How to make castles matter

Users who are viewing this thread

Would also make more sense.
There was a mod that fixed nearly every castle problem by simply relocating them, and sometimes change the area around them so that you were not able to pass through certain areas without having to through a castle.
Just like you have to.
That combined with another mod that randomly kills troops of yours when you pass by an enemy castle makes them really dangerous.
 
I like the idea of having the AI prioritize castles on its border, rather than deep in the interior of an enemy faction. Raids should be just that, RAIDS, not extended operations behind enemy lines without a secure line of supply. Attack a village, or two at most, then flee back to friendly territory before the enemy gathers an army to kick your impudent posterior. There should be no way to carry a year's worth of supplies.
 
Man if only towns villages castles had more customization and maybe had similar mechanics as total war that would be great, its soo watered down what we have today and simplistic, I love deep and immersive systems.
 
Man if only towns villages castles had more customization and maybe had similar mechanics as total war that would be great, its soo watered down what we have today and simplistic, I love deep and immersive systems.

Many kids do not, I think that's a big % of steam buyers. Most people buy a game and play it for three weeks and move on to the next.
 
Many kids do not, I think that's a big % of steam buyers. Most people buy a game and play it for three weeks and move on to the next.

Yeah and usual games get worst when games/companies go this road, commerical and trying too go for broader audience can go terribly wrong or good but thats usually money wise, and dont get me started on MP and how they butchered it.
 
Maybe make it so that castles can attack you in real time on the map. If you pass by them, their archers and siege engines could shoot a volley of fire at you and damage your units and stuff. Also AI lords could build fortifications to serve the same purpose. That should be a thing during sieges as well, the 2 armies should shoot back and forth while building the siege camp etc... but instead we have a simplistic system and an abusable mechanic that lets you put in reserve siege engines and then they all pop out of thin air and take out the enemy defensive engines and walls... I wish for a more in-depth system. Trebuchets should not be able to go in reserve. Maybe if catapults have wheels you could do that, but other than that I don't see the sense in it...
 
Currently, castles have no strategic role. Any army can just ignore enemy castles located along the faction border and directly attack the capital city located deep in the enemy territory. This is annoying, unrealistic, and not fun.

So here are my suggestions.
1. Greatly increase the food consumption per unit (at least x5 current consumption rate) so that no one can just roam around the entire continent with hundreds of army without a constant influx of food supply, which will be more and more difficult if you go deeper and deeper into the enemy territory.
2. Implement a concept of "supply train," so if you want to lead your large army to directly attack the "heart" of the enemy faction deep in their territory, you have to depend on your supply trains constantly transporting food from your castle/town/village in your territory all the way to your army's location. If the supply route is blocked by an enemy lord, your troops will be starving and demoralized.

By doing this the enemy castles will form a "natural borderline," which you cannot just ignore and pass by if you want to keep your army well-fed.

Excellent idea ! I like it .. but consider the AI .. the dumb AI

I would also like Watch towers, that players can place on their borders as an early warning.

.
 
Maybe make it so that castles can attack you in real time on the map. If you pass by them, their archers and siege engines could shoot a volley of fire at you and damage your units and stuff. Also AI lords could build fortifications to serve the same purpose. That should be a thing during sieges as well, the 2 armies should shoot back and forth while building the siege camp etc... but instead we have a simplistic system and an abusable mechanic that lets you put in reserve siege engines and then they all pop out of thin air and take out the enemy defensive engines and walls... I wish for a more in-depth system. Trebuchets should not be able to go in reserve. Maybe if catapults have wheels you could do that, but other than that I don't see the sense in it...

I like the idea of castles shooting at parties on the map. Coupled with a decrease of speed for enemy parties near castles that could add some problems for attackers/raiders. It's better than forbidden zones of control Total War like, which is not realistic at all in the small frame warfare we have in BL.

Your second proposal I see more critically. An attacker could usually build siege engines out of range of the engines of the defender, except big heavy trebuchets. But such trebuchets would have had longer reach than catapults and wall crossbows, and the defender could do nothing against their making, except he had similar trebuchets in his fortress. So also trebuchets should go into reserve, except the settlement has trebuchets itself. Are there settlements with trebuchets? Could be a special add for certain settlements; then no siege engine should be able to be put into reserve.

Of course the artillery warfare with wall breaking throwing machines in BL is nonsense, as usually also big trebuchets could not break stone walls. But we don't have the more realistic means of bringing walls down (mining), so we need to keep the throwers useful for sieging.
 
I like the idea of castles shooting at parties on the map. Coupled with a decrease of speed for enemy parties near castles that could add some problems for attackers/raiders. It's better than forbidden zones of control Total War like, which is not realistic at all in the small frame warfare we have in BL.

Your second proposal I see more critically. An attacker could usually build siege engines out of range of the engines of the defender, except big heavy trebuchets. But such trebuchets would have had longer reach than catapults and wall crossbows, and the defender could do nothing against their making, except he had similar trebuchets in his fortress. So also trebuchets should go into reserve, except the settlement has trebuchets itself. Are there settlements with trebuchets? Could be a special add for certain settlements; then no siege engine should be able to be put into reserve.

Of course the artillery warfare with wall breaking throwing machines in BL is nonsense, as usually also big trebuchets could not break stone walls. But we don't have the more realistic means of bringing walls down (mining), so we need to keep the throwers useful for sieging.

yes the system definitely needs work... also I wonder how many trebuchets were there built historically to pressure a castle. Would anyone ever build 4 trebuchets just for the heck of it? Maybe make them built further away (out of range of ballistas etc), and limit it to 1 or to 2, and give the defensive party a spot for a trebuchet as well further back. Also instead of "reserve", build other siege engines further back and press a button where they advance when you want to. And they're too accurate when taking down enemy siege engines... honestly, it needs a lot of work. The system definitely needs improvement, and I hope it can be made better in time... Also tunnels would be really dope, but I dont think that will ever be an official thing
 
Last edited:
I'm not an expert on medieval sieges or warfare generally but I got the impression that building a really big trebuchet with a massive counterweight was a lot of work and I often read about "the trebuchet" what was build and used in sieging. Surely depended on the size of the army (was it a kingly army for example or not) and the object which was sieged. In the late medieval period on bigger sieges surely more than one trebuchet was used. In the 15th c. AD trebuchets were seemingly often used in addition to (the much more powerful) powder artillery, to throw over the walls and terrorize the defenders, maybe that were smaller pieces, so more could be build easily.

To refer to some smaller sieges as examples:
In the siege of the castle Tannenberg (1399 AD, in today Germany) besides smaller cannons also a big trebuchet was used. A stone thrown by it was found in the castle tower's ruin, it weights 287 kg! (which is extremely high weight compared to other trebuchet projectiles found) However the trebuchet was seemingly not that effective because the attackers later catched a big cannon which shot about 40 balls (about 170 kg each) at the castle, breaking it's walls. BTW the defenders only surrendered after the powder magazine of the castle exploded (allegedly, but who knows).

To siege the castle Eltz (1331-33 AD), the attackers built their own castle and installed at least one trebuchet on it. The distance between the castles was about 230 m. The castle was bombarded for about two years with stones weighting about 30 kg, without much actual effect on the walls, then the defenders surrendered, for other reasons.
 
Last edited:
Something needs to be done because right now there is no reason to own a castle. I just bypass them and take the cities because they are easier to siege and they boost my economy. All castles do is cost me money for no reason.
 
Man if only towns villages castles had more customization and maybe had similar mechanics as total war that would be great, its soo watered down what we have today and simplistic, I love deep and immersive systems.
So true. Why can villages no longer be upgraded like in warband? The warband system was as simplistic as fk yet TW managed to simplify it for BL by removing village upgrades completely. I thought we would have epic customization or at least like you said - total war. Money sinks are needed so theres a perfect opportunity there, but no.

I remember one Resonant youtuber video where he was talking about one dev blog, saying there would be competition in cities with your smithies etc, and you could buy out the competition if they were getting too cocky etc. But theres no life whatsoever anywhere except the battles right now.

A good start to improve on that would be the OP's suggestion being implemented, or some other way to make castles at all useful besides a garrison option.
 
Many kids do not, I think that's a big % of steam buyers. Most people buy a game and play it for three weeks and move on to the next.
I think it has to do with Taleworlds offering and not with players not wanting them. You can even have all of those systems without losing the simplicity, this is not an intended dullness, this is lack of creativeness dullness
 
So true. Why can villages no longer be upgraded like in warband? The warband system was as simplistic as fk yet TW managed to simplify it for BL by removing village upgrades completely. I thought we would have epic customization or at least like you said - total war. Money sinks are needed so theres a perfect opportunity there, but no.

I remember one Resonant youtuber video where he was talking about one dev blog, saying there would be competition in cities with your smithies etc, and you could buy out the competition if they were getting too cocky etc. But theres no life whatsoever anywhere except the battles right now.

A good start to improve on that would be the OP's suggestion being implemented, or some other way to make castles at all useful besides a garrison option.

That's because initially bannerlord had an awesome upgrade system in fiefs with slots to build economic or defensive buildings and there were only two fief types (village and city) where you could sacrifice an economic slot to build a castle and fortify a village, eventually they scraped this saying it was too difficult for the AI or something like that (can't remember the exactly quote now) and we got this watered down system.
 
That's because initially bannerlord had an awesome upgrade system in fiefs with slots to build economic or defensive buildings and there were only two fief types (village and city) where you could sacrifice an economic slot to build a castle and fortify a village, eventually they scraped this saying it was too difficult for the AI or something like that (can't remember the exactly quote now) and we got this watered down system.

Yeah, what we have now is a vast step down.
 
Something needs to be done because right now there is no reason to own a castle. I just bypass them and take the cities because they are easier to siege and they boost my economy. All castles do is cost me money for no reason.

Then stop garrisoning troops in them. They are free money without a garrison and the militia alone is usually enough to stop the AI from sieging them.
 
They should ditch being able to upgrade bandits into noble troops, remove them from villages and just have castles as the sole source of noble troops.
Make it so you need good relations with the castle owner before you can recruit them, unless you are the castle owner. Then we have a reason to raise relations with lords.

You don't want to make it too complicated by blocking paths off or w/e. The AI is stupid as it is, that would just confuse them more.
 
Back
Top Bottom