Does castle cannon damage...

[RedKnight]

Can anyone tell me if castle cannon damage (knocking down lots of walls and towers, and maybe hitting the huts inside the castle) causes an increase in the number of buildings in the province that are damaged and destroyed, when it falls?

It's my general impression that this is true - but there's a lot of variability. Still, if it's true, I'd rather lose another unit or two to burning oil, than have four more buildings damaged (or whatever).

[katank]

no, it's ironic that the assaulting by destroying it on the tactical map actually preserves things better than the starve em out approach.

tactical map and strategic map buildings are completely unlinked IIRC in terms of destruction.

you only get paid for deleting stuff on the strategic map.

[zelda12]

Yep thats about right although I think RTW will be more linked as they actually show the buildings of the provence when you attack.

[PseRamesses]

Quote[/b] (katank @ May 20 2004,21:17)]no, it's ironic that the assaulting by destroying it on the tactical map actually preserves things better than the starve em out approach.
tactical map and strategic map buildings are completely unlinked IIRC in terms of destruction.
you only get paid for deleting stuff on the strategic map.
Katank,
I did some testing some six months back when VI came out and found that I did get more pillaging money the more buildings I raised in the battle map. Some people argued that this was purely random. Then I tried out 10 battles: 5 by starving the beseiged out and 5 by raising all buildings both on the prov- and castle-map and I got some 30% more cash from the pillaging approach. Now, 10 tests is not a viable statistic sum but it indicates that I´m right. Didn´t have the time to go through with more testing and it really didn´t matter to be proven right or wrong.

[RedKnight]

Thanks so much for all the answers, folks Ah well... at least I know the answer's not entirely clear. You're pretty sure that starving them causes more to fall, Katank? I know I see a LOT of variability in how many are left, but don't know just why... sometimes there'll be 4 destroyed and 5 damaged; other times, 1 destroyed and 2 damaged... wth, hehe.

[garion]

If you would get more cash by destroying thy're land i would gladly do it because blowing things up with cannons is fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[katank]

well, if starving them out, the castle is auto degraded a level and building preservation is partially due to tech level.

therefore, storming tends to preserve buildings for me.

it's funny how pseramsses state that in battle, if you take out buildings, you also get more cash.

I'll spare a unit or two to slash at some buildings if I dont' need them then.

hmmm.

it seems that more you blow up in battle, the more money you get and also more buildings you keep in the end http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[RedKnight]

Sharp eyes, Katank - I never put it together, that starving them reduces the castle size. But, it sure does. And who wants castle size reduced? So, I'm investing in more seige weaponry as we speak. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Shamus]

That would explain a lot. Nothing more frustrating than taking Constantinople with a fortress, and only getting a citadel to show for it.

[katank]

yep. that's why in high, it's necessary to get lucky with the attack and hopefully wipe out entire enemy army in battle so none makes it back to the castle or to simply bribe them.

spies work too.

In early though, it's not that bad as Const. is citadel+barbican and is still a citadel even if downgraded a level.

sometimes you get lucky.

in recent Aragonese High game, attacked both Egypt and Wessex which have citadels.

Egypt got downgraded to castle while Wessex stayed a citadel.

note: both bare citadels.

thus, always try to assault. There's about 50/50 that you get the infrastructure intact.