Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zerg last won the day on October 22

Zerg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

200 profile views
  1. I get that you are excited about the game (we all are, that's why we are here), but this is some very nitpicky thing you want to talk about. Off the top of my hat I see several reasons why it was chosen to name the game like it is named and why it won't be changed: Continuity - The first installment was named 'Knights of Honor' aswell. Marketing - All marketing materials are already created with that name. Minor Detail - At least 99.9% of the potential target audience will not care. I even think, they may win more customers/players by deliberatley chosing the american english naming convention, since it is spoken by more people on the world. Language - Even "Ye Olde Englishe" isn't the english spoken in the middle ages, so "honor" is most probably also not a word written like this at that time. I don't want to sound rude, but it's such a minor detail and if this really holds you off from enjoying the game, there will be hundreds of other details which will do so aswell.
  2. If there are only 30 skills available in total I think that having 8 traditions is too much. Off the top of my head I would say that maybe around 10-15% of the skills should be atainable at the same moment as tradition. So if there are 30 skills in total, only 3-5 should be possible to hold as tradition at the same time. The system itself looks fine at first glance, I can already imagine myself specializing in all the economic skills as Venice. It feels like it would help with replayability for the same kingdom where you just choose different traditions each time you play it.
  3. They mentioned in their facebook-post that a mechanic like this would exists. So if a knight dies there is a chance (maybe even 100%?) that he will or can be replaced with his heir, which has similar but reduced abilities.
  4. I'm sorry but that's a horrible idea. Lets just assume someones is attacking a province of mine. Normally we attack with 1 to 2 armies and sometimes the defender has an army in the province aswell (maybe even 2). Now with 4 additional entities on the map (the 4 generals) we would have 6 to 8 armies on the world map. This would be a nightmare to manage. It was already hard to manage your armies to attack the same target if enemy armys were close togehter, this would just destroy any fun in controlling armies on the world map.
  5. Maybe you want to elaborate what you are not happy about? The problems you mentioned in the dev diary should be solved with what William Blakes proposed (and you already had as an idea yourself). Personally, I never saved any expierienced troops in the first game. They always had to fight upfront in my armies to break the enemys morale the fastest. So for me even the old system would have been fine, but I can see that some people would feel the incentive to save up their best troops.
  6. I may have misunderstood things, but as far as i understood leveling was a thing in the first game, right? Your squads would, after a certain number of fights, gain stars (up to 3) which in turn increased their overall stats. My Questions: I really do love the art, but sadly the provided images don't fit my computers resolution. Is there any way to make them available in multiple resolutions or so that no important parts will be cut when we have to stretch-to-fit the image? How will siege units be implemented in the game? Will it stay the same as in the first game?
  7. I think they meant "knights" as an overarching category. Like knights could be marshals (lead bigger armies), diplomats (manage relations with other kingdoms), spies (you get the idea) and so on. So in the first game they only let 3 out of the 6 categories be governors of provinces (which were clerics, builders and farmers), now every knights, no matter his skills, can govern a province and give it bonuses. And I have to disagree with ivory knight, even tho in his last stream he sounded like a nice guy. I think islamic nations should play a big role in KoH2, simply because the medieval times were just one big conflict of religions. If I try to think about the biggest events in that time following things come to my mind: The Crusades (against islam), Reconquista (against islam), The Rise of the Ottomans (payback-time for islam), Battle of Hastings (only big non-religious conflict), the Northern Crusades (against pagans) and the Eastern Crusades (against pagans). For now the devs should concentrate to implement improvements every realm will benefit on. Things like special skill-classes for knights for specific realms could be added in by the modding community later on. So please ahmet, write down what you think a vizir and/or janissary-comander should be able to do (what a diplomat or generic marshal cannot) and maybe it will happen sometime. Greetings!
  8. That image up there is part of the Knights of Honor Manual (see https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/steam/apps/25830/manuals/manual_english.pdf?t=1447351680). Sadly i do'nt own that Total War game so i can't look up what governors do there, but maybe you can explain? I've read about janissary and that they were practical military slaves, but what do you think a commander should do, or what mechanic do you expect in the game? I still see no difference between a vizir and a diplomat governing a province, maybe you can share your thoughts what mechanics should be introduced with vizirs?
  9. Your post is far from comprehensible.. As far as I can tell a vizir is nothing else than a diplomat for inner affairs. Janissary were already in the first game aswell. Also, you could assign governers in the first game and will most probably be able to in the second game. For people who don't know what you mean by "a Total war system", this makes no sense at all. Maybe you want to clarify what you exactly think should be different?
  10. No, keeps are just additional points of interest within the province. It was already hinted in the gameplay trailer. What we learned from this dev diary is, that invading others provinces will be more dynamic than before, with more possibilities to choose from. But it seems to be mostly the same. Politically, I expect it to stay the same for the most parts. I think it's very likely that if someone is called into war as part of an alliance, and the realm that asked for help from his ally can end the war for both. But it is only speculation at that point. This was kind of answered if the dev diary aswell.. My guess is that every war will have an invisible tracker, which tracks what kingdom contributed to the war and then will split the spoils of war (gold, population, provinces, etc.) accordingly. Greetings
  11. Thanks for sharing another dev diary with us! I do think the mechanic to drive back invaders will be a great addition to the game. I'm also very excited to see how the new joint occupation with allies will play out, especially in multiplayer with friends 😁. About the feedback you asked for: For me Knights of Honor was always superior to other games from the genre because it was simple. It didn't throw hundred dialog boxes and tables at you where you had to micromanage everything all the time. I just had a great time enjoying my kingdom, developing my realm, sending my armys and sometimes jump into battles. And just to be clear, simple does not equal simplistic, so there can be deeper, more complex mechanics. They just should be easy to grasp and control. So for me, everything I read is great. Bonus-Question: Will/can you give us information about how the development of provinces will look/work like in the new game? Are there any big changes in this area? Greetings!
  12. I don't think that there is a historical person who did, in an honest way, land 2 different council spots on the same council, since the people giving advice to the king were pretty much always the best in their respective area. But I still think your idea is neat. Having the possibility of a skill tree branch out into a different field of skill but with a higher cost could be a lot of fun. The developers already announced somewhere that modability is a big goal of theirs, so I'm convinced that modding of the existing skilltrees will be possible and we can implement such hybrid classes ourselves. This would certainly increase the flexibility without making everything overcomplicated and if the costs of diversifications are high enough, the game won't be too easy aswell. I still firmly believe that increasing the size of the royal court would be a mistake since it would be hell to manage. I always preferred KoH over Crusader Kings 2 or Total War games because it was just a light, entertaining expierience with a very special flair. Greetings!
  13. But having an answer to every problem/opportunity would be very boring, wouldn't it? Strategy games specificially are always about managing opportunities and risks. In Age of Empires, Civilization, Total War, whatever game, you name it, you always have to decide if you want to focus on building your economy or your army, you can't have everything. I just think in KoH the Royal Court should be the thing that forces you to focus on a particular thing. If you have a lot of trading potential, like the kingdoms in the mediterrian had, you should probably have 2 merchants and a diplomat to get some trading agreements. Of course we can't tell exactly what options we will have since the skilltrees and actions aren't revealed yet, but I doubt the developers will repeat the mistake with the builders and farmers. Greetings!
  • 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.