Lighthope

In a game where the goal is conquest of the world, "rightful owner" doesn't have a whole lot of significance. But I get your point. A player (or AI) can put value on a country. If you offer them that country, the AI would be more willing to accept your alliance.

How would they be able to program it so a player could promise an AI something for victory?

I like the idea of making pacts. Diplomacy is something that I think a lot of people clamor for. It's wildly popular in Civ VI. I don't want just a hack and slash game. If I want that, Medieval II: Total War is still downloadable and playable. Heck, Lords of the Realm II is still out there. The problem with KoH 1, which I think we've beaten to death, is that diplomacy was done so poorly. So yes please, invest more in diplomacy. It makes the world a much more living, breathing entity. Different personalities, different means to the end. This ruler prefers alliances. This one is the lone wolf. That one can't be trusted, this other one can. He wants to use spies to take over kingdoms, that one believes in economic warfare. The more varied, the more diplomacy can play a role. Hack and slash should be but one avenue to victory.

I don't think they are going to programme the AI to play its character against its own best interest. I think any personality will be there to make the character a different strategic choice from other characters. Otherwise we could employ the same strategy for each and every single encounter.

As an option? Absolutely. I think that is a great idea.

Ooh, betrayals. Very tempting. But you are right. It has the potential to be very one dimensional. If I was more certain of how well and how deep diplomacy was in the game, I would feel more comfortable with betrayals. The problem I see is that the cost of betrayal will be too little or too easily overcome, making switching sides just a tactical move. Consider KoH1. I didn't care about alliances because not following through had no real consequence. Oh, Kingdom Power dropped? Click click click, problem solved. Other countries were more wary of me now? Who cares? I just wait to roll stomp them. If the diplomacy package in KoH2 had much MUCH more going for it, then maybe betrayals could be something to look into adding.

I don't know how this would work on the strategic map. But I could be on board for this on the battle map.

Given that Beta hasn't even started yet, 2020 isn't going to happen. It may not even be in Alpha.

Yes. But it isn't the best way as far as the game goes. You'll pay a rebellion penalty for it.

I wouldn't mind seeing some Olde English in there, but I understand it is jarring to a lot of people. I'm okay with the modernization of the language. I'm more interested in accents anyway.

I don't know, but it would seem to me that battles would be the least of the programming hurdles. Getting the AI to properly work to win the game, to get all the new stuff working properly... I think battles are the easiest of the problems to solve since much of it is already in the game already. Much of the logic is being imported from KoH1. So if we want to see a faster playable game, it would actually make more sense to just release the battle part.

I'd rather they spend the resources on getting the new game ready. I don't see this as a bug. Annoying, but not a bug. The world existed before you took the throne. Yeah, that should have been a thing. Vassals were vastly underused in KoH1. Forces you to make a choice. Oh gad no. Having to decide where to place your limited resources is part of the strategy.

There is no way this is coming out in 2020 despite what Steam says.

I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude with merchants. Ultimately, the question is going to be: Should Merchants even be bothered with if I can get more just by conquering a kingdom? This was the problem in KoH1. Economic warfare should be a viable option.

I can go along with that. As long as the limit is huge.

Not copy, no. But they shouldn't pass on a good theme simply because someone else already did it. If developers followed that idea, Seth McFarlane would never get a show done in ever. (For those who don't know, McFarlane is famous for stealing Simpsons and developing Family Guy from it. How he didn't get sued, I don't know.)

You shouldn't be able to do that. Spies should tell you. Rumours generally aren't helpful. But that is the nature of the beast. Spies should give much more valuable information than they are currently.

I'd like to see spies give more interesting information. For example, we should not know how much a kingdom has in its treasury, since that is valuable information. A spy could tell us, however. Also, spies should tell us what a king is thinking. Such as who he is planning to attack, where, with what force. Spies should tell us if that kingdom sent a spy into our court. All in all, spies should be much more useful with the information they get us than what they are doing now. Lords of the Realm I had a really interesting method. A trader would come to your kingdom sometimes and he had very valuable rumours to give you. Much like a lot of traveling salesmen did. Not suggesting that method, but that the info you can get should be better than what is offered currently.

I think that is part of what rebellions are for. And I don't mind giving up a bit of realism for more interesting game play.

Plus it would make the download size inconceivably large. Could always make a mod pack though......

Not to drag M2:TW into this, but they do it and it is really effective.

Okay, this is going to be asking for a lot. But why not? Can we have regional accents depending on where your kingdom is? British for British, French for French, German for German, etc? I know it is insurmountable, given the number of countries. But if we could at least have five or six different ones, that would be a nice touch. Voice actors are pretty cheap if you know where to look. And your fans are willing to provide a voice or two just to be in the game.

This would only work if you knew the composition of the opposing army, which oftentimes you do not. Also, formations change due to the fluidity of battle. What works for one moment may not work for the next, for any smart commander will react to what is happening on the battlefield. All in all, I don't think this is workable.

Archers and crossbowmen should not run out of ammo when they are in Cities. Cities (castles) always stock up for sieges. There isn't any reason why they should be running out of ammo when defending against a siege.

Yes, they are different, but sea battles really aren't a focus of this type of game. You really don't build up fleets or do anything on the sea other than move your troops. I think an Admiral class will be a generally unused class.