Jump to content

William Blake

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

William Blake last won the day on February 14

William Blake had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Cost is always a factor in everything. Double rations/triple rations, cost of horses, cost of reinforcements etc.
  2. I would just release without a multiplayer, let people enjoy main game and in a month or two make a multiplayer expansion or DLC or whatever. In 2020 there is no reason to make everything at once as if you had to burn dvds to distribute.
  3. Any hope for asymmetric option? 1-2 players start with big empires, all the others start with small ones? Or several teams with 1 big and few small countries each? Why do perfect balance, do obviously imperfect balance right away )
  4. 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.
  5. 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 )
  6. Yeah, right. Like you didn't want to win a war or trade with a rich neighbor to begin with.
  7. 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 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 ))))
  8. 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.
  9. "Fan tabletop simulation of a PC game Knights of Honor 2 is going to be released before the original" News at 11. Vesso, give the guy access to alpha, you he is going nuts waiting. You can convert all this energy into something for you own good.
  10. In the original it was not an issue of defense being too weak. It was 90% the issue of fast unit reinforcement. Once you had a good quality army you could take any city without loosing quality units. then you would just click to instantly resupply units to full health and if you had a decent kingdom you would have gold to make it all the time. This meant that you could make up a strong army with very strong unique units and then roll through the map without stopping. You didn't have to repair broken economy of captured provinces or build up to a top level. You would just move capture reinforce move to the next province with the same army an loose nothing, as long as your kingdom generates global gold to heal units at the city you are currently in.
  11. I think full multiplayer game will be around a hour or two. Most likely in MP mechanics would be simplified and starting/victory conditions would be much more limited compared to the single player experience. But as of now, we don't know anything for certain, it is just my guess on what is reasonable possible.
  12. That should be scenario or campaign mode - limited map with a deeper focus on a specific period and place.
×
×
  • 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.