The scale of castles in this game are way off

[Voss]

Don't get me wrong, this is amazing and it's one of my favorite games but as a historian and someone who loves castles, I can't help but be a little annoyed at the scale in size of the castles and fortresses of this game. To put it bluntly, the scale of the castles in this game would dwarf the largest castles in real life medieval times.

In real life, castles were not massive walled cities as they are depicted here. They were usually just protective households for the Lord who governed a province. They serve a dual purpose of being a place to protect a local Lord as well as being used as a military base and a strategic line of defense against invasions.

A castle was also built to pretty much only house a Lord's family and his personal guard meaning space was limited. They were also designed to hold of an enemy attack with little manpower. Even a small garrison of a few hundred good men could withstand siege for months, just look at the Siege of Rochester. In contrast, the massive scale of the castles in this game is ridiculous. In order to fully man a normal castle, you would need ten thousand men to properly defend it's walls which is impossible to do with the game mechanics.

I do enjoy the Stone fort mod that I have seen some people use. The size of those stone forts is actually a lot more accurate and practical than the regular ones. I'm sure the developers made the scale of the castles so huge in order to create a more dynamic and epic feeling to the siege game play but it's just disappointing to see the incredible inaccuracy of the castles size. It kinda of takes you out of your suspension of disbelief and immersion. I hope that if/when a Medieval 3 is made, the developers make the castles smaller and more accurate to medieval times.

[HazardHawk]

We could write a book about the game vs reality. It is just a game.

[Turtler]

To be fair, most "castles" would be akin to the forts you can have your army throw up in and around the provinces rather than the Castle/City population centers that control the actual provinces. Most of them were pretty much purely military holdings designed to exert control over this or that important feature rather than these major population or government centers like most population centers are.

It's just that both the AI and especially the player are unlikely to build them to anything like a historical degree.

I do think there are several massive walled cities and major fortifications in real life that could equal what you get with a late game Fortress (for instance, Malbork comes to mind), but they were exceedingly rare.

I do think mods like 1648 and Italian Wars do a better job of this, showing that in addition to the major centers there are also buttloads of smaller settlements or fortifications that need to be dealt with one way or another.

[Gunther von Rittersburg]

Originally posted by Vossman:

Don't get me wrong, this is amazing and it's one of my favorite games but as a historian and someone who loves castles, I can't help but be a little annoyed at the scale in size of the castles and fortresses of this game. To put it bluntly, the scale of the castles in this game would dwarf the largest castles in real life medieval times.

In real life, castles were not massive walled cities as they are depicted here. They were usually just protective households for the Lord who governed a province. They serve a dual purpose of being a place to protect a local Lord as well as being used as a military base and a strategic line of defense against invasions.

A castle was also built to pretty much only house a Lord's family and his personal guard meaning space was limited. They were also designed to hold of an enemy attack with little manpower. Even a small garrison of a few hundred good men could withstand siege for months, just look at the Siege of Rochester. In contrast, the massive scale of the castles in this game is ridiculous. In order to fully man a normal castle, you would need ten thousand men to properly defend it's walls which is impossible to do with the game mechanics.

I do enjoy the Stone fort mod that I have seen some people use. The size of those stone forts is actually a lot more accurate and practical than the regular ones. I'm sure the developers made the scale of the castles so huge in order to create a more dynamic and epic feeling to the siege game play but it's just disappointing to see the incredible inaccuracy of the castles size. It kinda of takes you out of your suspension of disbelief and immersion. I hope that if/when a Medieval 3 is made, the developers make the castles smaller and more accurate to medieval times.

For historically inaccurate "small walls" they sure do a good job of accurately making it tough and deadly to get around/over the walls to take a castle/fortress as it was to take castles.....

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Vossman:

Don't get me wrong, this is amazing and it's one of my favorite games but as a historian and someone who loves castles, I can't help but be a little annoyed at the scale in size of the castles and fortresses of this game. To put it bluntly, the scale of the castles in this game would dwarf the largest castles in real life medieval times.

In real life, castles were not massive walled cities as they are depicted here. They were usually just protective households for the Lord who governed a province. They serve a dual purpose of being a place to protect a local Lord as well as being used as a military base and a strategic line of defense against invasions.

A castle was also built to pretty much only house a Lord's family and his personal guard meaning space was limited. They were also designed to hold of an enemy attack with little manpower. Even a small garrison of a few hundred good men could withstand siege for months, just look at the Siege of Rochester. In contrast, the massive scale of the castles in this game is ridiculous. In order to fully man a normal castle, you would need ten thousand men to properly defend it's walls which is impossible to do with the game mechanics.

I do enjoy the Stone fort mod that I have seen some people use. The size of those stone forts is actually a lot more accurate and practical than the regular ones. I'm sure the developers made the scale of the castles so huge in order to create a more dynamic and epic feeling to the siege game play but it's just disappointing to see the incredible inaccuracy of the castles size. It kinda of takes you out of your suspension of disbelief and immersion. I hope that if/when a Medieval 3 is made, the developers make the castles smaller and more accurate to medieval times.

Maybe, but you can't even really enter the castles themselves in the game. The "castles" are more akin to much more heavily fortified cities in-game.

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

You can't really recruit hundreds of men at an actual Medieval castle... The M2 castles are just heavily fortified cities with more opportunities for military. Real castles weren't that - try training three hundred men per year (with full plate armor :P) in one of those.

[Inardesco]

Another *game doesn't reflect reality* thread. Well, what do you expect, it's a game:

Turks can take whole map in 8-15 turns.
Holy Roman Empire, one of the strongest empires during the Medieval period, is stomped into extinction almost every campaign.
Pope expands into Africa, Iberia and has frequent wars with other nations.
Spain should be Navarra and Aragon,
Egypt didn't exist,
Byzantines start with peasants, despite being the oldest empire and having "late" game cavalry focussed on Roman cavalry (logic would dictate they'd have them from the start).
Mongols are beast when they horse around and then lose massive momentum once they settle
Timurids are a joke
Russia fights only rebels and never sees the rest of the world
England whipes out Scotland most of the time and then invade Iberia/Scandinavia
Aztecs aren't killed by Spanish alone
90% of players never knows about the Arguin settlement next to Timbuktu
Cannon towers are absolute rubbish
But I suppose, castles are to large to reflect their real counterparts, bad Medieval 2.

[Turtler]

Originally posted by aidenpons:

You can't really recruit hundreds of men at an actual Medieval castle...

Sure you can, at least in a few castles.

And more importantly, you can certainly Muster the people you've recruited from wherever there, which is largely what I accept is being shown.

Originally posted by aidenpons:

The M2 castles are just heavily fortified cities with more opportunities for military.

Agreed.

Originally posted by aidenpons:

try training three hundred men per year (with full plate armor :P) in one of those.

By the late Renaissance that was a pretty common feat for even the minor factions or individual mercenary companies to do. Just look at what Mantua and its' satelite forts could muster.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Another *game doesn't reflect reality* thread. Well, what do you expect, it's a game:

Agreed.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Turks can take whole map in 8-15 turns.

Point.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Holy Roman Empire, one of the strongest empires during the Medieval period, is stomped into extinction almost every campaign.

Eh, not that unrealistic. While the HRE was one of the strongest empires of the medieval period, it was also the most prone to near total collapse. And it certainly did take the heat coming from every angle, Just look at the Great Interregum and what ultimately tore it apart in the Thirty Years' War.

If anything the HRE- and most nations but especially the HRE- benefits from having a much more peaceful home life than they really did.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Pope expands into Africa, Iberia and has frequent wars with other nations.

This is pretty true to form, not the expansion so much as the frequent wars. Where the Pope really did send a lot of troops abroad- especially to fight the Ottomans- and engaged in the usual neighborhood fights with powers in Italy.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Spain should be Navarra and Aragon,

Agreed.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Egypt didn't exist,

The Mamluks, Fatmids, and Saladin beg to differ.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Byzantines start with peasants, despite being the oldest empire

Eh?

As a Roman Re-enactor who dabbled in the Eastern period, i can safely say that Rome and Greece always had peasants. Always.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

and having "late" game cavalry focussed on Roman cavalry (logic would dictate they'd have them from the start).

Agreed. Though they do get access to those units much sooner than- say- France or Spain get access to their final tier stuff.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Mongols are beast when they horse around and then lose massive momentum once they settle

Which is pretty true to form with what happened, just look at the Yuan Dynasty, the Ilkhanate, and the like.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Timurids are a joke

For what it's worth I've found them to be trouble enough when tI face them after they come on the map.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Russia fights only rebels and never sees the rest of the world

Which is pretty true to life actually; just look at what the Russians did (or didn't) do prior to the Mongol Yoke.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

England whipes out Scotland most of the time

Which is probably what the odds say should have happened by all rights; Scotland's independence into the Renaissance era was truly a case of an uphill battle against the stance.

I could appreciate a more robust Scotland in some ways, but I think it would have to be done carefully so it doesn't upset things too much.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

and then invade Iberia/Scandinavia

Yea, that is unrealistic. Though with an England that is that much more powerful than it historically was... I suppose it is possible.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Aztecs aren't killed by Spanish alone

No, but they usually are killed by whoever comes across them.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

90% of players never knows about the Arguin settlement next to Timbuktu

Indeed, and that is a shame. One of the many hidden delights that were already in the ame at launch.

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Cannon towers are absolute rubbish

Agreed, unfortunately.

[Crossbow]

Where is this hidden settlement near Timbuktu? Also, I think what was meant by "Byzantines start with peasants", is that they start with "peasants" the military unit in--game. As in, the unit you control on the battlefield named "peasants", as opposed to more trained soldiers.

[Inardesco]

If you're in Timbuktu, you send an army west. There's a stroke of land you can cross. Then you go up when you're at the coast and then find Arguin.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

If you're in Timbuktu, you send an army west. There's a stroke of land you can cross. Then you go up when you're at the coast and then find Arguin.

Thanks :)

[Shadow of the SPQR]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Holy Roman Empire, one of the strongest empires during the Medieval period, is stomped into extinction almost every campaign.

And one of the worst empires with unity, it was actually a set of smaller states that made up a somewhat united whole. Keyword somewhat.

[Medolicious]

Many old towns in my country have a (sometimes huge) castle on the hilltop in the center while the old town still has some remains of massive walls, sometimes in layers. Due to Ottomam invasions and raids people kept and built fortresses while the rest of European nobility was getting rid of uncomfortable dwellings. Visist Croatia or Slovenia and see for yourself.

[Khorps]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

If you're in Timbuktu, you send an army west. There's a stroke of land you can cross. Then you go up when you're at the coast and then find Arguin.

I found that odd when I was exploring africa, it stops you from sailing south from marrakesh along the coast unless you have a carrack-like ship but you can get to arguin easily before the world is round event, it just seems like a mistake during development to me

[GAMER01]

Originally posted by Vossman:

Don't get me wrong, this is amazing and it's one of my favorite games but as a historian and someone who loves castles, I can't help but be a little annoyed at the scale in size of the castles and fortresses of this game. To put it bluntly, the scale of the castles in this game would dwarf the largest castles in real life medieval times.

In real life, castles were not massive walled cities as they are depicted here. They were usually just protective households for the Lord who governed a province. They serve a dual purpose of being a place to protect a local Lord as well as being used as a military base and a strategic line of defense against invasions.

A castle was also built to pretty much only house a Lord's family and his personal guard meaning space was limited. They were also designed to hold of an enemy attack with little manpower. Even a small garrison of a few hundred good men could withstand siege for months, just look at the Siege of Rochester. In contrast, the massive scale of the castles in this game is ridiculous. In order to fully man a normal castle, you would need ten thousand men to properly defend it's walls which is impossible to do with the game mechanics.

I do enjoy the Stone fort mod that I have seen some people use. The size of those stone forts is actually a lot more accurate and practical than the regular ones. I'm sure the developers made the scale of the castles so huge in order to create a more dynamic and epic feeling to the siege game play but it's just disappointing to see the incredible inaccuracy of the castles size. It kinda of takes you out of your suspension of disbelief and immersion. I hope that if/when a Medieval 3 is made, the developers make the castles smaller and more accurate to medieval times.

Don't spoil my fun