That's the thing, removing KUs altogether will not resolve that players and kingdoms form a large group and play together. We already see it in-game, even with KUs, that kingdoms have similar names, e.g. Celtics1, Celtics2 and so on (placeholder names to point fingers on any kingdom). It's a normal human behavior to from groups and cooperate. And what about competitive, smaller kingdoms? If two of them work together in fighting a bigger kingdom, isn't that already a kingdom union, even if it's time limited? What I want to say is, I don't think removing KUs is helping the game but creating other problems to fix. Let's focus on these changes presented here. I hope I was able to make my thought process a bit clear and understandable.
Thanks for the feedback on this point! I actually was expecting a bit more controversy around this topic. Glad you like it
YES! that's the main purpose of these changes. No person getting left behind anymore. Thanks for sharing your feedback!
Can you please elaborate a bit? What kind of time restriction do you have in mind? And do you think the fealty system can counteract those wing kingdoms a bit?
The real goal is to not leave the king behind when players leave a kingdom union. That is happening rather often in game and it's not a great player experience for this king.
The second goal is to counteract the disadvantages of having an empty vice-king slot in a kingdom union. That is also happening rather often and it's hard for the whole kingdom to not have a full set of leaders.
I hope this answers your questions?
no, that's not a consensus.
I am curious on what other players think about this topic. From the past discussions around menhir, I got the impression that this is not a majority wish. @all: what do you think?