King's Court 2 [Quenched]

[Kabanellas]

I'll darken the hexes

as for the castles neutral starters at 8 - they could probably be reduced to 6....or 7. Actually they're the same as in King's Court, but here they're part of the bonus so that's why I'm a bit hesitant on that...

[Kabanellas]

however the negative effects seem a little insane... I would put it at -3 at highest I think.

Actually, I was thinking on raising them, more than reducing them

The King is very important here, and also a bottle neck. I don't want those bonus to be too high and easily defensible. Note that you have a -5 for each castle but a +2 for each counselor, village, and knight....

[Kabanellas]

and i think ive found a smal bug with bob on this map:
Under the game time i see the folowing; Objective Summary Emperor ==> The King(?)
This shoud be; Objective hold the king, 6 castels, nobels and knights.

right?

Thnaks Genaral

actually that's a problem with BOB reading the XML - it only appears the part of the bonus that is a single territory (the King). All the rest where inserted on the XML as continents. So you have the King (which is a territory) + 6 Castles (introduced on the XML as a continent - 6 castles combined) + 6 Knights (the same here) + 6 Nobles (continent as well)

It's like on Conquer Rome, you see all the objectives but not the 4 barbarian tribes, which were introduced as a continent.

[Gillipig]

Hasn anyone said anything about the docks yet?
I find moving around the map is a bit too easy when they're as low as 2's. I suggest raising them to 4! It's not like this map will ever be hard to move around on anyway. A 2 seems a bit too low when you're able to show up almost anywhere on the map with it. Especially as the docks also can give you bonuses.

[chapcrap]

There are some issues/points that i'd like to focus concerning gameplay.

• -Should the neutral starters on the King (6) be higher or lower? or are they fine as they are.
  -Should the negative effects (-5) be higher or lower when holding a Castle and the King? or are they fine as they are.
  -And what about the positive effects of owning the King? are those bonus too high?
  -Should the neutral starters on the Councelours (4) be higher or lower? or are they fine.
  -Are the neutral starters (4) on catapults too high? And the ones on the Trebuchet (4) ? - on King's Court we have 3 neutral starters on both

I had an extensive discussion about the King in one of my games. I think the level of the bonus there is a good one. I think it is fair. I would not reduce the negative effect. Increasing the negative effect could be ok... I haven't actually seen the King in use yet, but it seems good to me.

As far as neutrals starters go, I think 3 for the catapults and 4 for the trebuchets is good. I may even say 5 on the trebuchets. The King and Counselors neutrals starters seem fine, IMO. The King could be raised 2-3, but I don't think it's ridiculous where it's at.

I think that Gillipig makes a decent point about the ports. I would start them all at 3 instead of 2 I think.

[J_Indr]

Instead of increasing the ports, would it instead make sense to limit the movement to something like the adjacent ports? It would limit the jumps across the central sea which cannot ever be prevented / supported by the corresponding land movement? It would also prevent the attack on all ports from any ports taken. There is a potential problem which I encountered in a Trench game when the first person to reach the port (and some castles have a distance advantage for doing so) can very quickly establish bases all around the game plan and it is really hard to break this position.

By the way, I think HJ2 knight should not be able to attack N29 due to the impassable forest??

[Kabanellas]

About the Ports…. Some of them already start with 3 neutral troops. Those that are better positioned for the nearest Castles.

Anyway, I don’t have any strong conviction/opinion concerning the Ports, mainly because in the (several) games I’m playing they’re not being used. Which is, by itself, somewhat elucidative....
I think people tend to avoid them on fog games, because they’d be opening some kind of Pandora box, making their position known. Not keen on raising them...

J_Indr, you’re right about N29 – I’ll correct it asap. Concerning that limit to the movement, I don’t think that the current XML can allow that. Apart from choosing trench warfare on the game selection ...

[Kabanellas]

XML - updated:

http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/KC2_Version2.4.xml

[Gillipig]

Concerning that limit to the movement, I don’t think that the current XML can allow that. Apart from choosing trench warfare on the game selection ...

From what I understod we suggested that PO7 for example should only border PO6 and PO8 instead of all PO's. That would limit locking up all docks in one turn when you use trench warfare. It would also make it harder to get to the other side of the map without spending some troops on the way. Make it the way Archers connect to each other. They connect to it's two closest Archers which makes it impossible to just show up on the other side of the map without taking down a lot of regions. I think the way docks are set up now they neutralize the value of Trebuches. With docks you can reach some regions of the map even faster than with trebuches. And you get to keep the regions you assault.
I think a reason why not many are using docks now in the beginning is that we're used to KC1, so we use the territs we're familiar with.

[thenobodies80]

XML - updated:

http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/KC2_Version2.4.xml

Sent to the turtle!

[chapcrap]

Concerning that limit to the movement, I don’t think that the current XML can allow that. Apart from choosing trench warfare on the game selection ...

From what I understod we suggested that PO7 for example should only border PO6 and PO8 instead of all PO's. That would limit locking up all docks in one turn when you use trench warfare. It would also make it harder to get to the other side of the map without spending some troops on the way. Make it the way Archers connect to each other. They connect to it's two closest Archers which makes it impossible to just show up on the other side of the map without taking down a lot of regions. I think the way docks are set up now they neutralize the value of Trebuches. With docks you can reach some regions of the map even faster than with trebuches. And you get to keep the regions you assault.
I think a reason why not many are using docks now in the beginning is that we're used to KC1, so we use the territs we're familiar with.

Well, that's not really how archers connect to each other. They connect at certain distances, not just the two closest.

And, I think that the attacking abilities of the ports is fine. There is no reason to allow them only adjacent attacks. Boats can go across a lake, can't they?

[Gillipig]

Concerning that limit to the movement, I don’t think that the current XML can allow that. Apart from choosing trench warfare on the game selection ...

From what I understod we suggested that PO7 for example should only border PO6 and PO8 instead of all PO's. That would limit locking up all docks in one turn when you use trench warfare. It would also make it harder to get to the other side of the map without spending some troops on the way. Make it the way Archers connect to each other. They connect to it's two closest Archers which makes it impossible to just show up on the other side of the map without taking down a lot of regions. I think the way docks are set up now they neutralize the value of Trebuches. With docks you can reach some regions of the map even faster than with trebuches. And you get to keep the regions you assault.
I think a reason why not many are using docks now in the beginning is that we're used to KC1, so we use the territs we're familiar with.

Well, that's not really how archers connect to each other. They connect at certain distances, not just the two closest.

And, I think that the attacking abilities of the ports is fine. There is no reason to allow them only adjacent attacks. Boats can go across a lake, can't they?

Sorry my bad. That usually means the two closest though .
Well of course boats can move across a lake. But it takes longer time to get to the other side of the lake than to somewhere nearby.
The attacking abilities does prevent problems in trench apparently. And since trench is from now on a part of our features we should at least consider how it works on it. How big of a problem this is, I don't know because I haven't played trench on it.

[deantursx]

I would also put in a vote for having the ports not have as much range, perhaps they could be adjacent to the 2 nearest docks

[Kabanellas]

I'm not totally closed to limit Ports range, but never to the adjacent ones though... That would make ports redundant and disinteresting. Anyway, the concept behind Ports on KC2 was to crate a feature that add a transversal characteristic to the game. Avoiding the circular motion of KC1.

[Kabanellas]

Has anyone tested the Cathedrals and the College of Cardinals?

[eddie2]

Has anyone tested the Cathedrals and the College of Cardinals?

yes i used it yesterday problem i also see is the king does not reset next turn like king court 1 also you cannot fort from the nobles to the castle. which you could king court 1

[Kabanellas]

yes, that's intentional. King is not a neutral killer, and nobles' firepower will remain on the Court

[J_Indr]

I've used the College of Cardinals in the Trench game.

It is a potential killer in 1v1: If you grasp one of the court officers and simultaneously bomb the opponent's noblemen, victory is basically yours, because you capture the king without them being able to do anything about it - then if you don't manage to break them you can at least secure the condition. So if they don't know the map, and you play with fog, you can leave one monastery grow in 10 turns while fighting them on land and sea and then rather quickly end the game.

[chapcrap]

Again, I would not change the way the ports function.

[Genaraln7]

Kabanellas about the port problem isent it an idea to just remove the bonus to the ports? There are aready enough bonus lands on the map and the ports are only there for transport right? And if i see correctly you aready get a bounis for connecting your villages to your port...

[ViperOverLord]

Is the 2 knights to 1 castle plus one bonus working?

I took 2 knights on my first turn and my deploy did not increase.

Game 10980603

[J_Indr]

Is there any point in village 10? I can't imagine it being used in any game
(I mean, you don't need to remove or change it, but in order to make it useful, the archers around the nearby castle would have to be arranged differently)

[chapcrap]

Is there any point in village 10? I can't imagine it being used in any game
(I mean, you don't need to remove or change it, but in order to make it useful, the archers around the nearby castle would have to be arranged differently)

This is true. I thought that in one of my games. It's really hard to get over to that village. It will most certainly never be used except in stalemates.

[Halmir]

Sorry to be picky (although I'm good at it ) but "Chamberlain" has been mis-spelt with an "n"?

Looks great otherwise !

[ViperOverLord]

Is the 2 knights to 1 castle plus one bonus working?

I took 2 knights on my first turn and my deploy did not increase.

Game 10980603

I'm still having this issue in another game. Can someone please explain to me why 2 knights and a castle is not adding up to the plus one bonus? It does it in KC1 and says it does it in the key on kc2 but it's not giving me the bonus. What am I missing?