Will castle and towns be seperate things

From the website:

Quote:

---

New Settlement Types
Build through six levels of settlement ranging from humble villages to vast cities and wooden forts to mighty stone fortress. Develop your faction as a feudal aristocracy using you castles to keep the peasants in check whilst conquering your enemies with your powerful armies. Or build cities to develop a wealthy urban society, and battle your foes with diplomacy, bribery, assassination and armies of mercenaries.

---

The sentence sounds like it describes two seperate settlement types. Maybe there will be two types of provinces. One with towns and very small provinces with castles in.

But the next two sentences sound like you have an option castle or city, a bit like temples in RTW. This sound more likely.

i hope there is severasl types of province like fort/city sort of thing so that cities aren't always the center of attention like in rtw where it becomes a siege-fest

good find Martinus... :thumbsup:

I'm hoping they'll go for accuracy (or something resembling accuracy) and have the castle in the middle of the town. From what i've read, the town was surrounded by a big wall, and then in the middle of it was the castle surrounded by another bigger wall, where the garrison would go.

I wouldn't mind castles in towns, but I'd also like to see independent castles outside of towns, as the Feudal Lord's stronghold dominating the countryside.

Based on the first screenshot here, it looks like there may be a castle attached to the town (over on the left side).

Ajax

Looking at the screenshots there does not appear to be any keeps in towns.

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/800/80...g_3334063.html
What is the structure on the far left. I think it is a really big gatehouse.

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/800/80...g_3334164.html
The big building might be a keep, but why do you it would be so close to the gatehouse? Maybe it is palace.

Quote:

---

as the Feudal Lord's stronghold dominating the countryside.

---

That is what I was thinking.

I hope there are keeps in towns. In RTW, once you breach the walls, it just a matter of manouvering into the central plaza. Keeps would add to sieges not only in gameplay terms, but up the time of the battles which people seem to be concerned about.

I can't say for sure what the structure is, but it does look quite large and heavily fortified. I don't see anything else keeplike within any of the towns in the screenies. It is historically legitimate for it to be on the edge like that as castles were often built right into town walls where they could participate actively in the defense, instead of inside where the town must fall before the castle comes under siege (eg Conwy, Carcassonne, etc.).

Personally, even though I'd love to see castles attached to towns, I'd also like to have separate ones available, as many country lords had castles to defend their estates independent of the urban culture.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Personally, even though I'd love to see castles attached to towns, I'd also like to have separate ones available, as many country lords had castles to defend their estates independent of the urban culture.

Ajax

---

That about sums it up for me too. I'd like the option to attach castles to towns, and to build them stand-alone as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sovereign

I hope there are keeps in towns. In RTW, once you breach the walls, it just a matter of manouvering into the central plaza. Keeps would add to sieges not only in gameplay terms, but up the time of the battles which people seem to be concerned about.

---

Well, couldn't they put the keep to the side like in the screenshots, but put the 'town plaza' capture area in the keep rather than the town? That would allow the defenders to withdraw to the much stronger keep for defense, but doing so would give the attackers the run of the town, possibly allowing them to destroy structures and withdraw rather than besiege it.

Maby you will be able to chose like Highly Protected Castles or Economicly Friendly settlements...

If you chose Castle You get Large Stone walls, catapult towers and whatnot and all kinds of kool stuff that require strong siege equipment to breech but are costly to build and give lower income... and if you chose the settlements they produce more income but can be breeched with a ram...

If so a whole new stragicle aspect comes in cause if you build all castles your economy takes a hit and you cant afford the garisons... but if you build all settlements there less protected and can be taken easier ... maby the castles also give public order bonus.

It sounds like a doublebuild for me... That teh castle might start out placed like the RTW fort, but this time it can be upgraded and kept alive without troops. Then one wonders if several castles are available in each province?

If you remember MTW you could/can build upgrades to the castles, so a keep in the town might be a nice upgrade for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

It sounds like a doublebuild for me... That teh castle might start out placed like the RTW fort, but this time it can be upgraded and kept alive without troops. Then one wonders if several castles are available in each province?

---

This is kind of what I'm hoping for, actually, although I still think you should be able attach a castle to towns as well.

What would be *really* neat is if assuming you can build castles in the open countryside separate from the cities, that villages/small towns could start to organically "grow up" around the castle--particularly if the castle occupied a strategic location (such as where a road crosses a major river). These small towns would then show up on the battle maps should an enemy siege that particular castle.

i don`t believe that castle are in the cities. The screenshots doesn`t show that. I think that the castles are something between a city and a fort. I think we will on the next screenshot what they mean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marius

i don`t believe that castle are in the cities. The screenshots doesn`t show that. I think that the castles are something between a city and a fort. I think we will on the next screenshot what they mean

---

Check out this screenshot from IGN. That sure looks like a castle at the "west" end of the town to me! This leads me to believe that you can at least attach a castle to settlements. I hope we can also build them as stand-alone structures elsewhere in a province besides the main settlement, but I'll take this as a good start. ~:)

Im quite sure if that was a castle it would be a bit bigger than that

It looks more like a giant gatehouse. Maybe it is a barbican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican

After read the IGN interview again I came across a few things.

Quote:

---

Either big guns to fire against enemy guns, or small multi barreled anti-personnel guns that are deadly in the confined spaces of cities and castles.

---

Quote:

---

The defender can counter by developing bigger fortresses with two or three rings of walls.

---

The first one seems to prove there is a difference between cities and castle.

The second one is just cool.:2thumbsup:

We simply need more information. We're assuming that they're either in the city like RTW settlements or in the provinces like RTW forts. It doesn't look like it's the former and it can't be the latter. If it was, the enemy could just march around the castles, making them useless. Presumably a castle will have to be dealt with if it is built; yet if the castle is not in the city, there will have to be a fundamental change in game mechanics in order to make them work properly. As such, I think we're grasping at straws. We need more info.

Tincow: Of course we're speculating, we always need more info until we get the game beacuse we're all salivating about it!

It should be possible to have separate castles AND have castles attached to cities. I hope CA have managed this. Some of the screenshots show what look like very big cities so hopefully this has been possible.

As for marching around a castle, of course this should be possible - but the castle defenders will still be behind you as a potential flanking force.

Further the castle might be required to be taken to control the province? And/or have the capability to train specific units (knights from cities? please...).

Good call Kraxis;

You take the city but not the castle to the north? Okay, unless you siege the castle, all of the economic assets in the vicinity of the castle (ports, trade routes, mines, farms) cannot produce anything, as those annoying castle dwellers keep sneaking out and raiding/destroying them.

The 'Knights from cities' bit though - whats wrong with that? A castle is a fortification, not a 'knight school'!

The knightly classes were farmers, not merchants. And that is basically the only two classes in the period. Merchants lived in cities alongside craftsmen and the few industrialists, none of which provided nobility. Farmers did however produce them.

While a castle is not a 'knightschool' it easily could be, much easier than a town/city would be. It was basically only in Italy the knights lived in the cities to any extent. And now that we have 'important' castles then why not make them specific?

Militia (can get pretty good) and mercs in cities, knights and professionals in castles.

What would be good, imo, is if each province started with a city and you could choose where to bulid the castle. This could be very effective in conjunction with a campaign map like rtw's, allowing you to build your keep in a hard to reach place or at a key point on the map.

More importantly, you could still control units stationed at the castle if the town (but not the castle) was under siege, and possibly use them to lift the siege. This would also add a degree of urgency to sieges, forcing the invader to quickly get into the town before help arrives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boastj

Im quite sure if that was a castle it would be a bit bigger than that

---

Castles came in many sizes. That certainly looks large enough to qualify, and I don't think I've ever seen a barbican that size (unless perhaps you count the fortified dam at Caerphilly).

Ajax

I think that the building them like forts in RTW is probly it but can be upgraded. To solve the marching around if the AI isnt smart enough to relized they have left their rear open is to make the castles have a segnifigent use like improve health. Plus a city dosnt produce its own food now does it. That comes from the farmes owned by landlords living in castles. So no castle no food, no food people in city rebel. About castles in cities mabey small ones exept the capitol the king has to live some where dosnt he.

Who knows... Perhaps the castle and the fort are seperate buildable structures. I mean CA doesn't HAVE to stay with two buildings only. One castle per province, gives certain bonusses to farming around it (thus placing it in the middle of farmland would be good for production) and opens up training of certain units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The knightly classes were farmers, not merchants. And that is basically the only two classes in the period. Merchants lived in cities alongside craftsmen and the few industrialists, none of which provided nobility. Farmers did however produce them.

While a castle is not a 'knightschool' it easily could be, much easier than a town/city would be. It was basically only in Italy the knights lived in the cities to any extent. And now that we have 'important' castles then why not make them specific?

Militia (can get pretty good) and mercs in cities, knights and professionals in castles.

---

Sorry to interrupt, but I'm quite sure cities (at least in the Low Countries and Italy) 'produced' knights during the (later) Medieval period. Towns or cities directly controlled by a lord would sometimes be home to the lordly residence, where his sons and their 'comrades' would be introcuced to knighthood, whilst for example the North-Italian City-states all had a civic nobility that would produced their share of knights for the Cities' armies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brutus

Sorry to interrupt, but I'm quite sure cities (at least in the Low Countries and Italy) 'produced' knights during the (later) Medieval period. Towns or cities directly controlled by a lord would sometimes be home to the lordly residence, where his sons and their 'comrades' would be introcuced to knighthood, whilst for example the North-Italian City-states all had a civic nobility that would produced their share of knights for the Cities' armies.

---

The vast vast majority of cities and towns (mercantile places mind you), were ruled by mayors and were in fact the king's towns/cities. They had no relation to the nobility other than them perhaps having a townhouse for when they sold their stuff and the like.
If you note medieval messages often contain kingly reprieves of taxes to the cities. Something the king in most countries did not have the power to do if he did not directly control the land.

Of course this is most pronounced in the earliest period of the timeframe set here. After 1200 the very set feudal structure was losening up a bit, but still the knights were at home in the country, not in the cities.

I think that same units will onley give in towns and castle, without them it would be senseless

I think it's clarified now that Cities will grant you the best millitary units but will take a lot of time to. While Castles will grant you 'good' (Not the best) millitary units early on. And as an answer to the main question, yes, they will be seperate things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The knightly classes were farmers, not merchants. And that is basically the only two classes in the period. Merchants lived in cities alongside craftsmen and the few industrialists, none of which provided nobility. Farmers did however produce them.

While a castle is not a 'knightschool' it easily could be, much easier than a town/city would be. It was basically only in Italy the knights lived in the cities to any extent. And now that we have 'important' castles then why not make them specific?

Militia (can get pretty good) and mercs in cities, knights and professionals in castles.

---

I think that would be just great.
Kraxis for dev!:2thumbsup:

As far as I understand you can develop you settlement in either caste type or city type.
From that it will depend what kidn of unit you can make and how good your economy will be.

So I guess while in RTW you had a governor hall, in M2TW you build either castle upgrades or city hall upgrades.
From which will depend all other things buildable and recruitable in settlements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

As far as I understand you can develop you settlement in either caste type or city type.
From that it will depend what kidn of unit you can make and how good your economy will be.

So I guess while in RTW you had a governor hall, in M2TW you build either castle upgrades or city hall upgrades.
From which will depend all other things buildable and recruitable in settlements.

---

That`s it i believe the whole time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by player1

As far as I understand you can develop you settlement in either caste type or city type.
From that it will depend what kidn of unit you can make and how good your economy will be.

So I guess while in RTW you had a governor hall, in M2TW you build either castle upgrades or city hall upgrades.
From which will depend all other things buildable and recruitable in settlements.

---

I was reading that very thing in the totalwar forum...

I think it diverges right at the start, build a town hall or a castle and from that point the possible future updates are determined...

There was some mention of the cities being more important later on in the campaign and it being a huge enterprize to try and move a settlement from the castle track to the city one...

I wonder if the lost feature from RTW of "Food" will make an appearance in this game... (obviously it was not completely lost but it was simplified and automated and did not apply to you units)...

Expand your borders and develop your lands for wealth and prosperity by building cities or swell your army by constructing vast castles to protect your land and keep your rivals quaking with fear.

it seems to me to be an either or situation. choose to build city make lots of money no troop production, choose to build a castle instead you can produce troops. I like it because its going to slow down the game alot and make it harder to rush.