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

Thrones of Britannia: Anglo-Saxon Unit Rosters

2»

Comments

  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    edited January 2018
    Mattzo said:



    Yes, as I said. It doesn't matter though, Huscarls were still a key part of English armies at the end of the time period broadly covered. Of course CA are taking a historical liberty by including them decades early, but this is justified as it adds to the feel of the game.

    At the end of the game I want to feel like I'm leading an army similar to what Harold Godwinson would have done - and huscarls are a key part of that. For most of the game I won't have them, which is accurate.
    Just to explain a few examples of changes Danish rule brought: "A Danish King of England, Cnut was quick to eliminate any prospective challenge from the survivors of the mighty Wessex dynasty. The first year of his reign was marked by the executions of a number of English noblemen whom he considered suspect. " example Harold Godwinson as you say was half Danish with his Danish mother just to explain the Danish influence on the new noblemen given power. Cnut introduced allot of inter marriages between Anglo-saxon and Danish nobility thus making himself less as a foreign ruler. His supposedly 3000 strong retinue(huscarls) he brought with him to England as bodyguards is plausible considering he collected Danegueld of 72,000 troy pounds (26,900 kg) of silver collected nationally(England), plus a further 10,500 pounds (3,900 kg) of silver collected from London. Was not exactly a poor king.

    From a runestone(immersion):

    Old Norse transcription:
    Arnsteinn reisti stein þenna eptir Bjór, son sinn. Sá varð dauðr í liði, þá's Knútr sótti England. Einn er Guð.

    English translation:
    "Arnsteinn raised this stone in memory of Bjórr his son who died in the retinue when Knútr attacked England. God is one."

    I see you're point thought that you want to play as Harold Godwinsons England, but that might as well be a wish for playing a different setting, its barely inside time period. Is abit like compering pre norman normandy in france with the latter. Invasions change a cuntry, pre norman and after norman england is also different.
    But as you say for the most part of the game you won`t have huscarls wielding dane axes. Atleast thats something :smile:
    Mattzo said:

    I was using a separate example. Regardless, I do not feel that comparison is particularly accurate as the situation was different. Cultural interactions between Anglo-Saxons and Danes was sufficient to allow for the development of huscarl style units in England.
    Hmm but saying they probably would develop it on their own is a guess tough. Then you could also guess they probably develop norman cavalry as they were close. Before Danish rule over England Anglo-Saxons or they're king ordered the massacre of all Danes in England thats staid behind from danelaw times(St. Brice's Day massacre ). Clearly showing they did not want any Danish influence. This lead to the revenge invasion tough.
    Post edited by Nortrix87 on
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Posts: 3,846Registered Users
    In either this or sweyns invasion of England its still Danes doing the invading, just assume its this wave that influences the Saxons not the next.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    Yes, if we're being strictly historical then you are entirely correct. However, to add more variety CA are expanding the historical period covered within the game to roughly 850-1066.

    For me, 800-1066 is one continuous time period in Anglo-Saxon history. Thus, having one unit from the 1000s is a good addition as a late game unit to reflect the development of Anglo-Saxon society - a key part of this was the Danish influence.

    It's a matter of balancing game play with history. 878-928 makes a fantastic narrative campaign and fits within Total War's usual 200 turn framework. However, it doesn't allow for much technological development. So they've compressed the advancements into the smaller time frame for game play purposes. Hence my late game army will look a lot like Harold's, despite my late game actually being about 920.

    It ticks all the boxes for an absorbing campaign:

    + Focused narrative of Alfred fighting the invasion
    + Technological and cultural changes
    + New units reflecting the above changes
    + At the end of the game I feel like I'm on the cusp of the next historical era - the Normans
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    Krunch said:

    In either this or sweyns invasion of England its still Danes doing the invading, just assume its this wave that influences the Saxons not the next.

    The difference with the first and the second Viking invasion is that Wessex survived the first and came under Danish rule the second time. And as said earlier, much of their nobility were executed and those who remained intermarried creating a hybrid nobility. Supposedly you start this game trying to avoid danish rule, and then you suddenly develope a unit introduced by danish rule...
    For me it hurts immersion to see danish huscarls fighting for wessex against viking huscarls.Like a roman vs roman civilwar. As mercenaries yes but not as integrated part of wessex.
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    edited January 2018
    Mattzo said:

    Yes, if we're being strictly historical then you are entirely correct. However, to add more variety CA are expanding the historical period covered within the game to roughly 850-1066.

    For me, 800-1066 is one continuous time period in Anglo-Saxon history. Thus, having one unit from the 1000s is a good addition as a late game unit to reflect the development of Anglo-Saxon society - a key part of this was the Danish influence.

    It's a matter of balancing game play with history. 878-928 makes a fantastic narrative campaign and fits within Total War's usual 200 turn framework. However, it doesn't allow for much technological development. So they've compressed the advancements into the smaller time frame for game play purposes. Hence my late game army will look a lot like Harold's, despite my late game actually being about 920.

    It ticks all the boxes for an absorbing campaign:

    + Focused narrative of Alfred fighting the invasion
    + Technological and cultural changes
    + New units reflecting the above changes
    + At the end of the game I feel like I'm on the cusp of the next historical era - the Normans

    I see your point of view and i guess is not a mayor issue for me. Sometimes feel that historical games/movies etc becomes what mayorety of modern people want it to be. And people interested in history in sparsely populated Scandinavia becomes an minority in the power struggle so to speak.
    As a Scandinavian I can relate with trying to explain that Vikings was no dirty savages with horned helmets to for example Spanish people(currently live in Spain) :smiley: But that's for many the popular image.

    As you say Huscarls are a late addition to Anglo-Saxons and i can live with that. Yust dont give the Picts berserkers now :D
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    Well this is a saga game covering a specific time and place and I believe events, so I am guessing that the actual time span covered will be the life time of Alfred and maybe his son and grandson up till the time of Athelstan. The content included that reaches the 1066 period does however open up the door for modders to cover events upto and beyond 1066 the map did not change significantly just who owned what.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Posts: 3,846Registered Users
    Nortrix87 said:

    Krunch said:

    In either this or sweyns invasion of England its still Danes doing the invading, just assume its this wave that influences the Saxons not the next.

    The difference with the first and the second Viking invasion is that Wessex survived the first and came under Danish rule the second time. And as said earlier, much of their nobility were executed and those who remained intermarried creating a hybrid nobility. Supposedly you start this game trying to avoid danish rule, and then you suddenly develope a unit introduced by danish rule...
    For me it hurts immersion to see danish huscarls fighting for wessex against viking huscarls.Like a roman vs roman civilwar. As mercenaries yes but not as integrated part of wessex.
    If anything you can just assume they are indeed Dane mercenaries or foreign troops working for the saxons if the idea is so wrong to you. It's been done before where either a mercenary or foreign unit is part of a factions core roster. Look at the Byzantines in Medieval 2 or the Galloglass in the britannia campaign(and probably Thrones too).
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    Krunch said:

    Nortrix87 said:

    Krunch said:

    In either this or sweyns invasion of England its still Danes doing the invading, just assume its this wave that influences the Saxons not the next.

    The difference with the first and the second Viking invasion is that Wessex survived the first and came under Danish rule the second time. And as said earlier, much of their nobility were executed and those who remained intermarried creating a hybrid nobility. Supposedly you start this game trying to avoid danish rule, and then you suddenly develope a unit introduced by danish rule...
    For me it hurts immersion to see danish huscarls fighting for wessex against viking huscarls.Like a roman vs roman civilwar. As mercenaries yes but not as integrated part of wessex.
    If anything you can just assume they are indeed Dane mercenaries or foreign troops working for the saxons if the idea is so wrong to you. It's been done before where either a mercenary or foreign unit is part of a factions core roster. Look at the Byzantines in Medieval 2 or the Galloglass in the britannia campaign(and probably Thrones too).
    You have a point, probably should try to change my thinking to enjoy more. Might not be a good decision by CA tough, when it comes to diversity between factions... The difference get smaller when you blend.
    Varangians in the byzantine empire however i would argue were quite integrated during they're service. They basically were huscarls giving they're service and loyalty to the emperor as they would to a Jarl/earl or King. In that way i guess you can say that all huscarls were originally mercenaries/free men until they swear fealty.
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Posts: 3,846Registered Users
    Nortrix87 said:

    Krunch said:

    Nortrix87 said:

    Krunch said:

    In either this or sweyns invasion of England its still Danes doing the invading, just assume its this wave that influences the Saxons not the next.

    The difference with the first and the second Viking invasion is that Wessex survived the first and came under Danish rule the second time. And as said earlier, much of their nobility were executed and those who remained intermarried creating a hybrid nobility. Supposedly you start this game trying to avoid danish rule, and then you suddenly develope a unit introduced by danish rule...
    For me it hurts immersion to see danish huscarls fighting for wessex against viking huscarls.Like a roman vs roman civilwar. As mercenaries yes but not as integrated part of wessex.
    If anything you can just assume they are indeed Dane mercenaries or foreign troops working for the saxons if the idea is so wrong to you. It's been done before where either a mercenary or foreign unit is part of a factions core roster. Look at the Byzantines in Medieval 2 or the Galloglass in the britannia campaign(and probably Thrones too).
    You have a point, probably should try to change my thinking to enjoy more. Might not be a good decision by CA tough, when it comes to diversity between factions... The difference get smaller when you blend.
    Varangians in the byzantine empire however i would argue were quite integrated during they're service. They basically were huscarls giving they're service and loyalty to the emperor as they would to a Jarl/earl or King. In that way i guess you can say that all huscarls were originally mercenaries/free men until they swear fealty.
    Not talking so much about Varangians. Look at a lot of the Byzantine units in Med 2 ans you will find many are from the regions around the Empire like slavs from the balkans, horse archers from the Eurasian steppes and i think even a few muslim units etc. Or even Latinkons which are western mercenaries in Med 2. Though Varangians are in a simmilar spot of course.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    Jack has said on here that late-game units reflect the period around 1066, so it's not really a surprise. He's also said, IIRC, that some of those units come very late and might not show up in every game.

    It's worth remembering, if the research tree is anything like Attila, the upgrade to bodyguard/elite class units is likely to be in the last 1-2 military techs, so the odds of the AI acquiring it would be quite low, and the player would be very able to play just about the entire game without unlocking them if so desired.
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    What about the ships? Naval
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • MolleMolleBillYallMolleMolleBillYall Posts: 55Registered Users
    Am I the only one that's noticed that the unit Rosters are very similar to AoC?
    Half the Units literally have the same names.

    Fyrd Axemen (Same as AoC)
    Thegns (Same as AoC)
    Royal Thegns (Same as AoC )
    Fyrd Archers ((Same as AoC)
    Fyrd Javelinmen (Same as AoC )
    Fyrd Spearmen (Same as AoC)
    Thegn Spearmen (Same as AoC)

    Long Axemen (Unique to ToB. Could be Big Axes from AoC's Dane faction)
    Marcher Mailed Spearmen (Unique to ToB. Could be Thegn Spearmen with increased Melee Attack and Melee Defence)
    Generals Bodyguard (Could be the same as AoC's Royal Companions)
    Fyrd Slingers are missing from ToB
    Scout Horsemen (Perhaps the same as AoC's Horsemen)
    Thegn Horsemen (Perhaps the same as AoC's Royal Horsemen)
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users

    Am I the only one that's noticed that the unit Rosters are very similar to AoC?
    Half the Units literally have the same names.

    Fyrd Axemen (Same as AoC)
    Thegns (Same as AoC)
    Royal Thegns (Same as AoC )
    Fyrd Archers ((Same as AoC)
    Fyrd Javelinmen (Same as AoC )
    Fyrd Spearmen (Same as AoC)
    Thegn Spearmen (Same as AoC)

    Long Axemen (Unique to ToB. Could be Big Axes from AoC's Dane faction)
    Marcher Mailed Spearmen (Unique to ToB. Could be Thegn Spearmen with increased Melee Attack and Melee Defence)
    Generals Bodyguard (Could be the same as AoC's Royal Companions)
    Fyrd Slingers are missing from ToB
    Scout Horsemen (Perhaps the same as AoC's Horsemen)
    Thegn Horsemen (Perhaps the same as AoC's Royal Horsemen)</bl

    Well I'm not really surprised or disappointed, it is after all the same factions so I would expect similar units.

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,605Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    CA_Whelan said:

    Please less shared units and more unique. Believe it or not, sometime it **** of when almost everyone using same type of unit in battle.

    These two factions belong to the same region. The other factions from different parts of Britannia will have different rosters
    I hope Irish and Scots unit roster will not have the same pattern just like Wessex and Mercia.

    Looking forward to lots of unique units for each of them since their region are far from each other.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users

    Am I the only one that's noticed that the unit Rosters are very similar to AoC?
    Half the Units literally have the same names.

    Fyrd Axemen (Same as AoC)
    Thegns (Same as AoC)
    Royal Thegns (Same as AoC )
    Fyrd Archers ((Same as AoC)
    Fyrd Javelinmen (Same as AoC )
    Fyrd Spearmen (Same as AoC)
    Thegn Spearmen (Same as AoC)

    Long Axemen (Unique to ToB. Could be Big Axes from AoC's Dane faction)
    Marcher Mailed Spearmen (Unique to ToB. Could be Thegn Spearmen with increased Melee Attack and Melee Defence)
    Generals Bodyguard (Could be the same as AoC's Royal Companions)
    Fyrd Slingers are missing from ToB
    Scout Horsemen (Perhaps the same as AoC's Horsemen)
    Thegn Horsemen (Perhaps the same as AoC's Royal Horsemen)

    Well, yes. Mercia in 790 and Mercia in 878 had essentially the same style of warfare. The fyrd was still a thing and the nobles were still called Thegns. And there's only so many ways you can name a unit from the fyrd that is carrying an axe.

    I think most if not all of ToB's units are made from new assets though. And of course, the other 8 factions have different rosters.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
Sign In or Register to comment.