Jump to content

Falkeep

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Falkeep last won the day on April 15

Falkeep had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good
  1. Another diplomacy option, you should be able to demand that a kingdom stop attacking and/or make peace with another kingdom. Especially if the attacked kingdom comes and asks you for help. Whether or not the attacking kingdom listens to you is an indication of your power or the respect you command. Or, maybe you threaten war to defend the attacked nation. This can be grounds to demand that the kingdom that is asking you for help submit to you as a Vassal.
  2. You could create a goal for Wales. If the Welsh capture all of what is considered England, then they get rewarded for restoring the Briton to the Welsh, and the King gets the title of King of the Britons.
  3. Actually, there is one other thing. I have mentioned before about having advisors who actually give you advice. I would like to see Marshals, as they get more experienced, be able to let you know how their army can be better constructed to better utilize available units, especially if you can specialize what a Marshal is used for (as I suggest above). For example, I want one Marshal to be all cavalry as a quick response unit, maybe for crushing rebels. Should I use the same type of unit in all slots? Should I use all heavy or all light cav? What about horse archers or steppe cavalry? Experienced Marshals should help us optimize the units in their army to make their army the most effective it can be, especially as our kingdoms get bigger and we have access to different units we didn't have earlier access to. The same should go for garrisons. If all I have access to are, for example, light cav., bowmen, and men-at-arms, should cav units be used as garrison units, especially if garrisons only stay inside the castle instead of being able to be used to chase down rebels in their territory? Maybe you should use all men-at-arms for all slots, until you get access to crossbowmen, or longbowmen or something. Maybe plain bowmen aren't worth using in those slots, but better bowmen are, and your Marshal / governor recommends such changes as they become available to give their cities the best defense possible. I would like to see advisors, and I would like their advise to be dynamic, changing as information and available units change. The same thing for constructing buildings. If I use a builder as a town governor, or maybe a merchant, they will suggest the best combinations of buildings for whatever you want the focus of the city to be... defense, income, resource development, etc. Maybe you want a city to be best able to withstand a siege and the recommendations wouldn't only be defensive / military buildings. You should build granaries, or pickling buildings, or raise cattle to increase your food inside. So maybe your military advisor would suggest some of those instead of certain military structures to maximize your city's effectiveness. And, the recommendations should include tearing down buildings as income increases, or as the focus of a city shifts... for example, it is no longer on the front lines and you don't need to focus as much on it's defense, so maybe tear down some defensive buildings to increase revenue generating buildings. Anyway, I have other thoughts and suggestions but, until I hear that anyone cares enough for me to add to these things, I'll let it all go for now. Thanks for the opportunity, and I look forward to seeing what is down with the new version to improve gameplay and enjoyment.
  4. Well, I just finished a game I played all the way through to conquering every last territory. When it was done... poof, it's over. No chance to look over the board, no score or Hall of Fame or anything to commemorate it, nothing. It made it very unsatisfying. So, a few other things. I would like to be able to exchange units between Marshals, in case I have one who can get his to veteran status quickly and I want to spread the wealth, so to speak, or if I want to change the focus of a Marshal, etc. BTW, I had one where I had a Marshal with all veteran units. He got called to lead a Crusade. I let him be drafted and then immediately pulled him back. All of his units were now in a mercenary camp, of course, but when I rehired them, they were all back to new recruits. Another possible option if we aren't going to be allowed enough Marshals to do the jobs needed when we get a large kingdom, or one that is spread out is to be able to put some aside so that you can add other Marshals or make specialists without throwing away perfectly good and experienced Marshals. Simply have a limit on how many of your Marshals can be on the board at any given time. I didn't have spies very often as my kingdom got bigger but I hired one at one point to see if he could do anything (like bribe other kingdom's Marshals, or plan an assassination, or anything else without having to be taken as a Marshal of another kingdom. As it was, I had one who was quickly captured, and another one who I couldn't keep around because I needed the slot for an army leader. In any case, I didn't see any opportunities to do anything with a spy other than protect myself against spies, or cause a mass desertion of every one of a player's Marshals, which didn't make much sense and wasn't very realistic. At best, that spy should have to approach each Marshal and try to gain influence over any single one of them. There shouldn't be an affect on Marshals that have not been influenced. In regard to Marshals deserting. There should be some in-game method to reward or honor Marshals to help keep them loyal and resistant to spies or bribes or anything. Also, if I identify a foreign spy in my court, I should have some options to try to turn him, or to feed him false information, or otherwise use him against the player that sent him. Or identifying a spy in your court could be grounds to honorably declare war against the king that sent him. This could also, however, be another use of a spy, to plant false evidence against a third kingdom to try to turn kingdoms against each other. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE give us a pause feature. Being able to pause the game, issue orders, evaluate information to make good decisions, slow things down when you get hit with a lot of notices and events all at once, etc.. is not the same thing as having turns. It can still be, as most of the RTS games I play, RTS while having the ability to pause. Well, having finished the game I was playing. I'm mostly done with this now. There have been other things I was tempted to mention or suggest but, as there has been no comments on any of the postings I have made in this thread, I don't know if what I have tried to do here makes any difference to anyone. Still, this was a sincere effort, as I played out a complete game, which I have never done before, just so that I could input based directly on my feelings and concerns that developed as I played. I hope, if anyone does notice this, that that is recognized, at least.
  5. Currently, each Marshal has 6 slots in which to specific and develop a set of skills. I would like to propose that this be changed to 9 slots. The additional 3 slots, however, would be restricted as far as what can be assigned to them. The first slot would be for the primary type of specialist they are (siege master, rebel crusher, conqueror, etc.), the second slot would be the type of unit they specialize with (infantry, cavalry, archers, ships, etc.), and the third slot would be the type of weapon they would specialize in (sword, axe, bow, etc.). These specialist options would be removed from the regular list and could only be used in the single appropriate slot of these three. The remaining skills could be chosen freely from the remainder of the list into any of the 6 regular slots, and all 9 slots would have 3 levels of development, as they do now.. I think that this would allow for more interesting and effective customization of all Marshals, especially as they cannot change any skill that has already been selected for them. There could be a fourth specialized that could be other's attitudes about each marshal (fear, respect, loved) that affects the moral of their troops, of the armies they face, of towns they are in, etc. Also, an idea for a new skill would be "map maker". With this skill, a marshal would be better at determining what specific path (swerving to not go through trees, for example) would get them to their destination quicker and, if they are the first in a location, they will pick ground for fights that will be to their advantage and/or their opponent(s) disadvantage.
  6. I would like the game to tell me when and why I lose kingdom power points, especially if I go down several points once. How are we supposed to know what we have done wrong so that we can do better?
  7. I would like to see something that helps me gauge the passage of time in game. Even if it is just a simple calendar that says something like "year __, day __". Also, when I tell a general to go to a certain location, I would like an estimation of how long it will take in game. Please give us something that helps us process time in game.
  8. I have had games where I am told that the heir is "middle-aged" when he takes the throne, so I can at least accept that he doesn't have kids before he is too told. The problem is that all too often, including in the game I am working through now, my heir is "very young" when he becomes king. So, in the time it takes for him to get from "very young" to "venerable" it makes no sense that he has not had any children. I know some people like to have "iron man" modes or play at "very hard" settings, like it means something about them, but I am not one of those people. I do not ever play my games with other people, and I am not trying to prove anything to anyone, including myself. I play because doing so is (or can be) a fun way to pass time as I creep closer and closer to that age at which I will finally die. I don't know if there is programming in the game to make players at some point have no heirs because they are doing well and the designers want to "challenge" them but, if so, I don't appreciate it. It is bad game design. If, as I suggested above with including the ability to pause a game, can you include some kind of an option a player can chose to always have heirs for their kings? Seriously, why is this even a thing? The number of rulers who ruled for decades starting at a young age who had no children is very rare. Some who became king young and died young died without heirs (although even they usually had relatives to pass the crown on to), some who gained their throne late in life and/or married late in life who had no children died that way, some whose beliefs (like religious beliefs) made faulty decisions that could result in their having no kids but, for the most part, having legitimate heirs to the throne was so important that the whole idea of an "heir and a spare" was considered part of a monarch's duty. Whatever it is, it is not fun to play this way and, if this was a board game, I could simply play by a rule that every monarch who lives a full life and is married will have heirs. At least give us the choice of having that option. And, to be honest, I rarely buy games when they are new for the very reason that most every game I play has crap like this that just makes a game not fun and/or a waste of time and so, if I am going to encounter that, I will wait years for it to come down to a low enough price that I won't feel cheated if I find stuff like this in it. That is why I am making the effort to write all of these things out. I know that it is probably too late in the design process to incorporate many of these things into it with its initial release but I can hope that patches, etc. can be added later. I say this because I would like to feel confident that a game will be worth it if I buy it new and at full price. I would like to feel confident that the new version of this game will be worth that. And I, like many people am on a fixed income and just don't have the financial resources to take a chance. So, I am trying to tell you what would make me take that chance on this new version.
  9. Since I don't know the game mechanics this might already be taken into account but trading between countries should be more lucrative for countries with rare commodities (like clothes) or ones in which they are literally the only kingdom on the map to have (as it is in the game I'm currently playing with illustrated books). Also, shouldn't nations that have exotic resources, like spices, be able to make even more money trading them with nations that don't have them? And could the rarity of commodities be grounds for one nation to attack another? And, should the amount of trade made by a country include ALL trade? Not just the trading done with merchants? With my kingdom right now, I have the most territories of any kingdom and I have trade agreements with all but three other kingdoms (all three are only single territory kingdoms right next to each other and with no access of their own to oceans or seas) but I have no merchants at this time. When looking at kingdom rankings, it shows 0 income from trading, so shouldn't this be corrected to more accurately reflect trade income for all kingdoms?
  10. Since I don't know the game mechanics this might already be taken into account but trading between countries should be more lucrative for countries with rare commodities (like clothes), cornered commodities as they get bigger, or ones in which they are literally the only kingdom on the map to have (as it is in the game I'm currently playing with illustrated books). Also, shouldn't nations that have exotic resources, like spices, be able to make even more money trading them with nations that don't have them? And could the rarity of commodities be grounds for one nation to attack another? And, should the amount of trade made by a country include ALL trade? Not just the trading done with merchants? With my kingdom right now, I have the most territories of any kingdom and I have trade agreements with all but three other kingdoms (all three are only single territory kingdoms right next to each other and with no access of their own to oceans or seas) but I have no merchants at this time. When looking at kingdom rankings, it shows 0 income from trading, so shouldn't this be corrected to more accurately reflect trade income for all kingdoms?
  11. If you are keeping the idea of the largest nations voting for an Emperor you need to change it so that it makes sense and actually serves a purpose. Each nation that gets to vote, and the two candidates, should each cast a number of votes equal to the number of territories they control. In addition, there should be political maneuvering... campaigning, bribing, making promises to the electors to try to gain their votes, although the actual voting should be in secret so that, unless a candidates gets no votes but were promised support, neither candidate would actually know who did or did not vote for them. Please add some politics into the game.
  12. It makes no sense that a territory that has shores on more than one body of water only have a port on one of those shores. This would apply to peninsulas like Jutland, Brittany, Cornwall, Italy, as well as pretty much all of upper Britain, maybe some islands, like Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Crete, etc.. There is no way that any such territory would have a leader who would not make access to both bodies of water on either side a priority, if not for the fishing then to be able to chase an escaping enemy as quickly as possible. Also, is there some reason(s) that Friesland, Mecklenburg, Andalusia, and some other territories that border on water do not have ports / fishing even if all three of their resource slots are empty? Were there no ports in those territories historically or what?
  13. Marshall skills could have "natural" development (i.e. -- things you get better at simply by doing them), educational development (things you learn from books) and combinations of the two. "naturally improving" skills would be skills that could be improved by doing things, even just marching your units around or between locations if there is no fighting. Some of these could include endurance, marching speed, fortifying camps, siege camps, logistics, weapons training, etc. Skills that could be improved by learning (books) or by either/and practice could include engineering, healing, strategy and tactics, etc. Of course, incorporating something like this would probably require more than six skill slots, but I think that the skills idea needs a lot more development to achieve it's full potential. You could also designate a specialty for each Marshal, like a siege master, a cavalry leader, rebellion crusher, etc. Within their specialty they could lean towards learning skills that are appropriate to those specialties over irrelevant skills that specialty, and they could pick up those skills quicker and easier than other skills.
  14. I would like to have a way to skip from one territory screen to another to allow me to easily and quickly evaluate my territories. I would also like to be able to pull the camera back and look at the main map in larger sections. It takes a lot of time to identify things in specific territories, like rebels and invaders because we can only a very small section of the map at any single time.
  15. Regarding diplomacy and vassalage, in between a non-aggression treaty and alliance should be a "mutual defense treaty." Under an MDT, you would not be obligated to join them in a war they start but would be obligated to come to their defense if they are attacked. Also, vassalage should come with more obligations on the part of the dominant nation, at least a MDT, but also assistance if they need financial support or if they have a lot of rebels and plunderers that they can't get under control. A feudal relationship, while putting most of the burden on the subservient member, but works both ways. An automatic trade agreement should also come with vassalage. Along with that idea, weak nations or others who want to be part of a strong kingdom should be able to approach another player and offer themselves as a vassal. Likewise, a kingdom that is being attacked and overwhelmed by other kingdoms should be able to be approached to offer assistance, maybe in exchange for vassalage, or territories. This can include helping kingdoms recover territories lost to attacking kingdoms (i.e. -- if a player agrees to help another player recover territories then if and when they are reconquered then they will go back to the player who lost them instead of the player who expelled the player from that territory... and this should come at a cost to the helped player, again, vassalage, at least). And, being a vassal should essential come with a warning for those who are considering war with a vassal state that "if you attack me, you are also declaring war on my protector." Vassalage can be a better option, one with mutual benefits, than it is now. With diplomacy, if one player approaches another and asks them to break off relationships with another player, or to attack another player they should not only give valid reasons why the approached player would benefit from doing what the approaching player wants them to do. In addition, players should be hesitant about approaching other players for assistance with their own problems. This is an assertion of some type of dominance of the approached player. In England and Scotland, when Edward I was asked to make a decision on who would become the King of Scotland, he used that to assert overlordship over Scotland. Strong kings looked for ways to justify a dominant position over other kings and territories, so approaching another player should not be a common thing, at least not without the approaching player making some kind of recognition of their subservience. Finally, for now, I just had a vote taken for Emperor and two kings who were my vassals voted, but they abstained from voting. If a king treats their vassals well and honorably, they should be supported by their vassals. If they don't then they should expect some kind or punishment or retribution. Also, if a player does not start wars, does not regularly attack other nations, has lot of trade agreements or higher and, in general act peacefully towards kingdoms which do not attack them or insult them or something, that should work in their favor. The feudal relationships
×
×
  • 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.