Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

No kingdom management?

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.
Neocore_Kate said:
Added RPG aspects:

A lot more quests, story is way more important
A lot more complex skill tree for heroes
Monsters that are impossible to beat limit where you can go in the beginning of the game (you still have enough space to explore and expand in an almost free way - only the borders are drawn by these armies) - because we don't want you to ruin future quests
Artifact Forging - more item sets
Different types of heroes carry different types of artifacs (only spellcasters=Sages can carry a staff and so on)

New features that add to the gameplay on the Campaign Map:

Dimplomacy
All locations are upgradable on the map - a lot of empire building!

We still hope you will like this new mix :)
Click to expand...

Thank you for your quick response. :)
 
glitforce said:
We do like the new additions, I mean at least I do. I love them. I'd still like the kingdom management back though. If you'd start a DLC, or even better, KA3 in a couple of years, I'd like the old management system + improvements on that system + the current additions + more additions. lol, a bit greedy there, I know ;)
Click to expand...
I second that. For King arthur 3 of course.

For the pacing problem there has to be an alternative. Even greying out the areas that you are not supposed to go to yet (with a kind of fog of war, so you can't click it or go there) would be much better. This way you will be free to upgrade the army as you see fit (through research for example), instead of twisting it into a tool to limit map progression.
 
There are aspects that I like on the removal of food and kingdom management. No steady income is a large constrainjt, it makes decisions where to spend money more difficult. In KA1 I would just build everything in every castle (as much as the number of building slots allowed). As well as going for every tech.
 
Clegane76 said:
I almost couldn't be more disappointed. :( I enjoyed the prologue quite a lot, but I had also assumed that the deeply-missed kingdom management aspect was absent only in the streamlined introduction campaign. I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that it was scrapped in its entirety. I'm still going to play the game and I imagine I'll still enjoy it quite a lot. The Prologue was plenty enjoyable. But I'm afraid my potential for true enjoyment is now capped by the realization that one of my favorite aspects of the first game is gone for good.
Click to expand...
+1
 
There's a certain amount of strategic management in trying to decide which kingdoms to, well, bribe to improve relations, and the different ways you can set about it. I miss the less linear, many optional quests feel of the first game, but how you spend your money seems even more important, here.
 
AlistairNY said:
Does it matter what you do to the other kingdoms? They haven't had any effect on my playthrough at all.
Click to expand...

One achieved a sufficiently positive view of Pendragon for me to secure an alliance. Several others aren't there, but I've got a good enough rating to do a one-shot buy on better armor for one or two heavy infantry, better horses for cavalry: higher values for different things under the RPG surface.

Rather wish they'd kept in the roundtable, though, perhaps with a cracked appearance that improved as you moved through the chapters. Was an easy point of access to view all your knights.
 
At first the removal of kingdom management did annoy me, but have come to see its removal as a wise choice in regard to the pace of ka2's campaign.

In ka1 the strength of your economy dictated how many armies you could deploy and how strong they were, but in ka2 where you have a fixed number of armies for the story it is served better by not having a stable revenue stream and instead forcing you to rely on the spoils of war and make tough choices as to what spend your limited funds on.

That's not to say I wouldn't welcome a return to the more open ended approach of ka1 in this aspect for a future ka3 (i sincerely hope it does well enough to warrant a sequel, i like this series!), but for the way the campaign works in ka2, they made the right call with dropping kingdom management imo. Other aspects like diplomacy and artefact crafting being beefed up means its not like the overall strategical elements in between battles have been dumbed down.

Also from a narrative point of view, arthur in ka1 was the one managing the kingdom while the knights went on quests and lead the armies. In ka2 his son is out questing and leading the armies rather then managing the kingdom and building irrigations, so can give the devs an excuse on this one ;)

AlistairNY said:
Does it matter what you do to the other kingdoms? They haven't had any effect on my playthrough at all.
Click to expand...

You can ignore alliances and stuff just fine, but are richly rewarded for delving into diplomacy. Various permanent upgrades for your heroes and army and even lore, the few ways of getting a revenue stream, access to special units and artefacts and even new ladies/knights (ok this hasn't happen many times...Twice each I think).
 
Sure, I've done all those things, but none of them seem to matter much. It's a cool system but it doesn't actually seem to contribute anything much.

I expect we will shortly hear about DLC which is just a 'take over the map' scenario, like the Saxons DLC for the first game say.
 
Honestly, I am GLAD food is gone. Food is the reason I never could finish KA1 it was either food or money but I never had enough of both. Never, with it gone now I don't have to worry about things to much I can build my massive armies and get down to playing the game.
 
No economy to manage and being so heavily reliant on questing for every form of progression makes the main campaign extremely dull. There is hardly any thought involved in where your army moves. Also good bye to replay value sigh.
 
Yes, lack of player options kill replay value. Really though there is no war in this game it is what I would call an on the rails total war game. The first game was a diamond in the rough, I thought they would expand upon that... Epic fail of a sequel... Fun enough for me though.
 
I was getting interested in this series, too bad that gamers are almost unanimous here and in other forums that the sequel sucks... Kind of reminds me of the Red Faction series and the disappointing Armageddon after the promising Guerrilla. Guess what, going linear after giving your players a taste of open gameplay is suicide.
 
^On rails total war sounds about right. Personally I see this more as the spiritual sequel to warhammer dark omen.

But gonna have to disagree with the above statements declaring coldy the game is "fail" and that "sequel sucks". Seriously? It's one thing to be annoyed that the game isn't like the 1st one in many respects, but outright declaring it's bad because of it?

Why can't devs do something different if they wanted? Surely the important questions to ask are "is the game fun", "does the new mechanics work together?", etc, rather then basing the game based on how it compares to the 1st.

I'm meh at having to play the defensive fanboy here, but to me you guys are a tad overdramatic with the "all gamers everywhere are unanimous that this is horrible game" rhetoric, especially when some of your suggested fixes (adding economy to ka2 in order to get stable income) would harm the game and make it less fun as it would clash with the way the ka2 campaign works.

As a sandbox total war game, ka2 isnt like that, I think we all agree on that. Maybe they will add an open world campaign in a DLC, would be shame to waste that massive gorgeous map after all. But in meantime ka2 should be considered as a driven campaign rather then an open world one and judged on those terms, not least so as to offer actual constructive criticism to the devs on what they tried that didnt work and what they tried that worked, rather then just bawing "its not open world like ka1 therefore game sucks and is worst game ever and the whole net agrees with me too".
 
frenchfrank said:
^On rails total war sounds about right. Personally I see this more as the spiritual sequel to warhammer dark omen.

But gonna have to disagree with the above statements declaring coldy the game is "fail" and that "sequel sucks". Seriously? It's one thing to be annoyed that the game isn't like the 1st one in many respects, but outright declaring it's bad because of it?

Why can't devs do something different if they wanted? Surely the important questions to ask are "is the game fun", "does the new mechanics work together?", etc, rather then basing the game based on how it compares to the 1st.

I'm meh at having to play the defensive fanboy here, but to me you guys are a tad overdramatic with the "all gamers everywhere are unanimous that this is horrible game" rhetoric, especially when some of your suggested fixes (adding economy to ka2 in order to get stable income) would harm the game and make it less fun as it would clash with the way the ka2 campaign works.

As a sandbox total war game, ka2 isnt like that, I think we all agree on that. Maybe they will add an open world campaign in a DLC, would be shame to waste that massive gorgeous map after all. But in meantime ka2 should be considered as a driven campaign rather then an open world one and judged on those terms, not least so as to offer actual constructive criticism to the devs on what they tried that didnt work and what they tried that worked, rather then just bawing "its not open world like ka1 therefore game sucks and is worst game ever and the whole net agrees with me too".
Click to expand...
Is ka2 fun ? yes, but not nearly as much as ka1 to me and it seems to many others as well so it fails at being a good succesor to ka1 for us.
After ka1 most of us probably had high expectation for ka2 and were hoping for an upgrade to the first game and instead got a nice but trimmed down version of the game (with some addition but there were more gameplay/feature removed than added).

Also you are talking about how wise it was to remove management because it would hurt the campaign but that probably came as a package, they made that type of campaign because of that choice. If they wanted to make a game with management in they would have just made a campaign system around it as well. Unfortunately, I dont think that is something that can be fixed in a patch or dlc for those who want a whole campaign a la ka1.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree with frenchfrank on this one. The "wargame" aspect was somewhat de-emphasized, but on the other hand, the "roleplaying" aspect was expanded (much more choices for diplomatic quests for example). It's a change of focus, and I can certainly understand why it may be a disappointement to some - but saying that the whole thing is a failure is an opinion, not necessarily a fact. Personnaly, I love the choose your adventure quests, missed them in the open sandbox-y saxons/druids DLC, and the quest driven story was what drew me into the first game - and those elements are pretty strong in the new game.
 
When I said the game was epic fail of a sequel I meant just that, as a stand alone game it is decent I had fun with it, as a successor to KAI it is a massive disappointment. A sequel does not gut features it adds them and improves upon what already is in place. I thought this game was going to be my fantasy Total War that the first hinted at this did not come to be. I will say that far more people like open ended games vs games that lead you by the hand.
 
I'm starting to suspect that those who got the most enjoyment out of ka2 were those who played the 1st for its rpg elements rather then its total war aspects, kjeld speaks my opinion exactly, right down to saying he missed the adventures in the DLC.

Can certainly understand why if all you wanted was a "like ka1 but bigger and better", you'd be a tad disappointed. All ya can do is hope neocore takes these suggestions to heart for next game (if there is one, inchallah) but the deed is done now.

Cloudbusting said:
Also you are talking about how wise it was to remove management because it would hurt the campaign but that probably came as a package, they made that type of campaign because of that choice. If they wanted to make a game with management in they would have just made a campaign system around it as well..
Click to expand...

Aye, this is why people suggesting to put kingdom management back in the campaign or asking for ways to make easy money without drawbacks makes my eyes roll. The campaign is designed in such a way that adding economy and revenue like in the 1st would make things way too easy, though perhaps the gold rewards for challenging difficulties and such might need to be changed a bit from what I saw in other threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back