I think maybe we could take a page from Mideval: total war, concerning the castles. Castled cities are entirelly different from castles. Pretty much every large town in mideval times (as well as in warhammer) had a castle, but only the greatest Keeps actually contained the entire city within its walls. Most cities had a castle which was surrounded by an unwalled sprawl. Therefor. although i do think that you idea for castles is overpowered, you could make it so that if you want to build one you incure either :a moderate to severe economic penalty in the city or a population cap. Even the largest castles of the middle ages could only hold a moderatly sized city within thier walls.
Empire Design Thread
- Thread starter Psychic_Llamas
- Start date
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
you have a good point there Slaanesh
and youve got me thinking
what if we make castles act like minor cities, which can use the terrain on the 8 immediate tiles next to it? (kind of like the Settlements idea from the Kuriotates in FfH) that would mean that castles cant be built close together, they spread culture, they can work the land, they provide a good defensive bonus to units AND they cost a bundle to make. plus they add the the city count which increases economic cost
and youve got me thinking
what if we make castles act like minor cities, which can use the terrain on the 8 immediate tiles next to it? (kind of like the Settlements idea from the Kuriotates in FfH) that would mean that castles cant be built close together, they spread culture, they can work the land, they provide a good defensive bonus to units AND they cost a bundle to make. plus they add the the city count which increases economic cost yeah im thinking that your idea about seperate cities would work out much better execution wise, but like ploe said, we need to try and figure out ways to keep the mod unique without altering too many game mechanics. im not a programmer, but im guessing any alteration to the game rules themselves is kinda tough and time consuming. can the seperate cities thing be done easily? or would it be better to keep it as a building? maybe change the "fort" improvement to contain the ideas we talked about .make it a terrian improvement. but keep in mind that i still think castles should have a signifigant downside to them, economically or population-wise. otherwise they might be too powerful.
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
well, when FfH finishes Shadow, they will have finished the Kuriotates, which have a mechanism that allows the building of minor cities that can only work 1 circle of land.
frenzyslave
Warlord
Any future designs for the Empire? A new UU war machine such as the Helblaster Volley Gun perhaps? I know they have the Great Cannon and Steam Tank, and Kislev have the War Wagon... But just maybe... one ... more... 
I know they have the Great Cannon and Steam Tank, and Kislev have the War Wagon... But just maybe... one ... more... 
Ploeperpengel
academic precarity
Any future designs for the Empire? A new UU war machine such as the Helblaster Volley Gun perhaps?
Sure it'll be
Any cool idea for the effects?frenzyslave
Warlord
Hmm. Well, the Helblaster is very different from a cannon, it just decimates a unit (kinda last guy standing, "omg, im still alive! Oh im the only one alive..."). You bring a cannon to besiege a city, but a helblaster to decimate untis in the field.
Helblaster, str 8/3, causes collateral damage, -50% versus cities, +50% vs melee+archers. Cannot bombard a city (its effect there is minimal). Starts with the collateral promotiony thing so it deals more collateral, national unit (3).
EDIT: Maybe also give units which share the same tile targeted by the Helblaster the "Shellshocked" promotion. -20% strength for one or two turns.
Another idea is the Mortar, long range firing support.
Mortar, str 8/3, can bombard cities (-12%), can bombard as an archer does but range is 3 (or 2) squares, causes collateral, national unit (3). Maybe add a function (low % chance whenever it bombards) to perhaps decrease population in a city or destroy a building?
The cool thing about The Empire are their variety of siege weapons. I remember facing them every time in WHFB and going 'ulp and envious of their firepower... Its been more than once when an entire regiment suddenly dissappeared.
Helblaster, str 8/3, causes collateral damage, -50% versus cities, +50% vs melee+archers. Cannot bombard a city (its effect there is minimal). Starts with the collateral promotiony thing so it deals more collateral, national unit (3).
EDIT: Maybe also give units which share the same tile targeted by the Helblaster the "Shellshocked" promotion. -20% strength for one or two turns.
Another idea is the Mortar, long range firing support.
Mortar, str 8/3, can bombard cities (-12%), can bombard as an archer does but range is 3 (or 2) squares, causes collateral, national unit (3). Maybe add a function (low % chance whenever it bombards) to perhaps decrease population in a city or destroy a building?
The cool thing about The Empire are their variety of siege weapons. I remember facing them every time in WHFB and going 'ulp and envious of their firepower... Its been more than once when an entire regiment suddenly dissappeared.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
I think that if you are seriously goin to consider usin castles, then you should increase the land size of the old world even more than it was in Solowen's map that is currently bein used in P_L's minimod. Of course, that means you have to increase the size of the whole world. That would be fine with my comp, but some people might have long loadin times. So, hate to be a damper on it here. But that's wat I think.
Ploeperpengel
academic precarity
I have a Core 2 Duo 6750 running and still experience long turns sometimes. I think increasing the mapsize just isn't healthy...
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
i agree 100% with ploep.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
I agree, but wat I'm sayin is that if you make Castles like the Kuriorate settlements in FfH, then there isn't nough map space imho. Cuz already ya have some trouble gettin the Empire , Brettonia, Estalia, and Tilea to have large nough cities and have a logical number of cities. So, do ya really wanna clutter it with Castles that act like Settlements? Maybe jus make it so Castles generate +1 gold, can give access to resources, give def bonus (obviously), and can be built outside of the Empire borders.
Although, I would argue a case for all civs bein able to build castles when they discover a certain tech. (Engineering maybe?) Civs that shouldn't be able to build castles should be the Greenskins, the Tomb Kings and Araby, Lustria, and Amazonia. The reason for that bein that they aren't really big on large fortresses, imho. (Of course, the individual reason for each civ or civ type [meanin Greenskins and Tomb Kings here] is nother conversation.)
Although, I would argue a case for all civs bein able to build castles when they discover a certain tech. (Engineering maybe?) Civs that shouldn't be able to build castles should be the Greenskins, the Tomb Kings and Araby, Lustria, and Amazonia. The reason for that bein that they aren't really big on large fortresses, imho. (Of course, the individual reason for each civ or civ type [meanin Greenskins and Tomb Kings here] is nother conversation.)
Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
im actually now agains the castles as outlined above. i dont know what i was smoking to agree to that so readilly. i agree it would make things waaayyy too cluttered.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
Which post? There are two bout Castles.
::sigh:: Time for a smoke and then bed.
::sigh:: Time for a smoke and then bed.
I donno if the hellblaster's defensive ability should be nerfed to 3 though AH. Volley guns are excellent defensive weapons too....of course only if they are loaded and ready to fire...
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
Hmm...agreed. But nother Empire UU? Idk, man. LOL!
Then do not include the Hellblaster as an Empire UU but instead let all the Good Humans build a Volleygun unit (cept the Bretonnians who abhor gunpowder and siege weapons, per the battle rules they get a bonus against siege weapons of the enemy if they do not bring any to the tabletop). I think all Good Humans should reap the benefits of being Good Humans (that is, hmmm GUNPOWDER). Not including the Bretonnians (the only Good Humans in battle who dislike even using catapults)
frenzyslave
Warlord
I just think that siege weapons should have low defensive strength. They afterall, need protection from getting stomped on, and should only be effective on attack.
rocklikeafool
Warmaster
Yes, think how easily in all the historic sieges of the Middle Ages it was to, once you got to siege engines (which is the real challenge), to spike the guns or hack up the catapults. So, that jus shows that, by themselves, siege engines weren't made to defend themselves. As a consequence, they should have low defensive strength in WHFB.
frenzyslave
Warlord
Nothing makes me quake more in my boots than facing a Helblaster Volley Gun...
Those things were vicious in the old rules, capable of holding one flank due to its sheer reputation... Unfortunately, my Empire buddy would roll a misfire on his first roll and ALL 9 barrells blow away a 30 unit strong greenskin or skaven army. He had the most horrific luck... (beat him everytime though, but man Empire war machines are NASTAY!). Definitely need more Empire UU warmachines. They just rock.Similar threads
