Castle or City?

[Sir Toma of Spain]

I just want to know (or have your informed opinion) what will some of the very developed places in the medieval world be, a city or a castle.

I mean if you have to choose the settlement path at the start, then places like constantinople, rome and venice (not sure, feel free to correct me about those) would leave you no choice to choose which type you want them as.

Sir Toma, highly confused.

[sapi]

Constantinople will be interesting, as it was (iirc) a fortified city. My guess is that it'll be the highest level of city...

[Antiochius]

I think you can do this. You don`t play everthing like it happened in the history.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I understand you will be able to switch, but it will be costly.

[Doug-Thompson]

What I'm most curious about is: What effect — if any — will city type have on rebelliousness when you conquer a town?

Will castles be harder to take but easier to rule, while trade towns are easier to take but harder to rule, for instance?

It may be very expensive to change types, but if you've conquered a town and want to demolish a few buildings anyway, the expense may be well worth it if there's some benefit to keeping the peace.

[Oaty]

They were'nt too specific how this will work, so it's still a bit in the air. Also it may be possible to do both city and castle but there will be economic and turn-build restraints. Also going both ways can be seclusive to your capital city. And just like in the original MTW Constanople was a city to take from the beginning at least on the early era. So my guess there will be some very high teched cities to start out with no matter what the starting date is.

[TB666]

Also it may be possible to do both city and castle but there will be economic and turn-build restraints..
Could be but I doubt it.
So far all we know is that there are 2 types either a castle or a city.
In castles you can build troops and in cities you get income.
I hope it is isn't so strict but I think it is.
But it will add a new challenge to the game.
You need to balance out the amount of castle with cities so that you get enough money to buy troops.
I'm very interested in how this will work out.

[Patricius]

I wonder if I could conquer Cairo and replace with a motte and bailey and then leave for its distressed owners.

But seriously, I like this aspect. It forces a player to choose a distinctive strategy. All RTW cities usually ended up as huge cities that could produce the same as the next city.

[spmetla]

It's unfortunate, I thought that they might implement castles like they did forts with upgrade and everything instead of choosing. Putting a powerful fortification like a castle in a key area is what I hoped to do that way I could put small garrisons in key locations that could hold what I need protected.

Argh...

[Patricius]

There could be both. I am sure that in the very age of castles there will be more than a feeble encampment as a fort.

[Servius]

I'm still unclear on this. So, there will be provinces again, and in each one you can build EITHER a city or a castle, but not both? That doesn't seem smart. Historically, castles were built to project a zone of control around an area, but cities usually grew up around the castles. But other times, castles and castle walls were built specifically to protect a valuable city. Having to choose one or the other not only seems historically innacurate, but also a needlessly irritating game mechanic.

However, if there was just one city per province, but you could build a castle the way Romans could build forts in RTW (i.e. anywhere in the countryside you wanted), that would make sense and be cooler I think. Time will tell.

[Kraxis]

Could be but I doubt it.
So far all we know is that there are 2 types either a castle or a city.
In castles you can build troops and in cities you get income.
I hope it is isn't so strict but I think it is.
But it will add a new challenge to the game.
You need to balance out the amount of castle with cities so that you get enough money to buy troops.
I'm very interested in how this will work out.
Not as bad as that... Cities grant you the Militia line and similar troops such as Pikemen and the like. Castles give you the strong feudal troops, knights, seargeants and MAA, but likely also such troops as Longbowmen and Peasants (get rid of them as trainable troops please).

Castles bring more income from farming (so it would be good in a very fertile lands I guess), cities from trade (good at coasts I guess).
Castles also have the numerous walls while I doubt cities do.

[Dutch_guy]

However, if there was just one city per province, but you could build a castle the way Romans could build forts in RTW (i.e. anywhere in the countryside you wanted), that would make sense and be cooler I think. Time will tell.

well, I think that giving the player a distinct choice may be better. If you make building castles in the country side just as easy as building forts was in RTW, then you'd encourage castle spamming and I don't think that would be good historic and gameplay wise.

:balloon2:

[Kraxis]

Well, I was hoping for that. That you had a set city/village while you could lay down a wooden fort that you could then develop. In case of taking the province you would need to take both castle and city.
That would slow down the pace of conquest a great deal, making it feaseable to have the game going at 4 seasons each year.

But it set, it is either castle or city.

[A.Saturnus]

I'm still unclear on this. So, there will be provinces again, and in each one you can build EITHER a city or a castle, but not both? That doesn't seem smart. Historically, castles were built to project a zone of control around an area, but cities usually grew up around the castles. But other times, castles and castle walls were built specifically to protect a valuable city. Having to choose one or the other not only seems historically innacurate, but also a needlessly irritating game mechanic.



Depends. Some of the most monumental fortresses were not surrounded by cities. Which makes sense because they often were build at places that aren't suitable for cities. It also provides interesting aspects for game mechanics. Provinces with castles will probably have higher farming output. That means, while strong castles will be extremely difficult to take, besieging them might seriously damage your enemy's food supply. On the other hand large cities will probably still be very well defended.

[GaugamelaTC]

You can build troops with cities, infact you get the best troops for your faction from cities apparently, but you have to wait a long time. Basically Castles can provide your best troops in short term at that time, but if you can afford to wait make it a city and eventually you will get the best