My impressions of KoH

[dminoz]

I haven't finished a game yet, but I can tell already that I like this game a lot. I keep finding evidence that the developers think like I think; that might be a frightening proposition for them, but for me, it's very good. :silly:

Whenever I come to a point in learning the game where I wish it could do something, I always find that I can, and with something extra as well. With other games, I usually find a brick wall at some point or other :bash: with this game, I keep finding new little gems in the interface or the gameplay.

The AI's diplomacy seems good so far. I like the negotiations, and haven't found anything silly yet. In fact, the AI seems to display a fair bit of sense. More sense than me, in fact, one one recent occasion... :angry:

I know some people have some issues about the battle screen, but I like it. I don't like the 3D swooping-camera thing that some games like RTW use. I find the 2D approach of KoH just fine. I think I'd tweak the strengths of some of the units though.

I'm interested in the fact that KoH seems to be readily moddable (sic). The lack of moddability is one of my main whinges about Imperialism. I've installed the Holy Rome mod, and it seems very good. I can see a mod contribution of my own happening in time. Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror comes to KoH.

I find the whole approach much more accessible and enjoyable than any of the Paradox games. I've tried to get into EU2, and only finished two Grand Campaigns. That game is too much about wars with boring stretches of peace between them. It's also way too abstracted for me, with its sliders you can change every ten years... I also tried Victoria, read the manual twice, and started several games, but there's something about that game that just makes me glaze over as soon as I look at it. I don't know what it is, and I know some people love it, but to me it's about as boring as a strategy game can get. As for Crusader Kings, I haven't written that one off yet; the jury's still out.

I've finished a couple of Civ3/Conquests games and feel absolutely no desire to repeat the experience. I sold my Conquests CD on ebay the other day. Bon voyage.

I am, however, a confirmed Imperialism freak, and I maintain an Imp site here: http://www.strategyplanet.com/dailyimperialist/

The Imp is my favorite strategy game of all time, but I wouldn't be surprised if KoH isn't snapping at its heels very soon. I can see a KoH section on the Daily Imp site happening real soon...

So, thanks to the developers for a great game. Beautifully balanced, well thought out, and thoroughly addictive...

[Angryminer]

I have an idea why this game isn't too much like other paradox titles:
It's not a paradox title. :wink:
KoH was developed by Black Sea Studios (Sofia, Bulgaria) with Sunflowers (Frankfurt, Germany) as the producer. Paradox is just the north-america-distributor.

Be sure to release your own version of your mod here on the forums. I bet there are a lot of people around that would like to take a look at it. :go:

Angryminer

[Languish]

You know dminoz you remind me alot of how i feel about this game (and other paradox titles too)... and thats just through playing this demo. I havent felt this giddy since playing EU1....

...and Angryminer - true. I've never, ever, been able to to get into anything else but EU1. It all seems so overly complicated and somewhere along the way the gameplay disappeared to be replaced by micromanagement (gone wrong) and needing to be a maths genius to become a hot-shot world conquest player.

I havent stopped playing the demo since it arrived - and thats extremely impressive for me i can assure you. I have ordered two copies immediately - just waiting impatiently for them to arrive now.

[Elvain]

what abuot to stick this thread so everybody could write here his impressions? and those who consider buying the game might have picture about the game?

Write some basic description, what you see as positives and what as negatives. If you would compare it to other game, tell us which one(or combination of which games)

[Languish]

what abuot to stick this thread so everybody could write here his impressions? and those who consider buying the game might have picture about the game?

Write some basic description, what you see as positives and what as negatives. If you would compare it to other game, tell us which one(or combination of which games)

When i get the full game its going to be only positives! This is going to be the most genuinely biased thread ever! :D

[Angryminer]

Good idea...
*gets the nails and hammer from the basement... WHAM! ... WHAM! ... WHAM!*
Sticked.
:wink:

Angryminer

[OddjobXL]

I'm a pretty jaded gamer. Been wargaming and roleplaying since the 70's. Then computers came along...

KoH looked too RTS-like from the screenshots (which are pretty deceptive) for my tastes so I stuck with what I took to be deeper games. I approach all games from a roleplaying perspective: how much does this game put me in the mindset of someone living through this situation or conflict? RTS titles haven't traditionally done a great job of this nor have many empire building games - there's generally too much abstraction and simplification. It's possible to have depth without complication but that can be had to pull off.

Well, a friend talked me into KoH and I went on to actually read some reviews. I placed my order right before a holiday weekend so I'd have some time to get really get into it.

What's to like:

Diplomatic AI. Nations seem to have pretty good memories of who's treated them right, and wrong. Also the passing influence of a king with his own traits really can effect the flavor of international relations.

Castles: The castles really do a fine job of illustrating what the real role was in feudal society. They're bases that can't be ignored and are vital for resupplying troops and threatening enemy forces while keeping local populations in line. And the flexibility in "specializing" different cities in different ways can give each a unique flavor.

Tactical Battles: While I'll stick with my assessment of M: TW as the best medieval tactical battle engine, it didn't have much of a strategic game. KoH manages to keep the flavor pretty accurate and the tactical battles can grow on you. I haven't had a chance to try a full siege complete with a well-defended castle and heavy siege engines yet but I'm gearing up to try that very soon.

Court Complexion: Being able to select a particular array of knights sets a theme for a court and really allows you to customize your own priorities in a pretty straightforward way. Marshals in particular are interesting as they can develop unique leadership skills and specialities. Almost like heroic units from fantasy strategy-RPGs. Other knights have interesting uses but you never quite feel particularly attached to them because they advance in fairly generic ways.

Interesting Twists: Trade goods, random resources/special attributes in provinces, occasional crusades, and so forth. Keeps things a bit unpredictable and engaging.

Overall: While it doesn't have some features I'd like to see, and there are no games that have ever had all the features I'd like to see in fairness, KoH is a very addictive and accessible game. As a roleplayer I suspect it doesn't do justice to the importance of the feudal structure (vassalage, domestic politics and internal intrigues) but if you want that you can play Crusader Kings which itself can be overly complex about rather tangental concepts and lacks tactical control over battles entirely.

Conclusion: If you want a quick and entertaining medieval fix, KoH is the way to go. For most gamers this is probably the porridge that's not too hot (overly intense Crusader Kings) and not too cold (weak strategy-diplomacy of Medieval: Total War) but just about right. If they did more with internal politics and included vassals and subvassals as interesting as the nations and kings currently are, it would easily be my favorite medieval strategy game bar none.

[Ignoramus]

Well, I just got the game yesterday, and after playing the tutorial, I started an easy early campaign as Brittany. I managed to take Anjou off France, but then I accidently clicked on "Claim you Title", as a result, The most powerful kingdoms all invaded me. I had -5 Kingdon Power and was broke. an amazing game which I thoughly enjoy. Also, how do you embrace another religion.

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I think this is one of the best games I have ever played. Thats all I have to say about it. :biggrin:
@ ignoramus To get another religion click on the peity thing up in by your kingdom tresury. It will tell you what you need.

[vanedor]

I got the game yesterdays and spent the entire evening on it.

What I like.

I find the diplomacy great. A kingdom won't just attack your because you are in his way. The different leaders have a personality.

Religion actually plays an important role.


What I don't like

The battles don't look or feel realistic at all to me. We are really far from R-TW.

You never actually know the day/year you are. This was probably caused by the fact the designer wanted a day/night system while also having character grow old and army move at a realistic pace... but it really cause the game to feel less realistic.

As soon as you enter an army in an enemy province, you are aware of all what's going on in that province. You cannot be ambushed or ambush.

Fortified camps firing at enemies 20 kilometers away?!?

[Illuminatus!]

The battles don't look or feel realistic at all to me. We are really far from R-TW.

The focus of KoH is on the strategic, not the tactical, but yes, the graphics (and maybe the dynamics) could be better.

You never actually know the day/year you are. This was probably caused by the fact the designer wanted a day/night system while also having character grow old and army move at a realistic pace... but it really cause the game to feel less realistic.

Actually, I'm fairly cetain that it was caused by the devs not wanting to tie the player down to a progression of history (and therefore historically "new" nations popping up and supplanting or eroding "old" nations) as it actually occured - KoH is "what if..." with you, the player in the equation.

As soon as you enter an army in an enemy province, you are aware of all what's going on in that province.

Scouts, heralds and news brought by people could very easily explain this.

You cannot be ambushed or ambush.

That sounds like a great feature for a patch or expansion!

Fortified camps firing at enemies 20 kilometers away?!?

Eh, not sure what the arrows are actually supposed to represent, but I see them as organized "raids" sent out from a marshal's fortified camp.

[Angryminer]

1. I find the battles much more appealing than the R:TW ones. But this is a personal feeling, so I won't start a discussion on that. I just wanted to say that there are people who think KoH's battles are far superior to R:TW.
2. Europa Universalis II does the opposite to KoH: You are the interactive guest in a cinema. While you can command your troops over the place the scripts (based on histroy and never changing) will tell when big wars begin, when you can reach which technology, when kingdoms are annexed and when rebellions arise. That is a consequence of the year-counter in EUII.
The lack of a year-counter is one of the decisions why I think Frujin (the dev-leader) did his job very well.
3. Ambushs are a tactic that weren't used in the medieval. The way of fighting a war was the following:
Enter the enemy territory with your army. Now the enemy knows you are at war.
Plunder some villages or attack a castle until you have made enough noise that the enemy king comes with his army.
Fight it out on the battlefield.

Very very seldomly ambushes were used and then only on the battlefield itself (feign death for example).
4. The arrows aren't the medieval version of heavy artillery but the iconic representation of the devastation enemy troops leave when they stay a while in enemy territory. You can also see them as raids and small attacks.

Angryminer

[vanedor]

1. I find the battles much more appealing than the R:TW ones. But this is a personal feeling, so I won't start a discussion on that. I just wanted to say that there are people who think KoH's battles are far superior to R:TW.

Each his own, I guess, but I find it hard to believe lot of people prefer battles a la KOH over R-TW beside hard-core fans like you. I'm curious, what do you actually prefer in this system?


2. Europa Universalis II does the opposite to KoH: You are the interactive guest in a cinema. While you can command your troops over the place the scripts (based on histroy and never changing) will tell when big wars begin, when you can reach which technology, when kingdoms are annexed and when rebellions arise. That is a consequence of the year-counter in EUII.
The lack of a year-counter is one of the decisions why I think Frujin (the dev-leader) did his job very well.


I would prefer a R-TW like system where volcanic erruptions, Plague and earthquake still happens at the date they happened but anything(except great discoveries and changes, like marius reform) that can directly be affected by our decisions can actually change.


3. Ambushs are a tactic that weren't used in the medieval. The way of fighting a war was the following:
Enter the enemy territory with your army. Now the enemy knows you are at war.
Plunder some villages or attack a castle until you have made enough noise that the enemy king comes with his army.
Fight it out on the battlefield.

Very very seldomly ambushes were used and then only on the battlefield itself (feign death for example).


Uhm, wrong. Ambushs and such were(and have always been) pretty frequent. It's true that lot of commanders were unimaginative and only could only think of battles on flat plains with two large host head to head. But not all. Even the game promote this by having a knight skill that specialize in night attack, and attacking an unfortified camp leads to a battle where one side, "ambushed" the other.


4. The arrows aren't the medieval version of heavy artillery but the iconic representation of the devastation enemy troops leave when they stay a while in enemy territory. You can also see them as raids and small attacks.


Why is it, then, that only armies in entranched camps do such? And since they are raids and skirmishes, how is it that it is one sided : Only the entranched army deals damage to the non entranched one and if I remember well, villages, farms and such, nearby, arent attacked by the arrows of the entranched camp.

I know you are a hardcore fan, Angryminer. I remember you from back then when I was a regular of this forum, long before the game went gold in Europe. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent game, but it has a few things it could do better, and these things can be discussed. But in my opinion, give KOH the tactical battles of RTW, or give RTW the diplomacy of KOH, and, I think, we would be one step closer from perfection.

[Elvain]

Uhm, wrong. Ambushs and such were(and have always been) pretty frequent. It's true that lot of commanders were unimaginative and only could only think of battles on flat plains with two large host head to head. But not all. Even the game promote this by having a knight skill that specialize in night attack, and attacking an unfortified camp leads to a battle where one side, "ambushed" the other. This seems that you haven't even played it. There IS such feature. YOu can ambush a cam and you have big advantage in this ambsh, especially if you do that at night with "night stalker" skill

have you played the game:scratch:

[vanedor]

This seems that you haven't even played it. There IS such feature. YOu can ambush a cam and you have big advantage in this ambsh, especially if you do that at night with "night stalker" skill


Uh? Have you actually read what I wrote? That's what I said. "Even the game itself promote ambush when it let us attack an unprepared enemy camp".

However, it does not let us ambush a marching army by hiding troops in a forest, for example, as you always know everything that is going on in the country you walk in.

[Angryminer]

1. The 3D-enviroment of R:TW is quite... unnice... Soldiers float over the ground, woods look ... bad, units look edgy, the battles lack very much overview and a lot of effects are just too extreme (I find it silly that soldiers sometimes fly 50 meters after being hit by something).
Also I never felt such a dense athmosphere in R:TW-battles compared to KoH. That is propably due to the grafics.
(I'm refering to the "high"-quality-setting of R:TW)
2. In EU2 this lead to me playing like this:
"Oh yes! In two years there is going to be an event that lowers my nation's inflation! Let's print money now and raise the inflation, so the event makes it go away again!" or "Damn, in three years the protestant religion will emerge and my nation will convert to protestantism, I need to get some propably-soon-protestant friends to make an alliance with in 3 years".
That was one of the reasons why I stopped playing EU2, because it makes me feel like a PC-game-player and not ruler of a nation.
3. Do you talk about surprise-attacks or ambushs? When I think of surprise-attacks I think of attacks on camps or attacks in the early morning or night.
When I think of ambushs I think of troops hiding in the woods using camouflage to remain unnoticed until the enemy is near.
4. Raids are an advanced strategy and only good leaders know how to use it effectively. That's why you need a marshall needs a specific skill to use it, namely the tactics skill.

Please note, before I played R:TW myself I thought of it just as good as KoH. But after playing some games of R:TW I put my copy of R:TW away and played KoH.

Angryminer

[Illuminatus!]

I suppose another method of simulating ambush (without a bonus connected specifically with it, though) is clicking on the target army, finding his marching path, and if it goes across a province border that isn't under his control, you can put your armies there...a fortified camp simulates an ambush nicely.

[Lord Boreal]

Well as a long time fan of Paradox Games, even though this isn't one, I saw it on their subforums and decided to give it ago. Boy was I impressed! Credit to Black Sea Studios everybody this game is fantastic. Of course there are things with every game that I would change, but there is very little wrong with this one. I have hardly stopped playing it since I got it over a month ago. *Tips Hat*

[sivlar]

I have to agree with most all of you on a lot of points. I am pretty addicted to this game. Only been playing for a week or so and am loving it. The only thing I am dissapointed in are the graphics, they are something I would have expected from something that was released 5 or more years ago. They are pretty crappy by todays standards and are the only thing I think that takes anything from the game quality.

I also cannot stand the battles, the unsmooth and chunky movments of armies are just awful. Looks like someone is dragging a cut out peice of paper across the screen by hand. The battles in this game I find so bad, I just let the marshalls autofight and stick with mostly management and diplomacy. If this game had RTW graphics and battles we would definately have a perfect creation.

I guess I am just too used to running RTW in 1600x1200 with all the detail jacked up. Those fights are like watching a movie :) especially when you have some 30,000 people on the screen fighting. The downside though is if you have a old system or crappy video card. RTW looks and plays like crap. Lots of glitches and graphic problems unless your system can handle the load. This game is pretty system friendly and doesn't take a supercompter to run it, but much detail seems to be lost in going with the dated graphic engine.

Other then the graphics and battles, I find this game heavily satisfying my medieval kingdom management addiction. It's a lot of fun and really pulls you in. Time seems to just fly by when playing which is a good thing.

[Angryminer]

I am right of the opposite opinion: If KoH had R:TW's 3d-engine I would put it away just as fast as I did put away R:TW.
I just love the graphics-style of the KoH-artists. Lovely. :go:

Angryminer