Field of Glory: Kingdoms: AEGEOD gets Medieval on our asses

Most of my authority spending has been to declare war on everyone in the isles who isn’t England. Claims have been very difficult to come by so I’ve just had to take the hit. Also, Sneak Attack is great.

And the Qt3 Iberian Extravaganza 2024 is officially underway, with @Tom_Mc as the king of Leon holding back the infidel kingdoms, @abrandt hanging fire as El Cid to see which way the wind will blow, and me leading a flood of Almovarids into the fray in support of our oppressed Muslim brothers.

I don’t foresee anything interesting happening for several turns, but I’m happy to post updates here as that changes!

Turn 1: El Cid tours the countryside with no territory weighing him down.

Hey, that’s exactly what we did! High five!

Not planning to buy and play the game for some time so I hope reading your reports will fill this field of glory hole in my heart.

I am almost scared to see what you did there!

As Poland, I’ve been decimating Prussia in a war that’s been going on for 6 years. Lithuania has two claims in my kingdom, but I’ve been appeasing her with presents in order not to have to fight on two fronts.

Eventually Lithuania DOWs anyway. I realize that will happen if claims get old enough, BUT, at the time. she was already in 3 wars, and losing all 3. Plus my largest army was right on the border.

The AI should take things like that into consideration.

Well, the concept of declarations of war and all that in a game that tops out at, what, the 13th century, seems weird enough as it is. As is the concept of nation states, or for the most part even empires with the solidness of the ancient world’s powerhouses. Not that that invalidates criticism of dumb AI moves for sure.

I do think this game makes more nods to some of the realities of the era more than the average medieval design does.

Granted, the framework is still very much the one that was created for Empires. But the game encourages you to have vassals and punishes you for owning too many territories directly. But you’ve also got buildings that represent a lot of the lower level nobility. I do wish the game leaned into this more, though to sell some of the realities of the setting rather than a lot of it just feeling like window dressing.

That said, I’m enjoying this more the more I play. The differences from Empires become more apparent as you go, even if the game isn’t that far diverged. Now that I’m going after England in my Scotland game things like the standing army limits are starting to become really important. Along with trying to balance levies vs mercenaries to try to keep my resource expenditures balanced.

I think FoGK higher level of abstraction makes things like this tolerable. Paradox games suffer from.this subjective flaw: they’re so big and detailed it bothers me when something important is not portrayed. FoG Empires sure had a lot of cut corners but it’s portrayal of the era bothered me less often than Paradox’ Imperator Rome, because I:R insisted on portraying every minor tribe, and every village in that tribe, and every notable person in that tribe. It’s similar how the broad strokes of Civilization game kind of cover every historical event while with Crusader King’s you can claim that the game is totally ahistorical because it ignores special Rurikid succession system.

I kind of expected Kingdoms to be Empires with a different skin and various improvements but from what I’ve heard it’s much more ambitious and it might be to its detriment. I hope the added complexity still gives us systems that are clear, elegant and diverse.

Here’s what I was referencing with the baronial building. Note how it eats into most of the income you’d want from the territory.

Oh, yeah, I’m not upset at all with the various anachronisms that creep into most of these sorts of games. Hard to do a truly “accurate” (whatever that might be) sim of most historical periods without drowning players in complexity and making the whole experience un-fun.