Castles? but why?

[Lightzy]

One thing that always bothered me a lot about M2:TW and continues to bug me in LTC (hoped LTC would fix it) is that.. for many factions -- you simply don't NEED castles.
Militia units are incredibly powerful throughout the game, and castle units simply aren't worth it.

Is it possible to hope than in the next LTC castle/city units would be reshuffled?

I mean, city barracks give you benefits to order and usually a good militia unit, spears or archers.

first level city barracks give you PEASANTS ? shouldn't those be city units? I mean, they're worthless, so why have them in castles ? shouldn't the castles be the better recruitment place?

usually (most western factions), second level or third (depends on the faction), you get a kind of spearmen in both castle and city barracks.. but the castle ones have no notable advantage over the militia, and the militia version is inherently BETTER, because it can be maintained for free in cities, and can be re-trained nearly everywhere (there are a lot more cities than castles).
And then you get halbrediers, pikemen and gun units (although I suppose this is very late-game and I suppose its okay to simulate the shift towards big cities and the abandonment of castles and such, even though I don't find it that fun personally to have my castles lose their function as military centres).


Then, for some civs you actually get super-militia units that make castles seem a bit more worthless, especially since you really need the money benefits of the cities, as well as the merchant buildings, guilds and so on --- units like the genoese crossbow militia, the swordsmen militia units and so on, which again, have the inherent benefits of being milita units and as such much more versatile when it comes to retraining and maintenance in recently conquered cities.


Often happens when I play.. I have some castles because.. I'm not sure why. you;re 'supposed' to have them?
Then I make them all into cities and thanks to the better economy, the more merchants and the strong militia units I go on conquering sprees that wouldn't have happened if I tried constantly upgrading those castles which are rather worthless for 2/3rds of the game (in the first third of the game they make units analogous to militia and in the end they make units that are less powerful or simply astronomically expensive, other than some cavalry).




Um, so any chance of a bit of reshuffling to make castle upgrades worth the money at least on the first third of the game? no more of the super 'italian militia' vs peasants and low power saergants and such?

[Firebat11]

I would agree that in the early period, the difference in units between city and castle are pretty similar. In reference to you saying that there are more cities then castles, that's not really true, it just depends on which factions you are playing as.

Castles provide better troops then cities. For example: the Dismounted Feudal knight (castle) is much better than the Dismounted Broken Lances (city). They are pretty much similar in appearance and stats, however the Feudal knight outshines the Broken Lances most of the time.

Usually what I find is that when you get into the late era, that city units are much better and that castles (and their units) become a little obsolete when gun powder and canons enter the scene. Although castles are still useful, they are way better for defense (with the 3 walled citadel) although for the majority of the game castles provide the core of your armies.

I don't like using militas in open battles because they aren't trained for the open field and tend to rout quickly.

[Lightzy]

Dunno, perhaps you're right.
I've never noticed them being unable to beat anything though..

Playing as sicily, genua or venice, I generally destroy anything with just militia.
italian spear militia for example, are better than any other kind of spear unit, be it castle or city, and same for their crossbowmen. and later city versions of castle units are easier on maintenance and even cost barely anything --- swordsmen militia being a good example.
And castle units are heavy on the maintenance too.

I guess that if I ever actually saw city units being inferior to castle units I'd be convinced, but even if they are inferior to some degree, they're a lot easier to get and the benefits from having more cities are obvious.

Maybe if seargent spearmen had notably better stats and peasants were relegated to militia units?

I mean, peasants and peasant archers in castles? they're the worst units there are and you can't free-maintenance them or retrain them as readily -- I haven't taken them EVER in a SINGLE GAME -- if they were city units and castles actually got NOTABLY better units from day 1, I'd see the point of having castles..



Maybe if castle units got enhanced world-map movement over militia and militia were very slow to travel?

[Lusted]

Basically ealry city units are better than castle, but im talking first 2 levels here. Then castles reign supreme with Feudal Knights, Chivalric Knights etc. But when gunpowder arrives, and pike units become avilable, Cities become important again.

[Lusted]

italian spear militia for example, are better than any other kind of spear unit, be it castle or city, and same for their crossbowmen.

Not true, Armoured Sergeants, Pavise Spearmen and other high end spear units beat them. And Italian militia units are much stronger than other nations, Italian factions are very militia orientated.

[Lightzy]

Okay, but then why invest in so many UNEARTHLY expensive upgrades to the castle which give you sub-standard units and nothing else just so that you could get to having a few high level very powerful units, after which the investment is rendered worthless again?

You could have for the same price MANY MORE militia units which are strong enough to take on anything, especially in bigger numbers, and all the benefits cities bring.


Look, I'm not just saying it because I felt like saying it -- I've played tons of campagins and it always ends up the same -- It's real fun playing with castle units, but you don't need castles to win ..


Maybe indeed castle units could have enhanced world map movement to show that they're more 'battle ready' ?

Maybe its best to eliminate the first level of castle upgrades alltogether and have the whole castle roster moved a level early, so that castles recruit good units earlier?
The russians for example could get their woodsmen unit (which isn't that great anyway) without having to purchase 2 levels of upgrades, and so on for other factions.

These upgrades are a real drain on economy in the early game especially and give no benefit at all :/
Also, for many faction they're worthless for the entire game -- some factions allow you to upgrade your archery range but you get no new units, and other things like that..
Sometimes you upgrade your castle barracks once and get no new units, and only ANOTHER upgrade after that you get something new..

It'd be a better game without that kind of confusion and pointless expensive upgrades.

[Lusted]

It's real fun playing with castle units, but you don't need castles to win ..

You make the point why it like it is, then ignore it.

Castle units are fun.

No you don't need them to win as the Italian factions as you've got strong militia. As other factions you do. But overal they're more fun than militia, that's why i use them.

[Firebat11]

You make the point why it like it is, then ignore it.

Castle units are fun.

No you don't need them to win as the Italian factions as you've got strong militia. As other factions you do. But overal they're more fun than militia, that's why i use them.

Lusted is right. Technically you could play the whole game with just town militia, but where is the fun in that?

And no you shouldn't see peasants in cities, because peasants are rural based (usually farmers), since according to historical fact most populations during this time were rural, not urban (at least in France anyway).

[Lightzy]

Um, rural has nothing to do with cities or castles really.
any province had a LOT of 'rural' in it, because you needed big farms to have food wether if you were the vassal of a baron in a castle or a smith in the city,

But hey, its not fair to say I ignore my own point -- I realise they're fun, but the argument is about their practicality.

Now expecially with LTC when castle upgrades themselves give you nothing, so essentially you pay HUUUGE ammounts of cash on both the castle walls themselves, then on their component upgrades, and not get much from it at all.

I thought you'd want to re-introduce balance there since one of your (very logical and highly approved) adjustments have disturbed it.

[Lusted]

I thought you'd want to re-introduce balance there since one of your (very logical and highly approved) adjustments have disturbed it.

But their is balance, for the vast majority of factions til the late game Castles produce the best units, and even in the late game castles still produce the best units for some factions. But for factions like the Italian ones they have very good militia, so they don't need to use as many castle units.

[Lightzy]

Ok then, just wanted to ask if this seems like a reasonable modification to you
I'll just mod it myself then

I still think the costs vs benefit of castle units makes them impractical so I'm doing what little I can when it comes to modding and reducing castle wall upgrade costs to 1 florin :>
Hm, and also give castles free balista towers (1 turn, 1 florin) when they can get em

I guess I just hoped you'd think too that its a bit unbalanced and make a much more creative, robust and fun a balance solution --- I'm not real good with moving units around from castles to cities and I don't really want to destroy balance by playing with stats :/

[StrongGuy]

Ok then, just wanted to ask if this seems like a reasonable modification to you
I'll just mod it myself then

I still think the costs vs benefit of castle units makes them impractical so I'm doing what little I can when it comes to modding and reducing castle wall upgrade costs to 1 florin :>
Hm, and also give castles free balista towers (1 turn, 1 florin) when they can get em

I guess I just hoped you'd think too that its a bit unbalanced and make a much more creative, robust and fun a balance solution --- I'm not real good with moving units around from castles to cities and I don't really want to destroy balance by playing with stats :/

Lightzy,

imagine there are people who prefer to play with different nations than Italy Don't get your point, man. Did you ever play a campaign with a nation other than Italy to put forward such strange suggestions ?

[Turbo]

Lightzy,

You touch on a very good point.

The theory behind the two types of settlements is to show the struggle between the independent towns and the nobility (castles). Presumably you go with the cities for income and the castles for military power. The problem with this is that the AI never converts cities to castles or vice versa. What then is the point except to give the player some illusion of choices?

The AI is clueless as to how to manage combinations of the different troops and tends to field armies strictly from what is available from a given settlement. By mixing the different troops the player gets an edge on the AI - just what this game doesn't need any more of.

The solution is to eliminate the castles and give the cities the options to build all buildings. The militia might be available in the core 'wall' build. The professional garrison might be available with a garrison building. Unfortunately you can't build stables in cities nor bowyer in cities so the idea remains out of reach.

[Lord Condormanius]

The problem with this is that the AI never converts cities to castles or vice versa. What then is the point except to give the player some illusion of choices?

I have seen the AI convert settlements.

The solution is to eliminate the castles and give the cities the options to build all buildings. The militia might be available in the core 'wall' build. The professional garrison might be available with a garrison building. Unfortunately you can't build stables in cities nor bowyer in cities so the idea remains out of reach.

You can mod the game to make these buildings in cities if you want to. However, eliminating castles would be a serious detriment to the game, not only historically, but also in gameplay itself. Castles are harder to take and easier to defend. Also, historically, during this period, castles would have been more plentiful in Western Europe than were cities. Unfortunately, CA designed the game to give a choice between cities and castles...I would have preferred, upgradeable forts to represent castles, which is more or less what they were, leaving room for more villages and samll towns.

[Space Voyager]

Just to "resay" what Lusted said already; this dilema only comes with Italian factions. With all others this is a non-existant question. The militias be used when the "castle army" needs numbers but that's it. As Moors my militias get hacked to pieces by knights of all sorts - and Moors have a good sword wielding militia!

[notger]

After all, the Italian city states were just that: City states. Italy wasn't so heavy into castles, as the rest of western Europe was. I know that this is a purely aesthetic argument since in reality, things worked different and mercenary armies ruled the battlefields (except for the English or the Hussites). But you have to reflect these things in the game in a certain way and I think the way CA chose was quite a good one. It presents you one additional strategical choice.

What should be implemented (and eventually will be) is a ZOR-system, like RTR and Forth Eorlingas have. Then, you would have to relies on castles, even when you play Milan, if you conquer Bern. Because outside of your home-country, you cannot recruit your usual troops, only local troops.

Lusted, is this about to come in LtC?

[Klink]

hm, yeah, I think this is a silly thread. It earns my silly thread stamp, *whump*. Lightzy, if you don't think castles are worth it, then, uh, convert to cities. Yeah. I need a castle here and there to get decent units. So I use them.

[Lusted]

Lusted, is this about to come in LtC?

No, i will not be including a ZoR/AoR in LTC.

[Ano2]

Damn I did love the aor in RTR6.

btw if you don't build castles, where are you going to get your cavalry from?

[Lightzy]

observe, StrongGuy not needed - Atterdag who makes judgements and jumps to conclusions that are completely ridiculous based on the fact that I give proof to support an argument (such as that I only play with italy or whatever) :

Russians:
Castle level 3 --

The castle level itself gives you no new units, the 3rd level of barracks give you nothing as well, AND the 3rd level of archery range give you nothing (except +1 xp on your peasant archers, whoopee).

All for the fantastic cost of some 16 or so turns to build and at a cost of about 10k florins.. for the cost of that single level of castle and its components alone, which give you nothing, you could have had 3 full militia armies on a conquering spree and the city economy to better sustain them.. its not about personal perferences of castles or cities, its a simple balance issue.


Now, not sure why those building costs and times should even remain in the game and not be skipped over for free, but if you can't see something wrong here, then far be it from me to try and convince you
enjoy your game, I'll mod mine as I like it I guess.
Far be it from me to suggest an obvious improvement that reduces redundancy in the game when there is obviously such a large crowd of 'its always been good enough for us!'s.



(edit: for clarification and ass-coverage, no, I don't play only italians and russians. sigh)