Quote Originally Posted by podoh View Post
Well, you can look at it that way.

But:
1) I like to roleplay that I don't take a whole province at once; that when I've conquered the capital I still need to subdue several other parts of the province.
(For example: I don't build mines when I don't really control the part of the province they're in.)
2) I hardly ever assault cities/forts. I wait till the siege time runs out, which results in a surrender or a field battle.

So for my style of playing, 2 forts per province = awesome. Especially if those forts would represent real historical settlements.
I like to roleplay that by winning field battles (and thus forcing enemy armies to retreat towards safety/into settlements) my armies take over land, even if the game can't simulate that. (I love the Europa Universalis system of controlling/owning provinces and peace negotiations...) For example, when my Aedui army crossed Tiber and defeated a Roman army at the other side, my army "took over" the areas north of Rome as the opposing army retreated behind the city walls.

I, too, very rarely assault fortresses/settlements, but that's because I absolutely detest x:TW siege battles. The path finding is horrendous, unmanned (!) towers slaughter warriors by the dozens and even the peasant-iest levies are ready to fight to death for the [town] Square. While sally battles are not as horrible as assaults, it's quite annoying to wait for those exhausted 5-man units run back to you from the town square (unless you manage to rout the whole enemy army at the same instance). *Rant rant rant*

If only, if only field battles could (be it temporarily) move borders.