Core feature that's missing - occupying pre-existing towns and having political implications

[Windowlicker]

(Redirect me to another post if this has already been answered, I used the search bar and couldn't find anything)

Kenshi is one of the best games I've ever played but it's missing a core feature.
To my knowledge you can piss certain factions off if (spoilers) you steal / kill their leader but what I'm sorely missing is to actually occupy places with your own squads, either by killing everyone or being powerful enough to force the current leadership to step down.

The main aspect of this would be super simple, just changing the way the game internally flags the town so its under your ownership (from neutral / red to blue or green) when the population goes under a certain amount, I'm surprised this particular feature hasn't been implemented already. I've heard you can totally depopulate places but I haven't tried yet.

To develop upon this though, if you totally ransack a town over and over but don't take it, a political ambassador of the faction could visit your base to strike a deal, like a regular tax they pay you or whatever it may be to leave them alone. Of course this would be dependent on your stats and how many people you have and so forth.

Additionally if you kill enough of the leadership but not many civilians the pre-existing people could stay like barmen or shop owners but they would be under your faction. Likewise you could annoint your own ruler and choose how the guards under your new leadership treat people, what your social / economic policy is like, etc, which could result in revolutions if you're too hardline towards people.

This would make for some excellent late-game content, like the progression from being a nothing in the desert to owning the entire country. Maybe for Kenshi 2, since that's just been announced.

[Hatsune_Neko]

the taking over towns was once planned but the Dev dropped the idea some time ago.
as it stands now it would be to simple to simply take over the entire map.

[Windowlicker]

the taking over towns was once planned but the Dev dropped the idea some time ago.
as it stands now it would be to simple to simply take over the entire map.

Ahh fair enough, not to mention the focus seems to be on smaller squad survival rather than Mount & Blade-style huge battles (without mods anyway).
The main draw of the game at least to me is the power trip you get from growing stronger so it feels like it kneecaps you after a certain threshold alas. I feel like the game should almost reward you for getting that far, and perhaps compensate by sending more soldiers to the remaining cities of a faction to make it much more difficult to capture.

I suppose I could try using the FCS if it's possible, I hear it's simple-ish to use.

[princekd]

I Really Hope they reconsider putting this Feature in the game... I think it will really boost the game's fun factors a whole lot... They can make it like on the game "battlefield" where the player or enemy NPC can capture a structure, flag, banner or building after they downed or killed every Fighting Force/Soldier/Officer associated with the faction owning the outpost/city or when the said faction leader/s are killed... Or just make it like Mount and blade style Capturing...

[Hatsune_Neko]

in Kenshi i think the Dev would have to do something drastically different so that taking over towns is in no way simple
as we all know the NPC is nowhere near as good at the player can be.
something like limits on amount you can keep.
after that you delegate other taken over cities to one of your characters and they then peel off to become a NPC to govern a selected town or city.

[Windowlicker]

Maybe a certain gold drain per hour / day for captured settlements and then when you can't fund them, they're overrun by other factions or get wiped out or whatever it may be.

[Hatsune_Neko]

that would have to a very high drain. as it's too easy to make money in Kenshi.
making 1 millions cats is very easy.

[philthymcnasty]

the taking over towns was once planned but the Dev dropped the idea some time ago.
as it stands now it would be to simple to simply take over the entire map.

I dunno about that. Have you tried keeping npcs alive in hub? It is quite a challenge.

Holding a town could be very difficult. Perhaps have a happiness level that is attached to alcohol supplies in the town? npcs buy it daily, and if it runs out they go someplace else? If there is not enough food they could starve to death. So this would force a supply mechanic for bringing supplies into a town. You get money from not just npcs buying food and booze, but from renting beds.

Food and alcohol get distributed by having someone assigned as a barman, and town guards will also have to be assigned too.

And magnify raids by 10. Not just people raids, but all sorts of crazy ones, like fogmen nights where swarms of fogmen come out of the fog lands. Black ninja stealth runs where they sneak in to steal all the food, and bug master raids where arach vomits out skin spiders and blood spiders.

[Hatsune_Neko]

considering plays now regularly wipe out towns or ask how to
yea, the taking over towns would be rather easy for a lot of players.

[philthymcnasty]

considering plays now regularly wipe out towns or ask how to
yea, the taking over towns would be rather easy for a lot of players.

It's not the taking over part that is the challenge, it's the HOLDING part. That will be where the fun potential is. We already keep track of population of a town in game, so when you hold a town in order to keep it you will need to keep a neutral population alive. It's easy enough to wipe out a town, but keeping npcs alive? friggen tough. Just ask all those people that keep losing the barman in hub.

[Hatsune_Neko]

that to me sounds like it would fundamentally change the game and how you play it.
from one of a free roaming game style to one of tower defence.

but that's just how i see it.
course we also have no idea exactly what the Dev had planed and how he would have implemented it.

[philthymcnasty]

that to me sounds like it would fundamentally change the game and how you play it.
from one of a free roaming game style to one of tower defence.

but that's just how i see it.
course we also have no idea exactly what the Dev had planed and how he would have implemented it.

Did he have plans? I get the impression that this game took on a life of it's own, and just became it's own thing, and it works. It is pretty unique as far as games go. I would argue that it is an organically formed game: something that happened when a few devs worked on a concept with community feedback and testing.

It really is an interesting game, both to play and to approach from an academic stand point. It was an early access success when many other games failed, the player base is arguably more engaged than with bigger games, and the design and gameplay are unique. I don't know of many games on steam that have a massive thousand post lore theory thread.

I mean, there is still huge engagement with the player base. People still ask for things. I don't see this with many other games. Maybe minecraft?

[Hatsune_Neko]

he had plans early on
but later on turned against the idea. this was mentioned on steam forums by the Dev under this very type of topic.

[Windowlicker]

he had plans early on
but later on turned against the idea. this was mentioned on steam forums by the Dev under this very type of topic.

It does make sense, having a set endgame might railroad players into a specific playstyle / meta.

I think what's really lacking is dynamic interaction betwen each faction (including your own), such as large-scale invasions and battles between the big empires (UC, THN, Sheks, etc) where settlements would get absorbed Mount & Blade-style into the different nations depending.
You get a bit of it with the different worldstates and war campaigns which is awesome but it could be fleshed out much more.
Often I'm left thinking "so 100 in-game days have passed... what are the factions actually *doing*?". It seems like no one but you really has any goals other than survive.

[Hatsune_Neko]

that would more or less just be limits of the game engine. and limits of computers as well.
as it cannot render the entire map or what the inhabitants are doing unless the player is close enough.

[philthymcnasty]

he had plans early on
but later on turned against the idea. this was mentioned on steam forums by the Dev under this very type of topic.

It does make sense, having a set endgame might railroad players into a specific playstyle / meta.

I think what's really lacking is dynamic interaction betwen each faction (including your own), such as large-scale invasions and battles between the big empires (UC, THN, Sheks, etc) where settlements would get absorbed Mount & Blade-style into the different nations depending.
You get a bit of it with the different worldstates and war campaigns which is awesome but it could be fleshed out much more.
Often I'm left thinking "so 100 in-game days have passed... what are the factions actually *doing*?". It seems like no one but you really has any goals other than survive.

This gets addressed a little in a few mods. I know that one weapon modder on steam "ikura" i think his name is, made that "triangle bandits mod" It adds a bandit faction that takes over other hideouts once you remove the bounty. It also adds more raids.

A while back, we used to have bandit raids on the towns. I do not remember when this was removed.