About that Protective Castle

[Breunor]

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

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

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.

 

[CivCorpse]

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

 

[Charou]

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.

 

[AmazonQueen]

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.

 

[Charou]

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 )

 

[Priah]

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.

 

[Wodan]

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

 

[cabert]

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.

 

[Wodan]

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

 

[monolith94]

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

 

[LingLinsRevenge]

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

 

[Breunor]

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

 

[cabert]

castles could be linked to vassalage, though.

 

[Killroyan]

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.