Minor castles

[Michael Gladius]

Minor castles should play an important role in subduing a province. If I just seize the main town, and ignore the minor castles, then the minor castles should not automatically fall. Moreover, minor castles should be rallying points for loyalist rebel units.

[Bagatur]

Yes this was one of the main problems of the first game - the conquests were too easy. A state with 3-4 provinces could fall in matter of minutes. If the there is a need to take each castle before the province could be used by the new owner, and there is a significant resistance, then conquering a state will be a real challenge, as it should be! And then the map won`t be changed that drastically for just one or two hours. This was the biggest problem with the first game, if you ask me. In just an hour, you don`t play in the chosen time period, the map becomes a big scramble of different states. A country with one province suddenly destroys an empire with more than 8 provinces! This should not be the case. Big states, should have proportionate power, so to be realistic. There could be a different sistem for balance. For example inner problems - unruly aristocracy and population in some parts of the country 🙂

[William Blake]

In the original it was not an issue of defense being too weak. It was 90% the issue of fast unit reinforcement. Once you had a good quality army you could take any city without loosing quality units. then you would just click to instantly resupply units to full health and if you had a decent kingdom you would have gold to make it all the time. This meant that you could make up a strong army with very strong unique units and then roll through the map without stopping. You didn't have to repair broken economy of captured provinces or build up to a top level. You would just move capture reinforce move to the next province with the same army an loose nothing, as long as your kingdom generates global gold to heal units at the city you are currently in.

[DoVlaLegend]

one thing I think would help it that transitions in towns would only be able if your knight is present in that castle. This would somewhat slow your steamrolling of that kingdom and make it possible for them to recall their army from elsewhere and defend/take back that castle before it changes sides.

[ÆternaTristitia]

It could be implemented in a similar way as we have seen in Crusader Kings 2, where the player must conquer other settlements such as Towns, Castles, Reinforced Monasteries to complete the conquest of the provence in question.

[frujin]

14 hours ago, ÆternaTristitia said:

It could be implemented in a similar way as we have seen in Crusader Kings 2, where the player must conquer other settlements such as Towns, Castles, Reinforced Monasteries to complete the conquest of the provence in question.

Don't you think that if we do this - instead of more difficult, the conquest will become more "boring/tedious"? Because it is just "more of the same" ...?

[ÆternaTristitia]

5 hours ago, frujin said:

Don't you think that if we do this - instead of more difficult, the conquest will become more "boring/tedious"? Because it is just "more of the same" ...?

If castles sieges were different than city sieges, it wouldn't be boring and tedious.

[Lighthope]

13 hours ago, frujin said:

Don't you think that if we do this - instead of more difficult, the conquest will become more "boring/tedious"? Because it is just "more of the same" ...?

I agree with you.  I saw this thread and thought, "So we have to attack four places instead of one to conquer a province?"

No.  Please no.

If we want to make a province harder to conquer, make the main castle harder.  Don't make me have to take out the main castle and three other nuisance castles as well.

 

[Bagatur]

Ac

15 hours ago, frujin said:

Don't you think that if we do this - instead of more difficult, the conquest will become more "boring/tedious"? Because it is just "more of the same" ...?

Acctualy, that is what will make the game really interesting, becouse every conquest will have to be carefully planed. You should have sufficient forces for besiging the castles, take control of the province and be ready to meet the counterattack of the enemy. This will make each war more interesting and unique. Thaking provice after province, by thaking just one object, that is exactly "more of the same". If the province population is loyal, than there will be a rebel army, struguling against the conqurer, and using the castles as a base. If not, the conquest will be easyer. Not to mention, that this will make the game, more realistic 🙂 

[WestAnt]

Sorry, Bagatur,

 

I am trying to understand what is your idea, so here are my thoughts: 

1. In KoH - you win 1 castle fight, pay some Books, and you have a safe province

2. The idea in KoH 2 is (as I understand it form the dev diaries) - you win 1 castle fight, then you have to make this province adopt your culture and deal with the oppinion of the folks in the province, just to make it safe - This makes the game more complex and ads another demention to the whole conquest of a province

3. Your idea (as I understand it) - get rid of this culture thingy, I want more castle fights - you are increasing the province number with 50% (e.g. from 200 provinces to 300), now quadruple the castle fights so we can get above 1000 castle fights.

 

I don;t think anyone has ever said "Hey, I got this marshall here with just 2 sets of ordinary Archers, lets see if I can take some provinces". Every time you, or someone else, attacked, we have more then enough armies to take this province 2 or 3 times, just to be sure. Having to fight 4 times just looks tidious.

 

In short - Let us see the product that they want to produce, before judging them that it won't work. 

As the team have said numerous times, they are going to continue supporting the game after development, so if it as you sai it and doesn't bring anything new to the game and is just "more of the same", I am sure they will rework it.

[Bagatur]

8 hours ago, WestAnt said:

Sorry, Bagatur,

 

I am trying to understand what is your idea, so here are my thoughts: 

1. In KoH - you win 1 castle fight, pay some Books, and you have a safe province

2. The idea in KoH 2 is (as I understand it form the dev diaries) - you win 1 castle fight, then you have to make this province adopt your culture and deal with the oppinion of the folks in the province, just to make it safe - This makes the game more complex and ads another demention to the whole conquest of a province

3. Your idea (as I understand it) - get rid of this culture thingy, I want more castle fights - you are increasing the province number with 50% (e.g. from 200 provinces to 300), now quadruple the castle fights so we can get above 1000 castle fights.

 

I don;t think anyone has ever said "Hey, I got this marshall here with just 2 sets of ordinary Archers, lets see if I can take some provinces". Every time you, or someone else, attacked, we have more then enough armies to take this province 2 or 3 times, just to be sure. Having to fight 4 times just looks tidious.

 

In short - Let us see the product that they want to produce, before judging them that it won't work. 

As the team have said numerous times, they are going to continue supporting the game after development, so if it as you sai it and doesn't bring anything new to the game and is just "more of the same", I am sure they will rework it.

Acctualy, I never said to double the provinces. Just, that it doesn`t seem to realistic to bend the province to your will, when there are castles in the hands of the enemy. If the castles are maned, then they sould be a factor, for taking control of the province (If they are not, then they should be). The idea for the culture to be a dicisive factor is brilliant, but this should be conected to population loyalty. If the population was loyal to the privious ruler. then there will be rebelions, and they will make the job harder. If they are not (bad manigment from the privious owner or the province was taken from you not long ago and now you are retaking it) then the take over will be easyer! That`s my point. This will make every situation uniqe and deffenetly more realistic and interestig to play. That`s my idea 🙂 

 

[Bagatur]

And one more thing, castle fight is not aways nessery. You could just besiege the fortresses and make them surrender 🙂

 

[Bassilisk]

On 1/10/2021 at 10:47 PM, frujin said:

Don't you think that if we do this - instead of more difficult, the conquest will become more "boring/tedious"? Because it is just "more of the same" ...?

I agree one battle is enough. However I wonder if strategies like "scorched earth" (abondonging the province and breaking it down and making the populace unruly) would be possible. Or maybe leaving a spy or something that would excite rebellion. There could be more possible strategies for when you know you will lose a province to make it slow the enemy way down.

[Michael Gladius]

On 1/10/2021 at 10:47 PM, frujin said:

Don't you think that if we do this - instead of more difficult, the conquest will become more "boring/tedious"? Because it is just "more of the same" ...?

 

Nope! Because it doesn't have to be "more of the same." Here's how:

 

Taking over a province is a cultural matter, and military means are not the be-all, end-all. However, having small castles be a factor gives players a choice: avoid extra sieges and pay higher cultural costs, or capture them and get discounts. Having it be a trade-off between taking castles (which was far more common IRL than field battles) and going for a pure-cultural blitz makes the game more integrated.