Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Features request for King Arthur 2

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
StrikeQ said:
The only problem with that really, is knights will all be the same for the most part. Not much diversity.
Click to expand...

Ah that's where the ability system goes. But if we're talking about the unique skills that some powerful Knights are famous for which is affected by certain statistics, then we could have interesting options:

Example: Sir Balin (Tyrant Champion) is my favorite hero in the first one because he's a Champion that has Dragon's Breath (a sage spell) early on. This makes him very lethal, cleaving an burning foes with ease. Since Dragon's Breath always works no matter how low his magic is, then what is my motivation in boosting anything else but Fight?

Reason:
1. He'll never lead an army, so Leadership and Adventuring is useless.
2. Magic only gives more mana, but his cleave improves with Fight damage output.
3. Let's not even talk about Reign.

If Magic actually modifies chance of success for Dragon's Breath, then I might be more attracted to boosting his Magic but with the King Arthur 1 classic system there's absolutely no reason to boost it.

So all Champions are set to maximum Fight and throw the rest to Magic.
All Sages go for Max Magic, then throw the rest to Fight.
Warlords can have medium Adventure to give more army mobility then the rest to Fight / Magic.

There's hardly much middle ground for diversity. The diversity comes from unique General Skills that the heroes come with. We all know why Sir Ywain is highly prized for his Soul Mirror. And Soulweaving Champions for unlimited Cleave.

If the system works like I proposed where Cleave is improved by Fight , Buffs last longer due to Magic / Leadership then perhaps I might be tempted to add spread to the points.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree, improving the effect of the less used abilities is better than slashing them, in order to give more choices.

Here are my suggestions for a stats revamping (the aim of this suggestion is to make "leader only" stats usable and viable for non-warlords, non-army leaders) :

1) leadership :
- hero stacking limits (like in the DLC)
- army wide (for the army leader), and area on the battlemap around the hero's position (for non army leader) boost to unit defense and morale (if a unit based morale system is in place)

2) reign :
- liege bonus
- recruitment and upkeep costs bonus (army-wide for the army leader, but other heroes will add their reign value to the value of the leader for their own attached unit). Moved from leadership as to make reign relevant for heroes that are actually campaigning.

3) adventuring :
- quest xp
- indirect quest xp (if hero B is in the same stack as hero A, hero A completes a quest and gain XP + an adventuring bonus to XP, then hero B gain a small amount of xp based on his own adventuring stat too)
- movement on the campaign map
- tactical combat movement bonus for the unit of the hero (or a small area of effect around him), regardless of whether he is an army leader or not. The movement bonus could be a straight movement upgrade, but it has to be balanced so as to not make it overpowered (eg. shoot and run archers ...), or it could be an easier to balance reduction to penalties on hard terrain
- hiding/ambush tactical combat bonus

4) magic :
- mana but also some spell effectiveness

5) combat :
- combat prowess and hp of the hero character in tactical combat
- attack bonus to the hero unit (all defense benefits are moved to leadership, so fight is not the default, "overpowered", ability anymore.)
 
Is cavalry momentum being reworked as well?
Currently in KA cavalry momentum resets too easily with changes in unit waypoints. Maybe lower momentum but don't reset to zero. Also the benefits of uphill vs. downhill riding should have a more dramatic effect on momentum. Uphill charge should not build momentum at all.
 
beachedwalrus said:
A few features that would be an improvement over the first KA

1) Rather then have infinite spawns of tedious battles (Samhaim in first KA, please don't do it again :)) make spawn a battle that actually have a story line or boss fight to them.
2) Randomized battle terrain or more battle map variations with different start locations
3) Ability to turn off capture points on battle map (Just battles without capture points)
4) A sandbox game style out of the box (Though i dont mind the idea of this being dlc)
5) More men per detachment of troops (50-150 men per detachment would be nice)
6) Allow users to mod unit stats for single player.
7) Difficulty levels are balanced correctly (In orignal KA, even very easy can be hard at points due to war/spawned armies)

I think most of the early press releases have covered the other issues i have such as more rpg elements and quests etc.
Click to expand...

I have to say I disagree with points 3 & 5 for these reasons

Victory locations is a nice element of strategy and offers an alternate way of winning battles with less of an army. In fact, it would be great to see more options in this regard. I hate the Total war series for an overwhelming number of men in the RTS side of the game. In TW it's nothing more than a frantic click fest and some battles go on far too long. I will say though, TW does a good job with balancing on the auto resolve option. In KA, I find you need to play all battles or lose an overwhelming chunk of units. The auto resolve is somewhat unbalanced. Hopefully KA 2 addresses that for the purpose of small play sessions. I'd like to see smaller army sizes that can be better managed for quality of play. KA plays more like a deep strategy game with the RPG elements. It makes you care about your units. In the TW series, all you have to do is churn out more units for the inevitable click fest. Who cares about your units, just make more. This part of the Total war series lack any personality or soul. Please don't turn KA2 into a frantic click fest.
 
Last edited:
Features I'd like to see:

1: Longer queues for building and research. In a KA 1 game with an Academy, the buildings that reduce Research point cost of upgrades and a knight with Scholar 4, it's not uncommon to have the year's research done by the end of Summer.

2: Related to point 1, I'd like to be able to look at the Chancellery, Stronghold and Upgrade screens in Spring, Summer and Autumn. I understand why you can only order new constructions and research projects in Winter, but I think you should be able to check what's in the queue and what laws are active at any time.

3: Province buildings/development. In KA 1, you couldn't do much with the provinces that didn't have Strongholds in them.

4: I'd like to have a way to raise the Military and Public Safety of provinces. They were the only province stats you couldn't control in KA 1.

5: Husbands for female knights would be nice to have.

6: A small bonus for having and importing a KA 1 save would be good.
 
Last edited:
I think this exploit should be removed from the game: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?528388-Artefacts-amp-Loyalty-Exploit

And please, please, no more "hidden time limits" to quest (Like the Vision Quest: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...rom-Book-2&p=12219074&viewfull=1#post12219074 ), and give a hint to players if doing a quest with a particularly oriented knight will have an effect on the result (if I am right here: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...geling-Quest-and-Sir-Bors-Need-Old-Faith-Hero ).

All in all, don't punish players for something they cannot know without reading spoilers. Rather make them have choices, for example to willingly go after Sir Bors with a Christian Knight, knowing they won't be able to recruit him BUT will then get a better artefact/bonus/whatever instead (for example).

Cat
 
Make the game in a way that you cannot as easily destroy future quests by your actions now. And really keep the gigh difficulty levels as high as their are know or make even harder difficulties. The sadest thing would be if the game was awesome, but ends up boring because of a lack of challange. It is really hard for me to enjoy a game where I just can stomp anything that comes into my way without problems.
 
I want more factions to choose from other then King Aruther and not have to pay money for a DLC, I would like to play as a faction ruled by the Evil Sorceress Morgana(I believe thats how you spell it). :D I like to be evil and not play as King Aruther, it just seems wrong playing as an Evil King Aruther, even though in King Aruther 1 he really wasnt evil just mean. but like Morgana would be the main enemy and she controlled an army of Magical creatures, that was another faction magical creature :D
 
The one feature that made the first KA a chore for me was the battle-spam. Just too many battles left them feeling less-epic then they could have been. Hoping for fewer battles this time with more emphasis/importance placed on them.
 
1. Will you add any elements from Lionheart? Weapon and army upgrade, morality system, poisens, catapults, loan,
2. Could be more army formation
3. Will be walls in king arthur 2?
4. Economic system was not realistic (not bad but could have been even better). Heroes could ask the king to let them make new markets, mine etc.
5. Will R&D change? Better to choose from two or three opportunities, not to aim to make all.
6. Strong archers were good i think (and we could turn off the strong archers in the first game, and that was cool :D)
7. Will we make/build (wall, tower etc.) some things before the battle?
8. Specialize our units with many options (havy or light armor, different secondary weapon)
 
1. King Arthur and The King’s Crusade have some common features but since both of them are unique games in a different age and land, we can’t add every element from The King’s Crusade to King Arthur 2. We keep the morality chart (Righteous/Tyrant, Old Faith/Christian) and we change the artifact management: magic items are easier to trade between heroes and you can forge new items out of unused ones or sell them for XP or gold. And yes, you can also equip some of your units with special artifacts (weapons, armours, magic items, etc.).

2. As you know King Arthur 2 is still being developed, so we didn’t decide in every question yet.
Now it’s likely that we keep the current formations.

3. Yes, there will be walls in King Arthur 2.

4. -5. We change the economic as well as the R&D system.

6. The strength of the archers will be more balanced.

7. No.

8. In the sequel you can give special traits to your units as it was in King Arthur but as I wrote before, you can also equip some of them with special magic items and heavy armour.
 
As I mentioned previously, I hope you keep the unit morale system of KA1 and not the one in King's Crusade or at least do a balance between the two. I found the unit morale in King's Crusade too difficult to control (it was dropping too fast, for either own or enemy units) and there are limited options to mitigate this effect. Need more counter-measures to dropping morale during fights.
 
I would really like to see a lot more city buildings, with an eye towards Defensive Structures, like Guard Towers, Inner Keeps, Ballista Towers, or any number of such structures that would fit in the theme. I also like being able to build up a town, but not have every town a cookie cutter system. Making choices, say only having 1200 people in your workforce, you can only support a quarry, 2 grain farms, a bakery, general blacksmith and armor smith. Having a larger number of buildings, but having to choose what each city should do, maybe based on the soil in the area, fishing nearby, mining/quarrying in the region, or say being a major trade hub, would mean you have to play with more skill, but still add more to the player's ruler decision making aspect.
 
Hassie said:
I would really like to see a lot more city buildings, with an eye towards Defensive Structures, like Guard Towers, Inner Keeps, Ballista Towers, or any number of such structures that would fit in the theme. I also like being able to build up a town, but not have every town a cookie cutter system. Making choices, say only having 1200 people in your workforce, you can only support a quarry, 2 grain farms, a bakery, general blacksmith and armor smith. Having a larger number of buildings, but having to choose what each city should do, maybe based on the soil in the area, fishing nearby, mining/quarrying in the region, or say being a major trade hub, would mean you have to play with more skill, but still add more to the player's ruler decision making aspect.
Click to expand...

I also wanted to add, since I saw it up above, but in this era of armies, many knights outfitted themselves, and the rulers and barons outfitted their more common soldiers. I would love to see your cities churn out the armor and weapons that you get to use, and be able to set up your soldiers that way, costing less to just outright buy 180 archers, but just have their equipment, and pay for their training, and salary, plus food, shelter and other things. I would love to see this also so one could upgrade their light infantry, with better made armor or weapons, or even give a light infantry a few javelins so they have a short skirmish before plunging into the enemy.

I realize this whole concept is more time consuming, more advanced than just buying armies because your alignment says you can or the such, but if this next game has everything the last game had, with a new graphic engine, it really isn't a new game. Great games are made because they push the boundaries of what has been done, and do exciting new things that appeal to more than just the RPG/RTS crowd. If you can turn off huge damage of archers, seems like you could turn off any extra feature, if it was programmed in that way.
 
For the love of god, better camera controls! King Arthur 1 didn't have a "rotate camera vertically/y-axis" and that killed a lot of my enjoyment in the battles. I had to go to the menu each time to adjust the camera to be able to enjoy my battles but also have tactical awareness.

Also would it be possible to have your troops bear your faction colors somewhere on the model? I could barely tell which troops were on whose side from appearances only, in the original.
 
You can rotate the camera vertically in the battles of King Arthur 1 by holding the middle mouse button and moving the mouse up-and-down.

Your units carry blue flags, enemy units carry red flags - these are always visible. Make sure "Unit flags" is also turned on in the Strategic settings (Battle screen - upper right corner "?") - that indicates the class type and the status of the unit.

If you have trouble telling which soldiers are yours in the heat of the battle where troops already clashed - just hit "Tab" (by default, but you can change this in the Battle Menu / Options / Controls - it's the last one, called "Mark units") anytime and your units (the models themselves) will be highlighted in blue, and enemy soldiers in red.

Hope this helps :)
 
An easy one, I don't know if it was mentioned before: autosave between two battles during AI turn. In KA1, I occasionally got kicked out of the game while fighting a minor defense battle following a major defense battle (because Windows decided it was time to reboot to apply an update, crash, etc...). As you imagine, that annoyed me to no end. So, please, autosave between battles :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back