Jump to content

William Blake

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by William Blake

  1. No, we don't know. Expect next year.
  2. 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
  3. 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".
  4. With the reference to the Dev Stream: 1) King as a spy is a stupid mechanic. There is no plastic surgery, how can you infiltrate another kingdom as a king, come on. At least make a penalty on kingdom power if you make your king into a spy, "the rumors are spreading that the king left us and nowhere to be found, the kingdom power has decreased". 2) You probably want to have dynamic balancing of cost of spy actions based on distance to a target kingdom. It appears to me that in a multiplayer setting it would be very easy to suddenly focus spy power on a single target kingdom anywhere
  5. You are insane. I don't even want to ask "how is this possible in medieval setting", magic radar, fine. But how can you kill all aspect of stealth in a multiplayer with instant effect of just hiring a spy? Why don't you make all the map all the unit visible all the time? It is essentially the same. Human opponent -> hire spy -> instant see all. You basically creating same end game as original KoH - gold solves everything. I'm not sure how you don't see it, but this is quite obvious. What you consider "expensive" in early mid game, is total peanuts end game, and you will
  6. Well, true, I'm not a target audience for KoH, this is why you have "practically worthless sieges". What was your question again?
  7. Potentially, you could make a huge difference with adjusting mechanics of food/supply/logistics. But it probably won't happen because it would look as too complex for a target audience.
  8. is a medieval dating simulator from hell. No game should ever go that way.
  9. August, with release November / December
  10. Well that could be a problem. If you want a lot of people playing a long game the chances that people would leave in a middle are very high. It would be very beneficial to allow other people to join an existing game in a middle so you could balance people leaving with new players. Although I have to admit I don't really know a good solution to that problem. Just a thought.
  11. Would you be ok with mostly AI kingdoms on a map, but an ability for a human player to join a running game and take over an existing AI kingdom to play for, or human players leave in a middle of a game and their kingdoms going under AI control?
  12. Well, I do care about multiplayer, a lot But I don't think it should be the same game I don't think there is a good way to make KoH2 as I see it to have ANY decent multiplayer with shared mechanics I'm trying to validate my feeling that most of the people here or anyone who is looking for original KoH do not care about multiplayer Because of that I'm trying to build up a case to drop multiplayer concerns and make good single player KoH2 first At best some later time you can make almost another separate game with same assets to make multiplayer, maybe B
  13. Would you drop multiplayer all together if it made single player release date one week sooner?
  14. As we know, the game is supposed to have a multiplayer component. Steam page says "Online PVP". We also had dev statements saying roughly "multiplayer is a significant part of the game and many game mechanics are designed with that in mind". We also know that multiplayer is going to grand strategy and not tactical battles as in original KoH. But I want to talk about your expectations about it: Do you care about multiplayer at all? How long do you think a multiplayer game should be? 15 minutes, 30, an hour, several hours? How many people players do you think a game should
  15. It appears that Capital mechanics is done through a buildings probably unique, one pre kingdom. Currently we are not aware what these buildings do.
  16. Veteran (gold star) units in orignal KoH were significantly stronger than regular units. Elite (3 star) units were amazingly strong.
  17. So you want me to slain my units instead of disband so they won't create a rebel army in my provinces? Yeah, it should not be required, but it probably would be better if you spend XP while converting unit type, such that if you have 3 start unit it will lose a star or a level. Just to avoid training 5 star peasants and converting them to a 5 star feudal knights out of a blue.
  18. Yes, it would be very beneficial to keep existing units who survived battles because you can later upgrade them. I totally agree.
  19. In terms of upgrade path for units in general - yes, I agree. The implementation itself... I don't know. It appears that the main barrier to better units are buildings which are very expensive compared to a unit cost. As a result it could be a very long time before next unit tier gets available. Most of your peasants won't live long enough probably. Second, if the current approach of "peasants are cheap but triple population cost" stays. It would be counter productive to train peasants up instead of 3 new units. Third, I'm not sure I want to lock into a specific unit type, it co
  20. Well, depends on your perspective, but for instance: at a very start of a game from video you can make only peasants but your city is 4 out of max 11 population. And this is practically as basic a city can go with very little upgrades and buildings. Which is easily a full army of 8 units other than peasants, each non peasant unit is 1 population. Even a +6 units out of the blue will be more than 50% of an marshal army, so in my mind it would shift an outcome of a battle for sure.
  21. If you are about to lose a province you will use all available manpower to build up an army all you can. As I said in a cost analysis it appears that cost of units is negligible compared to cost of buildings, and if you lose a province it would be better to use up all people resources so enemy would have less people in captured province. So the only reasonable defensive play is to spend all possible men and gold for maximum amount of units you can possibly fit.
  22. In a context of multiplayer it is somewhat dangerous to add time delays, it can make the game overall too slow and require too much time for the game state to progress. Just saying.
×
×
  • 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.