Jump to content

Lighthope

Members
  • Content Count

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Lighthope last won the day on May 17

Lighthope had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah, don't do that. If they aren't going to play the game, their opinion really doesn't count. You have enough support here from real players. You don't need to "stuff the ballot box."
  2. I gotta agree. Even typing "Kiev" into Microsoft maps pulls up "Kyiv".
  3. The what? Is that a reference to the old Cracked Magazine?
  4. I have to admit, I never bought the idea of a King being a spy. Never used him as one. Didn't sit right with me.
  5. What about disinformation? Can your spy be tricked into delivering the wrong information to you? Such as reporting enemy troops where there are none? (Thus misdirecting your attention/forces.) Misreports their strength/economy/plans? After all, spies can't be perfect, and introducing this imperfection would make things very interesting. BTW, loved the flavour of this Dev Diary!
  6. It's been a while, but if the timer (food) runs out, don't you just get the town? Hence why the computer always comes out to fight before that happens.
  7. That is kind of the point I was making. No benefit to the attacker, so why bother besieging beyond what you have to? But I bow to your decision.
  8. That's a little too elitist for me. Just because someone isn't in the beta doesn't mean they might not have something valuable to add. No one here is in the beta yet. Should we wipe out everything said so far? And the "silent majority" is often code for "people who agree with me but I have no evidence of."
  9. Yes, a castle was built to give time to call in reinforcements. But with the option of the attacker to just attack, what benefit is there to the attacker to siege? Why not just attack right now? Historically, an attacker would besiege a castle in the hopes that they would just give up without a fight. Many times, a deal was struck between attacker and defender that if relief did not come within a certain amount of time, the defender would surrender. This way, both attacker and defender would come out (relatively) unharmed. In KoH, though, there is absolutely no benefit to the
  10. I think you may be looking for a game that is more complex than KoH is or wants to be.
  11. I don't recall if they said anything about revamping the benefits of sieges. In KoH1, sieges were practically worthless for an attacking army. All they did was give the defenders time to call in reinforcements. There was no benefit to maintaining a siege. Any word of a re-work?
  12. So far I've been seeing a lot of changes. KoH2 is definitely going to be worth looking at. Diplomacy has changed. Princesses have changed. Those were my two biggest pet peeves about the original. Combat was never my specialty. I just go in and whack things. But there are a lot of changes coming to that. What specific "big improvements" are you looking for?
×
×
  • 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.