Fort, Motte, & Bailey

**chris34au** · 09-08-2009, 03:14

how about after you've built a fortress? is it best to go ahead and add the upgrades then?

**I of the Storm** · 09-08-2009, 08:55

Sure, no harm in doing that. When you reach fortress level you're settled anyway, I guess.

**caravel** · 09-11-2009, 22:48

I wouldn't build the cannon towers because they have a nasty habit of hitting your own walls and troops during a siege.

If the enemy make it as far as the gates, the cannon towers will keep firing and hitting the gates. The same goes for catapult and ballista towers.

**yoyolll** · 09-12-2009, 15:53

Castle sieges are complete bloodbaths, so either way there's gonna be a lot of losses. I disagree, Asai, I think cannon towers do a lot more good than bad. Also, what's the deal with CASTLE4_1 kind of thing? What does the second number mean?

**macsen rufus** · 09-13-2009, 02:38

what's the deal with CASTLE4_1 kind of thing? What does the second number mean?

The first number is the castle level (eg fort, keep, castle etc), the second is the upgrade.

eg plain fort = 1_0, fort + motte = 1_1, fort + motte + bailey = 1_2 - this system is used to define the maps for castle assault battles. Of coursee it's slightly different in VI

**yoyolll** · 09-13-2009, 06:47

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

As far as I know improvements have no bearing on the losses incurred during a siege. On the campaign map, the difference between castles is garrison size. Upgrades are the same as castles, it's difficult to explain unless you've been involved in modding, but the Fort is referred to internally as "CASTLE". All upgrades (including whole new castles such as the Keep, Castle, Citadel and Fortress) are referred to as "CASTLE2", "CASTLE3", "CASTLE4". When you build a Fort (CASTLE) you have the option to upgrade to "CASTLE2" followed by "CASTLE3" (Upgrades) or you can jump to "CASTLE4" (the Keep). This is a simple matter of building dependencies. To summarise, all "Castles" and their upgrades are actually Castles. There is no difference. What gives the illusion of the upgrades is the "jumps" i.e. from CASTLE to CASTLE4 to CASTLE7 etc.

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

The first number is the castle level (eg fort, keep, castle etc), the second is the upgrade.

eg plain fort = 1_0, fort + motte = 1_1, fort + motte + bailey = 1_2 - this system is used to define the maps for castle assault battles. Of coursee it's slightly different in VI

Ok but you two contradict each other.

As far as I can see, Asai is saying CASTLE2 and CASTLE3 are upgraded forts, and CASTLE4 is the keep.

Unless it's different in-game and in the text files?

In the .lbm files, they're numbered keep1, keep1b, keep1c, keep2, keep3 etc.

Ahh, I'm sorry this is getting needlessly complicated.

**caravel** · 09-13-2009, 16:02

Originally Posted by yoyolll

I disagree, Asai, I think cannon towers do a lot more good than bad.

I've never seen their benefit, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Originally Posted by yoyolll

Ok but you two contradict each other.

As far as I can see, Asai is saying CASTLE2 and CASTLE3 are upgraded forts, and CASTLE4 is the keep.

Unless it's different in-game and in the text files?

In the .lbm files, they're numbered keep1, keep1b, keep1c, keep2, keep3 etc.

Ahh, I'm sorry this is getting needlessly complicated.

There is no contradiction. The difference is battle map and campaign map. The numbers you are referring to, instruct the battle map as to which type of fortification to use in a given battle. It is exactly how Macsen describes it. The numbers I was referring to are used only for the campaign map technology tree.

The .lbms you refer to are different also. These are the battlemap fortification, texture images.

**Heidrek** · 11-16-2009, 00:22

Here's how I see it:

Fort - no upgrades are worth it unless they let you build more units (vikings)

Keep - curtain wall worth building as it's fast and provides an extra, mandatory gatehouse as well as stone walls. Balsta towers not worth it, they suck.

Castle - upgrade to extra walls and catapult towers. cat. towers are very worthwhile, as is the extra wall surrounding the whole castle. this means they have to break 2 walls to get to you or two gate houses, causing significant losses. Also, the build time for a Citadel is a LONG time, and if you get attacked while it's getting built you want to have decent defenses.

Citadel - Barbican unless you are planning to go Fortress on it. If you are, just go straight for the beast and save yourself some time. Barb is pretty cool, but takes a while to build, which could just bring you that much closer to the Fortress.

Citadels are pretty good to defend, as are fully improved Castles. a 1 x unit of Halb's, 1x spears, 1 x heavy infantry 1x xbow/arb or even better, Handgunners/Arq's and it's going to be very tough to dislodge you. You'll also be able to hold out a long time with such a small garrison.

**gollum** · 11-16-2009, 16:33

There is a crucial difference in building the first upgrade in the fort level IIRC; this is that the whole castle is set up on a hill. If you jump from Fort to Keep without building the first upgrade (the second is irrelevant to that), then your castle does forever stay on flat ground. However if you do it it stays elevated in all its susequent incarnations.

**Vantek** · 11-16-2009, 17:22

Seriously??? That's absurd!

**gollum** · 11-16-2009, 17:43

Just try it out. All other upgrades past the keep level add rings of walls or defenses like the ballista towers, the barbican etc. The only one that sets your castle on a hill is the first upgrade of the fort level.

I personally dont find it absurd; it kinda makes sense to build up upgrade upon upgrade to the original location the fort was set on, as this is most likely what it aimed to represent.