Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral
  1. Well it will be exactly like feaving troops as town garrison. But you will leave it in the castles. This however will strech out your resorses. If you leave them there, castle garrisons can be starved (a castle should have limited quantaty of food), and then you lose your troops. Thats what i ment, when i said that every situation will be defferent. Say you attack my kindom. I have a choise. I can pull all the forces from the castles, to form a feaild army, or leave them, to slow you down. For exapmple, to buy time for recruting! In some cases you will take provences easy, and outer time it will be hard. Depends on the oponent. And the stratigy element is hightent this way πŸ™‚
  2. That`s fair! If a state hasn`t maned the fortifications, then they shouldn`t play any role. They fall automaticly. And the idea, that thay decreases chance of rebelion is brilliant!
  3. Ofcourse every one of us is expressing personal thoughts. And again my opinion is that castles have the potential to eliminate the boring side of every conquest. For exapmple, if you are attacked, there will be an option. You could pull out all avalible forces and form field armies, or you can man the castles and slow down the advance of the enemy. Or you may not have the resorces for any of that, and then you fall. Every situation will be different. And if only taking one town is all that you need to do, how is that not boring and repetitive? You literally do the same think over and over again. Just beat the enemy field army, and than do the same thing, until you take all his lands πŸ™‚ And if you have the abillity to build castles, then you can secure you frontier and then concentrait on outer front. And last. this will make it harder, for a small kindom to swallow entire empires in matter of minites, like often happend in the first part πŸ™‚
  4. Ok. If castles don`t play any role what so ever, then why exist at all. In my opinion, they will have the abillity to make the gameplay ten times better than the first KOH. Each situation will be uniqe. For example, castles could be a major problem for an invader, but only if the attacked kindom, left sufficiant garisons in them. If the haven`t, than they fall automaticly, with the fall of the major city. Ofcourse, soldiers left there will take upkeep, so not every one will be able to aford to gard his castles. And then there are the rebellions. If there are any, they really shoud use the castles, if they are not maned by the invader already. Every conquest will be deferent. Sometimes it will be easy, others it will be hard. Depending on the situation. If castles have no real poprous than we will have the same game, as the original. And will be really more of the same, every time you start a war. The idea for the player to be able to build fortifications is very interesting, and if it can`t be done, than at least the castles should indeed be placed in stratigic locations.
  5. And one more thing, castle fight is not aways nessery. You could just besiege the fortresses and make them surrender πŸ™‚
  6. Acctualy, I never said to double the provinces. Just, that it doesn`t seem to realistic to bend the province to your will, when there are castles in the hands of the enemy. If the castles are maned, then they sould be a factor, for taking control of the province (If they are not, then they should be). The idea for the culture to be a dicisive factor is brilliant, but this should be conected to population loyalty. If the population was loyal to the privious ruler. then there will be rebelions, and they will make the job harder. If they are not (bad manigment from the privious owner or the province was taken from you not long ago and now you are retaking it) then the take over will be easyer! That`s my point. This will make every situation uniqe and deffenetly more realistic and interestig to play. That`s my idea πŸ™‚
  7. Ac Acctualy, that is what will make the game really interesting, becouse every conquest will have to be carefully planed. You should have sufficient forces for besiging the castles, take control of the province and be ready to meet the counterattack of the enemy. This will make each war more interesting and unique. Thaking provice after province, by thaking just one object, that is exactly "more of the same". If the province population is loyal, than there will be a rebel army, struguling against the conqurer, and using the castles as a base. If not, the conquest will be easyer. Not to mention, that this will make the game, more realistic πŸ™‚
  8. Yes this was one of the main problems of the first game - the conquests were too easy. A state with 3-4 provinces could fall in matter of minutes. If the there is a need to take each castle before the province could be used by the new owner, and there is a significant resistance, then conquering a state will be a real challenge, as it should be! And then the map won`t be changed that drastically for just one or two hours. This was the biggest problem with the first game, if you ask me. In just an hour, you don`t play in the chosen time period, the map becomes a big scramble of different states. A country with one province suddenly destroys an empire with more than 8 provinces! This should not be the case. Big states, should have proportionate power, so to be realistic. There could be a different sistem for balance. For example inner problems - unruly aristocracy and population in some parts of the country πŸ™‚
  9. That is a great suggestion, but then there should be scouts - single units. There number and efficiency could be linked with a specific skill of the knight πŸ™‚
  10. In the early stages, when the settlement is undevoluped it could look lice a common nomad "camp", meinly yurts and a few wooden housed, then the wooden structures and fortifications wood appear, and later the city will have stone fortification and stone castle-type structures. (The Bulgars used massive stone blocks for such constructions, but the mongols used bricks as well). The castles could be wooden forts and small stone fortresses (with inner yard surrounded by the main buildings, which uses the outer wall for their back wall).
  11. Well not exactly "a tent city". The bulgars for example (but not only) builded settlments with wooden fortifications and with wooden houses combined with yurts. The mager settlements had however masive stone structures including fortifications, but the common houses were still wooden and in some, yurts were still present. Thanks to the bulgars and alans, this tipe of "nomad cities" were builded in the Khazar haganete. And later, could have been seen true out the mongol empire. I think that this type of culturaly accurate settlements will be perfect for all european nomads - Volga Bulgars, Early Dunabe Bulgars, Khazars, Early Madjar, Pecheneg, Cuman, Mongol ant etc. And this will make the game outstanding πŸ™‚
  12. I have a question that I would like to ask the developers. Sorry to bother you, but i am a huge fan of the game and a historian by trade, so i am curios about something. From the screenshots i noticed that, like in the previous game, the cities will have a different view (on the game map and during battles) thanks to the different cultural background (for example, the cities in western Europe, will differ from the ones in Byzantium or the Muslim territories. ). I think that this is awesome and just would like to ask, whether you will make a design for a β€œnomad settlement”. With yurts as a main (but not only) house, and a wooden (and then stone) fortification. I just think that this will make the game very realistic and the gaming experience, playing against or with nomadic nation (Khazars, Mongols, Pecheneg, Seldkuk Turks and to a some point – Bulgars) will be unforgettable. Anyway, again, I am a big fan, and will most definitely buy the game, as soon as it is released
  • 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.