im just wondering, are forts going to be wood or stone? and if they will be stone will they resemble castles?
Printable View
im just wondering, are forts going to be wood or stone? and if they will be stone will they resemble castles?
I'd prefer if there were no castles at all (instead of cities) but rather you could have forts as castles..
thats better then what mtw 2 has. the new system is really stupid. since i played mtw ive wanted cities and then now there is a lack of cities. hopefully in the mod forts would be castle and cities just cities.
Yeah, I dont know why its the way it is either. All provinces should have a city and then you should be able to place 1 castle per province, giving you control of the area you want to control strategically with it, as was the case historically.
would you be able to train knights from forts? or upgrade castles/fortresses? or build a Smith in a fort?
that is my concern.
we may have to double the number or provinces to accomodate castle/cities together
Wooden and stone forts.
They could be very usefull to hold strategic positions all over the map.
In a mod of "one year-one turn"or even"one year-two turns" forts of this kind could give an essence of realism.A good idea could be that stone forts would not disapear even they are without garison,even more...damaged.
A very powerfool and valueable price for any offencive player.
An expencive but necessary tool for any defencive one.
Costs and time of constract under discution.I still think that castles as the M2TW sould continue to exist.A fort must be simply a power point on the map but not a power demostrading point like castles...:idea2:
...
I think the city/castle system in mtw2 is pretty good and shouldn't be changed. But it would be good if forts played a more crucial role in the mod. Stone upgrades would be good, and perhaps a way of forts developing into villages or something if placed on a cross roads... just speculating.
My dear friend when we are talking obout forts we meen those a faction member can build and what form should have...For example when i played M2TW in a siege i notised a building outside the wall with the description "building".It was a small stone fort but never the less not useable. Our question and discution in this thread is if it is possible to build them in the game where and when a player wants to.....Quote:
Originally Posted by \Vazul's Ghost/
...
I was reffering too forts that faction members build. Sorry if i didn't express myself clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthoniusII
I'm an medieval archaeologist and personally i think the current system, which is used in M2TW, is good. It represent pretty much the options you would have had as a medieval lord.. but the biggest problem, it has is the lack of provinces.. there are not nearly enough provinces on the current map to ratify the use of castles/forts so if you aren't gonna ad any more provinces I suggest you only make citities.. but if you do make more provinces, then you should be careful on how u are going to design the castels .. they are not all made up of only stone or only timber... and if you want this to be an accurate mod I can come up with some drawings at first and then i can model some for the mod if ya want :)
I agree whith the castle developing proplem...In 1066 castles build by the normans in England for example where by wood.Mottes,keeps and finaly castles used a compination of wood and stone.I hope that in the mod programers will ensure a slower and realistic castle development compined a MTW way of development with M2TW one...Never the less the mod seems to be very promising!P.S.There must be a slower population growth in western europe provinces than the all the other ones to succed this development.
Would it be possible to add a new option on the watchtowers/forst option or replace forts with the option to build small castles that, like in the first MTW, could only hold a limited number of units, have only an outer wall but you can upgrade them slightly, say wooden walls to stone, a building to allow you to retrain units etc. But also make it more likely to rebel as minor lordling would often fight amounst themselves for ransom and loot.
Actually, in the middle ages you could have a prosperous province with big cities and a castle to protect them, the fields, a strategic pass or anything. So castles could co-exist with cities. I like the standard setup, but its not realistic. So maybe every settlement should be a city and you could have the option to further fortify the province by building a castle (ONE per province ONLY). Imagine the enemy taking the city and you still holding the castle.
That would complicate things a lot of course. Any other ideas?
Anyway, i dont know if thats possible to do on this game.
Well. Sandouras u're not that right ;)
The definition if there was built a Castle during the early and high (also late, but castles didn't play that a big role in this time) Middleages was limited by Law, Privileges, and Money of the Nobleman.
Every Nobleman that wanted to be Adressed as one, HAD to obtain a Castle- no matter how big it was. So u don#t need a wealthy Town or City ;)
Just a Noble Guy owning a small piece of Land. The wealth and size of a town granted it#s definition for fortification, which also had to be allowed by law. A privilege not every city got.
Additional u had different kind's of Nobleman. (feudal-system, Lords and Ministerials..)
This brings me to my idea of making more than just one Castle available per Province (as the province system is pretty wrong too ^^)
During the late Middleages just the highest Authorities, and some wealthy Nobles could manage to keep their Castles intact, reinforce them with new defences, and build Fortresses and Forts (the latter are in general fortifications for Troops, and not for Lords, so there is a big difference in naming than just the styl of it's walls!)
Most of the small Nobleman couldn't pay to stay up to date, as they primary lived from agricultural support (not money!)...i could quote loads of books now ;) but let#s keep it here. Just to show the feudal System and Development of Expenses
So my suggestion for Modding disneystyl MTW2 to Realism would be:
- deleting that disney like Worldmap model of Castles - replacing it by something more realistic
- i completely agree to that one City, and optional addable Castles ("Fort" option).
But i would make Castles damn expensive(even wooden ones), and would not just limit them to one per Province
==> this would make the player think a lot on where to place Castles (and later Fortresses) strategically!
As for the remainance of Castles - i would say they should tend to decay if there is no Nobleman in them. So you would be additionally restricted to just build Castles for your number of Nobleman.
And it would give bribing another Dimension! Imagin (like it was allday practice during those times) one of your Nobleman switches sides to your enemy, holding an important Castle in your territory!
This would resemble the actual situation in the Middleages pretty realistic - tho i donno to what degree it would be able to do?
- Try modding the walls! During the development of Cannons the Walls got more narrow and where widened to withstand the shots! ditches were widened too (sadly MTW2 is lacking ditches!)
Additionally Rotaries were developed and added to the Walls.
As this Game features the Basilisk Cannon (developed in the 15th century) it at least ends in that time! So the final development of Walls should ende here too!
(I'm not asking for making bastionary Fortresses later than 16th century - but at least those first defensive answers to the growing number of Cannons and Guns)
- The last Styl of Fortifications should be very expensive in comparison to the first medieval Castles; and there should be no earth/wood version of this late Defence (as this was Dutch development in the late 16th century)
Perikles, you got carried away there. A LOT!
You are talking so many changes that practically you need a new game.
I agree that more than one castle could exist in a given province, but if that is applied in the game, it will be impossible to conquer anything or the enemies conquering you.
You see, i play the Byzantines and after expanding to Asia Minor and Italy i fix up my economy and make more than 30.000 a year. Much more if i have reached say... Spain! So you see, i can build all the castles i want. I can make 10 castles at the Alps and stop anyone from entering Italy. I could build 15 at the province of Constantinople! How could anyone conquer it then? Besides, after you stand on your feet, no faction besides the Mongols/Timurids poses a real threat. They might capture 1-2 provinces but thats it. No matter how big their army is, they wont do a big campaign to put you in real trouble! They will mostly keep the army scattered and idle and never act clever, say secretly landing a huge army at your capital's gates!
Also, i dont see the logic behind that castle-decays-if-noble-is-absent thing. Imagine conquering Britain with the Byz and a nobleman dying there. How fast can you bring a new one up there? Besides, i never heard of bricks and mortar decaying because a nobleman is not there in real life, have you? Not only is that unrealistic, but it would keep your generals stranded at forts watching over strategic points. You would have to spend time moving them around and not be able to use them in battle or managing cities.
The only idea of yours that i liked is the one about a nobleman who controls a castle rebelling against you or turning to the enemy. Unfortunately (and rather stupidly) there are no civil wars in MTW 2. Anyway, i would love to scatter the traitor's pieces across my empire.
That is all. By the way, when is MTR coming? Is it even coming? Have they considered any ideas posted on these boards? What is taking them so long? In about a year there is a new TW game coming out so they better get it out fast!
I got no idea on how modable MTW actually is.
But u're damn right i would prefere a complete redone game in this point.
Hm my idea on the required Nobleman was not that the castle decays completely. Just more like it get's slightly damaged (i'm aware that this is not 100% realistic as there still where mayor of the castles to keep up maintenance) .... it would increase the costs for their upkeep.
My idea for more than one Castle (but increasingly damn expensive from Wood to Stone) was that u build them on strategic Points like Bridges, Streetscrossings etc..as there is nowhere just "one Castle".
I'm not talking of those huge game Citadells, but of small general Castles like they where common. As u could read from my last post, i recomended high costs for stone Castles too - so especially in the beginning u would just be restricted to build wooden Castles.
(The Citadell btw should have been made a Final stage of the City, not of the "Castle" as the Final Stage of it is the newage Fortress or Palace )
And actually if u build those many Castles (for example in the Alps on every Street - what was my original idea in the Strategic importance of more than just one per province) a Enemy might bribe your Commander/Nobleman , and u got a nice Castle with Enemy in your Territory, and a Open passage for Invaders.
And for your Stone Theory ;) Stonewalls decay for sure.
Every Castle, Wall, Fort ect needs upkeep.
Landslides lead to cracks in Walls; lot's of medieval walls didn't have a Basement so simple earth movement, or the wight of the wall itself leads to deformations; Rain erods the mortar, aswell as plaints which get carried up by wind grow inbetween the Stones (thats why ruins get concrete on the copings nowadays)..
And btw a Castle is not only made of Stone ;)
The rooftiles have to be renewed time by time, Beams need to be replaced,
the stables for cattle, horses etc need maintenance ;) the list is pretty long
If u don#t want them to slowly decay away, i'd say the Castles u build should always cost high maintenance-costs
Btw the enemy never stays a chance when u get that mutch money ;) as the AI only is possible to threaten u in the beginning, and from all sides (Played the Holy Roman Empire).
Yeah, i was really disappointed by the enemies. At first you must be very careful and tactical but once you grow in size, you can arrange your economics a bit and kick everyone's ass.
Here is what i do:
1) Put good governors in richest/biggest/most profitable cities
2) Garrison up to 6 units => free
3) Keep castles to a minimum. One next to the capital to protect it and then one castle for each huge part of the map. For example, a fortress in the middle of Spain, one in France, one in Germany-Austria-Poland, etc. Unfortunately i have to keep every settlement (except Antioch) in the middle east as a fortress preparing for the stupid Mongols-Timurids. Imagine my surprise and anger when they appeared at the Caspian sea/Russian region!!!
4) Monopoly of silk and other resources. Build forts to protect your merchants and put more than one in each point. Also: gold and silver mines.
5) The spine of my economy: farms and trade (markets, ports, docks).
6) Trade rights with other factions
7) Some little money you get from the byz council when you do the tasks they appoint you. Helps a lot early in the game. Probably the pope helps the catholics likewise.
After all that tidying up, my empire has more money than the rest of the world put together.
Then, even if the enemies attack you, they dont invade a lot into your lands. They advance slowly and stupidly, unlike what the Venetians did to me (byz) at the beginning of the game when i was almost annihilated. Even when i reached northern italy they fought with all they got, even capturing a province in Gaul to survive and let Milan hold me back, or landing in the dalmatian coast to hit me hard. Their armies fought smartly and valiantly too!
The rest of europe is too heavy to follow my Vardariotai horse archers and too stupid to stop my cataphracts from charging right into their rear.
Right now only Scotland remains for me to conquer and i have almost 4 million in money. I almost gave them half a million so that they could mount a challenge and fight back, but they remained weak and pityful.
The only challenge now are the Timurids who are stupidly hard and invulnerable (i already beat the Mongols. They are just as lame). I used 10 super-armies to destroy the Mongols and now i await the Tim (yeah, i have slowed down time, so each turn is half a year.... i think. So i have plenty of time before they arrive). But they are almost impossible to beat. Yes elephants were a powerful weapon those days, but jesus this is stupid! Its impossible to catch them and pin them down and even when you do, their peasants can destroy your best general in a matter of seconds. Seesh! I used the automatic option in a previous game to beat them. You put 5 of your armies against one of theirs and hope for the best. If you dare to play it on the battle map, heh, be prepared to watch your armies break!