Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

King Arthur - The Role Playing Wargame

humorguy

Novice
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
38
All I know is I love this game and been playing it for just over a week and put 40 hours in.

I have read this whole thread and it's easy to see the intelligent from the idiots. The intelligent know their only an hour in, or are playing the demo, so they keep quite and play and learn. The idiots play the game for 10 mins and then go into a diatribe about how it doesn't do this or that.

Other idiots bemoan things that are all about this game not having $20 million spent on it and bitch about the tiniest things.

The intelligent however learn the game and give good long interesting previews that are read by the intelligent who then learn and not by the stupid who then ask questions that have been answered!

Overall,I can see why this game is STILL under the radar - 2 months after release, and that's because there is too many gamers so full of themselves that any game they don't understand within 2 minutes is crap and unplayable!

So well done those idiots - you know who you are - you have probably stopped a great publisher from getting enough sales to move forward,and it will now have to move sideways - leading to those same idiots saying there is not enough difference in the next title!

Gamers are their own worse enemies and I can see so clearly from this thread why pc ONLY games are so few and far between!
 

humorguy

Novice
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
38
With regard the posters on this thread yes. Other threads no.

have you looked back through the thread and thought all the points were made by intelligent gamers?
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
humorguy said:

So it is good for what it is?

No need to blame players for being stupid. Each and every developer has to predict his target audience. Look at Paradox. They know what the fans want and they give it to them. KA:TRPWG (in short king arthur) tries to be both complicated and totalwar like. IE it tries to appeal both to intelligent pc players and total war fanbase. And we know that in most cases 'intelligent' and 'total war fan' is a complete opposite. IMHO what we have here is a developer that wanted to please all and received due punishment.

If something wants to be good for everything it will be good for nothing. And it is true for games too.

My 0.20 cents.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
zool said:
humorguy, more like angryguy, amirite?

moar like "nohumor" or "angrycunt"

he plasters every thread about King Arthur with half-intellectual rants and bad abuse

btw how long am I supposed to play the game before it gets interesting?

I played Shogun Total War for 20 minutes and was ecstatic. That was in 2000, when a lot of "intellegent" guys were apparently still in crèche.

IE it tries to appeal both to intelligent pc players and total war fanbase. And we know that in most cases 'intelligent' and 'total war fan' is a complete opposite. IMHO what we have here is a developer that wanted to please all and received due punishment.

yes, maybe that is the true problem
 

humorguy

Novice
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
38
GlobalExplorer said:
zool said:
humorguy, more like angryguy, amirite?

moar like "nohumor" or "angrycunt"

he plasters every thread about King Arthur with half-intellectual rants and bad abuse

btw how long am I supposed to play the game before it gets interesting?

I played Shogun Total War for 20 minutes and was ecstatic. That was in 2000, when a lot of "intellegent" guys were apparently still in crèche.

IE it tries to appeal both to intelligent pc players and total war fanbase. And we know that in most cases 'intelligent' and 'total war fan' is a complete opposite. IMHO what we have here is a developer that wanted to please all and received due punishment.

yes, maybe that is the true problem

This from the guy who played the KA demo for 10 mins and then slagged the game off in every way possible, and then had intelligent gamers that had kept quiet while they LEARNT the game told him he was wrong in so many ways and you replying just replying with 'oh!' and then slagging it off again in another way, all without playing the game at all, reading the manual or in any other way learning the game - this to me is totally self-centred and egotistical. In other words, you act just like a 'suit' so your avatar is very fitting.

It's quite obvious to me that RPG Codex is not moderated at all, and this has attracted people like you.. I feel sad for the more intelligent posters, who all seem to have stopped posting and seem to have gone to other forums, leaving people like you that have no idea at all about what it means to be a PC gamer.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
go, go, you are really gonna move my heart. Can I have a dollar for every time you write 'intelligent'?

You are a true natural, and you should change your name to reflect that (how about 'ShakespeareWouldBeEnvious').

Btw I didn't play just for 10 mins, more like 5 hours and it wasn't the demo either.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
Yes, general agreement here was that it is a pretty nice game. But I don't see why should we force people who disagree (GlobalExplorer) to accept that. It is called, you know, opinion.

So humorguy either you are fascist who can't accept diverging opinions (note that I don't dislike fascists) or just a trollguy.
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,404
Location
Djibouti
GlobalExplorer said:
Btw I didn't play just for 10 mins, more like 5 hours and it wasn't the demo either.

Well, I got hooked pretty much from the start, so I'd say if you didn't like it after 5 hours, I doubt you'll like it at all, since I guess you've already established a stronghold and stuff (that's a 'turning point' ending the 'tutorial' phase).
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
StopStopStop! Where did I every say I disliked the game? I just tried to get into it and it didn't do anything for me. All the way it was: been there, done that.

all I said was:

- tactics (battles) are shallow compared to other games
- balance is fucked up

and

- no modding means both^ can't be fixed by gamers

with the conclusion that the developers still must learn a lot.

now comes some dyslexic fanboi and throws abuse at everyone who criticizes the game. Do I really need to take him serious?

P.S. I will definitely give KA a second chance, when I am in the right mood.
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,404
Location
Djibouti
GlobalExplorer said:
StopStopStop! Where did I every say I disliked the game? I just tried to get into it and it didn't do anything for me. All the way it was: been there, done that.

Weeeeeeell

btw how long am I supposed to play the game before it gets interesting?

I assumed that since it didn't get interesting after 5 hours, it's generally uninteresting, and therefore, you don't like it.

now comes some dyslexic fanboi and throws abuse at everyone who criticizes the game. Do I really need to take him serious?

Of course not.
 

Flanged

Scholar
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
395
This game's great. Been replaying battles in the demo's tutorial for a couple of days now, working out new strategies and trying different army set-ups. The battles might be somewhat stripped-down compared to Total War, but the units move at a more reasonable speed, giving you time to plug gaps in your lines and react to events and plan ahead without having to pause much or slow time ('cos you can't in this).

Charging your hidden light cavalry out of the forest into the flanks of a bunch of brigand archers is as good as it's ever been - and is as devastating as it should be, for once. There are balance issues - Wasteland Warriors, and Giants, are supposed to be fearsome beasts, but I'm only ever scared of the aforementioned brigands. Archery is overpowered (to the point of realism, actually) but I hear it's been patched now to tone it down a bit.

Use the little tab with a question mark on it at the top right of the battle screen to change settings before battle (it was stupid to have everyone set to "fire at will" and "don't hold your range - recklessly chase targets into the heart of the enemy army!" by default).

All in all, the game gives pleasure. Some of the text mini-quests make no real sense at all, though.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
Archery overpowered is realistic? Let me guess: you base it on hundred years war and english longbowmen.
This is bullshit. Archers were, at best, troops specialized at harassing enemies and causing their formations to break due to massed fire.
They werent efficient killers. Shields and armor were very effective at stopping arrows, not to mention problems with required training and the fact that only longbows, late discovery, were somewhat good at long ranges.
And even with longbows archers werent that deadly. Many historians claim that english victories in 100YW came from better leadership.
 

Flanged

Scholar
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
395
Malakal said:
Archery overpowered is realistic? Let me guess: you base it on hundred years war and english longbowmen.
This is bullshit. Archers were, at best, troops specialized at harassing enemies and causing their formations to break due to massed fire.

No, it's not the post-Agincourt hype I'm buying into in believing that powerful archery is realistic - it's that most of the infantry troops in the demo (the standard troops) have very light armour and no shields. They're basically wearing leather gear, which would afford some protection against missiles, but not much. The unit sizes are not very large to start with either. I think it's realistic that if 50 guys were running across a field towards fifty trained archers, not many of them would make it across.

It's probably the first time I've seen archers take out a full enemy unit, rather than just softening them up for a cavalry or infantry mop-up. I liked it. At least, I liked it when I did it to the enemy. When they did it to me, it was as devastating as it should be.

Malakal said:
They werent efficient killers. Shields and armor were very effective at stopping arrows, not to mention problems with required training and the fact that only longbows, late discovery, were somewhat good at long ranges.
And even with longbows archers werent that deadly. Many historians claim that english victories in 100YW came from better leadership.

I agree, it would be better if the armoured knights and cavalry, and anyone carrying shields, were a lot more archery resistant. It does stop being realistic at that point, and gets annoying seeing your elite troops in full plate get whittled down by low-level peasant bowmen - but that's why bowmen, and later arquebusiers, used to get their hands cut off for shooting at their superiors. Because they were really annoying.

I can believe the bit about better leadership on the English side. Wasn't the French King at the time borderline retarded? That'd be a drawback for sure.

Some of the glow has worn off the game now, and though I still intend to buy it, I notice more the faults that have already been mentioned - no morale system means suicidal lone charges that can cause archers to run away in their skirmish mode (from one guy), and I sometimes end up spending five minutes chasing six brigands to the edge of the map after I've already annihilated their whole army.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
I think archers, especially longbowmen were powerful, but only when they had a tactical advantage. But what is usually forgotten today is that good archers were very rare elite units, for archery took life long training.

If armies had an abundance of trained archers, combined with horses they were invincible as shown by the mongols.

Malakal said:
Many historians claim that english victories in 100YW came from better leadership.

wasn't it more like the English having much better foot soldiers (Yeomen and Longbowmen) and the fact that they were often outnumbered and had no retreat? It is quite an established fact that in medieval and ancient times small outnumbered armies fought better than large ones, especially when they were in serious trouble. In a huge army many units would wait that someone else does something and potentially lose their skin.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
@two posters above.

I am not basing my claims on nothing. If You look into the composition of any medieval army you'll instantly notice distinct lack of huge ammounts of archers. Or any archers at all in most cases. Thats because they werent very effective and people in medieval times weren't stupid.

Lets not discuss mongols as they are a different case alltogether.

From polish history I know that it was the heavily armored troops that were the most dangerous and had biggest battle winning abilities. Poland never fielded dedicated archer support in big numbers. Lithuania did use some but they were constantly losing to teutonic armored knights. In their own territory!

The problem is the shield. It was commonly used, extremely cheap and effective, stopping almost all arrows, in KAtrpwg shielded troops have pathetic defence against archers.

Another problem was range, shortbows couldnt shoot far, and what is more important they couldnt shoot straight. Since all arrows fly on an arc they are easy to avoid and defend against.

And yes, kings of France in 100YW werent very bright. But the main cause of english victories was stemming from 1066 norman invasion of England type of feudalism found there, giving much more power and influence to the king. So while english king could raise armies and order his vassals french king had to ask them nicely and keep up with their shit. And rebellions (Burgundy).
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
I don't disagree in principle with what you say but I spot several flaws in your argument.

First of all if you point at the short range and shields you are denying that the longbow had an enormous range and could penetrate any type of armor.

Secondly you repeat what I said about the small numbers of archers in the medieval army, but completely ignore my argument that this was because archers were hard to train. Your conclusion is that they were useless, which I think can be disproved by several examples.

Thirdly I don't think the mongols are "a different case altogether", I think they are an excellent example of what would happen when skilled archers were abundant. Not only the Mongols but all Steppe armies since the Sarmatians, Parthians, Huns and whatnot. Admittedly this means archers in combination with the horse.

From polish history I know that it was the heavily armored troops that were the most dangerous and had biggest battle winning abilities. Poland never fielded dedicated archer support in big numbers. Lithuania did use some but they were constantly losing to teutonic armored knights. In their own territory!

But again, then you will also know what happened to all eastern european armies when they faced the mongols, and to the western ones that faced them as well.
 

Malakal

Arcane
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
10,266
Location
Poland
I dont deny the effectivity of longbow, I merely state that it is a late medieval weapon and not representative. Using shortbow for comparison is much better since it was more widely used.

Archers werent trained, they were recruited from people already using bows. Mainly foresters and hunters. This is why they were more of an auxiliary troop. I do not deny the fact that it is hard to learn archery.
And in KingArthur archers are too recruited from hunters so they shouldnt be a professional army anyway.

Mongols are different case because they relied on manouverability and numbers not firepower. You do not read examples of mongol armies decimating their enemies with massive archery salvos, you read how they striked and falled back drawing enemies out. I could argue that mongols might as well have used long lances and charged-retreated all the same.
And do not forget - compared to feudal european armies mongols really had a *lot* of troops.

Comparing western and eastern campaigns against the scourge from the east is pointless.
On the one hand russians got conquered by mongols, but they did manage to rebel and defeat them many times.
On the other hungarian, polish and HRE armies also were defeated several times, but simply geographic position of those countries made it impossible for mongols to conquer those areas. Were it great khan leading his hordes against HRE it would surely fall. Ok, not castles, but the coutryside would be devastated.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
I never said otherwise. No army, east or west, had a chance against mongol archers. If you stood still they would shoot with arrows, if you advanced they would fall back and shoot arrows, over their back. From the Romans it took 1500 years until there was an answer to the steppe tactic: gunpowder. The only medieval weapon that was somewhat effective against them was the crossbow, that's why they executed all crossbowmen they captured.
 

getter77

Augur
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
861
Location
GA, USA
"Saxon and Welsh expansions, the Sandbox modes for King Arthur are coming

We’re very proud to announce the release of two King Arthur expansion packs, due in March and April 2010.

Both the Saxon and the Welsh expansions will contain brand new units, heroes and hero abilities as well as completely new objectives and lots of never seen quests.

What’s even more important, they’ll include a new economic system redesigned for a totally new campaign structure, where you’ll be able to play in sandbox mode being either the Christian king or the monarch following the ways of the Old Faith. The expansions will have a complex diplomatic system, campaign winning conditions that can be set by the player and an absolutely free, non-story-based gameplay.

Stay tuned for more info during the next few weeks."

Just saw this on Blue's News...nice to see them still at it in a seemingly big way past the little bits of DLC.
 

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
A pretty sad one, too.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom