I don't see a thread up of this nature, but it seems like an obvious topic, especially given the announcement of King Arthur 2.
First off, interpret my criticism from this perspective. I really enjoy the RPG aspects of King Arthur. I understand how the original game was not intended to be a serious grand strategy title, and that many of the game mechanics work in a variety of odd ways specifically because that was not the goal. And, once I figured out what was going on, I came to appreciate and respect the decisions made by the designers on a variety of topics.
However, I think there are some things that could be improved.
1) Sorting units by ethnicity is a great idea, but it is implemented oddly. Why should all Welsh units be better than all Briton units in every way, for example? Different is fine. Different is good. But across the board better? I understand, from the RPG perspective, that making them available is a form of leveling up. However, its still jarring, and I think better handled through various forms of eliteness or specialness.
2) On that note, having the ethnicity of knights, and army leaders, tied into the performance of the units in that army would add another interesting layer. One of the games strengths is the heavy amount of unit detail, and the opportunity that gives for complicated balancing acts. Adding one more intuitively reasonable layer of balancing that must be accomplished just adds more to the game. Anything that forces players to make their armies kludges of convenience and circumstance, rather than the best possible maxed-out death-stack, is a positive in my opinion. This would also give extra value to the non-ethnic-coded generic units, that are improved by upgrading - and thus give more value to upgrading. As is, why go for good bows if you know you're going to get the Welsh Bowmen soon?
3) I like the distinctiveness of the factions in terms of units available and weapon assortment - better Welsh archers, better Saxon horse. More of this wouldn't hurt, especially if they're balanced.
4) More unique units. They make the armies more personal, and the leveling all the more cool. For example, when you get Balin, he comes with a unit of Golden Gryphons, which will be unavailable until MUCH later in the game. This squad is special. It's better than all the other heavy infantries in my armies, and I pay attention to it and its usage. This is cool, and should be encouraged. Perhaps quests whose payoff is a unique squad?
5) The tactical battles are a blast, and one of the games best features. However, I hear reports that magic breaks them, making lossless victories possible. Those who know how this is done can comment at greater length on this. However, the possibility of lossless victories points to the presence of exploitable gimmicks. The fewer of these the better. For example, if the AI can't be made competent in dealing with Sidhe Roads, then cut it. It's cool, but if it's game breaking it shouldn't stay. Some losses should be expected even from a good win.
6) Speaking of a good win, in the current game it usually means a total kill of the enemy. While cool and all, this is ridiculously unrealistic. No armies fight to the man. I really don't know how complicated or difficult it would be to have morale lead to breakage and reatreat, and I would rather keep something that works rather than break it to be more "realistic." However, a system where units break and run when they're clearly outmatched, opening up tactical opportunities on the battlefield, would add a new element to the game and keep it from seeming too much the same. Also, it would give cavalry another bit of usefulness, as one of their main roles is always chasing down retreats, or exploiting the holes that result.
7) No matter what its relative standing regarding battle strength, the AI goes for a decisive showdown in battle. It sends units for the victory locations, but it rarely tries for defensive or evasive tactics. That makes the battles much easier, as the AI can be relied upon to never stay with advantageous positions. I know there's one map with a river down the middle, and the AI loves to sit with archer-heavy armies watching the two crossing points, waiting to cut you down. That's a nasty battle because the AI plays it right, but that map seems to be the only one where it really takes advantage of a strong defensive point. The stronghold battles in particular seem odd - what's the point of a fortress that doesn't give the defenders an advantage?
8) Minor interface tweak - on the upgrades screen, it tells you what units will be available in the future, but there's no way to see what those units will be. I want to know what I'm spending money to get. Why spend to get Longaxes if I don't know what they are?
9) The XP point generating zones can be abused easily. There's no reason to allow that.
10) I've heard that the enemy heroes are toned down. Why? Also, they tend to come with very odd assortments of abilities, which tend to be distinctly sub-optimal. If I have a quest battle versus a nasty hero, he/she should be truly nasty.
11) The extensive set of buildings available in Strongholds is cool, however it's really not clear how they work/don't work when you have multiple strongholds. Further, improvements in particular towns and sites might also be cool.
12) A way to view my unit maintenance costs in a more detailed way, on both a monthly and yearly basis, would be nice.
13) Speaking of maintenance . . . from a game balance perspective, having the Unseelie units consume vast quantities of food makes sense . . . but the idea that 12 archers need three times as much food as a company of horse is just silly. Could the maintenance be made more gold-dependent, or is that really the only way to balance it?
First off, interpret my criticism from this perspective. I really enjoy the RPG aspects of King Arthur. I understand how the original game was not intended to be a serious grand strategy title, and that many of the game mechanics work in a variety of odd ways specifically because that was not the goal. And, once I figured out what was going on, I came to appreciate and respect the decisions made by the designers on a variety of topics.
However, I think there are some things that could be improved.
1) Sorting units by ethnicity is a great idea, but it is implemented oddly. Why should all Welsh units be better than all Briton units in every way, for example? Different is fine. Different is good. But across the board better? I understand, from the RPG perspective, that making them available is a form of leveling up. However, its still jarring, and I think better handled through various forms of eliteness or specialness.
2) On that note, having the ethnicity of knights, and army leaders, tied into the performance of the units in that army would add another interesting layer. One of the games strengths is the heavy amount of unit detail, and the opportunity that gives for complicated balancing acts. Adding one more intuitively reasonable layer of balancing that must be accomplished just adds more to the game. Anything that forces players to make their armies kludges of convenience and circumstance, rather than the best possible maxed-out death-stack, is a positive in my opinion. This would also give extra value to the non-ethnic-coded generic units, that are improved by upgrading - and thus give more value to upgrading. As is, why go for good bows if you know you're going to get the Welsh Bowmen soon?
3) I like the distinctiveness of the factions in terms of units available and weapon assortment - better Welsh archers, better Saxon horse. More of this wouldn't hurt, especially if they're balanced.
4) More unique units. They make the armies more personal, and the leveling all the more cool. For example, when you get Balin, he comes with a unit of Golden Gryphons, which will be unavailable until MUCH later in the game. This squad is special. It's better than all the other heavy infantries in my armies, and I pay attention to it and its usage. This is cool, and should be encouraged. Perhaps quests whose payoff is a unique squad?
5) The tactical battles are a blast, and one of the games best features. However, I hear reports that magic breaks them, making lossless victories possible. Those who know how this is done can comment at greater length on this. However, the possibility of lossless victories points to the presence of exploitable gimmicks. The fewer of these the better. For example, if the AI can't be made competent in dealing with Sidhe Roads, then cut it. It's cool, but if it's game breaking it shouldn't stay. Some losses should be expected even from a good win.
6) Speaking of a good win, in the current game it usually means a total kill of the enemy. While cool and all, this is ridiculously unrealistic. No armies fight to the man. I really don't know how complicated or difficult it would be to have morale lead to breakage and reatreat, and I would rather keep something that works rather than break it to be more "realistic." However, a system where units break and run when they're clearly outmatched, opening up tactical opportunities on the battlefield, would add a new element to the game and keep it from seeming too much the same. Also, it would give cavalry another bit of usefulness, as one of their main roles is always chasing down retreats, or exploiting the holes that result.
7) No matter what its relative standing regarding battle strength, the AI goes for a decisive showdown in battle. It sends units for the victory locations, but it rarely tries for defensive or evasive tactics. That makes the battles much easier, as the AI can be relied upon to never stay with advantageous positions. I know there's one map with a river down the middle, and the AI loves to sit with archer-heavy armies watching the two crossing points, waiting to cut you down. That's a nasty battle because the AI plays it right, but that map seems to be the only one where it really takes advantage of a strong defensive point. The stronghold battles in particular seem odd - what's the point of a fortress that doesn't give the defenders an advantage?
8) Minor interface tweak - on the upgrades screen, it tells you what units will be available in the future, but there's no way to see what those units will be. I want to know what I'm spending money to get. Why spend to get Longaxes if I don't know what they are?
9) The XP point generating zones can be abused easily. There's no reason to allow that.
10) I've heard that the enemy heroes are toned down. Why? Also, they tend to come with very odd assortments of abilities, which tend to be distinctly sub-optimal. If I have a quest battle versus a nasty hero, he/she should be truly nasty.
11) The extensive set of buildings available in Strongholds is cool, however it's really not clear how they work/don't work when you have multiple strongholds. Further, improvements in particular towns and sites might also be cool.
12) A way to view my unit maintenance costs in a more detailed way, on both a monthly and yearly basis, would be nice.
13) Speaking of maintenance . . . from a game balance perspective, having the Unseelie units consume vast quantities of food makes sense . . . but the idea that 12 archers need three times as much food as a company of horse is just silly. Could the maintenance be made more gold-dependent, or is that really the only way to balance it?
