"Castle" upgrades

[DEB8]

Each "Castle" level has a number of possible "Castle" upgrades, including Tower upgrades ( e.g. Catapult Towers ).

If you assault a Citadel, does it automatically have the Tower upgrades ( e.g. Catapult Towers as well as Bow Towers ), that applied to the previous Level of "Castle" or would Catapult Towers only be in situe if actually noted in the provinces "Buildings" area ?

[ NB : Evidently, if I am unable to see ( Spy ) on the particular provinces "Buildings" area, I would have to attack "blind" ( as it were ) anyway. ]

Thanks

[macsen rufus]

Hi DEB8 - each level of castle has progressively more destructive towers built into its basic structure. So the walls of a keep have arrow towers, a castle will have some arrow towers and some ballista towers, and a citadel will have some arrow towers, ballista towers and catapult towers. IIRC a fortress also has some gun towers.

The easy way to check it out is to open up the Map Editor feature and take a look at the maps in one of the castle groups - that will show all the various towers in any particular level :bow:

[DEB8]

Noted.

[ That's roughly what I expected... ]

Thanks.

[Cyprian2]

Am I right in thinking that the advantage in constructing the in-between levels (e.g. ballista towers, catapult towers) is that a castle will automatically downgrade one "level" if taken by storm, so it's a way to prevent losing your whole upgrade?

[Ludens]

Am I right in thinking that the advantage in constructing the in-between levels (e.g. ballista towers, catapult towers) is that a castle will automatically downgrade one "level" if taken by storm, so it's a way to prevent losing your whole upgrade?

It's been very long since I last played M:TW, but I think that was the case. It's a dubious benefit, however, since you will have lost the castle to the enemy anyway. And because the basic structure isn't downgraded, you will have to spend longer besieging it (or storm it while it contains a greater garrison) to retake it.

The main benefit of the upgrades is that it causes the enemy to take greater losses during an assault. Whether that is worth it on a strategic level is something that depends on other factors.

[LordK9]

--- like if the enemy walks next to the walls from one side to the other while taking castle hits? :laugh4:

[edyzmedieval]

Always loved those castle upgrades, shame there weren't more of them...

[LordK9]

I rarely used them as the ones needing them were generally new acquisitions and the ones that could build them were in safe areas.

[Axalon]

Am I right in thinking that the advantage in constructing the in-between levels (e.g. ballista towers, catapult towers) is that a castle will automatically downgrade one "level" if taken by storm, so it's a way to prevent losing your whole upgrade?

And...


It's been very long since I last played M:TW, but I think that was the case. It's a dubious benefit, however, since you will have lost the castle to the enemy anyway. And because the basic structure isn't downgraded, you will have to spend longer besieging it (or storm it while it contains a greater garrison) to retake it.

Nah, it is da other way around... A Castle takes damage/downgrades if one takes it by siege, and no damage if it is taken by storm. I have many times stormed castles because I did not want them to downgrade. So, the whole point of upgrading castles between each major stage (Keep --- Castle etc.) is nominal - it does get slightly tougher to storm by each upgrade (and to siege too?). All max garrison levels are standardized with the big 4-5 stages so there is no change/gain to be had there (in raw MTW anyways).

One can do little about all this in terms of modding. I certainly tried, but with
only a few parameters to work with, one can only take these things so far.

- A

[Ludens]

Nah, it is da other way around... A Castle takes damage/downgrades if one takes it by siege, and no damage if it is taken by storm. I have many times stormed castles because I did not want them to downgrade. So, the whole point of upgrading castles between each major stage (Keep --- Castle etc.) is nominal - it does get slightly tougher to storm by each upgrade (and to siege too?). All max garrison levels are standardized with the big 4-5 stages so there is no change/gain to be had there (in raw MTW anyways).

Strange that a siege does more damage than an assault, but it makes sense from a gameplay perspective. Thanks for the correction, anyway. Like I wrote, it's been a while since I played the game.

[macsen rufus]

Beg to differ, but castles DO take damage when taken by storm - they usually lose a level. When you take a bottom level castle you'll end up with no castle left standing. I have had very rare occasions when a castle has not been slighted by the experience, but it is very very rare (for me at least...) and it always seems to be a keep that avoids being knocked down to fort/motte/bailley. :bow:

[LordK9]

I think that depends on you. Destruction is whatever you destroy when storming.

[Axalon]

I have now examined this stuff first hand, today... Due to Macs post... Here are my results...


Case 1 - West Africa
****************************************
Castle level 2

Stormed --- No damage


Case 2 - Mauritania
****************************************
Castle level 1

Stormed --- No damage


Case 3 - Corsica
****************************************
Castle level 1

Stormed --- No damage


Case 4 - Toulouse
****************************************
Castle level 9

Stormed --- No damage


Case 5 - Tripolitania
****************************************
Castle level 1

Stormed --- No damage



It is possible that CA changed the mechanics for V.2.01 - it would explain your conflicting claims. Otherwise, this is how MTW works. Storm a castle and it takes no damage - siege it, and it starts taking damage...
I leave it to active V.2.01-users to examine/explore that possibility. In V.1.1 - upon which V.2.01 is built - this is how things are, feel free to confirm that (in the game) at any time.

- A

[macsen rufus]

Hi Axalon - yes, I only play in 2.01 so there may be differences included in that version. I've been watching a few of my castle storms today, and it actually looks VARIABLE now! I had a fort+motte drop to fort, but a fort+motte+bailley stay as it was, and then a fort go to nothing...
so there are differences between cases in the same campaign. The question is, is this just random, or are there reasons behind it in the battle???

[Gilrandir]

Hi Axalon - yes, I only play in 2.01 so there may be differences included in that version. I've been watching a few of my castle storms today, and it actually looks VARIABLE now! I had a fort+motte drop to fort, but a fort+motte+bailley stay as it was, and then a fort go to nothing...
so there are differences between cases in the same campaign. The question is, is this just random, or are there reasons behind it in the battle???

I have 2.01 and I have spotted the same regularity Axalon speaks about. I can't wager that it ALWAYS goes this way, but by storming a castle you have more probability it will stay intact than by starving it out. I remember once I stormed a fort and its walls were breached so much that it was a miracle it was still standing. Yet it didn't take any damage, as the campaign map showed.

[edyzmedieval]

I love how almost 15 years after the game has been released we still find new stuff about it.

[macsen rufus]

I love how almost 15 years after the game has been released we still find new stuff about it.

Yep - and it also reminds us that what we've seen a few times might not actually happen EVERY time ~D

I don't often let a castle fall by starvation - I usually storm it, or take it by subterfuge (spies or emissaries) to avoid any damage to the region's infrastructure. Often as not a bribe works out cheaper than rebuilding, and of course it's quicker...

In my current campaign it seems about 50/50 whether a stormed castle takes damage, but I can't claim a statistically robust sample size yet.

[edyzmedieval]

Speaking of castle upgrades... I never got to do this. How effective are those culverin / bombard towers?

[macsen rufus]

How effective are those culverin / bombard towers?

Like all things MTW, it seems to depend which side you're on - if you're assaulting then they manage to knock out your artillery quite reliably, if you're defending they never seem to hit the artillery battering down your walls (ie typical AI cheating ~;) )

[LordK9]

I'd say not very since, in general, by the time a city can build one, there's almost zero chance it will get attacked. I have built them "just because".

[DEB8]

In my current campaign it seems about 50/50 whether a stormed castle takes damage, but I can't claim a statistically robust sample size yet.

I have MTW+VI Gold Edition and the results here seem to vary dependent on the level of the "Castle" !

[ Keeps and above : Storms = No damage , Siege = damage ; Below Keeps ( particularly in VI ) : Storms = damage , Siege = Unknown ( I usually storm these... ). ]

[Stazi]

Speaking of castle upgrades... I never got to do this. How effective are those culverin / bombard towers?

They are even worse than field versions. They are placed on the top of the towers so their minimal range is longer than in normal battle. The moment a unit comes close enough their terrible accuracy doesn't matter they stop shooting and choose another target. It really looks like the crews are full of pacifists that tries not to harm anyone. IMHO they are just waste of time and money. Of course, it depends on playstyle but when I have to defend against siege it means I did something wrong (usually advanced too quickly).

[DEB8]

Like all things MTW, it seems to depend which side you're on - if you're assaulting then they manage to knock out your artillery quite reliably, if you're defending they never seem to hit the artillery battering down your walls (ie typical AI cheating ~;) )

Whilst I tend to agree that the AI does cheat somewhat here, it does so much more ( IMHO ) when Storming a "Castle". When I am Storming, my Artillery take a while to knock things down, and Guns are poor at hitting Towers. Whereas the AI knocks Walls down in 2-3 shots ( via a pair of Catapults or a single Bombard )... So so annoying !!!

[edyzmedieval]

I always liked those pop up displays with description and artwork surrounding the castles and castle upgrades, they look cool. :yes:

+ of course, in fact, ALL of the artwork

[Gilrandir]

Yep - and it also reminds us that what we've seen a few times might not actually happen EVERY time ~D

I don't often let a castle fall by starvation - I usually storm it, or take it by subterfuge (spies or emissaries) to avoid any damage to the region's infrastructure. Often as not a bribe works out cheaper than rebuilding, and of course it's quicker...

In my current campaign it seems about 50/50 whether a stormed castle takes damage, but I can't claim a statistically robust sample size yet.

More inexplicable still is the destruction of the province port after you starve out the castle.

[Age]

I would do this more for pvp play no AI play.You can keep a 1 or 2 units of peasants in the keep.This is if you are defending it and all depends on what faction you are.

[edyzmedieval]

It would have been nice to still destroy castle gates with infantry.

[DEB8]

It would have been nice to still destroy castle gates with infantry.

In my game ( MTW+VI Gold Edition ), you can ( but try )...

[edyzmedieval]

In my game ( MTW+VI Gold Edition ), you can ( but try )...

You can in MTW - in the others you cant. :shame:

[DEB8]

You can in MTW - in the others you cant. :shame:

So why the comment ( as this is the MTW forum ) ???


[ i.e. What "others" are you referring to here ? ]

[edyzmedieval]

No no, it's just me saying that you can do it in MTW, you can't do it for example in M2TW. It's only in MTW.

[LordK9]

At least it makes sense in MTW - I've played games where soldiers with maces could break through your massive stone walls in short time. :dizzy2:

[DEB8]

No no, it's just me saying that you can do it in MTW, you can't do it for example in M2TW. It's only in MTW.

Ah ! OK - Noted.