View Full Version : What do I see in KOH
After many years of gameplay experience in KOH, I still feel thrilled at the new possibility of combining different features of KOH in a different way. I couldn't say each feature in KOH is the most outstanding one compared with that of other great games but so many features in KOH combined together make the game one of the great games ever or at least on my part one of the longest game staying on my hard disk besides Knights and Merchants
RheydterRitter
14 Jun 2007, 03:33
I feel about Knights of Honor in the same way...........I played it again and again it is just addictive because it such a great game! I love geography and Europe and I like strategy game........so I can say that KoH was the best thing that combined these things together...........
I am just waiting and hoping for a Knights of Honor 2 which would bring a Europe multiplayer mode so that I can fight my friends on LAN parties...............:rolleyes:
I love :cool: Knights of Honor!!!
Well as long as they schedule to make KOH2 I can wait. I don't care how much time.
But pl pl make a much lager battlefield which can hold more than just four knights at the same time. Let them stand shoulder by shoulder not show up at a random corner. I would like to see an epic war very much.
I remember American conquest series can accomendate 16,000 soldiers at a time on the same battlefield and what a sight! If KOH2 is not going to 3Dize maybe there is a chance.
I have tried to increase the number of a squad of footman up to 100, but trust me it is not a pretty sight. So I reckon maybe more knights with more squads at his command will save the scene.
RheydterRitter
15 Jun 2007, 19:48
That also a very good idea more soldiers. I personally don"t think its necessary to improve the graphics but the gaming concept. The most important thing for me is the multi player. I really want to play against my friends on a Europe map!!!!!!!!!! That would be my best LAN game ever: KoH in Europe multi player against my friends.............. I am waiting for BBS and I don't think I will do so in vain.
Just a small correction: Its BSS: Black Sea Studios. ;)
RheydterRitter
15 Jun 2007, 19:57
Just a small correction: Its BSS: Black Sea Studios. ;)
Dear Black Sea Studios (BSS) Team... I apologize for that........ ;-)
Dear Black Sea Studios (BSS) Team... I apologize for that........ ;-)
Come on, no worries :) ..
Personally, I would prefer if there were a bit more maps, or some additional modes (How about expansion in Asia for example?). After I reached a conquest victory I got a bit bored. Probably a multiplayer on Europe would also work for me. However, I have to say it is a great game :go: I played it for more than year after its release, then deleted it, but now once again it takes its place on my HDD.
Tzar Simeon Veliki
16 Jun 2007, 15:28
I don't think a multiplayer game on the political map would be easy to handle because a human doesn't think like an AI and his thoughts aren't so "medieval" - but mean and selfish. Diplomacy would be impossible.
Hmm, I din't think like you Tzar Simeon because in the Medieval Humans were ruling kingdoms, so it will not be so far from the Medieval reality. It'll be verry cool if you could play with 10 friends on europe... :go:
Making alliance with 4-5 of them and attaking the others or all 10 humans kicking computer's a*s :D ;)
Mean and selfish - what's more medieval than that? ;)
The problem, which I see with the KoH multiplayer, is with the battles - it would have to be either turn-based or player won't lead battles themselves (because if they do in real-time, the strategic game outside the battle continues and the player would easily lose half his kingdom). Of course, that could be left to the player to decide, like in the single-player...
I think that KoH player can play so ruthlessly only because the AI is so weak and they don't have HUMAN opponents who REMEMBER what this or that king did before.
So once you appear to be "mean and selfish" none from humans will agree to any agreement with you because he can only expect you to break it - so easy it is.
concerning the battles I don't think it would necessarily lead to the situation you Nike described. If the battles are (at least in the multiplayer) as "epic" as they are in actual KOH (that means relatively small armies and fast battles) the most important battles will be led by players.
Also when you know that you are at war with human opponent, you have to think twice before leading a battle yourself. On the other hand, what if your human opponent leads a battle himself against your best marshal? He could easily catch him in a trap isolating him from his army and kill him eventhough you are "winning decisively".
So the risk is on both sides...
Tzar Simeon Veliki
17 Jun 2007, 15:50
But we aren't medieval people, we are modern people and honor means nothing in our times ;)
does it? maybe for you...
but do you think that these people today who have no sense of honour are able to set the AI to be like a medieval character?
It is very easy: if I as player (in multiplayer) meet someone who doesn't honour his treaties, I'm not about to sign any with him and will do everything to convince other human players (who have sense of honour as I do) to wipe him out from the battlefield.
Being selfish and ruthless is profitable only against completely dumb AI which has no goals.
and btw, if our characters are that far from medieval why do we like games about midle ages? And please, don't idealize middle ages, they weren't time of honourable knights and kings. They were more of ruthless religious fanatics among whose several smart monarchs emerged. Like in today...
Tzar Simeon Veliki
17 Jun 2007, 19:03
Well this game is Knights of Honor, isn't it? :D
And after all not all kingdoms will be human. Let's say that you are in alliance with me and I ask you to attack the Golden Horde (with whom you have signed a pact of non-aggression). Wouldn't that put you in an unpleasan situation?
Or if I start taking over countries that you are trading with and so on. Or I declare war on you, take over a town and then ask for peace, giving you the province you had just lost and you accept but you find out that everything has been demolished.
P.S. Not that I wouldn't want to see a campaign multiplayer, I just think that it wouldn't be possible or at least the results wouldn't be very nice.
you just perfectly described one of medieval tactics...
I will be in the same situation like I am now ehen my AI ally asks me to atack another AI which I have non-agression pact. There will be no more nor less honour, just a dilema :go:
One of the reasons we did not make multiplayer in KoH on global map is the "peace"! Not the war! The war is easy ... Players can (and will) make war on each other - there is no any doubt. But ... will they make peace as well? Just imagine how player 1 with Aragon is offering his daughter to player 2 (France) asking for peace. I can hear the big French "rotflcopter" from Sofia :)
Of course, there is other options, and we are thinking of them. It's only too early to discuss anything.
DVladimer
17 Jun 2007, 20:45
I strongly disagree. Human players will be willing to make peace if it benefits them. I believe a multiplayer KOH would be amazing on Europe.
P.S. Just wanted to say I love KOH and KOH2 should be made.
Frujin, Is it really your belief that the peace will be so hard to make that you won't offer this option at all? ;)
Why don't you give us chance?
I myself did offer some my land and/or princess even to Ai kingdom when I really needed peace. And believe me, in those cases I was much less sure that they will keep peace that I would be against some human player.
You may say that the winning side will have no interest in signing peace. But what if they will have to fight another 2-3 kingdoms and already got the province they desired? And if they didn't, isn't it always better to wait and improve your kingdom instead of constant war?
And when someone is losing it is much better for him to reinforce his kingdom, find some more allies or conquer some smaller AI kingdom, isn't it?
so boths sides do always have reasons to sign the peace (unless the winner has only one province left to conquer), just give the players the chance...
You might be right Frujin, player A(Aragon) will probably be exterminted (sooner or later this must always be the case), but there are probably still players C,D,...
Now they see that B is a quite rude player so they will be aware of him and keep their eyes open to make sure he will not have the chance to overrun them like he did with player A.
Or maybe they even think that it is quite unfair of B to kill A that early in the game and ally against him...
There will always be players who play very aggressive, but if there are humans and not the computer on the thorne of the other countries they might get very soon aware of this.
(Maybe it would help if the player gets some character descriptions with the time like the AI-kings have like "peacefull, arrogant,..."
I absolutel agree with Kuno!
(Maybe it would help if the player gets some character descriptions with the time like the AI-kings have like "peacefull, arrogant,..."
this is wonderfull idea :go:
I think it could easily be generated from player's behaviour - from reactions to diplomatic offers/demands from diferent states
Mephistopheles
17 Jun 2007, 23:49
I think the point we should be aware of that in the medieval era there was no influence that implied this "honour"-mechanism than there would be today in a multiplayer game, provided that the game-basis allows the same mechanisms to work.
It's not like we're talking about pre-historic apes or something. The decision making of medieval rulers was just the same as it is today. The only thing that is different is that we're playing it through a game and the game-designers may have forgotten some important mechanisms that cause a specific social aspect to not work.
In KoH that would be things like inner-political struggles, dynasty development and mostly AI response. Even if 5 players say "Hey, backstabbing an ally isn't nice! We break agreements!" there are still 10 AI kings that go: "Hi! Nice day! Wanna ally with me?"
The game-machanisms of a game can propably be bullet-proofed by reading a detailed history book and looking at the game mechanics and asking yourself how what you read would work in the game. In the end almost all of these mechanisms come down to social behaviour which in multiplayer the humans already have implemented. In a sequel of KoH the AI would have to make a noticeable step up to reproduce things like pride, stubbornness, guilt, but also planning and a feeling of safety and threat.
How about that the peace agreement will be enforced in such a way that you could not break it. Say, you sign a peace treaty of "five minuts", "ten mins", "fifteen mins", "half an hour" and so on and your option of "DOW" on the other party of treaty is not available during that specific span of time. Maybe it is not reality but if anyone has to offer "his daughter" for breathing a little while, he should gain his daughter's worth.
I personally don't see peace as a problem either. It's a part of diplomacy and it would work more or less the same way, as it works in the single against the AI.
However, there's another problem, which bugs me - the multiplayer game length. How long will you play, will there be a victory condition, will there be a save? Because, f.e. you and 10 friends of yours are playing for an hour, two, three, even four! However, even four hours are often not enough to conquer whole of Europe against "the dumb AI" in the single-player, what's left against the smarter real humans? Hence probably the only possible way to win the game would be to gain all the Kingdom Advantages before the others, thus making the game into a "trade-fest". Claiming the title could cause problems, as it would contain either the top countries (i.e. AI and humans, which wouldn't think the same) or only the humans (in which case the game would be "diplomacy-fest" for teamplay). For a real possibility for a "conquest of Europe" you'd have to either:
A) Have as majority a number of small maps, f.e. "the British isles", "the Balkans and Asia Minor", "Iberia" etc. with max 50 provinces, which would ensure the possibility for a fast enough military gameplay, which could end possibly just a few hours after the start of the game.
B) Be able to save the game, which, however, brings the complication - should the host be able to load the saved multiplayer game only when all other humans are online and ready or would he be able to resume the game even when only one other player is ready to play (which would be quite unfair).
I wonder how the other games of this type have dealt (or not dealt) with this matter! Does any of the Total War games have a strategic multiplayer? :rolleyes:
Tzar Simeon Veliki
18 Jun 2007, 14:58
How about that the peace agreement will be enforced in such a way that you could not break it. Say, you sign a peace treaty of "five minuts", "ten mins", "fifteen mins", "half an hour" and so on and your option of "DOW" on the other party of treaty is not available during that specific span of time. Maybe it is not reality but if anyone has to offer "his daughter" for breathing a little while, he should gain his daughter's worth.Well, things are more complicated with royal marriages (you loose kp as far as I remember), but you are right that there should be e period after peace signing in which you can't declare war of if you do - you'll loose kp.
Well, things are more complicated with royal marriages (you loose kp as far as I remember), but you are right that there should be e period after peace signing in which you can't declare war of if you do - you'll loose kp.
that already is in KoH - if you declare war short after signing peace it dorps your KP. Also that rises importance of royal marriages: when a royal marriage is part of peace conditions, it is much better for both sides to keep the peace (the KP and relations penalty is rather high)
also there is one very easy thing how to force sides to sign peace: untill you are at war with original hoder of province you can't fully use all its resources (or buy local units etc). It would also easily help to make the AI sign more peaces (the more provinces AI occupies, the more it is willing to peace eventhough he's winning)
to the very interesting Nike's point: I think these 2 solutions you offer are the way. As for the "regional maps" I think they could be even smaller, I think the limit shuold be between 20-30 (with 50 provinces games would only be "very long" (10hrs) instead of "neverending")
As for the saves, I think they should be available to the host and maybe also to other players.. as I am defender of liberalism in these cases I think the players will have to be "mature" enough to find some time when to play all together. When someone misses the "time", he's simply substituted by teh AI.
As for the saves, I think they should be available to the host and maybe also to other players.. as I am defender of liberalism in these cases I think the players will have to be "mature" enough to find some time when to play all together. When someone misses the "time", he's simply substituted by teh AI.
Or maybe it could be determined before the beginning of the original multiplayer game... :rolleyes:
One way to solve the problem of multiplayer game length is that we begin a new game on a map on which towns are already half-developed in a random way, that is, the infrastructure is done, so we don't have to waste the first hour before we can turn out squads of soldiers. Though the pleasure of building the empire from scratch is deprived of to some degree, it is not the main focus of multiplayer game to be sure. So anytime we start, we can put resouses into a promising town as the capital or stronghold, recruit men and begin dilpomatic dynamics.
As for the victory conditions, we have a couple of choices. We set the rule at the starting of the game that the one wins who takes most of towns on the map during two hours, three or five....Also we can turn each statistic ranking into glory points and the one gets the highest comprehensive scores wins. Also we can have the "last man standing" mode, you just elimate all players on the map, in which players can gang up on the unlucky one, and on and on through dilpomatic dynamics until the last one survives. I am sure on this mode there are a lot of tricks to play under the table. Also players begin at the corners of the map in the center of which is the target town to be taken for victory, and the town is sorrunded by AI's strongholds and flood of troops. Who is the early bird ?
DVladimer
19 Jun 2007, 07:15
Few things about multiplayer. It would be awsome if it happens, real awsome, but it should be done right. Other than length of games, which maybe should be set before hand, and victory should be specified (above), what about amount of players on a map? Its going to be tough to wait for 20 some odd players to join. Maybe have players play larger kingdoms and AIs to stand in for some of the smaller kingdoms?
Also players begin at the corners of the map in the center of which is the target town to be taken for victory, and the town is sorrunded by AI's strongholds and flood of troops. Who is the early bird ?
I liked all your ideas, butI really can't imagine this. Not in KoH, especially if the maps are smaller.
If the multiplayer comes it should be as without limits as possible (unless it is necessary for the gameplay), no restrictions like: "players should be in 4 diferent corners" etc. be where you like it, pick whatever kingdom you like and have fun, that's why we all want to play multiplayer game, not to start a multiplayer session and be restricted that you can only pick several kingdoms.
As for the number of players I think 4 players should be maximum. On the giant map maybe more, but not on regional maps..
Mephistopheles
19 Jun 2007, 11:20
While reading the thread I thought of something that I propably remember from the Risk tabletop game. At gamestart each player gets political aims like "conquer these provinces", "inherit more than 12 provinces", "convert these provinces to your religion". Either the player wins as soon as he reaches the aim or he gains a certain amount of points which then contribute to how the winner of the game is selected. The important point is that the other players are not aware of your aims, so if you propose a marriage that may be a sign of good-will and wish for peace or it might just aswell be the last step to your victory. Intriguing. :)
Thinking about it these aims are very much a mechanism that resembles inner-political pressure. Local nobles demand that you expand your territory in a certain way to allow settling, a highly influencial family demands that you make a certain trade route possible, the local bishopry demands that you increase your efforts in fighting the infidels, and you have to care about it in case you gave them certain rights and now rely on their aproval to reign our nation. Perhaps the game-design should rather go in that direction instead of including these rather artificial "aims". Though in a multiplayer setting these secret aims are a very nice thing. Paranoia guaranteed. :)
A multiplayer mode should generally be planned for an infinite amount of players. Or in KoH's case as many players as there are nations. If the community then restricts itself to 4 players to keep things playable that's okay, but the game should support as many as the community could possibly wish for.
RheydterRitter
25 Jun 2007, 05:23
@Mephistopheles: I like your idea of including aims like in risk very much. :) And it would make the KoH multiplayer a unique one compared to other games (please correct me if i am wrong). Nobody would know what his opponent's aim is and the game wouldn't be like "I conquered many more provinces, I am the best!".
I like this idea , please include it Blackseastudios. Despite all good ideas about the multiplayer around here in the forum, still include the gameplay with the same goals as in the Europe singleplayer.
I personally would focus on save functions in the multiplayer mode because a multiplayer without save functions (on a big Europe map!) wouldn't make any sense.
Please leave the choice to play the game 'as it is' in the future's multiplayer.