Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Get ready for Total War Saga: THRONES OF BRITANNIA.

2

Comments

  • FedevdFedevd Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 168
    This Saga would have total new map and many new features. Good. I was waiting something like that.

    I have a question to Jack or other devs. Is it possible to make battle maps terrain equal to WH in your game? I like WH terrain very much: many different mountains, hills, swamps, forests to use during combats? Rome's and Attila's battle maps are like a steppe with few trees.
  • mahboi1mahboi1 Member Registered Users Posts: 801
    I just hope the business model is fair. With what's happened the past few months I sincerely can no longer trust any AAA company.
    Sigmar wills it!
  • iceniqueeniceniqueen Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 11

    It would be nice if it went to 1066 as this was actually the end of the Viking rule in England by the Normans of France

    pretty sure the saxons-english defeated the vikings.
    the normans then defeated the saxons
    Think again

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
  • MemnonSBMemnonSB Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 595
    Im hope "real" sige battle back...im hope big city back...im hope "real" fight between units back...im hope we have longer battle than 3 min-EPIC battle...
    Hope die last one....
  • TheBlank97TheBlank97 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8
    One question important to me: You said it runs off Attila's engine but made optimisations to make the game sun smoothly. Can this please be also a patch for Attila? I run Rome II on mods like Divide et Impera improving unit sizes considerably, with 50-60 fps max everything, while Attila is under 20 not max everything, without mods. I would love to play Attila if only the performance was fixed. I run Warhammer better and it's a later game!
  • RotarrinRotarrin Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 38
    I'm super-pumped now. Ever since I first read Bernard Cornwell's "Saxon Chronicles" novels (beginning with The Last Kingdom), I've wanted to see the TW series tackle this time period. Definitely looking forward to this one!

    Tibi088 said:

    Sooo the most important question: Will Uthred of Bebbanburg be in?

    Heh.


  • NorthstrikeNorthstrike Registered Users Posts: 35
    great move CA :D I hope for a lot of viking look units :D
  • Psycho_VPsycho_V Registered User Registered Users Posts: 525
    edited November 2017
    A great potential setting.

    PLEASE CA, depict this as real, gritty and immersive as you can:
    • Provide unique / distinct cultural and factional settings / ambiance.
    • Provide unique settlement battle maps (based on history) . Make the player feel they're NOT just not sacking another generic placeholder.
    • Provide unique cultural and factional unit attire (more than just colour coding).
    • Provide interactive cut-scenes for major events and strategic turning points (including siege diplomacy, survivors reporting enemy excesses, death of loved ones, etc etc).
    • Provide improved international relations, trade and diplomacy. Have the AI respond more emotionally / humanly to the player's actions. Give the player as sense of developing loyal friendships or mortal enemies
    my2bob
    "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for THEE!" - (John Donne, 1572 – 1631, Meditation 17)
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    edited November 2017
    Thrilled with this setting! Seems like CA has been paying attention to the players.

    I'll have to adjust to the small map as (for me) TW tends to be best in the bigger sprawling settings, but on the other hand this means there can be some decently granular coverage of the British Isles rather than the usual complement of fewer than 5 settlements.

    There's so much scope for quality gameplay and heightened polish in a focused FotS sized game set in Viking Age Britain, it's unreal. Breaking the new format with this setting is a stroke of genius.

    Fredrin said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Is it different from Britannia Campaign in Medieval 2?

    Expansion from Attila. Here's a map of Britain in the year it starts (AD 878)





    Hey, that's not a map of Britain (still less a map of the British Isles). :D


    @CA: Finally, because I know some of my esteemed fellow history-centric TWers will grizzle (and I'm sure I will at some point, as is PC gamers' wont), thanks for these announcements and letting us know you haven't abandoned the historical games; Even knowing CA had historical stuff "in the pipeline" the silence was starting to become deafening for some of us. This is like a breath of fresh air.

    Can't wait to play this game, thank you for all your hard work, you guys rock.
  • ArgonArgon Senior Member ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 1,501
    SiWI said:

    Argon said:

    Will this game be 64-bit like the warhammer titles? Or like Attila and Rome 2 where I have VRAM locked at 3?

    "base on Attila", was the sentence I saw...
    right, but they also said that they made improvements
    My favorite factions in TW titles:
    Rome 1 - House of Julii
    Medieval 2 - Milan
    Empire - UK
    Napoleon - France
    Shogun 2 - Tokugawa
    Rome 2 - Macedon
    Attila - Western Roman Empire
    Warhammer - Empire (Karl Franz)
    Three kingdoms - Sun Jian
  • jimmy44jimmy44 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 351
    Frame rates for Total War Attila were pretty poor, even on a high end rig - can CA reassure us that FPS will be better in the Brittania campaign on the same rig? I really feel Attila was not optimised as much as it could have been.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 377
    ive waited long for this! pls dont butcher it

    It would be nice if it went to 1066 as this was actually the end of the Viking rule in England by the Normans of France

    pretty sure the saxons-english defeated the vikings.
    the normans then defeated the saxons
    Think again

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge
    his statement is correct, no?
    at hastings harald took an arrow to the face
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • clee24clee24 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 78
    edited November 2017
    If the game will cover up till 1066, does that mean we'll see Sweyn Forkbeard and/or his son Canute the great? They conqoured england twice in the early 1000s if i recall correctly.
  • L_OstL_Ost Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 156
    edited November 2017
    I'd like to know if bug corrections on the new game will be reported on Attila, if it uses the same engine platform.

    To my despair, my Attila is broken, I don't know why battle flags doesn't shows up. I tried literally days to fix it. This made me stop playing the game unfortunually because in terms of ergonomy this is a disaster, and I don't want to discover "use the same Atila engine" means "you dude, will have the same bugs".

    I'm extremly doubtfull because I feel stolen by this Attila episode : the game is superb but I can't use it, and I was not used to be that doubtfull in the past. I don't want anymore to play "60€ throw a random dice, meh you lost" when buying a CA game. It's like buying a delicious chocolate cake and discovering there was salt instead of sugar in it and that you will have to wait more years to be able to buy a new cake because the baker is trying himself at pizzas.

    Buying year after the release doesn't help because support is over, buying before in precommand doesn't help because the game is very expensive + a catastrophic technicall mess : each time I buy a CA game (customer since med2 - skipped R2 and WH1+2 only), it's a coin flip. I somehow feel like Maurice Moss reading that fire extinguisher.

    Before paying, I want to have insurance that things will work first now and I think it's not normal that this is a question that some of your player base is worry about. I'm part of that hopefully small % that adds up to the old % erosion. Do something, CA.

    ---

    That been said, there is work to do on campaign & factions. In most of the previous titles I played, changing a faction doesn't really change the playing experience. Attila tried to change that and it was a very good idea, I do hope you will continue this way.

    Oh. And I'd strongly advice your gamedesigners to try this game : https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/152470/fief-france-1429
    Oldschool sure. But try it.

    Then hopefull you'll continue the story of England through the two hundred year wars between England and my country :p , then make us discover what happen in England during the 2 Roses.

    But play that game a few time if that's your plan !
    Post edited by L_Ost on
  • L_OstL_Ost Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 156
    edited November 2017
    The funny thing is the time period, which is announcing my prefered time period:

    837 - Halley Comet. Viking incursion in France
    878 - Game starts as the Viking start to be frantic about England.
    886 - Vikings get frantic about France too.
    911 - King of France make Vikings stop their pillaging by giving Hrólfr Rögnvaldrsson (aka Rollo) green lands of Normandy. The king ask them to be convert to catholicism & make them a vassal. I suppose this doesn't help England.
    912 - Halley Comet.
    989 - Halley Comet. Start of "Peace of god" movement, (I don't know exactly why, but I'd guess the church is fearing the year 1000 rumored apocalypse)
    1000 - Apocalypse... Not. Well, maybe next time.
    1066 - Halley Comet, interpreted as a bad sign about the english king (as the superb 70 meters long Bayeux tapestry says).
    1066 - William, grand children of that Viking, is boring in France and go invade England. It was a lot more complicated than that because there is no "good and bad" guy in this story.

    Then, we have my prefered time period, which is covering 1124 (Alienor's birth, what she did to EngloFrench relationship, what she showed about "the two" Frances too) up to the begining of "the" hundred year wars in 1337 which is telling to all English children "French are egoistic starvers" and to all French children "English are egoistics robbers".
    Post edited by L_Ost on
  • DeepwoodScoutDeepwoodScout Registered Users Posts: 121

    One question important to me: You said it runs off Attila's engine but made optimisations to make the game sun smoothly. Can this please be also a patch for Attila? I run Rome II on mods like Divide et Impera improving unit sizes considerably, with 50-60 fps max everything, while Attila is under 20 not max everything, without mods. I would love to play Attila if only the performance was fixed. I run Warhammer better and it's a later game!

    same ! would love to back to Attila if it had better performance
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    Glad for a new historical game, but honestly the setting is kinda 'meh.' Not going to be a ton of historical diversity between factions, too many big factions for my liking, and apart from a more focused map, not going to be substantially different from a Danish or Mercian campaign in AoC. I suppose though that VIKINGS! are easier to market than more interesting periods.

    @Jack_Lusted_CA, since you've engaged this thread - I know you can't comment on future content, but if you do DLC campaigns - 6th c., please?
  • ZanatisZanatis Registered Users Posts: 39
    edited November 2017
    Vessinger said:

    While this isn't a region I would have preferred, I think your assumption that mostly people from regions that are represented in the game will have any interest is a bit off. Just looking at the sales figures for Shogun 2 by region shows it was, by a vast majority, bought by Europeans.

    Kind of blows that out of the water doesn't it? I'm sure there are people out there that only want to play their home region, but those stats seem to indicate they're in the minority.

    Some 510,000 Europeans and North Americans fought for the glory of the Japanese Empire. I know I put in 1,624 hours into it, and I've never even been to Japan!

    You’re not really serious, are you? Comparing the Romans, Samurais, and Vikings to the Medieval Gallo-Romans and Celts?

    Like I’ve said in other forums, Japanese history with their Samurais and Vikings recently became a thing (thank television for that), therefore they ought to be treated as outliers. On the other hand, Rome conquered most of Europe and most of our ancestors became part of that Empire, despite the fact that Roman culture represents one of the biggest foundations of the European culture. It’s very easy to counter my argument with Shogun, but early Medieval British history is not on the list of the most interesting ones, therefore it can’t generate that many sales.

    Unfortunately the Saga won’t even be a Vikings focused title, which leaves us with only 2 scenarios, conquer all Britain as a Dane or unify it as a local.

    Now most of us not to say all are historical titles fans and are curious (including myself) to give it a go, but do I want to spend £30 (I’m being optimistic with this price) to play 1 campaign and unify/conquer Britain? Yes we’re all history fans but this is not our cup of tea.

    I’ve been playing TW since 2003 and I’ve known hundreds of players and I have undeniable proof (at least for myself) that all of tried many campaigns with famous factions like Rome, Carthage, Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucids, England (Medieval 2), France (Napoleon), etc., but in all the save games I’ve seen there’s always 1 campaign with your ancestral nation that we identified that had 3-4 times more turns played than anything else.

    Just look at when CA or modders are about to release new content and everyone is spamming with requests to include or improve their “preferred” factions. You won’t see an Iranian complaining about the Iceni, they’re always on about Persia and Sasanids, Greeks with Athens and Sparta, Spaniards with the Iberians and so on.

    We all have a bias on this so why didn't they capitalize on it by either choosing a way more interesting region demanded by many more fans, or simply involve more European regions. Personally I’m a big fan of what they’re doing with the focus on 1 region only and I hope they do another Saga elsewhere as I’m completely uninterested in Grand Campaigns conquering the entire world, but it seems obvious that most TW fans don’t like that and especially if it’s not around the Mediterranean mostly.

    Now good luck putting 1,624 hours conqering Britain only, especially if you’re not originally from there. I’d never spend more than 20-30 hours at best knowing I can play as a truly great civilization and spread it everywhere, instead of invading and raiding fortified villages and towns that look the same on top of the depressingly bad weather lol

  • ZanatisZanatis Registered Users Posts: 39



    But of course investing hundreds of hours for the glory of Japan, Rome or the Dwarfs of Clan Angrund makes total sense.

    Medieval Britain is more glorious than Rome?

    Mercian warriors (or whatever) are more famous than Samurais?

    Don’t bring Dwarves into a historical title conversation. Like I said in TWC, a Total War: For Honor where you could have Knights Vs Vikings Vs Samurais is far more interesting than a historical ONLY Vikings vs Britons.

    Besides the monotonous battles what else do you do? Build glorious fishing/farming settlements as Vikings? Glorious Celtic cities?
  • Delder07ltDelder07lt Registered Users Posts: 1
    Isn't this just a remake of the medieval total war expansion Viking invasion?
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    Zanatis said:


    Like I’ve said in other forums, Japanese history with their Samurais and Vikings recently became a thing (thank television for that)

    They might have just become a thing you've noticed in your life because they've been on TV a lot recently. Don't assume other people are only interested in them because of that, that doesn't make any sense.
  • mmurray821mmurray821 Moderator Sacramento, CAModerators Posts: 5,230

    Isn't this just a remake of the medieval total war expansion Viking invasion?

    Not really. It is set later after the invasions and the Great Heathen Army. Vikings are there and settled in England.
    Total War Forum: Terms and Conditions
    I've never seen the Icarus story as a lesson on the limitations of humans. I see it as a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive.
  • ZanatisZanatis Registered Users Posts: 39


    They might have just become a thing you've noticed in your life because they've been on TV a lot recently. Don't assume other people are only interested in them because of that, that doesn't make any sense.

    Television simply creates awareness and it’s later up to us to dig in for more information to read and end up liking it. Your statements makes sense mostly if you’re a history graduate and happen to have never watched The Last Samurai, other TV is what drives and influences most of our interests together with internet. You don’t just walk into a library and bump into the Japanese history section and get hooked within minutes.

    Anyway it’s pointless arguing as we’ll see how successful this release will be. I doubt it will reach CA’s expectations despite everyone’s eagerness for new historical content, aggressive marketing on Vikings, the high demand from fans of British ancestry, and the fact that Jack Lusted is behind it.
  • Paddy234Paddy234 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 462
    edited November 2017
    Zanatis said:

    Great news...for the people of British and Scandinavian descent mostly.

    For the rest of us, I don’t think the value of the added features will be £30 to simply get a better version of Age of Charlemagne, although AoC covers most of Europe and therefore most of TW fans’ historical interest.

    Hard to imagine that non-Brits/Scandinavians would invest hundreds of hours of gameplay for the glory of Britain. Granted all the historical fans including myself will be curious to try out every Total War title, but buying the game just to do 1 campaign doesn’t cut it (at least for me).

    What is left is to pray to Hollywood or History Channel to come up with a new historical kickass movie or TV show on the periods that the vast majority of us are interested so that CA can obviously chase those idea and make some decent bucks.

    Apologies for the negativity but I’m happy for you guys that can’t wait for its release and I’m just jealous I haven’t had the same feeling since 2013.

    Is it not also good news for us Irish folk aswell??. There are millions of people in the world with Irish ancestry who are interested in its history nevermind those with British and Scandinavian
  • ZanatisZanatis Registered Users Posts: 39
    Paddy234 said:

    Zanatis said:

    Great news...for the people of British and Scandinavian descent mostly.

    For the rest of us, I don’t think the value of the added features will be £30 to simply get a better version of Age of Charlemagne, although AoC covers most of Europe and therefore most of TW fans’ historical interest.

    Hard to imagine that non-Brits/Scandinavians would invest hundreds of hours of gameplay for the glory of Britain. Granted all the historical fans including myself will be curious to try out every Total War title, but buying the game just to do 1 campaign doesn’t cut it (at least for me).

    What is left is to pray to Hollywood or History Channel to come up with a new historical kickass movie or TV show on the periods that the vast majority of us are interested so that CA can obviously chase those idea and make some decent bucks.

    Apologies for the negativity but I’m happy for you guys that can’t wait for its release and I’m just jealous I haven’t had the same feeling since 2013.

    Is it not also good news for us Irish folk aswell??. There are millions of people in the world with Irish ancestry who are interested in its history nevermind those with British and Scandinavian
    I meant the British Isles in general. Obviously I didn't mean simply the UK and leave Ireland out of it.
  • VessingerVessinger Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,007
    Paddy234 said:

    Zanatis said:

    Great news...for the people of British and Scandinavian descent mostly.

    For the rest of us, I don’t think the value of the added features will be £30 to simply get a better version of Age of Charlemagne, although AoC covers most of Europe and therefore most of TW fans’ historical interest.

    Hard to imagine that non-Brits/Scandinavians would invest hundreds of hours of gameplay for the glory of Britain. Granted all the historical fans including myself will be curious to try out every Total War title, but buying the game just to do 1 campaign doesn’t cut it (at least for me).

    What is left is to pray to Hollywood or History Channel to come up with a new historical kickass movie or TV show on the periods that the vast majority of us are interested so that CA can obviously chase those idea and make some decent bucks.

    Apologies for the negativity but I’m happy for you guys that can’t wait for its release and I’m just jealous I haven’t had the same feeling since 2013.

    Is it not also good news for us Irish folk aswell??. There are millions of people in the world with Irish ancestry who are interested in its history nevermind those with British and Scandinavian
    I'm not Irish but I do like the idea of taking over the British Isles while playing as Ireland, just like I did with the ME II Britannia campaign. The lack of gunpowder will take some of the fun out of it in this game though.

  • Paddy234Paddy234 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 462
    edited November 2017
    Zanatis said:

    Paddy234 said:

    Zanatis said:

    Great news...for the people of British and Scandinavian descent mostly.

    For the rest of us, I don’t think the value of the added features will be £30 to simply get a better version of Age of Charlemagne, although AoC covers most of Europe and therefore most of TW fans’ historical interest.

    Hard to imagine that non-Brits/Scandinavians would invest hundreds of hours of gameplay for the glory of Britain. Granted all the historical fans including myself will be curious to try out every Total War title, but buying the game just to do 1 campaign doesn’t cut it (at least for me).

    What is left is to pray to Hollywood or History Channel to come up with a new historical kickass movie or TV show on the periods that the vast majority of us are interested so that CA can obviously chase those idea and make some decent bucks.

    Apologies for the negativity but I’m happy for you guys that can’t wait for its release and I’m just jealous I haven’t had the same feeling since 2013.

    Is it not also good news for us Irish folk aswell??. There are millions of people in the world with Irish ancestry who are interested in its history nevermind those with British and Scandinavian
    I meant the British Isles in general. Obviously I didn't mean simply the UK and leave Ireland out of it.
    Ireland isn't part of the British isles though ;)
  • ZanatisZanatis Registered Users Posts: 39
    Paddy234 said:



    Ireland isn't part of the British isles though ;)

    Are you sure? Check again.
  • CaractacusMagnusCaractacusMagnus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 370
    Zanatis said:


    They might have just become a thing you've noticed in your life because they've been on TV a lot recently. Don't assume other people are only interested in them because of that, that doesn't make any sense.

    Television simply creates awareness and it’s later up to us to dig in for more information to read and end up liking it. Your statements makes sense mostly if you’re a history graduate and happen to have never watched The Last Samurai, other TV is what drives and influences most of our interests together with internet. You don’t just walk into a library and bump into the Japanese history section and get hooked within minutes.
    This is the Total War community - Warhammer notwithstanding it is full of people hooked on various times and places in history and always has been, whatever their level of study and whatever TV series are made.

    The idea that a couple of million people already interested in a military history game are just waiting for the TV to tell them to like a historical period doesn't make much sense, really. YMMV I guess.
    Paddy234 said:


    Ireland isn't part of the British isles though ;)

    Yes it is. The British Isles is a geographical location that include Ireland.

  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,991
    Paddy234 said:

    Zanatis said:

    Paddy234 said:

    Zanatis said:

    Great news...for the people of British and Scandinavian descent mostly.

    For the rest of us, I don’t think the value of the added features will be £30 to simply get a better version of Age of Charlemagne, although AoC covers most of Europe and therefore most of TW fans’ historical interest.

    Hard to imagine that non-Brits/Scandinavians would invest hundreds of hours of gameplay for the glory of Britain. Granted all the historical fans including myself will be curious to try out every Total War title, but buying the game just to do 1 campaign doesn’t cut it (at least for me).

    What is left is to pray to Hollywood or History Channel to come up with a new historical kickass movie or TV show on the periods that the vast majority of us are interested so that CA can obviously chase those idea and make some decent bucks.

    Apologies for the negativity but I’m happy for you guys that can’t wait for its release and I’m just jealous I haven’t had the same feeling since 2013.

    Is it not also good news for us Irish folk aswell??. There are millions of people in the world with Irish ancestry who are interested in its history nevermind those with British and Scandinavian
    I meant the British Isles in general. Obviously I didn't mean simply the UK and leave Ireland out of it.
    Ireland isn't part of the British isles though ;)
    Oh please, judging by the name I can guess where you are from but I guarantee you Ireland will always be recognized as part of the British Isles no matter how much you may wish otherwise.
Sign In or Register to comment.