Castle vs. City Free Upkeep

[Agent Smith]

In light of my garrison thread and the reading I've done, it seems to be completely coutner-intuitive to make cities have free upkeep slots and make castle units unavailable for free upkeep.

In the feudal system, knights had the duty to serve for military purposes up to 40 days without pay, and they also had a duty to garrison castles for a certain period without pay with a constant rotation so the castles were all well garrisoned. This suggests that it would make more sense to have free upkeep slots in castles to represent this duty that the knights always had.

On the other hand, cities would have been the exact opposite. In large cities, most notably in Italy, the wealth was highly concentrated and the population was large, so the cities actually paid for their own police forces. In other words, the "militia" units were actually paid to do their job rather than being akin to the shire levies that were called into duty during a time of crisis. This suggests that there really should be no free up keep slots in cities and the militia should be paid to do their duties.

Thoughts?

[Shahed]

Well you can have free upkeep in castles as well. If you check the thread about "recruitment que" (keywords) I've posted links there.

My view is both castle and city free upkeep is good for the AI. I'd go for both. But I get your point, I'm not sure how well it would work though because in large cities the cost of maintaining a loyalty garrsion would cripple the AI. Need to think about it some more before I can offer anything solid.

[Agent Smith]

Well you can have free upkeep in castles as well. If you check the thread about "recruitment que" (keywords) I've posted links there.

My view is both castle and city free upkeep is good for the AI. I'd go for both. But I get your point, I'm not sure how well it would work though because in large cities the cost of maintaining a loyalty garrsion would cripple the AI. Need to think about it some more before I can offer anything solid.

Well, I guess it depends. The castle units by and large require larger levels of upkeep. So, the AI might be able to save money if their higher upkeep units were kept free of charge while the lower upkeep militia continued to be paid, especially when considering cavalry.

I guess it would require some calculations based upon how the AI actually garrisons castles.

[Zarky]

In the feudal system, knights had the duty to serve for military purposes up to 40 days without pay, and they also had a duty to garrison castles for a certain period without pay with a constant rotation so the castles were all well garrisoned. This suggests that it would make more sense to have free upkeep slots in castles to represent this duty that the knights always had.

Not all units AI or player has are knights, only the elite.
Giving Tourney buildings 4 free upkeep knight units and make it properly work would be good.

[Kobal2fr]

In light of my garrison thread and the reading I've done, it seems to be completely coutner-intuitive to make cities have free upkeep slots and make castle units unavailable for free upkeep.

In the feudal system, knights had the duty to serve for military purposes up to 40 days without pay, and they also had a duty to garrison castles for a certain period without pay with a constant rotation so the castles were all well garrisoned. This suggests that it would make more sense to have free upkeep slots in castles to represent this duty that the knights always had.

On the other hand, cities would have been the exact opposite. In large cities, most notably in Italy, the wealth was highly concentrated and the population was large, so the cities actually paid for their own police forces. In other words, the "militia" units were actually paid to do their job rather than being akin to the shire levies that were called into duty during a time of crisis. This suggests that there really should be no free up keep slots in cities and the militia should be paid to do their duties.

Thoughts?

Not really - militias are meant to represent citizen who just bring any old weapon they were issued and trained with over week ends, the peasants and merchants and officials and so on, which is usually what's written in their flavor text. Whereas castle troops are usually professionals drawn from society's soldier class/nobility, meaning they don't do anything constructive except bash people's heads in from time to time and enforce the local lord's law... usually by bashing people's heads in. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail .

What I mean is that while the militiamen may or may not have "real" jobs besides their status as defense or police force, you'd never see a knight or sergeant-at-arms tilling a field, carrying heavy loads, carting crap around from town to town etc..., hence they're economical and societal dead weight, i.e. a pure money sink, which is why the don't get free upkeep.

I mean, that's why we guillotined/hanged/axed/shot kings in the end, isn't it ? They took all the wealth and did none of the work. Well there you are. No work, no free upkeep for you !

And if you think about it, even police work is constructive work, in a fashion, since they deter criminals (quite terminally, in the case of medieval justice ) who would prey on the city's wealth and citizen. But there's no crime to be fought in a castle which is supposed to represent the networks of fortresses, keeps, forts, watchtowers etc..., the purely military aspect of the castle concept.

I know castles would often have villages all around them, that the castle's troops would act as "policemen" in the surrounding lands etc... in real life, but you have to understand that what we know as "cities" and "castles" in game are not actual cities or castles, but the idea thereof, the purpose behind them.

If I'm being fuzzy and unclear... drink some more. It'll make sense then.

[Agent Smith]

Not really - militias are meant to represent citizen who just bring any old weapon they were issued and trained with over week ends, the peasants and merchants and officials and so on, which is usually what's written in their flavor text. Whereas castle troops are usually professionals drawn from society's soldier class/nobility, meaning they don't do anything constructive except bash people's heads in from time to time and enforce the local lord's law... usually by bashing people's heads in. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail .

The problem is that "militias," as we use the term today, didn't really exist in feudal periods. What you are thinking of is the equivalent of the shire levy, where all common citizens could be called up to defend their country. However, levies were only called into service in times of emergency and had to be ready to serve, and they never provided police duty through being levied.

In large cities (Italy being a prime example of such cities), the cities PAID for a constant police force. Which is what I'm getting at: city garrisons were paid to do their jobs, so why can yo get some of them for free in the game?

Compare that to castles. The nobles HAD to provide their services in a garrison periodically, WITHOUT pay. So, shouldn't castles garrisons have free upkeep since the crown wasn't required to pay the nobility for their periodic garrison service?

What I mean is that while the militiamen may or may not have "real" jobs besides their status as defense or police force, you'd never see a knight or sergeant-at-arms tilling a field, carrying heavy loads, carting crap around from town to town etc..., hence they're economical and societal dead weight, i.e. a pure money sink, which is why the don't get free upkeep.

I mean, that's why we guillotined/hanged/axed/shot kings in the end, isn't it ? They took all the wealth and did none of the work. Well there you are. No work, no free upkeep for you !

It isn't about their economic value to society, it is just a basic notion of feudal duty. Nobles were required to provide services such as garrison duty without pay, so why should you pay for their upkeep in a castle garrison in the game?

And if you think about it, even police work is constructive work, in a fashion, since they deter criminals (quite terminally, in the case of medieval justice ) who would prey on the city's wealth and citizen. But there's no crime to be fought in a castle which is supposed to represent the networks of fortresses, keeps, forts, watchtowers etc..., the purely military aspect of the castle concept.

Yes, the common citizenry was, I suppose "more productive." However, no person living in a city provided their time and effort policing the streets for free. They were paid to do it. Hence why cities shouldn't have free upkeep.

I know castles would often have villages all around them, that the castle's troops would act as "policemen" in the surrounding lands etc... in real life, but you have to understand that what we know as "cities" and "castles" in game are not actual cities or castles, but the idea thereof, the purpose behind them.

If I'm being fuzzy and unclear... drink some more. It'll make sense then.

I understand the notion is abstract, but so are the garrisons. If there is a unit of 60 Dismoutned Feudal Knights garrisoning a castle, it isn't necessarily the same 60 guys sitting there constantly, but should represent the number of knights garrisoning the castle at any given time, with any of them being a nobleman from the country having to fulfill their duty. So, whether Larry and Bob are there or Joe and James isn't of much consequence, just that there is always 60 guys there. Since it is their duty, you shouldn't have to pay for those 60 guys being there.

Police, however, ARE the same guys day in and day out, as it is their job that they are paid to do. So, you should have to pay them day in and day out for their services.

Does that make more sense?

[Lusted]

The ingame doesn't really have much link to histroy though does it? Ingame Castles have the mcuh better troops for most factions and better defenses, but they don't get free upkeep or as much income. Cities have the free upkeep units, some agents and more income but not as good units and less defenses.

With your system, castles would have the best troops AND free upkeep so they don't need the extra income. and cities get more income but spend it on upkeep. So apart from a few agent types why go for cities?

[Kobal2fr]

It isn't about their economic value to society, it is just a basic notion of feudal duty. Nobles were required to provide services such as garrison duty without pay, so why should you pay for their upkeep in a castle garrison in the game?

Because they eat. And there ain't no such thing as a free meal, or so I'm told :)

Plus of course, on top of that someone has to fork it out for chainmail knitting, sword sharpening, raped peasantgirl reparationning, fields destroyed because the lord's hunting party just happened to chase a wolf over it with 150 horses and so forth.
Apparently there's no such thing as a free soldier either.

Yes, the common citizenry was, I suppose "more productive." However, no person living in a city provided their time and effort policing the streets for free. They were paid to do it. Hence why cities shouldn't have free upkeep.

And no farmer provided his time tilling his mud puddle and effort spreading pig shite around for free either. That's all invisible to us.

Consider if you need to that said police force is paid for anyway (i.e. their cost is already taken into account it what the city gives you in taxes+trade+mining+farming), but they're only willing to fight a foreign aggressor (as opposed to just giving them the keys to the city) if you, as the king, provide them with war-worthy equipment instead of the poor quality crap that's enough to apprehend thieves, or if you send messengers with threats/encouraging and so on, through the concept of the recruiting cost.

Besides that, there is a very basic gamey reason for the free upkeep slots : in RTW past a certain population level cities became completely unmanageable and came out as a money sinkholes on the whole (because you needed umpteen units to keep them from revolting, plus low tax levels, plus throwing games daily etc...), leading experienced players never EVER to build farms because that would spell death for their faction in the long run, when obviously larger cities ought to have meant larger incomes as well. Unrest is one thing, the destruction of a whole empire through sheer population is another. The French revolt (pardon, revolution) didn't spell the end of France.

Thus they (CA) reduced unrest, reduced distance to capital penalties, and came up with the free upkeep slots, the sum of which make cities both manageable and profitable from the first turn to the 225th. Might not be 100% historian-proof, but it makes the game more playable for everyone.

EDIT : oh, and what Lusted said. Much more to the point. And in much less words.

...


...

Bastard.

[Lusted]

EDIT : oh, and what Lusted said. Much more to the point. And in much less words.

...


...

Bastard.

MWUHAHAHAHA!

[Agent Smith]

The ingame doesn't really have much link to histroy though does it? Ingame Castles have the mcuh better troops for most factions and better defenses, but they don't get free upkeep or as much income. Cities have the free upkeep units, some agents and more income but not as good units and less defenses.

With your system, castles would have the best troops AND free upkeep so they don't need the extra income. and cities get more income but spend it on upkeep. So apart from a few agent types why go for cities?

Not at all.

It isn't as if you're getting the ENTIRE city garrison for free. The maximum of free upkeep slots in a city is what, five? If those five garrison units cost 100 each in upkeep (such as the decent crossbow militias), that's only tacking on a cost of 500 florins, possibly around 625 or so if they are more expensive spear militia type troops, to the city at the huge city stage if the upkeep slots weren't present. It's even less of a big deal in smaller towns. One upkeep slot missing will only cost the town about 100-125 florins in income. Hardly an issue, and hardly a dent in the income you get from a city to the point where it would deter you from having them and getting castles instead.

On the other hand, add those upkeep slots to a castle. Say a citadel has five free upkeep slots. DFK are 225 a pop and are relatively early in most tech trees. That's 1,125 florins in upkeep for that garrison, twice as much as the city garrison. Also, because of the castle's low economic output, you have practically negated it's income OR you are losing money on the effort for a five unit garrison, especially if you are keeping good troops because it is close to a front. And in an actual feudal system they basically did it for free as was their duty.

I know it isn't entirely historically linked, but free upkeep slots in cities just really don't make much sense when, in game, militia upkeep is the lowest in the game (for the most part) and, as an added bonus, it would have made more historical sense to give the castles the upkeep slots. Nothing wrong with trying to do that

[Lusted]

On the other hand, add those upkeep slots to a castle. Say a citadel has five free upkeep slots. DFK are 225 a pop and are relatively early in most tech trees. That's 1,125 florins in upkeep for that garrison, twice as much as the city garrison. Also, because of the castle's low economic output, you have practically negated it's income OR you are losing money on the effort for a five unit garrison, especially if you are keeping good troops because it is close to a front. And in an actual feudal system they basically did it for free as was their duty.

But that's exactly my point, if you add in free upkeep to castles you don't need cities as even if castles have low income a lot less of your money is going towards military units because of free upkeep in castles.

As you are talking about it you would remove the free upkeep slots for cities. Then you're basically going to have the option between a multi walled castle with free upkeep high quality troops, and you could survive on castle income because oft he huge chunk of upkeep the free castle units would remove. Or You could go with cities who don't have free upkeep units, don't have great defenses, and who's income you don't need as mcuh anymore.

[Kobal2fr]

Not at all.

It isn't as if you're getting the ENTIRE city garrison for free. The maximum of free upkeep slots in a city is what, five? If those five garrison units cost 100 each in upkeep (such as the decent crossbow militias), that's only tacking on a cost of 500 florins, possibly around 625 or so if they are more expensive spear militia type troops, to the city at the huge city stage if the upkeep slots weren't present. It's even less of a big deal in smaller towns. One upkeep slot missing will only cost the town about 100-125 florins in income. Hardly an issue, and hardly a dent in the income you get from a city to the point where it would deter you from having them and getting castles instead.

Basic math :

The "proper" ratio is 4-5 cities per castle, +- geography. These cities need at least the amount of free upkeep militias they get, if not more (a lot more) to put up with the High Taxes needed to maintain multiple full stacks of castle troops.

5*5*125 = 3125 florins per turn per 5 provinces you own.
By the time you're about to win the campaign (40 regions), that's 25.000ish florins per turn. I'd hardly call those free garrisons "hardly a dent in the income you get", especially considering that once you move past tech tiers 1 or 2, it's not uncommon for even the most basic of buildings to cost 5-10k.

EDIT : And Lusted once again beat me to the point. But remember folks, he's the Man now ! Look, look, I'm being repressed by The Man !

[Agent Smith]

Because they eat. And there ain't no such thing as a free meal, or so I'm told :)

Plus of course, on top of that someone has to fork it out for chainmail knitting, sword sharpening, raped peasantgirl reparationning, fields destroyed because the lord's hunting party just happened to chase a wolf over it with 150 horses and so forth.
Apparently there's no such thing as a free soldier either.

Everyone, from peasants on up, supplied their own arms and armor. No king in the feudal period supplied his troops with equipment.

As for the food, that would've basically been free, too. The peasants pay the landlord for the right to work a strip of land, so the nobles have a steady stream of income while they sit on their butts. The Barons further get portions of that income from the nobility and they keep most of that, and I'm sure the cost to feed a garrison is minimal, as opposed to paying for actual services like you would for a police force.

And no farmer provided his time tilling his mud puddle and effort spreading pig shite around for free either. That's all invisible to us.

Peasants weren't paid ANYTHING. They basically paid the freeholders for the right to work the land. They paid the freeholders from their land and got to keep the rest to live off of. So, yes, they did do it for free basically, because they paid for the right to do it and did it mostly as subsistence farming.

Consider if you need to that said police force is paid for anyway (i.e. their cost is already taken into account it what the city gives you in taxes+trade+mining+farming), but they're only willing to fight a foreign aggressor (as opposed to just giving them the keys to the city) if you, as the king, provide them with war-worthy equipment instead of the poor quality crap that's enough to apprehend thieves, or if you send messengers with threats/encouraging and so on, through the concept of the recruiting cost.

What I'm saying is that city police forces did police work for a living. Therefore, they are not out working the fields and making any income that way, per se. Instead, you have to pay them because their duties do not allow them to do anything else, like farm to feed themselves. It isn't much different than the hiring of mercenaries in the feudal system. In fact, most all of the Italian cities DID hire mercenaries as their police forces, mostly from Germany. They paid them for their services.

Taxes+trade+mining+farming is only that. If you want to take into account paying the police force, they already do that...with upkeep cost. Allowing you to have some people work for free in a city just doesn't make sense to me. But, I understand, like Lusted said, that is being overly historically technical. I just think that it is mroe historically accurate that way and could actually help gameplay if the roles were switched.

Besides that, there is a very basic gamey reason for the free upkeep slots : in RTW past a certain population level cities became completely unmanageable and came out as a money sinkholes on the whole (because you needed umpteen units to keep them from revolting, plus low tax levels, plus throwing games daily etc...), leading experienced players never EVER to build farms because that would spell death for their faction in the long run, when obviously larger cities ought to have meant larger incomes as well. Unrest is one thing, the destruction of a whole empire through sheer population is another. The French revolt (pardon, revolution) didn't spell the end of France.

Thus they (CA) reduced unrest, reduced distance to capital penalties, and came up with the free upkeep slots, the sum of which make cities both manageable and profitable from the first turn to the 225th. Might not be 100% historian-proof, but it makes the game more playable for everyone.

Again, like I told Lusted, you are only getting 5 free upkeep slots...out of 20. That barely puts a dent in garrison upkeep costs for a city. A city will still be very, very profitable even without the free upkeep slots. Castles, on the other hand, are complete sinkholes. In fact, most people are forced (as in Russia's case) to convert almost ALL of their castles to cities early on, where it may be more prudent to have a castle for defensive purposes in some areas. However, the castles turn out even or in the red virtually all of the time unless you just stock them with peasants and hope for the best, which defeats the purpose of castles in the first place.

Anyway, in gameplay terms, I suppose there is no "right answer." It's jsut my opinion that it would work better if they were reversed and have the added bonus of being a little more historically accurate.

On a completely different not, on the Britannia Campaign teaser video for Kingdoms, didn't they hint that the new forts would provide free upkeep to allow for the "building of larger armies than ever before?"

[Kobal2fr]

Peasants weren't paid ANYTHING. They basically paid the freeholders for the right to work the land.

You obviously have never watched "Seven Samurais". Peasants are deceitfull ! Crafty ! Dishonnest ! Underhanded ! :)
They only gave what they either thought they could live without, or couldn't hide efficiently enough, or couldn't hide fast enough.

"It was a bad year miloooord ! What with the blight/rain/sun/invasions/pox/brigands/weddings/bachelors/solar rays ruining the crops, you understand..."

But that's not the point. It's true that a peasant's life was basically a zero sum game : tending to the fields, and getting enough food to keep on tending. The nobles, on the other hand, got enough to more-than-enough to live, but didn't tend to shite.
Which is represented in-game by their high upkeep cost, paid for by the farming values (OK, so it's a total reversal from the "ignore upkeeps" line I put forward earlier. Sue me, I'm being rethorical.)

What I'm saying is that city police forces did police work for a living. Therefore, they are not out working the fields and making any income that way, per se

Like I said, they didn't make any income, but they prevented most..."outcomes" ?
Note to readers : not only is English syntax naturally geared towards made up words, you get added perks to them if you're a foreigner. Hurray !

[Husar]

The way I've always seen it is that those militias are actually paid for by the city. As in the city pays for a certain amount of protection that you, being their lord, don't need to pay for. It's not like the taxes they pay are the only money they have, so they've probably got a lot of money left to pay for those militias.

[Lusted]

EDIT : And Lusted once again beat me to the point. But remember folks, he's the Man now ! Look, look, I'm being repressed by The Man !

Shouldn't it be: Help! Help! Im being repressed!

[Agent Smith]

@Lusted: It wouldn't necessarily completely shift the focus to castles, but I guess it would completely depend on your style of play in the first place. I was basing it on my current campaign and my style, which, after reading Kobal's post, made me realzie it wouldn't work for everyone. More below:

Basic math :

The "proper" ratio is 4-5 cities per castle, +- geography. These cities need at least the amount of free upkeep militias they get, if not more (a lot more) to put up with the High Taxes needed to maintain multiple full stacks of castle troops.

5*5*125 = 3125 florins per turn per 5 provinces you own.
By the time you're about to win the campaign (40 regions), that's 25.000ish florins per turn. I'd hardly call those free garrisons "hardly a dent in the income you get", especially considering that once you move past tech tiers 1 or 2, it's not uncommon for even the most basic of buildings to cost 5-10k.

EDIT : And Lusted once again beat me to the point. But remember folks, he's the Man now ! Look, look, I'm being repressed by The Man !

I do see what you are saying, but just a few things:

First, you aren't taking into account the money you save from free castle upkeep, which each castle's garrison (using our current math) is about double the cost of the same five upkeep slots in the city.

Even though that may seem like it still doesn't make a big difference, it still entirely depends on your gameplay style, which I'm now seeing. Your "proper" ratio of cities to castles is completely arbitrary. But, if you play that way, you would take a decent hit (more around 10,000 if you include the gains in free upkeep in castles). But, in my current campaign, I'd actually save money. I am playing Russia and I have 32 cities and 20 castles under my control. Using our same calculations, those 32 cities, without free upkeep, would cost me about 20,000 florins if they were removed. However, those 20 castles (using, say, dismounted Dvor instead of DFK, since they cost the same in upkeep), if they all had the same five free upkeep slots, would save me 22,500 florins in upkeep. It would actually be a net gain of 2,500 florins for me, but it really wouldn't matter since I'm making over 30,000 florins a turn as it is now anyway. So, using the same math, I could actually reduce the number of castles I currently have and still break even. That's what I was getting at by saying it wouldn't make a dent.

Not to mention, in terms of gameplay, one other fact: the AI, from what I can tell, NEVER converts castles to cities. So, the AI most likely, probably never, plays with a ratio of 4 or 5 cities to every castle. The British Isles alone has a ratio of 1 to 1 for cities to castles (well, if you include Caen from the British staarting territory, anyway). Come to think of it, this is probably one of the main reasons why the AI always runs out of money. Changing the castles to free upkeep would probably save the AI money without really changing the ratio of cities to castles that are already on the map in the first place.

But, to each his own, I suppose. Everyone can have their opinion I guess my problem is just mainly historical fun. If I'm going to change the system in the first place, maybe I'd just reduce the upkeep for militia units as well as give the free upkeep to castles. Why should, for instance, spear militia cost as much to pay as dismounted Polish nobles? But, that would be a whole lot of work to make a zero sum gain for the sole purpose of history. Eh, forget I said anything

Still, I wonder if free upkeep in castles instead of cities would help the current AI out at all...

[Gaiseric]

@AgentSmith: I read your posts in the garrison thread, and your posts here, and I belive that Castles should definatly have some free upkeep slots to represent the 40 day service period that a subject owed his lord. I think the lord of the castle would have had enough subjects to rotate his garrison force and keep his castle well defended without the need for paying upkeep.

It depends on how you veiw militas, but I think that these militas are under the same fuedal, 40 day service contract as the men in the castles. Instead of paying homage to a lord, they pay it to the mayor. They are probably rotated just like castle garrisons are and therefore they don't require upkeep either.

I think that free upkeep slots in both the cities and the castles can really help the AI defend its settlements better and let them have more money to spend on larger armies and improved economies. This should offset the advantage that the player will recieve with the free upkeep. I know for me it will not effect gameplay too dramatically. I will just be able to keep larger garrisons at my castles. Maybe the AI script could even be rewritten so that it takes full advantage of the free upkeep and only feilds his armies for shorter, more logical campaigns.

[Kobal2fr]

Of course you'd save more money with DFK free garrisons instead of militia crossbows in cities !

But that's the whole point of not giving them those free upkeep slots : castles are supposed and designed to be money sinks, and cities money makers. The 4-to-1 ration being a rough guesstimate of how to break even while still keeping decent garrisons all across your borders (100% castle troops in castles, militia+castle troops in cities)

Not to mention, in terms of gameplay, one other fact: the AI, from what I can tell, NEVER converts castles to cities. So, the AI most likely, probably never, plays with a ratio of 4 or 5 cities to every castle.

Now we're talking, and yes, the AI never switching its castles to cities and vice versa is at a big financial disadvantage, both because of this and because castles don't make money, something that you can work around in two ways : either don't do it yourself either (meh. Double meh. Me wants the Oslo trade !), or give the AI free cash every turn (as in LtC I believe).

If you reaaaally want to slice hairs, I suppose you could write a script which, at the end of every turn, checks the castles' upkeep costs for the AI and gives it back to them at the start of their next turn, but since the AI hardly ever garrisons and always uses all the units it can spare from PO duties as soon as it's at war, most players just up the king's purse of all factions they're not playing by 5, 10 or 100 thousand florins. Sinan gives them all a million from time to time I believe.


@Lusted : see the verbal violence inherent in the system !

[Lusted]

or give the AI free cash every turn (as in LtC I believe).

Not in the current LTC, but a small version of the money scripts going to be back in the next version.

@Lusted : see the verbal violence inherent in the system !

Bloody peasant!

[Foz]

The ingame doesn't really have much link to histroy though does it? Ingame Castles have the mcuh better troops for most factions and better defenses, but they don't get free upkeep or as much income. Cities have the free upkeep units, some agents and more income but not as good units and less defenses.

With your system, castles would have the best troops AND free upkeep so they don't need the extra income. and cities get more income but spend it on upkeep. So apart from a few agent types why go for cities?

Yeah, that may overbalance things in favor of castles - too much of an edge over cities. I do think it's obvious that something is amiss though in the current system: people commonly accept that you need 4 or 5 cities to every 1 castle in order to maintain a good economic balance (i.e. have good prospects to expand and survive efficiently and effectively). The map, however, does not have even nearly this ratio of cities to castles on it. The end result is all this swapping of castles to cities, which if the two are balanced against each other should be absolutely unnecessary - you should be able to play about as well with either one, they should just contribute in different ways. The problem is that cities are far out in the lead, and not only does it hurt the AI which cannot fix the poor castle-heavy (by the 5:1 rules - it really is about a 50/50 split probably) situation it constantly finds itself in, but it also screws up the faction balance by yielding too many benefits to factions that are city-oriented in troop production: the city then has all economic benefits AND all military ones. Milan comes to mind here, and the problem is worse because it borders many castle-using factions that are crippled by the relative under-balance of their many castles.

But that's exactly my point, if you add in free upkeep to castles you don't need cities as even if castles have low income a lot less of your money is going towards military units because of free upkeep in castles.

Huh? Don't need cities? That's just not right. Maintenance on field stacks is still a significant portion of military expenditure, and the low income of a castle is still a big drawback in that regard - it just is not good at sponsoring a stack abroad. Castle units are not always parked in castles receiving free upkeep, you know. In order to pay for all those high quality units your castles will pump out, you'll need cities more than ever to keep up with the increased burden. The point is that free upkeep in castles only makes it more viable to not immediately turn every castle in sight into a city. You still have to deal with the increased costs associated with the castle troops it will produce, which remain just as prohibitive for every facet except free upkeep garrison duties.

As you are talking about it you would remove the free upkeep slots for cities. Then you're basically going to have the option between a multi walled castle with free upkeep high quality troops, and you could survive on castle income because oft he huge chunk of upkeep the free castle units would remove. Or You could go with cities who don't have free upkeep units, don't have great defenses, and who's income you don't need as mcuh anymore.

IMO it is likely that cities become too hampered without free upkeep. It would require testing to see, though - it might be what's needed to make the choice between cities and castles a worthwhile one.

Basic math :

The "proper" ratio is 4-5 cities per castle, +- geography. These cities need at least the amount of free upkeep militias they get, if not more (a lot more) to put up with the High Taxes needed to maintain multiple full stacks of castle troops.

5*5*125 = 3125 florins per turn per 5 provinces you own.
By the time you're about to win the campaign (40 regions), that's 25.000ish florins per turn. I'd hardly call those free garrisons "hardly a dent in the income you get", especially considering that once you move past tech tiers 1 or 2, it's not uncommon for even the most basic of buildings to cost 5-10k.

EDIT : And Lusted once again beat me to the point. But remember folks, he's the Man now ! Look, look, I'm being repressed by The Man !

Your basic math, while correct, is not definitive in any regard. It merely reflects the state of the game currently. There's nothing correct or right about needing 4-5 cities per castle, and frankly I think we should try to base the balance between the two settlement types on the actual facts of the campaign map when play begins, as the vast majority of settlements will remain what type they start out as initially, since the AI never flips them. A system that benefits a ratio other than what the game naturally provides to the AI is guaranteed to hamper the AI as long as it can't/won't change the ratio, and so such systems should be avoided at all costs.

But that's the whole point of not giving them those free upkeep slots : castles are supposed and designed to be money sinks, and cities money makers. The 4-to-1 ration being a rough guesstimate of how to break even while still keeping decent garrisons all across your borders (100% castle troops in castles, militia+castle troops in cities)

The inherent greater expense of castle troops and its lower income are, combined, MORE than enough to ensure that a castle is never as economically viable as a city. The further economic crushing caused by their lack of free upkeep, however, just ensures that you can't viably keep many castles at all, and is wholly unnecessary as a drawback.

Now we're talking, and yes, the AI never switching its castles to cities and vice versa is at a big financial disadvantage, both because of this and because castles don't make money, something that you can work around in two ways : either don't do it yourself either (meh. Double meh. Me wants the Oslo trade !), or give the AI free cash every turn (as in LtC I believe).

You missed the far more obvious answer of "try to make the two settlement types equally viable, just in different ways." It seems clear from the balance of the 2 types on the map that they are intended to be more or less equal, and yet it is painfully obvious in practice how much better a city is to have than a castle. If you need evidence that cities are better, I cite the oft-quoted 4+-to-1 ratio everyone says you should have of cities to castles. If they were really balanced, you'd be quoting a 1-to-1 ratio, not this 4-to-1 BS. Free upkeep in castles is, therefore, a step toward balance since it improves castles. Since it affects all factions it is a fair change to implement, however it helps the AI as well because it marginalizes the player advantage from swapping settlement types around. As a result, there is little question that it is a very good change to make for the benefit of gameplay overall.

[Lusted]

The end result is all this swapping of castles to cities, which if the two are balanced against each other should be absolutely unnecessary - you should be able to play about as well with either one, they should just contribute in different ways.

This is something i've been working on for the next LTC, the city/castle balance. Im gonna be boosting the income from trade, and trade income from markets so you don't need as many settlements, and reducing the construction time and seriously reducing the cost of low level barrakcs, stables and ranges to balance things out more.

[Lusted]

The end result is all this swapping of castles to cities, which if the two are balanced against each other should be absolutely unnecessary - you should be able to play about as well with either one, they should just contribute in different ways.

This is something i've been working on for the next LTC, the city/castle balance. Im gonna be boosting the income from trade, and trade income from markets so you don't need as many settlements, and reducing the construction time and seriously reducing the cost of low level barrakcs, stables and ranges to balance things out more.

[Kobal2fr]

but it also screws up the faction balance by yielding too many benefits to factions that are city-oriented in troop production: the city then has all economic benefits AND all military ones. Milan comes to mind here, and the problem is worse because it borders many castle-using factions that are crippled by the relative under-balance of their many castles.

Yeah, the Milanese XBow Militia is definitely too good, and should probably be much more expensive and/or toned down.
I wouldn't say that the better quality of Italian militias is that much of an imbalanced advantage though. I mean, sure, early on they're very good compared to the Town Militias or even unarmored Sarges the other factions have to make do with, but they're still mere spearmen, and they'll get butchered by DFKs/archers/xbows/good cav like every other spearmen out there.
So Milan/Venice/Sicily don't need so much castles early on, this is true, but they'll want to switch over to castles in time (which is the opposite of what most other factions go through - fight with castle troops early in the campaign, then a gradual switch to city professionals).

Your basic math, while correct, is not definitive in any regard. It merely reflects the state of the game currently. There's nothing correct or right about needing 4-5 cities per castle, and frankly I think we should try to base the balance between the two settlement types on the actual facts of the campaign map when play begins, as the vast majority of settlements will remain what type they start out as initially, since the AI never flips them.

The inherent greater expense of castle troops and its lower income are, combined, MORE than enough to ensure that a castle is never as economically viable as a city. The further economic crushing caused by their lack of free upkeep, however, just ensures that you can't viably keep many castles at all, and is wholly unnecessary as a drawback.

There is balance, I think, only not on mere economical grounds. Cities fall without much help, but a manned castle is nigh untakeable (never mind the better units, that's just the icing on the 10ft wide stone cake). Castles also have many advantages over cities : they never ever revolt, they don't need govenors which leaves your family free to crusade and conquer, they're hard to spy on and to assassinate in as well, don't really *need* to be garrisoned unless actively threatened, make just as much cash as cities on farming and mining...

In fact, I'm pretty confident one could play a successfull vanilla game without switching over any settlement. The 4:1 is hardly a rule or even a real need, it's just faster/optimized/more comfortable/more expedient to do so. I know I hardly ever respect that 4:1 ratio myself, as I most often convert anything "inside" the realm to a city, and any province bordering another faction to a castle, which more often than not means a 50/50 ratio (if not worse) anyway, only without the useless castle 3 lightyears away from the front the AI is saddled with.

[Foz]

This is something i've been working on for the next LTC, the city/castle balance. Im gonna be boosting the income from trade, and trade income from markets so you don't need as many settlements, and reducing the construction time and seriously reducing the cost of low level barrakcs, stables and ranges to balance things out more.

That seems considerably less optimal than simply granting castle units free upkeep. In particular raising city income even further seems unlikely to give balance: you could keep more castles, but you get even more benefit from having extra cities around when you convert them, which actually makes the player/AI gap wider, not smaller as free castle upkeep would. Making the cities better able to support the castles is not an answer: you must make the castles better able to support themselves.

Reductions to the military building costs in castles could be partly effective in the same economic sense that free upkeep is, but it lacks the staying power and constance of the free upkeep feature. Free upkeep is active every turn, and so represents a much more predictable and more controllable measure to bridge the city/castle gap, which is exactly what we want: something easily predicted and controlled. Furthermore it increases as the campaign moves on (because castles expand and get more slots) so it is a more robust way to fix the problem, and likely gives a far better city-to-castle balance over the entire length of the campaign as a result.

[Lusted]

But i don't like the idea of free upkeep as something for both cities and castles, having it for only cities helps emphasis the differences between the 2.

With reducing the building times and constructions time for military buildings you can get access to better troops quickly, and with increased income from cities you won't need as many cities to support your castle produced troops.

[alpaca]

I like the idea of having free upkeep units in castles.
What you all forget is that a lot of the castles (well all coastal ones) are much better economically than they should be because as it is designed they shouldn't have sea trade routes, which makes up about a third of their total income.
It would also probably counter-balance the castle-dependant factions a bit when compared to militia factions like Milan who can just field a much larger army without paying all that much, which isn't too sensible to me, because they should by rights use mercenaries who were a lot more expensive than feudal units.

Anyways, in my opinion castles are very much underpowered - I never have more than 2 or 3 of them unless I play a blitz game where I don't bother building anything anyways, just because you can recruit so many units in a single castle and they just don't make the cut economically. Giving them free upkeep instead of the cities would mean it'd become at least somewhat interesting to have castles at your borders rather than cities for defense purposes.

[Furious Mental]

The distinction between made between feudal and militia obligations is frankly quite ahistorical. In times of peace neither feudal knights and sergeants nor militia were needed and they were not called up. Who garrisoned a castle if there was no threat in the vicinity? Practically no one. Often it was just the castellan, a janitor, and a chaplain/ cleric. In any case no castellary had enough land to support many knights- in fact to maintain a permanent garrison of knights the size of even one unit of them in MTW 2 would have meant hiring mercenary knights from elsewhere and that was a gargantuan expense. Gargantuan expense though it was, nonetheless, it was commonly done in trouble spots and for example Henry II, Richard I and John of England all preferred simply to have "knights" commute their military obligations for a money payment which was used to hire mercenaries. The only other way to support them was to let them subject the surrounding countryside to a regime a robber baronage, which was commonly done by all belligerents in the Hundred Years War. In other words, the notion of feudalism providing kings or nobles with a "free" army is quite artificial.

Like militias feudal troops were called up when they were needed- so perceive both of them that way in MTW 2- the militias or knights or whatever you make "free upkeep" were rarely actually standing on the walls at all times, but because they live there and owe military obligations to the castellary or community they can be raised very quickly and so for all intents and purposes are ever present. But the free upkeep deal is far more logical for cities because a city could raise hundreds or thousands or tens of thousand of militia from its own population, whereas the number of knights enfeoffed on any given castellary could probably be counted on your fingers (and in fact after subenfeoffment and partition divided knights' fees between smaller landholders alot of castellaries had "knights' fees" but no actual knights in them).

[Agent Smith]

Well, maybe this will be a simple modification that would help the AI deal with the 1:1 castle to city ratio and make things more equal:

The income you get from a province should be set, no matter what the building type is in the province. That way, it's actually the province that you are after and not necessarily what type of settlement it is. This would reward the player/AI with the most TERRITORY, not the most cities.

So, couldn't this be easily done by removing the castle modifiers in descr_settlement_mechanics.xml? For instance, the SIF factor for trade in castle settlements is cut in half from what a city would be. Making it 1.0 would make castle base value the same as city base value. However, cities would still have an economic advantage because of their ability to build the trade buildings.

Then, it won't matter if a faction builds their better troops in cities. Being able to build their better troops in cities just gives more incentive for them to have cities, while making castle income higher (instead of the tedious work of adding free upkeep slots and the like) would make castles more worthwhile all around, for troops and for their better defensive abilities. Just because some factions like the Italians recruit better troops in cities doesn't mean the castle factions should be so heavily penalized.

[Agent Smith]

The distinction between made between feudal and militia obligations is frankly quite ahistorical. In times of peace neither feudal knights and sergeants nor militia were needed and they were not called up. Who garrisoned a castle if there was no threat in the vicinity? Practically no one. Often it was just the castellan, a janitor, and a chaplain/ cleric. In any case no castellary had enough land to support many knights- in fact to maintain a permanent garrison of knights the size of even one unit of them in MTW 2 would have meant hiring mercenary knights from elsewhere and that was a gargantuan expense. Gargantuan expense though it was, nonetheless, it was commonly done in trouble spots and for example Henry II, Richard I and John of England all preferred simply to have "knights" commute their military obligations for a money payment which was used to hire mercenaries. The only other way to support them was to let them subject the surrounding countryside to a regime a robber baronage, which was commonly done by all belligerents in the Hundred Years War. In other words, the notion of feudalism providing kings or nobles with a "free" army is quite artificial.

That is simply untrue, but I think you are mistaking the feudal garrison duty. The kinghts weren't required for garrison in every castle/motte and bailey throughout the entire land, only the important Baronial (i.e., the highest landlords in the kingdom) and Royal castles. And, those castles were always well garrisoned, early on by feudal knights. Later, when Kings began moving towards indentured service contracts and keeping a personal household guard, the duty was less and less important. However, in the earlier periods this was not the case. If field armies were needed, these knights would be released from their duty and their place would be taken by freeholders and/or townsfolk.

Contrary to what you said, outside invasion wasn't the only threat to medieval landlords and kings. They needed those garrisons for some very good reasons.