My impressions of KoH

[Beauclerc]

I've now had the chance to spend a few hours playing KoH.

I would say that while I did the tutorial, and for the first hour of gameplay, I wasn't that impressed. But since then I've enjoyed it immensely as I've got more involved with the gameplay. Having played games that aim for realism like Crusader Kings, and other games like Medieval Total War, the system used is quite different which took a little getting used to.

I like the method used for building towns - it's simple but effective. I like the use of diplomacy as well. The idea of having knights for different roles is another good idea that works well too. The game is balanced well, being simple to perform tasks, but some variety involved to keep it interesting.

Based on first impressions there are some things I'd like to see in an updated version:

1) More logical and realistic dynasty development. I think having a family tree that makes more sense would be a great addition. Having sons that don't inherit remain in the game in a similar passage of time as their brothers would make sense to me. It doesn't need to be as complicated as Crusader Kings... just logical.

2) The same ability in negotiations that the AI gets. When a Ruler approaches me, we can only Agree or Decline. I would like to make counter offers, like the AI does.

3) When we need to make an answer Agree/Decline the rest of the maps can't be accessed. When I was asked if I wanted to inherit Flanders from the Germans when their king died, it would have been helpful to have taken a look at Flanders and it's potential before making the decision (as to whether its worth breaking ties with them). I couldn't, and subsequently made the wrong decision.

4) When you are at peace, a country shouldn't be allowed to simply march through my territory on their way to another province. They should ask me first. If I refuse, then the relationship should drop a bit.

That's my initial list. But I am enjoying the game as it is. Would like to see Paradox take this game over and get a new version out with some tweaks. Don't think it'll happen though.

[{FKR} Irish Blue]

Hey all,

It is very interesting to read everyone's opinions about KoH and its comparison to other games. I am only about halfway through the forum, but the bottom line seems to be that EVERY game has to make some compromises and adjustments and no game will be perfect. I am a big fan of both KoH and RTW, but for different reasons. Yes, there are aspects of each game that I wish were done better or differently, but the best choice seems to be to buy both and enjoy each for their unique strengths. They are pretty different games representing two TOTALLY different eras, so it seems difficult, at best, to compare them. At the very least, they are fun and may get some people to look into the actual history of both periods, which in itself is fascinating. Everybody enjoy.

P.S. Just wish there was a KoH 2....oh well.

[{FKR} Irish Blue]

After my last post, I just read ReapZ's post above and couldn't agree more. I love the fact that these games have historical accuracy while still being entertaining. I started playing RTW and it inspired to read Roman history. I have always been a big history fan (my major) and am happy to see that there are interesting, entertaining games that also contain a fair-to-high amount of historical accuracy. What better way to inspire more learning in history than through games. Unfortunately, for many young people today, this may be the ONLY history they are exposed to, so I am glad it is pretty decent. Enough preaching, back to gaming.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

[Saladin]

bout battle
- in control mode : we can call reinforcement from near army but we can't call from far place.
- in simulation mode : we can send reinforcement even from far place.
---------
guys... is this just happen to me or coz i dunno ? or KoH really need to improve in this ? :confused:

[Nani]

Hi!
Im going to start playing this game..just wonering if there is a mapeditor in this game?? i love making my owns armies and cities..?plz send back :)

[Nani]

Hi!
is there a mapeditor in this game? i love mapeditors.

[The Red Baron]

Greetings all,

I felt compelled to reply to this post about this game. I am a big Stronghold fan and while perusing one of that games forums I found a reference to KoH. I live in the US and this forum message was about the time the English demo first came out. I got the demo and LOVED it I dont know how many times I played as Scotland. I began checking in with this forum quite a bit in anticipation of the game coming to the US. Well as you know I waited and waited for quite sometime before the US release. But by that time I had been reading in this and other forums how "bad" the game was and quite frankly it scared me off from the game. Then I just happened upon the game three weeks ago in my local Gamestop for $30. I flashed back to my funfilled hours of playing the demo and took a gamble and made the purchase. I am so glad I did. I have found the game to be deep and fun. While I will agree that it is not perfection in gaming I still cant wait to get back out there conquer Europe.....Wait a minute I could be playing right now. Gotta go have some fun.

The Red Baron

[Horrific Lord]

Hi to everyone!!!

When I saw this game screenshots, I said: Imust have this game.... And I got it finally, yesterday. I start game with my country, Croatia! :) I think my friends don't know about this game but I will show them this fantastic game. I like this kind of strategic games, so what to say.... I love it!

[Anguille2]

Hi to everyone!!!

When I saw this game screenshots, I said: Imust have this game.... And I got it finally, yesterday. I start game with my country, Croatia! :) I think my friends don't know about this game but I will show them this fantastic game. I like this kind of strategic games, so what to say.... I love it!

Enjoy....and check the AARs
:wink:

[Falconhurst]

I am an avid strategist and love many Paradox titles: Victoria, EU2, etc., as well as Civilization IV.

My impressions of Knights of Honor:

Good on the whole although there are some interface issues. It is frustrating not to be able to control armies from the main map view, and on continental Europe I spend way too much time having to hunt for my armies and hunt for the rebels or enemies to stamp out. The absence of useful hot-keys is also frustrating. Even the savegame feature, instead of returning you to the game, requires two mouse-clicks ("back" and "resume playing") after a save to resume play. There are a lot of clunky issues like this where the inefficient interface leaves much to be desired. In contrast to the two buttons you have to hit after saving to return to the game, other key actions -- like declaring war -- have no confirmation step as well, and so one inadvertent wrong click can either plunge your kingdom into chaos or send you back for a saved game (hopefully you have saved recently).

The diplomacy is rather strange. I have repeatedly had my king die off only to have no heir. Hunting for a princess as a spouse (on normal difficulty) is a major ordeal. In my game last night, I was playing as Teutonic Knights and was the highest-ranked kingdom in Europe and had conquered most of Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Kiev, and parts of Germany. But when I sent my diplomat to propose to a princess (when I could find one at all), I would still get crap about "we don't need relatives who aren't strong enough to look after themselves" or "your kingdom isn't important enough" from third-rate nations like Ireland and Croatia. There is a definite shortage of princesses, and those few princesses that do exist don't seem to want to marry unless diplo relations are almost perfect AND you are a huge power. Many of the leaders and princes of my nation -- even when I had become the largest in Europe -- ended up unmarried or married to a noblewoman because they couldn't find a willing princess in ANY court. Then occasionally I get one or two sons, sometimes none -- I've never had three sons yet in any marriage. Of course it is hard to get into the whole family/dynasty aspect of rulers in KoH when you have so little control: unlike CK, you can't divorce (or eliminate) an unfruitful spouse, and all brothers and cousins seem to disappear when the generation advances, leaving each king in the same crisis of having to generate a male heir or sede the line to an unrelated family -- also completely unrealistic.

Compared to Paradox games like Crusader Kings, Knights of Honor lacks historical realism (the leader attributes and resource allocations are entirely random). It is also distinctly unbalanced and highly random. All of my games of KoH have rather bizarre outcomes -- Scotland conquering England and the continent, Jutland conquering Germany, France being crushed by Normandy, etc. It is simply much too easy for tiny third-rate powers to crush big nations, which detracts greatly from the credibility as a historical simulator. Sure, occasional surprises can occur in CK also, but the speed and regularity as well as the ease with which bizarre outcomes occur in KoH detracts from it.

Then the issue of pillaging. When farms, monasteries, etc are pillaged, they seem to never be rebuilt...not even generations of kings later, and the monarch has no power to improve his own land. Obviously this speaks to a lack of realism also, as humans can and do repair and rebuild and develop lands over time. It would be better if the farms & monasteries would come back, even if a generation later.

The lack of preservation of any distinct traits of different areas kills both realism and strategy. I have played Venice when it was completely resource-barren, and have played other nations in far less fertile areas with abundant resources. The complete randomization of resources spoils both the fun and credibility as a historical simulator, compared to the painstaking research that went into CK, EU2, and other official paradox titles. The map looks like medieval Europe, but playing for even a short period of time on a completely resource-scrambled map immediately removes any illusion of realism. Whereas playing Venice, England, or Normandy are completely different experiences in CK or EU2 due to their different resources and national traits, every country feels almost the same in EU2, with only religion, location, and number of provinces making a little difference -- but no real distinct national traits or consistent resources. This kills the replay value of KoH -- you play one, you've played 'em all, with only minor differences.

It also hurts that there are only a small limited number of spots for officers in your kingdom -- meaning that if you field an army of 4 or 5 marshalls and 1 spy, you will have trouble fielding trade with more than 1 or 2 nations, and most towns will have no landlord, builder, or cleric.

In sum, the graphics are ahead of Crusader Kings, but the realism, gameplay, and interface are behind. If Paradox and Black Sea Studios would put their heads together, they could get a really great product between them. As is, KoH lacks replay value and suffers from interface issues, gameplay issues, and lack of realism.

[Gallifrey]

After playing the game for a while, I pretty much agree with all your sentiments Falconhurst. Particularly in the areas of diplomacy (I've been in that same situation many times, I'm clearly the most dominant nation and some little pissant kingdom says I'm not strong or important enough for a royal marriage) and familiy structure.
I do disagree with your criticism of the lack of realism in small countries taking over larger ones. KoH is not a historical simulator, but rather an alternate history perspective. If the game followed the path of real-world history, there'd be little variety and few surprises I'd think. I like the randomness KoH has, and get a kick out of seeing Wales conquer England and such.

[Falconhurst]

After being spoiled by carefully-balanced and well-researched games like EU2, Victoria, and even CK, KoH is something of a shock. It's not that I think that ahistorical outcomes should be unachievable -- they should be, but it should take some real thought and effort to do. I find it disconcerting and to speak to a lack of balance as well as history and research in KoH not merely that bizarre outcomes occur, but that massive aberrations occur regularly and rapidly. In my current game, the entire Kingdom of Germany was swallowed up by Brandenburg not 5 minutes into the game! And it's not once in a while, but every game that produces bizarre results. It should be tough for a little kingdom to conquer a big one, not merely in terms of historical realism but in terms of the basic credibility of the gameplay mechanism, and yet here I see AI Scotland conquering the UK and parts of Europe routinely, and see France getting kicked around by the likes of Normandy and Savoy, Austria annexed by Venice, etc., etc. The fact that a small country can annex big ones within the course of any given five minute period of time is SO unrealistic that it is hard to maintain the notion that the game has anything whatever to do with medieval Europe beyond the map layout.

It is somewhat disconcerting to build up positive relations with a major power -- England, Germany, France, etc -- only to find out minutes later that your friendly nation has been completely swallowed by Jutland, Wales, or some other third-rate podunk state.

[Doux]

You're right there, Falconhurst. The Kingdoms and Nations just don't last enough.

I can live with the historical inaccuracy though; I want to play a fun game, not a 'correct' one.

[Elvain]

Well, you're right, Falconhurst.

In the game it's little too much.
I like the fact that small kingdoms are able to annex big guys like France etc. but not so rapidly.

So I mad HolyRome mod where this is more ballanced. FOr small states it's much harder to expand than for big ones.

[Winrich von Kniprode]

I think bigger countries should start with more than 1 marshall to avoid smaller countries to quickly conquer border provinces.

Also, other thing that really pisses me off is the starting devellopment of most cities. Why ta heck only the most important cities like Rome or Constantinople start with a stone wall? If most cities would start with a simple stone wall, the game difficulty and realism would clearly improve.

[Doux]

..but that would place them in an economical paralysis.

[Elvain]

I don't think it's the way. It would make their upkeep much higher so it will make their defensability weaker.

[weaz]

a small change that doesn"t affect the gameplay much is that towns in large nations in the beginning of the game have small advantages: they have a moat and town watch house for example.

[Elvain]

this is random

PS: hey!! that's my avatar :eek:

[Winrich von Kniprode]

..but that would place them in an economical paralysis.

Why? Maintaining walls costs money? Or is it an AI bug?