World Map - Position of castles and cities now matters

Do you like the idea?

  • No

  • Yes, I like the first idea (changed models and multiple exits)

  • Yes, I like the second idea (blocking area)

  • Yes, I like combination of the two ideas


Results are only viewable after voting.

Alcedo

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Many castles or cities are located in narrow places. In ideal, they must block enemies from passing through but this does not work.

First I thought that it would be cool if such castles or cities had few exit options, depending on where you want to travel and their models are changed so that walls will block the pass. Then I thought it will become annoying at some point, especially if the castle owner dislikes you.

So I think I came up with better idea - an area around the castles and cities that would prevent hostile parties to pass near the settlements. The area must be defied by number of troops in garrison and militia and the walls tier (maybe as a multiplier). This will also solve a problem when you could just stand by enemy gates to starve the garrison out without besieging it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

MightyMidgit

Veteran
Best answers
0
I kind of like a combination of both the first and second idea. You can have some strategically placed castles in some locations that prevent access, but then at the same time others in more open locations can have an area of control. I wish I could vote for both options in the poll.
 

Bannerman Man

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
This will also solve a problem when you could just stand by enemy gates to starve the garrison out without besieging it.
I don't really see this as much of a problem. Functionally it's not much different than sieging a fief. You're still stationary and susceptible to being attacked by enemy armies, and you're still consuming food. However, if you don't actually lay siege you won't cut off the passive food bonuses from orchards and bound villages, so as a result you're starving out the garrison at a slower rate. The two positives I can see from this method would be that the garrison is not able to sally out and you can flee faster if you see an enemy army coming. Also, maybe the AI doesn't respond to the threat properly if it's not classified as a siege. Seems there are pros and cons to each method.
 

GG Cannon

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I actually like both ideas, to be truthful.
Walls forcing you to go through a castle or a town were quite a common thing, but that would also require you to possibly have the ability to break the wall if you are a hostile.
And the area that "blocks" you from passing, instead of blocking could make enemy garrison come out from the castle and engage you if you try to pass and they are bigger and/or stronger than you, which combined with the walls, would create situations where you'd fight without being able to escape.

Not being allowed to pass through somewhere because the lord really dislikes you is actually realistic in my opinion and having to take another route because of that is actually fair in my opinion.
 

Zydrate

Banned
WBNW
Best answers
0
Or just have patrol groups. I mean how hard is this to implement?
Basically patrols would roam within the castle's area of influence, chase and capture or kill outlaws, and talk to other parties, warn them that they're not allowed here, welcome them or something. Pretty basic idea, much more immersive and simple than your second idea I feel.

Or when the option build or camp at a temporary settlement is available, you could have fortresses build in or at the borders of your domain.
 

Klopkr

Recruit
Best answers
0
I wish that castles just generated strong enough patrols.

One of the main things not represented well in this game, especially with big armies, is baggage trains. I think when forming an actual army you should have to pick a city or castle to supply your army and form a line of provision carts between you and that city. If they get disrupted then your army will start to starve quickly and so you'll have to head home. Passing by an unseiged castle on a choke point would therefore be impossible as it could send out parties to disrupt your baggage trains as soon as you leave.

Similarly sieged castles would call out for baggage trains to refill their food supplies if you ever leave the area or let one slip in. Raiding them might be a good source for your own troops food.
 

Alcedo

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I don't really see this as much of a problem. Functionally it's not much different than sieging a fief. You're still stationary and susceptible to being attacked by enemy armies, and you're still consuming food. However, if you don't actually lay siege you won't cut off the passive food bonuses from orchards and bound villages, so as a result you're starving out the garrison at a slower rate.
The two positives I can see from this method would be that the garrison is not able to sally out and you can flee faster if you see an enemy army coming. Also, maybe the AI doesn't respond to the threat properly if it's not classified as a siege. Seems there are pros and cons to each method.
But because the enemy army can't sally out and lords with fewer troops won't even try to leave this feels like an exploit to me. If the area of the settlements is an area, in which enemy garrisons can attack you, this can be a good alternative.
 

Alcedo

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I actually like both ideas, to be truthful.
Walls forcing you to go through a castle or a town were quite a common thing, but that would also require you to possibly have the ability to break the wall if you are a hostile.
And the area that "blocks" you from passing, instead of blocking could make enemy garrison come out from the castle and engage you if you try to pass and they are bigger and/or stronger than you, which combined with the walls, would create situations where you'd fight without being able to escape.

Not being allowed to pass through somewhere because the lord really dislikes you is actually realistic in my opinion and having to take another route because of that is actually fair in my opinion.
Hmm, this is actually the way I would like to see it implemented. I hope it is not too complicated.


🎈 Congratulations on being added to the Top Curated Feedbacks! 🎈
Thank you!!
 

Alcedo

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Or just have patrol groups. I mean how hard is this to implement?
Basically patrols would roam within the castle's area of influence, chase and capture or kill outlaws, and talk to other parties, warn them that they're not allowed here, welcome them or something. Pretty basic idea, much more immersive and simple than your second idea I feel.
Patrols are a good idea but they won't be able to stop an army. My point is to add strategic meaning to settlements while patrols can only affect small battles.

Or when the option build or camp at a temporary settlement is available, you could have fortresses build in or at the borders of your domain.
Wait, is it 'when', not 'if'? I can only dream this to be an feature. If not the devs, then the modders will surely add something like this
 

Alcedo

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I wish that castles just generated strong enough patrols.

One of the main things not represented well in this game, especially with big armies, is baggage trains. I think when forming an actual army you should have to pick a city or castle to supply your army and form a line of provision carts between you and that city. If they get disrupted then your army will start to starve quickly and so you'll have to head home. Passing by an unseiged castle on a choke point would therefore be impossible as it could send out parties to disrupt your baggage trains as soon as you leave.

Similarly sieged castles would call out for baggage trains to refill their food supplies if you ever leave the area or let one slip in. Raiding them might be a good source for your own troops food.
I can hardly imagine how baggage trains could be implemented though technically this could be possible. Maybe if caravans could trade with armies? I don't really know if this is possible but it would be amazing in terms of realism and new gameplay options, especially for early and mid-game when the player has fewer troops.
 

Zydrate

Banned
WBNW
Best answers
0
Patrols are a good idea but they won't be able to stop an army. My point is to add strategic meaning to settlements while patrols can only affect small battles.
How do you expect castles to take action against an army other than sending out skirmish or sallying groups? Exactly the role patrol parties could fulfill.

Wait, is it 'when', not 'if'? I can only dream this to be an feature. If not the devs, then the modders will surely add something like this
There has been so much demand I think they will.
 
Last edited:

Alcedo

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
How do you expect castles to take action against an army other than sending out skirmish or sallying groups? Exactly the role patrol parties could fulfill.
Historically, castles stood on important roads and places that could only be passed through the castle itself or that would make supplying of armies after it impossible. Patrols will be useful if there is army supply system implemented but I think it will be much harder than what I suggested. However, I would love to see patrols implemented as well!
 

Zydrate

Banned
WBNW
Best answers
0
Historically, castles stood on important roads and places that could only be passed through the castle itself or that would make supplying of armies after it impossible.
What you're talking about are fortified constructions such as the Roman Castellum, it's not really a castle, even smaller than an average fortress, but serving more the purpose of watch towers, guarding roads, strategically important and defensible passes, or indeed borders. Almost certainly not where a lord would want his place of residence to be located. As Wikipedia puts it: "Though smaller than a real fortress, they acted as a border guard rather than a real strongpoint to watch and maintain the border." which sounds exactly like what you're suggesting. And again that brings up the idea of small, temporary but fortified and defensible settlements. Defensible until reinforcements from the castle arrive or they're ordered to withdraw.. To the castle.


Patrols will be useful if there is army supply system implemented but I think it will be much harder than what I suggested.
Not necessarily, plenty of uses for them even in the current state of the game. And considerably easier, not harder, not to mention it was a feature in Warband, or maybe its mods, not sure. Then again I know little to nought of game development.

P. S.
I think we can settle on a new type of permanent settlement: a fortification. Simple as that. It would include fortified constructions and gates on narrow mountain passes, or small checkpoints on main roads, outposts (similar to fortified camps). Patrol groups could garrison in these settlements, they would usually have a dozen or more men, to hundreds in wartime. What do you think?
 
Last edited:

Alcedo

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
What you're talking about are fortified constructions such as the Roman Castellum, it's not really a castle, even smaller than an average fortress, but serving more the purpose of watch towers, guarding roads, strategically important and defensible passes, or indeed borders. Almost certainly not where a lord would want his place of residence to be located. As Wikipedia puts it: "Though smaller than a real fortress, they acted as a border guard rather than a real strongpoint to watch and maintain the border." which sounds exactly like what you're suggesting. And again that brings up the idea of small, temporary but fortified and defensible settlements. Defensible until reinforcements from the castle arrive or they're ordered to withdraw.. To the castle.
Well, some castles and cities do stand on such positions as well. Many prosperous cities were on important routes and that's why they prospered. And my suggestion is mainly for settlements that already are on narrow passes. Like Amitatys or Saneopa

Not necessarily, plenty of uses for them even in the current state of the game. And considerably easier, not harder, not to mention it was a feature in Warband, or maybe its mods, not sure. Then again I know little to nought of game development.
I mean, the patrols can play the role of raiding supply caravans only if there are supply caravans. I would prefer it to be like you suggested but this will need a significant overhaul to army mechanic.

P. S.
I think we can settle on a new type of permanent settlement: a fortification. Simple as that. It would include fortified constructions and gates on narrow mountain passes, or small checkpoints on main roads, outposts (similar to fortified camps). Patrol groups could garrison in these settlements, they would usually have a dozen or more men, to hundreds in wartime. What do you think?
That would be great!
 

SavatageRoyo

Recruit
Best answers
0
I do think especially castles need to play a bigger role. They are the majority of the time just a part of economics and useless. You could in theory hide in a castle if being chased, you could in theory plunder the garrison if you are desperate for troops as a back up army. And thats about it I`d say?
I mean the map overall is already very busy with partys, caravans, bandits, villagers etc. I don`t think we need patroling garrision units on top of it, especially hostile seeing how many castles are on the map.

But I would really like to have castles play a more significant role. Could be some type of effect on its surrounding areas or more unique buildings. Currently the buildings are fairly similar to a city. "Do stuff to sustain yourself and tax things, do stuff to be less F`ed if attacked"
It feels a bit redunant and pointless for something which only goes into your denar balance at the end of the day.