Constructable Forts

[Voigtkampf]

Provided this would actually happen, I foresee players building keeps over keeps... No longer does your army "sally out", since you don't have any open fields anymore...

[MSB]

Provided this would actually happen, I foresee players building keeps over keeps... No longer does your army "sally out", since you don't have any open fields anymore...

Solution: You cannot build two keeps in close proximity to each other.

[AlJabberwock]

This is a great idea insofar as it allows the player to fully determine the course of history by changing where settlements will be, on the other hand there would have to be severe limiting on these through cost, finite numerical limits, or some other indicator. Major locations such as Paris or Rome and the like would have to be presets...

Al Jabberwock

[Voigtkampf]

Solution: You cannot build two keeps in close proximity to each other.

True. On the other hand, I don't remember a historical occasion where an army in the field raised a castle. Forts and fortified encampments, outposts, watchtowers are a different story.

We are almost talking settlements here.

I'd break it in two parts; towers and forts in one, settlements in the other.

You are able to build towers and forts on the field in few turns. for creating settlements, you would need much, much more turns and a set of predefined conditions; fertile soil, your territory, no settlements in the vincinity...

[King Henry V]

Isn't this supposed to be what the castle building feature is all about?

[A living god]

True. On the other hand, I don't remember a historical occasion where an army in the field raised a castle. Forts and fortified encampments, outposts, watchtowers are a different story.

Didn't the English use castles like that to suppress the Walsh?

[Furious Mental]

"Provided this would actually happen, I foresee players building keeps over keeps... No longer does your army "sally out", since you don't have any open fields anymore..."

Strictly speaking that would actually be historically accurate.

[maestro]

Yeah - if you ever go to the Alsace region of Northern France / Southern Germany, you can see a castle or tower or keep on top of every hill for miles and miles accross the boarder from the middle ages - including the quite beautiful Haut Koenigsberg.

It was a fairly common tactis to castle-spam a border to keep unwanted foes at bay (whoever mentioned the Welsh boarder also had a good example).

[Azog 150]

went to alscace for a holiday a while back. Was amazing there, truely beutiful landscape as well. Plus there was europa park nearby, which was one of the best themeparks ive ever been too.

Back on topic, i think that the fort idea would work if the cities were more spaced out, but with cities so close together the use of construcable forts would be raped beond beleif.

[Mount Suribachi]

Didn't the English use castles like that to suppress the Walsh?

Yes, but the chain of castles took years, decades even to build. IIRC it was good ole Edward Longshanks who started it

[ChewieTobbacca]

I had suggested this before. Be able to build watchtower, fort, small keep, large keep - the larger the castle, the more turns it takes, and more it costs, so its not like someone can castle spam. Having that castle does provide the benefit of being able to store more troops, thus limiting a fort from holding a full stack. Furthermore, since only nobility (family members) can build it, it's not like it's just a normal army building a castle...

[A living god]

Yes, but the chain of castles took years, decades even to build. IIRC it was good ole Edward Longshanks who started it

A decade = 5 turns

1. watchtower - 200
2. fort - 500
3. keep - 1500 - 2 turns
4. large keep - 5000 - 5 turns