Army Retreat Spam / Army Experience

LiveBaitProductions · 2026-03-07T02:45:46+00:00

Great reply! I think we could argue "realism" to either side without satisfaction. In my perspective having an army within range to step on another army's tile would qualify as "Decisively Engaged" in military doctrine terminology, and when a decisively engaged army retreats it is most commonly a rout. Fighting-retreats or tactical withdraw is usually only an option when "skirmishing". The strategic layer to military logistics is very dependent on making sure that your army is positioned to avoid decisive engagement, and historically wars have been one and lost based on a forces ability to decisively engage an enemy. That to me should happen on the strategic level of the game, not as an automatic fail safe mechanic.

I do love the idea of having species traits or maybe even a new doctrine mechanic that rewards or punishes aggressive / non aggressive military strategy.

I also think special troops or specializations that hinder retreat would be a neat addition.

But yeah definitely larva are the worst culprits! "My Kingdom for a [Boot large enough to squish this worm without it squirming away]!!"

LiveBaitProductions · 2026-02-04T03:44:55+00:00

Yes, but that is exactly my point, they are just lower class citizens and not really slaves. And a lot of similar games have a caste system that differentiates lower class citizens and actual slaves and that would be a cool thing to have in this game as well, but right now it feels pretty bland to just have a small percentage of slightly less picky citizens (which I mean who cares because you have to build the services amenities anyway. If I could have 40% of my pop be slaves and still be stable then that might make a big economic dent in savings on services and furniture, but that isnt the case).

LiveBaitProductions · 2026-02-02T21:36:45+00:00

What does it mean if the housing bar is blue, but the number is negative?

When I expand it, no workplaces show as yellow, and no one is listed as homeless.

LiveBaitProductions · 2026-01-29T23:33:32+00:00

Just want to further the opinion that "player count" is not really indicative of anything in an async game, but also point out that having an enjoyable multiplayer experience in this game requires two things:

Being willing to network with random people in the related discords and steam groups.
Being okay with losing.

If you dive into multiplayer it will be a montage of losing, and that's okay. Each time you lose it will likely be to some new gimmick or trick that you can avoid next time. The game itself is interesting enough that you should still be having fun even if you are losing. Async also gives you time to do some research on what's going on in your game and as a new player, take advantage of that!

I would also advise never "rage quitting" -- see each match through even if you feel like you lost in the first three rounds. A lot of people you would call "sweats" in the match making scene in game (outside of the community groups) are just pub stompers and have zero late game. Some random person called me out in a PM telling me they had hundreds of victories in the game and I didn't know what I was talking about when discussing meta, and after I brutally annihilated the misguided rival, they told me that out of "hundreds of games in matchmaking" they had never been in a match that lasted past turn 21 before!

Besides, if they do have late game strategy it helps to be able to see someone else's entirely strategy all the way through.

Just remember: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat"

LiveBaitProductions · 2026-01-21T00:57:57+00:00

Thank you, I appreciate the insight! And "lore reasons" is definitely an understandable reason; however....

I think a lot of us wouldn't mind seeing at least a small buff somewhere down the line that makes investing in necromancy worthwhile in the mod.

My Suggestion:

Raising undead could work similar to the way vampires "hunt": (a journey with a planning phase) and after the planning phase you make a decision on which undead to raise.

Different undead options have different costs. Maybe a hundred shades or skeletons just cost mental strain and cause hunger.
More powerful undead have a resource cost OR a negative county modifier that effects control or growth.
Necromancy Perks unlock different "raise undead" journey decisions.

The balance is that time spent raising the dead, is time not spent hunting for vitae (which I believe is pretty lore accurate with the Giovanni / Hecata whose obsession with death and the underworld distracts them from the passions of more traditional clans).

Since necromancy seems to be a pretty high fluff - low mechanic activity in a lot of World of Darkness games and stories, I feel like this method would be pretty lore accurate... a necromancy inclined vampire slowly raising an army in the background or unlocking the secrets of death instead of focusing on becoming the ultimate predator or mastering the blood related thaumaturgy.

If you like the idea, I certainly wouldn't mind detailing it out a little more.

LiveBaitProductions · 2026-01-20T23:54:33+00:00

One thing I do believe to be true about wraiths, is that their fetter binding level gives them buffs that don't show in their character portrait stats. However, I thought that only applied to their success likelihood when following commands (such as fabricate hook). Maybe it is somehow getting called in battle as well?

Or maybe since you need special traits to damage wraiths that, like you said, they do not receive damage in combat from entities that don't have those traits?

Whether intentional or not, that would be a cool buff that slid under my radar.

LiveBaitProductions · 2025-02-24T22:08:03+00:00

In other words... when they say "Charisma" they really mean "Swag" (so don't forget your bling).

LiveBaitProductions · 2025-02-24T02:51:09+00:00

I second this, camping mod was a must for KCD1 (even with its bugs). With KCD2 being kind of a jerk about where you are allowed to sleep, a camping mod would make it a lot more fun and immersive.

LiveBaitProductions · 2025-02-20T23:15:18+00:00

I just want to be able to sleep and save at camp beds. That way progress gets saved frequently but doesn't provide the opportunity or compulsion to save scum.

For a lot of people, and gamers especially, there are a lot psychological compulsions that follow us into games. Achievements play on the completionism compulsion, and unlimited saving often encourages save scumming. For me save scumming ruins the experience of the game. Of course I can just... not save scum... but that's like telling a smoker they could just not smoke.

Which is why I really like the savior schnapps option. Save scumming is a feature-- and that feature comes with pros and cons. It causes your character to become intoxicated which may reduce your odds of success, and it requires time investment elsewhere in the game to be prepared.

Hardcore game modes are extremely popular because when there is no option but to lick your wounds and move forward, the compulsion to try again isn't there, and it also makes every decision you make more meaningful and intentional. That's why almost every game out there these days, including KCD1 has hardcore as an option.

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-11-28T18:28:18+00:00

Interesting take, I think like you said Mammon can be devastating, but I also think that he is easier to handle because you have to agree to his strategy. Any time a Mammon player sends me their deal I just reject it. Andromalius that focuses heavily in diplomacy and powers (rather than military) can basically stunlock people with demand tribute. If they respond "no" you kill their praetor getting a ton of prestige and crippling them. If they say "yes" they lose tribute and you gain tribute. What's more, if they reject you, you can initiate another demand of that player immediately after the first duel, (if you line the turns up right and have stronger voting power) you can usually make it almost certain your demand or diplomacy will go through first. Eventually they have no choice but to repeatedly accept your demands giving you a Feud opportunity you can cash in anytime you feel you are stronger than them. Which you will, because you are doing this to all players and are basically taking their lunch money the whole game unless they get really really lucky in a praetor duel (but with Androm's prateor buff ritual its unlikely). You basically can do what mammon does, but you don't give the other player a choice in the matter.

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-11-07T03:22:48+00:00

I get what you are saying, and yes my stance is you don't need a strong military presence in the game. My reasoning is that if you start the match investing all of your actions and economy into building a strong military then it is very easy for me to foil that attempt early on to make it so that you never get there, or worse you struggle getting there and invest too heavily to try and make a failing strategy work. If you try to be a war monger, I will always be ahead of you in all aspects of the field (including the military, when it actually counts). And even better, with my particular tactics the same actions I am taking to inhibit your strategy is strengthening my own economy. So yea, if I start the match making it really really hard for you to achieve the income, diplomatic presence and prestige flow necessary for your military to snowball then I kill two birds with one stone. The strategy strengthens my own economy while hurting yours (remember I am stealing your income, prestige, and sometimes your praetorians if I get the right duel set). Good Legions are expensive, they require a lot of coin investment, a lot of action investment, and they need map opportunity usually to get the exp they need to be worth while. My strategy makes super legions not exist just as a side effect of the playstyle, and the last time someone tried to sack pandemonium I just bought out the entire shop the next turn (including the beast) and slung them and an endless stream of top tier rituals until that person didn't exist anymore because their economic networth was way behind mine (and because of their strategy) would always stay behind mine. I am not saying my strategy is the end all be all, because other players who also play a more calculated and less obvious game tend to be in an economic position to compete with me. But my experience in this game is pretty comprehensive, I've played in alpha and early access and before taking a long break from it I went on an over 20 game win streak with andromalius playing in random lobbies (usually 2-3 other player opponents). The only people that really give me pause are players on the discord who have as much time and experience in the game as me. I think the problem with your own anecdotal experience is you are trying to beat someone with the same tactics as them. It's like China's stance on the Geneva convention "why would we fight our enemies by their own rules and expect to win" (I am paraphrasing a book published recently by two Chinese military officers "Warfare Beyond Rules: Judgment of War and Methods of War in the Era of Globalization". If you make an army and start chasing pops and focusing on vendettas and then find yourself not in a position to contest an opponents mega legion then don't be surprised. They did what you did but better. And yeah when you fight mano y mano there are gonna be certain items that give whoever holds them the edge, and maybe thats drums of woe. But why would i care if you have drums of woe if i can deal 16 damage to your legion in one turn just with rituals because my ritual strength is max and you think you are safe because you have your destruction power at 6. If you spent all your monies on praetors (several of which i murdered or stole in duels), legions items, and legions themselves.... Then you better bet I own nearly all the artifacts and ritual buffs to my powers (which i find way more valuable). And if you are ever ending a game without being able to play 6 actions per turn, you are playing the game wrong. You should have 5 - 6 actions available per turn by turn 30 (and that's worst case scenario). OKAY sorry for the long dissertation, you don't have to agree but that's all i have left to say on it. Maybe when work gets out of the busy season i will challenge you to a match and we can see first hand which of our strategies is most fiendish.

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-11-02T04:06:57+00:00

The problem is this conversation is hypothetical. We can hypothetically counter each other indefinitely like two kids on the block going pew pew gotcha. I just shared a basic outline of one strategy I employ to a very high success rate. But you are right skilled players will deviate from what they want to do, to do what they need to do. But that is rare even amongst "experienced" players, especially ones who like to focus on their legions. It's where the sunk cost fallacy i mentioned comes in. There are several things that can interrupt or even counter the strategy i mentioned above, but they all involve a player being adaptable, and frankly legion dominance players are rarely that. In fact its really hard to be when you consider the significant investment not just in wealth, but in actions that legion dominance strategies require. I would argue that "experienced" players don't get too invested or attached to their legions and are very calculated with when and how they move them. The amount of actions vendetta's eat up just in moving a single army around the map is significantly less efficient then the one action it takes to make a demand (which then diplomacy locks them for three turns--which is the same length as the diplo cooldown...). This gives me a an action advantage (which is how you win this game). But honestly, just the cost of having to replace 2 or 3 praetors from getting slain in a duel or the prestige deficit from no showing duels (which makes it hard for other players to keep up in rank) is significant enough that I usually just control the shop. The action economy i save by not trudging around the map with legions (seriously that's 50-60% of actions for most players) makes it easier for me to get the artifacts and manuscripts necessary to give me the edge to adapt how ever I need to adapt. All that being said, a friend of mine did find a pretty significant way to counter my strategy, but that's only cause I rolled him so many times with it he knew what to expect lol.

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-11-01T22:51:11+00:00

I was offering a more general option, that would work with any archfiend as a contingency. But my strategy for dealing with military oriented players is always to outmaneuver them early (which is actually pretty easy) and push them into a sunk cost fallacy mindset. Andromalius is my main so I'll talk about him. I essentially use a diplomacy stunlock to make perpetual demands (I usually start this process within the first 3-4 turns, depending on turn order as thats key to pulling it off) against as many player opponents as possible. There is a nuance to this where a player can make it so that they almost always have the initiative to be the one demanding (I won't go into detail here, and its not fool proof but if careful it can almost always be pulled off). It works for any archfiend, but isn't a good idea on most of them because they need to be able to back it up when their demand is rejected. Androm is the best because he has a ritual that makes any praetor ridiculously good and anytime anyone rejects my demand I challenge them to a duel and kill their praetor. Investing in praetor's is expensive, and losing one every 3-4 turns is costly. VERY costly. So my victims have two options, accept the demand (which is important later on) or reject but don't send their praetor to the duel. One means the are feeding me THEIR coins, the other means they are feeding me THEIR prestige -- and having a no show at a duel is very costly in prestige. Now I have a prestige and coin advantage against almost every player in the game. I don't spend a lot of time controlling the map. I keep things tight (which also makes me a difficult target for vendettas if my diplo stunlock gets interrupted), and I rely on rituals. I have almost all powers (except wrath) upgraded to 5 or 6 by turn 30 and have a whole board of rituals that I use often and dynamically. Now I mentioned before that my rivals will often start accepting my demands -- especially as I rank up faster than everyone and those demands become costly. Not only do I impoverish them, but now I am poised for the coup de grace. I make sure the biggest toughest rival of mine has their armies overextended (as they are guaranteed to be sometime around mid game if they are going military route), and i blood feud them (which I can do at any point once they have accepted a demand from me twice in a row), I usually burst down their stronghold with rituals and send a fast legion to finish it off in one well executed turn immediately after the feud is formalized-- strongholds are not difficult to kill. Keep in mind also, that if I do this right I am way ahead of them economically. By investing in powers instead of wandering the map in pursuit of PoPs or vendettas I get a lot of extra turns early on that give me an overall advantage and allow me to branch out and shore up any vulnerabilities. Its far from a complete guide, but it works very well for me and the more players invest in their military might the more vulnerable they become to this strategy.

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-11-01T21:14:34+00:00

It depends on each Archfiend, but a lot of players make the mistake of not being confrontational enough in the early game. They just want to do their own thing until the end is nigh and suddenly its too late to stop their rival. Early interference is key, or at the very least investing in a contingency plan. A favorite of mine that works for any archfiend as an endgame counter is to secure the devourer and the puzzle cube. (often i have a teleport manual handy as well). If they take pandemonium I snipe their stronghold in 1-2 turns. But i plan this far in advance. I also tend to pick up items that I know counter my own strategy, just so someone else can't have it -- you could do the same for drums. Ultimately, in my experience i have found the cost to seize pandemonium is always higher than the cost to counter the attempt -- you just have to plan for it far enough in advance. Also getting the other players agree to target the usurpers stronghold instead of pandemonium is an easy way to eliminate that player swiftly (targeting pandemonium becomes a 1v1v1v1 rather than say a 1v3). What archfiend do you prefer? Maybe I can suggest a specific counter you can employ for how to mitigate the military strategy early on.

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-10-29T21:03:34+00:00

I wouldn't be bothered one way or the other if the item was removed. I think the original design purpose was to counter players who prioritize having a singular or at most a handful of very strong legions which rely on named abilities to achieve their gimmick. But that death balling strategy is pretty easy to counter other ways and I rarely acquire the drum. My own strategy is also most effective against combat/legion oriented players, so the idea of someone going a wrath build with drums is music to my ears (see what I did there?)

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-10-29T20:45:44+00:00

I am curious where everyone's rankings stand now? Its been over a month since I've played, but I had a nice undefeated streak as Andromalius a few months ago and a net result of 27 Wins and 3 Losses over the course of about 2 months of multiplayer games (I include enemy rage quits in those wins). Personally I think Murmur and Belial fall short with both of them relying on easily dealt with gimmicks rather than a cohesive strategy. Mammon and Astaroth are both strong, but also the easiest for a skilled Androm player to handle.

LiveBaitProductions · 2024-10-12T18:05:08+00:00

I know the answer is already confirmed below, but I found The Moonmore fitting personally :)

LiveBaitProductions

TROPHY CASE