View Full Version : The thing I fear most about this game...
greywulf
14-12-2003, 23:17
I agree with vanedor. Unless you all just plan to sit on your thrones and stare out the window every now and then, there's got to be an ability to take command in everything, despite how unrealistic it is. Slowing and speeding up time, along with pausing in world view would be a great feature. Pause however should not be included in battles, and I wouldn't want to see different speeds either. Battles should be about tactics on the fly, not pausing the game and deciding what to do, nor speeding it up. The developers have said after all that battles will be fast paced. I would like to see some complexity and reality involved in KoH's battles, and having a pause feature will take away from that.
If you mean pause on the world map though while you're fighting a battle, then I agree. I want the option to fight all my battles, not have to rely on AI to fight it for me. Without the world map pausing, there could be 17 battles going on at a time in my kingdom, and by the time I'm done fighting one particular battle, my kingdom may be gone.
Gorgoroth
14-12-2003, 23:36
You are not forced to use a pause function. This not means, that others won't use it. :)
Originally posted by Gorgoroth
You are not forced to use a pause function. This not means, that others won't use it. :)
Yeahh, you're right no one is forced to use that damn pause button so it really doesen't matter if it there - don't use it if ya don't want to :) as for the rest of us pro-button-supporters please let us have it !
greywulf
14-12-2003, 23:47
I agree but I would rather see the developers spend their time getting us a demo rather then incorporating speed functions into battles.
Originally posted by greywulf
I agree but I would rather see the developers spend their time getting us a demo rather then incorporating speed functions into battles.
Me too :p
Speed option is kinda standard in strategy games. It has good chances to be already coded in KoH. And if it's not, it's not as if it was something very difficult to program, an option to modify the internal clocks...
And even if there isn't a speed option there will still be a pause button.
And here's another thing-the developers have said that the A.I. of the game can manage almost all of your empire-that means that it can be set to reply to your messages or fight little battles while you lead the battle of the century:D !I am s**** that it will be that way-otherwise the devs are liers -and they're not!
Richard Plantagenet
15-12-2003, 06:28
well, my concern is this.
if you are getting attacked in multiple realms, what would happen then? surely you can not fight 2 wars in close up view. do you fight 1 yourself and auto the other? what if you really wanted to fight them both personally??
:(
We'll just have to wait and see!
Gorgoroth
15-12-2003, 14:32
Yeap....talking about this...I can't wait for an in-game video.:cheers:
greywulf
15-12-2003, 17:34
yes, a video would be nice.
The last thing I want is AI having any control over my empire. It's not technologically possible yet to write an AI that will actually adapt to what I want my empire to be and do everything to way I tell it, so I hope you can "choose" to use AI, or do everything yourself, like me :go:
Originally posted by Richard Plantagenet
well, my concern is this.
if you are getting attacked in multiple realms, what would happen then? surely you can not fight 2 wars in close up view. do you fight 1 yourself and auto the other? what if you really wanted to fight them both personally??
:(
If you have a Knight in charge of those armys protecting the other realms then he will fight the battles for you while you are fighting the other one.
"If you have a Knight in charge of those armys protecting the other realms then he will fight the battles for you while you are fighting the other one."
Don't present this as a fact since you don't know, unless you are a member of the dev team.
Having an ai knight fighting for us is exactly what lot of people here, me included, don't want to have. Afterall, a good part of the fun in this kind of game comes from controlling battles.
Originally posted by vanedor
Having an ai knight fighting for us is exactly what lot of people here, me included, don't want to have. Afterall, a good part of the fun in this kind of game comes from controlling battles.
Yes, you're right that's exactly what we wanna do :) BUT ! I have read somewhere that in end of a game the player will control aprox. a 100 cities and what would you suggest we do if 3 or more were attacked at the same time ? :eek: Should the game offer you to sorta put the battles in a row and then you can fight each battle I.e first fight battle #1 then move on to battle #2 etc. or should we have a knight pop-up saying "Would you let me fight this battle for you ?" and if you say no to this, then the battles would be put in a row and you could then do as i mentioned above ?
There could also be a problem if you insist on fighting all the battles yourself, cause if you wish to fight all the battles yourself then the game "history" would have to "freeze" cause the story may depend on wether you win these battles or not I.e. the gameworld are supposed to be a dynamic world as far as i understand it - this nut is really tough to crack :cool:
All of this also raises a worry that i'm beginning to feel and that is that the game are so huge that you are not able to control everything properly and if that is the case then it will be the down fall for this game, so I would really like to hear from the devs about this issue also.
Richard Plantagenet
16-12-2003, 00:46
Originally posted by Henrik
Yes, you're right that's exactly what we wanna do :) BUT ! I have read somewhere that in end of a game the player will control aprox. a 100 cities and what would you suggest we do if 3 or more were attacked at the same time ? :eek: Should the game offer you to sorta put the battles in a row and then you can fight each battle I.e first fight battle #1 then move on to battle #2 etc. or should we have a knight pop-up saying "Would you let me fight this battle for you ?" and if you say no to this, then the battles would be put in a row and you could then do as i mentioned above ?
There could also be a problem if you insist on fighting all the battles yourself, cause if you wish to fight all the battles yourself then the game "history" would have to "freeze" cause the story may depend on wether you win these battles or not I.e. the gameworld are supposed to be a dynamic world as far as i understand it - this nut is really tough to crack :cool:
All of this also raises a worry that i'm beginning to feel and that is that the game are so huge that you are not able to control everything properly and if that is the case then it will be the down fall for this game, so I would really like to hear from the devs about this issue also.
well, another problem of allowing battles to be queued up is it allows reinforcements to join areas under attack while the battle is waiting for an outcome.
Originally posted by Richard Plantagenet
well, another problem of allowing battles to be queued up is it allows reinforcements to join areas under attack while the battle is waiting for an outcome.
Yes, but only if the game doesen't freeze during you battle and i don't think that it would work if the game don't freeze.
Allow me to repeat myself: we really need to hear from the devs about this issue.
Exctely what is your concerns i really can't see it.
You are afraid that several battels are due at the same time, on the other hand you are crying out for different realm collors, supply wagons, weather and so on to enhance the realism, but on the other hand you wanna be abel to command several battels that takes place at the same time.
What king in history have ever managed to be 2 places at the same time ???
Take sige of 1 battel and let the not so important be managed by one of your knights.
Anyway i wanna bet a million $ you will get tired of slaughtering pathetic peasent rebelions with your elite heavy cavalary.
What comes to controlling alot of towns, i don't see any big problems if the dev's will hold what they promise, a easy to control interface, and knights that will be abel to take charge and run towns.
After all when you have control of many towns you will need some towns to just produce food, wood and stones, and if i was a dev i would implement a region/town managment mode, where you give that town/region a task and the knight there will optimise the production with that in mind, and you will never ever again have to think of that town/region only enjoy all the fresh supplies it provides:cheers:
Only a guess but i am dam sure it's something along those lines.
ES> I'll agree with you, I also think that the devs will provide us with some kind of a management tool and i'll also agree with you that i would feel very annoyed when i had to fight a rebellion army of peasants for the 100th time in the same game. but i also think that the player should have an option to fight all the battles himself if he wish to do that - though as i have stated above that this could give a few problems for the game's "world".
Originally posted by vanedor
Having an ai knight fighting for us is exactly what lot of people here, me included, don't want to have. Afterall, a good part of the fun in this kind of game comes from controlling battles.
You will have an option of having the knight fighting the battles for you or having you fight the battle.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.