Castle enhancements

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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,