So I tried the demo out and I've got some questions to ask

[Jahuu]

This is one of your regular "Which of the following bugs/features exist in the actual game?" - Questionaires, so here goes: (All questions based on the demo)



First of about the map mode:

I noticed that the trading system is pretty awkward. What I mean is that I start out playing Bohemia and I get a flow of +3 gold pieces. I then choose my king and tell him to trade with Germany for something like 35 gold. BOOM! My income just tenfolded and more! (It went to around +30). So:

1.Is there some sort of a risk in putting my king or princes to do trading or governing? (I know that if I send them spying or fighting there is a risk they die, but what about trading and governing? Do I get an increased revolt-risk or something to discourage usage of king as a governor or merchant 24/7?)

2.How does the trading system work excactly? What miracle stuff did Bohemia produce that was such a necessity for Germany? Is the trade system a real one (based on actual buyer/seller ratio) or a phony version just giving everyone gold and luxury (a'la EUII).

3.Is there anything bad in having a gazillion family members running around? Are they risks of some sort? Or simply kings-to-come and free non-risk civilians able to bring in some pretty nice income?



Now regarding combat:

A few simple, but very decisive questions that I dind't quite find out in those few quick battles I fought:

4.How is the archery? Is it RTW-terrible? ie. Can you simply ignore everything but horse archers and use them for running around the battlefield shooting like mad as the enemy attempt to approach you and the battle ends with you still having ninety arrow sets left and the enemy is running with 10% of their men left with your casualties being two and even those from friendly fire?

5.What's the morale-casualty ratio? Are battles decided by one strong phalanx unit scaring the tossers out of a horde of peasants or is there actually a point of playing somewhat historically and preferring quantity over quality?

6.To unite the two above: Is this game about teching like hell, sailing around the world to Crete, buying Cretan Xnipahzor archers with mad bonuses for no particular reason and then owning everyone without one friendly casualty (MTW, RTW, Paradox games, 5-star general series...) - or is this combat balanced and capable of supporting varying playing styles?



Apologies if I sound too pessimistic, but I've simply had it with RTW and the like promising everything and turning out to be games of bug-abuse. Based on the demo it looks pretty good and in addition the game agrees to many things and doesn't try to be all-in-one and one-in-all (ie. Multiplayer is battle only, so that the campaign mode can actually be a fun and balanced one, and not a horrible preemie like those of EUII and Victoria.)

[Gallifrey]

1. The only risk is that you'll lose them through death. Kings die, and when a king dies all his sons go with him (I guess they're buried alive with the king or something). Merchants don't need to be placed in a governor position, they can trade from the court. If you do put a royal in a city as governor, I'm not sure what happens if that province is taken, if they're killed, captured or just return to the court.

2. Trade that generates gold income is just miscellaneous trade, nothing specific. There are trade goods however, which provinces can potentially generate depending on the resources available. Different buildings can generate trade goods. For example a Wine from a Winery if the province has Fertile Soil.
These goods you can trade specifically for.

3. You don't have to pay for hiring royals to a position, whereas you do for promoting someone to a job. If you've got royals, you might as well use them as they're free and if they are princes they won't be spies belonging to another country (which is a risk you run if you just hire from the rank and file).
Royals can die, but that's the only real risk. If you lose all your princes, your kingdom could be in trouble when the king dies without an heir.

As for combat, I really can't answer as I always go for autoresolve rather than manually fighting battles. I'm more interested in empire management than micromanaging wars, which is why I like KoH over the Total War series.

6. No, the game is not like the scenario you describe. Some provinces have special units, but you only have access to those units if you own the province. So if you want Welsh Longbowman, you better own Wales. As far as tech goes, each province can only support a limited number of buildings, so you need to specialise each one for the most part. Province features are random too, so provinces aren't always the same from game to game. Local units are always the same (ie Highlands always has Highlanders for example) but their resources will change. So you don't always go for one province because it has good stuff.

Hope this helps?

[Borsook]

Now regarding combat:

A few simple, but very decisive questions that I dind't quite find out in those few quick battles I fought:

4.How is the archery? Is it RTW-terrible? ie. Can you simply ignore everything but horse archers and use them for running around the battlefield shooting like mad as the enemy attempt to approach you and the battle ends with you still having ninety arrow sets left and the enemy is running with 10% of their men left with your casualties being two and even those from friendly fire?

5.What's the morale-casualty ratio? Are battles decided by one strong phalanx unit scaring the tossers out of a horde of peasants or is there actually a point of playing somewhat historically and preferring quantity over quality?

6.To unite the two above: Is this game about teching like hell, sailing around the world to Crete, buying Cretan Xnipahzor archers with mad bonuses for no particular reason and then owning everyone without one friendly casualty (MTW, RTW, Paradox games, 5-star general series...) - or is this combat balanced and capable of supporting varying playing styles?

4. Archers are generally less efective than in TW series, winning battles just by using archers only is very hard.
5.Depends. Quantiity does count, more than in TWs anyway, but AI is at a loss with morale during the battles, it often tries to charge freshly rallied units without waiting for them to regain confidence, so they run again and again...
6. Theoritically combat is pretty balanced... the trouble is battle AI is very terrible, much worse than TW series (at least in my opinion).