Why I think KoE aren't great

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Marcos24 wrote:

    @Wes456123 Yeah that’s a feature of the game I seriously dislike. Too “gamey” for me, I’d rather this game move more towards immersive designs than “gamey” ones. Though the rumor that “pure” chaff is being designed out little by little is something I have my fingers crossed for

    also, what you said kind of reinforces my point. Right now they’re priced with bows/throwing weapons by default. What results do they produce? Hardly any. If they had only those as upgradeable options and the base price was cheaper, I bet the overwhelming majority of players wouldn’t even bother picking them.


    me personally I take them for fluff and for modeling purposes. And I would continue to pay for throwing weapons if they were upgradable options, but for the same reasons, not for their effectiveness. Also take two units of 8 minimum for fluff reasons not because they’re much stronger though they do last much longer vs gun lines

    I think this is a natural progression that is happening because of the big inflation we are seeing in the armies. Armies are overall muchhh weaker in power than even just a few years ago - but they are also bigger. Wider armies of lower quality generally means that the role of chaff is diminishing.

    And that is a good thing.

    Chaff _is_ counter-intuitive in a way that a fight with a lesser support unit is not.

    So a progression towards more units taking support roles and less units playing suicidal rabble completely without combat prowess is a meaningful development towards T9A being a game about armies clashing - imho.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably caracal morale.

    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.

    With plague at the pinecone throne - what else can one do but to roll dice and women around?
  • DanT wrote:

    The KoE community
    I admire and really like your vision and willingness to engage the community. I want that perspective for my self but as a professional leader/coach/mentor whatever it is called in english to teenagers and young adults my experience tells me otherwise :p

    This talk about the KoE community makes me curious. How do you define what the KoE community is? And how big in size does it have to be
    to make their opinion carry weight by the designers? I mean, in this thread alone, I believe if we quantified all proposals and opinions, we have more proposals for making knights more powerful and having stronger offensive capabilities. Yet several team members are negating the proposals.

    This talk about a KoE community seems to be something of a lost cause because it is not defined in whatw, who, when and why they are the community. So how can the community come up with a ranked list of suggestions if we don't know what the community is and how the community based decision making should be made :p Or what mandate the community would have. Both from the LAB/GDT and from the players not being ative on this forum.
  • For those talking about rubber lance and dispersion...

    DanT wrote:

    12 attacks, 4+ to hit, 2+ to wound.
    Average is 5 wounds.
    Modelling as a binomial distribution with p(success=5/12), the chance of 4 or more successes is more than 80%.
    So what is this rubber lance thing that people are talking about?
    Having an 80% chance of being 1 less than the average or higher, with no buffs, is pretty reliable I would say :)

    I still find the rubber lance claims a bit weird and confusing generally.
    I didn't notice this at all when using KoE.

    Maybe players just have expectations in their heads that don't relate to the current rules of the units in front of them, but rather to some version that exists in their heads?
    So are making high risk plays as a result?
    I dno :/ :S ?(



    Marcos24 wrote:

    I do love the idea of outmaneuvering and flanking opponents, but that only matters if the unit can perform when delivered. That flank charge is completely wasted when a unit of knights fails to do more than 1 or 2 wounds
    What are you flanking with that consistently only does a couple of wounds?
    Maybe you are just flanking with small support units?
    Support units are just that... support.
    An extra wound or two, a little bit of combat res... it is not supposed to be game changing to flank with a small unit... at least with KoE if its a unit of 6 then you break steadfast... that is much harder with other armies :)



    Davian wrote:

    This talk about the KoE community makes me curious. How do you define what the KoE community is? And how big in size does it have to be
    to make their opinion carry weight by the designers? I mean, in this thread alone, I believe if we quantified all proposals and opinions, we have more proposals for making knights more powerful and having stronger offensive capabilities. Yet several team members are negating the proposals.

    This talk about a KoE community seems to be something of a lost cause because it is not defined in whatw, who, when and why they are the community. So how can the community come up with a ranked list of suggestions if we don't know what the community is and how the community based decision making should be made :p Or what mandate the community would have. Both from the LAB/GDT and from the players not being ative on this forum.
    None of this is mine to decide :)
    I'm not commenting here in a staff role... just as a KoE player, who wants other KoE players to be happy.
    (I'm not sure any staff are really commenting here in a staff role... most staff comments on the public forums are just staff members shooting the breeze like any other member of the community).

    But if you are interested in this... What do you think the answers should be? Why not volunteer and help make all this more concrete?


    What I am saying is that if one looks at ID/DE/VS, the guidelines get released to the community, and adjusted based on the feedback.
    I am merely positing that if the community self-organises a little, it will be able to give clearer and stronger feedback :)
    Right now, I think the community response to the guidelines will be so incoherent as to be impossible to act upon.
    I'm certainly glad that it won't be my job to try to act upon them ;)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    But if you are interested in this... What do you think the answers should be? Why not volunteer and help make all this more concrete?
    I am interested but I have not enough time. I've already, rather unfortunatly, have had to decline the position as a BH ACS because of that.

    Spontaneously I'd say that the answer to my questions should something like the LAB/GDT post as concrete desigb decisions as possible. like; "We want a unit of X type do between 3-8 wounds on the charge against average statline. Our method of doing that is..." or "Our opinion is that peasant units are in the game to provide static CR and die."

    This would give the community, in any form or organisation, a clear picture of what the designers wants to create and can then focus on discussing concrete issues.

    DanT wrote:

    What I am saying is that if one looks at ID/DE/VS, the guidelines get released to the community, and adjusted based on the feedback.
    I am merely positing that if the community self-organises a little, it will be able to give clearer and stronger feedback
    Self organisation demands a rather rigid structure and mandates, otherwise it will turn out to be what is called "the tyranny of structurelessness". Which is just a version of "might makes right".

    The guidelines posted in various forums is a small step towards what I am proposing, which is why the feedback was better and could be easier to handle. Even stricter guidelinesn would make even better feedback. :)
  • SirVelinn wrote:

    SirMC2015 wrote:

    the point is that there are options and I guess that leads to this question. What makes the best Knight unit? Survivability? Damage output? Speed and maneuverability?
    At our current state. I think we are almost there. To achieve equilibrium in this aspect.Aspirants: Fast, maneuvrable, chaff cleaner, scorer. At the right spot

    KoTR: Not hitting hard enough, due to rubber lance sindrome. I' am willing to trade some speed, in order to increase its dmg output, for example, Adv=8 M=14. And in exchange get Agi 4, and an option to improve my To HIT= ignore parry or add a virtue that gives hatred to the unit.
    Knights of the Quest: Adv=8 M=14. Give these guys the right tool to become our grinding unit
    Grail Knights: 3-6 size. 2hp. Dev Charge (+1att) or WS6 or Lightning reflex. Keep them Adv=8 M=16.
    This sounds good. Knights of the Quest Battle focus and I'm a happy camper :)
  • Remember, design and price are not related. The only way a unit can get a reduction in price is if the army or the unit underperforms externally/internally. AFAIK right now KoE is doing quite well.

    So most of the changes that buff a unit offense or defense will also increase their cost. In general terms:
    - if a unit gains durability, it will lose offense (price increase and unit size reduction).
    - If it gains offense, it will lose durability (price increase)
    - If it loses mobility, it will gain defense and offense (more bodies available)
  • Btw. Best solution to rubber lance in current book is druidism. Not divination. Not even botlc, because it only works for one big unit in core.

    As @DanT pointed. Take a 12 knight unit. It does min 4 wounds on 80% and average 5.

    BUT

    How do you manage to still have 12 knights in your charging turn in your initative step?

    The answer is: druidism.

    And thats why it is the best lore for koe currently

    Divination is a trap lore for koe knights. In fact it works better with scorpions/trebs, forlorns and tons of peasants. Another counterintuitive thing in the book i guess.

    Druidism spells not only protect your knights it garantees enough bodies attaking, enough ranks to break steadfast, enough conservation of our precious CR.

    When you only have few knights alive, those divination buffs are underwhelming and those area buffs are too hard to pull off and to restricted in range for us.

    Shamanish is worse than druidism at keeping them alive, but it can help, so its a viable albeit not optimal lore. At least not alone. Also the attribute is fringe useful for us.

    Why im writing this?

    Because i think the lores the army have acces dictate some shapes of possible builds. If we want different builds we need to take into account how each lore would interact with each entry.

    And the current hereditary, while is still good. Is not what the army needs the majority of time.
    Visit our blog, Escribas del Viejo Mundo!

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Kratos ().

  • DanT wrote:



    Marcos24 wrote:

    I do love the idea of outmaneuvering and flanking opponents, but that only matters if the unit can perform when delivered. That flank charge is completely wasted when a unit of knights fails to do more than 1 or 2 wounds
    What are you flanking with that consistently only does a couple of wounds?Maybe you are just flanking with small support units?
    Support units are just that... support.
    An extra wound or two, a little bit of combat res... it is not supposed to be game changing to flank with a small unit... at least with KoE if its a unit of 6 then you break steadfast... that is much harder with other armies :)
    Never forgot this one: I’ve had 50 peasants in the front of an imperial guard unit, and 7-9 knights in the flank (Forgot the details but I remember that was the absolute best case scenario in that game) don’t remember if I got any spells off. But the peasants were absolutely obliterated, both broke, and my knights and damsel were caught. Absolutely the most shameful display of “knights” ever.

    that’s a little irrelevant to rubber lance because even if they had rolled above average (what’s average for that, 4?)I think IG killed more than 20 peasants.

    but I’ll post this story for why, again, we need to do something about peasants...
  • Is this thread about Kingdom of Equitaine or Knights of Equitaine ?

    The army should offer more than dirty cheap peasants and knights in various forms. Would love to still be able to field a mix of infantry and Knights .

    What I'd like to be considered by the lab team is some proper progression for both, knights as well as infantry for KoE:

    Peaseants -> Men-at-Arms -> Squires-> Knights Folorn / Knights on Foot (main infantry line in our book)

    Aspirants -> Squires -> KotR -> Questing Knights / Hedge Knights -> Grail Knights (main cavalry line in our book)
  • Scumboogie wrote:

    Charging a unit of peasants and a unit of knights to a strong unit sounds similar to charging it with a unit of zombies and a solo vampire count tbh. You're gonna have a baaad time.
    Lol I know but it’s what we’ve got! And thats another point I’ve made before, it should be rare to start the game with the plan of “do not touch, run away”



    Folomo wrote:

    So you think peasants need something to make them better or to make them work better only when supporting knights?
    supporting knights! I don’t think peasants should be good fighters or anything other than a tarpit when by themselves, but when combined with knights, something glorious should happen, whether that’s peasants buff the knights or knights buffing the peasants or both debuffing the enemy, something
  • if I had not charged with those 50 peasants then I would have won that combat (then lost the following round...but that’s the other argument, need to remove models not stack CR) how does that make sense?

    Now, replace IG with our most elite infantry unit, Knights Forlorn, and replace peasants with heavy infantry and our KotR and damsel with electoral knights or knightly orders and a prelate... I’m pretty confident our knights forlorn are screwed (which is good as that’s what should happen)
  • I believe the problem with peasant levy right now is that they have one role right now which they can reasonably do on the tabletop, a sacrificial tarpit. And to even do this job they need to have support from a character or a units of KotoR or better knight unit. Even then I'd argue that peasant crusaders (with reliquary support) are better at this for a similar price. The ideal scenario that many imagine with peasant levy, working together with a unit of knights to provide static cr and to help negate steadfast, either through force of ranks or by pinning an enemy unit to the front while the knights flank. Not all that easy to achieve. Then when you get there, you run the risk of your opponent simply smashing your Levy. Most units where you go to the trouble of using Levy support will probably be able to kill enough levy to negate their contribution, even considering the attacks not spent on your knights, possibly putting your winning of the combat in danger. Sure, your knights may be still alive, but winning combat just got harder, not easier...

    Add this to the mobility disparity, which makes it difficult to use them as chaff effectively, and you have some incredible anti-synergy going on. Maybe this could be fixed by expanding upon the insignificancy of our Levy, letting KotoR or better units straight up ignore wounds caused to them when calculating CR in combat involving them. This would also help them to differentiate themselves in role from Peasant Crusaders. Flavourful, and gives us an incentive to use them in concert, rather than keeping them at the edge of the leadership bubble to tarpit units by themselves.
    :charge2: Kingdom of Equitaine
    :oldmen: Dwarven Holds
    :orclaugh: Orcs and Goblins
  • jaith1 wrote:

    Isn’t that the intent of Crystal of the Valiant Charge though? It shouldn’t be difficult to cash in 2-3 VT’s offsetting even the worst Veil card draws (1,2).
    The vast majority of the time the only unit in combat within 18" of the damsel is her own unit... 1 Veil token doesn't really help us offset the veil card draws. And even if that 1 extra token gets us an extra dice, how does that help with points 2,3 & 4?

    Also, I don't agree that that's the intent of the item. The intent of the item is to reduce the power of the enemy's magic phase and reduce their dice for the phase by 1. It's a poorly designed item because of it's short range in an army that is designed to use the whole table.

    Alternatively it's a great item for a peasant list.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    jaith1 wrote:

    Isn’t that the intent of Crystal of the Valiant Charge though? It shouldn’t be difficult to cash in 2-3 VT’s offsetting even the worst Veil card draws (1,2).
    The vast majority of the time the only unit in combat within 18" of the damsel is her own unit... 1 Veil token doesn't really help us offset the veil card draws. And even if that 1 extra token gets us an extra dice, how does that help with points 2,3 & 4?
    Also, I don't agree that that's the intent of the item. The intent of the item is to reduce the power of the enemy's magic phase and reduce their dice for the phase by 1. It's a poorly designed item because of it's short range in an army that is designed to use the whole table.

    Alternatively it's a great item for a peasant list.
    If it was every turn and the item cost was higher, it would be pretty good. Make it max 2 veils and cost 50 points. - Better than Talisman of the Void, but conditional (2 units engaged with 18"). Its an idea.


    In regards to all the discussion about knights and their ability to attack infantry what about this:
    Give them 2 attack modes - just like the bastard sword.
    NORMAL - As the rules are now.
    &
    TRAMPLE - The riders cannot attack. Mounts gets +2 attack and can support attack from same amount of ranks as their riders would have been able to, with 2 supporting attacks. Only works against standard infantry. Only works on the charge.

    Firstly - it's fluffy that instead of breaking their jousting lances on lowborn infantry, the knights run over the infantry and use their sheer number of hooves to trample down folks. Also, you get a bunch of low quality attacks, which is good against massed cheap infantry.
    Only works in lance formation ofc, to keep it in the spirit of the army.

    A full lance of 15 knighst would get 33 attacks, 16 hits and 8/11 wounds. Not high strength and not with high OS. Armoursave would still take a bunch of the wounds.

    Then, the Banner of the Last Charge would have to go away, but I think a better AWSR is better than a fix with a banner.
  • DanT wrote:

    Personally I would say it is the steadfast breaking, speed and defensive abilities that is a bigger problem combined with MOAR damage... the static combat res is much less relevant...
    I'd be ok losing the steadfast breaking if that meant that the army could grind - i.e. more damage in the second and subseqent rounds of combat and not just the first.

    Nicreap wrote:

    The solution to this has already been stated and exists in the current book. Take divination, take the hereditary, it moves the expected values up and away from the low end. Isn't it great the slim book has solved that problem already!
    Sarcasm on
    KoE to be the first army with an item that auto casts any spell the bearer casts at the casting value of the spell (boosted casting value for boosted spells). Opponent can attempt to dispell as normal.

    Clearly, we've all been playing KoE completely wrongly and apparently we completely forgot the magic phase because we don't know how our army works and are complete morons. This item will help the idiots playing KoE to remember the magic phase...

    Sarcasm off
    Seriously suggesting magic as a solution to an issue is really insulting to us. Please can people stop doing it?

    Divination isn't a solution to this problem because divination has too short a range. If my divination damsel is on the left flank how does she help the unit on the right flank? KoE have to use the whole of the space available in order to win so clustering in the centre like some armies isn't possible.

    Yes, Divination & the hereditary spell can help the unit I put the damsel in but guess which spells my opponent is prioritising? And what happens if I'm unlukcy and fail the casting of a spell? Or maybe I roll a miscast and die. You can't bring magic in as a solution unless you can guarantee it will be cast before we charge and the game is not set up to do that.

    No good KoE player will take a risky charge that requires magic to work and if something was built in to the knights to assist with that, it would allow KoE to be more agressive and play less avoidance. Is a less avoidance KoE not something other players want? You can even design it so that it doesn't stack with magic - i.e. it has a similar effect like rerolls, or something. Just a thought.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • @Swelt
    Display Spoiler

    Swelt wrote:

    I'm no expert on jousting or anything, but a quick Google search found this explaination of jousting, though this is from reddit so take it with a grain of salt. Possibly some fluff for getting a bonus to hit vs being easier to hit?

    "Skill and tactics are a bigger part than you might think at first glance.

    First, the Jousting Lance they use can range from 9 to 14 feet in length. A longer one gives you more reach and keeps you farther from your opponent, but it's also heavier and more difficult to wield than a short one. That can make using a long one "clumsy" and extremely difficult, increasing the chances that the rider using it will drop it on impact (lessening the force of that impact) or miss his opponent entirely.

    So right off the bat, there's some strategy in choosing Lance length. Go with a short one and it will be the easiest to use, but it will require you to tuck in closer to the railing that divides the lanes and increases your chances of being struck by your opponent, who will theoretically have an easier time hitting you. Using a longer one will increase your distance from your opponent, making it theoretically harder for him to hit you, but you're now using a larger, heavier Lance that may be difficult or impossible for you to use effectively.

    If you and your opponent are roughly the same height with roughly the same reach, you may simply want to try to use a lance that's 1-2 feet longer than his. However, if he's already using a 14-foot Lance, you now must also to maintain equal distances, or use a shorter lance and tuck into the railing, hoping you can escape or deflect his lance, and hit him in the chest.

    If the other rider is taller or shorter than you are, this simply amplifies the issues regarding length choice.

    Even once these issues are dealt with, there's quite a bit of strategy to play "on the lane". For instance, the faster you ride, the more potential impact you carry, but the horse will be moving more, and with more impact, making it harder for you to find and keep your aim.

    Further, do you try and keep your distance in an attempt to force your opponent to miss wide so you can peg him? Or do you come in close, attempt to deflect his blow and use additional force to knock him off?

    I'm only scratching the surface here in terms of variables, but you get the point. Rider skill, rider strength, tactics and positioning are all part of Jousting. Reach and luck are part of it, but the guy with the longest arms/longest Lance isn't always going to win."


    This is pretty interesting but it does assume a couple of things:
    • jousting by it's very nature is knight against knight. Knights against infantry is slightly different and as @Marcos24 said, it's easier to hit a static infantry block than it is to hit a single moving target.
    • Both riders have similar skill levels. We're talking about knights who are meant to have been using lances (and other weapons) all their lives. vs infantry who are standing still. I recon they'd hit more often than not.
    Additionally you can make a good argument that all the tactics that you mention (do you try and keep your distance, Or do you come in close, etc) is mirrored in how KoE play.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.