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 - Post-Release, What's Next?

2456

Comments

  • riadachriadach Posts: 161Registered Users
    I have suggested something to do with vassals earlier for the Gaelic factions.

    Firstly:

    - Link vassalisation to alliances. Established alliances where you have defended a smaller ally should encourage them to be a vassal.
    - Link vassalisation to Legitimacy. Make countries more likely to agree to be vassalised with high legitimacy and make it cost legitimacy.
    - Link annexation to Legitimacy. It's strange that some factions will accept annexation but won't accept vassalisation. It makes more sense to have vassalisation as a prerequisite for annexation.

    Other ideas:

    - Allow exchange/gifts of provinces.
    - Allow restoration of former starting provinces to previous owners even if the faction has already been liberated.
  • 123223123223 Posts: 42Registered Users
    tak22 said:

    I've said in a number of places, and I'll say it again, I'm not all that big on Vikings (would have preferred 6th c., personally, for a British setting) but TOB is already a serious contender for my favourite TW game to date, and I've been playing since M1.

    I'm in my busiest time of year with work, so I've only put in a limited number of hours, but so far here's what I've got:

    Good concept, good implementation.

    • I love the recruitment system. Don't change a thing!
    • I don't miss agents at all. It's a bit nerve-wracking at times not to know what's coming at me, but for a strategy game I think that's a good thing.
    • I also like the settlement/province design. There might be some tweaks possible, but nothing major is needed.

    Good concept, needs some help
    • Supplies: I was excited to see this as a mechanic, but currently I've not had it affect any of my actions since the first couple turns where I decided to wait a bit before starting my first invasion. Granted I'm playing Strat Clut and they get a bonus, and given the distances in the North I've also invested in the Quartermaster for my main generals, but I'd think that bonuses like that should make the mechanics easier, not irrelevant. Maybe nerf the bonuses, and increase the consumption rate (maybe tied to difficulty)?
    • Food: using food as a soft cap on units is a very good concept, and works well in the early game. By mid-game, though, it's not really an issue. Part of this is due to the passive AI, since I'm not be pressed anywhere (see below), but still, I have two full stacks, several 1/2 to 3/4 stacks, and a handful of small armies, with a surplus of 300+ food to work with. I'm not terribly concerned about losing territory, so I feel pretty comfortable. OTOH, if the campaign map was a little less stable, I might not mind having that food as a reserve. But right now, I'm more comfortable than I'd like.
    • AI Resilience: This one is a bit of a tug-of-war between history and gameplay, I realize. But it's not very satisfying - and limits other game mechanics (e.g. character development) to have sizable factions evaporate after a couple decisive battles. In general, I'm a fan of having the AI follow roughly the same rules as the player, and I like the concept of having multipliers on the bonuses rather than flat bonuses. There are a couple things possible here. 1. AI: have the AI factions keep a reserve of troops close to home, just in case of invasion, and/or maintain a reserve of food to raise units in an emergency. 2. Pool/Map replenishment for units: some bonuses here, esp. if tied to difficulty, would help them field stronger armies faster after a defeat. I don't want them to completely circumvent the game mechanics, but if there were enough of an army to make a 'last stand' when I reach their capital, it would make the game more satisfying.
    • Estates: again, not a bad concept, but feels very much like something tacked on to the side; needs to be tied into other parts of the game.
    • War Fervour. I was looking forward to it, but currently it's irrelevant to the game.

    Needs Work
    • AI Aggression: I have yet to have an AI faction declare war on me, even in the early game when I was relatively weak. Since I've gotten bigger, I feel relatively secure, since I have a number of friendship pacts and there's no indication that the AI is interested in attacking me - even when my armies are on the opposite end of my kingdom. The AI seems to be very opportunistic about piling on when a faction is weak; it also seems to need some sense of how to calculate when you're vulnerable due to your armies being away. A player can watch a number of things - which sides they're at war on, changes in the power bar for battles being fought, how many food settlements they have - to calculate whether there's an opportunity, the AI should be able to do that to the player, too.
    • Loyalty. The issue here is that it seems too static - they get low, you buff them up, they sit there with their loyalty until you pick up too many estates, you hand one out ... Events & dilemmas could help with that, but it would also be nice to have it tie into actions on the campaign map - character likes Vikings, you attack Vikings, loyalty goes down. Character likes you defending territory, you deploy all your armies abroad, loyalty goes down. Character likes trade/religion etc., the longer you do without building related things you have a chance that loyalty goes down. Character is an opportunist, you're away with the army/defeated in battle, loyalty goes down. (Obviously, the opposite kind of events should make it go up, too, but you get the idea).
    • PO: so far, no issues or rebellions. Again, destablilize it with events, war fervor penalties, building missions etc. (E.g. the people of x province want a church to commemorate y, build one in z turns).
    • AI faction rebellions. Generally, the map is too stable. Tweaking some of these things, if it's applied to the AI as well, should help; but I think the game would be more interesting if big factions were occasionally breaking up due to rebellions - the feel of the game, I'd think, should be as much about keeping the kingdom you've built, as building it, and more factions on the map that are serious contenders would keep the pacing of the game going. I don't necessarily mind if factions win & get big - but then it would be nice for them to have a chance to break up, too.
    Need add "Shield Wall".
  • lendlend Posts: 1Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    Vassals - for the love of God, VASSALS. They are infuriatingly pointless at the moment.

    Every single time I'm attacked, the enemy captures a couple of towns - as expected. But while I'm out there fighting the enemy and defending my cities, my god damned vassals rush in to capture my previously owned towns. Now there is no way of me getting them back! It's honestly gamebreaking in my opinion.

    And the opposite; when attacking they rush to capture undefended towns while I'm fighting the enemy.

    Vassals are useless, they pay next to nothing, they generally don't follow your orders, they 'steal' your territory and they create unconquerable zone.

    Why not include vassals in the govern/estate system? And at least let ME, their LORD, decide what to do with recently conquered/re-conquered territory.

    Honestly, feels like you don't even play your own games...
    Post edited by lend on
  • perdidonperdidon Senior Member Posts: 150Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    I'm loving the game so far. Finished the campaign with Mide and already finishing one with Gwined.

    I'm really enjoying the battle pace and the way spears are not useful only against cavalry. Those battlelines clashing, the cavalry charging each other, so beatiful. The choice you made to close the space between soldiers and to enlarge the space between horses was one of the best decisions that you made.

    I'm enjoying the campaign pace too, where sometimes you must offer peace to your enemy, not a total destruction. It's almoust if I was participating in a book of Saxons Chronicles Series. That's what I was expecting, and it was wonderful to have it.
    I think people (me included) has became too familiar with warhammer gameplay, lots of war going on every time, and forget this is a historical game, that tries to simulate the pace of peace and war of an historical period. And in my opinion you guys nailed it.

    I didn't have the problem of AI exploiting the minor settlements without defence. It uses this advantage but nothing close to some cheat move. Also, it teached how me to do the same with it. I liked this new mechanic.

    Also the new recruitment mechanic system. Thank you! And the campaign map, marvelous. Those buildings in the settlements, so beautifully crafted.


    Some problems that I found in my gameplay:

    - the mide campaign ultimate victory doesn't add a challenge at all, nobody came to invade my island.

    - the problem already adressed that you need vassals, that when you release a settlement and it became on ally, etc.. I'm finding this very annoying in my Gwined playthrough too. Maybe some point on the power bar when they became more inclined to accept the offer to become vassal when they like you.

    - It's really nice to make food so important, but it become already irrelevant when you are close to your first minor victory.

    - Also, already pointed out, Wessex and it's vassals. I'm waiting for a patch (or a mod) to make some of them hate me (not all at once, but most of them, maybe some random start stats when 3 of them starts hating you). I'm waiting something like that to start a campaign with them. I want the foundation of the english kingdom to be a challenge, not a walk in the park. (Also waiting for the blood and gore to start too).

    -the restriction on main settlements building, I want to build more relevant buildings of comercial type without the need to conquer a commercial main settlement. I found the main settlement construction chain a little boring.

    - That's not a problem with thrones of britannia in particular, but I really lack the hability to shape my kingdom. To decide where would be my capitals, where to create villages and farmlands. Well, I hope one day you guys surprise us with something in that way. I think that the campaign map being so detailed and beautifully crafted enhances that feeling.

    Sorry for the long text, and some confusions on the text, english is not my mother language. I wrote so much because of the joy and gratitude feelings that it brings to me every time I play. A big Thank you to you guys.

    PS: almost forgot: I found the brazilian portuguese translation to the game intro awful, it tries to be dramatic, but it doesn't fit in what you are listening. For the rest of the game it fits well, including the endings and factions intro.
  • AethelstancyningAethelstancyning Posts: 5Registered Users
    While you are here, could you please give us a word on blood and gore dlc?, could you at least let us know that it exists? Its quite disheartening that there has been no word what so ever about it, i dont want a release date and price but at the least let me know if it exists. Regarding the game, I love it. I love the music, I love the war cries and the campaign details but I will have to wait for blood to fully jump in, battles seem empty without it.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,130Registered Users
    @Jack_Lusted_CA


    Here are a few notes that I found Frome the game.

    1) steamrolling the AI - some steamrolling has always been part of total war but now that only 1/3 of the cities have some type of defenses we really need to fight for those cities. They need better garrisons that are more accessible for the AI.

    2) marriages and family tree - the whole interface is a bit clunky. There are obvious oversites during the marriage proposal where you don't know if a guy is a Governor or a general. But it goes further that the family tree while there really doesn't matter. Wives are chosen purely on the +1 command or governance. Marriage between your daughter and a general should add something. Marriage between your heir and the daughter of a vassel should mean something. Historical instances of this abound.

    3) estates - these are great in concept but ultimately just results in busywork. There is no reason at all to not just give your lowest general an estate. There is really no decision to be made. Perhaps allow estates to grant bonuses give us a reason to give a great general more than the minimum number of estates.


    I'm enjoying the game but as you said some of the features just don't give me the depth they should.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Posts: 3,843Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    I definitely feel the estate system needs major work. I think it is a good idea but it basically is just busywork. Making it so estate holders who rebel take their province with them would be a good idea IMO, and perhaps making it so estates provide income so you want estates to get extra income would be good. Also making it so estate holders can then interact in politics using the incomes from their estate. I also think granting titles the estate holders would be a neat little thing.

    Also I know it won't change in this game, but you should really consider not making Governors a stationary character. I just deploy then forget about governors as it stands, and it isn't historically accurate for many periods. Julius Caesar was of course famously Governor of Hispania, and many figures in China serve as Governors. IMO making it so Governors and Generals are potentially one and the same is something you guys should be looking into, if not for ToB definitely for a later title. It is just more accurate, the modern governor is just that, modern, some early colonial governors in America were even leading troops. This would also give these governors many more opportunities to gain influence and start civil wars taking their province with them too. Governors could also be renamed based on culture(for ToB for example it might be Jarl, Earl, etc.)
  • neoiq5719neoiq5719 Senior Member Posts: 180Registered Users
    I have played two campaigns and I have to say that they have been pretty boring. Maybe the amount of money is not just the problem, is the AI. If I have two armies and instead of 1000 I make 500 it does not matter if there aren´t any enemies which it is what´s going on now.
    The family tree is practically useless. I used it maybe twice to get the generals a wife but that was it, I hardly ever looked at it and I would like it to be important like brothers or step-brothers or bastards rebelling due to family fued not just some dude that appears and you can just calm him down by throwing him a bone.
    For me every battle I fought was totally identical to the previous one; cavalry coming on the side and the rest in the center, nothing different which also adds to the boredom meter.
  • ArclathArclath Posts: 23Registered Users
    As a huge Wales fan, please consider mixing up the roster of Welsh units with more facial hair than just moustaches. Throw in some proper full beards, not viking-style mind you, just something that looks my army of Britons look more dignified, rather than a horde of creepy office employees.
  • hurricane501hurricane501 Senior Member Posts: 1,834Registered Users
    None of these changes even matter if you dont fix your crap AI...

    Once again CA fail to implement a half brained AI.

    NO upgraded units after 200 turns... rolling with tier 1 pleb armies...

    Weak garrisons

    Not protecting capitals.

    Derpy battle AI suiciding its cav

    Even if the map played perfect which is really doesnt... worst to date, the battle system needs to be fixed at all costs, the game sold well spend some of that money fixing it! youve already lost 10k players since release, i expect this to keep falling as the game is super boring!

  • RamsesXXVIIIRamsesXXVIII Junior Member Posts: 28Registered Users
    Hi there

    I’m sorry if this may be seen as “spamming”but I’ve raised this issue in General Discussion and the Multiplayer sub forum with no reply from CA. I’m hoping this is because the thread is lost in all the many threads.

    Multiplayer campaigns have serious end game problems because of victory conditions.

    See these threads:

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/218173/co-op-victory-condition-is-very-bad

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/217946/victory-conditions-multiplayer-broke

    First off, there’s only one way to win (short fame victory).

    Secondly, victory conditions in coop are not synchronised (meaning you and your friends fame are not counted towards the same limit).

    Thirdly, and this is not yet confirmed, players in multiplayer can’t continue a campaign once the victory conditions are met for one player. This is the way it was in Atilla and given CA has said that multiplayer would be “basically the same” I think it’s fair to assume it’s the same here.

    Please fix these issues! Players should absolutely be allowed to continue playing despite one player meeting the victory conditions requirement- it is an essential part of the “sandbox” feeling. Imagine not being able to continue your campaign in single player after meeting the short victory conditions - it would end before it really started.

    Nevertheless I thorough enjoy the game, despite the problems, for its bold-faced and innovative look at the old series. Just please, please FIX multiplayer campaigns.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,328Registered Users
    I like the idea of the relevant units being in a shield wall which makes it historically accurate.

    The fact that cavalry shy away from a frontal charge on a shield wall is great.

    Like the new recruitment system.

    Would like to see the forced march option back (Harold moving his army to Stamford Bridge was a forced march.

    Normans as an expeditionary force..
  • PileOBonesPileOBones Posts: 25Registered Users
    On a different topic:

    Please consider increasing the distance ships can cover per turn.

    Playing as Dyflin, I tried to send an army via sea to East Anglia. With the distances ships can cover per turn at the moment this would have taken nearly three years (ie: about ten or eleven turns!). To make things worse my ships ran out of supplies before they even reached Southampton.

    With four turns per year (assuming each turn is equal to three months) it should surely only take a single turn to make that trip?
  • MemnonMemnon Senior Member Posts: 581Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    This my samall list mr @Jack_Lusted_CA
    -make AI more agressive-on my 3 finish camp -AI no ONE time attack my walls city-except Vikings invasion
    -improve AI to upgrade army-its really stupid after 200 turns AI still have first tier army
    -fix steam achievements-dosent work good
    -upgrade and make bigger and stronger garrison-now is way too easy conquer walls city
    -do AI possible to create another army-becouse now when AI lose first big army almost never rise another big army-just small 4-5 stack
    -finish stupid 1 stack gen army jump from one not walls settlements to anothers -now AI after lose first army create just 1 or max 4 satck army and jumpig on empty settlements and even no try def his terriority-is boring and frustrating to try catch just gen who make mess but dont do nothing more...
    Wish all the best .
    Gretings
  • Beazer7Beazer7 Posts: 7Registered Users
    Can't wait, sounds like it'll make a really good game great!

    I have some quality of life improvement ideas:

    1. On the Provinces screen listing, show an icon next to provinces that have a build available (similar to the "hammer" icon WH2).

    2. It would be great to have an option to just start the game as soon as it first loads, or prior to a battle, rather than waiting to click the "start" button at the bottom of the screen.

    3. Also as in WH2, it would be good to have the option to change the zoom and movement speed of AI factions shown while they're making their moves.

    4. The splash screen for an event is nice and big, but it blocks the zoom-to location when you click the magnifying glass icon. I end up closing it anyway to see where the zoom went, so why not just close it automatically?

    5. Also also as in WH2, it would be great to have the option to prevent the player from advancing the turn if certain tasks were not completed during the turn, such as unselected tech, major town upgrade available, general not moved, etc.

    6. Any way to make it easier to see at a glance which nobles hold the three offices?

    7. On both the "Family Tree & Politics" screen, and the "Governors & Estates" - Estates screen, would be really nice if it showed the name of what province they currently occupy or govern.
  • norseaxenorseaxe Posts: 402Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    First off great game I've been enjoying it quite a bit my favorite of all the total war games but is to easy.
    1. Maybe add a wall to minor settlements and a garrison if not a wall maybe just a garrison.
    2.Liking the estates but I wish you can give your generals titles when they have estates. only boost they get is loyalty and influence.
    3.Only Viking factions have longships rest have cogs or something but other factions can gain tech by destroying a Viking army in battle.
    4.Wessex is way to powerful maybe give them a passive trait or something until late game idk.
    5.Ui needs some changes. show your generals by giving then titles, like odda governor title of whatever province, odda general with title of whatever estate if he has estate if that makes sense at least we will know who a governor is and a general.
    6. Add more raiding Viking armies and make there armies bigger. on higher difficulty levels they get elite units. Some raid and some settle.
    7.I hope I'm not alone in this one but give us more missions.
    8. Give sudreyar the slave mechanic.
    9. Units gain experience to quick this needs adjusted.
    10. when an enemy army is raiding on your land have that army take all of the money from that region they are in.
    11. add option to ask ally to do a joint attack on common enemy even have AI to use it against you.
    That's all I can think of atm oh yeah forgive my writing skills lmao!!!!!
  • nosuchnamenosuchname Senior Member Posts: 1,399Registered Users
    Army upkeep needs to change, at least for late game, its insane when a single market province can support three high tier armies, maybe reintroduce the warhammer 2 upkeep mechanic, it made the game challeging even when had a high income since your upkeep would adjust itself to your income everytime you recruit a new army. Also, the final viking invasion was way to weak, you should spawn more armies on different place and make sure that the ai captures more stuff aggressively. Maybe consider adding island, Greenland and normandy as a dlc addon. Make it function like america in empire or medieval.
    Auto resolving has been hugely improvement in warhammer 2, its far better compared to the first one, but it still needs some tweaking, especially the dark elves.
  • nosuchnamenosuchname Senior Member Posts: 1,399Registered Users
    Also, you could introduce edicts to the game that require upkeep, like an edict that gives minor settlements in a province a garrision in exchange a specific sum of money.

    Or a world wide edict that increases your faction happiness in exchange for food and money.

    Also, not owning estates should reduce income as well as food in those regions where they are located, this forces players to choose between loyality and income.
    Auto resolving has been hugely improvement in warhammer 2, its far better compared to the first one, but it still needs some tweaking, especially the dark elves.
  • WelshImperiumWelshImperium Posts: 15Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    Really liking all the great ideas everyone is sharing.
    Post edited by WelshImperium on
  • WelshImperiumWelshImperium Posts: 15Registered Users
    Jack,

    Thanks for all the hard work that you and your team have put into this game. I am really enjoying all of the new mechanics and features. I especially like the changes to recruitment and the unlockable tech tree.

    I love the idea of the estates and the faction specific mechanics. However, I think a few small adjustments could make them even better.

    Estates
    1) I think that when an estate is held by the king it should give either gold or food so that there is a reason for the player to not want to give away the estate.

    2)It would be cool if granting an estate to a nobleman would grant him a culturally appropriate title like ealdorman or Jarl.

    3) Nobles should be more demanding of estates. I have a couple ideas how this could be accomplished.
    1. Any turn that a nobleman is above a certain level of influence there could be a chance of an event where he demands an additional estate from the king. If you refused then his loyalty would be drastically reduced forcing the player to make use of the other political options to deal with the problem.
    2. Anytime that you give an estate to a nobleman it could have a slight negative effect on the loyalty of the noblemen with greater influence. After all why are you giving an estate to this newcomer and ignoring the existing aristocracy.
    3. All noblemen could also get upset when any other nobleman - not just the king - has two more estates than they possess.

    Faction Mechanics.
    1) I think the difficulty should be adjusted up in general but then faction bonuses could also be slightly adjusted up. This would make getting the faction bonuses more important to the player.

    2)Alt Clut's bonus information isn't shown very clearly on the UI. I couldn't tell how many contiguous provinces I needed to get the next level of the bonus. So, an improvement on the UI here would be great. I also think it would interesting if Alt Clut got a negative affect for owning territories that were not contiguous.

    3)Sudreyer could use more frequent missions from its council. I also think that if the player fails to carry out the mission that should cause a slight loyalty penalty to its nobles. After all why follow a king who cant carry out the wishes of his nobles.

    Balance Ideas
    1) I think that every time you upgrade to the next tier of a unit your food upkeep should increase by 10. So a tier one unit would cost 10 food per turn, a tier two unit would cost 20 food per turn, and a tier three unit would cost 30 food per turn. This would keep the food mechanic relevant in the late game and would force players to consider researching some economic techs rather than just rushing the military tech tree.

    2) If possible, it would be great if you couldn't replenish supplies, recruit units, or replenish units in a newly conquered territory for the first two turns. This would prevent the slightly odd situation where a one unit army lands in the back of a kingdom captures a farm and then immediately recruits to almost a full stack. This would also force the player to be more mindful of the supplies mechanic.

    3) It would really help the Viking sea kings if ship movement could be increased. I would even be fine if it was doubled so that moving by ship showed a significant advantage to marching on land.

    One bug
    I ran into one bug that would be awesome if it could be patched. Twice I fortified a bridge to protect one of my minor settlement from an army on the other side of a river. However, the army was able to take my settlement without ever crossing to my side of the river. I think this was because the settlements sphere of influence extended across the river but it was really strange and a little frustrating.

    Sorry for the wall of text, but I am really enjoying this game and am very excited that you are asking us for ways to make it even better.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    I for one don't want minor settlements to be either walled or having a garrison. The point of removing those things for minor settlements, in my opinion, was to increase the usefulness of your army in both offensive and in defensive moves. Plus I think it would be unhistorical if an abbey had 6-8 units defending it automatically. It makes sense having garrison and walls in province capitals but not in minor settlements.
  • andreb12321andreb12321 Posts: 8Registered Users
    In my opinion a culture mechanic should be implemented, like for example introducing a culture Meter the same as there is for war fervor. For example building Churches, releasing prisioneirs after battles, making treaties with catholic factions and stuff like this could shift the Meter to the Christian side with some bonuses(diplomatic, public order, etc) but also some negative traits like increase in money spent for the church. Killing Christian factions, building Odin statues (could be implemented) would shift it to the pagan side with other bonuses but at the cost of decreasing public order. This would be major in great Viking army as they're trying to decide if they're Christian or pagan. Something similar could be done for the Christian factions (if you comit too much attricities you would shift the meter and you could be excommunicated). It doesn't need to be in this fashion but something like this, simple, could make the game more immersive. Would be amazing to convert Guthrum into paganism and march against Wessex, because now we are only able to balance the army and the people(which is a great feature) but the pagan vs Christian feature would take it to the next level. Just a thought
  • andreb12321andreb12321 Posts: 8Registered Users
    Also would it be possible to lock the occupation of small settlements by one unit armies? For example they could raid it which would be accurate but they can't cap it. Only armies with more than x number of troops could do it (like a 5 stack army let's say). That would also be amazing. Cause now I need to worry about a general spreading avoc across my back and as soon as they get two villages they recruit a full stack and I have to turn one of the armies around to defeat them even though their entire provinces were conquered. Overall I'm liking the game a lot, but if changes could be made to address some of the issues would be amazing. Like you said as well, battle difficulty should be higher and AI should recruit units from different tiers at increasing rate. Thank you :)
  • projectmerryprojectmerry Posts: 10Registered Users
    Jack

    Thanks for having such a constructive attitude. I'm really liking many aspects of the game (really good polish visually and sound design wise, love the scale of the map, agree with removal of agents) but there are some design/balance type things.

    As you specifically mention culture/religion, I'll address that first:

    - Perhaps reintroduce culture (not religion) so that as, e.g. an Anglo-Saxon, holding predominantly Welsh land is more difficult. Make it so that your nobles have culture as well, so that e.g. as a viking ruler you need to worry about the loyalty of English nobles more.

    - I agree with your reasoning that Christianity was the dominant religion at this time. But if that's the case, why not make the church play a greater role in politics. Perhaps make it so you have to provide income or land, or build churches, or something, to keep the church happy. If you don't then it has public order ramifications and perhaps reduces the influence of your king etc. plus diplomatic penalties as poor standing with the church would reduce your legitimacy in the eyes of other rulers. If you do it well, then the opposite is true.

    Other suggestions here:

    Faction/politics:

    - Estate system should be tied to income. Reduce overall tax take and make a substantial amount of your income stem from estates as an "other" source of income. Then there will be a real trade off between granting estates to increase loyalty without bankrupting your king.

    - Make an event where noblemen will demand estates if they have certain influence or rank. Disagreeing will lower their loyalty.

    - Encourage the granting of estates in line with the level of nobles' influence. So a high influence noble will expect higher amounts of estates and a lower influence noble will expect less.

    - Give titles to governors/estateholders.

    - All factions should be able to annex and you should be able to annex vassals. Perhaps make vassalisation the first step to annexation. On the other hand, I think vassals should interact somehow with the internal politics system, because technically all of the nobles in your kingdom are vassals. Maybe instead of treating vassals as a separate faction, they are annexed when vassalised and they join your faction as the governor of the province they owned plus estateholder of any estates in that province.

    - Failing faction specific missions e.g. missions from councils should reduce loyalty.

    - All viking factions should have slave mechanic.

    - Ensure that removing the governorship or estate from a noble is highly likely to result in rebellion, representing the fact that you're essentially stripping the noble of all lands and titles.

    Economy/logistics:

    - There should be a delay of a few turns after taking a new settlement during which supplies continue to be used and troops don't replenish etc. - simulating how long it would take to establish a taxation and food requisition system in a new area.

    Campaign map:

    - Naval campaign movement range should be greatly increased. It breaks immersion that it takes a navy years to travel around britain.

    - Increase army movement range while in friendly territory.

    Battle (really like your cavalry changes and the way missiles are much more effective from the flanks and rear):

    - Exploding towers/walls when you capture them. Doesn't make sense from either historical or gameplay perspective. Essentially punishes you for taking a strategic objective by killing half your unit.

    - I'm finding the BAI finds it difficult to present a cohesive line when attacking. They kind of lose their cohesiveness and often present their flank to my forces.

    Best regards
  • MrMecHMrMecH Posts: 2,135Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    @Jack_Lusted_CA

    There are several things I hope to see its fixes in the next patches.

    1) When units cursor move to Siege Tower, It should appear [move upper] button. Also Even the gate is broken, unit should still use Siege Tower.

    2) When players disconnect in MP mode, the AI doesn't take control their army. They stand dumb till the end.

    3) The General always stand in the center of the city while other units defense the gate. This is very boring when I take down entire army and have to walk through [empty enormous city] to kill him.

    4) Norse and Norman wave are very weak. Please make them stronger.

    5) High Tier units need secondary skill to be different to each others. If you could import back some skill in Attila such as [Steady] or [Rapid Advance], It would be nice.

    Thank you sir
    SHUT UP GIVE US GHORGON!!!!!

  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    edited May 2018
    "Balance adjustments to battles based on early concerns from the multiplayer community"

    Gods, what are they complaining about this time? Spears too useful for once?

    I see people already complaining that they want more rock-paper-scissors. I didn't buy the game for rock-paper-scissors...

    I believe I read another where they were complaining that their tactics were sometimes effected by terrain...

    The berserker complaint seems more legit though.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,162Registered Users
    Hi Jack,

    I think you did a great job with ToB and I really like your approach towards the community and respons to it with a new update. There are a lot of nice ideas in the community with regard to adding mechanics and increasing the difficulty. If it's the estates mechanic (projectmerry/take22 have some nice examples which are in line with previous discussions on the forum) or ideas around supply.

    My main concern is that you come up with gamey solutions like increasing corruption and such. This in my opinion is just a quick and easy fix which kills the experience. It's frustrating to see the corruption levels of Atilla rise to almost 90% per province and that you as a ruler can't do anything about it. It's insane that when you conquer a province in Atilla corruption rises for all your provinces. Please consider the ideas floating around here which might take some more development time but really helps ToB to go from great to excellent.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,162Registered Users
    One more thing. Instead of reworking corruption why not increase the upkeep levels of your troops. I currently can maintain 10 full stacks of elite troops on very hard. No need to pick levy units. When upkeep is increased it forces the player to think about having some super stacks vs more stacks but with a better mix of levies and elite troops.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    @projectmerry Great input!

    Some of your ideas could bring ToB from being a great TW game to being a legendary TW game.

    I like your comment about estates, tying estates to income will make that feature more interesting!
  • BolshevikBolshevik Posts: 93Registered Users
    Slight nerf to berserkers maybe. I keep hearing they are a bit OP. I support all the proposed changes they will greatly improve the game.

    With some work , this may well become the best historical TW game ever if it isn't already.
    image

    ABOVE: Soviet officer Alexey Yeremenko leads his men into combat. He was killed seconds after this photo was taken near Voroshilovgrad, Ukraine - July 12, 1942.

    My Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Bolshevik-/
Sign In or Register to comment.