Thrones of Britannia update - what would you like to see?

[Deleted User]

After spending some time reviewing community feedback and looking at how the last update has impacted the game, we’re now just about to lock down our plan for the next Thrones update. We’ll be able to share more details on what we have in mind in the next blog, until then make sure your make yourself heard.

What would you like to see adjusted? What do you think should be left untouched? Let us know

ESKEHL

Well, a better vassal system would be much appriciated. I have really tried to recreate East Seaxe as West Seaxe and that really is hard given that South Seaxe or Cent always end up overtaking that region of East Anglia before I can get my new vassal expanding.

I really like the trait system that was impelemented in the last update, but I really would like to see that governors gain traits as nobleman of that province as in Crucible of Kings. Also I would like to unlimited governors. I see no point in having that restriction given that it really makes late game more difficult given that you need to keep your realm together.

I would also really like to see more councillors to the king and and a screen or area of a window for those. They could get missions as character can in Rome II?

In terms of a DLC that follows with the game, perhaps normands, and then I don`t necessary mean William the Conqueror, but rather focus on the normands after William did his famous invasion. That would mean following the normand conquest and harrassment wars around Europe following up to the first crusades.

ben321123

I think it could be fun if you could trade food for gold.

I remember in Rome 2, playing as Egypt was fun but I barely had any gold but food production was crazy.

If I could trade food with allies in Thrones, not only could you get particular allies to build larger armies.

Especially if I want a faction between an enemy and my own factions.

myselfnapoleon

First of all, Thrones is a great game - thanks for taking feedback !

What is really needed for h2h multiplayer campaigns is to either change the victory conditions to be to destroy the other player's faction or to allow to carry on playing after one of the players has reached 532 fame/any other victory condition. Having to stop playing after reaching an arbitrary number or reaching a pre-defined objective is not fun at all, especially if you've spent tens of hours to get to that point. What I like when I play with/against a friend is that we can make up our own objectives and play in the way we want. Being able to play after someone has reached victory would give us more freedom. This would really make the game better for multiplayer campaigns. Of course, if the objective is to eliminate the other player, then this goal would be reached as well.

On the other hand, there are a couple of features that I love with Thrones and that I feel should be kept. The unwalled villages are fun, as they increase the number of field battles and really give you an incentive to go out of your walled settlements and fight the enemy in an open battles. This also makes the siege battles rarer and more significant (the siege battles are really well designed in Thrones by the way). Going for somebody's food is somethong you can be planning for and you must take care of what's happening to yours.

The fact that it is quite hard to get any siege engines really makes cities shine and I feel that it allows you react when one of your cities is besieged. I would restrict catapults even further and make it only recruitable for a limited amount of factions, which would also help to increase diversity between factions.

Lastly, the way armies/units are recruited really makes recruitment a strategic decision and armies do no longer appear out of thin air. This is great !

Jam#4399

In Battles,

• When 2 shield walls collide, the unit being charged should bounce back upon contact to showcase impact
  
• There should also be new animations like push and stab.
  
• Also heavier units should be able to push lighter units little by little.
  
• Make bodyguards act like real bodyguards by protecting their general at all cost everytime their general is harassed. They should compress and form shieldwall automatically if their general is being showered by arrows.
  
• More men falling off from the walls. It's easier to push enemy instead of killing them when fighting on the wall.
  

Yarev

First of all the IMO factions are not balanced :

-West seaxe is too strong with their vassals (either cancel some of their vassal status or make them rebel from West Seaxe). This makes the game so boring for me as the WS and vassals always conquer so many factions, on the other hand attacking West S is a really tough nut too crack as every vassal has at least a full stack

-East Engle sholudn't be attacked by Vincing or Wicing (cant remember) and the other Vikings from the north so early on, its hard to justify it in terms of history and its scripted so it always happens, make them attack Cent or South Seaxe instead

TBC.....

ComradeChernov

I don't know if you've seen, but Radious, the modder, has been asking for a change to the recruitment UI because it doesn't allow for more than 20-ish units on the screen. If it had some sort of next-page-arrow like in Rome II, or a scroll bar like in Warhammer, I'm sure that'd be much appreciated.

Also, if at all possible, a change to unit entity mass and collision to be more in line with Warhammer, so that cavalry charges don't ride directly through infantry lines. And maybe a change to unit health or melee stats, because battles still feel quite quick.

Also also, I know that part of the intended game design was to give villages barely any build slots for the sake of making building choices more important, but I personally would REALLY appreciate some sort of capital slot for a village which gave it walls. So like, instead of a fishing village, gold mine village, etc, it'd be a fortified village with a limited income potential, but allows more easily defensible borders. It would even have a historical precedent in Alfred the Great's burghal system, which a decree ingame is based on.

KingHragon

Playing as Mide, decrees aren't really worth it since they cost precious legitimacy which you're trying very hard to save up for annexing neighbors. By the time in the campaign where you have enough legitimacy to burn on decrees, you're already big enough that you don't really need them or they have minimal impact.

I think removing the legitimacy cost for decrees (perhaps changing the gold cost for balancing as needed) would be good. Or perhaps changing the "Fair of Tailtu" so that it provides a small amount of legitimacy. Prior to the patch, I enjoyed how hosting the Fair was a reliable way of building legitimacy.

toskyrun#2614

Premised that I love the game to madness, the things that I have always hated are the lack of ambushes and the lack of the ability to move the armies to forced march.

the concept of distances in TOB is totally wrong. it is impossible we need 6 years to go from Scotland to the Cornwall! or from wincester to london a year! this is to be reviewed, in my opinion

Turumba

Religious Estate held by the King do not provide factionwide allegiance. (bug afaik)

Defensive bai in a siegebattle need to react/interfere to capping attempts! It just looking atm. (super big game flaw)

While the indepth political system is a fantastic TW milestone on it's own, we have to have a user interface to handle it.
We need sorting tabs! Most of all for the nobles in general, we need to able to sort them by governace, by loyalty, by zeal, by influence, by ursurper allegiance, by faction allegiance, by having a desire/ no desire, by command, by estate (yes, one for every kind of estate). This is a must have. People are lost at this when they begin to play ToB and it is a tedious task for those who are not lost and one would need external spreadsheats keep track otherwise.
Please do provide, it is a very good addition, but we need ui to handle it. This means menues within menues, just look at basicly every paradox game. It's fine, it works there, it will work here. It is needed and atm it puts ToB beginners off the game. (I do recommend ToB on twitch/yt all the time and this is the main theme in feedback I recieve. They stop playing, because they get lost in the political system, which means they get lost, because of the lack of ui).

New nobles, be it a heir, a governor or a general, should have a more balanced amount of starting loyalty and influence. 10 starting influence on 16 year old is just …...
You could circumvent this by showing/previewing us their (maybe guessed) loyalty and influence before recruiting.

Cai still uses 1 unit armies! Less than before AU, but it is still very annoying, especially if the general is a cav unit.

The desire „wants to have more estates than the faction leader“ changes, if fulfilled, to „wants to have more estates than everybody else, other than the faction leader“. Everytime. That's just …....

Chasing units stops chasing for no reason in after battle chase. Sometimes even in battle, sometimes even a attack order is interupted. Highly annoying and dangerous, specially when attacking archers with cav. The archers will stop running and start shooting at the cav... 30 seconds later the cav is dead. This really needs to stop. And NO, guard mood is not active, nor is it activated in the options. Please stop negating this issue.

These are my most pressure things on my mind atm. I might have some addition later.


Just a thought/ opinion:

Diplomacy: Military allies/ defensive pact are now very often broken by cai. They mean nothing.
While I actullay enjoy beeing backstabbed by cai allies, it renders most of the diplomatic menue obsolete. That is a pity. So it is good and bad. If it's either this or that, I think in the end, I prefer a agressive cai.

Regards,
Turumba

Zumapis1

I am a modder, so I had already planned to mod this, but I'd rather see it implemented in the vanilla game. I would very much like to see the following changes:

1) A rework of estates. Estates got a too small impact on the game at the moment, and I believe this system might work. My proposal is that every settlement now will grant an estate. Giving away the estate would give the following penalties on the settlement, depending on what kind of settlement it is:

1. Town Estate (For major settlements). Will halve the income of the settlement (but perhaps also halve the food consumption, since the estate owner "pays for the food"?).
   
2. Ressource Estate (Minor settlements with ressources) Will halve the income and ressource production of the settlement.
   
3. Agricultural Estate (Minor settlement with food production) Will halve the income and food production of the settlement.
   

I believe this system may grant estates a greater impact on the game and also stop snowballing, since you will be forced to give away most of your land/estates/income to your lords.

2) Greater penalties from allegiance. I very much like the mechanic, but it is way too easy to get around.

3) Reduce snowballing. I really hope you will consider my proposal about an estate rework, but if not, then please just do something about the snowballing, it is probably the most major issue with this game.

4) Bring back the growth mechanic from Shogun II. This one might be stretch, but I really miss watching my settlements prosper over turns, like in Shogun II. This may also add more value to maintaining your settlements properly.

5) Make alliances more impactful and the AI smarter. I would like to see a bit of rework on the diplomacy, since it is not very impactful at the moment. I will once again refer back to Shogun II, where allies were a necessity and fighting on multiple fronts felt overwhelming without an ally backing you up.
About the AI - the AI needs to learn how to wage war. My proposal is perhaps making the AI prioritize to minimize the amount of wars it is waging at once, and simultaneously making it way more aggressive when invading.

6) Make vassals as desirable as occupying a settlement. I do not have a proposal to how, but at the moment I haven't found myself choosing the vassal option over occupying for strategic purposes once.


That is what came to mind for me. I hope you will take notice of my suggestions:)

Telemeter2

Sieges
In sieges the AI does not defend the Victory point. This means any siege against the AI can be won trivially even if there is a large garrison and a full AI stack in the town. This really is a shame as the intricate town layouts you have created are therefore irrelevant to the siege battle.

To win against the AI all you have to do is deploy say 80% of force on one and deploy 20% somewhere else. The AI will position its forces opposite your main army. It will oppose your small force with a couple of missile units and maybe one or two others.

You do not touch your main force and only attack with your smaller force (in the rain of course). They scale the walls and brush aside the AI defence. Your small force can then proceed to Victory point unopposed and sit there while the clock ticks down. AI continues to sit opposite your main army heedless of the threat to the Victory point. Result siege battle won with minimal casualties and silly kill ratios (is 50:1 or more).

This massively weakens the campaign experience as there is no risk at all in assaulting walled towns.

Vassals
Vassals don't seem much help and can be positively unhelpful. It is irritating that my vassals seem to enjoy spotting when one of my towns rebels and taking it for themselves if they can. Surely a vassal serving its overlord would indeed put down a rebellion but return the town to the overlord on capture...especially if the allegiance in that area is overwhelmingly to the overlord. Can this be adjusted?

Art..brilliant
Fantastic art work in the game. Especially appreciate the detail of making the plants/ trees on the battlefield real species...oak, sycamore etc etc., that attention to detail shows how much you care about this game. Yes I am a bit of a botanist so was surprised to see what I am sure was a buddleia on the battlefield....it was only introduced to the UK in the 1600s I think ...so I must have been mistaken, mustn't I !?

Fossoway#5540

Could you fix the achievements, please? Some were already bugged since launch, and even more were made inactive by the Allegiance Update a few months later. I'd like all of them to be obtainable (you could either delete the broken ones or update them to work with the new mechanics).

As someone who bought the game with the idea of completing it, this became my number one grievance with an otherwise amazing game.

I understand that you may have other priorities, but ToB has no reason to have so many broken achievements, especially since it's the latest in the franchise (WH1, WH2 and Attila all have fully functioning achievements and it is possible to 100% complete them).

sCor

I think supplies need another look over. It's quite frankly way too easy to maintain sufficient supplies. The only way to consistently lose lots of supply is if you run your armies around the enemies territory without ever sacking, raiding or capturing anything. Either the penalties need to be made harsher, or newly captured settlements should be made unable to supply your armies for several turns.

The battle AI during sieges also needs another look.

Here are 3 critical things I have noticed.

1.) The AI doesn't properly focus fire siege towers with fire arrows. Often times the initial salvo consist of regular arrows. This means that AI will generally never stop a single tower before they reach the walls.

2.) The AI doesn't defend it's victory point. Instead it throws all it has one one side of the wall. Not only does it make it easier to take a settlement since many strategical options (like towers located further inside the settlement) aren't utilized, but it's also a crying shame as the large siege maps aren't used at all. I really want to fight my way through the streets of these settlements but the battle is always over at the walls.

3.) The AI doesn't account for the number of archers when deciding how much siege equipment to bring. Often times I have large amounts of archers in my settlement and the AI brings so little siege equipment that I end up burning it all before it reaches the wall/gate. What then follows is a never ending choke battle at the gate that ends with horrendous casualties for the AI from the burning oil.

Last but not least, in the last patch you introduced a new script that forces the AI to declare war on the player occasionally. While that is not a bad idea, it is bad that this also applies to your vassals and allies. This turns diplomacy into a random lottery. Please have another look at it.

Jiruri

A while back I wrote a long list of different features and gameplay mechanics that I'd love to see, and some other people from the community shared some of their thoughts here:

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/225097/what-would-you-like/p1

Please check it out

mcar110

The first two might be outlandish, but here is my wishlist:

Naval River Battles- at the very least the ability to travel up river on ships (see The Last Kingdom and Vikings TV shows )

Expansion of the Campaign Map- Inclusion of Iceland, Normandy and the Northern european coastline, Scandinavia (Norway and Denmark specifically)

Continuing the updating of Estates- they are in a lot better shape than they were at launch but they still don't have much of an impact on gameplay, at least in my experience

Improving of Vassal System (to be honest this is something that needs to be addressed across all games)- there is no real incentive at present to have vassals at all.

Implementation of Cavalry Charges similar to warhammer would be nice

KellOfNorsca#7196

Grace_CA said:

After spending some time reviewing community feedback and looking at how the last update has impacted the game, we’re now just about to lock down our plan for the next Thrones update. We’ll be able to share more details on what we have in mind in the next blog, until then make sure your make yourself heard.

What would you like to see adjusted? What do you think should be left untouched? Let us know

Unit diversity between the factions. Walls and garrisons for small settlements, like in Warhammer 2. It's annoying to just see a 2 unit army walk over half your lands to the south while you are committed north. Not fun.
Unit diversity has to be high on the list. Give the factions SOME kind of characteristic in their roster that sets them apart from one another. If it weren't for the different health bar colors, I wouldn't be able to tell which is my army and which is the enemy's.

TheShiroOfDalton

KellOfNorsca said:

Grace_CA said:

After spending some time reviewing community feedback and looking at how the last update has impacted the game, we’re now just about to lock down our plan for the next Thrones update. We’ll be able to share more details on what we have in mind in the next blog, until then make sure your make yourself heard.

What would you like to see adjusted? What do you think should be left untouched? Let us know

Unit diversity between the factions. Walls and garrisons for small settlements, like in Warhammer 2. It's annoying to just see a 2 unit army walk over half your lands to the south while you are committed north. Not fun.
Unit diversity has to be high on the list. Give the factions SOME kind of characteristic in their roster that sets them apart from one another. If it weren't for the different health bar colors, I wouldn't be able to tell which is my army and which is the enemy's.

Nope and nope. No minor garrisons and especially no walls. The siege cancer mustn't come to this game ever.

As for what I'd like to see, an annexation feature for vassal states. Say having a vassal for X turns enables you to annex the vassal outright, with some downsides like other vassals becoming antsy about it.

Inocybe

There have been some good ideas in this thread, and some terrible ideas too. Decree cost for Mide should stay the same, it's very easy to gain legitmacy by raiding. It's fun and balanced. And above all NO MINOR GARRISONS.
The cavalry is bugged and should be fixed. I made a lot of thread about this, but no answer from CA...

Personnaly, I would want more content (in the irish side). There are no mission for Mide in the game. Only one to choose Brega/Dyfflin, by after that no mission.

leezo1990

>What would you like to see adjusted? What do you think should be left untouched? Let us know

The Game is terrific, mechanics for each faction offers something unique each play through given the limited scope for army diversity in the time period.

The way each major settlement is tailored to minor settlements gives us some actual choices when building and removal of settlement walls leads to more interesting game play for raiding minor settlements and navigating the landscape.

What i would like to see adjusted is during last patch, there were some changes to diplomacy that i did not like. Factions that had non aggression packs and liked me suddenly declare war on me. Up to 4 neighbours declare war, kill their stacks, make peace then they declare war again every few turns like clock work. Early game this is impossible to defend territory with one or two stacks.

What id like to see in future games. Removal of agent actions as they are very annoying. For fantasy elements and 3kingdoms they deserve a spot still in army rosters e.g mages or engineers and can provide passive province buffs.

The ability to build forts and watch towers like in MTW2. The distance between settlements i feel is quite small in Warhammer you could move and take settlements in one turn. With changes to replenishment in TOB and maybe larger gaps between settlements this prevents snowballing, giving time to get another army up and replenished if the resources are available and not being sacked or raided.

The fort can be part of the encampment stance. Watch towers should be able to be taken down (sacked) by enemy armies.

*****Minor point for TOB. Make achievements unlockable in one playthrough. I dont want to play the same faction through at least 3 times and trying to avoid completing the same win objective

Vikingstyle2021#8159

Really awesome that you’ve started this topic ca and compliments how you interact with your fan base with regard to thrones!

Estates and vassals really could use a rework/ higher impact.

Estates mainly impact and ui design. More concept art etc. Make it important as it was back then.

Vassals rework especially with regard to conquest. One should be able to demand territory from vassals that they’ve recently conquered if they don’t consider it their core territory (starting province) at the cost of loyalty/relation/public order/ new dilemmas.

The tech tree could be more lengthy either by increasing the time to research or adding late game techs. Currently half way the game all techs are researched. As a player one of the fun things is to keep developing your kingdom/ being rewarded. Running out of options is game breaking for the late game.

Dlc focus on Normans. Either by starting as a horde and once a foothold is established become a faction like others or adding a part of France to the map. Mechanic around Norman keeps.

End game the small Viking invasions start to disappear. I really liked this mechanic. Imo this could continue for the entire campaign just to make the player not feeling save in his corner of the map.

BristolBonsai

Unit push.

Especially with the focus on siege and bridge battles, I've faced multiple battles where my best troops were stopped cold by a handful of levy. Sure they eventually pushed through, but the slog was tedious even at double speed.

Re-adding unit push/mass changes the dynamics of the battle. Allowing those low tier guys to be moved backwards (give ground) - or conversely, putting your high tier guys place truly holds that line. Creating a much more dynamic battlefield. The truly elites could even be "immovable."

Thrones took a lot of criticism for the shield wall battles feeling too samey and lacking impact. I feel this would go a long way to separating it from the rest of the pack.

sCor

KellOfNorsca said:

Walls and garrisons for small settlements, like in Warhammer 2. It's annoying to just see a 2 unit army walk over half your lands to the south while you are committed north.

I don't ever want to see minor garrisons brought back. They add nothing to the game. It's just a chore of never ending battles where it's predetermined who will win the fight.

tak22

As far as what should be untouched, I suppose it's obvious but the recruiting system is superb. I'm also another one in the camp for keeping the minor settlements defenseless.

What needs to change? Diplomacy needs to be meaningful on higher difficulties. 'You share a border' as the reason for declaring war is something that I thought died back with M2, and it should have stayed dead. That's not to say that I want R2-style diplomatic snowballs where everybody ends up friends with everybody. Rather I'd like to see rivalry modifiers pop up randomly between factions to drive diplo relations down (faster or slower, depending on what 'level' of modifier, and possibly modified by difficulty level) or else several varieties of 'border dispute' dilemmas where you could choose between PO/Loyalty/Influence/Diplo penalties to resolve the dispute, with certain choices leading to further dilemmas.

Estates and politics are making headway, but still need some refinement. It's better than it was, but on my latest play-through the biggest difficulty was still in the early game, and it got easier later in the game. Given that it's supposed to be in the game to make the late game harder, that's out of balance. However it gets worked out, loyalty issues, chance of rebellion, and size of rebellion need to scale with the size of your faction. This also applies to estates, politics dilemmas, etc.

There also needs to be more integration between politics and diplomacy. Make characters like or dislike factions, so they get modifiers to loyalty based on your wars & treaties, or have political traits/dilemmas pop up based on what happens on the campaign map.

Last point - randomly disappearing traits makes character development rather frustrating. Again, I don't want characters to be static - but have traits be lost because of something they do, or something that happens to them, not just (e.g.) because you move them out of a settlement and x turns go by. This applies both to traits from buildings and political traits.

It goes without saying, anything that happens to the player should be happening to the AI as well - rivalry modifiers, large late-game rebellions etc.

Long-shot hope: 6th c. DLC with more Briton factions (but with difficult diplo), smaller Saxon factions (but with better units), and possibly a Romanized faction still hanging on, in addition to Picts and Gaels.

united84#8186

I would like to see an overhaul to the portrait. Something like Empire Divided would be appreciated. The murals are very authentic I will give that but it kind of kills of realism.

thisbetterwork

KingHragon said:

Playing as Mide, decrees aren't really worth it since they cost precious legitimacy which you're trying very hard to save up for annexing neighbors. By the time in the campaign where you have enough legitimacy to burn on decrees, you're already big enough that you don't really need them or they have minimal impact.

I think removing the legitimacy cost for decrees (perhaps changing the gold cost for balancing as needed) would be good. Or perhaps changing the "Fair of Tailtu" so that it provides a small amount of legitimacy. Prior to the patch, I enjoyed how hosting the Fair was a reliable way of building legitimacy.

Definitely agree with this

MrMecH

1) Shield Wall Warfare is not epic like it should be

This is Shield Wall warfare era but the game can't represent how epic of its. Yeah, the units form Shield Wall by themselves while walking or standing but when they clash to each others, they stop its and fight normally. No pushing forward mechanic, No shield charging or bashing, No strategy method to do in battlefield. Even Hoplite Wall in Rome 2 seem far better than this in term of shield based feeling.

I suggest to major overhaul battle mechanic. We need more historical strategy method about Shield Wall warfare.

2) Estate settlement should have a garrison

This is the second form my list. In the game estate settlement should have some garrison when give its to a noble. They get the land and have to manage its, so it make sense to have some personal troop defending its as well.

3) Bring Ladder back

I didn't see Medieval Age siege using Siege Tower much. Always be Ram and Ladder. So I don't know why Ladder was cut from the game? I suggest to bring its back and make them as siege choice.

4) Bring Ambush back

Gaelic or Pict is infamous with their ambush tactic. It not make sense from the first place to cut its out.

5) Transport ship for Cavalry, Hound and Onager

There should have transport ship for Cavalry, Hound and Onager since Attila. So they can landing in naval assault alongside Infantry.

6) Axe infantry but using Sword infantry animation (stab or slash)

The problem since Attila too. Pls change its.

crazyc987654321

Give ALL settlements some sort of garrison. Add in some actual unit diversity. Flush the game you made down the toilet and remake the Britannia expansion from medieval 2 in its place. There thats how you make this game perfect.

tz123

definitely make it easier to gain legitimacy like one of the commenters said above, also naval battles are a bit clunky, and Norman DLC with some more advanced Norman units (gamboised crossbowmen/archers and/or more elite, faster norman cav for example) and castles to give the feel of a Norman invasion force which has elite units but are spread thin (I believe there were only a few thousand Normans left to control/subjugate England after the initial invasion). Other than that its a great game!
Also idk if people realize this but you're free to take other factions unwalled settlements too, def keep unwalled/ungarrisoned minor settlements

Jam#4399

united84 said:

I would like to see an overhaul to the portrait. Something like Empire Divided would be appreciated. The murals are very authentic I will give that but it kind of kills of realism.

I don't like your suggestion. I prefer the current artwork.

If you don't like, just use mods.

Inocybe

thisbetterwork said:

KingHragon said:

Playing as Mide, decrees aren't really worth it since they cost precious legitimacy which you're trying very hard to save up for annexing neighbors. By the time in the campaign where you have enough legitimacy to burn on decrees, you're already big enough that you don't really need them or they have minimal impact.

I think removing the legitimacy cost for decrees (perhaps changing the gold cost for balancing as needed) would be good. Or perhaps changing the "Fair of Tailtu" so that it provides a small amount of legitimacy. Prior to the patch, I enjoyed how hosting the Fair was a reliable way of building legitimacy.

Definitely agree with this

I don't want to be rude (and excuse me if, at the end, I sound rude) but I think you don't know how to manage and gain legitimacy.
You can gain very easily 3 legitimacy in one turn by raiding with one army and one very small army. 3 legitimacy is the cost for enacting decree. Legitimacy isn't precious anymore, really. I personnaly think the legitimacy system is great and doesn't need any fix or improvment. People are to use raiding more to gain legitimacy. If you play during eight turns while raiding (one army and one small army), and you enact two decrees, you will earn (18 legitimacy, nearly enought to annex one gaelic country. Don 't tell me legitimacy is precious… Playing gaelic kingdoms is different, you will need sometimes to wait before taking one province, while raiding it a little to gain legitimacy. But at the end, it is enoyable and th current system is working great.

Personnaly, I think the late game system is terrible with Mide. You never have an invasion in Ireland, and If i am the king of irish, i don't give a **** of invasion in england… To achieve ultimate victory, it forces the player to deploy his army far from his kingdom. I would prefer 4 armies to come in Ireland, and I have to kill them to gain ultimate victory, For short, I think invasiion should target the player instead of scripted invasion location. Practically, I hardly ever play after long victory, because I think the invasion system akward.