Multiple Settlements Per Province?

[Megas Methuselah]

How will this work out, I wonder? I've noticed that some provinces are rather large... So, are each individual settlements treated as capturable cities, much like the provincial capital itself(except for the fact that the province won't transfer to your control on the map)? And once captured(if possible), can they be garrisoned on the campaign map and generate an income like provincial capitals? Will they have their own building upgrades and recruitments?

If so, I have to admit, this will be an awesome game. To be able to own a chunk of a province without needing to be able to control the provincial capital sounds like a nice addition.

[pevergreen]

It could work like that, will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Martok]

How will this work out, I wonder? I've noticed that some provinces are rather large... So, are each individual settlements treated as capturable cities, much like the provincial capital itself(except for the fact that the province won't transfer to your control on the map)? And once captured(if possible), can they be garrisoned on the campaign map and generate an income like provincial capitals? Will they have their own building upgrades and recruitments?

I believe that's more or less how it'll work. However, I do get the impression that your occupation of the "minor" settlements won't be permanent so long as the enemy controls the local capital. If a peace treaty were to be signed where you *don't* gain control of the province, I believe you'd be forced to withdraw from it entirely.

[Megas Methuselah]

That's too bad. It'd be pretty cool to control a small chunk of a province indefinitely.

[Owen Glyndwr]

Yeah then, for example, you could have the French and Germans warring over Alsace and Lorraine.

[CaesarAugustus]

Does that mean that one could control every city in France except for Paris, and it would still not be "their" province and appear as such on the campaign map?

[Megas Methuselah]

@OG: Exactly my kind of idea! It would be so sweet!

@CeasarAug: If this will be a feature, yes.

[Ignoramus]

But it would mean that just holding out in the capital is no longer an effective strategy, unless you don't need money, troops, ships, or goods.

[Megas Methuselah]

Exactly. Besides, CA has already stated that they want to destroy that strategy of holding out in a capital in an effort to encourage a higher number of field battles. I imagine the smaller settlements will merely be a group of buildings on the battle map, obstacles in a good field battle.

[Martok]

Does that mean that one could control every city in France except for Paris, and it would still not be "their" province and appear as such on the campaign map?

That's my understanding so far, yes, although I would love to see something more like Methuselah's concept of being able to partially own a province. What (admittedly little) we've seen thus far, however, leads me to believe that it's more of an all-or-nothing affair, with occupation of the provincial capital being the crucial detail.

That said, I imagine that controlling a province's "secondary" cities will still be important. After all, they'll still be a major source of troops and money.

I imagine the smaller settlements will merely be a group of buildings on the battle map, obstacles in a good field battle.

I wouldn't be so certain of that. Going by the screenshots of that Leipzig battle from a few months ago, it appears that even the minor settlements will still entail a battle in and of themselves (although undoubtedly some battle/maneuvering amongst & around the land surrounding cities will still factor in).