The value of Castles vs Towns

[pyerr]

Idea how to make castles more unique, also help AI with higher tier troops. I wish for castles to be more military oriented, and cities more taxes oriented like they are right now. Castles could have unique "rise levy" option - ability to instantly recruit high tier soldiers but directly from population (prosperity). Like trade-off more military strength but at the cost of crippling your economy,and it make sense for medieval time line (I also think this option is good way to replace 10% AI lords respawn , at least it make more sense). Off course, this option should have with certain limitations:
-max number of "rise levy" troops could be 50 or percentage of overall prosperity number in castle
-only owner of the castle have this option
-minimum prosperity to use this option could be 750-800
-cooldown for using this option, no idea how many days
-"Levy troops" could be tier 3
-to prevent manipulation "levy troops" could be marked with special icon "loyal to lord X" and can't be transfered to other Lords
-after war, if some of them survive they could be disbanded in the same castle where raised, and converted back to prosperity
-"Levy troops" couldn't be upgraded beyond their original level when raised

Also adding new unique buildings for castles could be cool idea for this option, to force player/AI to actually invest before use this option:
-infantry barracks level 1 = "levy infantry" level 2
-infantry barracks level 2 = "levy infantry" level 3
-infantry barracks level 3 = "levy infantry" level 4
Same thing for archer barracks and cavalry barracks
For me personally this idea make sense, and it's a good way prevent overall "out of control" prosperity growth (food shortage problem in late game)

 

[Bannerman Man]

Great thoughts but this just violates the realistic idea of the game. The troops are not gonna eat triple amount because they are sieging. Not able to buy in enemy towns is already a soft restriction in this respect.

Nah, you're right. That was just the least convoluted/complicated way I could think of to 'simulate' your (non-existent) supply lines being harassed by the castle garrison. In either case you wind up with a food supply that runs out faster. The tooltip could have a negative modifier that reads, "Supply Lines Raided by Castle" to make it clear what was going on. Even if supply lines aren't an actual mechanic this is a way of abstractly adding them to the game. Double or triple rate would probably be too harsh for the current food economy as it is though. Maybe a 'Logistics' perk under leadership could be made to lower the penalty rate.

Another soft approach in my opinion would be, making the invading army/party that goes too deep into enemy territory (like going past two castles/towns) visible to all lords in the kingdom, and nearby lords would actually gather to fend off the invader.

I like that! Especially if the AI were smart enough to then maneuver behind you to cut off your path of retreat.

the castle sends out a force to harass you, causing you to lose troops from attrition faster than you would otherwise.

That's a good idea! Physical "raiding parties" that follow your army around and make sieging more difficult. Rather than just passively affecting attrition you could even set it up so there's a chance of a 'Skirmish Battle' event breaking out where a small subset of your troops representing a "scouting party" fights the raiders in the field so that losses are more tangible and you have a chance of eliminating the raiding party with good tactics. The player could control a random high tier troop during the battle. Setting it up that way would make it more obvious to the player that bypassing the castle is risky.

I think the garrisons should be mobile, if you have a governor there, and patrol around killing bandits, protecting nearby villages from raids, and so forth.

Good thought! Allowing governors to take or dispatch some/all of the garrison out on missions gives them more purpose and would make it more worthwhile to place a governor in a forward facing castle. It would simultaneously solve the issue of bandit clearing being tedious for the player. Just give AI governors cautious behavior so that you don't randomly lose your entire garrison to the AI making a dumb decision. As it stands, governors aren't a good use of a companion slot.

All good ideas guys, keep 'em coming.

 

[Bloody Bill]

Castles and town in all M&B games always been next to useless. Don't see that changing in any version.

 

[wendoll]

Taking out castles is pretty strategic and easier than taking out a city. If you look at what kind of resources they're creating such as Food or Iron (for their smithies inside the cities) you can take out those castles to weaken the enemy without risking a lot of troops or resort to cheesing. Castles were mainly political back in the day and not what the movies seem to have you believe. Many of the largest cities did have fortified strongholds.

Maybe castles should give you more influence than cities and i do like the idea of castles being where noble recruits come from.

 

[Bannerman Man]

Taking out castles is pretty strategic and easier than taking out a city. If you look at what kind of resources they're creating such as Food of Iron for their smithys you can take out those castles to weaken the enemy without risking a lot of troops or resort to cheesing.

Yep! It's not obvious to a lot of players right now, but castles do play a large part in the economy of nearby towns. If you take a take a castle from an enemy that's two villages that are no longer supplying their town with goods, and two extra villages that are now supplying a nearby allied town instead. Four village swing in most cases.

 

[wendoll]

Exactly, there are so many cities that have little to no food fiefs and rely on the castle to produce them. Now when I'm looking at where to target an area I look at all the fiefs and what will benefit me the most or hurt them the most. Typically i look for food fiefs =]

 

[Askorti]

That's a good idea! Physical "raiding parties" that follow your army around and make sieging more difficult. Rather than just passively affecting attrition you could even set it up so there's a chance of a 'Skirmish Battle' event breaking out where a small subset of your troops representing a "scouting party" fights the raiders in the field so that losses are more tangible and you have a chance of eliminating the raiding party with good tactics. The player could control a random high tier troop during the battle. Setting it up that way would make it more obvious to the player that bypassing the castle is risky.

That sounds great. But it would add too much work for TW, and I really don't think they really want to expand all that much anymore. I think it's better to keep it simple.

 

[Bannerman Man]

That sounds great. But it would add too much work for TW, and I really don't think they really want to expand all that much anymore. I think it's better to keep it simple.

True, I agree! TW has enough on their plate as it stands. That's why I kept my own suggestions on the simple side. It's still fun to imagine mechanics like that though.

 

[Dodgy]

They definitely need some love.

I like some of the ideas in here, especially patrol units, and also good call on adding back feasts, as well as being able to dedicate tournaments to the ladies, and ministrels and... basically all the things that for whatever reason have not been brought forward from Warband.

I understand NEW features being still worked on, but I can't see how is it possible for a game 8 years in the making to be still missing features from the previous iteration of their own game.

 

[grunwalder01]

As the player, what are some mechanics that might convince you guys to take a castle that is between you and the town you want before you move on to the town? So rather than hardcoded limitations that force the player to take a castle first, like artificial barriers that block movement (i.e. 'chokepoints'), what are some dynamic things that might make you hesitate to campaign beyond that castle?

Like, what if enemy castles had a 'zone of slowness' around them that only applied to your army's movement speed, making a pursuing army more likely to catch you in case you're forced to retreat from deep within enemy territory? Would you decide that venturing too far is risky?

Or maybe if an enemy town was further from your nearest fief than an enemy castle (meaning the town is 'past' the castle), your army consumed double or triple food during sieges. That would mean only besieging border fiefs would be viable if you want to consume the normal food cost. (That might simulate your 'supply lines' being in jeopardy).

If you start doing things like 'binding' castles to towns and forcing the player to take those first you might end up with weird cases where a castle is actually further away than a town, but you must take it first anyway.

I personally don't think the game should gate you into taking castles first if you really don't want to. Just introduce mechanics that make it riskier to bypass castles so the player decides that taking a castle first is strategically the better option. Then you can pick out the ones that you can feasibly program an AI into accounting for and implement those.

This is exactly what i want. Currently, castles are just income sources and a place to store your troops.
Castles also should have patrols that attack bandits and enemy caravans, villagers, small parties.
Also, for some castles in mountain passages (like the ones in Battania's borders) "zone of slowness" can be even "zone of no passage".
Another idea is castles can have massengers that notifies all lords of the kingdom when enemy parties are detected. This was even present in warband lol.

 

[Von Winterfeld]

I think the simulation of sieges isn't correct either, at the moment. The AI can summon up huge armies of 600-1200 men and overwhelm a castle or town garrison of 200-400 men with ease. If there isn't a multiplier advantage for being behind fortifications, there should be! If a town has 150 garrison soldiers and 250-300 militia, they should be able to hold off an attacking force of twice their size since they will have the interior lines for movement, be fighting from behind walls and able to enfilade attackers with archery and war machines.

 

[Chiatroll]

Yeah, there it's pretty bad then you are given a fief by the new lord you swore to and having it be a castle instead of a city. Any defensible level of army in a castle that doesn't lead to it instantly going away isn't even going to make up for the taxes easily.

 

[Urbanski]

+1

I agree, like the ideas OP...noble line recruits definitely, limited market with just the basic goods plus produce from linked villages, smithy, storage, training grounds for troops to level low tier troops.

We need a reason to go to castles, right now there is almost none unless you are dropping off prisoners or you own it.

I'm not sure about having them being attacked first, that feels a little too forced, it would slow down the snowball a little. Perhaps castles could be used as a muster point for creating armies which would give them strategic significance.

 

[Helstrom]

There is some good stuff in here. I am on board with anything here. I am not sure why they didn't make it more realistic. Castles, palaces, and forts.

Palaces are your or other kings places of residence. Heavily defended and place of most prosperous city. Castles, lands of the nobles well defended and capable of patrols to protect villages, patrols come from garrison. Forts, built around small towns, motte and bailey, no keep though.

 

[Badcritter]

enfilade

You win a prize for appropriately using a word I don't think I've ever heard used before.

 

[Mattar19K]

As it stands right now castles do not offer anything unique and are just extremely poor versions of a town.
Castles should be in strategic locations that you HAVE to attack before you can move past.
And they should have some unique buildings/mechanics not available to towns so that they actually have some worth.
War horse workshop/stable.
Stronger fortifications.
Troop training facility.
Noble line recruitment.
Lower garrison cost no militia just trained soldiers.
Dedicated military armourers/smiths for maintenance of equipment to coincide with the maintenance idea from this thread - https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...nance-troop-upgrades-supply-and-trade.422598/
Any other ideas and suggestions peeps ?

I like the idea that you can only recruit your noble troop lines from castles.

 

[Von Winterfeld]

You win a prize for appropriately using a word I don't think I've ever heard used before.

Cheers!