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 update - what would you like to see?

1356

Comments

  • dzim4dzim4 Registered Users Posts: 1
    Thanks for continuing to work on this game! I can agree with Yarev, West Seaxe still seems too strong along with their vassals. West Seaxe shouldn't be able to make Mierce its vassal if Mierce has a higher strength rating. Also, I think vassals should declare independence wars if they are stronger than their overlords after a certain amount of turns.

    I never really understood why Wicing and other raider attacked Great Viking Army or Viking Sea King factions? If anything I think they should have diplomatic options with them. Maybe change their behavior too so they actually have a chance once they capture a settlement.

    End game still feels indifferent. Now it feels like the victory conditions require too much and by the time invasions come they can be easily defeated. What about After short victory there can be random bigger invasions. A large fleet of raiders appearing somewhere.

    Also please get rid of whatever it is that is randomly declaring war on my neighbors if I have a non-aggression, defensive pact etc. with them, makes alliances seem pointless.

    Great Heathen Army or Ragnar Prequel DLC is on my wish list. Or maybe Anglo-Saxon invasion?
  • slapnut1207slapnut1207 Registered Users Posts: 678
    edited November 2018
    Add a story, aka dilemmas if there aren't any in the game.

    Allow for alternate history. Ex. The Welsh decide to restore Roman Britainnia because they read too much Roman history. The Kingdom of England has a dynastic union with the Holy Roman Empire. Of course, that probably would only happen centuries later.

    Ambush Battles need to be added back.

    Improve Naval Battles, at least allow different types of ships.

    I like games that allow you to choose a bunch of different options and outcomes. Games that take away or become stale usually are not interesting ones.

    Great Conspiracy DLC set in the year AD 368 with the main playable faction being the Roman Empire. The year saw Roman Britain being overrun with deserting legionaries becoming bandits, the celts running loose after the revolting garrison apparently allowed them in and Germanic tribes invading the isle via ships.

    The faction leader for the Roman relief force is Comes Flavius Theodosius. Accompanied by his son, future Emperor Theodosius and his nephew, future Emperor Magnus Maximus.

    Historical Battles, I like to play them especially if they are historically accurate and it gives me some history as well since I don't know much about Medieval British history.

    Agents, at least bring it back in a limited but functional role. Introduce at least Priest and Scouts.

    Add units from the High Middle Ages, the British Armies of the 1th to 13th centuries.
    Post edited by slapnut1207 on
    In Hoc Signo Vinces

  • walterkanewalterkane Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 450
    good to see devs reaching out for suggestions.

    personally, i think the political/loyalty system needs some work. Once you figure out its primarily a function of estates it becomes rather easy to manipulate. i'd like to see variability in this regard. Maybe magnifying the stats of certain traits could accomplish this. I'm really intrigued with three kingdoms system of interpersonal relations. That might be beyond the scope of the next update but would be cool if something similar to this could be worked in/

    Also, like many others, I think the game could benefit from expanding the map to get more cultures/factions in the mix/
  • toskyruntoskyrun Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 273
    1- return ambushes (perhaps for armies smaller than 10 units, or for armies with the majority of light units and skirmishers)

    2- arrange the distances, and put the forced marches back on armies.

    3- more dilemmas and crossroads during the mid-campaign

    4- possibility to confederate allies of the same loyalty, and vassals through state marriages.

    5- give even more emphasis to the estates

    6- exchange of regions for peace

    7- exchange food for money, or money for food.

    8- in battle: more climatic events, forts and maps. it would be great to have river battles and landings from rivers.

    9- for a possible dlc, Norman invasion from 1066 to 1072. introduction of the first Norman stone castles, as in med 2, decide whether to build a village or a castle.
  • ThePoshBarbarianThePoshBarbarian Registered Users Posts: 42
    One thing I'd like to see is a few more unique units in between factions (irish slingers anyone?)
  • billybob1billybob1 Registered Users Posts: 44
    Fix bugs (unit group action reordering the last unit sometimes, units stopping an attack of routed troops halfway through, disappearing influence and command traits for the king, AI not knowing how to defend against two fronts in battle, some research doesn't work, "sound effect" checkbox missing).

    With diplomacy, make it at least possible to use some of the options like cancel vassal status, or cancel friendship, especially if done with a mutual action. Also the blood on the stat card blocks the mouse over stats from working. Maybe blood should only appear if the unit has been in at least one battle.

    Make some sort of chart to represent loyalty and estates, with a visual representation of the available political capital the factions estates have, and where this has gone to, or could go to. Or just some filterable, sortable tables of generals, governors and estates. Currently it only pays to keep governors happy, and leave generals to have usurper traits, because it's just impossible to manage each trait. The mouse over on loyalty (and the description it gives) is currently the best tool to view what's going on without clicking on each and every general and governor every time you want to hand out an estate.

    All in all its a very enjoyable game though. But some bugs make it look unpolished, and the loyalty/estate management is time consuming when reaching large kingdom victory, and especially total victory.
  • ComradeChernovComradeChernov Registered Users Posts: 4
    Given the fact that you've added so many features involving vassal loyalty and politics, I'm just gonna plant this seed now: I would gladly pay for a War of the Roses DLC.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 485
    One thing that I`ve thought of is followers

    It would be interesting if your first point investing into a follower allows you to choose a person that has traits that transfers from the follower to the character. And that the followers have portraits and are aging as well
  • Octavius_5Octavius_5 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 280
    I've been really enjoying Thrones of Britannia especially after the Allegiance update. I am not looking for any major changes to the core gameplay. My suggestions for what could be expanded upon with a future update is similar to what some others have been saying.

    1. Estates are much improved but I think there could still be more work done on them. The different effects based on the type of estate is a very nice change and I find myself interacting with that frequently as I use estates. What seems less successful is the different traits associated with the desire for estates. Aside from a rare occurrence of not giving someone an estate because they have the 'desires no estates' trait I'm finding my interaction with the other traits very limited. In practice my use of estates when dividing up how many everyone gets is essentially unchanged from before the Allegiance update. I'm not finding the new traits to have a large impact on the gameplay. Perhaps if the traits related to desiring only a certain type of estate were more frequent, that might force some more difficult and thoughtful distribution of estates. For me at least, this does seem like an area that could use some further tweaking in order to add some more meaningful decision making to the estate management process.

    2. I'm generally very happy with the battle pacing and how all the different unit types behave on the battlefield. One thing I do see sometimes is the AI breaking up their battle line when engaging. I know this may not be possible, but if it is, it would be nice to see a bit more cohesion in how the AI works to maintain a solid battle line. With so much emphasis on flanking and finding a way to get around the front of units in order to break the enemy line, it is much more important to present a unified line and react to flanking attempts appropriately. In defensive battles I have fought, when you can get a good defensive position and keep the enemy in front of your troops, the battle engagement duration can be very long, which is great and fitting for this period of history where the shieldwall was so important. I would love to see more of that from the AI to really force the player to work hard to find a way to get past that line and then be rewarded for finding a way to flank the enemy. In my experience it does seem a bit too easy to flank the AI and then reap the large benefits from doing so.

    3. In a few battles attacking an enemy city with a large garrison and large defending force, the AI preference to have all units defend at the walls seems to be a detriment to the AI's ability to mount an effective defense of the city. Like others have said with the large, fantastic city maps it would be great to see more of the map actually involved in the siege battles. In the cases I've seen with all AI units deployed at the wall, the AI runs out of room and ends up blobbing up limiting its effectiveness. In those cases where a large number of defensive units are present, it would be fantastic to see the AI deploy a secondary line of defense as a human player likely would where the fresh melee troops and protected ranged troops could keep up pressure on me as the attacker forcing me to keep sending my tired assault troops at the secondary lines of defense. Maintaining reserve, fresh troops like this is something most players will do themselves when they have the numbers to do so and it would be great to see the AI do something similar. Where there are smaller numbers of defenders, it does make sense to commit everyone to the walls since that is the best place to defend, but when you run out of room at the walls it would be better to make sure of the rest of the city map rather than stuffing all the units in by the walls. I know this one is another hard request and may not be possible since changing AI behavior is not a trivial matter, but if it is doable, it would be a nice improvement.

    4. I haven't interacted much with vassals, but from my experience across other Total War games with client states, etc. it would be nice to have more tools for interacting with vassals. It is frustrating when your vassals end up in a position where the most beneficial choice for you is to just declare war on them and conquer them so you can have full control. It would be nice to make having vassals more useful. My personal preference would be to have some mechanism in place to absorb a vassal.

    In general I am quite happy with the unit diversity, faction differences and battle pacing. I would not like to see any of those changed.
  • FritjofFritjof Registered Users Posts: 5
    First of all I have to say that for me the game goes in the right direction. But I think you need more possibilities to make different decisions, e.g. that you can choose to give the pagan fractions and their old gods more power than the church and to build pagan altars, met halls and bardic schools and something like this instead of churches etc. So you have more opportunities to act as you want and the game becomes more interesting and complex (especially with the different building elements). Furthermore you need better animations especially in the fight that would improve the atmosphere, different appearances of the cities, better historical clothes and a democratic system for the pagan fractions a bit like the Witan from the Anglo Saxon.

    So I hope I can help you to make the game more interesting and better!
  • DoKnowHarmDoKnowHarm Registered Users Posts: 1
    BLUF- Add small peasant garrisons.

    I think adding very small peasant style garrisons would make the flow more enjoyable and a bit more realistic. Sending a small force of 60 horseman should not be a guarantee to raid a village, and certainly not all of them. The map changing color in a few turns from two separate single unit armies gets old and feels like the end of RISK. Depending on size and level maybe some peasants with farm tools , spearman, or archers to prevent being able to just take every territory with a 1 unit force. It should be doable but not a given especially with a determined commander and good loyalty of village to leader.

    An auto resolve with a large force would easily limit the number of minor insignificant battles but this mechanic would allow for small scale yet strategically important and epic skirmishes when small raiding parties get greedy.
  • JesusFishJesusFish Registered Users Posts: 1
    Please add negative effects back to the here king mechanic. Right now there is no reason not to be in constant war with the English factions.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,819
    First crusades would be really cool. Son of William the conqueror also joined the first crusade. But probably a long shot :(
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,262

    BLUF- Add small peasant garrisons.

    I think adding very small peasant style garrisons would make the flow more enjoyable and a bit more realistic. Sending a small force of 60 horseman should not be a guarantee to raid a village, and certainly not all of them. The map changing color in a few turns from two separate single unit armies gets old and feels like the end of RISK. Depending on size and level maybe some peasants with farm tools , spearman, or archers to prevent being able to just take every territory with a 1 unit force. It should be doable but not a given especially with a determined commander and good loyalty of village to leader.

    An auto resolve with a large force would easily limit the number of minor insignificant battles but this mechanic would allow for small scale yet strategically important and epic skirmishes when small raiding parties get greedy.

    No garrisons and that is final.

  • norseaxenorseaxe Registered Users Posts: 402
    I like fritjofs idea about choosing to stay pagan options. I also think it would be cool to have pagan rebellions and Christian rebellions probably not historically accurate but still would be cool. I also wish there was option to bride Viking invaders either to raid some other factions lands or bride them to leave you alone. I also don't understand why east Anglia gets invaded by Vikings is this historically accurate. I know a lot of people don't want garrisons in minor settlements maybe give us the option to garrison and option to wall in estates. I think people that don't want garrisons can just click no garrisons as estates get bigger. I always wanted option to be able to ask ally to attack certain faction at certain time and certain place. That's all I can think of atm thanks CA again for continuing to make this game better and better.
  • FossowayFossoway Registered Users Posts: 3,896
    edited November 2018

    BLUF- Add small peasant garrisons.

    I think adding very small peasant style garrisons would make the flow more enjoyable and a bit more realistic. Sending a small force of 60 horseman should not be a guarantee to raid a village, and certainly not all of them. The map changing color in a few turns from two separate single unit armies gets old and feels like the end of RISK. Depending on size and level maybe some peasants with farm tools , spearman, or archers to prevent being able to just take every territory with a 1 unit force. It should be doable but not a given especially with a determined commander and good loyalty of village to leader.

    An auto resolve with a large force would easily limit the number of minor insignificant battles but this mechanic would allow for small scale yet strategically important and epic skirmishes when small raiding parties get greedy.

    No garrisons and that is final.
    This. No garrisons in villages, and no agents. ToB tried something new to set it apart from other TW. It must stick to it now.

    I feel like the most interesting part in ToB is the court intrigues, family trees, politics and diplomacy. That's where you should expand, I think. Give us more options to gain territory other than conquest (annexation through vassals, like already said), make arranged marriages relevant and really part of a political strategy (as an other way to inherit territory), make managing the loyalty of your subordinates fun and not tedious, give us the option to bribe other factions (vikings in particular) to spare your lands and attack your enemies, the possibility to interact with the mainland (France or the Scandinavian countries) through dilemmas (especially for the viking sea kings), etc.

    In Thrones, you play as a king. I want to feel like one.
    Post edited by Fossoway on
  • pehtispehtis Registered Users Posts: 1
    Hello, the recruiting system with unfilled units is great and goes very well with the setting.

    I just wish for a little bit more units diversity. For example, the Vikings might recruit from the Scandinavian berserkers who are particularly strong, of course, you could only have 1 or 2 and that would of course be expensive. As similar as in Shogun 2, there could also recruit heroes troops but only one.
  • mosestonomosestono Registered Users Posts: 19
    i would like to see the remake of medieval II: brittania campaign. a facinated era, better suites the size of map
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 485
    Regarding a remake of the Medieval II Britannia campaign, here is a map of Britannia, 1300 AD.
    You could probably make this sort of expansion if you find som plausible way of making England difficult to play as, and not a faction that steamrolls every other faction


  • FossowayFossoway Registered Users Posts: 3,896
    Aren't the units completely different though? You'd have to model knights for that...
  • CJYXGCJYXG Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited November 2018
    1-It's a "Shield-wall" era, but the shields in this game show no special effect during infantry battle, the only use of "shield castle" is to prevent arrows. There should be some proper mechanism and formation for the shield battle with bonus related with infantry warfare (e.g. the 2-hand axemen are too powerful and just unstoppable except for using missile, real shield wall should have some advantage when facing them).

    2-The animations of axe and sword are the same, making the battle stupid when looking closely.

    3-Many of the settlements are exactly the same in battle map, that's a little bit ridiculous. And those special buildings don't present in the battle map. Settlements should appears consistently with what they have in the campaign map. This feature have existed in Rome TW and Medieval 2 TW, why such a good point was removed?

    4-The AI in city defense need to be improved. Every time I can place my cavalry in one side and draw lots of their attention, while the real assault force may encounter less resistance.

    5-Those estate traits should occur less frequently and less widely, but with more influence, even escalation. Otherwise they can be ignored easily.

    6-Pls remove the bloody units cards...

    PS: there are some small bugs need to be fixed:
    forums.totalwar.com/discussion/229068/several-small-bugs-to-be-fixed-in-the-coming-patch#latest

    Post edited by CJYXG on
  • JADennisJADennis Registered Users Posts: 5
    Fritjof said:

    First of all I have to say that for me the game goes in the right direction. But I think you need more possibilities to make different decisions, e.g. that you can choose to give the pagan fractions and their old gods more power than the church and to build pagan altars, met halls and bardic schools and something like this instead of churches etc. So you have more opportunities to act as you want and the game becomes more interesting and complex (especially with the different building elements). Furthermore you need better animations especially in the fight that would improve the atmosphere, different appearances of the cities, better historical clothes and a democratic system for the pagan fractions a bit like the Witan from the Anglo Saxon.

    So I hope I can help you to make the game more interesting and better!

    I also like this. I like the none historic alternate paths countries can take to make the game more interesting.
  • thresh25thresh25 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 34
    I have a separate post about this but please fix the game victory conditions for multiplayer campaign. Three possible fixes

    1) allow players to continue playing after fame victory achieved.

    2) change victory conditions to be taking the other players land

    3) allow players to choose from different victory conditions.
  • norseaxenorseaxe Registered Users Posts: 402
    CJYXG: I think the 2 handed axe was designed to break shield walls historically. I knows it's just a game correct me if I'm wrong.
  • ESKEHLESKEHL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 485
    norseaxe said:

    CJYXG: I think the 2 handed axe was designed to break shield walls historically. I knows it's just a game correct me if I'm wrong.

    That could be an awesome counter to shieldwalls ingame!

    I think ToB could use another scenario, I could think of several, either through the attacks on Lindesfarne and onwards (Ragnar Lothbrok etc) or William The Conqueror. Another scenario would be britain in the 12th century, which could work because theoretically the vikings, or at least their descendents are still there and it has an interesting conflict when England tries to invade both Wales and Scotland.

    Another thing which is wishful thinking, is to rerelease Age of Charlamagne as a standalone release, but working within the ToB game, just like Fall of the Samurai, and implement into AoC all the things in ToB, province management etc
  • DarkercookieDarkercookie Registered Users Posts: 11
    Can my Generals stop getting Averse To Risk from killing these one-man armies that the AI keeps building? When you destroy the main army can there be a 1-2 turn wait before building another one?
  • DarkercookieDarkercookie Registered Users Posts: 11
    ESKEHL said:

    norseaxe said:

    CJYXG: I think the 2 handed axe was designed to break shield walls historically. I knows it's just a game correct me if I'm wrong.

    That could be an awesome counter to shieldwalls ingame!

    I think ToB could use another scenario, I could think of several, either through the attacks on Lindesfarne and onwards (Ragnar Lothbrok etc) or William The Conqueror. Another scenario would be britain in the 12th century, which could work because theoretically the vikings, or at least their descendents are still there and it has an interesting conflict when England tries to invade both Wales and Scotland.

    Another thing which is wishful thinking, is to rerelease Age of Charlamagne as a standalone release, but working within the ToB game, just like Fall of the Samurai, and implement into AoC all the things in ToB, province management etc
    That is a great damn idea. I'd pay for that.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,137
    edited November 2018
    Why do unit cards need to bleed as well?

    Unit Cards already show the quantity of units and there is bar to represent how many units are still alive. Now, blood as well? No need to over represent how many men are still alive.
  • CJYXGCJYXG Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited November 2018
    Maybe those dogs in game need to get some improvements. In the current game, they almost can't kill anyone, even the most unarmored ones like peasant archers...
  • TheodoreTheodore Member Registered Users Posts: 91
    There needs to be a way to gain territories via diplomacy, especially from vassal states. Exchange territories with other factions give lands to allied or vessel factions as rewards or gifts, demand territories from vassals, and so on. I understand the reluctance to do so, but perhaps some features would make it more difficult. For example, demanding and receiving territories from a vassal faction can result in that vassal losing much of its loyalty to the player's faction, or that acquiring lands via diplomacy cost fame points.
    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
Sign In or Register to comment.