Realism

[Pioneer]

Will it be possible to ransom knights?

Henry V killing his noble prisoners at Agincourt was something of note because it was usual for the ruler or even individual soldiers to ransom knights. Given the scale this would of course be abstracted to a gain of money if a ruler opts not to kill his prisoners and the loss of this gold if he does as well as the likelihood that his knights would not be released through ransoming.

[Tedman333]

They should just have a Strong Walls "on" or "off" switch like in Stronghold MP. I don't mind have guys tear down walls but I would like it if only seige equipment would.

[Gordook]

Pioneer, you are right. In fact that is what I was saying. Soldier-farmers are still farmers and farmers in those days were peasants. My point was, aside from garrison troops, there were no standing armies. After the hostilities, the troops went home to tend their lord's lands. And don't underestimate the power of peasants. Henry V conquered France with his peasant army of longbowmen.

[Moorkh]

Hmmm...


This discussion of the feudal system and medieval warfare in general is very interesting. However, it should be considered thatthis covers almost 1000 years of history in a culturally very heterogenous area. Not just technology but indeed society evolved immensely in this time span, and very differently in individual regions of Europe. The wars (and means of recruitment) of germanic tribes (who partially 'invented' the feudal system) had very little in common with those of the Vikings, of Richard Lionheart or of a renaissance city state.

As this evolution and variety can impossibly be implemented in a game (well - never say never ;) ), KoH will have to choose a simplified, static model of one particular time/region's system. Maybe the one we know from the southern HRE around the 13th century, fleshed out with chivalric ideals to define the rules of diplomacy, engagement etc.? Whatever it will be, it will have to be pretty much fantasy, just with enough historical plausibility to give it an illusion of authenticity that satisfies most of us. Gameplay and balance considerations should be just as important.

For myself, I really hope they will include as many aspects as possible, peasant levies as well as chivalric warfare, early standing armies and mercenaries - all with their major strengths and flaws.

[Pioneer]

Standing armies brings up a point that might be of some game play interest. One of the barriers to standing armies as opposed to a militia or temporary levy even when agricultural or trade surpluses might have borne it was the sense that it was repugnant to liberty. This was particularly a factor in England that was later transmitted to those settling North America. What magnate would in his right mind would allow his king to hold something like a standing army over him? The monies would never have been voted for such a thing as a standing army. A standing of sort was however created by Charles VII ( 1470-98 ) but only after defeating a section of his nobility.

My idea is that a ruler who is taxing heavily to support an army rather than, say, the construction of a church, would face grumbling from his tenants-in-chief be it lords or bishops would be worried that a ruler keeping a large force in being is intending to tamper with their liberties or immunities. So peasants might rebel if taxes were high and food was short. Magnates might rebel if those taxes are being used for something potentially coercive even if peasants are content.

[Siegebreaker]

Well, I think only siege equipment should be able to breach the walls.

Can anyone name one single castle assault without siege equipment?

[Moorkh]

Originally posted by Pioneer

My idea is that a ruler who is taxing heavily to support an army rather than, say, the construction of a church, would face grumbling from his tenants-in-chief be it lords or bishops would be worried that a ruler keeping a large force in being is intending to tamper with their liberties or immunities. So peasants might rebel if taxes were high and food was short. Magnates might rebel if those taxes are being used for something potentially coercive even if peasants are content.

Now this sounds more suited to the limitations of the game - I expect to see some trade-off like this as a penalty for a standing army. Alternatively, consider the huge armies used by both sides in the hundred years war (I would consider them 'standing' even though far from a regular army). Whenever there was a lull in the war, both rulers could neither afford to disband them (they'd turn mercenary for someone else or outlaws) nor to keep them on their own lands (they'd plunder it to death), so they had to keep them always on the move, raiding neighbouring lands when possible. An interesting trade-off, I think. :)

edit: blatant typo corrected :p

[Moorkh]

Originally posted by Siegebreaker
Well, I think only siege equipment should be able to breach the walls.

Can anyone name one single castle assault without siege equipment?

Lots of, actually - revolting peasants weren't usually siege experts and destroyed many a castle.
Besides, many castles weren't taken by assault, but by treason, negotiation or stealth. :)
Still, it is certainly true that castle walls could not be breached without heavy siege equipment during an assault. Overwhelmed, though, if you don't consider ropes, poles and maybe a few hastily built ladders 'siege equipment'.

[The Preacher]

Originally posted by Pioneer
My idea is that a ruler who is taxing heavily to support an army rather than, say, the construction of a church, would face grumbling from his tenants-in-chief be it lords or bishops would be worried that a ruler keeping a large force in being is intending to tamper with their liberties or immunities. So peasants might rebel if taxes were high and food was short. Magnates might rebel if those taxes are being used for something potentially coercive even if peasants are content.

Originally posted by Moorkh
Now this sounds more suited to the limitations of the game - I expect to see some trade-off like this as a penalty for a standing army. Alternatively, consider the huge armies used by both sides in the hundred years war (I would consider them 'standing' even though far from a regular army). Whenever there was a lull in the army, both rulers could neither afford to disband them (they'd turn mercenary for someone else or outlaws) nor to keep them on their own lands (they'd plunder it to death), so they had to keep them always on the move, raiding neighbouring lands when possible. An interesting trade-off, I think. :)

Great ideas you guys. This would really enhance gameplay and prevent building of mass-armies used for "tank-rush" tactics. :cheers:

[Frank Fay]

As said before, the army does cost upkeep...means if your army is too large, your inhabitants may not like it :eek:

[Greeny]

As said before, the army does cost upkeep...means if your army is too large, your inhabitants may not like it

A few minutes on the rack should persuade them otherwise... ;)

[vyanvotts]

Originally posted by Greeny
A few minutes on the rack should persuade them otherwise... ;)

lol i do hope torture will be in this game....not that im sick...but its fun watching little pixel people get tortured by your own hand:D