How hould it change the game if ... ?

[Knai]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

A total razing of a castle where the walls turn to ashes would only be some high_end late game spell which is very rare and should probably have its own casting limitations such as only being casted during the summer at the cost of the casters life.

Given that this is in a province already owned, that is pretty ridiculous. If you want to raze your fortress, giving a command seems the best way to do so.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Knai

Given that this is in a province already owned, that is pretty ridiculous. If you want to raze your fortress, giving a command seems the best way to do so.

OBVIOUSLY... my comment was for an enemy fortress not your own fortress.

[Knai]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

OBVIOUSLY... my comment was for an enemy fortress not your own fortress.

But see, you've taken the enemy fortress by the time this would be an option, meaning it is now your own fortress. Unless you are suggesting destroying the fortress entirely with the enemy still in it, which forces a fight.

[JonBrave]

When I posted this question, I sort of felt I got shouted at for mechanics/stupidity, but perhaps that's just my paranoia

I play SP only (I would suck at MP, and have no commitment time), latest game up to one notch below Impossible AI (will try that next time). I was reflecting that in my games, I don't think I've reached "End Game", I've won before then. In my games, I build a couple of forts in the "Early" Game. But in the "Mid" Game I just capture AI forts, and never bother having to build a fort again. I guess I was wondering about self-imposing a rule that I had to destroy any forts I captured, to make it more interesting to have to build forts again, or see how the dynamics would change if having to rebuild forts at fronts or rely on longer home rebuilds.

I'm sure there are other strategy games where when you "capture" and enemy land something like the fort gets destroyed, not handed over.(?)

[Knai]

Originally Posted by JonBrave

I play SP only (I would suck at MP, and have no commitment time), latest game up to one notch below Impossible AI (will try that next time). I was reflecting that in my games, I don't think I've reached "End Game", I've won before then. In my games, I build a couple of forts in the "Early" Game. But in the "Mid" Game I just capture AI forts, and never bother having to build a fort again. I guess I was wondering about self-imposing a rule that I had to destroy any forts I captured, to make it more interesting to have to build forts again, or see how the dynamics would change if having to rebuild forts at fronts or rely on longer home rebuilds.

It could make things more interesting, sure. From an in universe perspective though, it looks really dumb. And by mid game magic is prevalent enough that it doesn't really matter what you do with the forts, its not like anyone else half competent with magic is around when playing SP.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Knai

But see, you've taken the enemy fortress by the time this would be an option, meaning it is now your own fortress. Unless you are suggesting destroying the fortress entirely with the enemy still in it, which forces a fight.

My suggestion of destroying the fortress via a spell would not require a siege or capture of the fortress or even any friendly units in the province. It could be done across the map as a ritual spell where only a scout is walking past the fortress. I figured this would be obvious since "spells" can only be casted using a lab.