Jump to content
  • Sign in to follow this  

    DevDiary 14 - Opinions

    Hello friends, and welcome to the 14th DevDiary for “Knights of Honor II: Sovereign”! In most of the previous diaries, we’ve been focused either on military related stuff, or on relations and interactions between different kingdoms, as those are, naturally, the essence of our game. In this one we will digress from that main course and talk about the “opinions” of different social classes. This feature revolves around how the actions, made by the players (or AIs), affect the different classes in their kingdoms and how the opinions of those classes, in turn, affect the kingdom.

    In the first game, there was an important kingdom-wide parameter, representing how satisfied the people are with their ruler. It was called “Kingdom power” and we kept it in KoH2:S, renaming it to “Crown authority”. It still plays a major role in the game, but just a few months ago we decided it felt a bit flat and we really wanted to enrich the gameplay and immersion. So to address this, we tried to add more depth in the internal affairs of a kingdom with the “Opinions” feature. Our goal was not to make it too complex or overwhelming for the players to manage, but instead let it run a bit in the background. Opinions have a significant effect, but the control over them is primarily indirect. They reward players for doing what social classes would want from a king, rather than separately taking actions to increase opinions or simply paying gold for that purpose.

     

    AAA_Shot01_Devblog14_Screenshot2.thumb.jpg.023ca034373a2d03f231242e88849404.jpg

    There are 5 social classes in KoH2:S – Peasantry, Nobility, Clergy, Army and Merchants. Their opinions can vary from -10 to +10 each, and when they are positive, some benefits apply; when they are negative – so do penalties. Additionally, below or above given thresholds, the corresponding social class may take actions to support or oppose their ruler. In contrast to parameters like rebel risk and happiness, opinions are kingdom-wide, so even small changes may lead to very significant effects, especially in larger kingdoms. Explaining how they work will be easiest with some examples for each one.

    Peasantry opinion is strongly related with rebellion risk and food production rate, but also affect the morale of peasant and militia squads in the army. It is relatively easy to increase, as many buildings, improving the wellbeing of the people and some basic religious buildings play a favorable role. The steps to avoid losing it are rather simple, though not so easy to do sometimes – the player must protect the common people from invasions and rebellions and when possible – not to enter wars voluntarily. After all, that’s what the simple folk fear most.

    Nobility opinion affects things like crown authority increase costs, influence in neighbors, loyalty of knights, revolt risk… It is probably the hardest to increase, as there are very few things that can make the aristocrats happy, e.g. winning a war or crushing a rebellion. On the other side, there are tons of things that make them upset, like financial instability, military losses or even diplomacy decisions, depending on the influence of the kingdoms that they concern.

    AAA_Shot02_Devblog14_Screenshot5.jpg.f9e7c2f7fdd7b45767cc590ee43a2050.jpg

    Army opinion plays an important role for army morale and obedience and is one that is very dangerous to keep low, unless players wants their own armies to march against them. It depends on military successes, constant supply of provisions and not leaving men behind – abandoning wounded troops or a famous marshal to rot in the enemies’ dungeon is not the greatest way to win the sympathy of the soldiers.

    Merchants’ opinion naturally affects the gold income in several ways, among which corruption levels, trade income, cost for buying supplies and others. As one could guess, they are happy when more opportunities for trade are created and maintained, e.g. constructing the needed buildings and making proper trade agreements with the other kingdoms. On the other side, things like going bankrupt, bad diplomacy with trade partners and wars are really bad for business and thus they are not accepted well.

    AAA_Shot03_Devblog14_Screenshot4.jpg.6954e7d97658719654c77a092506d135.jpg

    Clergy opinion we saved for last, as it is most complex to explain, since it depends on the kingdom’s religion. There are some common effects, like book production and religious influence in/by neighboring kingdoms, but also many other effects, depending on what the kingdom religion is. For an example, Catholics’ relations with the Pope depend on the clergy opinion and vice versa, same goes for the Orthodox and the Ecumenical Patriarch; pagan shamans, on the other hand, boost the army’s morale.

    Events that can rise and lower the clergy’s opinion differ even more. Catholics are very concerned with good relations with the rest of the Catholic world and his holiness, the Pope. They really appreciate things like leading a crusade or defending Rome. Muslim scholars care about the relations with the caliphs and jihad involvement. For example, they can get really mad if their king decides to sign peace with the enemies of a caliphate in a holy war. Pagan shamans care a lot about military successes, as it was commonly considered that losing an important battle means the king has upset the gods and they have withdrawn their divine favor over him.

    AAA_Shot04_Devblog14_Screenshot1.thumb.jpg.aba12dc0f113ae1c961074ecdad8d722.jpg

    In general, Opinions improve slowly and passively, where a player may not be able to do much to increase them directly with actions. After all, it will rarely be a good strategy to declare war just to make the shamans happy with some battles, and even if you do, this can backfire and decrease the opinions of other classes. In these cases, diplomats can be helpful, as their “Improve opinions” action can speed up the process – the more experienced a diplomat is, the more effective this action is, and if they have royal blood, the classes appreciate the attention even more. Even then, the results are far from immediate, and the best strategy may be to avoid unnecessary deterioration of opinions altogether.

    We are still experimenting with this feature, adding and balancing causes of opinion changes and  effects the different classes have. Feel free to share what effects and reasons for increase or decrease of opinions you think imight be interesting and immersive to be included in KoH2:S, or which do you think will be tiresome to deal with. We’d also love to hear what you think about this feature in general – do you enjoy a bit of focus on the internal policy of a kingdom in grand strategy games, or do you see it as unnecessary sidetrack? And do you like the selection of classes we’ve picked, or would you prefer them to be more, less or simply different?

    AAA_Shot05_Devblog14_Illustration2.jpg.0bbe43d3f15d9bd7c9e5103c99d0cb49.jpg

    We will talk more about the Diplomat and the pacts in our DevStream on Thursday, January 7th, @ 4:00 PM GMT / 11:00 AM EST. The Twitch stream will be hosted on the THQ Nordic channel: http://twitch.tv/thqnordic and we’ll be grabbing responses from this post as well as answering questions live during the stream.

    Till then, we bid thee farewell. Go forth and conquer, our brave warriors!


    • Like 5
    THQN Brad
    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Happy New Year, Dear Devs! I wish you a better and brighter 2021! I hope you've had wonderful Holidays!

    I have no questions for you today. You have answered everything I needed, and I thank you for that!

    Godspeed and Have a great start of the year!

     

    P.S. I really love what I saw in this post! Keep up the good work!

    Edited by Yavor

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Buonasera a tutti voi. Sono un appassionato del vostro Gioco da molto tempo , aspetto la fine del mese per scoprire nuovi contenuti del gioco come il pane🤣. Volevo chiedervi se il gioco conterrà la lingua italiana e soprattutto " più o meno " quando uscirà!! Un' altra cosa magari aggiornarci con qualche  video gameplay , foto .. grazie , aspetto buone nuove!!! 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Since you asked for opinions this will be an opinion rather than a question.

    The military class and peasantry class I suggest should be combined into a single class peasantry. Since in medieval times the peasantry composed mostly of the military as levies which would disband after war and only be active during war with nobles leading. This would create a larger incentive for mercenary based armies, since they wont be tied to your peasantry opinion, however clearly mercenaries cost a great deal of money so that would be an interesting trade off. Additionally the noble social class can be given more ties to the military to reflect unhappy/happy nobles whom would lead your armies into battle poorly or with enthusiasm because they want to see you fail or succeed. I believe removing the military social class would bring the game closer to historical accuracy while reducing the amount of classes to be concerned with from 5 to 4, which feels like a more manageable number. However if you want to keep 5 social classes consider adding a craftsman/guild social class in replace of that military class, which maybe effects the growth of traditions and city development. 

    I hope you guys consider this, or justify why you disagree with this thanks in advance!

     

     

    Edited by Ivory Knight

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for the DevDiary, to begin with! Wasn't expecting one so early this year.

    I am wondering will there be opinion(s) on your royal court? (within nobility maybe?)

    Else, I am fine with the ideas. Especially for this feature I think that playing the game will be very important in order to finally make up your mind. It could influence your gameplay pretty strongly. So balancing is probably going to be a tough nut to crack with this one.

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This is a great idea and something that really excites me!

    Rather than calling it "Opinion," I think "Stability" is more apt.  After all, the lower the opinion, the less stable the kingdom is and more likely for revolt.

    My one concern is how many tools will a player have to indirectly cause a war, since declaring war yourself is such a negative influence.

    As a player, I don't want to sit around for tons of time waiting for some other kingdom to go to war with me on their own.  Give me some way to...ahem..."influence" them to go to war on me so I can avoid the penalty.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I said before time but i want tell again..Military clasess are too important and this class is ADMİRAL...i know every countries were not major power but Eastern Roman and Castilla and venice and Ottoman  and England were big powerfull countries...ad They had good and big navy...ADMİRAL class should be seen for some big Countries...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think the five class system works well. However i am not a fan of Army. A medieval army was comprised of Nobles, soldiers and peasants. Dependent on the time in history the ratio of nobles, soldiers and peasants which formed an army changes. This ratio also changed dependent on country and if it was an offensive campaign in a distant land or a defensive campaign within ones own country. 

    what was a soldier in the middle ages....one that got paid! Generally household troops, Mercenaries and Freemen who were generally more skilled then levied peasants. Levied peasants were only obligated to fight for 40 days not nearly enough time for an invasion of another country.

    I think the term soldier works best for the 5th class. In medieval society easiest way to improve ones social status was to join the clergy or become a soldier.

    Anyway first post and i am a fan of the five class system...

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, the system gets worse and worse as you go deeper into details )

    1) Social classes - very nice. 5 divisions well maybe. "Army" - total bs. If you really want to go that route - each unit type should have "affected by social class" variable. Because Teuton knights are nobility and archers are probably town craters and militia are probably peasants and city guard are probably clergy (stretching it to make an example).

    So I propose removing "Army" replacing it with "craftsmen" to make it more of a social strata. Also assign each unit type to a specific social class and apply class bonuses from crown authority to each unit separately.

     

    2) Overall dynamics:

    Quote

    "Opinions improve slowly and passively, where a player may not be able to do much to increase them directly with actions."

    Well you just described all the things which change "Crown authority" and now it has "little and slow effect". Why would you even bother with a choice if the effect is slow and remote but the actual choice is immediate. Yes I agree that the original KoH "spend gold get kingdom power" was most lame mechanics, but if anything has an effect and gives a choice of actions it has to be a significant noticeable result for a player. A long very minor changes to some crown authority parameter will make it just nuisance since you either do not notice an effect at all or you are too late to correct and issue and it will take ages no matter what to reverse mistakes a player did long time ago. Not a good thing at all.

     

    3) Instead I propose to change alter the basic idea. Introduce more life into the whole thing - social conflict. All the social classes should have opposing views like they do in real life. If you do something - peasants are happy, nobility is not, merchants have interest which are against nobility and so on. Instead of slowly buffing everything over and over to the max, it should be a dynamic balance of one social class going up and the others being more upset, so the actual game would be about BALANCING then rather then maxing out all the positive effects. In fact would argue that you should never be able to max out authority of all classes at all, since the perfect society like this was never known ever.

    Add social events which require a direct choice and an immediate action:

    • Peasants are upset about price of cloth, want you to punish merchants, Yes/NO ( +1 peasants, + gold, - merchants OR -2 peasants - 1 craters  + 2 merchants)
    • Town craters are starving ( +2 crafters for N amount of food)
    • Clergy wants to eradicate heretics, allow to burn witches (clergy +2 cost of faith, books, -3 to all other classes)

    something like that. You can't have everyone happy at the same time, you either England with habeas corpus or you are France with nobility taking over,  as a ruler you should either balance all the classes or just commit and take advantage of one class with the penalties of all the others. Only this will create different gameplay, slowly maxing out all the bonuses will not.

    In every screen you show with anything to do with a social class standing it should never be a + or - for one. It should always be "someone is going to be happy, someone will be very upset the rest won't be affected".  This should be in every meaningful choice you present to a player if you want to make a balancing act.

    Choice is about tradeoffs and gameplay is about active choices which change the situation in a visible way. Slow and indirect buffs to everything are not worth the trouble, player won't care about it, figure out the best generic way for maximum buffs and will never ever think about it again. So you will just waste a mechanic.

     

     

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, William Blake said:

    Slow and indirect buffs

    This happens only to certain extent currently. It might bring you to some neutral situation, but won't let you have everything maxed out. This on a side note. We are still playing and testing the feature in-house and changes might happen. (Actually, some of the earlier diaries are already quite obsolete, and needs update may be ... hmmm :))

    Meaningful choices - yes. Too much "micro" - no, this won't be KoH anymore if we slide in that direction.

    About "army" - we are following the discussion carefully - and as always - we might change things based on feedback (as we already did several times in the past). So, thanks for sharing your opinion (no pun intended :))

    -----

    P.S. Let us share our reasoning for the "army" thing.  Maybe naming is wrong, but by "Army" we mean people that are actually mobilized and on the field. It doesn't matter if their roots are into nobility, or peasantry - they equally won't like starving (yes, nobles are less likely to "starve", but when their people starve - nobles will inevitably become worried as well), fighting hopeless wars, being on a march "forever", losing allies, being sent to "the edge of the world", etc. This is very "top-level point of view" on what "army" is. Otherwise, most of your comments are right - the "army" was mainly nobles + peasantry + mercenaries. With some exceptions (early Byzantine, some clans systems, etc.). 

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ok slow and indirect. So lets say I play without ANY consideration for crown authority effects. If what you saying is true, then my direct actions will outweigh all these slow and indirect effects because direct actions have a clear cost vs value and the crown authority is too slow and too little to change that.

    You say this naturally balances itself. So why would a player even care about it at all? If I want a war and it is clear to me what it is more value than a cost, how this slow and indirect -2 to peasants will even matter to me?

    In a strategy game everything is either a value or a cost. If you can't calculate value vs cost and moreover you can't really affect the outcome, then any minor things like described crown authority is a decorative trinket. With the same effect you can make just random events with +/- authority happening on itself without any input from a player. If the choice matters for me it has to matter and I should be able to make that choice. If the choice does not matter or effects are negligible than I don't even account for that variable in my choices.

     

    PS

    4 minutes ago, frujin said:

     Too much "micro" - no, this won't be KoH anymore if we slide in that direction.
     

    Says the man who made tactical battles into original KoH with units morale affected by a dozen parameters like position and proximity of other units on a field ))))

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 minutes ago, William Blake said:

    In a strategy game everything is either a value or a cost.

    And even deeper than that - it's time and moment in time.  In one of my recent games it really hurt when some rebel managed to sack one of my biggest towns and the news about it ruined the peasantry opinion in the middle of a war that was anyway going difficult. Indirect outcome was that I lost a lot of food supplies and armies morale went quite low. Suddenly a war that I believed I could win turned into a disaster and I was forced to surrender my souverenity.

    12 minutes ago, William Blake said:

    ... and moreover you can't really affect the outcome ...

    No, you can affect the outcome. You know very well that losing this war will ruin nobility opinion of you. Or you know very well, that refusing these trade arrangements with your rich neighbor will make all merchants angry. There are many factors and you learn to take these into consideration. Sometimes you feel like "ah, okay, they will be pissed off, but I don't care", but sometimes you do stuff only to please certain groups.

    17 minutes ago, William Blake said:

    If the choice does not matter or effects are negligible

    Effects are significant! 🙂

    Also, opinions are not directly "tied" with the crown authority. They can make it very hard for CA to be increased, bad opinions can even undermine a lot of CA's benefits, but at the end - these are separate features.

    Actually, what we meant is not that there is no choice, but that there is no "magic button - Improve Opinion of X". Sort of ... 🙂
    And finally, ... there are other games where every-now and then a pop-up appears that asks you (de-facto) "+2 nobility opinion or -1 peasantry but 2000 gold". You don't even read the "flavor text" - it is so "obvious". Feels like some "robot created this". So we try to stay away from these as much as we can. Sometimes, the challenge IMHO better be a bit more "emerging" rather than "artificially planted", even a bit "perfidious" if you wish, ... and the beauty is when you learn how to recognize it actually exists 🙂

    27 minutes ago, William Blake said:

    Says the man who made tactical battles into original KoH with units morale affected by a dozen parameters like position and proximity of other units on a field )


    Oh no 🙂 ... I am totally ignoring this for now) 🙂 🙂 cheers!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, frujin said:

    You know very well that losing this war will ruin nobility opinion of you. Or you know very well, that refusing these trade arrangements with your rich neighbor will make all merchants angry.

    Yeah, right. Like you didn't want to win a war or trade with a rich neighbor to begin with.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Nope. Actually, you were ready to pay some tribute and get out of this war that you never wanted at the first place.  And you also didn't want *any* agreements with this rich neighbor - since you planned to invade there at first opportunity. It's not always that simple William 🙂

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I hope you do understand that I'm arguing not against whatever you want to do, but quite the opposite, to give you an opportunity to address various scenarios in more detail and think of  questions people who never saw the game might have )

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am intresting if spies actions will also have an effect on any of the classes. For example: killing king/prince would either anger or make nobility happy (depends on relations with that kingdom), your spy getting uncovered in other kingdoms would anger merchants since that kingdom broke trade arrangments with you because of it, etc.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 1/6/2021 at 3:22 PM, William Blake said:

    Well, the system gets worse and worse as you go deeper into details )

    1) Social classes - very nice. 5 divisions well maybe. "Army" - total bs. If you really want to go that route - each unit type should have "affected by social class" variable. Because Teuton knights are nobility and archers are probably town craters and militia are probably peasants and city guard are probably clergy (stretching it to make an example).

    So I propose removing "Army" replacing it with "craftsmen" to make it more of a social strata. Also assign each unit type to a specific social class and apply class bonuses from crown authority to each unit separately.

     

    2) Overall dynamics:

    Well you just described all the things which change "Crown authority" and now it has "little and slow effect". Why would you even bother with a choice if the effect is slow and remote but the actual choice is immediate. Yes I agree that the original KoH "spend gold get kingdom power" was most lame mechanics, but if anything has an effect and gives a choice of actions it has to be a significant noticeable result for a player. A long very minor changes to some crown authority parameter will make it just nuisance since you either do not notice an effect at all or you are too late to correct and issue and it will take ages no matter what to reverse mistakes a player did long time ago. Not a good thing at all.

     

    3) Instead I propose to change alter the basic idea. Introduce more life into the whole thing - social conflict. All the social classes should have opposing views like they do in real life. If you do something - peasants are happy, nobility is not, merchants have interest which are against nobility and so on. Instead of slowly buffing everything over and over to the max, it should be a dynamic balance of one social class going up and the others being more upset, so the actual game would be about BALANCING then rather then maxing out all the positive effects. In fact would argue that you should never be able to max out authority of all classes at all, since the perfect society like this was never known ever.

    Add social events which require a direct choice and an immediate action:

    • Peasants are upset about price of cloth, want you to punish merchants, Yes/NO ( +1 peasants, + gold, - merchants OR -2 peasants - 1 craters  + 2 merchants)
    • Town craters are starving ( +2 crafters for N amount of food)
    • Clergy wants to eradicate heretics, allow to burn witches (clergy +2 cost of faith, books, -3 to all other classes)

    something like that. You can't have everyone happy at the same time, you either England with habeas corpus or you are France with nobility taking over,  as a ruler you should either balance all the classes or just commit and take advantage of one class with the penalties of all the others. Only this will create different gameplay, slowly maxing out all the bonuses will not.

    In every screen you show with anything to do with a social class standing it should never be a + or - for one. It should always be "someone is going to be happy, someone will be very upset the rest won't be affected".  This should be in every meaningful choice you present to a player if you want to make a balancing act.

    Choice is about tradeoffs and gameplay is about active choices which change the situation in a visible way. Slow and indirect buffs to everything are not worth the trouble, player won't care about it, figure out the best generic way for maximum buffs and will never ever think about it again. So you will just waste a mechanic.

     

     

    I really like the idea of trade offs vs simply boosting the classes. And that you agree with me in switching army to craftstmen/guildman.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ok I will summarize my reasoning for removing the "Army social class" and incorporating it into Nobility and Peasantry. 

    1. It is arguably closer to historical accuracy. Historically, the army was composed mostly of the peasantry which would disband after war time and go back to farming and other peasantry activities with nobles leading the army itself.

    2. It makes a clear direction towards mercenaries, since if your nobility or peasantry social classes are extremely unhappy expensive mercenaries can temporarily act as your army. (Which is also very close to historical events where Kings would hire mercenaries if they didnt trust their standard army to perform their duties.

    3. The armies abilities to fight would be controlled by two social classes as opposed to 1. This was pointed out as somewhat of a counter point, but being that the game is focused heavily on armies and fighting, I would argue that making the armies ability to fight slightly more involved (balancing two class opinions vs balancing 1 class opinion) creates greater depth to the main part of the game, compared to just having a single social class to balance.

    4. The way the nobility and peasantry class effect the combat readiness of your armies can be done in very different ways. Just an example, Peasantry effect moral mostly, whereas nobility effect tactics. (This makes the game even more historically accurate, cause nobility would often fight a war lazily if they hated their ruler, and the armies would disband during combat if composed of grumpy peasants.) 

    5. This would open up the potential to add another social class, which arguably could be craftsmen/guildsmen, which indeed played huge roles in medieval lives and would open up a new dimension to the game.  

    6. Or you do not need to add another social class, reducing the attention the player spends on this part of the game.

    7. William here suggests assigning each unit type to a specific social class and applying class bonuses from each social class opinions to each unit separately, but I believe this is taking it too far to achieve historical accuracy, and believe my approach to be a good middle ground. Keep it just between the nobility and peasantry opinion and independent of the units within the army.  

    8. It seems like the main argument I have heard against this idea is that people wanna know if their army is combat ready or not simply by looking at 1 slider, I think this issue is readily solved by proper interfacing of how the nobility and peasantry boost or hurt army ability. Further more I want to point out that games like HOI4 have such complex army systems yet people dont really mind, and yet still enjoy the combat experience of the game even without knowing exactly how their army will do in combat. Obviously I do not want this, but my point is that I think people are caring too much about this.  

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    18 minutes ago, Ivory Knight said:

    The armies abilities to fight would be controlled by two social classes as opposed to 1. This was pointed out as somewhat of a counter point, but being that the game is focused heavily on armies and fighting,

    If the goal of the design to be indirect, passive and simple. then you can't have any complex system. Having 5 social classes is already way too much for "simplicity", you could do the same with 3 tbh. But the real problem is that complex multivariable bonuses can't possibly be simple and effective at the same time. Its already quite unmanageable in my books when effects come after the fact and player didn't know before an action who will be upset or happy with what. Now if all this will have effect on your army by multiple combined variables it can't be indirect and simple. Player will lose track and misunderstand cause and effect and all that.

    I'd rather have no social effect mechanics at all than an arcane confusing complex relationship between a bunch of variables which are annoying at best.

    Having said that, I think that there is a huge potential of any system which would in fact make use of a social structure and CONFLICTS inside feudal society. In my mind should be not about my kingdom actions vs other kingdoms like the current dev blog says. But in fact it should be internal to my state. There is already too much about external relationships with others. I'd rather see a mechanism about struggles and issues inside my kingdoms in my society, which give little damn to the foreign lands but has an issue of this local merchant charging way too much for these goods and my peasants have long standing issue with the landlords. Practically internal economy/building kinda thing.

     

     

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, DoVlaLegend said:

    I am intresting if spies actions will also have an effect on any of the classes. For example: killing king/prince would either anger or make nobility happy (depends on relations with that kingdom), your spy getting uncovered in other kingdoms would anger merchants since that kingdom broke trade arrangments with you because of it, etc.

    Well, if your spy assassinates someone, in theory no one should know it was you otherwise what was the point of using a spy?  So it should not affect the opinion of everyone.

    Even failures are not necessarily tied to who did it.  Again, the whole "spy" thing.

    I get what you're trying to say.  I just think it works against the whole idea of spies.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 hours ago, Ivory Knight said:

    1. It is arguably closer to historical accuracy.

    Sometimes you need to sacrifice accuracy for fun game-play.  I'm okay with a "military" class.  It differentiates it from the commoner class.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hello there,

    I can see the viewpoint of Ivory Knight, but I do believe that Army Opinion should be a separate, completely fleshed out bar and mechanic. It is one thing to be a peasant, working the land of the senior, earning his living that way, and it is completely another, to be a militia or a soldier, under the command of a lord in the army. I can think of one thing in modern days that makes the difference - namely the Oath that every soldier takes, when he enters the army. That works similarly in every army in every time period. In the army you fight to get food, and if you live long enough, you fight to get money. That is a distinct difference between the fighting common folk and the working ones. 

    Besides, as the devs said in the devdiary - The Army Tab is an important mechanic gameplaywise. And personally I, as I believe everyone here, would choose good Gameplay and Good game, instead of a mildly more realistic or historically accurate one. That is all! However I respect other people's opinions on the matter and I can see that army and peasantry are interconnected. However I do believe that they should be different and separate!

    The Army tab is important for the morale of the army and as a tactical player in KoH I can imagine how important that feature is for the gameplay. I even think that we are entitled to see a devdiary on the battles and battle mechanics, even though the devs said that it is a secondary feature, and KoH 2 is mainly grand strategy.

     

    Have a great day everyone! These are my opinions :) 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi All,

     

    As I understand - some of you want to play as Rampaging Warmongers and this Oppinions change kind of makes you deal with internal issues rather than just continuing your domination across the map.

     

    I actualy think it makes sence that such work mechanic is introduced. This actualy slows the game down signifcantly for Warmongers and makes it much more interesting and balanced for everyone else. I think the Army class actualy provides opportunity to balance the game more, than having less classes. 

     

    As a suggestion to the Army class, I think the size of your army could additionaly have a sway at the effect any event will have in the overal scheme. Also adding "Cassus Belli" to the War Declarations could provide a not so damaging way to wage wars when someone have wronged you or your ally in the past.

     

    Have a nice day 🙂

    • Like 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


×
×
  • 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.