Fortifications

[GeoRElrod]

Lately I have been doing some reading in regards to Medieval History. I noticed that fortifications provided a serious advantage to the defenses of several kingdoms through England and east(Germany)and west(France) Francia (900s - 1000s).

Typically, I place my fortifications in a style the seems opposite of historical commonsense. This got me to thinking what do other people do...

Do you have a predetermined plan for fortifications based on what troop types or strategic units you mobilize? Are these fortifications along kingdom borders? What types of fortifications do you build for different situations?

How do you level up your fortifications? Do you build the different types of fortifications before populating the fortifications with buildings?

Also... do you protect your fortifications at all cost? Do you always garrison your fortifications? Do you have armies located in the same providence as your fortifications on a common basis?

When being on the offensive do you raid enemy provinces with the sole purpose of tearing down there fortifications if low on man power to garrison the captured fortification?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I don't really use my fortifications as such. If I don't have enough men to effectively defend a province, then I generally don't have enough to relieve a siege, so retreating to the castle is just a good way to lose men, as the AI hardly ever seems to attack the castle.

Instead I just use fortifications as a means to an end - those juicy new techs and their units. Not very historical, but there we go.

Having said that, though, Edward I (I think) used castles in Wales and Scotland to keep control of the rather rebellious resident populations, so I kinda use them like that (and not just in Wales and Scotland http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif ).

Schrodie's Cat

[Seth Infinite]

I think there are 2 main reasons for fortifications, money and troops. You have to constantly keep upgrading your forts so you can improve your money and troops. It stands to reason that your oldest (and safest) forts would be the most modern (more upgrades).

In an extended game your forts should become more or less specialized. Look at your regions, lots of resources and trade goods should mainly go for strong economics to support those regions where you get +1 valor knights which means you need Royal Palace, horse breeder and maybe a swordsmith. To make this knight even better you want the armorer upgrades. In a really long game places like Aragon and Navarre are ideal for creating troops. Other than 20% & 40% farming increases there's no reason to spend much money on economics. In a 200 year game those regions can get Master Metalsmith and Master armorer plus Drinking Dens, Stews and Churches. (notice my priorities) That makes for some really mean troops.

As for garrisons, the bulk of your men should be near the front lines. To minimize the number of troops to garrison a fort you should build the happy buildings, providing your economic centers are creating a good cash flow.

Of course, this is just my thoughts based on how I play the game. Others that rush a lot will have different needs and thoughts.

Have fun

[katank]

@ seth, not really.

I rush like crazy but also sit back and build after a decade or two.

In early games, I almost never allow offensive rush wars to make it past 1100.

I like to build after I'm able to take out two or three factions.

Upgrading the heck outta your provinces for armor and weapons is great.

Pumped up attack troops do so much better with metalsmith while missiles and defensive types desperately need their armor.

I like getting most farming upgrades though.

In Iberia and Parts of France, North Africa, Holy lands, north italy etc, I like to build to 60% farms or so.

trade is nice too but farming gets you started and you end on farming too when you have only a few captive trade partners.

[GeoRElrod]

Is there a way through modding to increase the number of years by default that fortifications can hold out? Is this hard-coded?

Also... is there a way that your can increase the moral bonus (through modding) for your troops when they are defending a fortification?

This is my only peeve about the game, that your can just sit there are wait a year or 2 (usually at most)and starve them out. I believe that fortifications should be more effective then just a place to spit units out.

[katank]

check column 28 of build prod file in gnome.

this contains the capacity information.

boosting the capacity should make them hold out longer.

note: why do you want to boost morale bonus? It's already 8.

with expert and defense of castle, that's +12 morale which makes even peasants unroutable.

[PseRamesses]

GeoRElrod,
Don´t build everything everywhere since sooner or later you´re going to lack the funds to keep building, either troops or tech. First I usually take a closer look at the province. Is it a border-prov? Build fortifications as your first priority. Next take a look on the provs stats. Can you build any unique units in it? Then concentrate on that. Does it produce trade-goods? Then go for merchants Is it a coastal-prov? Build port, wharf and crank out ships to build your trade-network.
Ex: When I play the English I usually tend to go with the following strat: The provs Aquitaine, Anjou and Normandy has no unique units, does have trade-goods but are in a thuogh defendable spot, exposed to the French, HRE and Aragon. Therefore I concentrate on fort, port, farm and agent-production there.
In Wessex, Mercia and Wales you cane build unique units; cogs, billmen and longbows. So I build port, keep, warf in Wessex and prio the military-upgrades in Mercia and Wales.
Northumbria gets the same prio as Aqu-Anj-Nor provs.

[Eastside Character]

I play with almost complete disregard for my fortifications, I only build up castles for training facilities and to get certain buildings. I rely on my soldiers in defence and in attack.


Regards,
EC

[Seven.the.Hun]

indeed, wow, yes, vague, factions, time period, weather, all meddle with how one can best fortify...mostly a case by case basis really, make the logic stick to the changing conditions...oy vey

[Lord Armbandit]

GeoR,

Surely holding out in a siege for two years is admirable

Living amongst your own filth, with no external source of food and (possibly) water. Yes, I'm still talking about a siege rather than playing MTW for too long........

The only way this problem could have been gotten around (IMHO) would be if the years were split into seasons like in STW, but then the game would have eaten even more of my life. This would give players more opportunities to releive the siege and the besiegers would have to wait around for (what seems) longer.

I think if it was regularly possible to hold out in a siege for more than a couple of years, it might make for a more challenging game when attacking, but it would also reduce the urgency of relieving sieges. You could sit back and let your peasants hold your border castles against hordes of enemies with no fear (unless the AI was also tweaked to attack castles more often)

Personally, I like to have larger fortifications in important locations, e.g bottleneck borders (Navarre & Aragon, Morocco) and in my richer provinces (Flanders) as well as in my troop-producing provinces. This gives me the chance, If I am caught unawares by a larger army, to raise an army sufficient to lift the siege (if one is unavailable)

[Kommodus]

Yeah, I agree with the nonexistant Cat (Schrodie). For example, in my current English campaign I've just built castles in Wales and Mercia so I can get longbowmen and good billmen. As for defense, men are better than fortifications, since if I have to retreat to the castle, I still lose the province's income and some of the upgrades I've worked so hard to build.

Really, I've always wondered why castles would have provided much of a defensive advantage in the past. If you're an invader intent on seizing control of your enemy's lands and people, why would it make much of a difference if he manages to keep a few people holed up in a big stone building? You can still meet your objectives by taking towns, cities, and the surrounding countryside. (You might have some trouble if the castle is built in an important strategic location, such as a key waterway or a choke point on land, but you still might be able to circumvent it.)

I would say that once you force your enemy back to his castle, you've got him right where you want him, and it doesn't matter much if he stays there forever. For example, in The Two Towers, why was Saruman so intent on taking Helm's Deep? The King had retreated into a corner and was trapped; Rohan was Saruman's for the taking. As it was, Saruman risked (and lost) his whole army in an attack on a strong fastness, simultaneously leaving his own fortress unguarded and ripe for the taking. To me, this is not the way to fight a war. That's why, in MTW, I rarely assault castles unless they have a tiny garrison, and I never depend on lightly garrisoned castles to guard my territory.

[garion]

Because taking Rohan is like invading ones province while leaving yourself to an attack from behind. The only strategical thing to do was to burn all the grain and pillage all the supplies. Then, after the battle at Helm's deep, ther would have been no more food for the riders of Rohan

[Kommodus]

Actually, I thought about that. If you leave the enemy inside his castle after you've taken the surrounding land, then clearly, his forces inside the castle would be able to conduct raids behind your lines. To completely eliminate this threat, you would naturally have to take the castle one way or another.

However, remember that a castle cannot garrison huge numbers of troops - certainly nowhere near the size of an army. Thus, as long as you leave enough troops behind to watch the enemy inside the castle, the enemy won't be able to do too much damage. (They would of course do some, but compare that to the cost of sieging or storming the castle.)

Besides, since the enemy is trapped behind your lines, they can't be reinforced. Thus, if they lose a few men on each raid they conduct, eventually their numbers will dwindle until they are no longer able to effectively guard their castle. It seems to me that it would be easier and more cost-effective to try to counter raiding parties than to storm a heavily fortified castle.

These are just my thoughts though; they have no real basis in history. Does anyone know why castles were so important in Medieval times?

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Kommodus @ May 15 2004,08:01)]However, remember that a castle cannot garrison huge numbers of troops - certainly nowhere near the size of an army. Thus, as long as you leave enough troops behind to watch the enemy inside the castle, the enemy won't be able to do too much damage.
A castle can garrison a few hundred men, which are not a threat to an army. However, a few hundred men are a thread to supply lines. If you ignore enemy fortifications, your supply lines will be destroyed. You cannot afford to have every convoy guarded by a hundred men, and a hundred men are necessary to protect a convoy from being destroyed by raiding garrisons. But even a hundred men offer little protection against hit and run tactics.
So you have ignored enemy castles and thus cut your supply lines off. You are virtually besieged in enemy territory.

The problem with medieval wars is that Europa was dotted with castles, unlike MTW which only allows one castle per province. Ignoring a single castle is not much of a problem, but trying to pass them all is going to result in your being cut off. One garrison in your back is a small nuisance. Ten garrisons is a serious threat.
That's why you can't ignore castles. That and the fact that to hold on ground, you needed a castle.

[The Wizard]

Exactly the fact that what you state had no effect upon them made the Mongols pose such a threat to Europe.

Cut off all possible ways that an enemy fort can gain water (considering the stronghold is not built upon a water source), and the besieged will either die or have to come out. Then, ambush, and defeat.

This, of course, is historical, not relevant to the game.



~Wiz