Feedback and Suggestions

[Duke Williams]

First I think speed should be factored into if a personal Army can retreat without engagement(if that ruling still stands). Like an army with no horses but heavy equipment can not evade a larger lightly armored armor of Cavalry. That just isnt possible. I dont care how great their intell is or how early they depart they cant avoid engagement when the force after them can run circles around them.

If the whole avoid enggagement thingie can be removed than I suggest a forced engagement no matter what if the personal army is SPECIFICALLY targeted and they arent in a town, village, or the such. If they're in those than they should have the option to abandon those places and retreat to the wilderness in that Provience. Than they have to either leave the provience or be forced into an engagement against an enemy force. Now that can be avoided if they have horses and perhaps a speed-uping general(s).

Those are generally ideas. Feel free to tear what you like out of there. Right now this is all I got since I'm pretty busy. So... This is all off from the top of my head.

[The Cavalier]

I think that leading an army into battle against a force that evades it should use enough skills to net the usual 5 pool exp for a KT turn. Even though a battle did not take place moblizing and controling an army of that size would no doubt be strenous and would probably yield the normal level of exp if not the bonus of an actual battle. My suggestion of course.

[Chizel]

Could map be improved to have cities on it as well as written beneath it?

[Lurking Tyranny]

The reason the map doesn't have cities on it is because it would be difficult to have colors for all the different factions and the fact that cities can be sacked and destroyed or created would just make the map far too cumbersome to look at.

Just imagine if we tried to include all the cities, towns and villages.

[Tevye]

I think it'd be interesting to see if some player(s) would want to make big maps of each province with details about towns, villages, cities, ownership, and the whole shebang.

[Choso]

So I will be the first to leave feedback for version 3. Wow...A feudal based game in which anyone can raise an army, and rise to power. Its exactly the feel I wanted to bring to Forever Legacy. Except so far I made it increasingly complicated...You guys have streamlined nearly everything. Its nice only having one currency to worry about(Gold!). I might not me much coming from me, but great job.

[IronFist]

After seeing the RP in the Hann thread between the Mo Zi and Wen Xu. I wonder if theres any progress or development on religion factor within provinces/cities.

So from Medieval total war, you had the faiths of Christianity and Islam and the depending on the percentage of it. On the battlefield they would either assist or rebel.

So forgive me if im wrong but if we add Lao Tzu, Confucius, Taoism, Mo Zi etc to the game. It would add more depth to the game

[Choso]

a lot of things would add depth. But I enjoy this game cause everything is streamlined as best as possible. Which needs to be that way because the village, town, city thing can be somewhat overwelming.

[antlan87]

While religions could add an interesting element, it would be better left to RPs, as some people may have mixed some aspects either by not knowing all that much about them, or did so deliberately to suit their RP style or PCs background.

[Phailak]

Few comments about our battle:

A) There might be a good reason for it already, but I find it strange that the army that retreats gets to have captured soldiers. I mean, maybe if you are invading and decide to withdraw while the defenders are within the walls, but on the battlefield with your ennemies harrassing you, I find it a bit strange.

B) Casualties would be cool, like a % of lost soldiers end up being available again, could even have a skill that raises that %. Here again, the victor could have it higher since he holds his ground while the losing army has a more difficult time bringing all the injured with them.

C) I think the two points above would give another advantage to winning a tight war, I mean you get the spoils and the target when you win, some moral which gets offset by the fact you lost X number of soldiers that need to be replaced, so it'd be nice to have a return on injuries AND the only one to keep captured soldiers (or at least a higher percentage or something)

D) This I might of missed but it'd be fun to have some advanatage to winning the first engagement, especially since whoever wins part 2 wins the battle. Maybe a moral e boost or loss for the opponent?

E) Somekind of pursue option at the end of the tactics as well as some kind of rearguard option. For example, if we win we pursue the ennemy to cause damage (also reduce amount of casualties healed / captured soldiers available) while if I lose, I defend the rear. Options could be pursue, harass or not pursue and for the retreating army something like Defend rear, ambush and flee?

Anyway, just a few points, very possible these have been brought up already and were shotdown for good reason or perhaps some are already in the calculations of the game (like for the casualties thing), just thought I'd mention it since I love the battle system!!!