Falkeep

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Oh, and if you have lots of money that is doing nothing except cause inflation, you should be able to loan money to other players. You can negotiate about percentages (usury) and repayment terms. Not paying loans back can be grounds for war, etc. Money should also be able to be used to rebuild locations destroyed by rebels and plundering. It could be to add resources, like pastures, to territories that don't have them. It can be used to bribe marshals and ministers, or governors of cities, while being found out bribing or trying to bribe them could be used as grounds for a war against you. Do more with money than just have it sit there, especially after you have built everything you want / need to build.

I recently started playing KoH again after just stopping in 2016. I couldn't remember why I stopped. I remember now. I also remember why I quit playing when I originally had the CD game I bought in a store. I was going to write up my suggestions / requests for the game designers before I saw that KoH II is being developed. Obviously, I don't know what will be different between the two versions but I wanted to go ahead and give my input based on the original version. FYI, I have been an avid board wargamer for 45 years, so I do have a lot of experience evaluating games. I am making these suggestions based on what I believe the spirit of the game is. 1.) I am going to start off with the biggest issue I have with pretty much every computer game I have played... STOP MAKING ME MICROMANAGE EVERYTHING! There are advisors / ministers / knights / governors I can hire but I still have to make every single decision, no matter how piddling they are. Instead, let me make decisions of who to hire and what to look for, and what responsibilities to hand over to them. I should keep an eye on them to make sure that they are good, they give me good advise, they don't cheat me, etc. but if I don't, then it is my fault when I end up with a bad one. That is more realistic of how kingdom (or business, or whatever) management functions. If I want to micromanage everything, great, but I shouldn't HAVE to as the only way to play. In addition to having input on what I should build, or who I should attack, or make alliances with, or whatever, I should also pay them and treat them well enough to keep them loyal and have a high morale. Otherwise, I can find myself being robbed, given bad advice, even have the gates of a city or castle opened up and handed over to another player. Corruption should be a feature, as well as honor. Also, as I have advisors for longer periods of time, I can show more trust in them and let them handle things that they have demonstrated to me they understand and give good advice about. Ministers / advisors can also help me look for brides / grooms in other kingdoms, based on criteria I give them. They should also be suggesting who to make trade agreements with and who not to, and so on. 2.) It makes no sense, other than weak game design or programming, to limit a king with 30 territories to the same number of advisors / knights as someone with one single territory. If you want to limit how many you have based on the number of territories, that is fine, although there should be a geometric kind of progression as you add more and more territories. Also, you shouldn't have to make decisions on how many marshals you have in order to have other specialists. Or, at least in my games, I tend to not utilize specialists because I need those slots for marshals when my kingdom expands. At the very least, other specialists should have their own set of slots that are separate from the slots available for marshals. 3.) If I start out as a Earl, or Duke, or whatever, let me claim higher titles as I gain more territory, or as I conquer traditional kingdoms (all of Ireland, all of the British Isles, all of France, etc.). If I start claiming titles that other players don't think I deserve (I own a single territory and call myself an Emperor, for example), that can lower the opinion other players have of me, with negative results when I deal with them. 4.) While the game has what it calls "diplomacy", it doesn't have politics. Players should be able to plot to work together to take out other players or nations, to work together, or even to join their kingdoms together to create confederations or empires, etc. 5.) Regarding diplomacy, if another player approaches me with an offer or demand, I should be able to make an evaluation before I given an answer. For example, I have a player approach me and offer me a territory, or money if I will behave in a certain way to another player (break agreements, etc.). Well, I should be able to look at what my relationships with that other player are, or what the offered territories have going for them before I answer. In addition, everything from another player is take it or leave it. I should be able to make counter-proposals, to negotiate agreements, etc. Also, with limited marshal slots available, a large kingdom should be able to call on allies to help out against rebels or invaders when a player doesn't have a marshal of his own in that area. 6.) Diplomacy needs a lot of work. If another player approaches me, say they want to offer me a territory or cash or whatever if I will do something they want me to, I should be able to get the information I need before I give an answer. I should be able to look at the territory(ies) involved, or at my relationship with the player I am asked to act against before I respond. I should also be able to negotiate such requests... I won't for what you offer but, I will if you give me this. In addition, I should be able to get input / advice from my ministers / advisors on what the pros and cons of such actions are likely to be, what I stand to loose in honor, or from trade, or how the allies of that kingdom will react. The same if I turn down a request... what can that player do to me, or what will I lose if I don't do as they request. In addition, how I behave towards other players, based on such requests, should affect how I am viewed and trusted by other players... do I agree to anything if I get enough money? Do I refuse to harm other nations I have good relationships with when I get such requests? How honorable, or greedy am I, etc.? 7.) Give me some kind of mechanism where I can send units I make in one city to serve in the garrison of another city or mine, or to sell the services of troops I can make to other players. If I only have a few territories, I can use marshals to shuttle troops around to cities where they cannot be produced but if I have a lot of territories, then it is very problematic to give my cities the best troops I can create. In addition, and especially with a limit on how many marshals I can have, I should be able to send garrisons out to deal with rebels, etc. This can also be a trap for players... other players might instigate rebels or even disguise a unit of their own as rebels as a way to lure garrisons away from cities before an attack on that city. Also, the chance of rebellion in a territory should impact how large of a band of rebels can be raised. There can always be a danger of rebels even in the happiest territories but, in a happy territory they may not be able to rouse a very large group to rebel... which can impact how much damage they can do and how quickly they can plunder a location. In fact, if they are a really small group, the location could / would probably deal with rebels on their own. Finally, a kingdom's strength and how well and quickly it responds to rebels and plunderers should also impact how willing people in that territory or under that king are to join a rebellion, just as not responding with force or speed would increase the likelihood of rebels, etc. popping up. And the safety or lack thereof felt in a territory or kingdom would have a direct impact on the happiness of the citizens of a territory. 8.) The larger a kingdom is, the more money that can be accumulated before inflation starts to become an issue. Like with the number of marshals slots available, larger kingdoms should be able to hold onto more money than a single territory can. PLEASE, scale the features of gameplay to accommodate those who succeed in building up strong and large kingdoms. 9.) When I siege a castle, if I have the ability to fortify a camp, the sieging camp should be fortified in case the troops inside the castle, or approaching troops from outside the castle try to break the siege. 10.) When I use troops, each individual unit should be able to improve, be able to earn 1 - 3 stars themselves to become veterans based on actions they are involved in. Plus the longer a particular unit spends attached to a specific marshal should improve their morale, or their sense of trust of the marshal or something, as a way to encourage players to hold on to troops and no making decisions solely on finances. 11.) With a limit on how many books can be produced by a player, Marshals SHOULD be able to be gain skills and stars from books as well as from action. In addition, even just having maneuvers by marching troops around will help a marshal improve his skills, as well as the troops themselves. Especially if marshals aren't allowed to drop skills, there should be greater freedom to get rid of marshals with unneeded skills without having to worry about how much experience you would be losing. 12.) Just as it makes no sense to limit the number of marshal slots when you gain larger kingdoms, cities / castles should not have to sacrifice how much they can build up a castle because of limited building slots that have to be used to utilize resources. In fact, a city that has more value because of abundant resources would be better protected by a king or governor, not less than a city in a territory with few or no resources. 13.) Some resources, like fertile fields, should be able to be created, or at least created when there are available slots if you want to keep that limit. Others, like specific mineral deposits (salt, silver, etc.) cannot be created where they don't exist. Also, things like mineral deposits have finite amounts in them. They can all be given secret limits on how much can be taken out of them before they disappear. Maybe they can start to slow down as those limits are approached in ways that the player can learn about. When they disappear, they will not only destroy buildings dependent on those resources, they will also hurt that city's economy if it doesn't have other industries to rely on. It would also be nice if resources in at least some small way conformed to actually locations. For example, France and England should be full of fertile fields, and pastures, while they should be rare in the middle east and north Africa. 14.) Buildings that require certain combinations of resources to build (cathedrals, merchant guilds, etc.) should be able to be built in cities if you can produce those resources yourself, or at least if you can produce them within a certain distance from a city, like maybe on a landmass, in the case of Ireland and/or England, or within 3 territories, etc. 15.) Whenever you have a king who dies without heirs, there should be at least two generations of brothers or uncles that are available to become king. If a king dies with several sons, the others just disappear, which would not happen... unless they were specifically killed. Also, this could be used to incorporate politics into the game... do certain brothers, uncles, etc. plot to kill off competitors for the crown? Do other kingdoms try to cause chaos in a kingdom by plotting to support claimants other than the rightful heir? Do wives plot to kill their husbands to elevate their lovers to power? 16.) Speaking of wives, they should have skills, as well, which can come into play in the game, or at least enhance the skills of a king. 17.) The older a building is, the more maintenance it should cost. Without maintenance, a building will weaken and eventually collapse. 18.) PLEASE do NOT incorporate gun powder into the game. It is just a mess when middle ages games add gunpowder. In real life, the middle ages "quickly" end with the advent of gun powder and you end up with an entirely different kind of game. I'll end with just two personal requests, as someone who has an autism-spectrum disorder, and OCD traits that go along with it. Really, they are not about game play, they are just suggestions to say how it would be more enjoyable for me with my conditions. 19.) PLEASE give us a pause function, or at least an option to use a pause function in our game. Again, as the kingdom gets bigger, I have a need to slow down the sensory input and make calm evaluations of how things stand. In pause, I should be able to look at the map, look at my own territories, make orders to be given when I start the game again, or even put a limit on how many orders can be given at one time in a territory or to a person. This has been a real problem for me when I have a bunch of enemies attack me at the same time in different locations and, while I deal with those enemies, I cannot also make governing decisions for other locations, or even look at those other locations. I get headaches, I get sensory overload, and I stop getting any enjoyment from the game and just quit at that point. Please give some consideration to players whose minds operate differently. The game doesn't have to be turn-based, just allow us to stop it and catch our breaths, or make informed decisions. 20.) Make it where we can shift things around just to order them in ways that are aesthetically / emotionally pleasing to us. For example, I want to sort the buildings in my cities in certain ways without having to tear buildings down and rebuild them in different order. And units in a city or under a marshal, let me be able to switch them around so that they are not all chaotic in their groups. This has nothing to do with game play, it is just satisfying to me when I can put things in an order that I am comfortable with. Thank you. Now, if anyone else has other thoughts or suggestions they would like to add to this thread, please feel free.