How about EU4 style Castles?

[Mad King James]

Castles and Manors have been somewhat combined in CK2 to be one thing, and Castles have lost a lot of their importance since every baron has a castle.

Castles were expensive as hell but vital to defense, and were pretty much limited to, in CK2 terms, kings and dukes. The current Castle baronies should lose their defensive role they currently occupy and be Manors, with higher tax revenues and some Manorial themed buildings but the fortress element should be changed.

Instead, let's have EU4 style castles where the castle has a zone of control, blocks armies, takes much more to siege, and costs money instead of earning it to maintain.

I would also like to change liege levies to realm levies. Right now you mobilize your vassal armies but this is quite gamey in many circumstances and also weird that usually in a war only the king is participating. Instead of liege levies granting a percentage of your vassal's troops, instead realm levies should take a small percentage of the troops of every holding in the realm and funnel it into the realm's castles. The Castellan of the castle would therefore command not only a location vital for defense and zone of control, but would also command the troops of the realm. Castellans aren't independent and are basically super-commanders, every castle has to have their own Castellan, though Kings, Dukes and Counts command the castle where their capital is, and 50% of realm troops go to that castle. Realm levy troops make up by default 2% of castle, city and bishopric forces, every level of crown authority increases this by 2%, as does every level of levy law, meaning the castles and realm levies can hold a maximum of 20% of the whole realm's forces.

In wartime, beyond the forces they are required to send you in the realm levies, the rest of the realm joins or doesn't join the war and fights under their own banner, like tribal vassals do. This is the middle ages and the military was rather decentralized. This means if everyone in the realm quite likes you, you'll have a ton of armies fighting for you, if they hate you, you might end up fighting by yourself.

A few things, if you are fighting a defensive war, the owner of the title you are defending should always join your war, even if they hate your guts. If the Duke of Normandy loathes you, but you are fighting a defensive war over his county of Evreaux, he will enthusiastically join the war. People with political concerns over that same duke or his rivals, correspondingly, will have to figure out whether they like you more than they hate him :v

Controlling castles becomes a vital interest. If the king controls all the castles in the realm, his vassals have very little power, but if a duke controls a couple castles, they control a good chunk of the military forces. Since the new EU4 castles dynamic was introduced, its absence in CK2 is felt. Castles should be a large financial drain, perhaps costing 2 ducats per fort level to maintain each, so if the king wants to control them all himself, feudal taxes become necessary.

The Fortress mechanic I feel should be changed to this Castle mechanic, with the cheapo 100 ducat castle maybe called a Palisade (garrison = 2000, fort level 1), upgradable to a hill fort at 200 ducats (garrison = 4000, fort level 2) and a proper castle at perhaps 400 ducats (garrison = 8000, fort level 3) and a great castle at 800 (garrison = 16,000, fort level 4) and finally the level 5 fort costs 1600 ducats and has fort level 5 and a 32,0000 man garrison (Constantinople). Castellans command the garrison forces in defensive sieges and don't venture out like commanders do.

Like in EU4, you should not be able to seize territory in a war where you haven't captured any castles. As long as your enemy has a castle remaining in the area contested, the war continues. Conversely, capturing the castle controlling an area basically wins the war.

 

[TheDungen]

Manors? There were no such things until very late in the game. While in the early feudal society being the guy in the ringfort is what made you a noble. Every town had some sort of fortified place. Granted to some extent the churces take over this function later.

 

[mjohnson85]

Castles were absolutely in no way limited to only Dukes or Kings. I mean, in no way what-so-ever is that true unless you go back to maybe the very first castles being built. I say that having researched over 3 thousand castles both in the UK and continental Europe.

 

[TheDungen]

Castles were absolutely in no way limited to only Dukes or Kings. I mean, in no way what-so-ever is that true unless you go back to maybe the very first castles being built. I say that having researched over 3 thousand castles both in the UK and continental Europe.

Well I mean at one point every little guy in a castle called himself king but that's not the point he's making.

 

[Rawrschach]

I think a better way of looking at it is if in the majority of counties you replace the main holding with a new holding called a Province. Here you would upgrade things like roads, watchtowers etc.

Important capitals would then still be castles or palaces, with barons still holding normal small castles.

 

[TheDungen]

I'd rather that there were three holdings castles tradeposts and churches all of whch eventually grow into cities, as they grow they'll be able to build all buildings but depending on what you start out with some buildings will be unlocked earlier or later.

 

[theJ]

...could work. Kinda.
We COULD remake the current system to include smaller forts and keeps, rather than "everyone and their mother gets a REAL castle for their own", the way it is now.

The main catch is... "would it be worth it?"
Two things; One, we'd have to go over every last castle on the map, and determine which "rank" it ought to have. Two, we'd have to rebalance pretty much the entirety of the games' economic system to ensure the right people are able to afford the right amount of castles...

That's a lot of work to be done... still worth it?
Beats me.
But I'd recon if we're gonna do it, then our best option is probably to combine it into a larger economy-based expansion(conceptually not unlike EUIVs "Common Sense")... since we're already ripping the economy up by the roots, we might as well make sure we won't have to do it twice, aye?

I could see an expanded development system, where we've got everything from province-wide improvements(such as roads, tolls and guardposts), multiple village/town/city sizes, each with their own additions(villages would deal mostly with agriculture, but as they grow into towns and cities, you'll get options for trade, arts, guilds, monuments, and so on), separate ports/harbours, mines... all in addition to revamped castles and monasteries.

Alas, the question again turns to "is it worth it?". Do we want that amount of focus on economy? Would it be enjoyable to actually play with? Would it detract from the character-interaction CKII centres around? Would it even be possible to balance properly, considering CKIIs focus on money as a highly limited resource, which is unlikely to remain the case if the player is able to fully control their economy?

Worth experimenting with, maybe, but I'm leaving here with doubts, considering how many other ideas I've had that have all turned out to be horribly flawed, especially when stepping as far away from the core concepts of the games as I'm currently doing :/

EDIT: Or, what TheDungen said... that'd work too, while also representing quite well how medieval development tended to work out...
I just cannot do simplicity, can I?

 

[TheDungen]

I just cannot do simplicity, can I?

That's why we aren't the ones designing the game, we can spawn any number of ideas, but it takes the pros to tell what's doable and what's not.

 

[DeathBurst]

We COULD remake the current system [...]
The main catch is... "would it be worth it?"

This should be a sticky post in this subforum. I wish a lot more people could realize that, for all kind of topics...

 

[Inucroft]

Manors? There were no such things until very late in the game. While in the early feudal society being the guy in the ringfort is what made you a noble. Every town had some sort of fortified place. Granted to some extent the churces take over this function later.

Manors were used by the Anglo-Saxons as the landed system by the mid 800s, many of these had a simple stockade- others such as Banemburg (Northumbria) were heavily fortified Mannor just could be seen as an early castle.

Within the British Isles, there were less than ten castles before the Norman Conquest. These were small Motte & Bailey Castles along the Welsh Borders- under orders of King Edward after his return from exile in Normandy. Most major settlements were heavily fortied, thanks to King Alfred the Great, under his Bhur system.

Under Norman Rule, most Major towns & cities had a castle (Motte & Bailey). Outside of this, they were mainly built at strategic locations or the local lord had converted his mannor into a small Motte & Bailey. Very few Castles were converted from Motte & Bailey Castles into the stone bastions we see today- many of those were soley owned by the Royal Family or (within England) the richest noble families. Castles were EXPENSIVE to build, maintain and man, as such majority of castles untill the late 1100s were Motte & Bailey Castles.

Castles could only be built with the Kings writ (permission), during the Anarchy within England (1130s-1160s) any lord built Motte & Bailey Castles. Afterwards, most were torn down as the King power recovered citing their illegality.

 

[TheDungen]

Manors were used by the Anglo-Saxons as the landed system by the mid 800s, many of these had a simple stockade- others such as Banemburg (Northumbria) were heavily fortified Mannor just could be seen as an early castle.

Within the British Isles, there were less than ten castles before the Norman Conquest. These were small Motte & Bailey Castles along the Welsh Borders- under orders of King Edward after his return from exile in Normandy. Most major settlements were heavily fortied, thanks to King Alfred the Great, under his Bhur system.

Under Norman Rule, most Major towns & cities had a castle (Motte & Bailey). Outside of this, they were mainly built at strategic locations or the local lord had converted his mannor into a small Motte & Bailey. Very few Castles were converted from Motte & Bailey Castles into the stone bastions we see today- many of those were soley owned by the Royal Family or (within England) the richest noble families. Castles were EXPENSIVE to build, maintain and man, as such majority of castles untill the late 1100s were Motte & Bailey Castles.

Castles could only be built with the Kings writ (permission), during the Anarchy within England (1130s-1160s) any lord built Motte & Bailey Castles. Afterwards, most were torn down as the King power recovered citing their illegality.

I don't think that word meant the same back then. And if you mean castles of dressed stone then yes those are later, but ringforts served exactly the same function and have been around since people first started settling down (well at least as soon as people settled down and started stealing from each other). I have no idea about england never cared much for england (and I have no idea what you mean with motte and bailey) but I've seen plenty of ringforts in ireland and in the norse countries every town has a slotsbacke (castle hill) which is usually where the local fort/castle used to stand. Again these were usually wooden pallisades build on top of a wall of earth. As I stated earlier, about the same time as dressed stone became available the people in the norse countries started building churches and using those as their fortified place instead. The nobles who could afford built castles of dressed stone but those were much more rare than the earlier ringforts.That can be seen as the end of the first phase of feudalism, when castles went from being something run by the community, a local place to hide when the raiders came, to becomming the home and possession of some noble.

 

[Rags17]

This is doable under the current system but very messy.

First, you would have to rename Castles to something more generic such as Strongholds and remove most of the upgrades that add to the Fort level, ie keep the economic and levy bonuses but not the fortification bonuses. Next, change the Forts into Castles by massively increasing the cost, adding a NEGATIVE income bonus (ie it costs money to keep a full blown Castle operating) and giving it lots of pure fortification, garrison and levy bonuses and virtually zero economic advantages. Effectively you swap Forts for Castles and vice versa, while also making Castles more expensive to maintain. What this would do is make every province have a Stronghold but only a few would have a full blown Castle, and the ongoing operating costs would mean that only senior lords would be able to keep them.

They would have to be sieged down before any of the province holdings could be attacked, the downside is that beating them would actually destroy them which means that they would have to be entirely rebuilt once beaten. Two other issues - not sure how good the AI is in building Forts and also not sure if Forts are actually editable yet. The up side is that this is doable now with the current mechanics (assuming that Forts are now editable) and it would limit Castles to a select few wealthy lords, which is the OP's original suggestion.

 

[Inucroft]

I don't think that word meant the same back then. And if you mean castles of dressed stone then yes those are later, but ringforts served exactly the same function and have been around since people first started settling down (well at least as soon as people settled down and started stealing from each other). I have no idea about england never cared much for england (and I have no idea what you mean with motte and bailey) but I've seen plenty of ringforts in ireland and in the norse countries every town has a slotsbacke (castle hill) which is usually where the local fort/castle used to stand. Again these were usually wooden pallisades build on top of a wall of earth. As I stated earlier, about the same time as dressed stone became available the people in the norse countries started building churches and using those as their fortified place instead. The nobles who could afford built castles of dressed stone but those were much more rare than the earlier ringforts.That can be seen as the end of the first phase of feudalism, when castles went from being something run by the community, a local place to hide when the raiders came, to becomming the home and possession of some noble.

Sorry for late reply.

The word Mannor if that is what you are refing to IS the same- it is an administrative unit used by the Saxons then adopted by the Normans.
Iron Age Forts (Ring Forts) while often seen as a precurser to the Castle were not- they were in essence, an unoccupied Bhur primarily used as a place to retreat to or in rare cases within the British Isles (Pre-Norman) as a Royal Residnt if they were rich enough to maintain occupation all year round.

As for the Motte & Baily Castle http://www.clydesdalesheritage.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1.jpg It is the EARLIEST form of Castle.

 

[GiftGruen]

Living in the Alps, many medieval lords around here saw the importance of the passes and built a castle literally EVERY SINGLE KILOMETER along the valley floor in my home country. You cannot cross the Alps on one of the "medieval" routes (mostly the same as today's roads minus all the tunnels) without seeing at least a dozen castles.

And not only the dukes or kings, but these dozens of castles were within the demesne of one single count.

 

[TheDungen]

Sorry for late reply.

The word Mannor if that is what you are refing to IS the same- it is an administrative unit used by the Saxons then adopted by the Normans.
Iron Age Forts (Ring Forts) while often seen as a precurser to the Castle were not- they were in essence, an unoccupied Bhur primarily used as a place to retreat to or in rare cases within the British Isles (Pre-Norman) as a Royal Residnt if they were rich enough to maintain occupation all year round.

As for the Motte & Baily Castle http://www.clydesdalesheritage.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1.jpg It is the EARLIEST form of Castle.

You mean anglosaxons right? Because I'm half saxon , real german saxon, and I've never heard of the concept of manor used that way.
Has it occoured to you that england is not a good example of how things generally happened in europe? For an example in sweden ring forts were linked to nobles. Sigurd Ring for an example was probably so named becuase he built a ring fort somewhere.
And yes that's how nobility evolved, the tribe built a ring fort, the strongest of them is put in charge of leading the men in battle, in time that also comes to mean managing the ringfort. As time passes the chiefs are more and more only concerned with that task, and in order to let them do that better the villagers start to providing other things they need. In time this evolves to the first nobles. As the nobles start conquering one another you get the first hints of a feudal society. And it all started with having a guy to make sure that the walls of your local ringfort didn't fall down.

 

[GiftGruen]

Has it occoured to you that england is not a good example of how things generally happened in europe?

That's a bad argument (even though it made me chuckle). There is no one concept you can apply to all the cultures, religions and technological advancements within the timeframe of CK II, not even one concept for the "Feudal" part of the game, since that also encompasses India and the land along the northern Silk Route now. The same argument can be made for every concept, also the one currently in place.

 

[TheDungen]

That's a bad argument (even though it made me chuckle). There is no one concept you can apply to all the cultures, religions and technological advancements within the timeframe of CK II, not even one concept for the "Feudal" part of the game, since that also encompasses India and the land along the northern Silk Route now. The same argument can be made for every concept, also the one currently in place.

Yeah but england and the nordics will usually be more diffrent from continental europe than continental powers are from each other.

 

[mjohnson85]

As a generalization, England is significantly different in terms of governmental structure when compared to the continent. The vanilla CK2 model in fact fits England very poorly.

 

[Talq]

The fortification model in the game does lead to some annoying results, like every province being equally fortified, merchant republics being artificially poorly defended, and kingdoms changing hands despite key cities not being touched.

I'd be content with just not having to siege down every holding in the province.

(and England's political unity and not having landward neighbours does lead to fortification patterns that are different to the rest of Europe. Not sure if its meaningful in the context of the game however.)

 

[Domkrat282]

As a generalization, England is significantly different in terms of governmental structure when compared to the continent. The vanilla CK2 model in fact fits England very poorly.

Which country vanilla CK2 model fits at least good? Northern France during couple hundred years?

Sorry my broken English.