Castles don't stop armies from advancing, right ?

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I like that on one level, Loren. But the problem is that the current battle system forces the troops to advance.

Which means that raiding the besiegers would turn into a full-fledged storming of the castle, not a skirmish or such. And besiegers should be able to sit out of weapons range if they choose and have enough troops to block the countryside. As the battle mechanics are, fortifications AND fixed positions would be to the benefit of your raiders. While the fortifications would be nice to support your raiders, the fixed position should be a hindrance to the defender, not the advantage it would be when all the kings forces and all the kings men throw themselves up against enemy walls when all they want to do is starve the enemy out. Otherwise they would have brought some wall destroyers.

I'd be interested in a break-through command, myself, where a unit/squad tries to escape past the enemy army. Suppose the chance of being caught was a proportion of the sieging armies patrol value. Send out forty soldiers, and half might make them through. But send out just one mage, and he'll likely slip through, or face something like a small assassination team of the lesser units.

That said, castles do threaten the enemy's lines of supply if unsieged. If they take down the castle, they can focus their forces on the front lines. If they bypass it, you might strike back, and they're forced to defend on two fronts, leaving more forces behind to guide the homelands.