[King of Dragon Pass] This game actively punishes you for being successful.

[Norfleet]

In another timeline, the mongol conquests have never happened, because Genghis' subjects kept objecting that he's got more warriors than the ancestral other honor prescribes, being stronger than other tribes is against the mongolian ways, and he must split half of his lands and people into an independent rival gang at once because reasons.

This is sort of the point of the game, though: To upgrade your government and become a feudal state and thus not be at the whim of clan splits.

 

[Silva]

This is sort of the point of the game, though: To upgrade your government and become a feudal state and thus not be at the whim of clan splits.

Feudal is stll a long way though. I would say they're more of a tribal confederacy at the end.

 

[Norfleet]

Well, at very minimum, you're establishing yourself as a King-tier title and thus able to have Duke vassals.

 

[Silva]

Haha not really.

By the PnP canon, the kingdom formed at the end of the game (Sartar) stays pretty much tribal in nature and never really goes feudal. One can argue it acquires traces of a Greek city-state, seeing as they create Boldhome as this big, fortified city at its center which would probably spawn an urbanized culture given time. And if they ever advance beyond that? Probably to an empire in the molds of ancient Persia/Rome, just like their immediate neighbours to the north.

Think of these rednecks as some celt or canaanite people really. Western feudalism is so distant and dependent on so many variables that it may as well never happen.

 

[JohnSmith24601]

It actually wasn't. The entire point is that becoming Genghis Khan meant he had to upgrade his primitive tribal government and become king, which is sort of what you're trying to do in the game...

In another timeline, the mongol conquests have never happened, because Genghis' subjects kept objecting that he's got more warriors than the ancestral other honor prescribes, being stronger than other tribes is against the mongolian ways, and he must split half of his lands and people into an independent rival gang at once because reasons.

Thanks for pointing out the exact problem with Norfleet's argument. Historically, there are usually two ways for a tribe to become a kingdom, and both of them involve getting a high enough population. One is by settling down, start emulating agricultural civilizations before them and grow their population the normal way. This process normally takes hundreds if not a thousand years. The other one is by conquering neighboring tribes. Once they are about twice as strong as any other tribe, they would start sending emissaries to the nearby tribes to demand their subjugation. Sometimes they just roll over, sometimes they would unite and fight back, but most of the time the neighboring tribes would still fail because one tribe of 1000 people who share the same blood, same language, same culture is >>>> 3 tribes of 500 people each who only band together at the last moment.

This is almost exactly what happened with Genghis, except that his case is a little to the extreme side of things, but not by much historically if you compare to other tribes (some even devour the flesh of their enemies to "gain their strength"). Every time after defeating a tribe, Genghis would round up the whole tribe, kill males above the age of 12, and then integrate the rest of the tribe. He did this until he conquered the entire Mongol Steppe. Also, keep in mind that Genghis never reformed his tribe into a Kingdom in any sense of the word. It wasn't until his grandson Kublai Khan took over that the tribe became a real kingdom in the form of the Yuan dynasty.

Now this is a fantasy setting, and I'll take that into consideration, but I think that warriors complaining about the tribe is getting "too big" still doesn't make any sense. It's actually a REALLY, really good thing, especially when food is plentiful. Normally, tribes would have a big celebration when their group is apparently doing so well, instead of complaining for no good reasons. A bigger population means power, prestige, and most important of all, security. A more realistic approach would be to expand the government to accommodate the newly acquired population. (Though not to the extend of reforming into a kingdom, that's a LONG way off. More like just shifting guard duties or who goes on the next hunt so nobody will bicker, that sort of thing)

 

[Silva]

The clan splitting makes sense under a political argument, as is the case here (emphasis mine):

"Your warriors come together to complain that not all of the great and ancient families of the clan are getting their due in the clan hall. They say that many bloodlines are unrepresented on the clan ring."

It has nothing to do agriculture or military power, it's just a bunch of families not feeling represented and wanting to part ways. So Norfleet point about government-system limitation proceeds: this people form of "government" is just a 7-members council ring informed by their religion, and thus can never acommodate too many families. The only way out of for them is splitting and forming tribes, and later big coalitions as they do in the end.

Also, comparing it to Genghis Khan is nonsensic not only because you're contrasting reality and fantasy, but because the contexts are COMPLETELY different: Mongol society at the time were tolerant and allowing for various religious beliefs to co-exist (islamism, christianism, shamanism, buddhism), while this game clans almost jewish-level fanaticism will call one "bringer of chaos" for shitting in the wrong position than their grandma told 'em and proceed to lynch the guy.

 

[Malakal]

I also gotta say that punishing the player for his success is how good games are designed, otherwise late game becomes too easy (aka almost every strategy ever syndrome).

If there are lore friendly reasons for this then sure, why not.

Yes, the devs want you to struggle. yes, that is fine.

 

[JohnSmith24601]

The clan splitting makes sense under a political argument, as is the case here (emphasis mine)

The sum of all your arguments: 1) It makes sense because the author says so. 2) It makes sense because "fantasy".

And I'm telling you that it doesn't make sense because that's not how tribes normally behaved historically. You give me the most simpish answer saying how the author made it this way and so it must be true, and then you go on to say that because it's a fantasy setting normal rules don't apply. Well, actually, even in works of fiction, the author is supposed to have a set of established rules that make coherent sense and should be careful not to stretch those rules because the readers can only suspend their disbelief for so long. In other words, you can't just say that something happens because "magic". And in this specific case, the warriors splitting up is extremely artificial and does not have a lot to do with lore or anything, but more to do with the developer being too lazy to program in a war path where you could conquer everybody. (That or he just wants everybody to play HIS game HIS way)

 

[Silva]

I would throw money at an actual semi-historical, Bronze Age adaptation of this formula where you play a mycenean tribe and dive into their culture, superstitions and stories. Imagine playing with Theseus and Herakles or sending the Argonauts expedition, or forming a coalition to kick Troy (and every other Mediterranean coastal city) asses. It would be cool as fuck.

 

[JohnSmith24601]

I would throw money at an actual semi-historical, Bronze Age adaptation of this formula where you play a mycenean tribe and dive into their culture, superstitions and stories. Imagine playing with Theseus and Herakles or sending the Argonauts expedition, or forming a coalition to kick Troy (and every other Mediterranean coastal city) asses. It would be cool as fuck.

Except in this case the same author would want you to reenact the siege of Troy in exactly the way that is described in Homer's Iliad, and then he would punish you if ever deviate from that. Then it would be boring as fuck, especially if you've already read all of Homer's epic poems.

 

[Silva]

Not necessarily. You could have the short game winning condition (become king for 10 years), and have those big events as important multi-phase "quests" that may or may not happen depending on conditions/choices along the way. Just like the one about the divine girl (what's her name again? Leika?).

Edit: this one..
https://kingofdragonpass.fandom.com/wiki/Kallyr_I:_Adoption

 

[Norfleet]

Except in this case the same author would want you to reenact the siege of Troy in exactly the way that is described in Homer's Iliad, and then he would punish you if ever deviate from that. Then it would be boring as fuck, especially if you've already read all of Homer's epic poems.

Except that this isn't how KODP works, either. You can achieve results, and sometimes better results, by deviating from the myth.

 

[Silva]

JohnSmith24601 , have you looked at Six Ages? It's the sequel to KoDP (actually a prequel from the Scythians Horse-people POV). Some people say it's shorter and more open-ended. I played it so long ago I don't remember. Combat was more interesting, though. And I think it allows more violence, specially against the "Ram" people. There's a "good ending" where your two people unite, but there's other possible outcomes.

 

[JohnSmith24601]

JohnSmith24601 , have you looked at Six Ages? It's the sequel to KoDP (actually a prequel from the Scythians Horse-people POV). Some people say it's shorter and more open-ended. I played it so long ago I don't remember. Combat was more interesting, though. And I think it allows more violence, specially against the "Ram" people. There's a "good ending" where your two people unite, but there's other possible outcomes.

Okay, maybe I'll get it on sale at some point. I'm still willing to give it a try. Thanks for mentioning that to me.

 

[Norfleet]

I would throw money at an actual semi-historical, Bronze Age adaptation of this formula where you play a mycenean tribe and dive into their culture, superstitions and stories. Imagine playing with Theseus and Herakles or sending the Argonauts expedition, or forming a coalition to kick Troy (and every other Mediterranean coastal city) asses. It would be cool as fuck.

Does the endgame involve the world getting fucked by the Sea People?

 

[Silva]

...or we could join them. I think there are theories where the myceneans could have been one of them?

 

[Norfleet]

...or we could join them. I think there are theories where the myceneans could have been one of them?

Becoming the Sea People could definitely be one of the endings, yes. Your actions ultimately wind up destroying the world. At least the OP can't argue that the resulting punishment for success wasn't realistic.

 

[Silva]

I kid you not. I've just read Dune, and I think this formula would fit like a glove in the concept of playing a Fremen sietch council, leading zensunni earth-spirits followers in a quest to unite the Arrakis tribes against the Harkkonnen oppressors.

Gods = earth-spirits (Shai-Hulud the worm, Muad'dib the rat, Cielago the bat, the 2 moons, etc)
Heroquest = sietch orgy rituals
Weaponthanes = Fedaykin commandos
Food = Water

David Dunham , take note. Just gimme credit for the idea when you do it. Oh, and 2 million dollars.

 

[Infinitum]

Everyone knows true success is measured in cows.

 

[tindrli]

i love this game.

 

[tindrli]

and i hate new UI.. LITERALY HATE IT.

 

[Silva]

I noticed something after various replays that I wonder if is actually true or just an erroneous impression of mine:

The game "balances out" good and bad events in a given period of time. So, for eg, if you have a disastrous event happen to you, and you suck it up instead of reloading, then the game gives you a series of good events/luck subsequently. The opposite is also true.

Makes sense? Did anybody else noticed this?

 

[Nutria]

IIRC I believe the developer has said that it does do that. I can't remember if it balances out good and bad events over time or if it just senses when you're doing badly and doesn't kick you while you're down.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

I noticed something after various replays that I wonder if is actually true or just an erroneous impression of mine:

The game "balances out" good and bad events in a given period of time. So, for eg, if you have a disastrous event happen to you, and you suck it up instead of reloading, then the game gives you a series of good events/luck subsequently. The opposite is also true.

Makes sense? Did anybody else noticed this?

It’s definitely true, but the weight of the percentage increase is also dependent on difficulty.
Same with hero quests. If you critically fail one resulting in a death you have a much higher chance of succeeding on the next one if you don’t save scum (I think I remember David saying the bonus to skill checks scales from +75% on easy to +25% on hard).

It also affects available clan ring members. The game is actively weighted to create new ring members that fill in gaps in your lineup e.g. if you don’t have a Eurmalite available it’s very likely you will spawn a new one within a year or two provided you don’t save scum.

 

[fantadomat]

Sooo i decided to replay the game a bit,turned out there is some updates that look more like decline. Now there is no save option and the ui feels super weird,remember that there was building things option. Am i from another dimension or is there some shitty changes?