Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

you can't downgrade castles??

bb82bb82 Senior MemberPosts: 112Registered Users
edited April 2012 in Total War: Shogun 2
"You cannot demolish castles, ports and roads, or speciality buildings at their base level." - In game message.

WHAT??? Why can't we at least downgrade castles to their base level? This makes no sense to me considering most AI cities that you conquer have relatively high castle upgrades. Since they are so tied to rice, which can cause huge issues for an empire, why couldn't you downgrade them?

Is this a bug or "feature"? Anyone know the rationale for it if it is a feature?

edit - That in-game message is sort of confusing, especially since you can demolish upgraded ports.
Post edited by bb82 on

Comments

  • Hunter_X22Hunter_X22 Senior Member Posts: 275Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    You can't demolish castles and why would you want to? Except to reduce food shortages. But I would think it would be better to upgrade the farms rather than downgrade the castles.
    Rome II is making a comeback :)

    76561198013201974.png
  • bb82bb82 Senior Member Posts: 112Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Hunter_X22 wrote: »
    You can't demolish castles and why would you want to? Except to reduce food shortages. But I would think it would be better to upgrade the farms rather than downgrade the castles.

    There are many possible reasons. But mainly the more control a player has the better, especially when such a key element as rice is concerned.

    To name a few: Reducing food is a huge factor depending on one's strategy. I'm sure many might like a bigger surplus than to be so close to zero. From purely a roleplaying perspective you might want to design your kingdom in a certain way with upgraded castles only in key areas. Tactically in the game you wouldn't want upgraded high-maintenance castles in unimportant areas. Even on a huge front you wouldn't want castles all over it since it implies you would want to defend that entire line or be in fear of losing a hard to retake upgraded castle. Strategically the front line could be better as a buffer with 1 hugely upgraded castle slightly behind the lines covering multiple provinces.
  • CatmaCatma Member Posts: 54Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Agree, not being able to downgrade castles is dumb. I remember in one of my early games I was upgrading castles and markets left and right, keeping the food surplus at zero (on a side note, holding a large food surplus is too advantageous and easy to do, once you realize how stupid it is to upgrade markets or too many castles.)

    Anyway I was in this situation and I took a province with a castle one level higher than its farm. BAM! Food shortage. And I was dozens of turns away from the next farm research. There was absolutely NOTHING I could do about it. I was committed to sitting for many, many turns with as many troops as I could spare, just to prevent rebellions. I was literally unable to do anything for 10+ turns.

    Should I have had a larger food surplus? Yes. Does this mean the food system is working just fine? No. It is a poor system that limits play choices and occasionally penalizes unwary new players. The fact that you can't downgrade castles, giving the player even LESS control over the whole food situation, is just one aspect that is bad.
  • HerrDoktorHerrDoktor Senior Member Posts: 247Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Hunter_X22 wrote: »
    You can't demolish castles and why would you want to? Except to reduce food shortages. But I would think it would be better to upgrade the farms rather than downgrade the castles.

    And do you think this is a small factor? Sometimes, when conquering cities early on, you may end up with famine if the castle was supported by farms on other enemy cities. Also, I would prefer to have bigger fortifications at my front, and the front changes during the campaign - you end up with citadels where there's no danger, and meager forts do defend against 3-stack armies.
  • AfijakaAfijaka Member Posts: 70Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Would be great if we could downgrade castles...
  • KensaiKensai Senior Member Posts: 966Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    No, it would be boring. If you don't have enough rice production then DO NOT attack that castle. It adds to the difficulty.
    In ancient Japan, a Kensai (剣聖, sword's saint) was an honorary title given to a warrior of legendary skill in swordsmanship. The literal translation of "Kensai" is "sword saint". Thus, the term is considered by some to imply a higher degree of perfection (possibly also encompassing a moral dimension) than the more commonly used kengō (剣豪) or "great sword".
  • yoshisukeyoshisuke Senior Member Posts: 277Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    I agree with Kensai, it's a strategy game so plan your strategy right. It's not that hard, and the problems of food shortage you all seem to have never happened to me.
    Choose wisely what castle to attack and always upgrade your farms first.
  • HerrDoktorHerrDoktor Senior Member Posts: 247Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Kensai wrote: »
    No, it would be boring. If you don't have enough rice production then DO NOT attack that castle. It adds to the difficulty.

    This could well be your FIRST castle (aside from the usual free first clan). Happens to Date, if you attack to the North.
  • reverie7reverie7 Senior Member Posts: 341Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    The castle vs food system is flawed, and it's not just the players, even the AI regularly have trouble with food shortages since they don't know when to stop upgrading their castles.
  • wealthyempirewealthyempire Senior Member USAPosts: 1,065Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    I generally don't upgrade my castles with the exception of 1 or 2 troop production provinces. The food surplus is to valuable for growing my economy and then I don't have to worry about food shortages with taking the oversized AI castles later on.

    That's probably part of the reason I tend to do fast expansion campaigns, PreRD. So I can take the provinces before the AI clans get a chance to screw them up. Overbuilding castles, ruining the town, etc.
    Guides and other informative threads
    S2, RotS, FotS Economic Quick Reference Guides
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=462317
    Check out post #2 (S2) and post #9 (RotS) for other informative threads
    The Sekigahara Campaign 2012 TWC Modding Awards Winner (Team Member)
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1841
  • JaqueramaphanJaqueramaphan Member Posts: 85Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    The castle/food system is designed so that you need to put some thought into how your empire develops. It was probably implemented for the same reason that you're limited to a certain number of building slots per provence, or that you can only upgrade unit stats to a certain extent, or that units have upkeep. You're supposed to pick and choose which direction your developmental road will take...you can't always get what you want.
  • bb82bb82 Senior Member Posts: 112Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    My main issue with having no real control over downgrading castles is that it means you really can't build upgraded markets. I think it was a mistake but oh well.
  • HeirofAlexanderHeirofAlexander Senior Member Posts: 1,088Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    It is for the strategy part. You can't attack that castle if you do not have the means for it, as an example.
  • CatmaCatma Member Posts: 54Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    The problem with claiming it's a strategic choice is that there is very little choice involved. You'll upgrade as few castles as possible because food is so incredibly valuable (once you understand how food surplus works.) One or two production provinces, and maybe a turtling province, will get upgraded castles. No place will get upgraded markets. It really doesn't require any strategy either. If you have a province with an armorer or something, upgrades will go there for production. If you have a really defensible chokepoint that gets assaulted a lot, it will get upgraded for defense.

    The drawbacks have been outlined, and I really don't think there are any advantages. Probably just because the math doesn't work out for anything except stockpiling food. If it were a closer comparison, maybe. But it isn't.
  • bb82bb82 Senior Member Posts: 112Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    It is for the strategy part. You can't attack that castle if you do not have the means for it, as an example.

    It's a strategy game so of course you can find "strategy" in any aspect if you look hard enough.

    To me not being able to downgrade castles seems more like a bug being called a "feature".
  • StevenOStevenO Senior Member Posts: 912Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    While I'd like to be able to downgrade castles the ONLY reason to do it is because it is eating too much rice. I agree that there is some strategy involved in avoiding "high food debt" provinces but when the AI doesn't seem to care about food it just leaves its mess to the player. Upgrading farms may be an answer but that requires a research and cost vs. value issues. I hope most of us can live with level two castles (enough for a Market and Religion/Sake) but seeing a level four castle in a poor location is just painful.

    Ports can be downgraded but I really HATE how far down they go. The only time you'd downgrade a port is when you have a military port or greater but want to replace it with the Naban section. The problem with the downgrade is that it goes all the way down to a fishing village and you have to work your way back up through a harbor and trade port before you can finally put in that darn Naban Trade Port.
  • yoshisukeyoshisuke Senior Member Posts: 277Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    I wonder why they removed the Napoleon feature to switch between same-level buildings in a chain, it was really usefull and quite logical too..
  • viewportviewport Senior Member Posts: 152Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    StevenO wrote: »
    While I'd like to be able to downgrade castles the ONLY reason to do it is because it is eating too much rice. I agree that there is some strategy involved in avoiding "high food debt" provinces but when the AI doesn't seem to care about food it just leaves its mess to the player.
    The AI does care. I've seen Fortresses fully decked out with Cavalry, Yari, Sword production facilities, while their other provinces are just Forts with food surpluses.

    I usually leave such large-castle provinces to vassals, rather than take them on as more economic burden. Moreover, having many provinces myself slaps on such a huge Global Admin Cost (tax reduction) that it often makes better sense to leave some provinces to vassals instead. If I didn't want vassals there, I could just leave them to rebels (spoiler alert!) for the time being. ;-) Vassals do betray you if you leave unguarded Forts around them.

    Another spoiler... you can feasibly pay off new enemies, rather than spend lots of upkeep guarding many fronts. I won't tell you how much you need to pay, but it really is more than feasible if you handle your economy right. :-) (Hint: pay for 10 turns of peace with 1 turn of income)
    StevenO wrote: »
    Upgrading farms may be an answer but that requires a research and cost vs. value issues. I hope most of us can live with level two castles (enough for a Market and Religion/Sake) but seeing a level four castle in a poor location is just painful.
    With just 4-5 provinces, many clans (Campaign AI) has to make do with "not so ideal" locations for castles and troop production. So far, I haven't seen the AI make a poor choice. I'd do the same: Chosokabe builds a Stronghold in Awa early on because I needed Katana Cavalry early. Awa next tore down stables to recruit Naginata Warrior Monks (love their Warcry). Yup, I tear down facilities to make space, rather than build up Castles. Money can be earned back; food production cannot (except for Markets).
    StevenO wrote: »
    Ports can be downgraded but I really HATE how far down they go. The only time you'd downgrade a port is when you have a military port or greater but want to replace it with the Naban section. The problem with the downgrade is that it goes all the way down to a fishing village and you have to work your way back up through a harbor and trade port before you can finally put in that darn Naban Trade Port.
    I agree. Retrofitting (or down-sizing, rather) a Military Port to a Trading Port shouldn't put it back to a coastal village. But well, if it's for game balance, I'd leave it in. If I could downgrade buildings 1 step at a time, I'd be balancing food surpluses with Market upgrades all the time, reaping unreasonable growth plus income.

    I'd imagine that burning down a whole facility makes for faster demolition. Surgically down-sizing a facility might take more than 1 turn.
  • grumhiegrumhie Senior Member Posts: 437Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    the reason you cant downgrade is becuase of the massive size of the castles. you simply CANT down grade them. imo it sucks that defences and size are bound. would make much more sense if ts like in fots with defences and size of town as seperate thing. heck, i wouldnt mind if i need to pay double i pay now, if they just allow me to get good defences on a chokepoint ill later on never use agan without wasting massive amounts of growth and thus tax.
  • JaqueramaphanJaqueramaphan Member Posts: 85Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    This comic is very very relevant to the discussion in this thread...

    http://www.housepetscomic.com/2012/04/16/wizard-needs-sleep-badly/
    Don't forget to mouse over the image and read the alt-text as it is also important :)
  • viewportviewport Senior Member Posts: 152Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    grumhie wrote: »
    imo it sucks that defences and size are bound. would make much more sense if ts like in fots with defences and size of town as seperate thing.
    In my experience, castles don't allow good tactical maneuvers; they simply wear down the enemy a little by making them fall down walls.

    Hence, I upgrade castles only for construction slots, not for defense.

    Shogun 2 forces us to use garrisons for defense rather than use defensive installations. (Shogun 2 lacks Laser Tower installations). Defensive installations are immovable objects, mostly, and wouldn't pose much threat to incoming enemies. That also makes for less turtling and a more dynamic ebb and flow of power over the campaign map. (I've had my vital provinces fall to enemies despite my military superiority, all because I didn't place my troops on the campaign map properly.)
    grumhie wrote: »
    heck, i wouldnt mind if i need to pay double i pay now, if they just allow me to get good defences on a chokepoint ill later on never use agan without wasting massive amounts of growth and thus tax.
    Given the money, I'd usually recruit 4-5 Ashigarus from that chokepoint and the surrounding provinces within 1 turn. Also, let's not forget Bow Ashigarus' fantastic ability to erect screens (deployment phase in defense only).

    Makes sense that it takes time to train Samurais. In a pinch, crank out lots of Ashigarus for strong defense. Yari Samurais are also great if you can get them; very strong Melee Defense.

    Plus your astute management of unit veterancy (putting the best survivors together), you can unit-merge your way to very powerful Ashigarus in no time. Unit veterancy gives overwhelming bonuses.
  • grumhiegrumhie Senior Member Posts: 437Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    thats not what i meant. it wasnt about protection, it was about the food. i'd like citadel like castles in all my provinces. or at least the important ones. but i cant, as they burn way too much food. and that doesnt make sense. i can get that a citadel requires MORE food then the smallest tier fort, but it would make way more sense if garrison and defences were not bound to the size of the town and food consumption.
  • viewportviewport Senior Member Posts: 152Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    grumhie wrote: »
    thats not what i meant. it wasnt about protection, it was about the food. i'd like citadel like castles in all my provinces. or at least the important ones. but i cant, as they burn way too much food. and that doesnt make sense. i can get that a citadel requires MORE food then the smallest tier fort, but it would make way more sense if garrison and defences were not bound to the size of the town and food consumption.

    Yeah, that makes sense. We could upgrade the Castle without enlarging the Castle Town, without adding more Construction Slots either.

    Now that you say it, it all makes perfect sense, and makes for even more strategy.

    Both the Castle and the Castle Town cannot be downgraded once upgraded. Castle Towns (construction slots) can't be downsized, which makes sense because driving away a huge population from their homes is tantamount to asking for rebels to take over the government. Castle can't be torn down because they are made of wood and stone, that makes sense (or does it, really?). Hmm. Historically, castles throughout Japan have seen lots of remodeling, which will certainly imply the ability to tear one down.

    Perhaps Shogun 2 should let us upgrade Castle (defensive installation) and Castle Town (construction slots) separately?

    What you said makes perfect sense. What I said to you before was just a workaround for this issue, albeit a fun strategy exercise in itself.

    To prevent turtling, Castles can take years to build and are expensive. A typical castle in Japan takes maybe 2-6 years to build. But a makeshift "castle" shouldn't take more than 1 season to get done. So, yeah, I second your suggestion to separate Castle from Castle Town upgrades (and downgrades).

    We will, of course, still see Campaign AI make "poor" choices in placing Construction Slots, simply because they were making do best they can. There will still be no option (nor should there be) to destroy Construction Slots to free up food supply.

    UPDATE:

    Oh, and upgrading Castles shouldn't mean an increase in replenishment rate, but upgrading Castle Town should. Warmongering babies are born from full-fledged settlements, not mass-produced in castles.

    Which then begs the question. Did CA simply roll Castles and Castle Towns together for a more streamlined gameplay? Then the issue here becomes this: Shogun 2 needs defensive emplacements, and it's up to CA to decide if the gameplay balance needs that.
  • bb82bb82 Senior Member Posts: 112Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Other than the start when the AI might really mess you up with rice, I now think it's fine not to be able to downgrade them. It does seem to add more strategy and mainly means you just have to be really careful as to which markets you upgrade. I usually have plenty of rice and I do a decent amount of upgrading.

    But of course it's never a bad thing to allow the players more control over their clan development.
  • damadman228damadman228 Senior Member Posts: 2,437Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Yes, separating castles from castle towns and allowing the players to tear down castles (not castle towns) makes perfect sense. I'm not sure about the replenishment rate though as both people and a place to drill many troops are necessary for fast replenishment. Perhaps upgrading either could make a slight difference, or there could be "replenishment tiers" which are reached by upgrading both.
    This might be helpful for those still playing S2 MP:
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=444087

    Also check out this awesome channel:
    https://www.youtube.com/user/milkandcookiesTW
  • grumhiegrumhie Senior Member Posts: 437Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    no, no tearing down both. ever seen a japanese castle IRL? its MASSIVE. no way you can tear that down in 1 turn. maybe in 16 turns while paying a ****load of money for all the personel and stuff needed.
  • Tyer032392Tyer032392 Senior Member FloridaPosts: 4,609Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    viewport wrote: »
    Which then begs the question. Did CA simply roll Castles and Castle Towns together for a more streamlined gameplay? Then the issue here becomes this: Shogun 2 needs defensive emplacements, and it's up to CA to decide if the gameplay balance needs that.

    The most logical reason CA created the towns and castles together was probably due to complaints about the castle-town system that was in Medieval 2. In Med2, you had two choices as to what a settlement would be dedicated to, either economy for city, or military for the castle. Even though I prefer the old castle-town system much better, I do like the fact that the new castle-town system allows me to protect cities that are my income producer with a castle. And it also keeps the strategic value that was in the Med2 castle-city building system. Placing a castle where it would make use of its surroundings or have a city that can produce the income you need for an army.
    "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. "
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 12,311Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Downgrading castles would be problematic from a technical point of view. Downgrading castles mean you would have to reduce the construction slots you unlocked. That would mean any buildings you constructed fro that slot would have to be deleted. CA would have to deal with rewriting the game to enable mechanics to backtrack. All because some people effectively fail to keep an eye on food surplus- it flashes red if it calculates the end result of ongoing construction as bringing food surplus into a deficit. If players don't notice this, then they deserve to be in the red until they get some more farms built.
    How to install Steam games without downloading
    How to post DXDiag: Windows+R key, type "dxdiag" in the input box. Select Save All Information, and attach as [/code]
    [code] in your post
    Baldrick: "I heard the Great War started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry."
  • StevenOStevenO Senior Member Posts: 912Registered Users
    edited April 2012
    Although I don't support being able to downgrade a castle to open up more food surplus (the only reason to downgrade) it may have been nice if you could upgrade the fortifications seperately from the rest of what normally comes with upgrading a castle. If we could upgrade the fort with the garrison size, repression, and bushido research bonus in one stage and then upgrade the castle-town (replenishment, unit availability, construction/recruitement slots plus food consumption) afterwards I would have been happier. A bigger Fort should mean a better defense and "intimidate" the surrounding country side while providing space to improve the martial arts but it takes people, who eat food, to build more stuff (construction slots) and provide a recruitement base (availability and recruitment slots along with replentishment) to a province.
Sign In or Register to comment.