Lighthope
-
Posts
483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Dev Diaries
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by Lighthope
-
-
9 hours ago, Bassilisk said:
One thing that was annoying was you could not zoom in and out on the main map, only the mini map could you zoom. Always had to scroll way over to where I wanted to go instead of just zooming out moving and zooming in. Same with battles, only one fixed position with no zoom so I couldn't see all troops.
Yeah, a zoom out/zoom in would be nice.
-
On 5/14/2020 at 1:20 AM, Bassilisk said:
I dont think it would be much fun if you literally never fight a battle and win with money or espionage
I'm okay with that. Empires are not always won or lost on the battlefield. And allowing a campaign to be won in different ways lets the player play different ways, extending the life of the game.
Choices are good.
-
I don't think that option would be popular enough to warrant the labour to implement it. Why would I want to watch the game play itself when I can play?
-
5 hours ago, ShabanS said:
Please, let us remove spies
What was wrong with spies?
You know, honestly I wouldn't mind that option. Options are generally a good thing. I am just concerned that having that option would require some massive logic recoding because now the computer opponent must have an algorithm for "no spies". Not a simple thing.
-
4 hours ago, THQN Brad said:
Would you take your time to strategically influence provinces with your kingdom’s culture before conquering them, or would you crush the resistance with brute force?
It depends on how much influence culture has on the game. If I can "brute force" take over a country with no real consequence from culture, why would I bother with cultural assimilation?
If you want me to consider culture, then culture has to have a real influence and not just a theoretical one.
4 hours ago, THQN Brad said:Would you pick a starting kingdom based on its culture because of the special visuals and cultural perks that come with it, or do these aspects not really factor into your decisions?
Perks maybe. Maybe after a number of plays I may start to consider special visuals. But at the beginning, it will always either be my favourite country or it will be based on strategic advantage I want to play.
-
I like that idea. It adds some more detail to diplomacy, which is something KoH really lacked.
-
So is there any way to register Knights of Honor on Steam? I hating having to connect my DVD player to my computer every time I want to play Knights of Honor, but there is no CD key to register.
-
9 hours ago, Topinambur said:
This. Or make the feature of having a local commander available only for easy mode, leaving normal mode arbitrary to this parameter and disabling it on hard mode.
I could live with that. Make it available only in easy mode.
-
3 hours ago, Topinambur said:
Sir, I don’t meant to slight, however I can’t refrain from interjecting a remark on your statement.
Strategic choice to ... to what? When your kingdom is over 40 states, it doesn’t stand possible to cover all area against rebellions. Given the number of lords in the royal court, a player can have 6 marshals at maximum. If a player aren’t playing on easy, invasions to other territories would need at least 3-4 marshals to advance. It leaves a player with 2 to 3 marshals to reallocate them for defence purposes. Again, given the scale of empire of 40+ states that would be a Benny-Hill-like show, trying to eliminate rebels as they would be long gone by the time even the fastest marshal with light cavalry and “strategist” lvl 3 would arrive from his seat at the rear.
I've played in hard mode. I know the dance. Yes, rebels pop up all over the place, and you are constantly sending your rear guard marshals to stamp out the fires. So you make a strategic choice to either put more marshals in the rear or run your minimal rear forces all over the place.
The problem with knights, as I said, is that you can now have your entire force marching forward with no thought to the rear. Your home guards will take care of that.
That makes for very boring gameplay. It's a constant looking-forward way of playing the game. Looking to conquer your next territory. You have no reason to look back, shuffle your forces, think about whether you want to continue to expand or reinforce your kingdom.
There is no strategic thought necessary when you don't have to worry about your rear guard.
The bottom line is: When you have town knights as is being suggested, you have no reason to defend your territory. Knights of Honour already has a garrison that defends the town. Letting them sally forth makes them overpowered.
-
5 hours ago, Sultan Mubashar said:
Atleast one army commander per city (if four will cause gameplay balancing issues) should be implemented which will enhance gameplay without any balancing issues. That commander will be responsible to keep the city AREA safe from the wandering and raiding enemies. AREA includes border covered by that city which also includes any mosque, farm and/or coastal village associated with that city. Enemies can be enemy knights and rebels.
To answer your issue regarding balancing, my proposal actually enhances the strategic elements of war and deception mechanics of gameplay which relates to actual history too. To weaken the enemy garrison;
1): Send one of your knight to raid the farms, city will send its army commander with some army to help against the raid. Go and siege the town with other knights as army commander is busy in fighting against raids. Can't we relate this to actual medieval warfare tactics???
2): Ignite rebellion and wait for a rebel to emerge in the targeted city area, go and siege the town while local commander is busy in fighting with rebels. Can't we see some history involved in this too???
I still stand against this idea. If your cities have their own knights, there is no reason to keep a Marshall or two behind to protect your kingdom.
It removes a strategic choice a player has to make. Your way is more historical, but it isn't as challenging, game-wise.
-
I always, always played England. But I started a new game a week ago and for the first time chose France.
-
9 hours ago, Topinambur said:
What if these local commanders (e.g. captain, general) would be only approaching peasant rebels in the area?
Then there would be no point in having a marshal stay behind to protect your kingdom. They could just all be out there expanding the empire.
The OP's idea removes a strategic choice the player has to make.
-
6 hours ago, Pan Yannos said:
You can't compare a turned based game with an RTS... You don't play it with the same perspective and that is affecting your decisions throughout it.
Everything is different when comparing an RTS to a turn-based game. So you believe we can't make any comparisons to M2:TW?
Diplomacy is actually one of the few things that isn't much different. Real time or turned based, KoH could stand to have much deeper diplomacy. It's even more fun because, as a real-time game, you have tell time to mull over your decisions.
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, Florishier said:
What if the non-marshall roles hire "captains" for them to lead small bands of soldiers, and if those armies get destroyed the main character (spy merchant etc) gets a debuff for x amount of time. (This way they lost some power that they invested in the small armies)
That really is no difference from a Merchant having his own army. You're just jumping through an additional hoop.
Resources are limited for a reason. Makes you have to make strategic decisions. You want an army or a spy. Can't have both. Much more strategic thinking than choosing a spy but still getting an army, even if it is crippled in size.
-
Hmm....more slots per type. I kind of like that idea.
Still against merchants/clerics leading troops though. They just didn't do that.
-
11 hours ago, Sultan Mubashar said:
No. of armies of a smallest kingdom = No. of armies of a largest kingdom = Unrealistic = LoL = Big PROBLEM
Realistically, there has to be a limit in place or big kingdoms would just stomp on small ones. Yes, that happened in real life, but in a game there needs to be some limit or the game loses its challenge.
-
Thinking more on merchants and spies:
Merchants as a governor can increase gold output of the city and increase food production. So, when governor, they act as a builder and farmer as well.
Spies as governor can decrease the risk of rebellion.
However, if a town is conquered, the governor is killed, and you lose that asset. And no recalling a governor during a siege.
How is that for giving them something more substantial to do?
-
6 hours ago, Sultan Mubashar said:
I am proposing a mechanism to solve the issue of marshal counts due to the limited no. of slots in Royal Court.
Apart from marshals in royal court, all cities must have up to 4 slots for Army Generals to be hired; One for the defense of City garrison, One for the defending mosque/monastery, One for the defending farm And one for defending coastal village/port in case of raids. Player/AI should recruit separate armies for each generals just like they do for marshals.
<snip>
This idea makes sense because the major issue with having limited marshals is to defend against raiding. It becomes difficult to impossible for anyone to defend their lands when kingdom becomes large specially farms/mosques/coastal villages.
I never had any problem defending my land with the limited number of marshals. It forces you to make a choice. Keep some of your marshals to stamp out problems back home, or take your chance and send them all out to expand the kingdom.
Cities already have a garrison available to them. They don't need knights added to that. You can choose to rely on the garrison or back them up with reinforcements from an available marshal.
-
15 hours ago, William Blake said:
I feel the problem they are trying to solve is to make support classes to be more useful
They took a good step by removing builders and...what was the other one? Farmer, that was it. My court only had marshals, spies, and merchants. I think there's a cleric in there, only because it is so much fun when he is Pope. "Do I...know you?" lol. Only time I ever used a builder was in the very beginning of a game, and that was when I was a new player. I never use them now.
I think spies and merchants have enough usefulness. Well, certainly spies. Maybe they could do more spy stuff, like sabotage. But they are pretty useful as it is.
Merchants, I don't know. What more can you do with them? They make money. It's a rather limited role. But it is useful. Maybe they can go the route of Total War and have merchants drive each other out of business, disrupt markets of your enemies, and the like.
-
3 hours ago, Triarii said:
Like forced marches from rome2tw
Well, yeah, it certainly is possible. But what penalty would there be? Your Marshall is more exhausted?
If you want to have that ability, there had better be a really large tradeoff. Just losing your army isn't good enough. Armies are too easily replaced as the game goes on.
-
1 hour ago, Falkeep said:
Another diplomacy option, you should be able to demand that a kingdom stop attacking and/or make peace with another kingdom.
This falls under the category of diplomacy being pretty minimal in KoH. It can absolutely use a good shot in the arm.
I mean, if you want to bulldoze Europe, sure you can do that. Most every game is like that. But diplomacy was a major, major factor in history, and should be utilized here.
In the original KoH, you could pretty much ignore diplomacy past setting up trade pacts (because you want your merchants to be able to go someplace). But beyond that, I rarely touched diplomacy.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, aoetje said:
total war games suck compared to KoH 😄
Elaborating would be helpful.
-
I am not in favour of that mechanic. Why would someone travel 3x faster just because they are needed somewhere else.
Better to just keep a Marshall over there in the event he is needed. That way you have to make a choice: Keep a Marshall in reserve to quell any problems, or take the chance and throw all your forces into an assault.
I routinely kept a Marhsall or two in reserve to squash problems.
-
Uninstalling and reinstalling got it to run.
Don't understand why that worked, but it did.
About future DLC
in General Discussion
Posted
Key features, no. But I am okay with some add-on features. Maybe a DLC that incorporates the gunpowder era, since gunpowder is controversial.
DLCs are also a good way for the company to make money beyond the initial purchase. I'm for that. More money, more development.
But as stated before, DO NOT lock key features behind a DLC.