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?

1246

Comments

  • ParkeraGamesParkeraGames Registered Users Posts: 6
    Annex Vassals needs to be implemented - You need to be able to annex vassals and using legitimacy and also having a certain relationship (say75/100) could be two things needed in order to annex a vassal into your Kingdom. Also like EU4 and other games vassels take territory but will automatically give it to you as you are their overlord.

    Overall loving this game. Been playing TW since M1 to Rome 2 and took a break before coming back to this version. Like the concept of the series being a saga and an off shoot of the main TW ones.
    Love the recruitment mechanic and family tree etc (though could be more in depth).
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,163
    I said this once but I'll say it again.


    Make better garrisons in capitals!!!!!


    You cut out minor settlements all together. That's fine but you left major cities with their crappy default garrison.


    @Jack_Lusted_CA please think about this.

    You should start with 10 levy units at pvl 1 city as you tranform it to a tier 5 you should get 10 elite units.

    Likewise the garrison building should give you 9 tier 1 units and by max garrison you should have we will have much more fun fighting these massive battles against GOOD defenders.

    By end of game taking a fully upgraded London or Chester should feel like a grand feat.

    Sure the player will be able to defend very well but it still is better than the ai rolling over and taking it like they do now.
  • FritjofFritjof Registered Users Posts: 5
    Hello everybody! I would like to make some suggestions relating to the building of churches. I think it shouldn‘t be required for the germanic pagans (especially for the icelandic people who were pagan for the longest and who fought together with their former home Norway) to build them. Because I have talked to many experts and through the fact that I’m really into this topic area for years, I know that for example historical facts show, that dealing temples were built until the 11th century. This is generally true for great areas of europe (also these that were allready christianized). And even the christian Anglo-Saxons had still germanic paganism. You can read this in the Lacnunga manuscript („Nine Herbs Charm“). Furthermore it was in common that the danish people allowed the christians to build their churches because of their trade privileges. But they endured this procedure and did not built the institutions by themself. All in all you can say that the christianisation was finally completed in the 11th century. This is just one of a few points that are a little bit discrepant but for me it’s really important. In addition the clothes of the danish and norwegian vikings are partially hirstorical incorrect. I hope that my comment maybe help you to improve your game. Thanks for your attention and good luck for the further game development!
  • EfixEfix Registered Users Posts: 279
    edited May 2018
    CnConrad said:

    I said this once but I'll say it again.


    Make better garrisons in capitals!!!!!


    You cut out minor settlements all together. That's fine but you left major cities with their crappy default garrison.


    @Jack_Lusted_CA please think about this.

    You should start with 10 levy units at pvl 1 city as you tranform it to a tier 5 you should get 10 elite units.

    Likewise the garrison building should give you 9 tier 1 units and by max garrison you should have we will have much more fun fighting these massive battles against GOOD defenders.

    By end of game taking a fully upgraded London or Chester should feel like a grand feat.

    Sure the player will be able to defend very well but it still is better than the ai rolling over and taking it like they do now.

    +1 that's how I see it also and it would help the AI a lot
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 485
    The point about vassals is something I agree with here!

    Another feature which is in paradox games is "release nation". Basically you release a nation and then that nation becomes a vassal. I have mostly played as Wessex so I don't know the legitimacy to well, but I think this could make kingdom victory more interesting.

    It would also be interesting in the case of emerging factions and already conquered factions. For example if you as Wessex after you conquered East Engle, release Essex as vassal.

  • kokankokan Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 84
    edited May 2018
    @Jack_Lusted_CA


    So far the game feels great, by far my favorite historical TW since Shogun 2. Lots of great ideias, that just need some tweaking to be make them even better. I am actually surprised on how different some factions feel. Well done.

    I specially like how each province feels different from the other, in past titles I always ended up following the same blueprint everywhere. Here I like that some provinces will generate lots of food, others have lots of industry or chuches. Some even have a mix of everything, and it feels great since this way I can focus on either optimising each province output or using the main settlement to tweak the province purpose for the time being (for example deciding to build a forge and patrol if I expect that province to be important as a stronghold later).

    Having read all the feedback above, I will try to add some ideias.

    -Recruitment system: it just works! It prevents the AI from creating doom stacks quickly and helps the player feel that when we lose an army, something terrible just happened. (I really hope this mechanic is implemented on future titles, and would even be great on Warhammer).

    The only thing I would change is probably how the unit replenishment is presented: right now there is a chance per turn that a unit will be available for recruitment on the next turn. Me personally, don't really enjoy leaving that to chance and there really isn't much we can do to improve those odds other than some late research or upgrading main settlements. I think it would be best to have either a plain turn counter until the next unit is available or adding some more mechanics that would boost the replenishment rate (such as an edict that would take a bunch of food and money in order to create units faster).

    -Garrisons: definitely tweak the main settlement garrison (also there might be a bug that is preventing some of the garrison units from benefiting from forge upgrades). Also, don't add garrisons to the small villages :)

    Something that could be a good addition would be when we build the patrol building, it actually created an automated patrol around the province (maybe activated by an edict? that increased PO, and would allow the garrison to intervene when someone was attacking the churches or farms). The player then would have the choice to either intervene with this patrol or let it happen. If the player intervenes and loses, those men would be taken from the main garrison.

    -Vassals and allies: there really needs to be a way to give individual orders instead of global. Its ridiculous that when I issue an attack order the AI moves armies that are defending very far way to intervene.

    So, if I issue an attack order to an ally: he would move whatever he wants to engage. But if I issue an attack order to a vassal, I should be able to tell him "this army attacks this", or "this army encamps here to hold the bridge" in a per vassal basis.

    I would also like to see that when a vassal takes a town, a choice would be given to their lord to decide on what would happen to that land (will I keep it to myself, of let them have it as spoils of war? -> by giving it to them, they would like me more, if I keep it, well, they live to serve their lord after all). -> but this would enhance the political aspect of the game.

    Special attention if they capture churches or farms that used to belong to their lord (if I hold control of the main town, the farms should revert to me when they capture them from the enemy).

    -Provinces: they feel fine as they are.

    -Politics: some more political ramifications to our actions as suggested above (if we attack X and Y likes X, then loyalty goes down). Some more narrative events.

    Also, it would be great if titles were not attributed at the start of the game, nor governors. I think it would be best for the player to designated those ourselves.

    Other would be arranging political marriages in order to gain access to advanced political options (such as influence the other guys political agenda with our own).

    -War fervour: it would be nice if there as some sort of warning and actions to be taken before it drops like a rock. Sometimes it feels way to random, and that we are too powerless to act.

    -Faction mechanics: still only on my second campaign, so I can't really attest to all the mechanics. I will trust on the word of my fellow gamers.

    -Removal of agents: having a spy of sorts would be nice, maybe attached to a certain post/office of your faction or something but its a role that needs to be fullfilled. However, make it less of a nuissance than in past titles. Just some scouting, maybe incite a rebellion if a settlement already had red PO, steal marching orders (reveal armies..).

    -Stances: ambushes please :)! Forced march gone is great.

    QOL:
    -Foliage: bring the remove foliage option to this game, I find myself just auto resolving battles in dense forest because I can't see anything.


    For the future:
    Every player is different, some enjoy change and experimentation, other prefer to keep to what they know...
    I think a way that future games could be better received would be that if instead of removing some mechanics, we could just toggle them on and off. I understand that you guys wouldn't have the time and means to probably have all the options available at release, but they could be added over time.

    This would make it so that the players had more control over the difficulty of their games, example:
    - Classical Recruitment or Advanced Recruitment: would either enable the standard formula or the one that is implemented in ToB.
    - Agents On/Off
    - Stances: choose available stances...

  • ExarchExarch Registered Users Posts: 588
    edited May 2018
    I fully agree with the changes to the campaign compared to Attila - once the balancing makes the factors which are currently quite negligible (supplies, food mid game, loyalty), then there should be plenty to do. The way all the mechanics interlock is one of this game's biggest strengths, especially once all oft he factors are more meaningful.

    I agree with those who think estates should be linked to income, or some resource other than influence, as it means they act mostly as loyalty tokes without much meaningful decision making to allocate (unless your king is weak or not winning battles). If allocating them lost you some income (whether tied to that estate value or otherwise), it would make it a lot more interesting.

    Otherwise, an AI diplomatic aggression tweak would be nice (at least on VH) so that you need to guard against war on two fronts, and perhaps a mechanism to stop the AI suing for peace after losing a few minor settlements they are in a situation to recapture, which some people have complained of. (not, my main playthrough has been Mide)

    Looking forward to the patch!
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 487
    edited May 2018
    kokan said:

    @Jack_Lusted_CA


    So far the game feels great, by far my favorite historical TW since Shogun 2. Lots of great ideias, that just need some tweaking to be make them even better. I am actually surprised on how different some factions feel. Well done.

    I specially like how each province feels different from the other, in past titles I always ended up following the same blueprint everywhere. Here I like that some provinces will generate lots of food, others have lots of industry or chuches. Some even have a mix of everything, and it feels great since this way I can focus on either optimising each province output or using the main settlement to tweak the province purpose for the time being (for example deciding to build a forge and patrol if I expect that province to be important as a stronghold later).

    Having read all the feedback above, I will try to add some ideias.

    -Recruitment system: it just works! It prevents the AI from creating doom stacks quickly and helps the player feel that when we lose an army, something terrible just happened. (I really hope this mechanic is implemented on future titles, and would even be great on Warhammer).

    The only thing I would change is probably how the unit replenishment is presented: right now there is a chance per turn that a unit will be available for recruitment on the next turn. Me personally, don't really enjoy leaving that to chance and there really isn't much we can do to improve those odds other than some late research or upgrading main settlements. I think it would be best to have either a plain turn counter until the next unit is available or adding some more mechanics that would boost the replenishment rate (such as an edict that would take a bunch of food and money in order to create units faster).

    -Garrisons: definitely tweak the main settlement garrison (also there might be a bug that is preventing some of the garrison units from benefiting from forge upgrades). Also, don't add garrisons to the small villages :)

    Something that could be a good addition would be when we build the patrol building, it actually created an automated patrol around the province (maybe activated by an edict? that increased PO, and would allow the garrison to intervene when someone was attacking the churches or farms). The player then would have the choice to either intervene with this patrol or let it happen. If the player intervenes and loses, those men would be taken from the main garrison.

    -Vassals and allies: there really needs to be a way to give individual orders instead of global. Its ridiculous that when I issue an attack order the AI moves armies that are defending very far way to intervene.

    So, if I issue an attack order to an ally: he would move whatever he wants to engage. But if I issue an attack order to a vassal, I should be able to tell him "this army attacks this", or "this army encamps here to hold the bridge" in a per vassal basis.

    I would also like to see that when a vassal takes a town, a choice would be given to their lord to decide on what would happen to that land (will I keep it to myself, of let them have it as spoils of war? -> by giving it to them, they would like me more, if I keep it, well, they live to serve their lord after all). -> but this would enhance the political aspect of the game.

    Special attention if they capture churches or farms that used to belong to their lord (if I hold control of the main town, the farms should revert to me when they capture them from the enemy).

    -Provinces: they feel fine as they are.

    -Politics: some more political ramifications to our actions as suggested above (if we attack X and Y likes X, then loyalty goes down). Some more narrative events.

    Also, it would be great if titles were not attributed at the start of the game, nor governors. I think it would be best for the player to designated those ourselves.

    Other would be arranging political marriages in order to gain access to advanced political options (such as influence the other guys political agenda with our own).

    -War fervour: it would be nice if there as some sort of warning and actions to be taken before it drops like a rock. Sometimes it feels way to random, and that we are too powerless to act.

    -Faction mechanics: still only on my second campaign, so I can't really attest to all the mechanics. I will trust on the word of my fellow gamers.

    -Removal of agents: having a spy of sorts would be nice, maybe attached to a certain post/office of your faction or something but its a role that needs to be fullfilled. However, make it less of a nuissance than in past titles. Just some scouting, maybe incite a rebellion if a settlement already had red PO, steal marching orders (reveal armies..).

    -Stances: ambushes please :)! Forced march gone is great.

    QOL:
    -Foliage: bring the remove foliage option to this game, I find myself just auto resolving battles in dense forest because I can't see anything.


    For the future:
    Every player is different, some enjoy change and experimentation, other prefer to keep to what they know...
    I think a way that future games could be better received would be that if instead of removing some mechanics, we could just toggle them on and off. I understand that you guys wouldn't have the time and means to probably have all the options available at release, but they could be added over time.

    This would make it so that the players had more control over the difficulty of their games, example:
    - Classical Recruitment or Advanced Recruitment: would either enable the standard formula or the one that is implemented in ToB.
    - Agents On/Off
    - Stances: choose available stances...

    I can agree with most of this post some ideas are ones I forgot to put in my own post. Like the player allocating public offices and govoners in the first turn, or at least being able to change them without penalties. If the player chooses not to do this then at the change to the second turn the AI decides for the player.

    The loss of agents is for me something I used to like using but hated how the AI seemed to spam the little tykes all over the place. Some functions have been moved to the follower system, it would be nice to send one of my nobles off on a diplomatic mission to improve my relations with an other faction and keep his eyes skinned as to what is going on at the court of said faction. If a noble has a low loyalty to his lord a revolt could be encouraged by my envoy. The nobles would need a high influence and loyalty combined with the right followers to be affective.

    Ambush stance, to be honest it should not be a stance but be dependent on the player putting their army in a position to ambush, in a forest or in a choke point for instance.

  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,550
    Hi Jack,

    Some interesting suggestions floating around here. Focus of your post has mainly been on difficulty and indeed this is something that could be made a little better. Not only with regard to cash and food but also with late game challenges. Once you've conquered 3/4 of England it's basically game over. Viking invasions stop occurring after the Normans are defeated for example. It would be good in my opinion if you were able to add mechanics which make the second phase of the game - managing a large kingdom - more interesting. This could perhaps be done with dilemma's, keeping the threat of invasions or additional stories for the late game where for example possible outcomes could be an organised rebellion.
  • TolgharTolghar Registered Users Posts: 97
    Lead game designer in next total war game: "Ohh we decided to remove spearmen from our game because we found that only %0.05 of the battles had them involved."

    Random Ca fan: "I totally agree with the decision I never liked the people who used them."

    :D
  • ArclathArclath Registered Users Posts: 23
    Feedback on Diplomacy:

    I also feel there needs to be more room to maneuver around in when it comes to diplomacy, specifically how the AI handles proposals on cancellation of vassals, and military alliances/defensive pacts. Something I have noticed is that the AI will NEVER cancel the vassal status of some of their, well, vassals. Why even have that option in there, in that case? As an example, I tested it to the point where West Seaxe was down to 1 region, and I asked them to cancel out the vassalage for Suth Seaxe, who had like 10 regions. Nothing. I tried the same with Cerneu, who had 1 region. Nothing. On top of all that, I offered them all of the money in my treasury, which was an insane amount. Nothing. Come on, you can't write that off as a design choice, something is obviously wrong.
  • TheodoreTheodore Member Registered Users Posts: 91
    What this game really needs, is the ability to acquire territories through diplomacy. The diplomatic option to "threaten" a faction into giving territories or become a vassal should also be made available.
    By the way, China's warring states period would make an ideal setting for a total war game.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period
  • JiruriJiruri Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 219
    edited May 2018
    Something I would love to see more is defensive sieges. I have finished 2 ultimate campaigns at the moment, working on my third, all at legendary and very hard difficulty, and I can count the defensive sieges on 1 hand.

    You've made such beautiful big cities, but the AI isn't aggressive enough to push for them. I remember in Shogun 2, full stacks, double stacks, triple stacks and sometimes even quadruple stacks would siege and assault my castle. But even since Rome, the AI has been so extremely passive, only daring to assault settlements. And whereas settlement defensive battles were a bit of a bore, defensive sieges are much more exciting to me.

    Stat penalties to income, food, and whatever are all very nice, but I prefer a harder AI that invades with so many armies, that it challenges me. Not 1 stack just pillaging my settlements, then getting destroyed in an open field battle, giving me free reign over his lands. :#
    It was there that he decided to stand and hold his ground against many. And it was there that he fell.
  • AarronWAarronW Registered Users Posts: 1
    Defiantly to easy. Glad to hear the difficulty is being addressed.

    And now I digress into a passionate rant that I am very serious about!

    PLEASE ditch the "STREAMLINING" Shouldn't an empire/kingdom builder feel like you're building an empire/kingdom?!

    Every ones so lazy wanting it streamlined they miss out on all the depth a game can have! Bring back cultural relevance! I want the Catholics to HATE that the filthy pagans and prodastants have conquered their cities and visa versa! let their be religious rebellions and conversion, bring back the temples and shires with different perks. Pagans!, Catholics!, Protestants! we need the lot of em.

    Aren't we supposed to be able to change history! how are we doing that if pagans cant rise!

    At the very least if not the religion then at LEAST the ability to influence the culture and laws (Danelaw vs Feudal) (Gaelic vs Celtic vs Nordic vs Saxon ...ect) its your means to make the game more chaotic and difficult without tampering too much with the balance!

    More building variants! I want to shape my people and their cities! Make me choose a between a heavily fortified city and a resource producing power house with just a small garrison.

    Bring back army captains from the original ROME & Medieval games let them share the load (maybe with only a half army capacity just to spice it up?) maybe they can get ambitious and rebel? start their own faction or join the fold of loyal lords? (Maybe to ambitious a suggestion?)

    But all in all love the game!
    Aarron
  • JamboJambo Member Registered Users Posts: 264
    It's only too easy once you've survived the early game, and the early game can be brutal even on hard level. I've had several Circenn campaigns collapse early doors.

    However, once you're big - as I got in my Northymbre game - I just steamrolled the rest of the map.
  • craglejoshcraglejosh Registered Users Posts: 1
    It would be really awesome if you could add the ability to rename characters/generals the same way we could in TW Warhammer. It really adds to the RPG/immersion aspect of the game. Seems like there would be no harm done by enabling that feature, those who want to can use it, and those who are not interested can stick with the auto-generated names.
  • ArclathArclath Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited May 2018

    It would be really awesome if you could add the ability to rename characters/generals the same way we could in TW Warhammer. It really adds to the RPG/immersion aspect of the game. Seems like there would be no harm done by enabling that feature, those who want to can use it, and those who are not interested can stick with the auto-generated names.

    Hear hear, more RPG elements would be very welcome, especially if they're tied into some deeper cultural mechanics that differentiate the various factions.
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 487

    It would be really awesome if you could add the ability to rename characters/generals the same way we could in TW Warhammer. It really adds to the RPG/immersion aspect of the game. Seems like there would be no harm done by enabling that feature, those who want to can use it, and those who are not interested can stick with the auto-generated names.

    Yer that would be great I so want to name one of my Wessex generals Uthred.
  • rachubikurachubiku Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 16
    in general, I really enjoyed the new changes, but what was missing for me, you have the options to bribe someone's vassals, I was in a war against alfred de wensex and wanted to bribe their vassals in the south to rebel and guess It is no other choice of diplomacy with vassals. Because? another took off the agents and we do not have the option to bribe an unsatisfied commanding enemy. affffff
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,014
    edited May 2018
    @Jack_Lusted_CA

    Just want to say that your input to the community throughout development and post-release has been incredible - better than I've known for any TW game. And this post really takes the cherry.

    I'm particularly glad you're looking at depth as an area for improvement. I have been wondering if the relatively easy difficulty has been preventing certain depth-giving features from being allowed to shine. On the whole, over-abundance of a thing renders it not worth looking at, so I'm sure balancing could help here.

    However, 80 turns in to my first campaign with Alfred, progress in battle and campaign is feeling very mechanical. I am having to factor in the fact I have invested hundreds of hours into every major TW release, so novelty and fresh gameplay is going to be harder to come by than if I was new to the series. With that said, though, I am not as engaged by this game as the setting and new game mechanics suggested I might be in the build-up.

    The interplay of loyalty and Estate endowment is very simplistic and ceases to be rewarding after the first few visits to that part of the faction interface. Court intrigue has not really developed much since Attila.

    The thing that disappoints me most is that despite a wide array of what are clearly well-researched factions, leaders and unit types of the time, I feel very little immersion in the historical time period - and that honestly felt like a key objective of the Saga series. The art style and cut scenes are nice cosmetics, but it doesn't feel a great deal different from playing any of the periods the franchise has covered in the last few years.

    ToB is well-made and beautifully presented but it's by no means grabbing me. Most of my criticisms are roughly in line with @tak22 's excellent post from May 11th. For me the new recruitment system has been a major highlight, war fervour (tided over from AoC) is still kind of interesting, but many other features don't feel nearly impactful enough. I feel like I have been playing this game or one very much like it for the last 5 years!
    Post edited by Fredrin on
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 487
    Why cant we recruit faction specific units if we conquer their home territory. It’s not as if those welsh bowmen suddenly forgot how their bows work for instance.it need not be all units from a subjugated faction but a l;imited number of elites seems fair.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386

    I like the idea a few people have brought up of tying estates to income - if done right, it could make estates more interesting *and* help the late-game income problem a little. It would probably need to interlock with some other late-game income reducers to get income where it needs to be, including maybe some nerfs to corruption reducers - if that's the case, it might be interesting if giving an estate gave -x% income but maybe also -y% corruption (based on the noble's traits - negative traits could make corruption go up).

    In general, though, I think if estates are tied to income, there'd need to be some balance to the loyalty system, so that it's easier to hang on to estates if you need the money. The most straightforward approach would be to balance influence effects so that nobles who are 4-5 influence points lower than the ruler start getting a loyalty bonus, that increases the lower their influence is, which would balance out their not getting estates.

    (On the top end of the scale, it might be interesting to make it -1 loyalty for rivalry to be one below or equal to the ruler, -2 to have more influence than the ruler, maybe going up every few points above the ruler; there would need to be a set of loyalty traits to balance this, though, so that e.g. someone who sees himself as a guardian of the throne might have a loyalty bonus to offset all or most of this penalty)

    On the flip side, for lower influence characters, low influence might make them more loyal by default to the ruler (as mentioned above), but in a situation where higher-influence characters rebel, the difference in influence between the rebel and the ruler could generate a % chance for a character's low-influence modifier to flip from a decreased chance of rebellion to an increased chance to join the rebels.

    The point of this would be to focus the main loyalty game on the higher-influence characters, since low-influence characters are less likely to rebel (since either they admire a ruler with more influence, or even if they dislike him, they are most likely just to keep their heads down). Estates wouldn't have to be mechanically handed out to every character, since the lack of estates would only be problematic for high-influence characters. On the flip side, while you wouldn't have to keep track of low-influence characters starting rebellions, a lot of low influence characters could make any rebellions that do happen (potentially) a lot larger. Finally, it would simulate the historical situation where a low-influence ruler would have to hand over a lot of land/money to maintain control.
  • KregenKregen Member Registered Users Posts: 487
    tak22 said:


    I like the idea a few people have brought up of tying estates to income - if done right, it could make estates more interesting *and* help the late-game income problem a little. It would probably need to interlock with some other late-game income reducers to get income where it needs to be, including maybe some nerfs to corruption reducers - if that's the case, it might be interesting if giving an estate gave -x% income but maybe also -y% corruption (based on the noble's traits - negative traits could make corruption go up).

    In general, though, I think if estates are tied to income, there'd need to be some balance to the loyalty system, so that it's easier to hang on to estates if you need the money. The most straightforward approach would be to balance influence effects so that nobles who are 4-5 influence points lower than the ruler start getting a loyalty bonus, that increases the lower their influence is, which would balance out their not getting estates.

    (On the top end of the scale, it might be interesting to make it -1 loyalty for rivalry to be one below or equal to the ruler, -2 to have more influence than the ruler, maybe going up every few points above the ruler; there would need to be a set of loyalty traits to balance this, though, so that e.g. someone who sees himself as a guardian of the throne might have a loyalty bonus to offset all or most of this penalty)

    On the flip side, for lower influence characters, low influence might make them more loyal by default to the ruler (as mentioned above), but in a situation where higher-influence characters rebel, the difference in influence between the rebel and the ruler could generate a % chance for a character's low-influence modifier to flip from a decreased chance of rebellion to an increased chance to join the rebels.

    The point of this would be to focus the main loyalty game on the higher-influence characters, since low-influence characters are less likely to rebel (since either they admire a ruler with more influence, or even if they dislike him, they are most likely just to keep their heads down). Estates wouldn't have to be mechanically handed out to every character, since the lack of estates would only be problematic for high-influence characters. On the flip side, while you wouldn't have to keep track of low-influence characters starting rebellions, a lot of low influence characters could make any rebellions that do happen (potentially) a lot larger. Finally, it would simulate the historical situation where a low-influence ruler would have to hand over a lot of land/money to maintain control.

    Yes like this idea, if titles and witan/court appointments where added to the mix it could help with balancing. Lower influence and low estate ownership would affect loyalty /influence. Higher titles would naturally get more estates and witan/court jobs,( of which there should be more than the vanilla 3), would have more influence and loyalty dependent on traits and relationship to the crown.

  • KinrossKinross Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 21
    Having played all the TW games except WH my own view is that this is the best one I've played since MTW2, (I cannot stand Shogun 2!). The campaign map is full of detail and looks alive (unlike Rome or Attila) and the period and setting is well chosen. I generally play on VH and N for battles and have so far played through 5 of the 10 factions.

    Having said all of the above of the 5 campaigns played 3 were easy (Strat Clut / Sudreyar and Gwined) one was difficult at the start Circenn partly because their spearman and levy axe units don't have shield castle. Mierce was almost impossible on VH thanks to its position and I had a very enjoyable 3 wars with West Seaxe. I don't know why but field battles got shorter in late game compared to early (it's not just tech tree issues as West Seaxe were fielding tier 3 units while I could only afford levy spear and basic swords for much of the time.

    Pacing of the campaign needs work as most factions seems to be wiped in the first 10 years, battles are no way near 12-15 minutes on average especially in late game (5 mins avg) and food / gold needs to be balanced for late game as well. Also not sure why but in sieges boiling oil is not available at gates - several previews showed this in game and you need to fix the towers on cities with Roman walls.

    While most campaigns need to be more difficult Mierce needs a break and Circenn need shield castle - their spear formation is just useless / pointless.

    That said it is a really enjoyable game and it'd be great if the same scale was used in the upcoming 3 Kingdoms.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 485
    @Jack_Lusted_CA

    About governors, one way to add more governors than said limit of 10, make it researchable?

    For example, make governor limit increase by researching leadership? That would be an easy way around the only limit left from the old imperium meter. You could have the top limit of governors as it takes to win a long conquest victory.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    I should add, reading through the comments on here one thing that jumps out is a lasting affection for the titles system in MTW. I'm not sure that would fit this period historically (though I do remember weighing whether or not to tangle with the Pope in order to put the 'King of Rome' title on my best general ...)

    But thinking back to MTW reminded me of another feature I've missed since then, which was the rebellion/civil war mechanic which would split the player's faction into two sizable parties; and under at least some circumstances you could choose which side you wanted to play as. I remember at least one game which I lost because I picked the wrong side in the rebellion.

    Since then, I can't remember a game which - absent an end-game mechanic - actually created a substantial division of the realm, and a major threat to the player. Probably the closest we've had was in ED, which made for an interesting little political game, although it was too predictable and too easily gamed, if you paid attention to it.

    So, going back to my early comments about a smaller political game but with bigger consequences, or a less stable campaign map - that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. However the mechanics work, the result to be aiming at should be a sizable split in the faction - 1/4 to 1/2 the faction size, capable of causing significant disruption and/or becoming an independent faction in their own right on the campaign map. Or emergent factions that start with multiple armies, or have reduced upkeep (food & money) and increased replenishment (pools and units) until they've reclaimed, say, 50% of their original territory. And don't just have it happen to the player, have it happen (although maybe at a lower chance) to the AI as well - and if you share a border & have diplomatic relations, make it a dilemma where both sides want you to help them, and you might end up at war with one or the other.

    Things like that to spice up the map throughout the game, to potentially take the player's kingdom (or some AI kingdoms) down a notch or two in size etc.
  • EfixEfix Registered Users Posts: 279
    ESKEHL said:

    @Jack_Lusted_CA

    About governors, one way to add more governors than said limit of 10, make it researchable?

    For example, make governor limit increase by researching leadership? That would be an easy way around the only limit left from the old imperium meter. You could have the top limit of governors as it takes to win a long conquest victory.

    I would ditch the unlimited gov mod for a mechanic but ill rather be link to fame !
  • EfixEfix Registered Users Posts: 279
    edited May 2018
    So after finishing every campaign on VH (Gaelic is the hardest by far) i have one more suggestion, slow down the military tech somehow. Right now you can just power trough all the military tech and get the best units available in 20 turn. Maybe each tech lv could be link to an amount of victories so you will actually have to fight with lower troops for awhile and researched civic tech between. Having a blacksmith lv * and iron mines lv * could also be used as requirement.
  • BulanskovichBulanskovich Constanta, RomaniaRegistered Users Posts: 648
    CnConrad said:

    I said this once but I'll say it again.


    Make better garrisons in capitals!!!!!


    You cut out minor settlements all together. That's fine but you left major cities with their crappy default garrison.


    @Jack_Lusted_CA please think about this.

    You should start with 10 levy units at pvl 1 city as you tranform it to a tier 5 you should get 10 elite units.

    Likewise the garrison building should give you 9 tier 1 units and by max garrison you should have we will have much more fun fighting these massive battles against GOOD defenders.

    By end of game taking a fully upgraded London or Chester should feel like a grand feat.

    Sure the player will be able to defend very well but it still is better than the ai rolling over and taking it like they do now.

    IMO this would do a lot of good. The new settlements are simply wonderful, big and quite complex but there's not always enough men to defend it. I just steamroll over the defenders on the first walls and then it's a walk up to their flag where I kill the general.

    A big garrison would change that, make those battles more fun, if laggier, and also make settlements more of asset and accomplishment.
    "Don't leave for tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow." - Will find the author of the quote some other time.
  • EurosorroEurosorro Registered Users Posts: 5
    edited May 2018
    Dear Jack,

    as an experience TW series player these are my suggestions:

    Food
    As the current mechanic is kind of nice that it requires sufficient food to maintain a certain amount of units. I don't think this is realistic. Will explain why:
    At the time say as any faction you could only recruit that what is available to you of manpower and your money might determined the quality what you could afford.
    The global recruitment pool pro faction must be more stricter. Current technology to highten chances of being able to recruit eg. more berserkers when they come available is unrealistic.
    Peasant troops should be available in the quantity they are now that is fine, but they should look more as peasants and behave more like that. Have scavenged equipment and look less professional.
    Any more professional unit needs to be more scarce. Or new technology comes: equip the peasants which affects public order and loyalty of your followers. This technology enables peasant units to look like they look now, almost professional with basic training.

    Now comes the trick called: Upkeep

    Seeing this mechanic changed in atilla total war ancient empires: upkeep needs to change according what the army does. In case you leave it in town it will be in its barracks.
    When sieging this will cost more money. Making war more costly. Logically: how else expensive siege equipment will be paid. Also the question: is it fair any faction can built advanced siege towers etc so quickly?
    Need technology not more faction specific to be tied into this.

    Enabling eg. West seaxe as a more technological proficient faction certain benefits as can be read later on. But also might giving them less benefits that all of their troops are in general more expensive, except for peasants.

    Than the supplies they carry is linked to the faction capacity of generating food. So a faction with less food chain building; will be slower to gather these supplies. Or where is technology; infrastructure and or bagage chain support to play more with this mechanic. This will help solve the problem of the current supplies mechanic having no influence.

    Therefore change the food system as following; certain areas in thrones will have a better fertility. Therefore a farm building will generate more food. Granting a faction like Seaxe a benefit and enable them to be naturally more expansive and agressive.

    This part brings me to the following: how to minimise the scandalous amount of 1 unit stacks: simply by drastically cut their supplies down. As how larger an army is how farther and longer they should be allowed to travel outside of their comfort zone as they have the resources ,supply chain' support to back it up.

    AI Defence

    i still cant believe my eyes that in many total war games so as thrones; when attacking a city during a siege. The AI defends it so poor. What needs to change here is that the AI becomes more options to defend.
    Implying there will always be at least peasant archers on the walls, raining down arrows.

    This will help minimising easy victories as an assault of a city now will become much more costly for the attacker.

    The settlement defence needs more love. More of a story than can be told pro settlement: eg. Governor x is here with siege engineer Fabian from france; they fortified the area more therefore this is particular hard to take.

    More research needs to be done in this. So as the tower defence units need to be visible and or upgradable.

    Even as it cost money; what does it matter make it expensive! Make options to sink money in to drastically enable players to buff up their defence so as for the AI.

    Here can come in handy the current siege engineer perk: make it visible the faction has a siege engineer by granting extra fortifications.

    Increasing difficulty here will put an immediate halt to current steamrolling of the map.

    Battle AI and stack size


    Eg. west seaxe AI should be more smart by having a bigger stack say 40 units now limit is 20. Enabling them to include many peasants.
    AI will use now also quantity strategy; send cheap troops to wear down players stacks. Than after that sends in the more professional stacks.




    Again in unit professionalism more can be done! It needs to be thoroughly researched how cheap units / peasant fought at the time. As such now things look to clean;

    where is the eye patch.

Sign In or Register to comment.