Been playing Protective leaders lately, and I notice that I'm building some Castles.

At half-price, Castles are just 75 hammers, or 50 with stone. 75 is reasonable and 50 is cheap for something that gives you 1 culture and an extra trade route. (I'm ignoring the Castle's defense bonus because it comes into play very rarely.)

The big problem with the Castle, of course, is its timing. It has a short effective lifespan -- you can't build it until Engineering, and then it goes obsolete with Economics. Those techs are usually not too far apart. To add insult to injury, by the time you get some Castles built, a lot of the AI civs will be picking up Banking and switching to Mercantilism, drastically reducing the value of your trade routes.

Still, it is possible to leverage the cheap Castles for some real benefit. A Castle in a large coastal city will give you a trade route worth 2 or 3 commerce in the midgame. Add a Harbor and that's 3 or 4.5 commerce. If you're running 70% research, the Castle is giving you 2 or 3 beakers, 1 or 1.5 gold, and 1 culture. That's not too bad.

Again, the downside is the Castle's short lifespan. IME this can be extended by avoiding Economics. Obviously if you're in a position to grab it first, you should -- a free Great Merchant is better than a few trade routes. But if you're not, then there's no compelling reason to make Economics a priority.

Anyone else building Castles much?


Waldo

I'm building castles in a few of my cities, but not for any of the reasons you've listed. Rather, I'm doing so for the +25% :espionage: that Castles provide.

I dont build many castles even if playing a espionage game. Maybe in my Capitol. Most other cities by that time do not have many Esp Points. +25% on Courthouse => 2.5 that is going to be rounded down. It gives you 1 extra Esp if you are running a Spy specialist, but again - you can only run one spy by that time. And by the time you get more Base Espionage to multipy the castes are obsolete.

Pretty much useless overall. Also note that when 'pricing' the castle you have to count the Walls as well. Not that they cost much, still its one more production turn.

And by the time you get more Base Espionage to multipy the castes are obsolete.

What?! How DARE you compare me to a rediculously poor improvement such as a castle!

Oh wait... nm.

Actually I can not agree with you more. Of course, when I can easily make a castle in just a single turn in my capital, and I already got everything else in there built, I'll go for it.

But as for the other cities, you got a problem. The investment in hammers/time just doesn't seem to be worth it. Unless of course you have very good trade routes, etc.

Back in Vannila, walls were always laughed at, as only rookies built them in most cases. Then in warlords, the idea of building walls to build castles for the extra traderoute was still laughed at, since the castles go obsolete so quick, that investment is usually better put for something else.

Now in BtS, I still have to agree that the castles go POOF just too quick in most cases. It seems Firaxis is well aware there are problems with it, and they keep trying to add small benefits to give an excuse for making it. Unfortunately they just don't want to expand the short lifetime of them.

No, basically like everyone else I'll just build it in my capital, unless I get the castle quest. If I play izzy I'll build it in all production cities of course.

Isnt it true that castles decrease the rate at which defenses get bombed away?

I seem to have noticed that bombing defenses away from walls and castle cities goes with only a few percents, without those it done in not time.....

They do. The AI builds them often and it's a pain attacking those cities. We still attack and the cities still fall. Digging in is in most cases not a good choice, as you get your land pillaged and evetually might be overcome despite the defences. So basicly instead of turtling with the castle, you are better off building units to counterattack.

There are of course allways situations where it might be different, but those are rather rare ocasions and do not rectify spending hammers on a castle 'just in case'.

---------

Thinking about it... Those castles are really odd. The Pedia says:

"Obsolets with Rifling except Defensive Bonus"

It basicly should be the Other way around:

The defensive Bonus Obsoletes, the Trade Route stays - because of all those tourists :D

Refar I beg to differ ;) I build castles for all the reasons people have mentioned, the extra trade route and +25% EPs, but also for defensive purposes in border areas. I use them as part of a strategy which is aggressive strategically but defensive tactically. If you're Protective and have stone a wall and castle which would cost 150 hammers are reduced to 50 hammers and that is just 2 chops or a 2 pop whip. A castle makes a border city incredibly strong and easy to defend.

If I have my border cities protected by castles I often provoke a war with my neighbour allowing them to attack me on my specially prepared home territory. The 100% defensive bonus means the enemy has to attack with a massive stack to overwhelm any defenders. In BtS the AI seems to build large stacks and attack in force but are bad at reducing defences. That means they often throw a lot of troops at good defenders with horrible odds (for them). My damaged defenders heal very quickly in a city and with at least a Medic1 healer, sometimes a Medic3, if I have one. The AI is bad at sending any healers with its attackers and in my cultural zone they only heal 5% per turn so it becomes a battle of attrition with them losing far more hammers than I do. In fact I am often researching normally in this phase of the war as I slowly build up an offensive force.

It is an easy way to wear down their army reserves and gain GG pts with no WW. I train up my attacking troops by finishing off the weakened attackers that retreat, like enemy catapults or HA, at favourable odds. Once they are worn down enough and have picked up a lot of WW you can use the castle city as the springboard for attack and grab several cities in quick succession with little fear of serious counterattack. The AI then make peace on favourable terms and sometimes vassalise. Used this way the castles and walls are an integral part of an aggressive strategy that relies on defensive troops (archers and LB) and counterattacking troops (catapults, HA and shock axes or maces maybe Xbows) to grind down a more powerful opponent. Later these counterattacking troops and defensive troops can be moved forward with my offensive SoD (trebs and CR maces ) to take cities and hold the newly conquered territory.

I think this is a useful strategy for a Protective leader to overcome its neighbours making good use of its trait. I also built forts as local defensive strongpoints and spend a lot on espionage and use a lot of spies to defend and steal technology. After that sort of war I end up with more territory, a well trained army and large investment in EPs that helps me with other Civs by lowering the cost of future missions. A protective civ can make this sort of war much easier than other leaders. I have used Gilgamesh this way on Emperor eventually taking my whole continent.

As i said - there are different situations. And the situation you describe might be a good one - maybe even more with Imperialistic than with protective - to leverage those GG points.

I dont build many castles even if playing a espionage game. Maybe in my Capitol. Most other cities by that time do not have many Esp Points. +25% on Courthouse => 2.5 that is going to be rounded down. It gives you 1 extra Esp if you are running a Spy specialist, but again - you can only run one spy by that time. And by the time you get more Base Espionage to multipy the castes are obsolete.

Pretty much useless overall. Also note that when 'pricing' the castle you have to count the Walls as well. Not that they cost much, still its one more production turn.

Rounding is global now. So if you have two castles you will get 5 EP. Mind you, I still almost never build them. So many other priorities...

I'm with UncleJJ on this one. Hmm... Maybe I AM UncleJJ!!!

Kidding.

Anyways, his elaborated strategy of offensive defense is exactly the kind of thing I like to do when I get Engineering relatively early. I'll build a Castle on lots of Cities even if I only get either the Protective or the Stone premiums. With both together, it's a really good building.

Of course, the city needs to be reasonably well developed, or a border City to warrant the investment, but those things given, it's a good deal. Halving the bombardment effect is huge - it allows you to kill stacks with much less forces than the enemy brings and the WW hit to them without a hit to you is a huge deal, especially if you have Statue of Zeus.

I only build castles when I'm running for cultural and am out of things to build or I'm isabella.
mostly, those 2 go together ;).

I play Immortal level and Aggressive AI. Since Im always behind in power during the ME its nice to have some extra protection by building castles in the border cities, pure for the defense bonus. You never know what an insane army the AI suddenly throws at you the next turn....... ;)

I'm with UncleJJ on this one. Hmm... Maybe I AM UncleJJ!!!

:splat:

Kidding.

;)

Anyways, his elaborated strategy of offensive defense is exactly the kind of thing I like to do when I get Engineering relatively early. I'll build a Castle on lots of Cities even if I only get either the Protective or the Stone premiums. With both together, it's a really good building.


Nice to know I am not the only one who thinks this way.


Of course, the city needs to be reasonably well developed, or a border City to warrant the investment, but those things given, it's a good deal. Halving the bombardment effect is huge - it allows you to kill stacks with much less forces than the enemy brings and the WW hit to them without a hit to you is a huge deal, especially if you have Statue of Zeus.

Actually in BtS a castle give +25% defence against bombardment ON TOP of the +50% from the wall, so effectively they quarter the rate at which catapults and trebs lower the defences. That means a standard catapult only lowers the defence by 2%, taking catapult 50 turns to lower it to zero. A treb lowers defence by 4% and an accuracy catapult is also 4% per turn. It takes a long time or a big seige train to wear down defences at this time.

Isnt it true that castles decrease the rate at which defenses get bombed away?

I seem to have noticed that bombing defenses away from walls and castle cities goes with only a few percents, without those it done in not time.....

I think I answered your question above :) . Castles are very effective at delaying the attack unless a really huge stack of trebuchets is used to lower the defences, it takes 25 trebuchet-turns to zero out a castle. It is this reason why spending on Espionage and using a spy to revolt the city is most useful right at this time (Late Middle Ages / Early Renaissance). That saves a lot of hammers on a siege train.

My view on protective castles.

1) One of the highlights of the protective trait.
2) Building alot of quick castles delays economics, allowing you to beeline other techs. Exception is if you can get economics first for the free GM but muy experience is that if you get liberlaism you lose the economics race.
3) A liberalism free nationalism (switch to nationalism civic) and castles get you +50% in EP very quickly, and big advantage over the AI until jails.
4) Castles are very tough for the AI to reduce before you get reinforcements. Also you usually have a CG III longbows there, so it's unlikely you cannot get sufficient troops to save a city.

My view on protective castles.

3) A liberalism free nationalism (switch to nationalism civic) and castles get you +50% in EP very quickly, and big advantage over the AI until jails.

This is so true; but from Nationalism, Constitution is just 4000 odd beakers more ... so go for Jails as well. ;)

I seldom go for The Pyramids, so my SE is just craving for Representation (having expanded and now running enough specialists to make it worthwhile) and the Jails are icing on the cake. Being able to run up to 3 spy specialists in cities with good EP %bonusses and with Representation beakers is dreamy.

So after winning the Liberalism race, and choosing Nationalism as you suggest, I usually have the dilemma of researching either Gunpowder (to draft protective muskets, which aren't at all bad) or Constitution for its goodies. I will research both urgently but which comes first depends on the state of the game. I usually wait and change both civics at the same time... unless I have succeeded in building the Taj Mahal for the two free civic changes (one at beginning and another 8 turns later). There just seems to be so much that is good and synergistic for a SE at that time :)

Then in the cities with Castles, Jails and Nationhood we have 100% EP bonus and it is worth diverting a large fraction of commerce through the EP slider as well as running spies from food. So while drafting and building / whipping an army able to take on the AIs the build up of EPs allows collection of information on likely targets.

This is so true; but from Nationalism, Constitution is just 4000 odd beakers more ... so go for Jails as well. ;)

I seldom go for The Pyramids, so my SE is just craving for Representation (having expanded and now running enough specialists to make it worthwhile) and the Jails are icing on the cake. Being able to run up to 3 spy specialists in cities with good EP %bonusses and with Representation beakers is dreamy.

So after winning the Liberalism race, and choosing Nationalism as you suggest, I usually have the dilemma of researching either Gunpowder (to draft protective muskets, which aren't at all bad) or Constitution for its goodies. I will research both urgently but which comes first depends on the state of the game. I usually wait and change both civics at the same time... unless I have succeeded in building the Taj Mahal for the two free civic changes (one at beginning and another 8 turns later). There just seems to be so much that is good and synergistic for a SE at that time :)

Then in the cities with Castles, Jails and Nationhood we have 100% EP bonus and it is worth diverting a large fraction of commerce through the EP slider as well as running spies from food. So while drafting and building / whipping an army able to take on the AIs the build up of EPs allows collection of information on likely targets.

Nice laid out plan. I have thought of these things individually but never really got the chance to string them all in a row like this. Maybe next Liberalism/nationalism game I'll beeline constitution while building the Taj for just this.

I'll usually build a castle in my great spy settled city (i.e. capital) and that's it.

Castles in spy city, border towns and coastal trade cities. If I am playing a protective civ, I tend to delay economics as I beeline up the gunpowder>rifling side of the tree. The Ai doesn't bring nearly enough Seige units to the party. With the protective trait, I usually have a few CG3drill1 muskets/longbows in each city. And keep 2-3 defensive stacks 0f 4-5 more centrally located near each border to rush in to provide additional support. The delay as they bombard defenses gives the reinforcing stack time to arrive. And also allows me to muster up a nice counterattack stack. in BtS the Ai is not as pillage happy as in previous incarnations.

Maybe castles should be available earlier in the tech tree?

Maybe castles should be available earlier in the tech tree?

In real life, the usefulness of castles lasted only a few centuries before gunpowder, and saw greatest use from the 9th to 15th centuries. I love the fact that, unless you are following a military path (early engineering, late economics), castles are gone in a flash.

I think castles should be available earlier or should obsolete later (e.g., industrialism).

If you want to make use of them though, you can plan to bulb machinery and then beeline eng. If you chop out the pyramids and are philosophical you can use GEs to bulb both machinery and eng (or use a GS on mach and a GE on eng).

Eng also gives trebs, pikes, and in BTS iirc Notre Dame which has been beefed to 2 :) for all your cities (pretty nice imo).

I'm ignoring the Castle's defense bonus because it comes into play very rarely.

I've heard that castles also affect your power rating. Is this true or only a myth? Sometimes I build castles just because of this, if I want to raise my power rating and don't want more units. But I haven't actually tested if it works.

Once you get Economics and the castle goes obsolete does that mean you lose the extra trade route ?
I'm not sure on this point as i rarely build them.

I used to love Notre Dame but nowadays I rarely build it. On top of an effect you don't need very much that late in the game, it gives GA pollution and the tech is a dead end for a while. It would be incredibly more attractive if the ND gave +1 happiness and +1 health.

religion si unhealty

religion si unhealty

:D

I would happily build ND for 1 Healthy, but i can't find any reason why a church should have that bonus.

I had the same concern with castles not being a pivotal part of the game - not as much as I thought they should've been. I spent some time testing and came up with a mod that I liked a lot better:

- Reduced courthouse (and UB replacement) city matinence in half and also cut the build cost in half.

- I made castles available at monarchy and gave them a -25% city matinence modifier in addition to it's original traits.

- I created a custom city hall building available when castles go obsolete at economics that gives a -25% city matinence modifier and provides additional espionage.

Increasing the importance of castles has also indirectly increased the importance of walls. The change feels more complete.

I still feel castles need to be a lot earlier. The window between Engineerign and Economics is tiny (occasionally completely non-existant). Particularly given that you have to build walls as well (a further waste of time anywhere other than at a border, and even then you have to be losing a war), they jut don't repay the cost. As others have pointed out, the castle window i also in one of the worst points for trade routes, as Mercantilism is showing up.

Either castles need to obsolete later - I could make an argument for gunpowder or Rifling. Steel even, since that (bizarrely) enables the cannon, which truly oboleted the castle.

Other option would be to make them available earlier - Construction maybe? Or even masonry itself.

Construction would be a great choice. Could push the aqueduct/HG back to engineering (also logical imo)...

Do you guys want to give AIs access to 100% city defense, and 75% less bombard earlier?, taking cities would be painful and cost a bit of EP.

Construction seems to early, I say Machinery because most of the time the Player and AI tend to get Construction before Machinery and it's kind of a midway between Construction and Engineering.

and I'd make Castles Obsolete with Constitution, no real reason, Although I can think of a couple, you can build Jails for EPP so that obsolete the EPP bonus from Castles and it leads to Corporations which gives you an extra trade route therefore the trade route bonus from castles obsolete seem about right too,

Although if you have the Great Lighthouse and A Castle while running Economics, you could potentially get 6 Trade route but only for a short period of time. How great is 2 extra trade routes compared to not running representation is up to the player I guess.

MY history is pretty bad but My guess would be Constitutions were the end o monarchs there Castles obsoleting at constitution makes sense in a way.
There could also possibly be a tourism bonus for castles in late game they activated by flight where castles give you 100% extra trade route commerce fore example.

My only problem with Castles obsoleting at gunpowder or steel is that it nerfs the Spain UB.

Castles actually open the AI up to a very nice catch-22, so it's a very potent offensive weapon if used correctly.

The way to do it is to get a Castle up, preferably on a Hill border city. Declare war. The AI needs to bring a lot of Siege equipment to bring down the defenses. Or a lot of turns. Either way, it's your advantage. Either you have a lot of time to whittle down their attack stack, or you can go to town with Flanking cavalry units and send their WW sky-high. Even just 4 or 5 highly promoted Knights can withdraw or win often enough to kill large stacks of siege units. Meanwhile, you real stack is off taking their cities. Engineering also gives you trebs, pikes, 3 movement on your roads, and Notre Dame. It is THE tech. Booyah!

The tourism bonus for castles is represented by the culture they still provide.

Although I wish that castles didn't OBSOLETE, but just become unavailible to build.

I've heard that castles also affect your power rating. Is this true or only a myth? Sometimes I build castles just because of this, if I want to raise my power rating and don't want more units. But I haven't actually tested if it works.
Only for vanilla but walls still give an archer worth of soldiers. Details here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163098).

I try to build as many castles as possible when Im protective. The defense against siege can be a life saver. The culture is nice in a culture-poor city (still common in the age of castles). Extra trade never hurts. And dont forget the espionage points! Plus I dont think its that big of a deal putting off economics.

So lets recap. If I can build a building that gives me...

Culture
Defense against Siege weapons that the AI loves to use
Trade
Espionage points

Then heck yes Im going to try to build it!

I agree Castles should last longer. It should be Cannons that make them obselete. Giving them a city maintenance reduction bonus would also make sense. It would represent manorial courts.

I agree Castles should last longer. It should be Cannons that make them obselete. Giving them a city maintenance reduction bonus would also make sense. It would represent manorial courts.

Actually this is another case of Firaxis not knowing much about history :( , castles evolved into the Star_fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort) and city defences did not become obsolete with cannons. It is arguable that sieges of cities became a lot harder in the Renaissance. The defenders used cannons loaded with grapeshot to break up massed assaults and counter battery fire against the attacking cannons. There are many famous seiges in the 16th to 20th century where city defences were very physical as opposed to cultural. Checkout Vauban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban)

So historically we should have star forts as an upgrade to the obsoleted castles. ;)

Actually this is another case of Firaxis not knowing much about history :( , castles evolved into the Star_fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort) and city defences did not become obsolete with cannons. It is arguable that sieges of cities became a lot harder in the Renaissance. The defenders used cannons loaded with grapeshot to break up massed assaults and counter battery fire against the attacking cannons. There are many famous seiges in the 16th to 20th century where city defences were very physical as opposed to cultural. Checkout Vauban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban)

So historically we should have star forts as an upgrade to the obsoleted castles. ;)

However, as the cost of cannon grew more expensive, it put an end to the independent nobles that once were a thorn in the sides of kings. As only a monarch with the full buying power of a nation could afford a proper siege train, he could also crush any rebel nobles who attempted to defy royal might in their castles.

By that token, Castles should obsolete with Steel, not Economics, since it was cannon that put an end to the independent feudal nobility, not free market economics. (I've made that change in my own copy of the game).

As for Star forts, IIRC, they should be a 17th century development, the best known military engineer being Vauban. Again, the expense of preparing such defensive works were outside the means of the nobility. So gamewise, there's probably about 100 years between the decline of the castle and the development of new military architecture. Perhaps a Star Fort could be placed on Consitution or Nationalism?

BTW, if one is in New York state here in the U.S., there is a small example of a star fort, Fort Ticonderoga on the lake of the same name. (There's probably more, but that's the one I visited on my one trip to New York state.)

Actually this is another case of Firaxis not knowing much about history :( , castles evolved into the Star_fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_fort) and city defences did not become obsolete with cannons. It is arguable that sieges of cities became a lot harder in the Renaissance. The defenders used cannons loaded with grapeshot to break up massed assaults and counter battery fire against the attacking cannons. There are many famous seiges in the 16th to 20th century where city defences were very physical as opposed to cultural. Checkout Vauban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauban)

So historically we should have star forts as an upgrade to the obsoleted castles. ;)


And Vauban's star forts turned into the fortresses like Verdun in WWI.

Warfare since very ancient times had two components -- the field army and fortification. The importance of these changed through time.

As Uncle JJ said, gunpowder did not end the era of fortresses, or even castles.

One mistake I have often seen people making on these boards is talk about 15th century warfare. In the 15th century, when cannon first became common, cannon destroyed all of the castles, and a new era came .....

Until the defenders learned how to counter the weapon and build new castles. Gone were the days of high wall that are hard to scale made out of stone, cannons will rip them to shreds. But late 15th century fortifications were tremendously thick, and SHORT. Scaling ladders weren't the threat any more. They had earthen exteriors to cushion the power of the blast.

Indeed, fortification was so well developed during these periods that most wars are a matter of moving from one fortress to another. It was impossible to capture all of the fortresses (impossible meaning that even if they could take the fortress, the cost of fielding and army for 6 months to take one fortress would bankrupt any country, and places like France had dozens of castles.) Therefore, to 'win' a war the fortress defenders had to surrender, and unfortunately we then had the development of terror tactics (surrender or I'll kill everyone inside.)

Gunpowder armies, because of their lethality, reduced the importance of mobility somewhat and therefore increased the importance of fortification.

Fortification is important even today. But the end of fortification dominating war did not come from a military breakthrough, but a change in government, specifically the French Revolution and the Levee en Masse. Logistics and communications were poor back then, and in the 18th century, and army may have a few hundred thousand people spread out, the 'main army' usually having 50,000 - 70,000 or so. Therefore, an enemy in a fortification with 5,000 -10,000 in the rear would cripple the ability of the main army to move forward.

But in the early 19th century, Napoleon changed the world. He achieved more conquest in about 15 years than the last several hundred together in Europe. His military genius is so great, I find it hard to believe some of things he did; he was a logistics master. But the key move was that with armies in the hundreds of thousands, he now simply bypassed forts in the rear, and put in a 'screening force'. So, if the enemy had 7 or 8 forts, manned by 5,000 people each, and would put out a force of 20,000 -- 40,000 to police the area and maintain communications, and the main army would move on. A 70,000 man 'main army' cannot do this.

By the time you get to the 20th century, we now have 'fronts' instead of armies, and the whole dynamic has changed. We know how to handle fortifications, the way the Germans did it in WWII. When the French build the Maginot Line, the Germans simply went around it. Japan took the 'impregnable' fortress of Singapore by going through the rear, the landward side.

(This whole argument mostly comes from Supplying War by Martin van Crevald).

I do not disagree with a_hampster in his facts or conclusions; rather, I think there is simply a difference in what people view when talking about 'castles' in game terms. As a_hampster points out, the critical issue with castles and then later the cannon and perhaps even more important the carpenters, sappers, etc. needed to sustain a siege reduced the power of the nobility since they couldn't afford it, and these did lead to an end of classic feudalism. But whether medieval castles should evolve into forts based on civics or techs is just a personal choice.


And there is history and then there is game. In real life, gunpowder did not end fortification. As a_hampster said, it changed the importance of centralizing power. If anything, it was logistical and raw size and organization that reduced their importance. If we want to take a tech in the game that best represents this, it should probably be something like Industrialism?

Int he game, though, as knightowl says, real life fortification may make the game just too hard. Indeed, in real life, its just darn hard to conquer the world, but we do it in Civ all of the time. The biggest reason is that Civ ignores logistics. The SoD's we create would starve to death quickly in RL. The second reason is that fortification is probably understated.

But I do like Civ and the way it works. Even though I'm an historian of some skill, I don't know if I really want Civ to be all that realistic!


Best wishes,

Breunor

Construction would be a great choice. Could push the aqueduct/HG back to engineering (also logical imo)...

The romans built aqueducts, And castles where avaible during this era aswhell. Well, It was walls but some of them looked like castels. espeshally the big wals around som citys in the middle east. those stone walls where werry big and had the same effect as the castles. to get castels avible at masonary is early, construction sounds good but maths sounds greater imo.

The romans built aqueducts, And castles where avaible during this era aswhell. Well, It was walls but some of them looked like castels. espeshally the big wals around som citys in the middle east. those stone walls where werry big and had the same effect as the castles. to get castels avible at masonary is early, construction sounds good but maths sounds greater imo.

Dragon,

I agree that the Romans had defensive works, many of which were impressive. They did differ from castles, though. It is similar to the points above, fortification developed over time and it is sometimes hard to say when large military advances occurred.

Clearly, though, castles were largely a medieval invention and the offense/defense equation was different in the medieval period than in the Roman period.

Medieval castles were really expensive. They were made as permanent structures for a SMALL group of people to show defensive power. A noble would establish a town, give out a fief, and build a castle. When a raid occurred, the townsmen moved into the castle and defended it. It is important to remember how small Medieval armies were, and the importance of castles in a social context.

The Romans would rarely spend the kind of money that say Edward I did in castles, largely because their armies and populations were quite large. They needed larger scale defensive measures. So, for instance, Hadrian built a large war in northern England, not a series of castles (which is what a medieval ruler like Edward would have done). Conversely, the Normans brought castles to England, and it helped the small Norman leadership to control a large, initially hostile population.

Medieval castles were also more sophisticated than Roman forts, but the biggest difference is the way that combat occurred as a whole. Even if the Romans had the technology for castles, I'm not sure they would have used them. And, as you said, they did have quite effective fortifications. But the Romans didn't use the 'usual' features of castles, like battlements, crenellations, portculli very often.

Best wishes,

Breunor

Static defense sometimes caused heavy casualties to attackers, or detered attacks, but your countryside, and economy, always suffered. The Romans, with their superior land army, took the fight to the enemy themselves. It's like Civ4: if you can take an army to kill the enemy stack rather than letting them pillage the countryside, then you would.

I did experiment with building castles if I am protective and I have stone. 3% defenses removed per shot when you have 80% definitely slowed down Shaka enough for me to hold out against his offense. Just remember if you're doing that, build Statue of Zeus and do not ever let him have peace - let the war wariness kill him.

I would like to see a promotion line for foot infantry called "entrenchment' It would give a city defense type bonus for infantry in the open field

The romans built aqueducts, And castles where avaible during this era aswhell. Well, It was walls but some of them looked like castels. espeshally the big wals around som citys in the middle east. those stone walls where werry big and had the same effect as the castles. to get castels avible at masonary is early, construction sounds good but maths sounds greater imo.

In real history, few civilisations built those sophisticated state-of-the-art pieces of masonry. I am talking about the siege-oriented castle with all improvement, described by Breunor.
The vast majority of them were built in Europe (or am I mistaken ?)
whose nations were quite keen on military. If you would want to make a direct comparison with the civ tech tree, you would say for instance,
that in France, which I am from, litterature was discovered around the XIII~XIV century. philosophy ¨discovered¨ in the 1600s.
If it wasn´t for the crusades and the arab heritage in andalousia.
mathematics and sciences in general would have been ¨ignored¨ for a much longer time.

In that sense, I am ok with their short lifespan in civ.
And totally against making them available before construction.
Castles are too be built if you emphasize engineering, and military in general.
It´s even more relevent if you have a lot agressive neighbours, sharing small amount of land,
=> lords fighting for influence in medieval europe right there.

In real history, few civilisations built those sophisticated state-of-the-art pieces of masonry. I am talking about the siege-oriented castle with all improvement, described by Breunor.
The vast majority of them were built in Europe (or am I mistaken ?)
whose nations were quite keen on military. If you would want to make a direct comparison with the civ tech tree, you would say for instance,
that in France, which I am from, litterature was discovered around the XIII~XIV century. philosophy ¨discovered¨ in the 1600s.
If it wasn´t for the crusades and the arab heritage in andalousia.
mathematics and sciences in general would have been ¨ignored¨ for a much longer time.

In that sense, I am ok with their short lifespan in civ.
And totally against making them available before construction.
Castles are too be built if you emphasize engineering, and military in general.
It´s even more relevent if you have a lot agressive neighbours, sharing small amount of land,
=> lords fighting for influence in medieval europe right there.

The trouble is many European castles weren't built in cities, although sometimes towns grew up around them, so the European castle is represented as much by the fort terrain improvement as by the castle. Since any civ, not just Europeans, can build castles it seems fair to assume they are meant to represent a whole variety of fortified strongholds within cities, just as knights represent a variety of heavily armoured horse troops, not just feudal chivalry.

Incidentally I think the Middle East has as many castles as Europe. The crusaders, Arabs and Turks all built them.

Incidentally I think the Middle East has as many castles as Europe. The crusaders, Arabs and Turks all built them.

I think we can safely throw in the byzantines,
some of their castles can be found in current Lebanon.
( Not sure though )

I think they just need to move engineering somewhere else in the tech tree. In its current position, it isnt all that useful (sure pikemen can kill knights, but who doesnt have a few macemen running with their knights for that particular reason, and good god attacking macemen with pikemen is just amusing). Trebs really arnt all that worth getting over catapults. Notredam is just straight out a bad wonder, more of an issue with great artists needing to be buffed.

Now on the other hand, you really dont need engineering for a rather long time.

I think they just need to move engineering somewhere else in the tech tree. In its current position, it isnt all that useful (sure pikemen can kill knights, but who doesnt have a few macemen running with their knights for that particular reason,
The AI or anyone who is doing a speed invasion to prevent you from whipping more defenders or anyone who sends knights on a pillage fest. If you take the above attitude and avoid Engineering, he can see this easily on the trade screen, and you are so much dogmeat.

and good god attacking macemen with pikemen is just amusing).
Sure but why in the world would you do it in the first place? That's like knights attacking pikemen being just amusing.

Trebs really arnt all that worth getting over catapults.
With the increased cost of trebs I tend to agree but then again if you have a really tough city with multiuple CD2 longbows plus castle or big culture (like a capitol), your cats are going to die like flies. Trebs will have the first 1 or 2 die but the rest will get through.

Notredam is just straight out a bad wonder, more of an issue with great artists needing to be buffed.
RUFKM? Bonus to happiness on the entire continent, hello? This is especially useful for the warmonger, to keep war weariness down plus it helps pacify the new cities which haven't had time to build happy stuff which gets automatically removed whenever you capture a city.

Wodan

The AI or anyone who is doing a speed invasion to prevent you from whipping more defenders or anyone who sends knights on a pillage fest. If you take the above attitude and avoid Engineering, he can see this easily on the trade screen, and you are so much dogmeat.

agreed

Sure but why in the world would you do it in the first place? That's like knights attacking pikemen being just amusing.

really?
knights have higher base strength than pikemen, but suffer from the bonus.
with enough promotions, a knight can be a real threat to a pikeman.

on the other hand, maceman have higher strength than the pike+ a bonus.
you can promote your pike as much as you like, he will die.

With the increased cost of trebs I tend to agree but then again if you have a really tough city with multiuple CD2 longbows plus castle or big culture (like a capitol), your cats are going to die like flies. Trebs will have the first 1 or 2 die but the rest will get through.
just let 3 or catapults die. same cost, better effect.


RUFKM? Bonus to happiness on the entire continent, hello? This is especially useful for the warmonger, to keep war weariness down plus it helps pacify the new cities which haven't had time to build happy stuff which gets automatically removed whenever you capture a city.

notre dame is great ... to capture. It's very expensive and not helping much a conquest. I only build it in cultural games.

knights have higher base strength than pikemen, but suffer from the bonus.
with enough promotions, a knight can be a real threat to a pikeman.
If you grant promotions to the knight, you have to grant to me promotions to the pikeman. ;) Sure, you can have a Stable, but all I really need is to get Formation, and that cancels out this argument.

notre dame is great ... to capture. It's very expensive and not helping much a conquest. I only build it in cultural games.
I build it almost always. The exception is when I have a semi-early war or plan to have one. But in that case I'm hardly building anything except what has direct help to the upcoming war, so Notre Dame is hardly an exception.

Wodan

It should also be noted that the Japanese build a tremendous number of extremely well-made castles.

In wikpedia there are interesting articles relevant to this discussion -- 'castles' gives a nice overview of european/american (both north and south) castles

there is a nice article on Chinese City Walls -- which certainly transend the concept of walls as they are in CIV 4 --

A less useful article about Kremlins (lots of nice pictures though)
but there are links to various examples of kremlins, with specifics. for example: novgorod kremlin

I have visited the Osaka Castle myself (it is a reconstruction), and will confirm that the stone bailies and outer walls are indeed formidable --
The actual castle was wood -- and you can see it in wikipedia as well.

What's the point -- yes -- castles appear in many cultures -- were built in colonies --

I think that the suggestion that Castles have additional impacts, possibly tied to Monarchy, would make building it more important --

how about this buff:
under Monarchy -- plus 1 happy (the garrison acts like a unit), and plus 1 experience for units produced

In wikpedia there are interesting articles relevant to this discussion -- 'castles' gives a nice overview of european/american (both north and south) castles

there is a nice article on Chinese City Walls -- which certainly transend the concept of walls as they are in CIV 4 --

A less useful article about Kremlins (lots of nice pictures though)
but there are links to various examples of kremlins, with specifics. for example: novgorod kremlin

I have visited the Osaka Castle myself (it is a reconstruction), and will confirm that the stone bailies and outer walls are indeed formidable --
The actual castle was wood -- and you can see it in wikipedia as well.

What's the point -- yes -- castles appear in many cultures -- were built in colonies --

I think that the suggestion that Castles have additional impacts, possibly tied to Monarchy, would make building it more important --

how about this buff:
under Monarchy -- plus 1 happy (the garrison acts like a unit), and plus 1 experience for units produced

I wouldn't tie castles to Monarchy, indeed the opposite. Militarily, the key to Medieval Europe was that castles could be built by nobles,a nd this gave nobles tremendous power because they could withstand the power of the king or other very strong faction for a great period of time. In some ways, strong monarchy is what lead to the end of castles as a major force.

Best wishes,

Brunor

castles could be linked to vassalage, though.

I do think that it would make more sense if castles became available at feadalism or monarchy. Of course city sieges would become a lot harder with protective longbows but hey at least the castles last a while and have a really good function then. You still have to build the walls and then the castles to get to them so they do not come cheap. The fact that they obsolete with economy is also 1 thing I never fully understood. Or make it so that the trade route just dissapears with economy but not the other effects like defensive bonusses, EP points and culture. Hell give it 1 or 2 culture extra at that time for all the tourists.