Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Strategic Castle Location

Discussion in 'General' started by calxllum, Jan 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    I just wondered what people thought would be more important when placing their castle strategically. Some people might prefer to have a mountain top castle for range of weaponry and making it less convenient for your attackers.

    Or maybe a castle near or on top of a large deposit of iron or a large forest for the convenience of the resource being closer. Assuming it's survival mode that might be important.

    Personally I would put my castle as close to wood and stone as I can get. In my opinion I'll probably need a lot of those two resources so they should both be convenient to get.
     
  2. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    I'd build on top of a hill with good sight range and, ideally, situated close to a river, a forest, and a mine. Forest and Mine for resources, and the river for all kinds of defense/ fire control abilities. The hill increases my range and sight range while lowering my enemies range so he would have to come within range of my ballistas to attack and then be stuck in an open field and easy prey for my attacks. Then I'd probably thrown in some extra traps that I won't mention here because I'll probably use them in game and don't want my enemies to have any idea of what to expect.

    Can't give away all my tricks now can I? ;):sneaky:
     
  3. K^2 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    174
    It's going to depend a lot on how invasions happen. Ideally, I would want to have both, of course. Defensible terrain and proximity of the resources. But if I have to chose, so long as game gives me some sort of a warning before an invasion, allowing me time to retreat, I think I would place my main castle on good terrain, with vertical cliff faces augmenting the walls, and a drawbridge serving as the only entry into the castle. I would then build small fortifications near places where I gather resources. It will take a bit of extra time to cart the resources back to the castle, but hopefully, not too much. Main idea here is that resources are going to run out, and moving castle around can be tricky. :) On the other hand, if invasions are frequent, dangerous, and come without warning, I might try and make my castle as close to at least the critical resources as possible, probably building it over a mine and a good quarry.
     
  4. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    While it does make sense, I find it ironic that when there are the most invasions you'd build in the less defensible location. Makes total sense and I can see where you're coming from, but ironic none-the-less.
     
  5. ManoW Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    164
    Building next to a forest is a bad idea, easy to sneak up on. A hill provides a challenge in itself, hard to get resources to. Open, flat ground with a steep ditch dug around it(A moat) and single bridge leading to a single, well fortified entrance is my preference. Maybe on the side of a mountain like MinasTilif LOTR
     
  6. calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    The layered/tiered idea from Minas Tirith might work well. Allowing for multiple layers of defenses and devious traps.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2015
  7. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    I'm just basing my hill thing on the fact that many medieval castles were built on hills for defensive purposes, it might not be the best for resources, but I imagine that I'd have some outside things around the hill to serve for large scale processing and then move them up into storage inside the castle.
     
  8. K^2 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    174
    True. But the main criterion here is predictability. If invasions are rare, at very least, after one happens, I can assume that I won't have another one for a while, and I can move off to a camp site for mining/logging.

    If invasions are frequent and without a warning, then all I really can do is try and maintain the castle walls and weapons/traps. That'd drain resources much faster than a proper citadel, but at the same time, cost of moving to a new location wouldn't be nearly as high in comparison.

    So yeah, I can see the irony in it, but that's just how the economy of warfare works out in these scenarios.
     
  9. muffins Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    80
    I'll probably do as I do in Dwarf Fortress and RimWorld, dig into a mountain and have just a door on the outside. There would be oodles of traps, drawbridges, pits, defensive positions etc behind the door, but no visible towers or walls on the surface.

    Enemies would have to dig me out.
     
  10. Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    Exactly my plan, nobody will expect a thing from this inquisitor... (pun intended)
     
  11. calxllum Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    131
    Did someone mention... THE INQUISITION?

    [​IMG] (The image refuses to resize. >_< )

    But on a more serious note, I do like the idea of building in a mountain but I'm worried about the structural integrity of the mountain. What if the enemy breaks a pillar or two holding up the ceiling and large sections collapse?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2015
  12. Steelpanther Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    Strategic placement with various camps for resources. If it is really bad those camps might become forts.
     
  13. PeterHammerman Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    652
    Coastal high hill fortress* + coastal village
    *something like Pike from GOT
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2015
  14. jurian-s Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    Well if water is in the game, I will make dutch style castle defences, flood all the ways to it when the enemy arrives:). Which has the advantage that I can be one of the few who wants to build the castle in a valley.
     
  15. X__INFINITY__X Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    177
    This is going to be my first build in ME.

    A castle on a plateau with only one way in, and maybe an underground exit.



    [​IMG]
     
  16. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    And then I shall break a hole in the wall of your keep and flood the entire thing. Even if I fail, you will still be stuck in the middle of a lake.
     
  17. Belthize Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    273
    Unfortunately the most strategic location(s) will be purely a function of weaknesses in the game engine. I've yet to see a game where the most realistically strategic design matched with the ingame most strategic design.

    There will be some gimpy game mechanism that everybody will chase (e.g. Wurm dirt walls). For example if trebuchets had a fixed range and had to be build on level ground people will build ant hill style conical castles. Long slopes up to random blob of castle at the top. Or if NPCs have some buggy pathing AI then in solo mode folks will build weird MC Escher style stair cases to their entrance.

    Too early to say what they'll look like but I'm willing to bet there will be a lot of cookie cutter ugly castles built to take advantage of loop holes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2015
  18. X__INFINITY__X Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    177
    the long slopes would prevent placement of trebuchets, correct?

    And the enemies could just flatten an area on the slope.
     
  19. Mishka Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    862
    Just look at exampes from History, its almost always on the highest nearest ground as it will then have peasants and such working the mines and everything nearby using it for farmable land

    Carcassonne........which the bf says he will be recreating in ME

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2015
  20. Iamus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    313
    Wish him luck, that'd be impressive to see.
     
  21. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    Awesome, would love to see it. And I knew I wasn't making up the bit about castles being built on high ground.
     
  22. ZaCormyr Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    35
    Large lake with an island in the middle. Build a single bridge to it. Then mine down deep and out in several directions in order to flank and retrieve resources if needed. Each tunnel would be it's own trap in which I could, from the castle, pull plugs by chain and flood each tunnel individually while the rest is cut off from the flood so I would still have multiple exits.

    Worst case scenario is the bridge is destroyed, tunnels are flooded so I'm just stuck on the island safe. With such a large lake I could still fish for food and drink the fresh water. It would take a lot to poison all the water or kill off all the fish. Especially in medieval times.

    The enemy would be forced to use barges or ferries, which would be totally foolish.

    Might lose some men building this but.. well.. it's a price I would be willing to pay. :D

    Of course this only works because we're talking about a game....
     
  23. Steelpanther Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    Of course you weren't. Imagine how much of an idiot the guy who built his castle on the low lands and the archers have free access to murder everyone inside is.

    There's a map in Total War Medieval War 2 which proves this point, I massacre that map every time due to siege engines being on a hill next to the town.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2015
  24. K^2 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    174
    Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) was sieged that way by Germans during WW2. With artillery, not catapults, of course. City did not have a good time then.
     
  25. Erik_3E Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    43
    Id say castles and buildings built like this is one of the reasons we should need food to sustain ourselves. In a case someone tries to siege a castle with one way in to it they can actually force the owner out of the castle by starving him/her out.
    Now you are wondering why should the player care about dying he would just respawn at his "medbay"? Well they way I am imagining it is that the player have as many lives as he has AIs for every time the player dies he would loos one AI but be able to play as another one, when all AIs are dead the player would loos ownership of everything and be spawned at a random location in the world far away from the previous location.
    I should add that all AIs need food so the bigger your AI army is the more food you need to have to sustain it.
     
  26. Steelpanther Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    You'd be able to starve people out in game just as well as they did in real life. Rarely. They will have farms inside the walls and hidden exits if they are smart.
     
  27. Erik_3E Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    43
    You are missing the point, they cant have giant farms in the castle if it is in a high peek and if they have a secret entrance it could also be found by the enemy and used to ambush the owner. So basically building high and safe would mean the player would sacrifice being able to have a giant AI army and instead only have maybe 10-12 AIs. The player attacking might have a castle built on flatter ground with more possibility for farms and food hence a bigger army with the sacrifice of being in a less strategical location. Imagine the enemy amassing outside of your mountaintop castle with an army of 100 against your army of 12. Now this does not mean you would loos it might be the opposite you win because the area for the enemy to attack is to small and the number advantage means jack shitt. Now if you would have farms outside of the castle this means you would loos the food you usually would get from them to the enemy who would be able to actually farm them or even destroy them when they realize they cant breach your castle.


    This gives the game a good realistic balance. Who wins does not matter in this argument it is all about balance and who is the smartest engineer. The farming King or the Mountain King the game is on.
     
  28. Wintersend Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,095
    You could do what Elder Scrolls Online does and if a castle is "under siege" no player can spawn or fast travel there, not that we'd have fast traveling, you'd have to spawn elsewhere and hope you get there in time to get back into the battle.
     
  29. Erik_3E Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    43
    Personally I would prefer one life for each AI you own this way if you feel like coming back another day you can flee with the remaining AIs you have left instead of some weird spawn cheat where you can spawn behind the enemy and do cheap ambushes by magically teleporting.
     
  30. Steelpanther Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    347
    Your not going to get a vast AI armor so your point is pointless.

    And your not sieging anything if your busy looking for secret exits.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.