The game need a rethink of how castles/forts work in warfare.

[CrabHelmet]

You also said "medieval armies subsisted entirely from foraging."

Yes, following on from the statement "most armies".

How? You can sail by sea, then up rivers, or land the goods then take by cart

There is a good explanation here:

Collections: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

In this three-part series (I, II, III) we’re going to be bowing to reader demand and taking a close look at the nuts and bolts of maintaining an army in the field. In our last series, after all, w…

acoup.blog

Particularly the section on the 'tyranny of the wagon equation'. The size of the train you needed to take food was enormous and grossly inefficient because all of the options of moving food themselves consumed food. The means of doing this was simply beyond most medieval polities and this why we don't see it in the period.

 

[Citizen Caen]

Edward Longshanks' depot you refer to were set up *after* the conquest to support the occupying army, not *during* the main bulk of the invasion. They didn't follow an army, they were conscious attempts to create food stockpiles in fortified areas ahead of conflict.

The point of the Longshanks example was only to provide an unambiguous case of medieval kings being involved in logistical planning, beyond foraging.

Nevertheless, it is generally true that "supply chains" and similar concepts to support actively marching armies are rare enough in the period to probably not be worth representing and simply abstract away, because the forage model was so predominant (within the European context, anyway). We know this from contemporary accounts of the time - for example, The Chronicles of James I of Aragon (written by the king himself!) contain several detailed discussions of supply which invariably reach the conclusion that it couldn't really be done except by sea (which is plainly not relevant to discussions of castles).

It’s true that logistical supply lines didn’t follow armies around as they marched like later modern armies, but there are examples of them getting resupply shipments. Usually during long sieges. As you say mostly done by boats either ocean or river. But for example during the first crusade, Genoese sailers landed in Jaffa, and coordinated with the crusaders to transport around 1,200 metric tons of food and supplies inland to the crusaders at Jerusalem.

 

[CrabHelmet]

If we are talking purely about resupply from the sea, then I agree there is resupply. But this is also irrelevant to the point about castles "cutting a supply chain" because a castle wasn't needed to cut off supply by sea, that would happen simply by reason of the relevant army leaving the coastline.

 

[Citizen Caen]

If we are talking purely about resupply from the sea, then I agree there is resupply. But this is also irrelevant to the point about castles "cutting a supply chain" because a castle wasn't needed to cut off supply by sea, that would happen simply by reason of the relevant army leaving the coastline.

Jerusalem isn’t by the sea. It’s a day or two away. They were shipping food inland. This becomes an important factor in the third crusade. It’s why Richard and Saladin are fighting so fiercely to control the castles and ports of Acre, Arsuf, and Jaffa. Because they are required to supply any army attempting to take or hold Jerusalem.

 

[CrabHelmet]

Jerusalem is a day inland. I don't think it is a good idea from a gameplay perspective to go "because in the First Crusade an army managed to supply a day from the coast, we should have a general mechanic where armies generally receive supply unless there is a hostile castle between them and their origin". You're cherrypicking an isolated example and extrapolating to a general mechanic which deals very badly with the fact the overwhelming bulk of warfare did not see armies take active resupply, including some of the most famous conflicts of the era like the Hundred Years' War (the English very famously pillaging and looting the French countryside to exist), or the Iberian conquests of the taifa, or the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia, all of which become much less likely to be represented well if castles act like hard barriers as per the suggestion in the OP.

 

[Desseabar]

I feel like we've talked about this before, since forts are a huge topic in many Paradox games (esp. EU and IR). I fully agree with the OP and the other commenter that castle are essential to establishing control in an area.

Linked to that is how Paradox thinks of armies wrong. They always have army and garrison as two separate things. In reality, they are the same thing. When an army is not on campaign, they are in the castle or disbanded. So you should be able to decide how much of your army to leave in the castle and how much to take with you. In CK2 terms, I would like to see when you raise armies by province, they stay in garrison if you don't take them. But if you think you're safe, you can raise them and take them on campaign. That would be a strategic choice - and I think a fun one.

As it is, you garrison just sits there, not doing anything except increasing the amount of soldiers the enemy needs to siege the castle. You should have the ability to use your garrison to inflict casualties on the invaders, either killing people or reducing supplies. (Just like they have the option when they breach the walls)

Worse, when the enemy finish sieging the castle, 100% of the garrison is now theirs with no loss to their own army (it starts small and grows). But their entire army can just keep marching on instead of getting weaker the farther they campaign.

Obviously, this would have to come with a complete warfare overhaul, but I do hope they consider what exactly is a garrison and what exactly is a castle.

100% agree. Garrisons, levies, and MAA are all too silo'ed off from one another.

From the gameplay perspective, I think the challenge is avoiding crazy amounts of micro, though. If you play as an empire, you have dozens if not hundreds of castles across your lands, and having to select each individually and tie them to an army would be very frustrating.

I think my solution might be to switch the "rally point" system to instead choose which counties are raised and how many are raised (e.g., keeping their castles at full crew, half crew, or skeleton crew). That way eg the king of England could choose to fully mobilize the troops around London, while leaving fuller garrisons along the Scottish border.

 

[Citizen Caen]

Jerusalem is a day inland. I don't think it is a good idea from a gameplay perspective to go "because in the First Crusade an army managed to supply a day from the coast, we should have a general mechanic where armies generally receive supply unless there is a hostile castle between them and their origin". You're cherrypicking an isolated example and extrapolating to a general mechanic which deals very badly with the fact the overwhelming bulk of warfare did not see armies take active resupply, including some of the most famous conflicts of the era like the Hundred Years' War (the English very famously pillaging and looting the French countryside to exist), or the Iberian conquests of the taifa, or the Seljuk invasion of Anatolia, all of which become much less likely to be represented well if castles act like hard barriers.

huh? When did I say castle should be hard barriers? I said they should prevent any resupply if you move past them, but I also said, and (think it’s perfectly reasonable) to be supplied via foraging if they do move past them.
Actually my initial thoughts were modeled after Edward III’s campaign in France. Look at his Crecy Campaign. he makes these deep incursions into France razing and pillaging up the Seine, but he doesn’t attempt any sieges. The French wise up and start a scorch earth campaign, depriving the English of foraging and they are forced to turn North to meet up with ships Edward had prepared for a resupply. Battle of Crecy happens, Edward wins, but he continues up north, gets supplied by his fleet, and proceeds with his siege of Calais, which the English plan to use as they main supply base for future campaigns.

Edit: my point in saying all that is to ask why did Edward proceed to Calais and not Paris after demolishing the French army at Crecy? The answer I think is because he could be supplied at Calais but not Paris.

 

[CrabHelmet]

huh? When did I say castle should be hard barriers? I said they should prevent any resupply if you move past them, but I also said, and (think it’s perfectly reasonable) to be supplied via foraging if they do move past them.
Actually my initial thoughts were modeled after Edward III’s campaign in France. Look at his Crecy Campaign. he makes these deep incursions into France razing and pillaging up the Seine, but he doesn’t attempt any sieges. The French wise up and start a scorch earth campaign, depriving the English of foraging and they are forced to turn North to meet up with ships Edward had prepared for a resupply. Battle of Crecy happens, Edward wins, but he continues up north, gets supplied by his fleet, and proceeds with his siege of Calais, which the English plan to use as they main supply base for future campaigns.

Edit: my point in saying all that is to ask why did Edward proceed to Calais and not Paris after demolishing the French army at Crecy? The answer I think is because he could be supplied at Calais but not Paris.

I think we may now be talking past each other and not necessarily disagreeing? My point has purely been in response to this part of the OP:

In reality, castles weren’t just strongholds to overcome for war score—they were central to controlling territory. Armies didn’t simply bypass them.

The bolded part is, I hope we agree, categorically wrong. Armies very regularly ignored garrisoned castles, marched straight past them, and laid waste to the countryside beyond. Armies were not concerned about leaving defended castles behind them which might cut off their supply chain because castles could not interrupt a supply chain because you did not get overland supply chains of any significant length.

Could armies be resupplied by sea? Yes. But that's irrelevant to the point about castles, because you can't build a castle in the middle of the Channel! There's potentially another point there which we could discuss in a topic dedicated to supply; but the OP's post was about the effects of castles, and my response is to say "no, armies definitely did regularly by-pass castles and the purpose of castles was not to act as some kind of "thou shalt not pass" barrier", which is one of the huge sins of EU4.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Yes, following on from the statement "most armies".

There is a good explanation here:

Collections: Logistics, How Did They Do It, Part I: The Problem

In this three-part series (I, II, III) we’re going to be bowing to reader demand and taking a close look at the nuts and bolts of maintaining an army in the field. In our last series, after all, w…

acoup.blog

Particularly the section on the 'tyranny of the wagon equation'. The size of the train you needed to take food was enormous and grossly inefficient because all of the options of moving food themselves consumed food. The means of doing this was simply beyond most medieval polities and this why we don't see it in the period.

Theyre inefficient compared to boats yes, but they still work. Sail boats are inefficient compared to steam ships which are inefficient compared to nuclear powered submarines, you make do with what you have in era.

 

[Amina144]

Also CK3 armies are just way bigger in general than real life. And as the game progresses everyone gets larger MAA and Levy buildings.

 

[MyLordFellington]

Its amazing how the warfare hasn't been iterated in this game for 5 years.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Its amazing how the warfare hasn't been iterated in this game for 5 years.

We got stationing instead of army wide bonuses, building numbers changing, knight change, and advantage change, but its extremely lackluster

 

[ray243]

I think we may now be talking past each other and not necessarily disagreeing? My point has purely been in response to this part of the OP:



The bolded part is, I hope we agree, categorically wrong. Armies very regularly ignored garrisoned castles, marched straight past them, and laid waste to the countryside beyond. Armies were not concerned about leaving defended castles behind them which might cut off their supply chain because castles could not interrupt a supply chain because you did not get overland supply chains of any significant length.

Could armies be resupplied by sea? Yes. But that's irrelevant to the point about castles, because you can't build a castle in the middle of the Channel! There's potentially another point there which we could discuss in a topic dedicated to supply; but the OP's post was about the effects of castles, and my response is to say "no, armies definitely did regularly by-pass castles and the purpose of castles was not to act as some kind of "thou shalt not pass" barrier", which is one of the huge sins of EU4.

My point isn't armies couldn't bypass them at all, but saying bypassing castles would incur a lot of risk and costs.

Even Devereaux said this about castles:

Absent a full field army, a fortified site (like a castle) with a strong cavalry detachment could achieve similar operational results in restricting enemy forage opportunities. Indeed, as we’ve discussed, this is how castles worked at the operational level: the presence of troops (specifically mounted troops) in the castle made effective foraging or administration of the land around it impossible for any invading force that didn’t also lay siege to the castle. Consequently an army looking to maneuver in the region had to neutralize the castle first or else swiftly march past it into less well-defended farmlands that could be foraged effectively.

Fortified cities and hill-top towns (oppida) posed similar problems for Alexander the Great and Caesar respectively: if captured or made friendly (either by alliance or preemptive surrender) they were sources of supply, but such a settlement untaken could create supply deadzones and serious risks in the rear of the army. Indeed the emperor Julian gets himself into precisely this problem with an audacious march into Persia without fully securing the rear (Ctesiphon being too well defended), ending up in a situation where the army could neither safely advance nor retreat.

Not securing your rear can cause severe problems to your supplies as seen in Julian's Persian campaign.

 

[Apocal]

My point isn't armies couldn't bypass them at all, but saying bypassing castles would incur a lot of risk and costs.

Even Devereaux said this about castles:

The first five words of that means he is talking about something different than this thread. "Absent a full field army..." is the condition for the rest of his claim. But no one here is talking about a small band of raiders or roving bandits. Those things are effectively invisible in CK3, except as a province modifier. And that's fine. Building a castle = increasing control is a fully coherent, thematic abstraction for CK3.

What I and others disagree with is castles as barriers for armies in the medieval era. That wasn't their job and if it was their job almost all of them absolutely sucked at it.

- Repositories and rally points for troops who can be used to add to your army? Sure.
- As magazines to store large amounts of supplies (think 900-3000 in CK3 terms)? Great!
- To hold territory unless besieged and (eventually) taken? Fantastic.
- A place to safely store much the tax income (implicitly resources of the province)? Love it.
- For the purpose of being a prestige item that legitimizes control over an area? Stop, please, I can only get so... you get the idea.

But literally blocking off an army's movement is a cartoon version of a castle's purpose.

 

[peteoj]

Its amazing how the warfare hasn't been iterated in this game for 5 years.

Truly is, we get reworks to schemes and constant unnecessary ui updates but warfare, the defining mechanic of a medieval grand strategy game, remains the same placeholder, barely stable, unfun system we've had since launch. At best we get minor tweaks that either make the system more trivial or more unfun.

 

[MyLordFellington]

We got stationing instead of army wide bonuses, building numbers changing, knight change, and advantage change, but its extremely lackluster

Yea... but I wanted more. It's a main interaction in the game and I can barely tell major differences since launch.

 

[ray243]

The first five words of that means he is talking about something different than this thread. "Absent a full field army..." is the condition for the rest of his claim. But no one here is talking about a small band of raiders or roving bandits. Those things are effectively invisible in CK3, except as a province modifier. And that's fine. Building a castle = increasing control is a fully coherent, thematic abstraction for CK3.

We do have counts going to war against each other, and raiders do exist for certain cultures like vikings. So I'm not sure if the claim that those are not present in CK3 is true.

And the rest of his blogpost argues that castles do play an important role for hindering the movement of large armies because it can make foraging challenging. Yes, he said an army can march past a castle, but they have to do so quickly to move to another area where foraging is possible/easier.

He also cited Julian's invasion of Persia, which is not a small advancing raiding party, but the full might of the Roman field army against Persia.

 

[Benismann]

Also CK3 armies are just way bigger in general than real life. And as the game progresses everyone gets larger MAA and Levy buildings.

That's kind of a consequence of everyone raising their whole army for every war.

 

[ray243]

That's kind of a consequence of everyone raising their whole army for every war.

I feel we should limit full mobilisation of army to something more special. Most wars are waged with only a portion of the total army in a realm.

 

[HP Delron]

I think more generally, Castles just need to do something. Right now, it feels like they do nothing beyond being "Type of holding you can own directly" and they're just parking places for gold generating buildings. All the walls/fort level, garrison size and other stats just don't feel particularly relevant.

No matter how much you build them up they'll barely slow down (and certainly never stop), any army from a leader remotely relevant to you. When I'm the one attacking, I never feel the need to check the garrison/fort level of enemy territory.

They can halt the odd peasant rebellion army, but they can do that with 0 investment and no need to focus on making Fort Level/Garrision buildings traits or whatever. Not that there's any real need to hold off a peasant army in the couple of seconds it takes to spawn in your army and vaporize them.


I don't particularly care if what castles do is terribly historically accurate, so long as it feels basically plausible enough to be vaguely of thematic. The more important thing is that whatever defensive stats do should feel less like filler and more like actual content.