Two suggestions to the developers.

[WickedCrustacean]

Hi, first of all, i would like to say that the game is looking very good right now. I do however have 2 problems with it, one major, one minor. The major one is that any nation can produce any unit as long as it holds the province or region where that unit is produced. I think thats gonna make every nation very similar in gameplay, and ruin replayability.If every nation could only use a certain subset of units, it would add more spice and flavor to the game. ALso, it would be more realistic and historical in a way. I mean, sure, conquerors enlisted soldiers from conquered lands, but still, english armies are know for their longbowmen, not for the french knights that joined them after they conquered parts of france.
The minor issue is the life bar(health bar) that is on top of the flag of an army unit in screenshots in battle mode view. Everything else looks really nice and realistic, but that health bar looks really cartoonish and out of place. It would look so much nicer if there was just a flag and nothing else. I hope to hear how everyone feels about these things, developers and forum members.

[Haegemon]

Every country only will have soldiers of their land and conquered lands not from other regions, but you are free to enlist them or not.
It's true that replay can be boring in this way, but I can't see any solution to this, cos the objective of the game can't change, and playing other countries with diferent characteristics will be boring equally at the end.
I prefer a long and dificult game, with maximum historical and realistic battles and behaviors of IA.

[Jorghan]

That is not a health bar. It's a bar displaying unit morale.

[WAR_PIG]

I think what will happen is that when you capture a region which enable you to create unique units you will only be able to produce them in that region. IE: If you conquer England as France I doubt they'll let you make longbow men in Paris just like MTW.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by WAR_PIG
I think what will happen is that when you capture a region which enable you to create unique units you will only be able to produce them in that region. IE: If you conquer England as France I doubt they'll let you make longbow men in Paris just like MTW.

That's correct - if read in thread that Frank said something like that.

The special units are specific to certain regions only.

[Elewyn]

My point.
When you as king of France conquere England and Wales, you can produce Longbowmen only in Wales and some english realms(regions), nowhere else! That's first.
The second is that I really hated Warlords II. where I could produce ONLY units of my nation. I was elvish and when conquered dwarven town, I could produce there only elvish troops. I think it's far more silly. Imagine, you are playing for France, you conquered England, Scotland, Norway and got some Russian realm from your ally and everywhere you can produce only french feudal cavalry and templars. Like you imported templar order into Scotland and Russia, where no longer is their specific culture. And when some other nation conquere it from you, they will change it? Vikings in Spain, when Sweden holding Navarre? Saracens in England? hahaha!!!!! Sorry it's very silly to be able to produce "national" units instead of "local/regional". That's my opinion, you can disagree.

[Frank Fay]

Howdy WickedCrustacean, welcome to our board.

but that health bar looks really cartoonish and out of place.

As Jorghan said it is the morale bar. But in that particular reason the bar changed a few times to make it looking understandable. It has four different colour codes for the stages and the spots have a meaning too. Our QA really liked it and this is a case were funcitionality wins over realism. However I dont know how a morale bar will look realistic? I even dont know how morale looks like ;)

All I can say, when you play you will see how handy it will be.

[Bora]

Originally posted by Frank Fay
Howdy WickedCrustacean, welcome to our board.



As Jorghan said it is the morale bar. But in that particular reason the bar changed a few times to make it looking understandable. It has four different colour codes for the stages and the spots have a meaning too. Our QA really liked it and this is a case were funcitionality wins over realism. However I dont know how a morale bar will look realistic? I even dont know how morale looks like ;)

All I can say, when you play you will see how handy it will be.

i think it will work!
actually MTW also had moral in the game.
1. basic moral --> you could see the "basic moral" in the description of the unit.
2. leader of the army give also moral or lower the moral, if he is a coward. coward leaders where also gentle described as "good runners" :D

the thing that disturbt was, that you didnt see the actual moral of your troops. so i think a "moral bar" is pretty usefull.
you also could make a "asking feature"
means you klick your unit to see how the moral is. but that would mean a lot of work 4 the player.

[Jorghan]

To ask the units constantly would be micromanagement, and it would be kind of micromanagement I want to do without.

[Haegemon]

Maybe a button to hide/show global morale bars.
Really don't mind me. :D

[Frank Fay]

Well, a bar in World View shows global morale of the army. In Close View each squad has a morale as the morale is squad based. If one squads morale drop does not mean another does too.

But the look of the bar is as you can see now. It worked best so far.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Frank Fay
If one squads morale drop does not mean another does too.


Well Frank, i know that KOH is not a simulation, but don't ya think that if one unit's morale drop and they panic and stats fleeing the battlefield that this wouldn't have an effect on the rest of the army morale :scratch:

btw, can a unit, low on morale, flee the battlefield by itself ?

[Frank Fay]

don't ya think that if one unit's morale drop and they panic and stats fleeing the battlefield that this wouldn't have an effect on the rest of the army morale

We tested and still test the morale and so far no complaints how it works so far.

I personally think the morale should only be affected by what enemy is doing to me (kills a lot of my friends) but not if my squad has already a morale loss is penalty enough. I dont need to have a squad retreating because another retreat. And if you think a bit further, it can even lead (theoretically) to a chain reaction = big mess.

btw, can a unit, low on morale, flee the battlefield by itself

If morale is too low, the squad is fleeing. Only player can decide to retreat.

[Elewyn]

I think if one squard is fleeing, it should have influence on others a bit at least. When you stand against the eneby behind first squard which begin to flee, it influence you.

Btw, it was cause of wictory of english forces in battle of Crécy 1346. First squards of Genoan crosbowmen and french knights begin to flee and all french forces turned to total mess. Of course, they had low morale before the battle also.

[Jorghan]

Originally posted by Frank Fay
If morale is too low, the squad is fleeing. Only player can decide to retreat.

So you will allow a more ordered retreat, I don't have to flee the field? That would be great.

When it comes to morale spreading between units, I think that's definitly a very important part of battle. A lot of battles ended with the whole army fleeing.

[ArmosaDrako]

I think the game if fine as it is, just my opinion :)

[Bora]

Originally posted by Jorghan
To ask the units constantly would be micromanagement, and it would be kind of micromanagement I want to do without.

well that is what i have sayd and why a bar is better then to do it "by hand" or to see nothing :rolleyes:

[greywulf]

Ordered retreats mostly only happened when the victors were either too tired to pursue or had better things to do, like pillage a nearby town and so on.

A chain reaction of retreat often happened because an army is more then just independent groups... the whole army's morale matters. When groups on the battlefield saw their fellows being cut to pieces, they got nervous. When that unit was cut to pieces so bad that they start to flee in retreat, every unseasoned man on the field starts to get very worried. Depending on the morale of the whole army, the competence of their leaders, a few broken units can cause everyone to turn and run. That's why veterans have always been so important on the battlefield. No matter what they see, they stand their ground while the less experienced run. Look at Napoleon's Old Guard at Waterloo. Look at Hannibal in Italy, Alexander at Issus, Tokugawa at Sekigahara... it happened everywhere.

This is a pattern repeated throughout all recorded world military history up until the last few decades. So it would be nice to see a global morale for the army, and when units start to retreat, it should affect everyone but the most experienced troops. It would be a nice feature and just mean people need to think a bit more about how to fight and where to fight.

[Jorghan]

Ordered retreat would also allow harassment, where no real combat occurs. For example, you start storming a castle, fire some with the catapults, and realize that you can't make it, so you withdraw. This is hardly fleeing. The same thing if a somewhat larger army engages a smaller army, and the smaller army is better fortified. Then the larger army may wish to withdraw and wait for the smaller army to get out of cower.

[Frank Fay]

You can withdraw before a fight starts....


once it started you can flee = may cause casualties....