Jump to content

William Blake

Members
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by William Blake

  1. Well, they need content to talk about. They wanted to talk multiplayer last time. If stuff is breaking and falling apart and they are redoing and redesigning bits and pieces over and over again, it is hard for them to decide what version to present. Also, it is a lot of work for very small and declining audience. I personally would not even bother with small dev blogs. Most of the things are more or less clear, but it takes time and effort to make this content.
  2. If I had any say in the dev process, I would cut tactical battles out of the game and forget about it. This is not total war, tactical battles are note core gameplay but just an optional eye candy content, which is very time and effort consuming to develop. Tactical battles do not work for multiplayer they say is so important for them In a single player most of the battles will be auto resolve anyway. I would just stop pretending the game has to have everything in it. Instead I would make way more deep and engaging auto resolve battles with more player control. No bu
  3. I'm not saying we need gunpowder. We should not and it is fine. But if they are adding fancy rare very very location specific things I'd rather have first cannons than an elephant. Mostly because I can see how a cannon is essentially an artillery like a good catapult or a trebuchet, but an elephant is what? Uber slow cavalry? Battering ram? It is not close to any other unit type.
  4. Elephants as a weapon are not real for the given period. Gunpowder artillery: 1260 Battle of Ain Jalut, Europeans around 1330s. Which are appropriate for the region and timeframe of the game.
  5. I would rather want to see gunpowder artillery than mythical creatures
  6. Well, it is much deeper problem. It is not just amount of battles, it is about fine balance between too hard and too easy. If you just reduce number of battles, an outcome of one or two battles would be too great and will practically end a game one way or another. In a single player this would force players to reload a saved game, instead of trying to endure. But most of the time games tend to make it too easy for a player, so it is very hard not to win, but it is covered with making same repeating time consuming mechanics run over and over again, like TW battles which you can't really lose or
  7. No, you won't be building or upgrading units during a battle for sure.
  8. You are looking at a game released in 2004
  9. RTS battle gameplay has not been shown yet. But all indications are that it will be very close to the original KoH - your army has units, units have men. In a battle you command a unit, like in Total War, not a single soldiers separately.
  10. Late spring, summer 2022 at best. THQ Nordic would at least go into full marketing hype for at least 3-4 months before release like they did with Biomutant. It is not happening, so Christmas or Jan release is not an option from this stand point. They are not even talking about closed beta at the moment. If you really want to have a beta and get feed back and fix anything you need at least 2 months cycle. This is not even on the horizon. There is zero player pressure, twitch dev stream from 5 days ago shows as 544 views. Which is about zero on the reality scale for an official on
  11. It appears that we are looking for first half next year for release. 1) There are mechanics for vassal-liege relations. We don't know much about it, but it is a form of diplomacy pacts. Mentioned in https://community.knightsofhonor.com/index/dev-diaries/devdiary-12-–-diplomacy-part-1-–-wars-and-alliances-r20/ 2) Can't rise a settlement completely. The ruins will stay on the map and will rebuild into a new settlement after some time. 3) We don't know about naval battles. Probably only auto resolve. As it is right now there are no "ships" in the game, only army which auto con
  12. This is wrong, I understand that you want to lock policy and buffs to the governed province (or shall we say 'it is easier to implement a lock'), but this is wrong. Yes, you should lock the province governor slot to the imprisoned knight, but his governing skills and bonuses should not longer apply. If his governance is still 100% effective in prison, there is no reason to retrieve his back. It should be a penalty to the province his is assigned to govern and lock on reassigning the governor until you retrieve him from prison or he dies. Potential multiplayer exploit right there
  13. It is clear to me, that the described system is very one sided. It makes significantly easier to wage war and conquer kingdoms and provinces of the same religion while having a significant drawbacks for captured territory of another religions. In my mind, it should be a significant advantage to wage direct war on another religion, not the other way around. While a preferable way of dealing with same religion should be diplomacy and espionage. In the described system of religion it makes zero reason to deal with a single foreign religion province if you have same religion lands available.
  14. For the grace, for the might of our Lord For the home of the Holy For the Faith, for the way of the sword Gave their lives so boldly
  15. "Moscow" is the official spelling used by Russia, Moscow Mayor official website says "Moscow" everywhere: https://www.mos.ru/en/ Official website of Kyiv city council, it takes a minute to find out: https://kmr.gov.ua/en It says Kyiv everywhere, this is official spelling of their name. This is their airport, it takes a minute to google Ukrainians would like to spell the the name of capital of Ukraine as Kyiv. What the hell is your problem, bud?
  16. It would be much better for everyone if you don't bring up modern conflict into a historical game. But in case you insist I'd like to remind you that Kyiv is Ukraine, Ukraine is an independent nation. Ukrainian is an independent language. If they want to spell the city name as Kyiv, it is up to them. Misspelling their name and denying their existence because you challenge their sovereignty and independence is an hostile act which has nothing to do with the game.
  17. If mods are allowed in multiplayer it would be a huge problem. Imagine host player with a mod which changes stats and all other people without. So far we heard nothing about any other maps, but full Europe. The blog never mentioned a map selection of variable map sizes to be an option.
  18. 1) So the game takes one player as a host and the others are clients. No dedicated servers to host games? If a player is a host, what prevents host cheating with the game state? 2) 6 human players on a full map? So absolute majority of the kingdoms are AI. In fact it is potentially very hard to even get to another player for a long time depending on starting locations. Or do you have smaller size maps for multiplayer? 3) Way too many options and game modes, way to many. People most of the time will setup a game in way most other people won't like, this option that option. It would be
  19. No, we don't know. Expect next year.
  20. Half of Europe monarch were practically family. Envoys and other nobility were visiting courts of other nations all the time, you would have dozens and dozens of people seeing a monarch from child years growing up. From teen years you would have multiple countries trying to arrange marriage with you. If anyone in a kingdom would have a portrait that would be the monarch and his family, especially his sons. If you were a monarch you would be present at gazillion ceremonies for public to see, even if you are not heir to the throne, but some 5th daughter people would see you as a part of the roya
  21. No, they said that you can make your own king into a spy and send your own king to do spy actions in another country. Minute 54 of the stream, in fact Alex said "king is the best spy with extra bonuses".
×
×
  • 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.