Official KaM Remake Ideas topic

[Darkaway]

Hi, I had na idea.

I think the watchtower isn't make sense in the game, because KAM is a realistic so i don't think that if I throw a stone at someone he will die. I think we could change the watchtowers. I think they should be of archers. So, we build the tower, do some archers on the barracks (like 2-4) and place them into the tower, so, when someone come to attack the tower starts to attack and help your troops like archers, but on the tower they are protected, so if they are attacking the tower, the archers are protected from the troops.

What you think about it?

[GreatWhiteBear]

No.

[The Dark Lord]

Towers with archers will be too overpowered in my opinion.

[Darkaway]

But towers that trows stone, I've heard about it on my history classes...

[The Dark Lord]

It might not be very realistic, but is it realistic that you 'make' new serfs out of chests of gold? Not everything is realistic in KaM.

[Darkaway]

Yeah, but the "serfs thing" can't be changed, but the towers thing I think it can be changed...

[Da Revolution]

Towers with archers will be too overpowered in my opinion.

Yes i do agree with you. especially because of them being protected.

[Kirelareus]

Hi, I had na idea.

I think the watchtower isn't make sense in the game, because KAM is a realistic so i don't think that if I throw a stone at someone he will die. I think we could change the watchtowers. I think they should be of archers. So, we build the tower, do some archers on the barracks (like 2-4) and place them into the tower, so, when someone come to attack the tower starts to attack and help your troops like archers, but on the tower they are protected, so if they are attacking the tower, the archers are protected from the troops.

What you think about it?

No, No. It has been discussed in Russian fan site too. This is a bad idea, because watchtowers will lose their effectiveness

[kocsis1david]

There's a simple way to avoid fisherman going to the other side of the river. When a fisherman hut is finished, the distance to each close tile could be computed with a flooding algorithm (not the recursive one) and stored in an array. I think it's almost as fast as one path finding. Why not implement something like this?

[kocsis1david]

The recursive flooding algorithm would be enough for the most cases. You only do it within the radius of the fisherman hut and stop at its edge, so the algorithm can't reach the other side of the river.

[Kamil]

I think the map's name should be visible during the game.
"You can only run one copy of the application at once to prevent multiplayer cheating" - I can'i watch map durig game. Problem for new gamers who played map first time ....

[Da Revolution]

I think you should be able to adapt to the part you do see.

[Krom]

@Kamil, when you click Save map name is suggested for savegame title. No need to take extra space to display that static info.

[Piko]

I have good idea (sorry if someone else wrote about it). Now statistics are bad. Why? For example there are the same number of kills when defeat 10 militia, and when defeat 10 swordsmans, but swordsmans are harder to kill. I think there should be more points to statistics when defeat stronger units / do more expensive wares and weapons etc. There also should be not counted destroyed buildings, but number of damage dealed to it. And there shouldn't be number of dead units, but percent. Because if player 1 do 30 units and they die, there are 30 counted. And it player 2 do 80 units and half of them die, there are 40 counted, but player 2 lose less units. It sholud be:
"Number of units dead:
Player 1. 100%
Player 2. 50%"

What do you think about it? Is it good idea? Write here, what do you think about it
Piko

[The Dark Lord]

I agree on the statistics not being completely accurate. My main complaint would be that the number of villagers you kill are added to the number of soldiers you kill, called 'units defeated'. I think it's more important to see how many soldiers you lost and how many soldiers you defeated (have you killed more or less soldiers than you lost?). Adding the number of killed villagers to the number of killed soldiers forms a wrong picture of the real results.
The system you suggest, with points for every soldier, sounds quite complicated. Also, how do you determine how many points a soldier is worth?