Cities and castles in the long road

**HIGGUM** · February 28, 2007, 03:34 PM

Not posted much on these forums but have tried many mods on this website, so i have a fair idea of what i'm on about, just to clear the air before i get started.

Anyway i'm playing 1.9 beta 5, am a few turns in and i think that being able to build archery ranges and stables aswell as being able to train the more professional soldiers in cities undermimes the importance of castles, i think it takes away a strategic layer.

For example i am playing as the english, if i was to lose caen were i can train the more heavier troops such as billmen, it would hardly have an affect as i would be able to train billmen and armoured sergants at london which is a city.

I preferred how the vanilla version handled this, i don't think that archery ranges and stables should be able to be constructed in cities, and only militia units should be able to be trained in cities.

Edit - thoughts? what do the rest of you think?

Having said that this is my only issue with this mod so far, other than that it is looking very good and i am enjoying the game, you've done a good job

**Condottiere SOG** · February 28, 2007, 05:43 PM

So you're saying cities couldn't produce archers, and yet we know from history that archers and cavalry that came from cities in Poland Hungary and England, and even Italy produced so very elite units of this kind. I think your idea limits the game and, personally, I have had enough of the limitations this game has to offer. Nea for my vote. But, then, its just my opinion and you are also welcome to yours. Cheers!

**Lopus** · February 28, 2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by HIGGUM

Not posted much on these forums but have tried many mods on this website, so i have a fair idea of what i'm on about, just to clear the air before i get started.

Anyway i'm playing 1.9 beta 5, am a few turns in and i think that being able to build archery ranges and stables aswell as being able to train the more professional soldiers in cities undermimes the importance of castles, i think it takes away a strategic layer.

For example i am playing as the english, if i was to lose caen were i can train the more heavier troops such as billmen, it would hardly have an affect as i would be able to train billmen and armoured sergants at london which is a city.

I preferred how the vanilla version handled this, i don't think that archery ranges and stables should be able to be constructed in cities, and only militia units should be able to be trained in cities.

Edit - thoughts? what do the rest of you think?

Having said that this is my only issue with this mod so far, other than that it is looking very good and i am enjoying the game, you've done a good job

What about modifying it so castles have access to the new buildings sooner ... which they already sort of have. Or maybe that the experience bonus, replenishment pools, and maximum pools are different, depending on city or castle?

Castles would have higher experience (i.e. training) and maximum pools while cities would have higher replenishment pools?

**tornnight** · February 28, 2007, 07:27 PM

The Main Issue:

The AI cannot convert cities to castles and vice versa, giving the player a huge unfair advantage in vanilla. An AI faction that only happened to have access to cities in vanilla is pretty much going to just have militia. If militia were balanced properly in vanilla then they would be dead meat.

Other reasons:

The fact is that the settlement type is only the focus of a region. A region would actually have many of both types in real life.

Castles already have a higher experience bonus for units.

Cities get units slower as they have 2 additional levels to go through before getting the top tier units.

Cities already get a bunch of economic and other types of benefits to distinguish them.

I'm not opposed to making the distinction even more pronounced, but having one type of units in either settlement just doesn't work very well, IMO.

**Irishmafia2020** · February 28, 2007, 11:53 PM

It really seems to help the a.i. as well, as I tend to face more balanced armies. Originally I would have agreed with the first poster, but after having played a few games I think that allowing cities/castles to build the same types of troops enhances the game more than it detracts from it. True, it is not as much of a strategic decision to have a castle instead of a city, but the fact that the a.i fields balanced armies makes up for that slight gameplay loss. Plus, the fundamental advantage of castles i.e. defensibility, remains the same.

**onefistedboxer** · March 03, 2007, 06:18 AM

Gotta remember that castles were there to defend places not just factories for knights.

Tornnight is there any variation between the units you can get in castles to cities.

A way to exaggerate the difference would be to use your event system so that castles get units with different armour earlier.

Or even better perhaps castles could build any unit, in that era, if it has the correct smith aswell as barracks/stable.So smiths become more useful. Whilst cities have to wait for the event for that specific armour.

**tornnight** · March 03, 2007, 11:06 AM

Very few. The units built in buildings that are specific to cities such as
Carroccio Standard

Cities do have a harder time getting higher units. It requires two additional levels of barracks to get the top tier units.

They also get less experience in cities which makes quite a difference.

Using smiths to control barracks doesn't work. You end up with units that start out with the highest upgrade in armor. Unless you move all the units with the same armor levels to the same building which just isn't worth it.

**onefistedboxer** · March 03, 2007, 01:59 PM

To be honest i think that increasing experience is a good way to differentiate between cities and castles.

**NaptownKnight** · March 03, 2007, 02:33 PM

I love TLR, but I haven't tried 1.9 beta yet. I prefer to wait untill almost all of the bugs are sorted out of a mod to play it. Nyways, realistically speaking, which I have a feeling torn is shooting for in TLR, troops that were trained and garrisoned in castles would have also been trained and garrisoned in cities. The AI proboly puts out way more balanced professional armies ( Like early game Milan, who would've only put out millitias in early game vanilla). The experience bonus sounds like a fine way of doing it, the castle will still produce better armies, and realistically the only reason castle's were built was for defense anyways. This is an off subject question, but torn would it be possible for you and spurrius to collaborate on a TLR late period mod? I love the gunpowder period of this game and hate having to go through hundreds of turns to get to it.

**tornnight** · March 03, 2007, 03:13 PM

Thats definately a possibility but there are quite a few other things higher on the priority list right now.

**Sleepysmoo** · March 04, 2007, 11:18 AM

Just my two bits
But there is still a strategic difference between castles and cities
1) Castles are a HELL of a lot harder to take. The carnage that happens when I lay siege to any castle higher than a wooden one, is ridiculous. You have to have like 3 to 1 odds to take a heavily defended stone castle, even the lesser one.
2) Cities that are further away are really, really hard to manage. *Distance to capital, unrest, tax problems...ect). Cities are supposed to be the heartland of your empire. Castles are the key protecting points. (Well, as brought up, there would be many castles to a region, but for game purposes). So, what ends up happening is that castles become your border provinces. Castles get automatic law and order bonuses, so if a town really far on the edge of your borders is upset, just change it to a castle. Then your populace will be happier, and you don't have to station as many troops to keep order. *Freeing them for your armies*
3) Cities get free units, higher income, less order, harder to manage, but a lot more economic bonuses. TOo many cities means your empire is not as heavily defended as it could be. *wait for the ai to lay siege to a city, vs a castle, and then tell me which you'd prefer*

I usually play darthmod and dlv, so if I'm wrong about certain things, *I'm about to try tlr, but I don't know if certain things I mentioned carry over to this mod yet*, then I apologize.
I think the idea for units to come of both cities and castles is cool. Whatever balances the ai so that the game becomes interesting.
Cheers!

**Averroës** · March 04, 2007, 02:30 PM

Very good points.

**Boehm** · March 05, 2007, 04:04 PM

hi, ...first off I have to say Im really impressed with this MOD ...although I probably dont have that much to compare it with yet, since Im relatively new to the totalwar series ...(although I have played a fair bit of RTW).

If the thinking is that castles are too weak compared to cities ...how about simply lowering the cost to upgrade a castle relative to the cost of building/upgrading the walls of a city?? ei. historically the choice IMO wouldnt soo much be the choice between a castle and a city ...but rather a village or a castle ? (without understanding exactly what can be modded or not ...this might ofcause mess up the conversion from castle -> city ...)