Printable View
You remember the forts you were able to construct in R:TW for 500 bucks, right?
They weren't really good for anything, other than blocking bridges, cause usually you were just better of facing the enemy in open grounds.
But anyway
Has anyone seen any ingame screens of how those forts are like now, if they're in at all?
Anyone know if they're actually useful now?
I dont think there was any word of them yet.
Tell you what I would like to see, is multiple versions of them. When you click the button to build a fort, instead of two buttons for watchtower and fort, there would be four buttons:
1. watchtower - 200
2. fort - 500
3. keep - 1500 - 2 turns
4. large keep - 5000 - 5 turns
The keeps would have stone walls and a large central building, and could hold more units and hold out against a seige much longer.
In actuality a tower keep could probably not support even one unit of troops on the large settings.
I really like this, and I'd like to see a new level of detail on the strategy map to go along with this. i.e. hamlets, villiages and small towns etc growing up round the fortification (not for micromanaging but to contribute to economy etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by the_mango55
There could be some really cool graphics to go along with this. Plant your watchtower and there it is. After a year or so there's a hamlet next to the tower. The hamlet grows depending on sucesses and technology (agricultural sucess for example) .
After a while the player would be reminded (a message from the captain of the tower perhaps) that the watchtower has enough support to be upgraded to a fort. The hamlet would grow to villiage size and then the player can upgrade to a keep. At this point you would start to see fields on the map etc, spreading outwards organically. And so on. A kind of living landscape.
You'd also get to see post battlefield; burning villiages and ruined towns.
Provided this would actually happen, I foresee players building keeps over keeps... No longer does your army "sally out", since you don't have any open fields anymore... :inquisitive:
Solution: You cannot build two keeps in close proximity to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voigtkampf
This is a great idea insofar as it allows the player to fully determine the course of history by changing where settlements will be, on the other hand there would have to be severe limiting on these through cost, finite numerical limits, or some other indicator. Major locations such as Paris or Rome and the like would have to be presets...
Al Jabberwock
[QUOTE=Maizel]
They weren't really good for anything, other than blocking bridges, [QUOTE]
Not true, if you wanted (for various reasons) to keep an army in the field, but on your territory, after a few turns they would start despoiling the land (map turns black around them), leading to a reduction in farming income & growth IIRC. Put them in a fort, and this doesn't happen ~:)
True. On the other hand, I don't remember a historical occasion where an army in the field raised a castle. Forts and fortified encampments, outposts, watchtowers are a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avlvs Brittanicus
We are almost talking settlements here.
I'd break it in two parts; towers and forts in one, settlements in the other.
You are able to build towers and forts on the field in few turns. for creating settlements, you would need much, much more turns and a set of predefined conditions; fertile soil, your territory, no settlements in the vincinity...
Isn't this supposed to be what the castle building feature is all about?
Didn't the English use castles like that to suppress the Walsh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Voigtkampf
"Provided this would actually happen, I foresee players building keeps over keeps... No longer does your army "sally out", since you don't have any open fields anymore..."
Strictly speaking that would actually be historically accurate.
Yeah - if you ever go to the Alsace region of Northern France / Southern Germany, you can see a castle or tower or keep on top of every hill for miles and miles accross the boarder from the middle ages - including the quite beautiful Haut Koenigsberg.
It was a fairly common tactis to castle-spam a border to keep unwanted foes at bay (whoever mentioned the Welsh boarder also had a good example).
went to alscace for a holiday a while back. Was amazing there, truely beutiful landscape as well. Plus there was europa park nearby, which was one of the best themeparks ive ever been too.
Back on topic, i think that the fort idea would work if the cities were more spaced out, but with cities so close together the use of construcable forts would be raped beond beleif.
Clitheroe castle was one such keep/tower ...
http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/site/...documentID=523
http://www.ukheritage.net/castles/clithero.htm
well worth a day there if you are in Lancs, UK
What could be nice is if you built a fort and constantly kept it manned then over time it would get new feature like a wooden keep, then a stone keep and finally some stone walls...
But as soon as you abondoned it it would disappear like any other fort (pesky peasants stealling all the stuff for building farms and low walls..)...
Minimum fuss and a bit of fun...
Yes, but the chain of castles took years, decades even to build. IIRC it was good ole Edward Longshanks who started it :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by A living god
I had suggested this before. Be able to build watchtower, fort, small keep, large keep - the larger the castle, the more turns it takes, and more it costs, so its not like someone can castle spam. Having that castle does provide the benefit of being able to store more troops, thus limiting a fort from holding a full stack. Furthermore, since only nobility (family members) can build it, it's not like it's just a normal army building a castle...
A decade = 5 turnsQuote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_mango55