Castle enhancements

[squidums]

Does building Ballista Towers, Catapult Towers and Barbicans continue to give a defensive advantage after the castle has been upgraded.

I'm wondering wether to build these things or am I better off just moving straight on to the next level.

[EatYerGreens]

They're cheap, they're quick to construct and it's handy to have these things on the shopping list when a new king takes over and you want to gain him the 'builder' V&V in as short a time as possible for as little cost as possible.

As well as beefing up your defences and making assault battles tougher for the AI, their description texts do say that they help reduce siege casualties to your side. It has to be said that AI castle assault battles are rare and the sit'n'wait routine is more common, so the second type of benefit is the most likely thing you'll see.

The castle build is 12 years, the citadel build is 20. It's up to you to decide whether or not it's better to do without the intermediate level of protection while you are waiting. I think you'll find that the next level of castle does incorporate these extra features anyway but, if I was in a position where the next castle level was more than my treasury can currently afford but I can afford the enhancements, then I will build them while I'm biding my time and saving up for the bigger purchase.

Obviously, if money was no object and 3-6 years of upgrading was an unacceptable delay in producing the types of troops the next castle will enable me to make, then I'll skip the upgrades and get building right away.

It also makes the difference whether the province borders onto another faction or not. If safely out of reach of enemies, I'd go straight for the next castle level and save time. At the border, it's a bot more touch and go. They only need to attack and siege you for a year and pull out to interrupt the build and you lose your money and have to start from scratch. In risky situations like this, I go for the cheap/quick upgrades and hope the extra defences are sufficiently off-putting to keep the enemy at bay while the more expensive builds are in progress.

Bit of a convoluted reply but I hope this helps.

[lugh]

Nice post EYG, I don't have much to add after that!

On upgrading border castles though, I'll often put a halt to my expansion so I can beef up the garrisons to a properly intimidating level if I'm doing signifigant building.
I hate starting building citadels all along a five province frontier only to lose all those florins the next turn!

[Procrustes]

Does building Ballista Towers, Catapult Towers and Barbicans continue to give a defensive advantage after the castle has been upgraded.

I'm wondering wether to build these things or am I better off just moving straight on to the next level.

If you go straight to the next level those enhancents will be incorporated anyway. It's worth it to build them if you fear an impending attack.

[ToranagaSama]

Does building Ballista Towers, Catapult Towers and Barbicans continue to give a defensive advantage after the castle has been upgraded.

I'm wondering wether to build these things or am I better off just moving straight on to the next level.

Well, in my most recent experience, playing the Late era of the MedMod, I think it depends much upon how and to the purpose a player uses Castling.

You could have a castle upgraded to the max, but if you fill it full with units, it won't matter, as, generally, the castle will fall in a single turn. So all the upgrades are for naught.

In order to make the upgrades and castling, in general, truly effective, you CANNOT fill it to the brim with units. Less than a single unit to 3 units is the max than s/b be castled (dependant upon the size of the castle).

The purpose is that when forced to siege, you want the Castle to stand for as long as possible. Time enought to build, gather, and/or move a relieving army to the besieged province. On average this might take from 1 to 3 turns, sometime, in the worst case, a bit more.

If the castle is attacked, in the best case you wish for the Castle to do as much damged to the attackers as possible, primarly in the hope of beating back the attack, the battle ending with *you* still in possession of the castle.

THIS is where the castle upgrades come into effect.

With significant upgrades the AI might choose not to attack and wait you out. With an attack the AI might lose and be forced to wait you out.

To sum up, if you chose to invest in upgrades, you MUST also develop and utilize a *Siege* strategy that will make the most of them.

---

JFYI, if you are forced to fill the castle with units and the castle consequently will fall in a turn or two, a technique is to on the next turn sally forth with your force and put up a fight. Of course, one imagines that you have no hope of winning the battle, so the aim is to kill off some of your own units.

You could send all but your General on a suicide mission, watch them die, and then have your General run back to the Castle (of course a few stragglers will make it back as well). Now, you'll have just your General(, and probably a few others) left in the Castle, and the Castle will stand for a few turns, sometimes many turns (provided a large enought castle).

It has to be said that AI castle assault battles are rare and the sit'n'wait routine is more common, so the second type of benefit is the most likely thing you'll see.

The rarity is dependant upon whether one is playing Vanilla or a mod, and upon what Era one is playing. For example, in the Late era starts with a large or larger castle in every province. I'm playing the MedMod v4 beta, Late era, and the AI *will* attack your Castle, as is prudent.

[ajaxfetish]

Earlier this year someone (possibly Procrustes? can't remember for sure) was experimenting with defensive sieges, upgrades, etc. He seemed to find one unit of Royal Knights & several organ guns an effective and virtually unstarvable garrison. If you wish to test your upgraded defenses, you may try leaving just those in a province to encourage invasion and then see if they will assault you.

Perhaps someone with a better memory will correct my errors, or you can search for the thread, as it had a lot of information relevant to the topic.

Ajax

[m52nickerson]

I only use the improvements in boarder provences that are going to be so for a long time, and I don't want to have a defensive army stack. That way the AI will have to assault my small forces.

[Roark]

I build the extras at Castle level and above.

In a province where I am building, say, a Military Academy, I won't bother with the extra add-ons, because I won't tolerate that province's production being halted by a siege. I will keep a standing army there instead, and get busy constructing the important stuff.

Any other provinces, though, where I can tolerate a halt to production, I'll construct the add-ons, and keep a small garrison to maximise siege duration. The enemy cops many more losses between years with ballista towers etc.

[EatYerGreens]

Good posts from all, now.

I fully agree with ToronagaSama's advice about appropriate garrison sizes but must admit I was particularly slow in gaining an appreciation of its importance.

My previous problem was a tendency to (budget permitting) maintain full-strength armies in every single border province. The purpose of this was that I either wanted the enemy to attack, so I could have a go at pulverising them or, naturally enough, that I didn't want them to attack because there was a particular reason I didn't want to let go of that province. Result? Usually a long - and very dull - stalemate.

It was only very recently that I finally realised that MTW buildings don't get damaged or destroyed until the enemy has finally won the province outright, not when you've merely retreated to the castle. I could be mistaken but I seem to recall you'd get both demolition and siege, in Shogun, if you lost a battle so I could have developed this bad habit as a result of that. The full garrison was to make sure I never lost any battles in the first place, if attacked.

[AggonyDuck]

They're good in helping you hold your castles against big odds.
Also I prefer to use a system where I have a central army stack that is surrounded by provinces with upgraded castles and small garrisons. This usually creates a situation where I can use less men to protect a much larger border.

Like when playing Poland I tend to have one elite stack in Poland and then have upgraded castles in Volhynia, Prussia, Moldavia, Silesia, Pomerania. I find it to be a rather cost effective way of defending a lot of land.

[OlafTheBrave]

I could be wrong but I believe in 1.1 buildings are damaged when the enemy occupies the provence. I go with the strong army concept myself and dont spend the money on the defense upgrades. For what most of them cost that is more troops to maintain the borders of the realm.

[ToranagaSama]

They're good in helping you hold your castles against big odds.
Also I prefer to use a system where I have a central army stack that is surrounded by provinces with upgraded castles and small garrisons. This usually creates a situation where I can use less men to protect a much larger border.

Like when playing Poland I tend to have one elite stack in Poland and then have upgraded castles in Volhynia, Prussia, Moldavia, Silesia, Pomerania. I find it to be a rather cost effective way of defending a lot of land.

I FULLY agree with this general strategy.

Its a strategy which becomes a necessity, when a player limits his ability to generate HUGE sums of income. If you don't have the money, then you're forced to, ahhhh, STRATEGIZE!

TW is a Strategy game, TBS to be exact, though many people appear to play it like a RTS game....

[lugh]

when a player limits his ability to generate HUGE sums of income.

Yeah I know what you mean, even playing XL, I don't upgrade farms beyond 40 and don't build trading posts at all, otherwise you can buy the world.

My usual garrison is a single ex heir, with good command. (I usually have two or three expeditionary forces under my best generals, so can afford to place the surplus generals elsewhere). This way, the garrison is unstarveable, and in the case of am assault, 5* dismounted royalty can hold the inner keep indefinetley..... Also since my main armies are overseas, the green troops that are raised to lift the siege already have a good general to command them when they reach the siege.

[Procrustes]

Earlier this year someone (possibly Procrustes? can't remember for sure) was experimenting with defensive sieges, upgrades, etc. He seemed to find one unit of Royal Knights & several organ guns an effective and virtually unstarvable garrison. If you wish to test your upgraded defenses, you may try leaving just those in a province to encourage invasion and then see if they will assault you.

Perhaps someone with a better memory will correct my errors, or you can search for the thread, as it had a lot of information relevant to the topic.

Ajax

Hi,

Sorry - it wasn't me... But all this discussion is making me want to comment - forgive me if I ramble a bit.

I recently used a couple of organ guns in a massive citadel defense - they caused tremendous casualties, but remember they only have eight shots (if you don't turn limited ammo off.) What I've found works really good is just some sturdy AP infantry - vikings, MS, halbs with some valor - heavy sword infantry works great, too. You get the advantage of a big moral boost because there is no-where to retreat - this really helps your pole-arms shine. I love to use dismounted knights, but they count as two men (because of the horse) when it comes to how many can fit in the fort. I like bringing a missile or two, too - some arbs will cause a steady stream of casualties.

You can always get the horde to assault you - stuff your fortification with as many men as you can and be prepared for an all-nighter.

The most important upgrade to get if you think you will be assaulted is the stone wall around your keep.

Consider using a cheap unit as bait - run up to the gate so that it opens and try to entice a couple of units to chase you back inside. If the gate closes behind them then you can swarm them. Kinda tricky, but fun - works best if there isn't a mass of enemy units right outside the gate or they will just keep streaming in and it won't close.

I really think that if you upgrade to the next level fort, all the interim upgrades appear whether you built them or not. I mean, if you go directly from a keep to a castle and then your castle is assaulted you will find you have ballista towers - even though you didn't build them separately.

One big advantage of any upgrades is that when the province changes hands after an assault the fortification will generally be degraded one level. If it has an upgrade, the upgrade disappears but you still have the fortification - otherwise the fortification is knocked back one level. (Will cost you a lot more to rebuild.)

Thanks for letting me babble. I'd appreciate any comments that come up - especially if it seems like I got something wrong.

Best,

[lugh]

Hi,

One big advantage of any upgrades is that when the province changes hands after an assault the fortification will generally be degraded one level. If it has an upgrade, the upgrade disappears but you still have the fortification - otherwise the fortification is knocked back one level. (Will cost you a lot more to rebuild.)

Best,

That doesn't always happen does it? I could've sworn that the chances decrease the higher up the tree you build, and the less likely it is that other buildings are destroyed when the castle is taken?

I like the trick with the bait unit! I'll have to try it the next time.

[Procrustes]

That doesn't always happen does it? I could've sworn that the chances decrease the higher up the tree you build, and the less likely it is that other buildings are destroyed when the castle is taken?

I like the trick with the bait unit! I'll have to try it the next time.

Hi,

I wouldn't say "always", but I think it's "most of the time." I'm not sure whether probabilities change depending on how far up the tech tree you are - good question.

Best,

[DensterNY]

They're good in helping you hold your castles against big odds.
Also I prefer to use a system where I have a central army stack that is surrounded by provinces with upgraded castles and small garrisons. This usually creates a situation where I can use less men to protect a much larger border.

Like when playing Poland I tend to have one elite stack in Poland and then have upgraded castles in Volhynia, Prussia, Moldavia, Silesia, Pomerania. I find it to be a rather cost effective way of defending a lot of land.

Awesome idea... you've just helped me put another edge into my game. I usually keep these large defensive armies but they'd hemmorage money that I could have spent in other ways. I'll try your hub system for defense.

[AggonyDuck]

The only downside with the system is the fact that you'll respond to enemy attacks with counterattacks usually, which usually means a bit larger losses due to you being the one attacking. But usually it's relatively easy to outplay the AI anyways...

[Roark]

Yeah, it can be tough if you have to turn the tables on an enemy who is occupying one of your mountain territories!

[ajaxfetish]

Also be sure you don't have a river between your hub and the province you must relieve!

[m52nickerson]

If you do use the HUB, the best bet is to let the enemy try to assult the castle first. That way when you counter attack, you will face a much smaller force.

[OlafTheBrave]

I checked and verified that as soon as the province changes hands in 1.1 buildings do get damaged or destroyed apparently this is anothe VI change, which does make garrison strategies much more viable.

[EatYerGreens]

Yeah I know what you mean, even playing XL, I don't upgrade farms beyond 40 and don't build trading posts at all, otherwise you can buy the world.

I've just added together this concept with the hub-defence concept and come up with something interesting.

The biggest penalty about being sieged somewhere is the loss of income from that province. Say you have Flanders, or Constantinople, pulling in around 1000 per year (in farm output alone) but the empire-wide army is oversized and your overall cashflow is just a few hundred, so you're totally dependant on this big earner. Then the natural tendency is to go to any lengths to make sure the siege situation, temporary as it may be, never arises to begin with. Hence the tendency to overstock with troops on all border areas.

But that's precisely where there's an element of positive feedback to the problem. More troops demands more income and more income requires more troops to protect it. The economy and the army continue grow in tandem but, not-so-mysteriously, the cashflow figure always ends up around about the same level.

Worst case scenario is that, however many troops you have, you still feel unable to attack outwards and still have enough left behind to do the defending. Result? Stagnation, boredom, corrupt generals, progressively failing economy... civil war maybe?

It seems to me that restricting income, like you suggest, not becoming over-protective of your holdings and keeping troop numbers within reasonable bounds by using the hub technique can actually give you both improved cashflow (enough for the pricier buildings on a regular basis) and more freedom to move about and capture new lands. Pillage and ransoming will likely provide all the money needed to continue the expansion.

Okay, not an earth-shattering revelation but it's only just occurred to me.

This idea of the hub defence and small garrisons is something I always knew about - it's the whole point of castles existing in the first place - but I never trusted the game to leave my provinces alone or thought that having a smaller army would mean my entire empire gets wiped out in the space of a few turns because I lack the numbers required to fight back. Maybe I think that way from prior Shogun experience?

Still, in my current HRE campaign, I have Austria guarded by 120 UMs and a fort for many years in succession with multiple stacks of Byz, Huns and/or Poles over the border and they leave me alone. So it definitely works! Sweet.

[lugh]

Nice post EYG!

I have to admit that my border provinces being besieged rarely affects me. Like I've said, I don't build up my economy to huge lengths, but in border provinces I don't build it at all..... I think it's closer to the real situation where what with boder raids and a constantly shifting border, little enough permanent agriculture was esteblished, and what was, tended to be burned down every few years. (Mind you I'm going by my knowledge of Frankish Syria for this, but it couldn't have been too different)
Like say I hold the shortest border between France and HRE, I think it's 4-5 provinces but I always aim to shorten my borders, I'd have the biggest fort I can afford, border forts and . . . that's it.
Other than a small garrison (like I said, high* ex-heir RK's generally) I have one army in the Kingdom, under the King at the Capital, I don't garrison interior forts and everyone else is abroad adventuring. In the event of a serious invasion, the King moves to defense and if need be, fresh troops trained and placed under one of the high* general in a neighbouring province.

On the pillaging and ransoming, I love raiding nations that insult me and reducing their empire to ruins but not killing the dynasty off, then cutting a way back home. Since I play GA mainly, I'm not actually much of a conqueror, I'll take key provinces like the Holy Lands, but usually only expand in order to shorten my borders.

[ToranagaSama]

@EatyerGreens

Sir, I think you have the makings of a Player Supreme!

Your comments and questions have opened up to the true meat of the discussion, and very reminiscent of the old pre-RTW Org, when *deep* discussion was the norm.

I composed an overly long response, which I need to edit, and hope to post over the weekend in a separate thread as the response is beyond the scope of this thread.

Worst case scenario is that, however many troops you have, you still feel unable to attack outwards and still have enough left behind to do the defending. Result? Stagnation, boredom, corrupt generals, progressively failing economy... civil war maybe?

Boredom? Hardly.

Just got to expand your Strategum.

Good comments, great questions, right though pattern.

Mastering TW is a matter of process, and takes a bit of time.

STW/MTW are masterpieces, and possibly the greatest PC games of all time. The only rivial in terms of advanced gaming, I think, is Far Cry.

Have you read Sun Tzu's, "Art of War"?

The solutions to all your questions are in his writings. As stated by The Creative Assebmly, Shogun: Total War is based upon the precipes of his teachings.

TS

[EatYerGreens]

@EatyerGreens

Sir, I think you have the makings of a Player Supreme!

Thank you.

I accept flattery and all major credit cards.

Your comments and questions have opened up to the true meat of the discussion, and very reminiscent of the old pre-RTW Org, when *deep* discussion was the norm.

I composed an overly long response, which I need to edit, and hope to post over the weekend in a separate thread as the response is beyond the scope of this thread.

I'll be on the lookout for that.

Boredom? Hardly.

Actually, I didn't mean boredom for the player, I meant boredom for the generals, sitting around garrisoning places and never getting to see any battles because neither side wants to make the first move. Hence they start developing those nasty vices, to pass the time, so to speak.

Just got to expand your Strategum.

Stratagem, it says 'ere

Have you read Sun Tzu's, "Art of War"?

I will certainly have to, one of these days, though I think half the fun comes from learning what it has to say through - sometimes painful - experience and I have the sneaking suspicion that, when I do read it, the thing will be mostly telling me what I already know, so I could be wasting my money. I'll check Amazon or some such place and see if it's reasonably priced. The trouble is, I know that it's popular among management types and expect it to be (over) priced accordingly.

The nub of the problem is the old one about "I never have enough money to develop better tech AND I can never get my armies as large as the AI has". If Sun Tzu's advice can get your battle strategy to a level where you are comfortable about defending against superior numbers and even attacking against superior numbers, then one can survive with a smaller army. The improved cashflow will enable you to out-tech the AI and make this process steadily easier.

[Deus Ex]

I will certainly have to, one of these days, though I think half the fun comes from learning what it has to say through - sometimes painful - experience and I have the sneaking suspicion that, when I do read it, the thing will be mostly telling me what I already know, so I could be wasting my money. I'll check Amazon or some such place and see if it's reasonably priced. The trouble is, I know that it's popular among management types and expect it to be (over) priced accordingly.

I do not have a hardbound copy of the book - I have looked through it before at the bookstore (at length ).

However, here is a link to an on-line version. I am not sure if it is complete - but it looks pretty close. check it out and see.

Even if you feel it might be telling you what you already know, I think there is far more to it - and it is well worth a read.

DE

[EatYerGreens]

Thanks for the link, Deus. I followed the link only meaning to have a quick peek but ended up reading the lot!

(I take it that what they've put on that site is a heavily abridged version of the full book?)

[Geezer57]

Thanks for the link, Deus. I followed the link only meaning to have a quick peek but ended up reading the lot!

(I take it that what they've put on that site is a heavily abridged version of the full book?)

Well, the book itself is rather dinky, being a very slim volume. But the website linked above sure doesn't seem to contain the whole thing, little though that be.

Still, the site will give you a good "flavor" of what Sun Tzu was all about.

[Deus Ex]

Have you read Sun Tzu's, "Art of War"?

My apologies ToranagaSama, I just noticed you had provided a link as well.

A very quick perusal on my part, and,it appears very similiar to the link I provided.

I think it is quite possible that the entire book has been translated and presented in either one or both of these links.

It is not a big book as has been mentioned before. Secondly - the contents are DENSE - that is succinct, short, gems of wisdom that contain DEEP insight. Short to read, long and deep to think on, and contemplate, and understand, and apply.

I have been intending to purchase a copy for sometime now, but as money has been very tight, I have not yet done so.

Perhaps someone out there who owns a copy could quickly check and see if the on-line versions are complete or not??

DE