Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Presumably the knights would dismount BEFORE the battle (i.e. during the deployment phase) and then be unable to mount until after the battle. If we are talking "realism" (which we perhaps should not be in this case) this is what would happen IRL: a knight may have mounted up before the battle or left their horse with their page. However, I am not sure dismounted knights is very good for the gameplay since it gives so much flexibility to a unit. This can of course be compensated through costs and squad size, but it takes away from the strategic choices involved in putting together your army. "Realistically", there were of course no "Greatsword knights", "Mace knights" or "Sword-and-shield knights". Knights were proficient with several types of weapons, and would use different weapons depending on what they were doing. This is something which videogames ignore because it gives too much flexibility. KOH2 will (I presume) be "unrealistic" in this sense: knights will not be able to use several types of weapons. I think it is a good think if it also is "unrealistic" in that knights must choose between being on horseback or foot.
  3. Last week
  4. Бих искал да Ви поздравя, Black Sea Games, на този така светъл Български празник - 3ти март! Бъдете все така вдъхновени и трудолюбиви и ни радвайте с вашите творения! С Уважение! Явор
  5. Frankoman

    Random game

    Here's a fun challenge; how quickly can you reunite England? Play as Normandy in Early on Hard (no cheats) and go as fast as you can! Hit F11 to show in-game time. I've definitely beaten this faster, but here was my attempt just now to give you something to aim for (49:55 in game was around 15 minutes of real world time). This was a popular challenge on the original black sea studios forum. I think the 'record' was under 20 in-game minutes, but that was over 15 years ago so I could be remembering wrong 🙂
  6. I siege occasionally in early game or if the castle is low on food storage. If they are low on food, the morale quickly drops and occupation is quick and easy. Since the game is fairly easy, sometimes I will siege just for the roll playing aspect.
  7. Name/Handle?: Frankoman Which Country are you from?: USA What kinds of games do you like to play?: Mostly strategy games (RTS and TBS alike), occasionally FPS and RPG as well. I play many 'older' games such as Medieval 2 Total War, the original Stronghold Series, Mount and Blade, CSGO, Skyrim, Fallout 3, and of course Knights of Honor! Bonus Question: Do you have any pets?: I have two bunnies 🐰🐰
  8. Earlier
  9. I assume you are talking about RT battles. It is an interesting idea, but I don't think it is a necessity. Let me at least try some constructive criticism - What will happen when the knights dismount: When the knights dismount what happens to the horses are they still on the battlfield incontrolable? Can the opponent interact witht he dismounted horses? Is there a possibility that you enter the battle with 5 cavalary units and leave the battle with 2 cavalary and 2 knight units (presumably 2 units got their nights stolen or killedand the 5th unit died in the battle)? And of cours will it be possible to enter the batle with out cavalary units, then steal some from the opponents cavalary and leave the batle with cavalary units? How do you see the mouning/dismounitng units under arrow attack? I think that this addition will cause more development time than it will benefit the diversity of options. Sounds like a good RT Battles update though, if the devs get time to make the battles as realistic as possible.
  10. I don't know any specifics, but if you really think about it spear is group fighting weapon. So in formation combined with shields you don’t really need heavy armor ? I wish that we could go away from "spearman" or "swordsman" unit types, and just have something like organized and unorganized combat styles. so in organized style everyone would use spears or similar staby bois. But when formation brakes spear becomes unpractical so poor bois would use axes/knifes and rich bois could use swords. I believe game wants to depict that in such big organized battles mostly light cheap troops would fight. And you would only use heavy more expensive bois for maneuvers like surrounding holding specific point ect..
  11. i agree, knigths were expensive to train, maintain and even to deploy on the battlefield. So i like idea of uber strong knigths bois ( like in Field of glory 2: medieval) that can destroy anything that is not armuored ( no that dumb spear beats horse...). For gameplay balance heavy knigths could be rare ( or in small numbers?).
  12. Cost is always a factor in everything. Double rations/triple rations, cost of horses, cost of reinforcements etc.
  13. I agree with you. Making them dismountable makes them OP, since nobody would take basic footman, because with cavalry they have 2 units in 1.
  14. Realistically, yes. But in a video game, I am comfortable with their single purpose utility. Makes the player make a choice as to having a fast unit or a slow unit. If they can dismount, it takes that strategic choice away.
  15. Mercenaries in the base game were generally used to build up an army very quickly, especially if you were looking at an invasion. I think they served their purpose well enough as is.
  16. In the first game, there were basic, unarmored spearmen (including local variants like desert spearmen) and armored halberdiers. There was no middle option for heavy spearmen, even though heavy archers were available and two types of heavy spearmen (one by that name and the other was men-at-arms). The new game will need to include heavy spearmen since they certainly did exist.
  17. One of the big advantages of cavalry in the Middle Ages was that it was dual-purpose. Mounted men were useful in a ton of situations, but they could also dismount and fight on foot if the situation warranted it. Cavalry should have this ability in-game to increase their importance.
  18. In the base game, mercs were super-expensive, and only really useful for the nation-specific units. Otherwise, it was easier to just build an organic army. This is the inverse of history: standing armies were far more expensive than mercs. So how can this be reflected in a balanced manner? Simple: mercs are cheaper than their build-able counterparts, but have wages like marshals. IRL, mercenaries were very useful in the short-term, and typically jettisoned once the war was over. Having them cost wages like marshals would incentivize players to get rid of them in the long run. They additionally would not be able to replenish their numbers like organically-raised units. So there's a trade-off.
  19. Or I think a better option is you pick and choose which battles to fight as main map will not be paused but continue. You can zoom from battle to main map, back and forth. Or if you want to focus only on battle have an AI marshal, prince, or governor take charge in your absence
  20. Rex


    It'd be nice to see the islamic factions in the Middle East progress from chain mail and lamellar armor to the mail and plate armour sets which were more frequently used in the late middle ages.
  21. This is a good idea and I support it.
  22. This may have been discussed in an earlier dev diary or forum, but would it be possible for your kingdom to form sort-of “diplomatic relations” with rebels (or at least, famous rebels)? For example, if your spy or diplomat could make contact with a famous rebel and, in exchange for gold, food, espionage activities, or some other support, you could tell that famous rebel: (1) not to attack your own kingdom, or (2) to attack a particular province, army, or kingdom in general. It could result in negative relations with the kingdom where that famous rebel originated, but it could be useful to bribe a rebel army to attack a particular kingdom for you, without having to officially declare war.
  23. They didn't mention yet how it will be implemented, but I can think of several more option to implement this than WestAant mentioned. All battles have to be fought. No battles can be fought. All battle between 2 or more players have to be fought. Battles where only 1 player is participating (against AI) can't be fought. When a battle is initiated, all players can vote. If a specific amount of players (50%, 2/3, All) agree, the battle will be fought. Only important battles will be fought. Again, these are most probably battles between players or sieges against the last city/fortress of a kingdom. Players, who are not participating in a battle are allowed to take over the AI-army. Every player gets a "important-battle token" after every hour (or maybe 2). They can use it to fight a battle in person. Otherwise, battles will be calculated. I also would guess they will make some sort of server-setting when hosting a (public) multiplayer-game and everyone who thinks about joining, sees which setting for battles will be used. I, for example, would never join a server where battles are fought because im only marginally interested in the battles.
  24. I don't think there is such a topic, yet. I also don't think it is very pragmatic - Suppose there are 6 players in the Multiplayer game. When a batle starts you will be left with 2 options: the game is paused and the 2 armies duke it out on the batle filed in RT - what are the other 4 players doing? Just watching a battle that may not concern them at all? the game is not paused so the other 4 players can continue with their game - then the players that participate in the batle cannot run their kingdoms - spies and rebels run rampant, opinions fall due to inactivity, or the AI takes control of your empire and forces you into decisions you may not have intended? I think RTS battles in MultiPlayer were fine as in the original game or maybe just add them for a 2 player games.
  25. 1. I am not really a fan of scaling since I liked "All or nothing" approach in KoH with Kingdom Advantages, since it's more strategic. You need to make some compromises like "Do I want to start a war to get that one province I need or do I keep peace and get nothing" ... That's just my opinion tho 😅 2. That's acctually a great thought and I like it 😃 3. Yeah I totally forgot about negative side. That should totally be included since bigger and stronger kingdoms don't need that much bonuses or it will break a game. Yeah I don't thing that could work, since the whole idea to keep people happy is to have similar cullture and to convert them to your religion to keep the tension down and have as little rebels as possible.
  26. Hey I’m new here, is there already topic about RTS battles in campain multiplayer?
  27. Bigboi


    Grand strategy game should have basic mechanics that works same for every faction rigth? But what makes great grand strategy game is little uniqueness in Every faction. So unique units are easy way to implimante that. for example making Teutonic knigths best equipet but rare and expensive would make player focus on economy and big defining battles, but pagan skirmisher ligth and cheap, would make player figth atrition wars.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.