose in owning one over a town. In my opinion, to make castles actually worth it to own, both castles and fief ownership in general needs several changes:

First, and most importantly, you shouldn't even be considered as a candidate for owning a town unless you have a lot of renown and influence within the faction. Being able the own a town on the first day we pledge allegiance to a faction as a tier 2 clan is immersion breaking (unless we had a significant amount of relations & influence beforehand) and it badly affects the progression of the game. Owning towns should of course be better than owning castles, but the fact towns are given out to any rando like candy makes it pointless to own a castle.

Secondly, castles are mostly defensive fortifications rather than a proper settlement. It's theoretical purpose is to provide security to the nearby domains of it's holder. Castles shouldn't even have loyalty and security since they can't even rebel (and therefore no fairgrounds and no loyalty boosting daily). But more importantly, castles should have unique buildings that provide bonuses to its villages. A village with a castle a building should make villages harder to raid (by having more militia and/or it taking longer to raid), another building should increase hearths or village production, and another should for example increase the size of the villager party, etc..

What do you think? What would you suggest to make castles better than they currently are right now?
 
Castles in warband and bannerlord are basically just crappy towns, half way between a village and a town, which is really stupid and means they add nothing to the game. Towns should be the real moneymakers, but should have crappy garrisons and surrender almost immediately. Then Castles should be used to defend them on the strategic level by having very large patrol armies around them.

For this reason I think castles should actually cost money. In an ideal world the player and AI could actually build and demolish them, which really shouldn't be that hard to implement, but in warband the absurd spaghetti code made this way harder than necessary, so who knows what it's like in bannerlord.
 
They should give castles a better defense calculation for autosim, allowing them to have slightly smaller garrison, by allowing them to have a third 'sally out' group. If a nearby allied town is under siege/about to be, nearby castles can form their own mini defense army to help said town or temp bolster town garrison.
Or even % chance to aid the battle despite the omniscient 'known' calculated loss (which is still an issue imo with armies flipflopping objectives) in order to produce further attrition against an army so they can't take fief after fief as much as they could if they targeted castles first to reduce reinforcements to a town.

All that said, there's no way for the player to influence AI armies so none of this would work unless they actually add better decision making/objectives for armies.
 
Castles in warband and bannerlord are basically just crappy towns, half way between a village and a town, which is really stupid and means they add nothing to the game. Towns should be the real moneymakers, but should have crappy garrisons and surrender almost immediately. Then Castles should be used to defend them on the strategic level by having very large patrol armies around them.
Sounds like too complex
 
Castles should have "mini lords" to attack bandits and their settlements :wink:

Governor: defend the castle or the city? for I did not see him during the siege. It would be nice if each npc had a special guard around him, i.e. soldiers who would survive a few battles at the last stage of promotion. Of course, such units would be limited to 5-30 units
 
I don't want to invent a bicycle, but it would be nice if the locks performed their main function, protected the territories, many different options have already been expressed above, I just have to offer some kind of crutch option in the form of a control zone from Total war, in the sense that the enemy who moves in the control zone of the castle slows down by 15% and loses supplies in winter, not the most beautiful way to give locks meaning, but effective because there will be a need to fight for control zones
 
Be an obstacle the prohibits travel by enemies further into the area, they must take the castles first.
OR grant auto calc bonuses to fiefs behind it, so attacking deeper in fiefs is always less attractive.
Castle has a small and large patrol, large patrol will actively join in battles near it castle, small patrol will capture bandits and small lord parties.
Castle can fire ballista at enemy parties in a certain range, this and the large patrol means fighting near castles is an advantage.
Castles provide a NEW elite troop in small supply to the owner or faction ruler.
Castles have a training barraks (separate from garrison) where troops can be stored and will gain exp and rank up at a modest cost. Can by-pass mounts needed but mounted units cost more, reason being if you have to keep microing to upgrade mounted units this become useless, it's only good if you can drop of low tiers and come back later and pick 20 t6s.
 
The idea that in reality towns were easier to conquer than castles is not realistic. Fortified towns were frequently much tougher nuts to crack than castles, because of the higher number of defenders alone. BL should not make towns soft targets. Castles one the other hand frequently were not pure defense structures but centres of administration and bases for patrols to contol the surroundings, and also places to live.

I agree with the OP that it should be almost impossible to get a town as player right on. You should start with a small fief and develop. I would make towns much more prosperous than castles btw and much more money hubs than currently in the the game. Getting a town should be a big deal.

I would like castles to be like this:
1. There are some vendors with a restricted offering to buy and sell, as castles usually had some production facilities.
2. Castles allow patrols (like in Improved Garrison mod, which surely everybody uses, or not?)
3. Castles spawn Veteran Militia, but few.
4. Castles have 50% garrison costs by default.
5. Noble units can only be recruited in castles, if you are a vassal, not in villages for any faction. Nobles should be recruitable in towns if you are a mercenary for the faction. (that is probably not for anybody's taste ...).
6. Artillery is permanent, the owner can decide what to build where.
7. Castle walls III are very resistant and cannot be attacked with ladders. Castle gates are much stronger than town gates.
8. There is almost a guarantee that you get a castle again if it was conquered and reconquered.
9. Castles allow to convince the smaller population to cultural changes over time.
 
Last edited:
The idea that in reality towns were easier to conquer than castles is not realistic. Fortified towns were frequently much tougher nuts to crack than castles, because of the higher number of defenders alone. BL should not make towns soft targets. Castles one the other hand frequently were not pure defense structures but centres of administration and bases for patrols to contol the surroundings, and also places to live.

Yes but this is a video game that has drawn a clear distinction between the two. In reality there was no clear cut difference between a castle and a town, but on the extreme ends in the middle ages you had small strongpoint fortifications and vast cities with holes in their walls. Having castles rely on towns and vice versa would be a lot more interesting to me than "castles are just small crappy towns"
 
Castles can be connected to towns and the town in question can not be besieged or it's villages raided unless the connected castles are taken over first. More prosperous towns and castles that mean something strategically.
 
This is hard, because you can't make a Castle better than a Town, but Castles need something.

I like the idea of Castles giving a bonus to Hearth growth. The Castles are also placed to be tied to a Town. So the Castle can be associated with a Town, and when in the same Kingdom give a bonus to the Town's villages as well. Something Loyalty of the Castle -75 divided by 100. Then a Castle with a 100 Loyalty would give a bonus of 0.25 to the Hearth growth rate of the Castle villages and 0.12 to the Town villages.

Castles should also be better defended. They probably need +1 Militia and at the start of every siege fight, not on the world map, they get 4 Ballista.
 
I could see castles getting tolls from caravans passing through their area and having parties spawn that intercept caravans and plunder them.

Also all villages may be owned by a castle and castles belonging to towns. With the intent being an isolated town at war having a hard time being supplied.
 
Be an obstacle the prohibits travel by enemies further into the area, they must take the castles first.
OR grant auto calc bonuses to fiefs behind it, so attacking deeper in fiefs is always less attractive.
Castle has a small and large patrol, large patrol will actively join in battles near it castle, small patrol will capture bandits and small lord parties.
Castle can fire ballista at enemy parties in a certain range, this and the large patrol means fighting near castles is an advantage.
Castles provide a NEW elite troop in small supply to the owner or faction ruler.
Castles have a training barraks (separate from garrison) where troops can be stored and will gain exp and rank up at a modest cost. Can by-pass mounts needed but mounted units cost more, reason being if you have to keep microing to upgrade mounted units this become useless, it's only good if you can drop of low tiers and come back later and pick 20 t6s.
Agree with all your points.
I would like to see this special elite group in the garrison to be the only source of noble troops in the game. You have to own the castle or have a high relationship with the owner and no negative score with the owners kingdom. This would make you want to own castles.

I like the patrol options.

I would like to see a zone of control where only parties or armies with a higher strength than the garrison can pass by. This would allow armies to march into enemy territory but will stop small raiding parties and caravans.
 
Be an obstacle the prohibits travel by enemies further into the area, they must take the castles first.
OR grant auto calc bonuses to fiefs behind it, so attacking deeper in fiefs is always less attractive.
Castle has a small and large patrol, large patrol will actively join in battles near it castle, small patrol will capture bandits and small lord parties.
Castle can fire ballista at enemy parties in a certain range, this and the large patrol means fighting near castles is an advantage.
Castles provide a NEW elite troop in small supply to the owner or faction ruler.
Castles have a training barraks (separate from garrison) where troops can be stored and will gain exp and rank up at a modest cost. Can by-pass mounts needed but mounted units cost more, reason being if you have to keep microing to upgrade mounted units this become useless, it's only good if you can drop of low tiers and come back later and pick 20 t6s.
Yeah, I love all these, but I'm a bit apprehensive on the effects of an auto-resolve buff on AI's effectiveness in taking fiefs. Other than that, these suggestions are very nice.
 
This in particular is a topic that has been the subject of discussion since even before the launch of Bannerlord in 2020...

I still feel the same way:
Terco_Viejo said:
  • Castles as the only place to recruit noble/elite troops from the hand of a castellar, sarjeant or other form of notable npc.
  • Possibility to define patrols in surrounding areas.
  • Allied troop sheltering
  • Training bonus (quicker leveling up for troops garrisoned there)
  • Zone of control*
(*) Repositioning of castles at strategic and bottleneck points in world map needed.


Be an obstacle the prohibits travel by enemies further into the area, they must take the castles first.
OR grant auto calc bonuses to fiefs behind it, so attacking deeper in fiefs is always less attractive.
Castle has a small and large patrol, large patrol will actively join in battles near it castle, small patrol will capture bandits and small lord parties.
Castle can fire ballista at enemy parties in a certain range, this and the large patrol means fighting near castles is an advantage.
Castles provide a NEW elite troop in small supply to the owner or faction ruler.
Castles have a training barraks (separate from garrison) where troops can be stored and will gain exp and rank up at a modest cost. Can by-pass mounts needed but mounted units cost more, reason being if you have to keep microing to upgrade mounted units this become useless, it's only good if you can drop of low tiers and come back later and pick 20 t6s.

I like the idea of partially decimating an army/warband that gets too close to the walls in campaign map... I know one game that it does in campaign map but I can't remember it... but very much in the vein of Empire Earth and other analogous titles. However, I'd rather have the possibility of having patrolling functions in the surrounding area to deal with small groups (faction warbands or bandits) than having this artillery element.

On top of that, I would put recruitment. The castle should be the only available source for recruiting elite troops, the ONLY source. Right now it's a joke how the recruitment system is defined... if I had my way.
 
Last edited:
This in particular is a topic that has been the subject of discussion since even before the launch of Bannerlord in 2020...

I still feel the same way:





I like the idea of partially decimating an army/warband that gets too close to the walls in campaign map... I know one game that it does in campaign map but I can't remember it... but very much in the vein of Empire Earth and other analogous titles. However, I'd rather have the possibility of having patrolling functions in the surrounding area to deal with small groups (faction warbands or bandits) than having this artillery element.

On top of that, I would put recruitment. The castle should be the only available source for recruiting elite troops, the ONLY source. Right now it's a joke how the recruitment system is defined... if I had my way.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I like all the suggestions you've given except zone of control. I think that it has having a zone of control that slows down the enemy and/or fires shots at them will be hit or miss as a mechanic and has the inherent problem of slowing down faction snowball (which at this point I am against). Of course, I might be misunderstanding what you meant as a zone of control, and I like the idea of making castles in strategic positions having the ability to slow down or stop enemies, but I'm worried about it's possible implementation. If you have an example where such a mechanic has in your opinion been implemented meaningfully without making the game less fun, I'm more than welcome to check it out and be proven wrong.
 
I like all the suggestions you've given except zone of control. I think that it has having a zone of control that slows down the enemy and/or fires shots at them will be hit or miss as a mechanic and has the inherent problem of slowing down faction snowball (which at this point I am against). Of course, I might be misunderstanding what you meant as a zone of control, and I like the idea of making castles in strategic positions having the ability to slow down or stop enemies, but I'm worried about it's possible implementation. If you have an example where such a mechanic has in your opinion been implemented meaningfully without making the game less fun, I'm more than welcome to check it out and be proven wrong.
The Warband mod "12th" had a strict zone of control system for towns and castles. Any party larger than 20 could not pass through an enemy zone of control at all, except to siege the fief. And the map was designed with this in mind, with castles and towns placed every strategic pass and river crossing.

I thought it was a huge improvement that really changed how wars played out. It created real frontlines, with all the action taking place where it actually made sense. It made castles very important since a well-placed castle might be the only thing keeping the enemy from raiding all your interior territories.

If I were to change anything about it, I'd make it so that only castles had the zone of control effect. I don't think towns were in the business of policing the surrounding countryside and with all the trading traffic coming in and out they probably wouldn't be very effective at it. The system did have occasional problems, like if you had an ally fighting inside the zone, you wouldn't be able to reach him to help. But that's more of a mod limitation. If the game was made with zones of control in mind, that probably wouldn't be a problem

I also like the idea of a soft zone of control, where passing near a castle slows enemy parties down and makes them vulnerable. But I doubt that the AI would be smart enough to know when it should avoid those zones and when it should risk going through if it had to get somewhere fast.
 
The Warband mod "12th" had a strict zone of control system for towns and castles. Any party larger than 20 could not pass through an enemy zone of control at all, except to siege the fief. And the map was designed with this in mind, with castles and towns placed every strategic pass and river crossing.

I thought it was a huge improvement that really changed how wars played out. It created real frontlines, with all the action taking place where it actually made sense. It made castles very important since a well-placed castle might be the only thing keeping the enemy from raiding all your interior territories.

If I were to change anything about it, I'd make it so that only castles had the zone of control effect. I don't think towns were in the business of policing the surrounding countryside and with all the trading traffic coming in and out they probably wouldn't be very effective at it. The system did have occasional problems, like if you had an ally fighting inside the zone, you wouldn't be able to reach him to help. But that's more of a mod limitation. If the game was made with zones of control in mind, that probably wouldn't be a problem

I also like the idea of a soft zone of control, where passing near a castle slows enemy parties down and makes them vulnerable. But I doubt that the AI would be smart enough to know when it should avoid those zones and when it should risk going through if it had to get somewhere fast.
That sounds really impressive, was the pass system actually fun and balanced to play with or was it something neat that added immersion but made the gameplay worse/less fun?
 
The problem with zone of control: It is very arbitrary and while okayish with something like Paradox games which have a tile system pretty clunky for realtime like Bannerlord.

Plain fact is also that the idea of frontlines is only something of 20th century war. Not how things worked before, kinda the very reason you had so many castles simply so people could seek refuge.
However one must say Europe had tens of thousands of castles and probably hundreds of fortifiedcities. In a war usually only specific ones mattered in a military sense that would make an army siege them: Namely those protecting bridges or other geographic bottlenecks or having politicial influence that determined if a region was for or against someone.

I guess one could start with bridges not being randomly on the map without a castle or settlement there which immediately would affect mobility of the opposing side, if they had to run around the river or somewhere where they control the bridge. And controling these things was what made castles important economically as well, when they allowed controlling the flow of trade through a region.

The history of my town into a state capital essentially is based on its lord sabotaging a bridge further up river to shuffle the trade through his bridge instead.
 
Back
Top Bottom