Ivory Knight
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Dev Diaries
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by Ivory Knight
-
-
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!
-
1
-
-
The intentionally are designing KOH 2 with modding in mind, soo it would not surprise me if large map changes are easily implementable.
-
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.
-
4
-
-
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?
-
2
-
-
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?
-
Ya, where can we get our grubby little hands on them?
-
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.
-
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.
-
14 hours ago, Yavor said:
But you do know the composition of the enemy army - you can see their units following their marshal on the strategic map. Sieges may be an exception to that, and they may bring extra challenge, as you will be charging blindly, without knowing what cards the enemy holds. Besides, this suggestions is aimed towards increasing the fun of autoresolving battles. It does not aim to affect the actual battles, so if you would like to affect the fluidity of the battles, you should play them yourself, not autoresolve!
This is just a simple suggestion to make the gameplay more fun and immersive, instead of just waiting to see whether you should retreat or not. That's all! 🙂
Thank you for responding, though! I appreciate and respect your opinion! And every other for that matter.
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.
-
4 hours ago, Field Marshal said:
Does the cost of getting a tradition (or knights skill and similar) scale up with "kingdoms development" or is it a fixed price in gold/books?
Also, @Ivory Knight the king in the image with town of Cagliari looks kinda like you.
My GOD!!!! Maybe, it is awfully close forsure!!!! Ill have to ask them.
-
Just now, Yavor said:
Hello there, dear Devs,
I don’t have any questions. I just wanted to wish you best of luck on your project at hand!
I sure hope that we will get to experience the game until the end of 2020!
Stay healthy, stay safe!
And congrats, Ivory Knight! 🙂
Best Regards!
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?
-
Also your tradition for the cavalry says "Chance and Kill" in the game screen shot.. Maybe you guys should fix that 😜
-
Do traditions relate to a nations culture and religion at all? For example are some tradition types more expensive to purchase if your nation is Islamic or Catholic, French vs English? Or do all traditions have the same base cost and are simply large boosts to skills?
If you did not choose to include this can you comment on why not?
-
2
-
-
There are a few ways to make ships a thing, and they have pros and cons. Ill go over some just for thought.
1. Many different types of battle ships, and transports need to be made as well in order to transport units.
2. One type of battle ships and 1 type of transport.
3. One type of battle ship, no transports are needed, but units must transport over battle ships.
4. One type of battle ship, no transports needed, units make their own ships when going to sea.
5. No battle ships, units make their own ships when going to sea which can act as battle ships and transport.
Personally I think 1 battle ship type and using them as transports makes sense (3.) . That way the navy allows movement of armies, but also sieging and raiding when not moving armies.
As a side point I dont think it makes sense in games when you need to build a transport type ship to move units... Like come on, people would just used w.e ships they had (war, commerce, transport,) to move armies in the past.
-
On 6/10/2020 at 11:42 AM, Request a quick release of said:
They have been making the game for seven months
Of course, they can fix the bug after releasing new versions
I think this is the worst strategy in modern game. Back in the old days a game was released and it was fully playable and an enjoyment to buy and play. Now in days alpha betas and even rushed games are riddled with bugs that leave a sour taste for the people whom play the games. Chill man. Let the devs take all the time in the world to make a good game which has depth, accessibility, and balance. I hate big company developers for this reason and many others that they pump out rushed/trash games, and I suspect that Black Sea Games agrees with me.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Prince of Zeta said:
Ivory Knight looks like king's third son who didn't make it to the Royal Court and now he is homeless and without any clothes on. 😁
Bro, I am the third son..... Spooky how you know so much.
-
I am ok with that. And in the game, knights act as all of the above.
-
OK, so I am just going to try and hope for the best. I am submitting current pictures of my face right now, in hope that my face will be used to make a knight portrait in the game. Feel free to throw a crown on my head.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Zerg said:
They mentioned in their facebook-post that a mechanic like this would exists. So if a knight dies there is a chance (maybe even 100%?) that he will or can be replaced with his heir, which has similar but reduced abilities.
Did they mention that in a facebook post?
-
5 hours ago, Yavor said:
With regard to what Ivory Knight said, I support the paid "education" of the knights in books and gold, just because this will speed up the process and give the knight a more healthy and productive life spam. I also have a suggestion about knights dying in their beds of old age - what if they can be succeeded by their own lordly sons? Just like the kings do. And since they are family, the son can also keep (some of) the skills his father had before him, as the father could have taught him the ropes of his own business and craft. Of course there may be penalties for the sons' skills as they are not as good as their fathers in the beginning. This way the old, venerable knights are still valuable assets, immortalized by their offspring and so on, and so on.
It might also be interesting to be able to follow their royal lineage and maybe incorporate that into the game some how? Like trading lineages for money and land? Idunno.
-
1
-
-
LOL Its all good Yavor.
What is the general age of death for "court members" (We calling them knights now? or Court members?). It can be annoying for an experienced court member to quickly die after recently maxing off his leveling. What was the goal with regards to this game play experience? Do you want it so that after maxing a character by natural experience they die off due to age, or can you max a character in quicker time such that the court member will stick around for a reasonable number of years?
-
Idunno, things that change the game I feel should be kept as updates. DLCs should really be things that dont change the mechanics of the game. (W.e) that is. I see DLCs as a money grab by companies who see how to improve on their game but dont want to roll it out as an update for free, and instead charge a fee for it.. Basically this is the model for EU4. I get that the company wants to make money, but I suggest there are better was then DLCs (that change mechanics). DLCs ruin games for many people.
-
3
-
-
Darn beaten again...... I am liking what I am hearing from this post, that the music changes with game action and setting. One thing not really mentioned is how the transitions are made? I have always wanted a game to explore the idea of making the sound track feel as if it was one long piece to give the illusion that the song never changes. Are the tranitions simply fade in and fade out transitions? Or do you musically connect the transitions to make the music feel more fluid and connected giving the illusion that no transition has taken place?
Also how many hours of songs are we looking at the present moment? For sure the more the better, as long gaming hours really make any soundtrack boring after enough time.
-
Additionally this could work even without forcing autoresolve on every battle. Manual battles could be shared by the co-op players, or even made such that the co-op player takes control of the enemy units.
There are multiple ways to skin a cat.
DevDiary 14 - Opinions
in Dev Diaries
Posted
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.