PDA

View Full Version : First impressions and a few suggestions/comments. :)


Syt
10-10-2004, 09:24
I received KoH for my birthday, and I spent all of yesterday's afternoon and evening playing my first campaign (Sicily in the 1000 AD scenario) after completing the tutorial in the morning.

So far I must say - great and fun game. I have a blast managing my court, building up the economy, exploring the city build options and seeing the results of my actions. I come from the Paradox games - Europa Universalis 1/2, Crusader Kings, and Victoria, mostly - so this game is right up my alley. :) I love the depth of the province management, and the importance placed on strategic ressources like salt, horses or hides. Very nice, making those ressources more meaningful instead of turning them into simple cash cows.

However, while I have fun managing my little Emirate of Sicily, I start having a major concern. And that is, unfortunately, the AI behavior. Let me explain why.

In games that involve diplomacy and espionage you usually plot a long term strategy. Who do I want to make my allies? Who do I try to corner so I can beat them up? Which would be targets for subversion? Etc., you get the idea.

I tried that approach with Sicily. I cozied up with the Fatimids and Zirid. Since I was a puny island, though, surrounded by Christians in the north, west, and east, I decided to stay out of military alliances and build up my economy. I made trade agreements, sent out merchants to make money.

I didn't pay much attention to what was going on in the world, watching the war messages tick by in the message log. When I checked diplomacy again, I noticed that the map had been majorly reshaped. Zirid was gone, Cordoba reduced, the Byzantines struggling against Abassids and Armenia. Germany dominated central Europe. I re-adjusted my strategy in diplomacy, getting closer to the Abassids, and buttering up the Papacy for my long-term goal of taking southern Italy from Byzantion.

Not an hour later I had to change diplomacy again, because the Abassids got seriously whipped, the Papacy took most of northern Italy, Germany, a formerly huge Kiev, and a large Bugrundy had all crumbled, partially replaced by new states and kingdoms. With trade agreements with some of those empires, I was slowly getting frustrated, especially when the Abassids also started to fail against Armenia.

To cut a long story short - I need to re-adjust my diplomacy at least once every hour, likely as not more often, because kingdoms keep growing and falling all the time. This is neat to keep the game dynamic, but it sure makes me feel that diplomacy with the AI isn't worth the effort, because I cannot make a long term goal.

I may be mistaken, but this coming and going of Empires might be related to the AI kingdoms being constantly at war. Five or six hours into the game, the AI cities look still weak (i.e. no stone walls, few enhancements), while almost every kingdom is at war with at least 4 enemies while being allied with one or two kingdoms, if any at all. It seems the AI is too quick to go to war, too slow to end it, and generally is extremely hyperactive in diplomacy.

The AI should know when to get out of a war, when to avoid it, and when it is time to hold peace to build up the realm and make it stronger. When I conquered Apulia and Napoli, it was not much of a challenge, because Byzantion was (as usual) at war with its neigbours in the east.

On the other hand, I can spam diplomacy at will. I can pause, make offers all over Europe and see who agrees. Since most of the map will be reshaped in half an hour, it doesn't matter much, though. Should diplomacy be free? Maybe each offer/demand should have a likeliness to succeed, depending on relationships, size of the kingdom offering and receiving, etc.? And make rejected offers cost either gold or kingdom points? It would make giving gifts more meaningful and would also make the player consider their actions a bit more. Maybe also introduce a cost for diplo offers? An amount of books or gold, depending on the size of the target nation? This would even out a less active diplo-AI by placing a few restrictions on the spam-capable player.

Don't mean to sound like *****ing, but the development on the international stage seems too random, too bellicose, making the AI focus on war more than building up the realm - a balance betweent hose needs to be found to make an already great game even better. :)

Just my two cents, don't kill me.

Anduin Rastafar
10-10-2004, 13:52
and the AI builds only simpel units no special ones

Sir Turylon
10-10-2004, 19:03
The AI usually builds hordes of peasents at the start.. try playing at a higher difficulty level.

About warfare and changing diplomacy.. Welcome the the years 800-1400 AD. I think it adds a lot to a game when the AI constantly fights each other, while other countries are constantly allied with each other.

If you want a "peace for all time" try playing Civ 3. The AI is unlikely to declare war for 7/8 of the game time. Too few wars, too many alliances. KoH seems to hold more true to the qualities of what the real world was during this time.

Unending conflict, uneasy alliances, treachery, intrigue...

Tip: If you really want to form an alliance and have it stick.. try helping out your ally. hehe. Send him a few thousand in gold for a "alliance loan." Help him if he is being slaughtered. Help him kill off the loyalists and rebels.... He'll appreciate it.

Syt
10-10-2004, 20:04
Thanks for the tips, Turloyn. :)

Don't get me wrong, having a dynamic game with a decent amount of wars is ok, but it seems to me that the AI is waging war more often than it is healthy for it, putting the human player at an advantage. And please don't mention Civ3 - it was the last game I ever bought because I trusted the name. :p

I am proficient enough about history between 1000 AD and 1400, I like to think, and while there were many major changes in the political landscape, I don't recall every kingdom being at war with 4 to 10 others at any one time. ;)