Jump to content

Ivory Knight

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • 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

32 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I suspect they are designing it in theme of the first game, where it was kinda a background event that really only mattered once u get big enough and that the AI almost never achieved. Have you not played the first KOH? I do agree with you there may be some worries about how this all balances in multiplayer, and possibly how it affects incentives in multiplayer. You do make many bold statements about how it will play out in multiplayer and in the game in general do you have the beta or something already to know this??? Also what part of the internet hurt you my son. Some people will indeed play with each other in a sort of friendly "honest" manner, not all people in the gaming community are trolls and back stabbers. I do not know what the devs intention is with regards to multiplayer if they want it to be a completely competitive natural selection game experience or a more play with your friends experience.
  2. You mention that "In the process, voters are not all equal, as each kingdom votes with the value of its prestige." Does this mean that if you have more prestige then all the GPs below you put together, that you can automatically win?
  3. Is the number of troops the actual number of visual troops on the instant action battle fields? Or does it scale down, ex. 100 troops is in truth 1 visual troop on the battlefield? I recall you previous images of instant action battles showed unit groups of 30-50 troops.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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!
  9. The intentionally are designing KOH 2 with modding in mind, soo it would not surprise me if large map changes are easily implementable.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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?
  13. Ya, where can we get our grubby little hands on them?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • 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.