Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Kind of necessary though. In general one of the things that can be an issue in the game, is how much the game is decided by the RNG beforehand. the 3 big ones being, how many and what kind of neuts, Which side is the first king on etc...
IE hypothetically an alc + merc, possesor game with good king, is waay more likely to be a BD win than say a Sellsword + scorned + alc sorc game with an evil king etc...
Strength of the king ads into that rather significantly of course... which also lies into why his strength is a factor.
Personally I like the king quite a bit now, the "all kings have allies" was probably my least liked form of king. I didn't personally have an issue with execute king, but I do kind of like allies for evil king.
Well the RB change makes it a bit more complex of a formula. With the old step up system you could assume about a 70-90% chance that an elected king is good in the early game (odds of unseen/cult's only convert happening to be a royal were pretty low) though with the royal blood change in which the BD can't be certain a royal is elected king, elections are probably not as useful for getting a near certain good king.