PDA

View Full Version : Patch, AddOn, Gameenhacements


Pages : [1] 2 3

Lord Qudus
30-10-2004, 00:17
This thread is a more or less word by word translation of my thread (http://forum.sunflowers.de/showthread.php?t=2421) in the german forum. I hope I didn't make too many failures. Please report them to me by PM.

This thread is ought to be a contact point for players, who whish changes and enhancements to be applied to KoH.
In order that not always threads are opened with the same, repeating questions, i collect the community's proposals and list them consisely point by point. So the developers can easily see, which changes are wanted. That wouldn't only be an advantage to our future gaming fun, but to thier pocket book too.
The order coming with it at most accidentally reflects the importance of the points. It results from the time a suggestion is made in this thread or another or when the idea comes to my own mind.



The multiplayer mode
Probably this is the top most wanted, addressed and critisised point. The multiplayer mode only got a raw deal in KoH!
The playable modes barely promise a long lasting gaming fun. An absolute duty should be to implement the "play on europe" mode for multiplayer.
Naturally there are some limitations to be accepted. For example you couldn't lead any battle on your own and the game speed adjustment coudn't be used unlimited.
On demand unused kingdoms should be filled up by AI.

LAN or internet whouldn't make any difference. In principle a single player game is nothing different to a multiplayer game with host=client and human_players_count=1 with exactly the same possibilities to set up. Here implicitly unused kingdoms are filled up by AIs.

Serveroptions
I think some disunities about maximum knights count, maximum building places count of a province, etc. can be adjusted by serveroptions. A singleplayer game would automatically be a multiplayer game with exclusively AI-combatants.
As a matter of course there should be the three familiar SO-configurations called difficulty-levels besides the possibility to configure a custom one.

Openfield Mode - select an army on your own
In the Openfield mode you should be able to assemble your army on your own.

The unit's autonomy
During a battle units often stand there ideling even when the enemy is close. They should more autonomously attack, retreat if the reast of the troops are at risk or be totally passive. Depending on a switch (passive, aggressive, patrol). Just like it is well known from other games.

starting conditions
Again by serveroptions you should be able to define if the starting conditions are always the same or how for they can differ randomly.

Building places count of provinces
If 18 building places are too much, too less or just right, should be to the user by serveroptions.
It could also depend on the fact if I have a master builder working in that province.
Probably some buildings could be grouped by upgrades.

The King's and knight's span of life
a) the king's: If kings are often dying, it could have consequences to the gamingprogress that I don't want to have. The serveroptions should provide a slidebar to adjust the medial span of life.
b) the knight's: When Kings die, why don't the knights. Maybe it is good, that the skiled knights stay to you for ever, but it is not realistic. You could switch this in the serveroptions.

maximum marshalls count
I'd like to adjust on my own, if I want to play with a limitation of the marshalls count, where this limitation is and if it should raise with the kingdom. This could be done by the serveroptions, too.

Forgetting a marshall's skill
By a flag in the serveroptions you should be able to select, if a marshall can forget a skill to clear a space to others.

a separat prison
It is in any case absurd that enemy prisoners take a place at the royal court. An additional, separat prison whould be helpful. If the prisons size should be limited and how great this limit should be is a case for the serveroptions.
This size could be raised by expanding the royal Castle (see Paragraph 48.)

my own title
Additionally to the possibility to select one title out of an enumeration I'd like to type one on my own.

an own genealogical tree
a) to be the first king: Initially I'd like to come to the throne of my prosperous lands myself and consequently found my own genealogical tree.
b) name your descendants: I'd like to choose my descentant's names on my own (even if I don't sit on the throne myself).
c) graphical genealogical tree: A graphical display of my genealogical tree from the beginning to the end with all ramifications and all marriages whould be a nice goody. Additionally you could see the cause of death and if necessary the murdorer. Even a slimmed view of the tree is imaginable with only the Kings and their wifes.
d) Relatives disappear with the dying king: Now, where you have such a good view for your relatives it lends itself to provide a serveroptionflag to not let your whole royal court be exterminated when the king dies.

selfmade name and banner for my kingdom
a) namechange: When my kingdom raises or downsizes I'd like to have the possibility to change its name. This is for sure not historically correct, but it would give a personnal mark to my games.
b) selfmade banner: When a have renamed my kingdom it would be nice to import a selfmade banner from a file.

Security enquiry
a) at diplomacyAt diplomacy there should at least important decisions be reinterrogated. When I click on "declare war" a question should pop up, if I really want to. I could just have misclicked.
When I click on terminate relationships, I want to see a cascading list showing all relationships I have and can terminate.
b) miscellaneousOther important decisions like killing a prisoner or sending a knight to exile should be reinterrogated as well.

Diplomacy - Extensions
a) ask to make peace: You should be able to ask other kingdoms to make peace with me or with others.
b) a travelling agreement: The kingdoms could allow or deny among each others to travel through their lands.
c) more rational decisions: Negotiations with other kingdoms doesn't make too much sense, because they decline anything anyway and declare war after that or are angy to me. This should be more realistic.
d) more stable relationships: Diplomatic relationships should be much more stable. When I have very good relationships with an other country. It should not declare war surprisingly.
e) Trade for Provinces: You should be able to negotiate with other kingdoms for specific provinces.
f) Full game control during diplomacy: During diplomacy i have to have full game control so that I can gather information I need for my decisions.
g) directly affect relationships: Diplomatic relationships should be affected by mercants and spys.

King dies, troops die with him
When my king is a marshall and dies his troops shouldn't die with him. they could be sent to the next province and wait for a new marshall.

Trade for prisoners
When I cought one or more enemy knights, I's like to talk to the respective kings to free my knights for his ones.

Information on buildings and villages
a) clearly arranged buildinglist: On the list of buildings of a province I'd like to see in one view which bulding produces what and how much.
b) more information on the villages: In the tactic view there would some more information on the villages be of a high interrest. If i click on a village, there is only written to which province it belongs. There could be written so much more, because the village has a specific function on the province.

Troops in villages
It would be nice to be able to deploy forces in villages. This wouldn't be irrealistic, too.

Marshallselection by frame
Even though you are able to select more than one marshall by clicking with the shift key hold, but it would be nice to draw a frame an all included marshalls would be added to the selection. (like it is in the battle mode and in any other strategy game)

Display: year and gamespeed
a) year and gamespeed: A display of the current year wouldn't be too bad. Additionally I'd like to see permanently how fast the game is currently running.
b) Buttons for the gamespeed: For the gamespeed I'd like to have buttons with a tooltip for the hotkeys.
c) duration of a march: It would be helpful to see the duration of a march. Then I could better decide where I march next. Therefore a display of the gametime is cogent.

zoom
a) zooming: A function to zoom as well as a stepless (or more steps) zooming of the minimapwould be good. It hasn't been mentioned seldomly in this forum.
b) close view of a province: This zooming should go that far, that you can zoom into a province like you can do during a self led battle.

preplay for battles
When I just led a battle extra heroic, I'd like to save a replay of this battle and send it to a friend.

a detailed table of my knights
A list, where I can see the levels and skills as well as the led, won and lost battles of my knight in one view would not only be interesting but also important for the selection of a knight for a specific battle.

a province's captain
This man could only command his troops in his province and on that way strike down rebells. After he has gathered some experience he could be deputised to a marshall.
It is also imaginable that you can only retrieve your marshalls from theses captains.

Crusades
a) place value: Crusades have a too small place value. You could adjust this over the serveroptions.
b) only christians: Only chistians should be able to take part on a crusade.
c) effect of an offering to the pope: The magnitude of the effect should be adjustable over the serveroptions.
d) Troops of an appointed Marshall: When one of my marshalls is called for a crusade, he should either be able to take his army with him and bring it back decimated or let them in a province and pick it up after he returned.
e) More Information on the called marshall: If I could select a marshall for a crusade, I'd need more information on him to make the right decision. A marshall who is currently fighting shouldn't be called so that I loose that battle.

AI enhancements
a) AI is dammed stupid: The AI is very often described too stupid and too easy to defeat. In the highest difficulty it should be nearly impossible to defeat it. Than you'll find an enemy in the game for a longer time. By the numerous possible serveroptions it would be possible to customize your own fitting difficulty.
b) declarations of war: The AI should have a reason to declare war. Not only when the time has come or the game thinks it has to be. (OK this can happen. But not always). When I make a peace treaty it will almost always be accepted with joy. A Kingdom which is very far away should normally have no interrest in a declaration of war against me.
c) royal achievements: Is the AI actially trying to achieve royal achievements? If not, shouldn't it do so?
d) Sieges: In self led battles the AI often acts foolish. It doesn't use existent tarkettles, retriets bowmen to the inner castle instead placing them on the walls full featured strongholds place their defence only on one side and it isn't after the enemy through the broken door.
e) place troops on my own: When I leed a battle on my own, I'd like to place my units on my own, too. The game places the units roughly wrong You don't have time to reposition your troops during the fight.
f) control ordunance on my own: If I want to, I'd like to have the possibility to control the ordunances on my own.
g) [/U]The enemy doesn't cut back[/U]: If I attack an enemy troop and it fled I cut back and defeat it. The AI should do that, too, if it makes sense for it.

Pillages
The Pillages don't have a very strong effect. The strength of this effect could easily be adjusted over the serveroptions and would thereby be anchored in the defficulty levels.

Graphical enhancements
a) The coast is very angular. This should be corrected.

display of the troops strength
It would be helpful if before a battle I could not only see the count of a marshall's troops, but also the strenght indicator the game uses to compute the battle plus the boni a troop could use in a specific battle. (Serveroptions: on/off)
This display doesn't have to be precise from the beginning on but when the marshalls ave become wiser, it should be more and more precise.

Battles, count of involved marshalls
More than two marshalls should be able to take part on a battle or siege. If not one very strong marshall couldn't be stopped if only any two troops of mine would be less powerful.
If there sould be a maximum and how great it should be, could be easily selected in the serveroptions.

remaining buildings tree structure
It is almost impossible to have a clear overview on the built and reamaining buildings. I'd like to have a tree structure to see them. So each building could have a fixed place regardless if it is already build or not.

balancing
a) finanial advantage: Small kingdoms should have a significant disadvantage to large ones. As it is now implemented small kingdoms can too fast become too powerful. One reason for that is that the kongdom power can chaply inceased at the beginning and this will not change after a province is conquered. Large Kingdoms have a that bad financial system (irrealistic) that even a small kingdom can be a dangerous enemy. The difficulty should raise and fall proportionally with the (starting) kingdom size.

Election of the true emperor over europe
Not everybody wants to win a game on that way. In the serveroptions there should be a switch to select if this election should generally take place and if it is relevant for the victory.

Bugs (?)
a) Election of the true emperor over europe: It can happen that nobody votes for you and even so you win that election.
b) Marshall-Rebellion: If an enemy spy is one of your marshalls and machinates a rebellion. in any case not all marshalls should take part in that rebellion, but only the that marshall's troop. The other marshalls should be and stay loyal servants of the king.
c) Spy (Province-take-over): When a spy is mercant and can over-take a province it doesn't always work.
d) Ballista -> Tarkettle: A Ballista should be able to shoot tarkettles.

province-fortification
At this time the fortification of provinces doesn't serve its purpose very well. Every soldier can break through any fortification. So it doesn't make too much sense to accet the disadvantages of taking siegeweapons with you.

Logbook and Log-Filter
a) standard events: The events, that I get through those cards on the lower left should be filterable and be written to a log like the other less important events appearing near the cards. I don't want to have that event-flood of unimportant events.
b) important events: These include erasing of a kingdom, conquering, killing of a marshall, etc. These events should be displayed in a separat chronical. With a timecounting in the game you could for example sort them by these times.

Highscore and other statistic
a) Highscore: Statistics that are shown an the end of a game should be saved in a highscore. So I could compare them with other games.
b) Statistic during the game: Additional to the already included statistics in form of lists one could integrate diagrams to compare the kingdoms with each others (Kingdom power, etc.).

List of available raw materials (avalability/digging/import/export)
a) my own raw marerials: there should be a list showing all RMs produced and available in my provinces as well as those i import. Each entry should show its origin. b) exported raw materials: When other countries by RMs from me I'd like to see this in the list as well.

merging of troops
a) in one army: If I have two or more troops of the same type in one army, there should be the possibillity to merge them if they are struck. then I don't need to throw one of them away and loose the money.
b) army spanning: This should work army spanning as well. When two marshalls meet each other they should be able to exchange troops and to merge their troops with the ones of the other marshall as described in a).

strong company of religions
a) War of religions: If I am a christian kingdom and am attacking a muslim kingdom my prestige towards other christian kingdoms could raise.
b) to drive others away[/URL]: When muslims fall in from Africa to Europe, it would be logic that all european chistians would have a raised interrest to drive them away from the continent.

[U]Alliances
If kingdoms would make more alliances and march together against one enemy/alliances, it would add more zest to the game and a higher place value to the alliances.
This occurence thould depend on the serveroptions and consequently on the diffculty level. In the easy level I of course don't want all the time to be attacked by large alliances. These Alliances should be very stable of cource as described above.

Seabattles
a) more spectacular: Seabattles could be more spectacular and diversified. Therefore more shiptypes could be avalable and the player should have a hight influence to the battle.
b) targeted attack: You should be able to attack an enemy ship directly.

enemy Spies - Chance to be attached
The chance that a newly hired knight is an enemy spy raises with the game time. Since you don't start in the open countryside, but on a historically correct europe, it would be more logic if it was always the same. At this time it is too high in the late game. For this value I could imagine a serveroption to select the chance and if it should increase with the game time.

Mods
How about a full growen modding-interface. I you had adequate possibilities to porduce a mod for this game, according to experience many users would do that. So not only the game had a longer life, but the game itself would be mor interesting, because missing features could be implemented by the community.

additional buildings
a) drawbridge

display the units' values
Each unit has specific values like plating, speed, strength, etc. It would be nice, if you could see them directly at the unit itself. This is important for the decision, which units I will build and which I will send towards which in a battle.
Maybe this is wanted by the game designers to more challenge the players, because in this way only with experience the player can become a good warlord. But other games like WarCraft have demonstrated, that it works mit these values as well.

expanding the royal court/Palast
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a graphically visible royal palast, that I could expand with all my money? From time to time you could invest some gold to make it more and more glorious. This would/could of course increase kindom power. In its cellar there could be the prison, which would be expanded with it.
This palast would be a nice gimmick to give your game a more personal note.

Provincetable - additional possibilities
a) Sortieren: It should be possible to this table by every value displayed in it; including the following ones...
b) display nostalgia: Nostalgia can become very important. So it would make sense adding it to the provincetable.
c) defenceboni: As the AI now uses heavier machines, it becomes sensible to also display the defenceboni resulting from this.

train units during camping
When units raise a (fortified) camp, they sometimes train graphically. It would make sense to let them actually train their experience in a camp up to a (through the serveroptions selectable) limit.



greetz., Lord Qudus

PS: Statements by developers, designers and admins about these points are espeacially welcome. :cheers:

Finwe
01-11-2004, 06:31
I think army limit should be eliminated. I find it highly unrealistic that the knights army is limited. I think it should maybe require higher upkeep (more food consumption. But also the ability to add something like food wagons. That raise it higher then 100).
I think that the building diversity and resource diversity needs to be raised. I think that buildings should require something more. Like stone, wood, etc.

Lighthope
01-11-2004, 21:33
There has to be a limit for practical purposes if nothing else. Think of the progamming problems if someone decided to have a million man army. (You did say no limit.)

Limits also require a player to think more. I think the limit is fine.

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - I am a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to catch up!

--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS: http://www.dwad.net
--== Give performance reviews of your boss: http://www.rateyourboss.org
--== Everlasting Films Call Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/everlastingfilms

Finwe
02-11-2004, 00:33
Less is more? No. Not really. If the limit was eliminated it'd require you to think more. Why? Because it'd eliminate the computers limit as well. You'd have much larger armies marching into your province, and you couldn't just put a prince into the province. Load up with some swordsman. And go wipe it out. It'd require strategic placement of large protective armies to protect yourselves against enemies.
It'd add more strategy in my opinion.
Programming problems? I doubt it. I've played games that have had over 1500 separate units on a battlefield. With Rome total war even enlarging that amount I believe.
And the only other programming would be the little pictures in the strategic view of the armies.

Another thing I think should be eliminated is garrison amount. 6 squads is rather sad. Although I think that armies while garrisoned should require food upkeep.

Also I think it'd be an interesting idea to have more monasteries, farms, villages, etc. As your province grows.

Largefry07
02-11-2004, 01:05
Something that I would like to see is more freedom when hiring your knights. When you go to hire a knight the computer picks him at random. You should be able to choose who you want to hire. There will be a list of knights with traits (very much like king traits). Ex:You want a mertchant. You click on the empty slot in you court. A list of knights pops up that shows their traits. The better the mertchant is the higher the cost is to hire him and his salary. You can also hire knights that have been exiled from your or other countries. If you hire a knight that is skilled but hasn't been knight before, he will still be uneducated. But he will better at what his job is. Ex. A cleric will bring in more books if he is the governor.

Lord Qudus
02-11-2004, 01:44
@Finwe: These limits should again be adjusted by the serveroptions as I think. This would satisfy everybody.

@Largefry07: This sounds pretty cool. I'll add it to my list tomorrow.

Lord Qudus

Finwe
02-11-2004, 05:28
Lord Qudus.
Sure. I could see it happening like in Total Annhilation. Changing unit limit. Buildings allowed to be built. Etc.

William Blake
02-11-2004, 06:11
I just want to say that marshals, number of units, buildings, 10k men on a field, 100 armies - that's all pointless changes. You want them, because you can't master the game. The game does not become more interesting, easier or any better if you add numbers.

YOU DONT NEED 2 QUEENS TO PLAY CHESS BETTER.


And as for multiplayer campaning - I still think that its not easy to make it playable and enjoyable. You need a new game system to play on europe in mp.

Finwe
02-11-2004, 06:44
1. If you had two queens in chess. So would the other team. Not giving you an advantage.
2. This is not chess.
3. Cannot master the game? Thats an ignorant and foolish statement. No. In fact I want it for that exact opposite reason. The game is too simplistic. I was dissapointed when I was able to destroy and conquer any nation that declared war on me. I conquered the whole of west europe. Half of the bottom middle east. And have absolutely no chance of being conquered because all I have to do when a nation enters a province is set my prince in that province. Fill the army up. And go wipe them out.

And by your logic. Why don't we go ahead and wipe out squads all together. Just use one unit for representation of each squad.

If you think that larger amounts of units, more diversity, buildings, etc. Changes absolutely nothing in a RTS game. You must have not played that many.

DocRosen
02-11-2004, 09:58
1. It's quite annoying not to have the option to pause the game during battles if you play on difficulty setting hard. Too much happens in the period of a single battle which you can't react on, which is btw. not necessary too. Why not answer a diplomatic message during battle? It would also be nice to pause the battle, zoom out to the strategic map and do what you can while the game is paused. Then go back to the battle if you wish.
2. Decrease the world game speed during battles. There is passing way to much time during a battle. It's kind of strange, that your people can errect a fishmonger in the same time, your army needs to walk across a battlefield. It would feel more realistic, if 'battle game speed' would be i.e. 1/10 of the 'strategic game speed'.

DocRosen

Finwe
02-11-2004, 09:59
Something I think should be looked into and added in a add-on/sequel besides mine and some of the aforementioned idea's. Would be to not only add more units, especially more special units located specifically to a region that was once a country (example. Blood frenzy transylvanian knights. Maybe more deadly then feudal knights. But have a high chance of revolting if the army is not filled with alot more sane soldiers. Also a high chance of revolting if they aren't kept in perpetual combat. May not be historically accurate. But it'd be an interesting thing to add with the whole Vlad the Impaler thing.)

But to add in more continents altogether. Maybe add in early americans (indians) as a playable nation. Well. Tribes over certain area's, like cherokee's etc. Like how europe is with the french, germans, etc.
Also asia. Which would be say, Japan, China, India. Also add in more of the middle east.

I also think that torturing prisoners should not lower your world power. But rather there should be a honor system put into place. That could either be benevolently honorable ruler. Or ferociously immoral and dishonorable ruler. Which could effect diplomacy & peoples happiness. If your ferociously immoral and dishonorable, diplomacy would be affected by nation size, if your small other nations would want to wipe you out by zealous anger towards your cruelty and foul ways. Also it would cause excommunication by the church, etc. If large, you'd be feared, people would grudginly bend to your ways. But would backstab you at any chance. And scheme to overthrow you.

Alfard
02-11-2004, 22:38
Maybe you can add some of these points:

- It's to easy to exile a knight (don't ask for permission)

- Option not to reveal the kingdoms ranking and information unless you have a spy there or a alliance.

- I don't use Merchants, Landlords and Builders, make them more important.

- Neutral troops must ask for permission for passing unhinderd through my country.

William Blake
03-11-2004, 01:24
1. If you had two queens in chess. So would the other team. Not giving you an advantage.
2. This is not chess.


The point is that 2 queens wont make chess any better, and 50 marshals wont make KoH any better.


3. Cannot master the game? Thats an ignorant and foolish statement. No. In fact I want it for that exact opposite reason. The game is too simplistic. I was dissapointed when I was able to destroy and conquer any nation that declared war on me. I conquered the whole of west europe. Half of the bottom middle east. And have absolutely no chance of being conquered because all I have to do when a nation enters a province is set my prince in that province. Fill the army up. And go wipe them out.


So you find it easy to play, so you want even more units, men, armies like it will matter. It won't. Untill AI is "guarding you" instead of fighting with you like it is now, no matter how big the limits are you will win.

And if you change AI to be agressive, it will win with 2 marshals against your 5, and they will attack from all other the place, whole europe will be against you and enemy armies will surround you in a second. You can win now ONLY because AI is stupid, calm and very peaceful guy, and number of marshals or units or men per squad doesnt affect it at all.


And by your logic. Why don't we go ahead and wipe out squads all together. Just use one unit for representation of each squad.

In fact it practicaly is that way from a game system prospective. But its just nicer to see 30 men per squad. And if you take a game like Age of Wounders you'll find that every unit is just a one soldier on a battle screen, so what? Its just nice to have couple of dozens soldiers per unit on a screen then 1, and 150 per squad are just blocking you view. Nothing else.

Its all about balance of eye candy vs usability. I think KoH is fine with it.


If you think that larger amounts of units, more diversity, buildings, etc. Changes absolutely nothing in a RTS game. You must have not played that many.


This game is not about numbers. Its about choices. I think 50 different buildings is a HUGE diversity and number of slots in a cities is MORE then enough. Give me one reason to make any of it any bigger. You can follow your path and choose any of them, but you can't have them all in one place. The more slots/buildings you add the more generic cities will be. And KoH is all about choice of one over another.

Numbers are created by PR people, good game is not about numbers anyway. But, excuse me, can you name any other "RTS" with more then 50 buildings and units types? Oh come on, what the hell on gods green earth you want to add? An integrated SimCity for evey province?

Cro_Knight
03-11-2004, 01:31
very well said william

Finwe
03-11-2004, 04:25
The point is that 2 queens wont make chess any better, and 50 marshals wont make KoH any better.



So you find it easy to play, so you want even more units, men, armies like it will matter. It won't. Untill AI is "guarding you" instead of fighting with you like it is now, no matter how big the limits are you will win.

And if you change AI to be agressive, it will win with 2 marshals against your 5, and they will attack from all other the place, whole europe will be against you and enemy armies will surround you in a second. You can win now ONLY because AI is stupid, calm and very peaceful guy, and number of marshals or units or men per squad doesnt affect it at all.


In fact it practicaly is that way from a game system prospective. But its just nicer to see 30 men per squad. And if you take a game like Age of Wounders you'll find that every unit is just a one soldier on a battle screen, so what? Its just nice to have couple of dozens soldiers per unit on a screen then 1, and 150 per squad are just blocking you view. Nothing else.

Its all about balance of eye candy vs usability. I think KoH is fine with it.



This game is not about numbers. Its about choices. I think 50 different buildings is a HUGE diversity and number of slots in a cities is MORE then enough. Give me one reason to make any of it any bigger. You can follow your path and choose any of them, but you can't have them all in one place. The more slots/buildings you add the more generic cities will be. And KoH is all about choice of one over another.

Numbers are created by PR people, good game is not about numbers anyway. But, excuse me, can you name any other "RTS" with more then 50 buildings and units types? Oh come on, what the hell on gods green earth you want to add? An integrated SimCity for evey province?


1. Chess is a strategy game. True. But its also evolved from its primitive foundings which I believe date back to india where it was imported around 1000 A.D.

2. I had no problem with AI being agressive. Is AI simplistic? Yes. Did they try to attack me? Quite alot. And I was at war with about 10 nations at a time.

3. More is all about strategy. Just as it takes strategy to keep more of those provinces. And to build them up fruitfully.

4. Lets sum this up in a nutshell.
Your logic. Strategy games with less selection, less units, building availability. etc. = no change.
But yet remove the amount of knights from 5 to 2, remove one of the religions, half of the provinces on the map. 50% of the units. And we'll see the change.

More does three things, it complicates, it expands, and it lengthens the life of a game. All which are the prerequisites to a good game, especially strategy. And why Lords3 was such a shamble.

It's like a 4 player FPS, and a 32 player FPS. If you think more changes nothing. Seem to have the same ideal as what Sierra had when changing how Lords2 worked, to making the shamble Lords3 (such a shame and dissapointment). They almost seemed to have that very idea.
If you want proof. Play a game of chess and remove half the pieces.

Freedom in games is a good thing. Artificial barriers are usually broken by modders, for one reason. It adds more to the game.

The game is flawed. All games are. Why you want them to stay limited and flawed is beyond me. This game is going to have to remove restrictions, limitations, and have more content to compete with games like Rome total war.
Also you proved my point in one of the above. You pretty much stated that if 5 nations got together (doesn't matter if they're small.) each using two marshals. They could wipe you out. Because you can't defend.
Limiting is horridly unrealistic. And is one of the reason why I want it removed.

William Blake
03-11-2004, 21:59
...And I was at war with about 10 nations at a time...


And you need MORE marshals, men, units power? I dont quitte follow :silly:

But anyhow, why are you arguing with me like I want to reduce it to one unit, one city, one province? I just think that 50 buildings, 18 slots per city, 50 units, 9 marshals, 9 untis per army is ENOUGH. In a battle you can have 18 units vs 18 units max, isnt it enough?

Just for the record, how many you want? 50 marshals, 50 clerics, 50 spys? 100 units per marhal army? 150? 500? 50 slots per city and lets say 500 buildings will be ok? Or not? How about 500 slots? You can't have infinite numbers, so what it will be? HOW MANY?

Seems to me that you are missing the main point of KoH - you can't have it all in one place. You can't fight 10 nations, and if you do its because AI wont press you hard enough. Play against 10 humans, even 5 - they will own you, even if they all are 1/5 of your size.

But no, you want to be like god - to beat poor AI all over the europe in one blow, with marshals at every village and armies so huge that they wont fit the screen. KoH is not about feeling "Im god, obey me slaves", its about feeling "I'm one of many, there are bigger and smaller guys around me, so I should THINK where to strike and then, because everyone has friends and I cant fight on every front".

Finwe
03-11-2004, 23:48
No. The main point of KoH is a strategic simulation of medieval europe. And that means removing artificial limitations that only impede the development of a game.

William Blake
03-11-2004, 23:49
Ok, How many of each you want? You can't have INFINITE numbers, so please, how many?

Nicolin de Odel
04-11-2004, 00:30
I'd like to add to this hole putting a prince in one of your provinces that is being attacked. If you really liked the game(as myself) you wouldn't just pop your princes into place and fill em up. Personally I've never done it, war is war, and I make it a 'real' as possible. If you lose a province face it thats what happened back then. I just send my closest marshal who is doing nothin( that includes rebel hunting marshals) and send them. If he doesn't make it in time, big deal. I've also noticed as time prgresses the AI does star buying better units, then just peasants. I lost three quickbattles in a row to Fatamid at there last city, losing all three marshals. My men had an asortment of Normans, fueds and crossbowmen. The AI has attacked multiple times as allies against me. There not as stupid as some think... People who let themselves go to war against ten others, are in my eyes terrible leaders, not just for the people of there country but to all those around them. I ve never been at war with more then three countries at a time, I kept my realations good with almost all the counrties and great with others, I was the number one most beloved leader when I finished because the game isn't all about conquering the world, which is more then anyone can handle diplayed by many people in our history, I need not say who. Its fun to take over europe in a game but doing it unethicly and of course unhonorably is just not my style. Anyway... where did this start, oh, the hole prince thing... my point is If you think the game ****s because it needs things such as bigger armies and more marshal, you should think again, like William Blake said, we are not God, where not crazy scientist striving to take over ther world, and where not wanting to say HIA HITLER, as we would have been if Hitler had his succes. The game is good without mass numbers.Personally the only changes I need in this game are the obvious ones in multiplayer such as the Tower glitch, and ownage units, which I already know is takin' care of... So some of these changes sound like they could be pretty cool, But the thing of having more marshals and more troops is well.. You get the point.

Thats all I have to say... have at it...

Finwe
04-11-2004, 02:44
How many? I figure its like a game like Lords of the Realm 2. Why should there be a known limit? No one is going to have hundreds of marshals.

There is a difference between last generation games, this generation, and the next generation. Less restriction. More content. And more choices of strategy. Its math, 200X200 is harder to calculate then 2x2. To think that less of something takes the same amount of strategical power as more is completely lacking in common sense or logic.

I think its dissapointing when a gaming community condemns the use of more strategy, or selection.

I'm done argueing. Can't logically argue with people either when they just say, "its no different", or when they compare more choices to being as hitler. If your going to bring something to an argument. Give reasons, not, "You're similar to hitler because you want the ability to have realistic historical like battles & armies!"