Some things that would be cool to see

[BoarderJ]

Well first of all this game is awesome and has a lot of playing time ahead for me, especially with all of these good mods. But there are always some things that could make it that much better. I know most of these probably wont happen but you never know.

1. First, of all a skirmish where you get to pick your units and faction like the multiplayer.
2. Second, To make use of those keeps a capture the flag style like Lords 2. Was a very cool idea. Or if the knight wasn’t on a horse he could be the last man to fight at the top of the keep, and you have to fight to get to him to take the town.
3. Third, I would have really loved to have seen moats, I’m sure there were problems but the sieges are still good, but would have been a good addition.
4. Lastly, a way in singe player to see your unit stats as you buy them. Like in multi you can see every stat on the units, but when you want to buy a unit all it says is how it originated.

Damn maybe I should stop. So overall these would be something cool to see. Just my two cents. So what do you have to say or do you think sould be added. Maybe some ideas people have can be modded.

[Elvain]

Hi,

I think everything is possible(in a patch, not in a mod)
I like all of them, especially 2 - I already suggested this long ago (even before the first patch)

3. there were moats, at least on screenshots of pre-release game. I still didn't get WHY moats are as buildable building when there is no use for them. As it is now I never use moats. I would build them if they are visible in sieges.

[Ldvs]

I regret that one must buy our units blindly, too, albeit the units stats are rather simple to memorise. Perhaps we don't see moats when assaulting castles, but it may play a role when you just lay siege and stay idle.

[Angryminer]

The moats take effect during assaults as a 20% defensive bonus.

Angryminer

[riskbreaker86]

I would liked to have seen the naval side of the game expanded a lot. Command of the seas etc etc would have been great.

[Ldvs]

I would liked to have seen the naval side of the game expanded a lot. Command of the seas etc etc would have been great.
I have actually never played a single battle at sea. Does anyone know what happens?

[Illuminatus!]

- A built-in, user-friendly scenario creator for the Europe-map, allowing one to add nations, coats-of-arms, units, provinces, religions, buildings, etc...Would've added even MORE replay value for an enormous audience.

- Seasons, maybe?

[Angryminer]

Seasons mean that there are years. Years mean that we progress in time. Progressing in time means the game has to end some day because the medieval era ends.

Angryminer

[Illuminatus!]

Seasons mean that there are years. Years mean that we progress in time. Progressing in time means the game has to end some day because the medieval era ends.

Angryminer

By the same argument, the game ALREADY has years - the game has night and day and the game has kings that grow old and die.

[Angryminer]

Night and day don't follow any frame of time and the king's actual age is never mentioned. Also some kings become venerable faster than others. So you can't measure time by nights or generations.
But you can measure time by seasons.

Angryminer

[Illuminatus!]

Night and day don't follow any frame of time

:scratch: I'm completely baffled by the (apparent lack of) logic of that statement.

[Angryminer]

Take a watch and stop the times between day and night in KoH. There is no specific time when night comes or when the night ends.

Angryminer

[Baghera]

Now that is just weird :scratch:

[Illuminatus!]

Take a watch and stop the times between day and night in KoH. There is no specific time when night comes or when the night ends.

Angryminer

So why couldn't the same thing be applied to seasons?

[greenguy]

The day and night cycle permits the existence of a time frame, just like the passing of seasons does, although it is much more difficult to notice it (It is much easier to count to four than it is to count to 365). The time frame in the game has to be ignored in all situations otherwise you might become trapped in the games innaccuracies.

The night and day cycle is in the game as a strategic element to provide some more interesting play dynamics, but they are very unrealistic. (How can you conquer a province, travel hundreds of kilometers on foot, or building a huge stone wall in a day?)

But despite their lack of realism, they are a fun element to the game, just as seasons could potentially be. Imagine you must store enough food to feed your armies before the winter? Perhaps units would move slower in the snow?

[Illuminatus!]

Semi-random events like plagues and famine would be nice, too.

[OddjobXL]

I'd like to see some ideas swiped from Crusader Kings myself. Instead of assigning governors to provinces you'd have dynastys of local nobles, possibly subinfeudiated to other nobles, that claimed the land by right. Perhaps you could assign "household" or mesnie knights, like the ones in M&B, as administrators and enforcers like sheriffs or tax-collectors but in most kingdoms dealing with potentially unruly vassals was as much, or more, of a consideration in politics than foriegn states or even The Pope. That's something I love about games like CK or Romance of The Three Kingdoms, a sense that those "guys" have minds of their own and you need to balance your desires for expansion and development with what they want. And in some cases folks just will not get along no matter what so you're trying to delay confrontations, juggle them, until you can handle them without too many catastrophic consequences.

That's some juicy stuff.

One of my favorite parts, if not the best part, of Knights of Honor is the feeling that rulers are paying attention and not just slaves to victory conditions or treaties. The kinds of bonds that develop, and can be nurtured, between kingdoms seems to really transcend just "what's best for me" and "what are my treaty obligations" to the point some kingdoms will stick together in the face of common sense because they see other kingdoms as friends. I think that depends on the current ruler's personality to some extent but it's an abiding, cultural, factor regardless as long as it's nurtured.

In my current game I screwed up and turned down a minor ally's request for assistance because I simply forgot we were allied. He was a minor consideration and I was busy elsewhere (I think an "Are You Certain, M'lord?" pop-up when turning down a military ally's request for assistance would be a very useful - it's hard to tell who's bribing you and who's owed assistance unless you're paying close attention). That wouldn't have been a huge problem except for the fact my longest term ally, of coequal strength, who'd never failed me and never pressed a claim on my land was ruled by an honorable king. When he saw me break my duty to another ally our harmonious relationship took a dive it still hasn't recovered from.

The fact there are honorable kings out there and an AI that pays attention to what's going on, even seems to feel some sense of sentiment and duty at times, is wonderful. The next step is extending that down into the vassals and their relationships with their lord, peers, and even foreign powers.

Then I'd suggest something that was even missing from Medieval: Total War's battles. Knightly banners for units under each landholding count's command. It'd take some work but wouldn't it be wonderful if units had leaders with portraits, coats of arms, relationships and personalities? Imagine a 3D battlefield where you could glance around and really have a sense of who's who from just seeing the heraldry? Obviously we'd need battles that allowed more armies or, perhaps, made each unit under a commander, whether a royal marshal or a powerful vassal, arise from their own estates, aside from the mercenaries who themselves could be enfeoffed with titles from nobility or royalty.

Anyhow those are things I'd very much like to see down the road. I'm enjoying KoH very much, btw, definitely grows on you as you get a feel for what's going on under the hood.

[Angryminer]

The idea with different "sub-leaders" with own heraldry was discussed before KoH's europe-release in autumn 2004. We came to the conclusion that all the different banners (your own, your sub-leader's, your ally's, your ally's sub-leaders', your enemy's, your enemy's sub-leader's, your enemy's ally's, your enemy's ally's sub-leader's heraldry?) would be very very confusing...

Before KoH's europe-release there were also "desasters" like pleague and famine. The scripts for these events are still shipped with KoH (also the texts that tell you where the famine is and ask you what action you want to take, etc.), but the feature was disabled and unfortunately can't be recovered by modding.

Angryminer

[OddjobXL]

Well, considering the current 2D battlemap and smallish units it could seem a bit cluttered, I agree. Still with the right interface it could even work on that. Now, with the current collection of loyal knights (aside from planted spies) who aren't landed vassals but personal agents there's less need to be able to sort out who's who on the fly. There are only two armies on your side, both share special abilities, and odds are you don't have to worry about one of them turning on you in the middle of a fight, running away before a fight, or you harboring a desire to put him in harm's way so he dies (and removes a political obstacle) or refuses your orders thus violating his feudal obligations and leaving his lands open to legal claims.

See where this can go? The more the politics, economics and considerations of inheritance and law - along with considerations like love, honor, ambition and treachery can come through in both the strategic and the tactical the more real they feel. And by real I mean dramatic. I'd worry about who was on my flank, who was in command of the archers on the hill behind me, how well the green Archduke will perform on the battlefield - he must do well or his knights will grow uneasy, and his rivals emboldened, and I need his strength to defeat the invaders.

See where I'm going? It's certainly not a dealbreaker in KoH at all. Pulling it off would be above and beyond. But, heck, it'd be worth buying.

As for confusion and heraldry - the idea of heraldry was initially that folks using it would be easier to identify on a battlefield leading to less confusion. Keeping that in mind it, and the roleplaying-strategic considerations, it'd be an improvement on every level. It's just a matter of designing battles and interfaces to accomodate 'em.

[Angryminer]

Personally I like your idea of moving CK's knight-management to KoH. But with this massive dynasty-management many players would be vastly confused (as there is already a lot to do) so I don't believe this will ever come into KoH due to the financial risk.

Angryminer