Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Castles: Siege Damage and Upkeep?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(6777)

unmerged(6777)

Field Marshal
Dec 10, 2001
12.470
5
Needless to say, plunking down a castle (fortification/fortress/call it what you will) somewhere was no mean feat. It was expensive, time consuming, and required a rather large manpower pool. Even one they'd been built, there was always a little bit here and there that was falling apart and needed fixing. Then of course whn an enemy comes a-calling with siege gear (or saps and fires to collapse a wall) there's some major reconstruction required.

I was just wondering, therefore:

- Will/should a castle/fortress require upkeep in an EU II "maintenence" sense?

- After a siege, will there be a variable cost and time factor applied to the recovery?

- How about staffing of the garrison? EU II's free fortress-size garrison really isn't at all representative o the way things were...

- Should you, perhaps, have to assign a corps (several of them, in fact) to an area and then, when attacked, you must decide how many men to pull back into the castle and how many to leave in the field. The more you pull back, the worse the attrition inside becomes, etc...the fewer, the easier it is to storm... Things like that.

- Should a recently captured enemy castle/fortress provide any protection whatsoever for an occupying force?

- Will the be a differentiation as to the method that a castle is taken? In some cases it was strategically more important to essentially raise the buildings to its foundations to prevent it falling back into enemy hands. In other cases it would be better to starve the enemy out and make them surrender so as not to damage a structure that could become useful to you in the future. These are options that could be offered to the attacker...

I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but essentially I'm curious if at this closer scale such things might be taken more into consideration by the game engine.
 
I would hope that most of those things would be options available in CK. They are terribly abstract in EU. Since the game is on a smaller scale than EU it should be possible to easily implement most if not all of Mr.T's proposals/wishes.:)
 
Well, I agree that it may be more micromanagement than some people would like, but at least some of the basic concepts could be applied..

I find it pretty strange in EU2 that a 5k army can take a L1 fortress and then move on to another territory leaving a magical 5k behind to garrison it. In real life, there were frequently battles where the defending commander had to make a very difficult decision as to how badly to strip his castle defences in order to meet an enemy in the field, and there were numerous cases where an attacker would try to draw them out in order to weaken the defences.

The strategic importance of the structures was immense. It might provide control over trade routes, or rebellious populations, or waves of incoming Hordes (look at Siebenburgen = 7 castles) or whatever. Trying to build a large castle it would bankupt the average count, and trying to maintain it (and garrison it) would be very expensive. It would be a calamitous loss if it were raised to the ground by an enemy and thus terms of surrender might relate to "stop ruining my castle and I'll pay you a tithe and back your future campaigns with x number of men".

Anyway, even if there isn't this sort of micromanagement I'd like to see it implemented into the "auto" functions a little bit more realistically.
 
I agree with alot you have said here, MrT.

The Insta-Garrisons (tm) of EU and EU2 are something that I think unbalances the game in certain respects. (Insta-Garrisons, now available in inflatabe and water absorbant varieties! Get them today!)

I also am a firm believer in that fortresses/castles should require upkeep. It does not need to be detailed or micro-management. Simply assign a maintenance value to castles of varying degrees and we're all good.

Damage to castles. This is a tricky one. While I would like to never see Insta-Castles that are at full power right after being leveled by siege equipment, I do not know if the focus of the game is such that it needs to be micro-managed. I think it should be simulated more simply with a time and cost to repair. This format worked very well in Lords of the Realm II, and I think it would work well here.
 
Originally posted by MrT
........... In real life, there were frequently battles where the defending commander had to make a very difficult decision as to how badly to strip his castle defences in order to meet an enemy in the field, and there were numerous cases where an attacker would try to draw them out in order to weaken the defences.

.........
Click to expand...

One of the reasons Saladin swept through the Holy Land after the battle of Hattin was because the garrisons had been greatly reduced to augment the field army (which was wiped out at Hattin).

I have mentioned before (more times than people wanted to hear I'm sure) that the solution to this would be that the garrison could act like a stationary army. You reorg the armies in EU and if one of those armies was the garrison then you would have a legit garrison. This would take a lot of alteration in EU but could be built into CK from the start. It worked like that in Hannibal. :)
 
Originally posted by Secret Master
...........

I also am a firm believer in that fortresses/castles should require upkeep. It does not need to be detailed or micro-management. Simply assign a maintenance value to castles of varying degrees and we're all good.

Damage to castles. This is a tricky one. While I would like to never see Insta-Castles that are at full power right after being leveled by siege equipment, I do not know if the focus of the game is such that it needs to be micro-managed. ........
Click to expand...

The desire to not have to micro-manage castle maint is understandable. I don't think I would mind it though because an overall maint slider (like army/navy in EU II) just does not have the feel of the times where there were not always organized maintenance policies. But I guess an overall maint slider would be better than no maint costs for castles.

Damage could be just the way it was in EU but with a little finer touch. In the seige window some of the fortresses start out at 8 (IIRC) and during the siege went all the way down to -8 (or -10? I don't remember). That is a whole lot of steps which could represent the defensive abilities of a castle. The toughest casltes/cities/fortress/whatever could be a 20 and each step it is reduced needs to be built back up just like in EU - you pay and it takes time to rebuild. So if you want to not have to put a lot of bezants into rebuilding a castle then you better take it before it is reduced to rubble by your siege engines.:)
 
Damage could be just the way it was in EU but with a little finer touch. In the seige window some of the fortresses start out at 8 (IIRC) and during the siege went all the way down to -8 (or -10? I don't remember). That is a whole lot of steps which could represent the defensive abilities of a castle. The toughest casltes/cities/fortress/whatever could be a 20 and each step it is reduced needs to be built back up just like in EU - you pay and it takes time to rebuild. So if you want to not have to put a lot of bezants into rebuilding a castle then you better take it before it is reduced to rubble by your siege engines.
Click to expand...

How do you propose that we stimulate the reduce in the level of castle by seige but you can take it without seige? I mean how can you do that? Do you have 2 options that is like, "Try to Castle Now" or "Seige it"?
 
Originally posted by Zhai


How do you propose that we stimulate the reduce in the level of castle by seige but you can take it without seige? I mean how can you do that? Do you have 2 options that is like, "Try to Castle Now" or "Seige it"?
Click to expand...

O.K. that point was not too clear in my post - actually not clear at all.

Just besieging it - sitting around and trying to starve the garrison out - would not ruin a castle. This would be like the COVER option in EU.

Assaulting may reduce the castle a couple of steps. This would depend on how long the assault lasted.

And the third option would be to bombard/mine the castle. This option would be like the siege option of EU where your engines/sappers would try to create a breach in the wall to facilitate an assault. This would result in the most damage to a castle.

:)
 
What % of castles in a kingdom were typically royal castles? More than in EU, I'd assume that most castles would be owned by vassals, who have their own incentives (and means) for maintaining & garrisoning them. Although I agree that some drain on the royal treasury would certainly be realistic.

As far as damage goes, I certainly hope that's in, and happens far more often than in EU2. Especially in the cases where you conquer land that you're just going to have to parcel out to some ungrateful vassal or relative anyway (rather than rule directly), it would be nice if the near-invincible fortress you just reduced was not automatically repaired.
 
Considering the nature of the game, perhaps having a "maintenance slider" for castles is not the best option. The point that was raised about vassals owning/supporting castles is very valid.

Perhaps instead of having a "maintenance slider" there could be a reduction in vassal commitment or scutage based on what kinds of fortifications your vassal maintains for you. This might also alleviate some issues regarding garrisoning of said castles.

After all, if we are going to be feudal, why not make our vassals work for a living.
 
Originally posted by Zhai


How do you propose that we stimulate the reduce in the level of castle by seige but you can take it without seige? I mean how can you do that? Do you have 2 options that is like, "Try to Castle Now" or "Seige it"?
Click to expand...

That's actually more or less exactly what I have in mind. When one of your armies moves into a province it initiates a "siege" and the "siege" window appears at the left (assuming roughly an EU II layout) you've now got three options:

1 - Starve them out (default)
2 - Assault them
3 - Sap/Bombard them

Option 1 takes a certain amount of time (long) and might force you to keep your army in the field for more than a single season ($$$$$$$$$). It does not, however, inflict any damage to the castle and thus the city will recover much more quickly defensively (but there should be a corresponding and inverse affect on the population in the area.

Option 2 is risky and expensive in lives. It inflicts some damage to the castle and some damage to the population of the area.

Option 3 takes less time than option 1, is considerably safer, does still result in an assault of sorts, but with far fewer casualties. In the end, though, the castle will take a long time and a fair bit of cash to recover.

At any time during any one of the three options you can simply highlight the army again and give it new orders (as per EU II)

It might also be worth having the option, when one of your own castles is being besieged, of clicking a "surrender" button which immediately hands the castle over to the enemy force but stops the damage from continuing. This would be useful if you exepect that you will return to peace soon and regain control of the territory and you don't want to be unduely weakened.

And I would definitely be in favour of having to assign units to garrison a castle. Since I get the impression for other posts and comments that units will be treated on an individual level (with location raised, allegience, etc being taken into consideration) then this ought to be possible to include. Later, if you control the area, you could raise local troops to garrison the castle and release the other unit to go and do something else.

It would also mean that you would have variable castle strengths/modifiers that also depend on the size, skill, and general tactical/martial abilities of the units garrisoning it.

Then, too, how about a "sortie" option? :)

Yes, it makes it complex...but EU has never really been about simpleminded wargaming now, has it?
 
Originally posted by Secret Master
I would love a sortie option as well. Not that I would use it often, but just to give my garrisons a last ditch alternative to surrender.

"Come on, lads. We're starving to death, so lets try and break our enemies in battle!"
Click to expand...

Yeah...or...

"Come on lads. Let's go get those ballistae before the ruin the Pub By the Gate!"

It could also be used as a bit of a morale soaker if you also knew that another army was soon to arrive to try to relieve the siege...
 
Originally posted by Secret Master
You mean the enemy would actually damage the pub? Isn't that against the Geneva conventions? I am shocked, MrT, that you could concieve of such a horrible set of war crimes. I hope this won't be included in CK...:D
Click to expand...


Yes Mr. T don't mention such horrible things again or the thread will be locked (and you might even get a pink card).:eek:
 
Originally posted by MrT


........

Option 3 takes less time than option 1, is considerably safer, does still result in an assault of sorts, but with far fewer casualties. In the end, though, the castle will take a long time and a fair bit of cash to recover.

.............
Click to expand...

The idea I had was that this option would not make the castle fall but would reduce it so that an assault would be real easy and cause less casualties on the part of the attacker.

Offering surrender (either as attacker or accepting as defender) would be nice, just think that may be too fine a detail for the game. But it would be nice.

As far as the slider for maint goes, I just think that was brought up so as to minimize micro-management. If you only have to manage one third of your land it might not be too much of a problem to handle on an individual basis. However, a slider still could handle that. (My preference would be for individual maintenance.):)
 
Originally posted by Secret Master
You mean the enemy would actually damage the pub? Isn't that against the Geneva conventions? I am shocked, MrT, that you could concieve of such a horrible set of war crimes. I hope this won't be included in CK...:D
Click to expand...

Since the game will be rather PC, I doubt that any pub-wrecking or alcohol abuse (i.e. spilling it) will be allowed. :D

I think MrT raises a good point and a good idea, by the way. That should make the post on topic. ;)
 
Originally posted by Sonny


The idea I had was that this option would not make the castle fall but would reduce it so that an assault would be real easy and cause less casualties on the part of the attacker.

Offering surrender (either as attacker or accepting as defender) would be nice, just think that may be too fine a detail for the game. But it would be nice.

As far as the slider for maint goes, I just think that was brought up so as to minimize micro-management. If you only have to manage one third of your land it might not be too much of a problem to handle on an individual basis. However, a slider still could handle that. (My preference would be for individual maintenance.):)
Click to expand...
Part of the reason I was thinking that it might be more feasible in CK is that there have been numerous comments to the effect that the player will generally directly control far less territory and therefore introducing elements of micromanagement might not be such a hard thing. We already know that there will a buildings that can be constructed in a city (IIRC it was Patric who mentioned this and said it was a bit like in Civ 1) and I would assume that a fortification is simply another "building".

I guess that it will depend on how much control the player ends up having over the rest of the "world". If he has only a few provinces and a few armies to control then micromanagement would keep the game "fresh". If he is also controling his allies' armies and/or vassal's armies or lands then I agree that this might introduct too great a degree of complexity for a non-turn-based game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course the whole point of the sortie is to save the Pub and - if lucky - manage to get a few men through the perimeter where they can make a break for it to let the international community know about the heinous actions of the enemy army...;)
 
Thinking more about this, one way they could handle some maintenance (and maybe even garrisoning) costs would be to make it cost more, the weaker the province's nobles are. If I understand the game properly, you're generally going to want weaker nobility to increase your tax revenue, and it would seem a nice counterbalance if weakening them required you to maintain more and more of the defenses as royal responsibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back