"Castle" upgrades

[edyzmedieval]

Always loved those castle upgrades, shame there weren't more of them...

[LordK9]

I rarely used them as the ones needing them were generally new acquisitions and the ones that could build them were in safe areas.

[Axalon]

Am I right in thinking that the advantage in constructing the in-between levels (e.g. ballista towers, catapult towers) is that a castle will automatically downgrade one "level" if taken by storm, so it's a way to prevent losing your whole upgrade?

And...

It's been very long since I last played M:TW, but I think that was the case. It's a dubious benefit, however, since you will have lost the castle to the enemy anyway. And because the basic structure isn't downgraded, you will have to spend longer besieging it (or storm it while it contains a greater garrison) to retake it.

Nah, it is da other way around... A Castle takes damage/downgrades if one takes it by siege, and no damage if it is taken by storm. I have many times stormed castles because I did not want them to downgrade. So, the whole point of upgrading castles between each major stage (Keep --- Castle etc.) is nominal - it does get slightly tougher to storm by each upgrade (and to siege too?). All max garrison levels are standardized with the big 4-5 stages so there is no change/gain to be had there (in raw MTW anyways).

One can do little about all this in terms of modding. I certainly tried, but with
only a few parameters to work with, one can only take these things so far.

- A

[Ludens]

Nah, it is da other way around... A Castle takes damage/downgrades if one takes it by siege, and no damage if it is taken by storm. I have many times stormed castles because I did not want them to downgrade. So, the whole point of upgrading castles between each major stage (Keep --- Castle etc.) is nominal - it does get slightly tougher to storm by each upgrade (and to siege too?). All max garrison levels are standardized with the big 4-5 stages so there is no change/gain to be had there (in raw MTW anyways).

Strange that a siege does more damage than an assault, but it makes sense from a gameplay perspective. Thanks for the correction, anyway. Like I wrote, it's been a while since I played the game.

[macsen rufus]

Beg to differ, but castles DO take damage when taken by storm - they usually lose a level. When you take a bottom level castle you'll end up with no castle left standing. I have had very rare occasions when a castle has not been slighted by the experience, but it is very very rare (for me at least...) and it always seems to be a keep that avoids being knocked down to fort/motte/bailley.

[LordK9]

I think that depends on you. Destruction is whatever you destroy when storming.

[Axalon]

I have now examined this stuff first hand, today... Due to Macs post... Here are my results...


Case 1 - West Africa
****************************************
Castle level 2

Stormed --- No damage


Case 2 - Mauritania
****************************************
Castle level 1

Stormed --- No damage


Case 3 - Corsica
****************************************
Castle level 1

Stormed --- No damage


Case 4 - Toulouse
****************************************
Castle level 9

Stormed --- No damage


Case 5 - Tripolitania
****************************************
Castle level 1

Stormed --- No damage



It is possible that CA changed the mechanics for V.2.01 - it would explain your conflicting claims. Otherwise, this is how MTW works. Storm a castle and it takes no damage - siege it, and it starts taking damage...
I leave it to active V.2.01-users to examine/explore that possibility. In V.1.1 - upon which V.2.01 is built - this is how things are, feel free to confirm that (in the game) at any time.

- A