WHich settlements should be cities and which castles?

[SnArF|D]

I know cities generate better income and castles are better for military, but im trying to figure out how to determine which should be which.

Should frontline settlements be castles or should "safe zone" settlements be castles, meaning settlements not on the front lines.

[eXistenZ]

coastal settlements should be cities, as much as possible, just like islands

[MrHenry]

coastal settlements should be cities, as much as possible, just like islands

EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY! Castles are great for border defense for the time required until you advance your border forward, then you could perhaps convert them to cities.

[MeMongo]

You could also consider converting a castle to a city in a settlement where you would like to obtain a certain guild, one you cant get in catles. Also consider the resources, mines etc, these are good places to get the merchant guilds!

[dannyalex]

coastal settlements should be cities, as much as possible, just like islands

I must agree 101% with that

i find this screen (look attachments) also from the game .Also those indicates what regions must never be castles but only cities

If someone can add the regions to my image pls do it ,i am very interested what regions produce more money oon the trade routs

[crzyrndm]

As said above, because of the additional trade routes(and normally richer too) given to coastal cities it is always preferable to have all coastal settlements as cities. Other great places have many settlements bordering them and have many resources(vienna is a good example of this). This is because land trade only happens with provinces bordering your own. Vienna has 9(IIRC) provinces bordering itwhich makes for some lucrative trading even without any sea routes.

I always try to have castles sitting at the center of a group of cities. So the iberian peninsular gets all converted to cities except the one in the middle. This loses some trade because of the number of provinces bordering these, but often any other choice would have sea trade and so be a much more damaging loss. In the centre of your empire, castle density should be lower than on the edge. Playing as england, once the campaign moves into france I always convert all except inverness to cities (inverness because it has a very low income as a city, although the island village would be another good choice).

EDIT

Extremely rich groups of provinces, such as northern italy, british isles, and regions bordering the black sea should always be all cities to max out all possible trade oppurtunities. Then a few more setlements than normal around those could be castles for protection

[13lackGu4rd]

in general you should aim to have castles only in poor provinces. however, sometimes this can't be done, say if you're England you need at least 1 castle(preferably 2) on the British Isles to get your military going, with the Iberians(Spain, Portugal and Moors) all your cities are coastal, so you'll need at least 1 castle(preferably 2) from them as well, etc. in those cases aim for strategic locations, in the case of England for example Whales and Nottingham(your starting castle) are in the middle of the British Isles, which allow for reinforcements throughout the isles and also a quick way to put them on ships and sail onto the mainland. in the case of the Iberians for example keeping Portugal's starting castle as a castle, and adding Zaragosa to it will make a solid border around the alps, allowing you to leave the rest of Iberia as cities.

[Avatar]

It depends to some extent which faction you are. Milan are the prime example of a faction that can go without castles almost completely, because most of their best units come from cities anyway. England on the other hand need more strategically placed castles since their city troops are somewhat lacking.

[_Elysium_]

Playing as Spain in my only Medieval II campaign so far, I placed my castles such that they were the "overseer" of an area. For example, I had Toledo in central Iberia as the overseer of Iberia, producing Knights and such for that area. I had Pamplona as the overseer of the Pyrenean frontier, for immediate reinforcements against possible French assaults. Then I had Algiers as the African overseer, to produce Knights for my African regions, and also for naval deployment around the Mediterranean. With it being a coastal castle, I could reinforce Africa, eastern Iberia and southern France in a few turns.

I initially intended to follow the general advice of keeping castles on the frontlines, but I don't like the idea of spending money and turns developing castles only to change them later on, removing the castle-specific structures in the process. I prefer to decide whether a settlemt is a city or castle as soon as it is seized, then leave it like that, atleast until I'm swimming in money and can afford to change it, both turns-wise and financially.

I suppose it depends on the faction and situation. I'm planning to play a long England campaign next, and I don't know how I'll go about the city/castle thing due to the longbow units being recruited from castles.

[the new username]

Playing as Spain in my only Medieval II campaign so far, I placed my castles such that they were the "overseer" of an area. For example, I had Toledo in central Iberia as the overseer of Iberia, producing Knights and such for that area. I had Pamplona as the overseer of the Pyrenean frontier, for immediate reinforcements against possible French assaults. Then I had Algiers as the African overseer, to produce Knights for my African regions, and also for naval deployment around the Mediterranean. With it being a coastal castle, I could reinforce Africa, eastern Iberia and southern France in a few turns.

I initially intended to follow the general advice of keeping castles on the frontlines, but I don't like the idea of spending money and turns developing castles only to change them later on, removing the castle-specific structures in the process. I prefer to decide whether a settlemt is a city or castle as soon as it is seized, then leave it like that, atleast until I'm swimming in money and can afford to change it, both turns-wise and financially.

I suppose it depends on the faction and situation. I'm planning to play a long England campaign next, and I don't know how I'll go about the city/castle thing due to the longbow units being recruited from castles.

oh yes, this is what we have to do if we are bankrupt, i personally im doing this in my spanish campaign too, its a efficient way to gain money.

btw if u have a castle in a region with bigshot resources and if u see that the castle is giving more income than the usual turn it to a city, if u are at war and u have a low income city in the front line turn it to a castle. here u have 2 simple examples

[Jianadaren]

I generally convert all castles to cities with few exceptions, but there are several things to consider.

1)The income of the settlement: if the settlement is poor because of high corruption, poor trade, and/or poor farming, then you're not giving up very much income by turning it into a castle.
a) distance to capital: the farther the settlement is to your capital the more likely it should be a castle because the high corruption and distance to capital penalties make it difficult to be a city.
b) ability to trade: the above posters say that coastal cities should never be castles because they are excellent at trade. This is true sometimes. Some settlements like Inverness, Dublin, and Caenarvon are coastal but still likely to be poor because they don't have much to export (thus little trade income), whereas Vienna, Milan, and Zagreb are landlocked but have fantastic trade. Having a port is better than not having a port but it is not determinative.

2) Need for troops:
a) Close to borders/ coasts: I think castles should be close to the front line because this is where you need your troops. Also castles are more likely to be attacked and so the ability to reinforce and the defensive properties of castle walls are more valuable closer to the front lines. Also this places most of your troops closer to your attack targets. Finally, the borders are more likely to have public order problems (futher from capital, more unrest, more possible religious unrest) and trade problems (cannot trade with neighbours with whom you are at war) and so do not make good cities. Keeping them close to (but not necessarily on) the coast makes it easier to transport troops.
b) Able to become Fortresses/Citadels: It is hard to grow the populations in castles. If you have a high population castle it might be a good idea to keep it even if all the other factors suck just because it is so difficult to grow the castles otherwise. In order to grow you either need to i) wait a long time, ii) capture it from your enemies, or iii) use some tricks.

iii) Some tricks: Place your castles in places that naturally have great farmland; use high chivalry generals; turn the settlement into a large town, set taxes low, build all farms, churches, blacksmiths, barracks, (siege makers if you wish) plus maybe the brothel and town hall (for population growth), and then only switch it back to a castle when the population is slightly above 9000 (without upgrading the walls), and quickly upgrade to fortress and citadel.

Good luck.

[In3x]

I personally never turn cities into castles, I only turn castles into cities. I will recruit from any castles I conquer and once the castle is 2-3 provinces behind the front line I will change them into a city, as long as I can afford it.

EDIT: I will occasionally turn a city into a castle if it has less than 800 people.

[Rheinseele]

One of the things I almost always struggle with as the HRE is whether to convert Bologna to a castle after taking Florence. The absence of solid military units in central Italy can stink on ice when Venice and Milan need a smack-down.

[the new username]

One of the things I almost always struggle with as the HRE is whether to convert Bologna to a castle after taking Florence. The absence of solid military units in central Italy can stink on ice when Venice and Milan need a smack-down.

Dam fking true, but i dont wanna lose my income too, i just slain them with mercenaries or units form innsbruck(that is a castle)

[Rheinseele]

Dam fking true, but i dont wanna lose my income too, i just slain them with mercenaries or units form innsbruck(that is a castle)

True, as well. I suppose that upgrading Innsbruck early on, plus taking Bern faster will give the necessary force for the smack-down

I have tended to procrastinate in taking Bern, but that may change next campaign.

[Aeratus]

I personally never turn cities into castles, I only turn castles into cities. I will recruit from any castles I conquer and once the castle is 2-3 provinces behind the front line I will change them into a city, as long as I can afford it.

EDIT: I will occasionally turn a city into a castle if it has less than 800 people.

Since cities gain population faster, you can convert a castle into a city, then back into a castle. This helps in getting those elite cavalry from the Caliph's Stables to fight the Mongols.

[eXistenZ]

yes, let insbruck provide italy with units. northern italy is way too wealthy to throw it away

[Caracaos]

I generally agree with the coastal settlements as cities policy, but there are definitely some exceptions to that. In my playthroughs, I find that Valencia generates the least income of Iberian cities, and when either is fully developed, Toledo as a citadel makes more than Valencia as a huge city (Vanilla stats, btw). If I have the Iberian peninsula, I only tend to keep Pamplona, Valencia, and Granada as castles. I've never tried converting Pamplona or Granada, but I feel that Pamplona would be a prosperous city, though Granada may not be so.

In France, I find that strangely, Bordeaux does not seem to make a prosperous settlement, and is best kept as a castle. I also think it's a good idea to convert Caen to a city as it can generate a huge amount of revenue. Generally, the only forts I would keep in France would be Bordeaux and Angers.

Italy and the islands, It's really only worthwhile having one fort, two if you're desperate. You by all means want to keep northern Italy as cities only. I've never tried Palermo as a city, but I think it would be a good idea to convert - it's a pain to keep up a consistent, fast source of troops to the Italian mainland from somewhere so remote. I think it would be best to keep Corsica as a fort since you can operate a reliable 'ferry service' between the rich and very important italian cities and your soldier factory.

England, Caernarvon and/or Inverness. Nottingham, York, Edinburgh, and London make too much money, and Dublin is too remote to supply troops. I'd keep Inverness as a fort due to those Danish rascals.

Turn all of north africa into cities, except maybe Tunis or Tripoli (prefer keeping Tripoli as a castle, it's very remote and doesn't make much money). Alex, Cairo, and Dongola, keep as cities, the last two will make a nice red sea triumvirate with Jedda. Not loads of money, but no point keeping castles on the very edge of the map.

Most definitely keep Antioch as a city. No matter who you play as, Antioch will be hands down your most profitable city (I've seen it go up over 9000!). Usually convert Acre and Adana, keep Gaza because even though it looks like it could be rich, it's position is too strategically important.

Anyhow, sorry for the rant, but, in my opinion, these MUST be cities: Toledo, Bruges, Nottingham, York, Dijon, Marseille, northern Italy, Vienna, Thessalonica and Constantinople, Antioch, Baghdad, Alexandria, Marrakesh.
Castles: Valencia, Bordeaux, Caernarvon, Metz-Bern-Innsbruck, Gaza.

If anyone has a city wealth guide they could suggest, I would be much obliged.

Oh, and I think castles are better placed at geographical choke points, like northern Spain or Tripoli, but if my borders are open space, I prefer to keep castles beyond the border provinces to respond to raiders and such easier.

[crzyrndm]

The reason for converting valencia IIRC was to boost trade with the surrounding cities(networks are far more profitable than individual cities. Which is why the north sea is so good

[Makus]

truthfully as long as I keep a 2:1 city:castle ratio I'm fine, but I keep my coasts as cities, unless its an important border or an island (e.g. caen, the italian islands, even magedburg) If your region is completely surrounded by friendly lands and in close proximity to a friendly region and not threatened by seaborne invasion then it should be a city.

Keep in mind with some factions (italian factions, france, spain) in the late-game cities are preferable as you can run a successful army based solely around militia units and walls are meaningless with the introduction of cannons