Castles vs Cities dilemma

[glasket]

I have just realised that I have made quiet an error in my long campaign as Russia. I am just over 100 years into it so I am not going to restart.

Basically the situation is as follows: My territory covers all regions up to (not including) Sarkel to the east and up to the Polish capital Krakaw (soory for the spelling) to the west. It is a vast area and I am at war with Denmark and Poland on the Western front and the Turks (who control Sarkel) on the Eastern front. I am allied with the Hungarians through marriage.

Anyway that is my current situation but the trouble is with my castle to city ratio. I have read that it should be 1 castle to 4 cities approximately and that castles should be strategically placed. I never realised this and have left the castles and cities as they were in the campaign map originally (I never converted them). Thus I have a large number of castles and cities (from memory the ratio would be close to 1 castle to 2 cities perhaps).

The dilemma is this. Most of the castles are ready to be upgraded to citadels and thus if I try and convert them to cities I will lose a lot of buildings. Currently I have no economic difficulties and I am able to get around 2,500 to 3,000 profit per turn which is enough for me at this moment. I am also planning to send some Merchants to Timbaktu to gain additional funds.

Do you guys recommend that I convert my castles back to cities and thus lose some buildings or should I just leave these as they are? I plan on invading Krakaw soon and then the nearby Danish provinces so should I just make most of them into cities?

What do you suggest?

[pevergreen]

As long as your making enough money, you should be fine. In some of my campaigns, I have more Castles than Cities, and i still make enough money.

A good strategy is make all your border provinces castles, and convert them into cities as you expand.

[Aaron A Aardvark]

You can build big churches in cities which are handy for keeping unrest down, killing heretics & keeping the Pope happy so I tend to convert cities once they cease to be on the front line.

Basically, if a castle isn't producing units - convert.

[Rothe]

Remember that you get to keep barracks and armoury, so all of the castles that you convert will not be "ruined". The solution is not to convert the castles with archery ranges (that you need). Stables are not so important for many factions anyway, as most of the castles produce knights without any stables.

I would recommend at most one castle to three cities. 1:4 is a good ratio. The ratio is also a bit dependant on the faction you play, as some factions have amazing city troop production capability (Turkish with janissary and cav from cities for example).

I found that the English are maybe the most dependant on castles as the longbow troops are only available from castles and they are a bit slow to move around the campaign map anyway.

The 3000+ florins per turn you mention seems low to me, but I am a turtle player more than a blitzer. I regularly have incomes in the range of 10 000 - 20 000 florins per turn when I go into serious war. This is because I have a lot of cities (about 1 castle to 4 cities).

Also, remember that inland settlements are better choices for castles as inland cities do not have the port buildings to boost the income up to 3000+ per city. I usually locate all my castles inland and cities to the coast.

[maestro]

My simple rule is that if the settlement can have a port then make it a City, if not then a castle. Economics wins wars in the long run

[magnum]

Also remember, that as Russia you will eventually meet the Hordes (Mongols and Tims), and my experience is that it is much easier to break a horde assault on castle walls than it is on city walls.

[Doug-Thompson]

Also remember, that as Russia you will eventually meet the Hordes (Mongols and Tims), and my experience is that it is much easier to break a horde assault on castle walls than it is on city walls.

Hey, that was going to be my point.

[todorp]

My simple rule is that if the settlement can have a port then make it a City, if not then a castle. Economics wins wars in the long run

absolutely

[Forward Observer]

This brings up a question that I asked some time ago, and I don't think I got a good answer.

When converting a castle to a city you are going to lose some training facilities plus there is a cost involved with the conversion (1500 florins in most cases), but one has the option of first destroying those building that you are going to lose anyway and recovering some cash.

My question is do you do have to do this manually, or does the game engine figure those recovery funds and add them back in automatically.

According to what will get destroyed, one might just recover enough enough to partially or even totally offset the conversion cost.

[Basilakes En Strategoisin]

Well, I may be biased as I always prefer not to optimize but rather "role-play" my campaigns (big mistakes and administrative defects were a big part of history!), but I'd suggest that you don't try to forcefully urbanize your citadels.

If I were you, I'd do just what you say you are about to - take and sack some Polish and Danish settlements. If you could take Sweden and build Stockholm up as a trading city along with Helsinki and the second east Baltic settlement (Riga or Vilnius, I forget), the Baltic Sea could become one rich trading pond.

Besides, if you're around 1180, well the Mongols will be arriving soon, possibly in the Russian steppes and trust me, you *want* to be sitting inside a nice big citadel with upgraded ballista towers when they arrive. Not that it'll stop the daemonic gits.