Which lord owns which land?

[m4ce_windu]

I am a bit confused about which of the lord owns which land in this game. Basically there is Sir Radzig with Skalitz, Sir Divish with Talmberg, and Sir Hanush/Hans Capon with Rattay.

But which of them owns what of the surrounding land? I guess each lord would own their own fiefdom, but from the various quests there seems to be quite an overlap in what the lords consider their own land.

For example, Sir Hanush sends us to Uzhitz because of the Vicar. Meanwhile Sir Radzig sends us to protect *his* land in the band of bastards DLC, and there we go all over the map, including Uzhitz. Is this because Sir Radzig has a higher rank as royal hetman? Is there an authoritative answer to this question?

[็]

There are only two main lords- sir Hanush and the monastery. Rather sir Hanush, because monastery is enclosed world for themselves.

[Valden21]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Panzerfaust $€♠♥♦♣:

There are only two main lords- sir Hanush and the monastery. Rather sir Hanush, because monastery is enclosed world for themselves.

Not quite.

Sir Divish owns Talmberg, Uzhitz, and at one time, Prybislavitz. Sir Radzig's domain is Skalitz, Rovna, and Samopesh (I think). Lord Hanush controls Rattay, and Ledethko. Both Sasau and Merhojed are under the Church's authority. However, due to Sir Radzig being the Royal Hetman, he has ultimate authority over all matters that affect the region as a whole.

Lord Hanush wanted you to go to Uzhitz to handle the Vicar because Sir Radzig asked you to follow Lord Hanush's orders when they didn't interfere with his own, and Uzhitz falls within Lord Hanush's territory. However, within that particular DLC, the enemies were threatening the entire area, specifically because of their leader's grudge against Sir Radzig; the grudge was related to something Sir Radzig had done in his post as the Royal Hetman.

So to sum up your second question: the individual nobles are the sole authorities when something affects only their own land, but when something hits the region as a whole, Sir Divish and Lord Hanush HAVE to defer to Sir Radzig.

[็]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Valden21:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Panzerfaust $€♠♥♦♣:

There are only two main lords- sir Hanush and the monastery. Rather sir Hanush, because monastery is enclosed world for themselves.

Not quite.

Sir Divish owns Talmberg, Uzhitz, and at one time, Prybislavitz. Sir Radzig's domain is Skalitz, Rovna, and Samopesh (I think). Lord Hanush controls Rattay, and Ledethko. Both Sasau and Merhojed are under the Church's authority. However, due to Sir Radzig being the Royal Hetman, he has ultimate authority over all matters that affect the region as a whole.

Lord Hanush wanted you to go to Uzhitz to handle the Vicar because Sir Radzig asked you to follow Lord Hanush's orders when they didn't interfere with his own, and Uzhitz falls within Lord Hanush's territory. However, within that particular DLC, the enemies were threatening the entire area, specifically because of their leader's grudge against Sir Radzig; the grudge was related to something Sir Radzig had done in his post as the Royal Hetman.

So to sum up your second question: the individual nobles are the sole authorities when something affects only their own land, but when something hits the region as a whole, Sir Divish and Lord Hanush HAVE to defer to Sir Radzig.

It is questionable. Formally they should, but the fact is, that Wenceslas have no power, the only fully-operating king in game is Sigismund, and people like Radzig or Hanush are in position of rebels.

[็]

Opprinnelig skrevet av c Z p:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Panzerfaust $€♠♥♦♣:

It is questionable. Formally they should, but the fact is, that Wenceslas have no power, the only fully-operating king in game is Sigismund, and people like Radzig or Hanush are in position of rebels.

From Sigismund's point of view, sure. He may have abducted Wenceslas, but
the thing is that Radzig, Dinish and Hanush can't just switch allegiance and join Sigismund without direct orders from the king to do so, 'cause that would be treason.
Even pillaging a large portion of their lands wasn't enough to make them break and turn, I really hope KC2 is about rescuing the king.

Well, we all know how it went. After the burning of Jan Hus (who is also mentioned in the game) the people began to riot and King Wenceslaus died not long after. And that was the start of war between Hussite rebels and king Sigismund. Hussite armies has defeated one crusade army after another one.

[c Z p]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Panzerfaust $€♠♥♦♣:

Well, we all know how it went. After the burning of Jan Hus (who is also mentioned in the game) the people began to riot and King Wenceslaus died not long after. And that was the start of war between Hussite rebels and king Sigismund. Hussite armies has defeated one crusade army after another one.

Well, who knows what KC2's script is going to be.

[noxteryn]

Opprinnelig skrevet av c Z p:

I really hope KC2 is about rescuing the king.

You should play the first game until the end. The political situation is extensively explained in dialogue.

Spoiler alert: Wenceslaus is never rescued, and in the end doesn't even need rescuing. After the deaths of Rupert and Jobst, Sigismund is crowned King and Holy Emperor, and Wenceslaus remains the ruler of Bohemia. Wenceslaus dies in 1419 (Racek is murdered in 1416). There really isn't a story here to tell, just politics.

The Hussite Wars would be a far more appropriate subject for a sequel, both in terms of setting and gameplay.

[c Z p]

Opprinnelig skrevet av noxteryn:

Opprinnelig skrevet av c Z p:

I really hope KC2 is about rescuing the king.

You should play the first game until the end. The political situation is extensively explained in dialogue.

I've completed KCD many times in different playthroughs.
How could I have all these prizes, without multiple playthroughs?
Maybe you know some other way.

Opprinnelig skrevet av noxteryn:

There really isn't a story here to tell, just politics.

Care to explain that? Politics is the perfect story and the perfect story is about politics, last I checked. For you to make that statement, I don't think you understand what politics is, actually.

Opprinnelig skrevet av noxteryn:

The Hussite Wars would be a far more appropriate subject for a sequel, both in terms of setting and gameplay.

Even KCD isn't about tight historical accuracy, a game's script is something different, that's what I mean. KC2's setting could be literally anywhere around central Europe, it depends on what script they're going to choose.

[noxteryn]

No need to be so defensive. I was simply pointing out that, as the game's epilogue explains, there is little more story to be told. It's mostly diplomacy among many different noblemen, which is something that wouldn't really work in a hero-oriented story, as it would require a shift in point-of-view to truly work. The only alternative would be to do it the way Assassin's Creed games do, where the protagonist is weirdly responsible or present for every historical event happening, which would be lame and turn Henry into Forrest Gump. That's what I meant when I said that there's no story, only politics. It's just noblemen talking to each other and negotiating peace terms, there would be literally nothing for Henry to do. Seeing as this game is somewhat combat-oriented, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to use that setting. That's why I suggested the Hussite Wars instead, which happen a few years afterward and were extremely bloody. Racek Kobyla himself was murdered for his support of Jan Hus, so it would work greatly as a motivator for Henry to return to a life of violence.

[c Z p]

Opprinnelig skrevet av noxteryn:

No need to be so defensive. I was simply pointing out that, as the game's epilogue explains, there is little more story to be told. It's mostly diplomacy among many different noblemen, which is something that wouldn't really work in a hero-oriented story, as it would require a shift in point-of-view to truly work. The only alternative would be to do it the way Assassin's Creed games do, where the protagonist is weirdly responsible or present for every historical event happening, which would be lame and turn Henry into Forrest Gump. That's what I meant when I said that there's no story, only politics. It's just noblemen talking to each other and negotiating peace terms, there would be literally nothing for Henry to do. Seeing as this game is somewhat combat-oriented, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to use that setting. That's why I suggested the Hussite Wars instead, which happen a few years afterward and were extremely bloody. Racek Kobyla himself was murdered for his support of Jan Hus, so it would work greatly as a motivator for Henry to return to a life of violence.

I just deeply disagree, I'm not being defensive.

[noxteryn]

???

You asked me to explain, and then you post a yawn emoticon when I do explain? You literally said: "Care to explain that?" I did. Again, there's really no reason for you to be this defensive over such an inconsequential subject. If you disagree, you are free to argue your position. Being rude and obnoxious is not an opinion.

[c Z p]

Opprinnelig skrevet av noxteryn:

???

You asked me to explain, and then you post a yawn emoticon when I do explain? You literally said: "Care to explain that?" I did. Again, there's really no reason for you to be this defensive over such an inconsequential subject. If you disagree, you are free to argue your position. Being rude and obnoxious is not an opinion.

I was being ironic cause there's no explaining that, rly.
To be honest, I don't want to engage in a discussion about history, KCD or frankly any game with you.
If you'd believe it.

[vine]

we'll play as Henry's offspring, most likely son. i bet my Alphonse's dice set and yearly income from my Prib.

[wjpower2003]

Opprinnelig skrevet av noxteryn:

???

You asked me to explain, and then you post a yawn emoticon when I do explain? You literally said: "Care to explain that?" I did. Again, there's really no reason for you to be this defensive over such an inconsequential subject. If you disagree, you are free to argue your position. Being rude and obnoxious is not an opinion.

@noxteryn

I disagree with c Z p but I can understand why c Z p posted the "yawn" emoticon/emoji. I imagine it is, at least in part, your tendency to type in block paragraphs devoid of any page breaks.

A solid wall of text is something that will make me skip over entirely without reading, so you should probably be grateful to c Z p as opposed to being defensive.

[c Z p]

Opprinnelig skrevet av vine:

we'll play as Henry's offspring, most likely son. i bet my Alphonse's dice set and yearly income from my Prib.

Whatever the case, I do hope there is a sequel.
This game is formidable at its genre and unforgettable, really.

[Targonis]

If you think about it, you have the setting, and then you have both fictional and historic figures being talked about when it comes to the politics going on. The first game is about Henry, and I expect the second game to be about Henry as well, since he is going to try to get that sword back no matter what. Now, the Henry story is just impacted by the politics going on around him.

Now, if you finished the first game, you would see where the game will pick up, and hopefully not too far into the future, so no need to come up with what happened. New lands, new villages/towns/cities, and of course, new quests. And yes, the lords of those places will be different, so we will be trying to make sense of it.