Can the fortifications get a revamp? As it stands, it makes zero sense. Anything beyond a motte and bailey is confined to heavy population centers which isn't even historically accurate. Cities, while fortified, weren't castles. A key concept in castle building minimizing paths of approach, where as a city needs numerous paths of approach to allow for easy movement of trade. That's typically why the city became so prosperous. As it stands, you can't build more than a palisade in mountainous terrain when, if one takes a cursory look at history, a mountain was one of the most preferred places to build a castle. On top of all this, it seems that the lower level fortification will only barely hinder an enemy force, making them a completely useless feature for a region. Without even a sturdy battering ram, no one should be able to penetrate a palisade, but that doesn't seem to stop them anyways. It's why things like sieges happen, where you camp out in front of the enemy fortress until they starve or sally forth.
I think max fortification levels should be raised to the maximum everywhere and do away with the silly notion of a "stronghold region", whatever the real life equivalent is supposed to be likely never existed, and without something for the siege or maybe a spy to open the gates, the enemy gets to just sit there, not attack unless the defenders sally forth. On the flip side, the defenders don't get resupplied until the besieging army is scared off.
