Castle-like castles vs. Towns-called-castles

[Caliburn]

Hello, everyone, it has been a while.

It's been a few months since I last played M2. But starting it again reminded me about a thing that still puzzles me.

It's the castles.

To me, their recemblance to castles as I know them is quite limited. To me, they look like towns with maybe a slightly more upped defence. What I really would've liked to see in M2 was castles. That way the sieges would have had a bit more variety - a siege is a siege, but the siege battles could have been quite different - in a way, there is only one type of siege in the present game.

Just like real world towns and cities with a castle, the castle would have been surrounded by terrain elements, and naturally, dwellings. Outside the castle walls. The battles would have been more compact, not having to run through the streets. Game balance is of course a question, and so is troop positioning, but it's difficult to say without having "realistic" castles.

The game having quite a number of siege battles, it could have been interesting. Maybe it could have been less taxing to computers around when the game came out.

Any mods with "historical" castles? How about the castles in Kingdoms? I haven't tried that extension.

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. But there are loads of those in Total War anyway, call this recycling!

[Mek Simmur al Ragaski]

I agree with you, it isnt very realistic is it? But i suppose it would be a bit unfair if the defender watched as the attacker destroyed the surrounding area and left the battle, so i can see why CA havent added it. Im not sure about the mods though

[Eikon the Magistrate]

The castle realism varies depending on which you are attacking and what kind of faction it is. Toledo for example has a near replica of what the citadel of Toledo actually looks like. Others example York (as a castle) do not. It seems that the makers of the game put more effort into some and left others as more generic examples of a "castle." Either way to me it is an amazing improvement over other MTW titles.

The only thing I dont understand is why the final walls cant be garrisoned ...I suppose this signifies the imminent loss of the castle tho if your troops are forced into the final courtyard anyways.

It is hard as well to say what a "castle" is/was...many castles in the middle ages started simply as wooden walls which were added on to, in many cases the wooden walls remained... or example york again... it was never a true "castle" it was just walls that they kept adding walls to and expanding upon, Never having a proper keep per se. Or example cities...that often enough had a castle within it ..or a fort at least like constantinople and jerusalem (In jerusalem during 1 of the crusades..the garrisoned fort did not fall for another 1 1/2 years after the city!!!) These are not displayed in MTW2 but did exist. Constantinople also had a 5+ mile long wall on the sea side of it.. but we do not see that either. If u are in a field battle near a large castle/city you will see some buildings on the map... I always assumed this was the titles way of simulating those structures.

More gained than lost in MTW2 tho with the sieges and models of castles/cities much more....

[PBI]

The forts in Britannia seem to be more along the lines of the castles you describe, i.e. small, compact defensive castles designed for blocking an advance or as a base for raiding the surrounding area, rather than the large-scale military complexes that the actual "castles" are.

[Caliburn]

Good points, all of them, and as pointed out, the citadels and fortresses are pretty well made. Not every settlement should be completely surrounded by walls, though.

Also, their situation and tactical limitations reflect the better defencive value of an expensive improvement, which I believe is one reason why compact defensive castles aren't in the game.

When it comes to large fortresses/citadels that are integrated to the city more closely, I can see why they haven't incorporated additional castle structures into the mixture. After all, that would mean siege after siege after siege to take one settlement.

The most natural castles to my mind would be border forts, but that's still only partially true. A castle would still be an economical centre, around which a community could be constructed.

There are limitations to the realism that can be allowed. After all, having a castle situated on an island surrounded by a rapid stream and only one way in would not only be boring to assault, but also very very difficult, without giving much room for tactics.

Still, different castle levels could allow for what I suggested and what was suggested by others on this thread. For example, having only limited palisades around the settlements under fortress level, and perhaps not having a main keep or only a curtain wall or a bailey construction, all depending on the location. After all many early stonework "castles" were just four walls with a ladder letting people in and out.

Maybe the improvements could still be implemented as parts of the castle? After all, that's how many castles were: like small medieval factories, covering almost if not all (gardening's pretty difficult in such a crowded place) walks of life within the walls.

I still find it an interesting problem, even when I can see why they might've done it the way they've done it.