u/Chlodio

In this game, battles happen when a hostile army encounters another army in a province. Regardless, if the weaker army was trying to move out and avert battle. So, the battles are forced battles. What makes them worse is that you are not even allowed to retreat until the phase has changed to late battle. And because most of the damage happens during retreat, you might as well fight until the end.

Contrast this to historic warfare. Historically, getting two armies of different strengths to actually fight was challenging. A weaker army could continue running away in defiance and never be caught. This is why most of the battles happened either as:

• pitched battle, where the stronger side intentionally puts themselves at a more disadvantageous position to get the weaker army to fight

• surprise attack (typically ambush), where one party was able to attack the other without being detected

This is why war strategies were developed to strong-arm the defenders to actually give battle, either by forcing them to lift sieges or respond to raiding.

Either way, I think the game would work fine if battles were not forced battles. Like if a moving army could actually avoid battles. Battle would still happen when lifting sieges.

They covered the 2nd season, but not the 3rd or 4th. The 5th is exceptionally incompetent in every aspect of storytelling; it should be studied in detail.

Like, I cannot put into words how it fails every aspect of storytelling. Like, it is not only thematically messy but also can't get anything literally right. It is one thing to make all your characters horrible, but the show doesn't treatment eqaully. Like the show thinks Startlight is awesome, even though she is hypocritical, manipulative, and self-righteous. Meanwhile, the show keeps torturing the Deep because the writers really hate him.

Another thing is the structure of the show; they spend 6/8 episodes of the season searching for a MacGuffin, only for it not to matter and find another solution in the remaining two episodes.

The level of zigzagging is also fucking insane. Like SoldierBoy betrays Homelander like 3 times within this season, and Homelander forgives him in the same episode. Their relationship doesn't change despite the show treating it as the emotional core of the season.

Much like the 8th season of GoT it also feels like it is just missing scenes. Like one episode ends with Starlight having a panic attack over Hughie almost dying, and abandoning the Boys during the middle of the mission, and spending the next episode with her father. She is then shown returning next episode, but the panic attack and her abandoning her team are not addressed.

Personally, I don't.

Four words: French retreat from Russia

Focus on the low-ranking soldiers' POV as they freeze, starve, and get raided by the cossacks. And then add some monster from Slavic mythology to haunt them.

I feel like it would align pretty well with the theme of the first season.

So the protagonist is [TenSura anime]>!a god who can resurrect and generate anything he wants. And everyone wants to be his friend.!< That is one thing.

But the last episode had the epitome of showing how allergic the story is to any stakes: [TenSura anime]>!There is a collar that could possibly enslave the protagonist. Only two seconds after this is introduced, the protagonist is told he would be immune to the collar, even if his enemies were somehow able to put it on him!<

I still like this show, but I don't understand the framing device.

So, King's Orders is a strategy game by the developer(s) of Radio Commander. It has a pretty novel concept of ruling your kingdom via orders and reports that travel through the roads and may be delayed or intercepted. Essentially, it builds on two generals' problem. I myself have been interested in making a game with limited information, so I was curious how this one played out.

So, the perception I got from let's plays and a dozen reviews is that, in execution, the core concept is reduced to inconvenience. The delays aren't significant enough to make an impact, and the information is mostly reliable. It also seems like underlings will always follow the orders perfectly.

I'm thinking the main issue with the game is that the concept doesn't fit the setting (which, in this case, is medieval Europe). So, the game is very capital-centric, and every letter is delivered there. Which contrast period of the itinerant court (where the king would move with his court in his kingdom) and warrior kings (kings generally lead the main military campaigns in person). So, the medieval period really wasn't as reliant on the type of governance the game suggests.

Even outside of the historically accurate, I feel the game would be better suited to larger scale seting where the delay of orders can be really felt. For example, the colonial empires of the 18th century struggled with communication and coordination. Which meant that during the American Revolution, it took London three months to learn about a major military defeat in America, and another three months for them to send supplies/reinforcement, by the time the situation might have already changed.

So, during HYW, Edward III convinced the Flemish nobility to make him overlord of Flanders; in exchange, Edward would pay the nobility 300,000 pounds of silver in subsidies.

The only issue was that England did not have the money. His annual income was only 30,000 pounds. So, he took some loans and gave the parliament two years to raise money. But even then, he was only able to put together half of the promised sum.

But Edward still rushed to besiege the City of Tournai and called his Flemish underlings arms. He promised them the rest of the money would come during the siege. Edward's goal during the siege was to force the French King, Philip to fight him.

So, two months passed, and Edward ran out of money, because the parliament wasn't able to raise the money. The Flemish army told him that they wouldn't fight until they were paid, which is deeply ironic, because Philip was about to engage Edward in Tournai and give him the battle he longed for. Instead, Edward was forced to make truce with Philip and leave Tournai as a pauper.

So, I keep coming across this term in many Wikipedia articles, for example, Guillaume de Nogaret was a seigneur of Marsillargues, Calvisson, Aujargues and Congénies.

I presumed this was just a lord of the manor, a title below counts, but how come it is not translated as lord? Is there actually difference between seigneur and a lord?

So, historically, women hold a lot of power even when they weren't formally rulers/regents. They issued decrees, assembled armies, and swayed opinion.

If anything, you'd have such experience with alternative landless gameplay and rework of marriage mechanics.

What I'm thinking is something like:

• consorts have their own income

• they expect to be given a percentage of ruler's income, but ruler decides how much

• they can use their income to build special holdings, or raise event-spawned factions

• they can join faction and travel independently

So, if you mistreat your wife, she might move out of your court and start sponsoring your enemy faction.

There seems to be this perception that tribal people are primitive, rawhide-wearing hunter-gatherers who live in caves.

I feel such a depiction is kinda disservice to the tribal people. Historic tribal people are very diverse in every possible way. If anything, the only common thing about them is the tribal structure.

The tribal structure is clan-based ownership. So, a kingroup would collectively own land and cattle, rather than it being owned by an individual person.

Regarding technology, an interesting thing about it is that different tribal people excelled in very narrow fields of technology. So, if anything, tribes were utilitarian.

So, my point is, when adding tribal societies into your story, you should not consider backwater barbarians, but an alternative civilization. Maybe they cattle-depend ended civilization doesn't allow for large settlements, but they can have advanced bureaucracy and formidable strongholds.

On one hand, it is very flexible, and it is neat that different goods give different bonuses.

On the one hand, it is a bit too abstract than it needs to be for me. Like these trade relations are so abstract that even if your entire country is occupied, you will still continue getting income from trade.

The game has three settlement types:

• Settlement, representation of rural settlement

• City, represention of urban settlement

• Metropolis, representing megacities

I don't know about anyone else, but I often end up in situations where many provinces don't have a single city, only settlements, which feels kinda limiting. Like I want to build 2 forts on the territory, but can't unless build city there.

So, actually think the jump from settlement to city is a bit too steep. And there would be room for tiers between them, towns, to represent semi-urban settlements.

In Crusader Kings if you conquer a region, you can become a king.

But in real history, it is much more complex than that, and I'm not sure if I understood it, but I still share my theories.

So, what is a king? In its simplest form, a king is just a leader. Titles of kings existed in tribal societies before becoming associated with monarchism. In the early medieval period, a king could mean anything from a chieftain of a tribe to the ruler of a city. And I don't think there was really anything stopping rulers from calling themselves king.

I think the situation actually changed in the 9th/10th century. Due to the rapid fragmentation, west and central Europe were full of powerful counts who, de facto independent, in theory, could have proclaimed themselves kings, but didn't. Reason for this (I believe) was that there were benefits to being nominally a vassal of a powerful entity, because it provided legitimacy and protection. All at the cost of meager prestige.

Another reason is that with the increasing power of the Catholic Church, the Church began to gatekeep the title of kings. They had a formal list of recognized kingdoms, and would grant kingdom charters to rulers who recognized papal investiture (pope's right to appoint bishops). Over time, the papal recognition became more and more standard. By the 12th century, if the Pope didn't recognize you, you might not even bother calling yourself.