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.
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.
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.