Destroying buildings

[Adaon]

Interesting thread :)

How about almost every unit would have the ability to produce fire - but it will take some time for him, and he would be vunerable/defenseless while making the fire and while setting fire on wooden materials.
If a fire-carrying soldier is attacked, he will let the torch fall down to defend, and if he survives it he would have to enlight a new one and so on... ;)

Additionally - after battles you have won, there should be a window popping up and a captain of your forces asking what to do ...
The options were already mentioned here, but I think it should be possible to choose multiple answers - like "first go plunder, then burn it down". When plundering, not all resources should be integrated into your kingdom, some should just "vanish" 'cause your soldiers want to claim some.

Furthermore, when raiding the settlement, it would also be a boost for the morale of your troops. Not just because of the treasures your warriors might claim - after all, we all now what even the "holy" crusaders did while occupying a town...

[greywulf]

But at the same time, if you become known as a plunderer, murderer, and raper, then any kingdom you fight against should get a large morale boost simply because they know what will happen to their people if they fail.

[Adaon]

Well ... it was quite common for all kingdoms that their troops behaved this way. However, each side claimed it would be the good, honorable and heroic one and only the enemy would do these things etc.
So I think this morale-bonus you mentioned would be standard. ;)

On the other hand, if your troops never do such things, you might catch a good reputation, so it might be easier to integrate occupied cities into your kingdom (minimizing the possibility of rebellion) - simply because even the citizens of your enemy think it's not SO bad to live under your reign.
Or, as the Black Knight Ashram (I just love this character :D) once said: "The people will follow anyone that can grant them safety."

[Arjenvs]

Originally posted by Adaon
On the other hand, if your troops never do such things, you might catch a good reputation, so it might be easier to integrate occupied cities into your kingdom (minimizing the possibility of rebellion) - simply because even the citizens of your enemy think it's not SO bad to live under your reign.
Or, as the Black Knight Ashram (I just love this character :D) once said: "The people will follow anyone that can grant them safety."


Yes that sounds like a very good feature!!!! Be a good king and the people will love you and follow you...!!! Superb!!! I like it!!!:angel:

:cheers:

[Adaon]

:)

However, being a "bad (cruel) king" should also have some advantages (loot -> more resources, people fear you, etc). In the end it is up to the player how he decides to rule his kingdom, but it should definetively be possible in multiple ways.

[Cork2]

If you are a bad cruel king at some point your people woun't take that anymore and will rebel/riot against the king.

[Jerome]

you underestimate the power of fear. if people love you, they will like you untill the point where they have to pay taxes or something...

when people fear you, they might hate you, but they WILL pay their taxes...;)

[Bora]

ok, guys,.. butwe are getting out of topic,.. paying taxes has nothing to do with desttroying buildings

[Elewyn]

Do you know when people rebel? Mostly it was not when they didn't have any food, but when they expected some changes with their situation and it wasn't coming. That's true from history. But in the game it can't be like this. The true is-when they fear you, they would fear to rebel, but you can't be too cruel...

[Dheano]

Originally posted by Elewyn
Do you know when people rebel? Mostly it was not when they didn't have any food, but when they expected some changes with their situation and it wasn't coming. That's true from history. But in the game it can't be like this. The true is-when they fear you, they would fear to rebel, but you can't be too cruel...


Why it can't be true?, the game seems to be realistic enough to contain small info of this kind... If I didn't have any food I would Rebel against whoever is taken food away from me... :cool:

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Bora
ok, guys,.. butwe are getting out of topic,.. paying taxes has nothing to do with desttroying buildings

you are right, but i just mentioned this example to point out that its not always a bad thing if ppl fear you. So if destroying buildings has that effect on ppl, i may be usefull...

:angel:

[Bora]

Originally posted by Jerome
you are right, but i just mentioned this example to point out that its not always a bad thing if ppl fear you. So if destroying buildings has that effect on ppl, i may be usefull...

:angel:

yes,... but the question is how you can destroy buildings in the game and how will it llok like,... and not the reason, why people go to war and destroy buidlings in the war.
so please BTT! :)

[Emhyr var Emreis]

I'm affraid I saw one screenshot, where pikemen are destroying a house in fire :(

PS: to Jerome and Bora: I think the forum is becoming more and more complicated. You can't discuss only about topic which is in the thread-name. Someties everyone have ideas which are to be discussed in another thread, but they won't have it if they didn't read thread with another theme.

[Bora]

Originally posted by Emhyr var Emreis
I'm affraid I saw one screenshot, where pikemen are destroying a house in fire :(

PS: to Jerome and Bora: I think the forum is becoming more and more complicated. You can't discuss only about topic which is in the thread-name. Someties everyone have ideas which are to be discussed in another thread, but they won't have it if they didn't read thread with another theme.

well,... but if someone has nothing to say about the topic then better say nothing to not spam the forum,.. ;)

to that picture,... as you know the admins/moderator have said that the game is still not in the period where you can say things are finished, so there can still be changes,... and the other thing is, that the suggestions of the fans here get read by admins and moderators,... so if a lot of people say "we want to see houses and other woodenbuildings destroyed by torches and flamearrows and not by swords an pikes!" then we have a good chance that it will be so,... so when you see a picture about a ingame situation it doenst meen to 100% that it will be in the released version!

[Bora]

so as the admins/moderators have written the "icon thread"
when we (the customersn and fans) want something to change they trye to make it.
i wish that the soldiers and knights are using torches and flamearrows to destroy wooden-buildings, thx :)

so i hope some people agree with me :cheers:

[Cork2]

I think they already do. Well we know archers use fire arrows cause there was a picture or two with fire arrows, and during night the guards walk with torches.

[Bora]

actually i play the demo of castle strike and there only siege and archers (with fire arrwos) can destroy buildings. tahty nice, but íts also making me angry when i have hundrets of soldiers who stand beside instead throwing torches on the buildings, but itsb etter then see a soldier hitting a house with his sword like he woukd kill an normal enemy!

so i can say when its work in a game like "castle strike" ist could also work in knights of honor, that you only can destroy buildings with siege and fire

[Bora]

as i see on the new pics the archers to destroy the building (farm) with flame arrows meanwhile the other troops try to attack the enemy. so i HOPE you see no soldier sticking his "butterknife" into a house and try do destroy it that way :D

[Jorghan]

It's already been stated that atleast you can't destroy castle walls with close combat weapons. But perhaps infantry can carry torches and set a farm on fire.

[Frank Fay]

Archers can shoot flaming arrows.