Lighthope

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."

I gotta agree. Even typing "Kiev" into Microsoft maps pulls up "Kyiv".

The what? Is that a reference to the old Cracked Magazine?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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."

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 attacking side to siege. M2:TW as this same problem. I would siege a castle just long enough to build siege equipment and then attack. Waiting was useless as the defender would always sally forth just before the timer expired. There needs to be a benefit to the attacker for besieging. Such as the defender should losing troops as the siege goes on.

It's in the OP.

I think you may be looking for a game that is more complex than KoH is or wants to be.

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?

I hate it when that happens!

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?

Source?

I know this is an impossible question, but like Alice I too try to believe three impossible things before breakfast. Any estimate on when a Beta might be available?

No. Pick your kingdom at the beginning and that is yours until the Second Coming. I might go for that idea. That way someone can keep playing if someone else drops out.

I seriously doubt multiplayer coding takes only a single week. But I'll play along. No, I would not drop multiplayer. Just because I won't use it doesn't mean others aren't interested.

I believe they actually said there would be no weather in the game.

No. Not at all. Just casting my vote.

I agree wholeheartedly. There needs to be weather that affects combat. Summer, winter, local showers.

No, I don't like that. That's not realistic. Marshals don't train recruits. They have sergeants for that. Marshals come and scoop up those who are ready to fight. (And sometimes those who aren't.)

That is a game flaw, one that I hope they will address. I think it's been mentioned that sacking provinces yields little benefit. There needs to be a reason to protect your province features other than a minor, non-noticeable penalty. Depends. I use throwaway marshals to control the rebels. As they gain in experience, I promote them to attack my enemies. No one is suggesting you use a maxed out Marshal to go against two maxed out Marshals. But it remains a strategic choice to concentrate your forces or spread them out. Because that crosses my line of micromanagement for too little benefit. It's subjective. You like it. I don't. I think getting rid of the minor victory will help with that. Though all the resources have value, and in the end you want to acquire them.

Sure, if you don't mind leaving more of your land unprotected. It's a strategic choice to have lots single armies or few multiple armies. Take your two marshal army. I'll take a single marshal army and stomp on your lands far enough away that you can't get to me in time. Because it's not a point. It's an opinion. One which I disagree with.

I disagree with that point. The possibility of reinforcement is something you need to consider before attacking or defending.