Jump to content

Ivory Knight

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Ivory Knight last won the day on December 1 2020

Ivory Knight had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think you may be right to say people will lose track and misunderstand which classes are important in order to retain the moral of the army high... Even if it is only 2..... It still feels somewhat wrong to me to include an "army social class" when it can readily be incorporated into two classes but perhaps your right to keep the causes and effect very linear with respect to where they are coming from. I do disagree with Lighthope and Yavor, where they believe that their is an important distinction between a military peasant and a non-military peasant. I just iterate again, that most of the army was conscripted from peasantry whom most of the time had ordinary jobs and would serve the military for only a few years or so. Sure they are during that time "military peasants" but I think most of their attitudes, beliefs and desires of what makes their social class comes from peasantry life and not military life. Which is to say most of your army`s attitudes, beliefs and desires comes from peasantry life, and not some military culture. ( I am not ignoring that there was a military culture but it was amongst the nobles and knights of society which composed a much smaller fraction of your army and arguably were the ones leading it) Regardless, I think William brings up the main issue with my idea, that it may be somewhat more tedious to follow the causes and effects of the social classes, if the military is incorporated into two classes. Idunno I like to think people whom play this game can handle it, but then again it is suppose to be very accessible. I think this issue is something that truly needs to be tested before a good decision based on real gameplay impressions can be made.
  2. I think you may be right to say people will lose track and misunderstand which classes are important in order to retain the moral of the army high... Even if it is only 2..... It still feels somewhat wrong to me to include an "army social class" when it can readily be incorporated into two classes but perhaps your right to keep the causes and effect very linear with respect to where they are coming from. I do disagree with Lighthope and Yavor, where they believe that their is an important distinction between a military peasant and a non-military peasant. I just iterate again, that most of the army was conscripted from peasantry whom most of the time had ordinary jobs and would serve the military for only a few years or so. Sure they are during that time "military peasants" but I think most of their attitudes, beliefs and desires of what makes their social class comes from peasantry life and not military life. Which is to say most of your army`s attitudes, beliefs and desires comes from peasantry life, and not some military culture. ( I am not ignoring that there was a military culture but it was amongst the nobles and knights of society which composed a much smaller fraction of your army and arguably were the ones leading it) Regardless, I think William brings up the main issue with my idea, that it may be somewhat more tedious to follow the causes and effects of the social classes, if the military is incorporated into two classes. Idunno I like to think people whom play this game can handle it, but then again it is suppose to be very accessible. I think this issue is something that truly needs to be tested before a good decision based on real gameplay impressions can be made.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. The intentionally are designing KOH 2 with modding in mind, soo it would not surprise me if large map changes are easily implementable.
  7. Thanks for the post. You mentioned that the defensive pacts are always able to be seen by other countries. Would it be possible to have secret defensive plans, at the cost of more gold or relational influence to acquire them? So that a player doesn't see a defensive pack when looking at that particular country however with a spy in that enemies court would reveal secret defensive allies as it does for secret attack allies? I feel like this would also be more true to history, and create a simple system where the player would have to decided when it is more valuable to create secretive defensive/attack alliances and when not to. I hope that made sense.
  8. Will it be possible to invite rebel leaders operating inside the target country as possible allies for the war? And after the war I suppose (depending on their demands) they would require some spoils in return. I do support backstabbing, but I would expect both sides to lose relations with you, as everyone should trust you less, so even if you win, you may find your self with no allies going into the future because you lack HONOR! P.S I think the flags on the event popups should have a little bit of texture to them. They look a bit too clean, as if they were straight from paint. Idunno what you think?
  9. It sounds like the trade deal a merchant sets up with a kingdom, is influenced by many factors; distance, skill of merchant, blood type, the length of the deal, and relation with that country. Could you elaborate on which of these factors have the larger or the most impact on the profits and which do not?
  10. Ya, where can we get our grubby little hands on them?
  11. This I tots agree with, voice actors for large regions would be awesome. It would likely only be for the english version though, since finding voice actors to do accents for each language is too much.
  12. The thing with coalitions is that they really didnt exist untill 1800s and onwards. Before then kingdoms really just tried to look out for themselves. If someone was getting big, it was more likely to join them then to fight against them,..... aka dont join the losing side. I think a more suitable and realistic solution is to make stability harder to manage as you get larger. Since in reality large kingdoms fell apart by mostly internal affairs with some outside pressure. Unless you can quote me a historically large country that had a coalition fight against it before the 1800s.
  13. I agree with you that they could add more mechanics into auto resolving, but you need to ask first, will this make the game overwhelming? Like if you need to pick a strategy for every autoresolve battle it might be kind of frustrating since the whole point of autoresolving is to reduce the micro of the game not retain it. I am exaggerating a bit here because obviously a battle fought yourself is 95% more micro intensive then clicking a strategy for an autoresolve fight. But the point I am trying to make is I dont want autoresolve battle to force me to look at them in anyway. In KOH 1 I constantly found my self looking at battles to see if I was loosing to retreat, and I found THAT!!! ANOYYING!!! (wish they had a alert for losing battles) . Imagine if I needed to pick a tactic before a fight too?!?!!!! I would get soooo annoyed. (SIDE NOTE) I dont agree with Lighthopes comment that this cannot be implemented "workable", I have no idea why he claims that. So what I propose, is something that is kind of focused on management BEFORE a battle/sending your armies out on the map. Having some sort of mechanic that gives some depth to the battles a Knight fights, but the mechanic happens before the battle even starts. A very simple one could be exactly what you suggest but you just set your army on that strategy before battles and they are just fixed on that. I suspect theres not interesting depth to that though cause every army composition will clearly have an ideal strategy that fits best, so the matter of choosing that strategy is not engaging. And if it was dependent on your Knights skill in cunning or tactics to see the enemy formation and thus counter it seems also like a shallow mechanic. Here is a crazy idea!!! You make an army, you click raid then the country you want to raid, and your Knight goes out on his own and raids that country. Or you click defeat in detail, and your Knight goes into the enemy territory and tries to kill weaker armies while avoiding stronger ones. Or you click siege + assault, and your Knight will first siege then assault when the defense are weak enough. Or you click siege, and your knight sieges to starvation. Or you click defense fighting, then your knight tries to take fights only in good positions which give him bonuses? I could even see you setting up some sort of scale or preference setting, going from like 1-3 for each tactic, that way your Knight does the first preference first then the next tactic after he completes or the current tactic is soo far away. For example, 1-Raiding, 3-defensive fighting, 3-defeat in detail, 1-siege + assault, 2-siege. Assuming 1 is most priority, your Knight would attempt to first Raid or Siege+Assault, (which ever is closer to him or some other sorter). Then he will siege if the other two fail or are not available. An defeat in detail if all others are finished or failed. Sorry for wall of text, but its kinda complicated and lots to say. But the summary is I dont want tiny mechanics on auto resolve battles that force me to look at my autoresovling battles. If you want more depth in autoresolving, it needs to occur somewhere else in the game I argue.
  14. My GOD!!!! Maybe, it is awfully close forsure!!!! Ill have to ask them.
  15. Thanks, I had to leave work to do this lmfao!!! These traditions sound nice! But the theme of my comment is that I am worried they will feel too close to simple skill buffs, and not feel like they relate to the country/culture in any meaningful way. Just because they stay with your country for a long time, doesnt mean they fit the history of your country/culture in a way that makes sense. For example would it make sense that a Viking country get some sort of heavy cavalry tradition? Dont get me wrong I am not opposed to that, but I think there should be some mechanic which guides but doesnt force a player to go in a particular direction? What you think Yavor?
×
×
  • 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.