Bern, Stauffen, and Innsbruck

[DirtyACE]

I have all three of these as castles. Bern and Stauffen are pretty much right next to each other. Should I convert any of them into cities? Is it worth it? Innsbruck is barely growing at a snails pace as a castle.

[gambit]

I usually have my castles few and far between. Kind of like a castle surrounded by cities and that castle protects that ring of cities. Occasionally I feel the need to set an extra castle to protect some important path, for instance the mountains between the Iberian penninsula and France are a good place for a castle line. But the extra income from cities is usually more useful.

[DirtyACE]

Yes, I agree about what you said but I'd like to get a tip on which of these three castles is more lucrative to have as a city. Like I said, Innsbruck is the least advanced castle out of the three and is growing incredibly slowly due to the fact that it's a castle probably. Also Bern and Stauffen are basically right next to each other so it probably makes no sense to have them both as castles.

[gambit]

oh, well I guess it depends on what situation your in. Do you hold much of northern italy or have trade rights with whatever faction does? That's always a cash cow even if it's only trade connecting to it. Other than that I suppose you choose something thats not right next to your nearest enemy settlement.

[DirtyACE]

Yes, I hold Milan, Genoa, Bologna and Florence. I'm playing as HRE by the way. Bern and Stauffen do border the French lands but they're my ally and have been for a long time.

[gambit]

Oh, well if you want even more money from that italian bank I'd suggest innsbruck, plus Bern and Stauffen would make a great staging point for the french when they eventually betray you, and they will.

[DirtyACE]

Yeah I know the French will back stab me eventually but they're busy fighting two wars at the moment. Thanks for your help.

[N3rull]

I typically have two castles somewhere between my capital and the closest frontline - one with swordsmiths' guild and one with another (teutonics in your case maybe?) or two with swordsmiths'. The rest of my empire is cities.
I would build (or not convert to city immediately) another castle if there is a need to field troops in that particular area, but it is very far from my main castles. For instance, playing as a western European I typically conquer Acre before anything else in the Holy Land - because it's usually a Citadel by the time I start invading there and I need it that way to field troops in the East in more or less real-time, not wait 15 turns for them to arrive from my motherland.

[Samir]

I would not change any of them until you dont have any enemies on the side of the castle in question.

Economy wise you make far more money with your other provinces. especially the ones that have a port. So money should not be an issue anyway.

Stauffen as said can be used for french and danish fronts. Great position for staging offensive as well as defensive actions.

Bern and Innsbruck wield their biggest advantage by blocking the alps for ANYONE with forts or armies. You force anyone who wants to cross YOUR alps to either attack you in a prepared defensive position, which is easily reinforced by troops from those 2 castles, or go all around the way through Milan (and its always good if some army heads through Milan as we all know...) Even a single Peasant unit in a blocking fort keeps agents out and stops almost all armies for at least 1 turn in which you build a full stack of HREs finest.

Bern is perfect as a retreat in the worst case (losing Stauffen to the french, while unlikely still possible)

Innsbruck like Bern very useful to block the southern transition routes. Being able to reinforce your blocking forts within one turn with your armies best units is just invaluable

with 3 castles you can produce almost a full stack of military and not militia units in a turn, they are so close to each other that you can get the full stack together in 2 turns and have it on the way to the target within turn 3. while castles that are far away from each other make reinforcements so scattered and always put a "timing" problem on offensives.

Besides that it always helps to have more swordsmen guilds than anyone else and thats rather easy with HREs unit rooster and 3 castles pumping out blades

[Hungary Horace]

In my English game I have all 3 as castles for basically the reason samir has stated. It takes no time to build a professional army and go on a monging mission round the map. I would never have just 2 castles in my entire empire as N3rull says - he must be playing as Milan as their castle units are crap!!!

[BlackBart213]

It's different for everyone. I'm playing as the English, and in my first 30 turns, I've captured York, Caernarvon, Dublin, Bruges, Antwerp and Rennes. I converted Nottingham from a castle to a city, which means I only have Caen and Caernarvon as my unit-producing castles.

When I take Inverness, I'll convert it to a city as well.

I'm at war with the French, but I only need to use one castle to smash and cripple them (that would be Caen), because I'm using my general that captured Bruges and Antwerp - who has 9 command stars now, to take his well-experienced army to capture Paris.

And since the Pope declared a crusade on the French castle of Toulouse, I have a crusading army headed there. I'll have a third castle within three turns.

Because I have so many cities, I have a very large economy and can afford to maintain a few field armies. Plus my aggressive tactics mean I'll have a few French castles before turn 40 arrives, and then I'll have 3, maybe 4 castles to work with.

Of course, by then, I'll probably convert Caernarvon into a city and use the new French castles to pump out troops, since they'll be in much closer proximity to my enemies.

[N3rull]

I can work the first 80 rounds on Angers as the castle only. I *very* rarely make sea-touching settlements castles, because it kils their huge moneymaking potential.

[Old Geezer]

Stauffen can be turned into a profitabe city. So can Metz. I have not done so with Bern or Innsbruck.

[Joel92]

i'd say stauffen to secure the alpes, but only when you invaded france. just let is be a castle untill you'r half way through france

[NobleNick]

Cities can defend themselves. In fact, I seem to lose the outer walls of castles about as quickly as city walls. The only really big advantage I have seen in castles is that they make better troops. So make some of these troops at your castle and send them to reinforce the free militia you get at the cities.

What is your city to castle ratio now?

If it were me, I would convert 2 of the 3 cities. Look at the big picture of your territory (including how you want it to look after you take France) to see which settlement is the most isolated from help (or will be the most needed to assist other settlements) and leave that one as a castle.

If France is tied up with 2 (non-rebel) enemies at present, you could make it 3. First use those castles, plus nearby cities, to raise 4 half-stacks, with siege equipment. Then use these four to simultaneously attack 4 French cities; and take them in the same turn (before the Pope has a chance to tell you to stop at the end of the turn). That way your 3 border settlements will no longer be border settlements and you can convert all of them to cities.

[Problem Sleuth]

Does it matter? It should be easy enough to win either way on VH/VH, and if you're going under that difficulty, it should be a piece of cake. Hence why I'm growing bored of my English campaign... I don't need to change castles to cities because my economy is already ****in' enough to support enough stacks to WTFPWN? anyone who gets in my way, while bribing the Pope constantly.

It depends. If you can quickly expand your border, might as well turn the lot into cities if you don't have many military buildings up. On the other hand, if you can't, convert 1 to a city and leave the other 2 as castles until you can secure a decent position and/or if you plan to play defensively.

If France is tied up with 2 (non-rebel) enemies at present, you could make it 3. First use those castles, plus nearby cities, to raise 4 half-stacks, with siege equipment. Then use these four to simultaneously attack 4 French cities; and take them in the same turn (before the Pope has a chance to tell you to stop at the end of the turn). That way your 3 border settlements will no longer be border settlements and you can convert all of them to cities.

I find allying the Pope and funneling him cash to be a nice strategy. Why stop at those cities? Make 4 full-stacks with x2 siege equipment, take over those cities, leave a small garrison until you can get militia hired, and move on to wipe out the enemy. If you sack one or two biggies, it'll reduce unrest, and fund your, uh... Friendly contributions to the Catholic Church.

Cities can defend themselves. In fact, I seem to lose the outer walls of castles about as quickly as city walls. The only really big advantage I have seen in castles is that they make better troops.

Depends. Italian factions can pump out some decent line infantry when you start progressing along the Armor section of the tech tree. Not incredible, but certainly worth it for the low price (may not be as low in Vanilla, I play SS, but it should be the same idea). The castles will produce better and more valuble troops, sure, but the cities will produce the invaluble Italian Spear Militia en masse that'll soak up all the damage and buy you time before your big boys hit the enemy line. This is assuming you have a very low castle:city ratio, and can't form a stack and attack the enemy with it in 3 turns.


On another note, it may be fun to do a different strategy. Namely prohibit yourself from converting cities to castles and vice versa. It'll make it more challenging, more fun, and it'll save you the agony of making those tough decisions.

[NobleNick]

Good points, Bertinator. + rep.

[tallstark]

I actually like to have two castles close, especially in earlier game. One does archery/infantry, other does cavalry/siege. You put together well rounded stacks that make it nice. On which ones to convert, take a look at baseline harvest to see which produces most food; castle or city they both grow slow as hell without produce, only difference is .5% you can get for setting taxes low...

[Callawyn]

I convert most castles to cities, save one or two. When expanding, I'll take well developed enemy castles asap and use them to repair my invading armies.

Innsbruck is in a crappy location IMO. I've never used it as a castle, and as a city its pretty useless also. Bern I always keep as a castle if playing HRE or any Italian faction, sometimes keeping Stauffen as a castle also. As Tallstark pointed out, having two adjacent castles can be useful for faster development. Depending on the mod your playing and the recruitment limits, can be useful to have adjacent castles just to be able to build/repair faster. For instance, Kingdoms has a limit of 3 recruitment slots even in citadels.

As for castle development, if you don't do this already, try it: park your highest chiv general in your main castle for the +pop bonus of the chivalry. This will greatly reduce the time it takes for it to grow to citadel level. To get a high chiv general at the start of the game, use your best +chiv general for early expansion vs rebels and be sure to always choose 'occupy'. Can also get easy chiv gain by simply parking a general in a city and keeping taxes low.