The Castle: a Unique District

[The Kingmaker]

In some previous versions of Civ, the castle was a building that improved city defense and reduced citizen unhappiness or war weariness (as though quelling rebellion).

I feel like the medieval age in the game is currently lacking the feeling of fortifying and besieging that it ought to have.

What if the Castle was implemented as a fortified district once you discover the Castles tech?

It would be a stronger fortified enclosure than the encampment and would not necessarily fall with the rest of the city, so you'd have to bring up siege weapons to breach it. It would have its own garrison like the encampment. A city with a castle should be a tough but to crack.

You could choose from a selection of buildings to fill its two slots. Maybe have one potential building available for each of the other major district types. They would just give smaller bonuses, as they wouldn't be equivalent to having the actual district.

Chapel for holy site
Scriptorium for campus
Blacksmith for industrial zone
Treasury for theater square (as in storing great works or relics)
Mint for commercial hub
and so forth

That way you could not only boost your city's defense and quell your population, you could also give a small boost to faith, culture, or commerce that might help to assuage the loss of whatever other district you could have built in its place.

In particular, I like the idea of the castle holding out after the city has fallen.

 

[Leyrann]

To be fair, I think this would fit better as an encampment rework that makes the encampment actually matter in sieges instead of how it is right now.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I viewed the encampment as a mere military camp, a sort of palisaded training ground rather than an actual fortification.

I view the castles more as fortified administrative hubs rather than military training facilities, although some of that could take place there. The castles would at least be garrisoned by troops, but they certainly could not sustain a full field army.

 

[Cliomancer]

I view the castles more as fortified administrative hubs rather than military training facilities, although some of that could take place there. The castles would at least be garrisoned by troops, but they certainly could not sustain a full field army.

Pretty much sounds like the city centre.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Pretty much sounds like the city centre.

The city center isn't a proper castle. Your townspeople man the fortified walls in a siege, but what about a place of resort when the walls fall?

Compare London (the walled city) and the Tower of London (the fortress built next to the walled city).

The city of London (and Westminster, a sort of royal district) contained a royal hall, an abbey, various guild halls, city government, etc.

The Tower contained dungeons, a garrison, a chapel, an arsenal, a treasury, etc.

William the Conqueror built it to be a royal stronghold in case the Londoners revolted and as a place of resort in case of outside attack.

 

[The Kingmaker]

It's all a matter of opportunity cost. It would just need to balanced to be worth its price.

A lot of castles were still in use in the Renaissance. Cromwell was still attacking castles in the 1600s.

Their military use would subside with the proliferation of heavy artillery, but all that means is that they'd shift into tourism generators. They'd also still have a treasury feature for artifacts to be stored.

They could still maintain certain other functions though... Example: Rudolf Hess was imprisoned in the Tower of London in WW2.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Here's another idea. Suppose your castle does end up destroyed by marauding barbarians.

It leaves behind a charming ruin that would generate tourism and culture and improve the appeal of the surrounding tiles.

In the modern era, you could charge admission as a revenue source, so it'd generate some gold too.

 

[SlySlySly]

What if it's more like an upgradable building from classical era to renaissance era. You can build it in any of those eras. It would work like a walled district, that produces stuff. In siege of a city it is useful as a backup source of units and money. It could be a 1 tile "city." You gain a little money and can use it to attack units, like a city ranged attack. As your era levels up, you can spend time leveling it up with production. Once you reach industrial it can be for tourism, depending on the era you upgraded it to. So keeping them up to date get's you more revenue.

Disadvantages would be that if it gets ruined the tile is sort of wasted, and the tourism you would get is dropped.

 

[Xandinho]

It's a good idea, but I think it needs to be worked out.
For a castle district to be worthwhile, in addition to defense, would give housing to the city and would also produce defensive military units more quickly until the rebirth, after the castle would lose its military functions and would to offer culture, tourism and gold. And housing would be maintained.

Among buildings that could be built in the castle include: Watchtower, Round path ... but I do not know how they would work

 

[SlySlySly]

It's a good idea, but I think it needs to be worked out.
For a castle district to be worthwhile, in addition to defense, would give housing to the city and would also produce defensive military units more quickly until the rebirth, after the castle would lose its military functions and would to offer culture, tourism and gold. And housing would be maintained.

Among buildings that could be built in the castle include: Watchtower, Round path ... but I do not know how they would work

Maybe watchtower could give you higher visibility from the castle, an advantage of building it at edge of territory. Moat could add defense

 

[The Kingmaker]

Good ideas.

 

[Zaarin]

I love the idea, and I disagree with Olleus' claim that they were a thing for a single era: Bronze Age hill forts were essentially castles, were they not? Indeed, we can reconstruct a word mean something like "earthen-walled fortification" going all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, which places the castle in the Neolithic. And castles/fortresses continued on into the Renaissance and the Enlightenment: the Spanish, French, and English all built them in the New World. So while one might say that castles took on a unique flavor in the Middle Ages, they hardly started or ended there. So yes, I would absolutely love something like this to be implemented.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I love the idea, and I disagree with Olleus' claim that they were a thing for a single era: Bronze Age hill forts were essentially castles, were they not? Indeed, we can reconstruct a word mean something like "earthen-walled fortification" going all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, which places the castle in the Neolithic. And castles/fortresses continued on into the Renaissance and the Enlightenment: the Spanish, French, and English all built them in the New World. So while one might say that castles took on a unique flavor in the Middle Ages, they hardly started or ended there. So yes, I would absolutely love something like this to be implemented.

Exactly right, but that's also why a Castle is not a city District. The castle-like fortifications, and to the list you can add the Celto-Gallic Oppidum of the Classical Era, were to provide refuge and to safeguard the people and places in the countryside - not in the city/town. Civ V didn't get this right, ether, so let's not repeat the mistake in Civ VI.
A Castle should be an Improvement, which, when placed on a tile, makes it impossible for an enemy to Pillage or otherwise distress the people and other improvements in the tile. The Castle could, as stated, be built from the beginning of the game historically, but perhaps requiring a Civic or Tech in the mid-Ancient Era wild be more game-friendly.
To keep the Castle from carpeting the map like Missionaries or Apostles, and to reflect the fact the 'Big Men' holding the 'castles' tended to require/demand support from the people they were protecting and ignore the central government (if any), I suggest that while the 'Castle', like a road, could be built in a tile with another Improvement like a mine, plantation, pasture, farm, etc., the Castle would reduce yields in the tile by, perhaps, 1 of each type from the tile. A tile yielding both Gold and Food would lose 1 of each, for example. Too many Castles, and you starve your cities for support.
Another purpose of the Castle, especially in the Medieval Era/period, was that they provided housing and support for the Knightly 'class'. To really make Castles specifically flavorful for the Medieval timeframe, with the gaining of both the Castles Tech and the Fuedalism Civic, each Castle upon the start of a war produces one Knight, whose maintenance cost is reduced by the amount of Gold, Food and Production the Castle is sucking out of the tile. This would be the only way to get a feudal Knight.

The Bombard made castles obsolete as defenses, along with the medieval and earlier Walls around the cities. That's one of the reasons the castles either became ruins, which in turn became Tourist sites in the Industrial Era (Romanticism), or they got converted into Chateaus, Manor Houses, or Stately Homes littering the landscape. Cromwell and the English civil war armies, by the way, were knocking down Fortified Manor Houses, not castles, and while some of them held out pretty well against detachments (Fairport Convention does a song about one of them on an old CD), none lasted any time at all against an artillery train.

 

[Zaarin]

@Boris Gudenuf All good points, and the oppidum and dunum were exactly what I had in mind regards to pre-Medieval castes (though obviously they existed elsewhere as well, the Near Eastern migdol being another example). Your post also makes me realize how much an opportunity the game is missing by not properly representing feudalism: there were no standing armies in the Medieval period; armies were drafted from the nobility in times of war, who in turn pressed their own subjects into service to form the infantry. This could easily be represented by having particular buildings/improvements/districts yield low-maintenance units at the onset of the war, which disappear at the war's conclusion. This would also represent the fact that army sizes were limited in the Middle Ages.

But perhaps that's all straying a little too far into grand strategy.

 

[SlySlySly]

This is starting to sound like ck2 almost...

But yes, I like what Boris said

 

[The Kingmaker]

I suppose I wouldn't mind if castles were improvements rather than districts, however they'd need some significant features to avoid being under-utilized.

I'd also appreciate it if vassalage and manorialism were incorporated somehow. I hesitate to say feudalism, because what people tend to think of when they hear "feudalism" is not usually an accurate representation of medieval society.

However, I wouldn't rule out using the district mechanism for implementing castles. Plenty of in game districts end up built in odd places. I see no reason not to be able to build a castle wherever is most expedient, whether next to the city center or in a strategic location.

Also, I might point out that there were also true castles that were besieged and slighted by parliamentarians, not just manor houses. Consider Corfe Castle, for example, which dated all the way back to William I and was a royalist stronghold until Parliament ravaged it.

 

[SlySlySly]

I suppose I wouldn't mind if castles were improvements rather than districts, however they'd need some significant features to avoid being under-utilized.

However, I wouldn't rule out using the district mechanism for implementing castles. Plenty of in game districts end up built in odd places. I see no reason not to be able to build a castle wherever is most expedient, whether next to the city center or in a strategic location.

Also, I might point out that there were also true castles that were besieged and slighted by parliamentarians, not just manor houses. Consider Corfe Castle, for example, which dated all the way back to William I and was a royalist stronghold until Parliament ravaged it.

I would say that bust like the encampment district, it shouldn't be able to be built near city center. Should also consume some population, logically.

Also I have a fun idea, you can name the castles! By default they would be "[City name] Castle," or something.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The Tower of London, Warwick Castle, Nottingham Castle, Hastings Castle and dozens of others were built immediately adjoining the towns they protected. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a castle if it's too far away for you to retreat there.

 

[MikalJ]

I agree, almost to the point where castles should be forced to be adjacent to the city centre. Sure, that wouldn't be representative of some castles - Krak des Chevaliers springs to mind, as does Masada, if that counts as a castle - but for the majority of feudal arrangements in Europe and East Asia then I think that would be representative of the norm.

I have two competing ideas for how they might be implemented: the first is as a primarily military purpose, and the other representing their economic flexibility. Combining the two might be OP.
Military-wise, why not have it as a 'Fortification District'? First building is a keep, representing Norma-era buildings, then castle, for the Late Medival, then earthworks, which is what allowed castles to keep their relevance until much later (the capture of Badajoz 1812 included storming a castle, which had the surrounding land sculpted to deflect cannon-fire). Castles could then be a further source of bombardment, and have to be captured seperately to the city centre. Maybe not holding the castle means you cannot sue for it in peace negotiations?
Either that, or a 'Castle District', which focuses on using resources for unusual purposes. Like training units with food, say, or turning culture into gold (the economic advantages of being the biggest boss in an area).

 

[Siptah]

While I think of the ideas presented here as mostly well, I think it is not really needed. There is the encampment and the fort improvement already (and don't tell me those two are not supposed to represent the defense aspects of a castle or keep). + the encampment buildings already yield production. Forts could need some work, however, since they aren't that good right now. Maybe they should get extra yields - or act like roads, meaning that you don't lose the tile for other improvements but lose some yields, as proposed above by @Boris Gudenuf.
And on top of that, the city center kind of acts as a castle, too... giving that districts and neighborhoods are outside at some point. The siege mechanic makes me think, that it is intended to be like that to some point. But that's not a very good argument against external castles.

I can however see how a kind of outpost district would come with some of the ideas, if they decide to include a colonization mechanic at some point. But this is a completely other topic.