Battles

[Waly]

One of the many things that I liked as knights of honor I was the various battles such as: attacking an enemy camp and letting the enemies slowly leave the tents. Another very important thing was the river crossing battles. Will we see something ais in the second part?

[Al_Wombat]

“Tutorial” Battles: Re-enactments of real historical battles on the game’s maps and with the available units, I would enjoy massively. 

Pros:

1. Immersion, credibility.

2. Study strategies and tactics to get better at the battles.

3. Learn a bit more about history and its conflicts.

4. Good for marketing. It’s gonna impress reviewers if done decently.

Cons:

1. It’s extra work to do that.

2. Some (wannabe) historians will criticize lack of accuracy, partly because...

3. Not all historical units can be included in the game.

 

What do you guys think?

Edited January 17, 2020 by Al_Wombat
typo / more “pros”

[Michael Gladius]

The battle screen had lots of interesting scenarios, but one thing they lacked was formations. There were 3: line, square, and wedge. No schiltroms (hedgehog), shield walls, skirmisher lines, stakes in front of archers, mantlets in front of crossbowmen, or columns (for speed).

 

It was also maddeningly hard to orient them correctly, as they would become more or less dense on a hair-trigger. I'd prefer something like lords of the realm, where a right-click-and-hold revealed a shape on the ground (i.e., the formation) with an arrow pointing in the direction the unit would face. Make organizing much easier to visualize. Either that, or give a 1 minute timer before battle starts to organize the troops' order of battle.

[xergiok]

I'm wondering whether battles will have more emphasis on formation, morale and physics (cavalry charge impacts and so on)? To be honest, I always just auto-resolved battles in KoH because I found them boring ;P. Still one of my favourite games, but the battles were just so underwhelming compared to Medieval II Total War, which I was playing at the same time.