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

Question About Thrones of Britannia's Campaign

Michael4537Michael4537 Posts: 2,136Registered Users
edited April 2018 in General Discussion
EDIT: in light of some comments below, special thanks to @Jack_Lusted_CA, I am altering/adding explanations to many of the points I have previously added below and clarified some of my points. Discussion title renamed as well.

Okay, I may be buying Thrones (not that any of you fellow forum users would particularly care). Previously I stated that Thrones lacks enough campaign depth/variation to justify me personally playing it over Warhammer, especially since the battles in Warhammer are on an epic and varied scale that any historical title would be very hard-pressed to match. The selling point for Thrones (for me) is the campaign, and there are a lot of different/unique things that are done in the Thrones campaign that does set it apart from other titles such as Warhammer.
Many of the areas in which I thought the campaign "lacks" are from LegendofTotalWar's list, as I believe he gives a good rundown about was changed (not necessarily removed) from Thrones that was in previous historical Total Wars.

1. No population mechanic.
It was explained that a population requirement did not benefit the game as it is primarily used to unlock more building slots, something done in Thrones by upgrading the main settlement chain. While I do understand this better, I do believe that some sort of population that impacted public order and economic/trade output would add to the game's depth and experience. This is something that I believe is particularly hampering more recent Total War games. If further explanation is available for this missing mechanic, I would greatly appreciate understanding why this particular aspect of population is not included.

2. No culture/religion.
There is some culture/religion in the game, but it is not a major factor as paganism did not widely spread throughout England during this time and the Vikings mainly converted to Christianity. Sweet!

3. No provincial edicts.
Edicts were cut because Thrones emphasizes generals as the most influential factors. Cutting provincial edicts make generals more influential and impactful. Alright, but they will be missed.

4. No army traditions.
Army traditions are "rolled" into the general as, again, the focus is on individual characters. It also puts a greater value on technology. Great!

5. No agents.
Priest/religious agents are not included because of the above reasoning for the lack of culture/religion (sending a priest to convert Christians into Christians will do little good). Many of the benefits that heroes bring, such as public order, have been rolled into generals to make them more impactful. Spies were removed as the player can see into all the territory adjacent to the regions they own. I don't entirely agree with the last one, but I can see why they were removed.

6. No imperium (army number limits).
The money, food, loyalty, estate, replenishment, and other factors can limit the number of single-general armies that can run around and take minor settlements. Fantastic!

7. No navies.
I understood this one to begin with, but just to clarify: it doesn't make any sense for a bunch of marauding Vikings and Englishmen to only stay on their boats.

8. No mercenaries.
Part of the rosters. "Mercenaries" are in the game, they are just available via a different system. Nice!

9. No minor settlement customization.
I understand that they are set villages specializing in one thing in particular (like farming or mining), but I still don't understand why there are no garrison/militias present in minor settlements to protect from smaller armies and support larger garrisoned and nearby armies. Further explanation would be much appreciated.

10. No forced march/ambush.
Forced march and movement bonuses now come from followers and generals themselves and are still in the game. This, again, makes general more influential and valuable. Great! The reasoning behind the ambush stance was that few players actually engaged in ambush battles, which I understand, but I personally use ambush battles a lot and will miss them. Alright, I guess... granted ambush battles can be pretty situational, but I will still miss them.

To clarify (which I did not do when I originally posted this thread) I am NOT bashing CA for creating Thrones. I think it looks like a good game, but some of the choices seemed (and still seem) a little odd to me regarding campaign detail. I am not whining that there aren't features that I want (and if you thought that from reading my unedited post I apologize as it was not my intent) but rather seeking to understand WHY these changes were made. I am still "concerned" about or disagree with some of the choices made, mainly the complete lack of a population mechanic, not because I want something to pick apart, but because I want the Total War franchise to be the best it could possibly be. If anyone can clarify any of the questions I have listed above, I would greatly appreciate it, but don't rip into me too hard as the game has yet to come out and everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt as I haven't actually played the game and am not 100% certain how each change impacts gameplay.
Again, thanks to @Jack_Lusted_CA for answering many of my questions that I probably could have found the answers to if I looked a little harder (and on Reddit).
Post edited by Michael4537 on

Comments

  • PocmanPocman Posts: 2,382Registered Users
    Sieges and proper naval battles seems like a huge difference. Those are the two things I am missing the most in WH.
  • hurricane501hurricane501 Senior Member Posts: 1,834Registered Users
    Writes a massive thread why he wont buy it... 100% wants to buy it and probs will next week
  • Michael4537Michael4537 Posts: 2,136Registered Users
    Pocman said:

    Sieges and proper naval battles seems like a huge difference. Those are the two things I am missing the most in WH.

    Indeed Warhammer lacks and would greatly benefit from proper sieges and naval battles, and granted the siege maps in Thrones look AMAZING, but I'm not going to spend forty dollars just to have things that I use GCCM for or buy a cheaper, older Total War. My main point is that the campaign is a little lackluster. I do hope both those things are added in game III though.
  • slapnut1207slapnut1207 Posts: 675Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    I agree with some parts of this topic, but I will still buy TOB even if it has some features removed from
    the game. Because I like the setting and history of the game. Hopefully it has features that compensate.
    In Hoc Signo Vinces

  • Michael4537Michael4537 Posts: 2,136Registered Users

    Writes a massive thread why he wont buy it... 100% wants to buy it and probs will next week

    Maybe... Depends on what is changed upon release. I do want to buy it (I do like new stuff), but I'd rather spend my time playing Warhammer from what I understand the game will be.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    1) You clearly don't know what a saga is
    2) You've made no effort to understand why the changes have been made
    3) You've literally just copied Legend's list of 'missing' features.

    I mean, if that's your opinion, fine, but you've not displayed any attempt at effort to understand the game.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,933Registered Users
    If you don't want to buy it, don't. If you do... then go ahead. I don't care dudes.

    All this preaching about WH vs Thrones and fantasy vs historical is nothing short of dumb.
    Faith, Steel and Gunpowder Bows
  • BlackenedLokiBlackenedLoki Junior Member Posts: 159Registered Users

    Yeah... I don't think I will be buying Thrones of Britannia. It's a great idea, creating immersive gameplay focusing on a specific event in history, but CA didn't do enough to justify me buying it. The big thing about Warhammer is that it lacks some campaign mechanics, but that is understandable because so much more work needs to go into the models and army rosters (that does NOT mean it shouldn't or wouldn't benefit from more and improve campaign mechanics). In Thrones, that is not the case, and there are still things severely lacking in the campaign aspects that have been in other Total War games, and even Warhammer. The only reason I would play Thrones would be for the campaign, but there appears to be little difference between Warhammer and Thrones aside from the generals and some minor changes here and there that may even be added for one of the Warhammer factions (i.e. the different tech research). If I want to play battles, I play Warhammer because it is absolutely gorgeous and unique. Even for sieges, there are plenty of good community-made maps for Warhammer that I can use.

    Anyway, things that AREN'T in Thrones there were included in previous Total War games that SHOULD be in a more campaign-focused Total War:
    1. NO dynamic or "live" population. Population is just a number. It does not affect anything like trade or income or public order.
    2. NO culture or religion. Factions' relations are not affected by their various beliefs, and there are no mechanics tied to any religious or cultural aspects.
    3. NO commandments for fully-controlled provinces. I mean, even Warhammer has this. There is no real reason to try and capture all of the regions in a province.
    4. NO army traditions. To be honest, I'm not really sure what these are, they're not in the game so they're added on here anyway.
    5. NO heroes/agents. No spies to scout in front of an army, no priests to spread religion and public order, no nothing.
    6. NO garrisons in minor settlements. A single general can go and conquer any minor settlement, and there are no limits on the number of generals that can be fielded.
    7. NO separate navies. The player cannot build up navies but instead receives one when a regular army is moving on the sea. This one makes some sense but it's still gone.
    8. NO mercenaries. This makes sense in something like Warhammer where the ability to hiring mercenaries would destroy the weakness of the armies, but Thrones lacks the huge faction diversity that Warhammer has.
    9. NO customization for minor settlement. No population growth, no choice whether or not I can build an iron mine in the settlement, no garrison, etc...
    10. NO ambush or force march. Really? Why? If this is supposed to be a historically accurate game, then why can no army march or set up an ambush!?

    These things may be changed by the release of the game, but right now there is no reason to play Thrones over Warhammer. Total War released a "Five New Things Coming to Thrones" detailing the emphasized changes:
    1. Customizable characters. Already in Warhammer, just a different system.
    2. Tech trees. Already in Warhammer, just a different system (for now, a similar system may be added for one of the Warhammer factions in the future).
    3. War fervor. This one is kinda of cool, but it is just like one of the faction-specific mechanics in Warhammer. Nothing really special.
    4. Unit recruitment. I actually really like what they've done with unit recruitment in Throne. An entire unit isn't recruited all at once, but it rather slowly builds over time. This is more realistic and one of the true improvements made to the game.
    5. Province system. The provinces in Thrones severely lack customization (as noted above). They are different and (in my opinion) a downgrade from Warhammer's building system which allowed for plenty of customization options.

    The only thing Thrones has going for it over Warhammer are naval battles, actual sieges, and a really neat recruitment system. I could be wrong, as the game has yet to be released, but from what I've seen and heard this is where the game is at now and in my opinions it is simply not enough unless I was really invested in the location and/or time period. I don't think that Thrones will necessarily be a bad game, but it doesn't offer anything unique enough as far as campaign mechanics go for me. Should CA keep making Sagas, right now, I would say yes. But more in-depth stuff THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN PREVIOUS TITLES THAT PEOPLE CONSISTENTLY ASK FOR should be added to make up for the lack of faction and geographical diversity present in these types of "limited location" games.

    Again, this is just my opinion, and the game has yet to be released/fully review, so take what I say with a grain of salt. My opinion May change next week, but this is where I am at right now.

    Just thought I'd let you know that this is going to be torn apart by some people on this forum..

    All the points you mention have been rationalised in previous threads and explained. So I'm not going to go through point by point (also I'm at work so don't really have the time).

    To wade in and basically say 'I want Warhammer again with a better campaign' is not really productive. Warhammer has no draw for me and I haven't played it so I'll leave it for others to comment on the battles and sieges etc.

    But I can tell you that this looks to be one of the most interesting campaigns for a long time.

    Hugs and kisses
    Yes, I am one of those people who liked Rome 2 and yes my opinion is still valid.
  • slapnut1207slapnut1207 Posts: 675Registered Users
    Mattzo said:

    1) You clearly don't know what a saga is
    2) You've made no effort to understand why the changes have been made
    3) You've literally just copied Legend's list of 'missing' features.

    I mean, if that's your opinion, fine, but you've not displayed any attempt at effort to understand the game.

    I agree, he should research why CA decided to remove some of these features. I don
    Mattzo said:

    1) You clearly don't know what a saga is
    2) You've made no effort to understand why the changes have been made
    3) You've literally just copied Legend's list of 'missing' features.

    I mean, if that's your opinion, fine, but you've not displayed any attempt at effort to understand the game.

    Mattzo said:

    1) You clearly don't know what a saga is
    2) You've made no effort to understand why the changes have been made
    3) You've literally just copied Legend's list of 'missing' features.

    I mean, if that's your opinion, fine, but you've not displayed any attempt at effort to understand the game.

    I agree that he should research why CA removed some of these features since these removed
    features weren't either historically accurate for the time period or they weren't really good,
    used or needed features. I just wish they kept ambush battles and reworked that feature.
    In Hoc Signo Vinces

  • HunorHunor Posts: 132Registered Users
    why the hell write here so many warhammer fans ? i hate fantasy, dont buyed WH. but i DONT GO to the WH. topic to crying ....
  • julius_civilisjulius_civilis Posts: 365Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    I've played warhammer 1 and 2 for nearly a 1000 hours combined. But I think many people overrate the warhammer games. Yes they are a lot of fun but they lack on many fronts too like in unit rosters: Any faction you play you will have near identical unit rosters in the late game seriously ANY faction.

    Sieges are known and are pure **** in warhammer there's no way you can deny that. After playing 5 of those you've experienced everything about those sieges, they are fun but can never even come close to the historical sieges..

    In my opinion TOB is going to be one of the best historical total war games to date, I really believe it is going to be. If you are still doubting I'd advise you to just buy it on steam and try it out for 1-2 hours. If you keep your playtime under two hours you can still ask for a refund and you will get your money back regardless. If you do like it after trying keep it :).

    Also many of the features you mentioned are not going to be missed or are in the game in a different way. For example I've read the forced march stance is not in there because armies can move a lot more by default. Population/growth isn't there because it wouldn't really fit the time period ect. The problem with historical titles is that you can't take all those liberties you can take with warhammer.
    Post edited by julius_civilis on
  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,481Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    Hunor said:

    why the hell write here so many warhammer fans ? i hate fantasy, dont buyed WH. but i DONT GO to the WH. topic to crying ....

    He first wrote it in the Warhammer section, but the thread has been moved here.

    TBH, it's unfair to compare ToB to Warhammer. Those are two different games that aim for different types of players with different types of gameplay. While I love the latter and am interested in the former, both have a wide list of pros and cons.
  • kuryakinkuryakin Posts: 78Registered Users
    Oh God....one more WH is great thread. Ok we get it. WH is great, wonderful yada yada.... Pls leave us historical fans in peace. To each his own.You dont want to buy, dont buy. No need to trumpet it as if this is some major life changing decision.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,349Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    Hi,

    I've made extensive replies before when Legend's video came out that went over the design decision and thought that went into many of the changes for Thrones. The posts are here: https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/882uos/thrones_of_britannia_first_impressions_viking_sea/dwiwei2/?context=1 and here: https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/88ipa6/more_legend_of_total_war_criticisms_of_tob_from/dwl15qw/

    I've often talked about how we've worked hard on Thrones to make sure that everything in Thrones combines well with each other, I'm a big believer in the fact games should be more than the sum of their parts. Just listing out features of what is/isn't in the game doesn't tell you how it plays.

    If you are interested in just watching the game instead of reading the wall of text below, check out the live streams I've been playing that I shared the videos from here: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/217553/lustylive-game-director-jack-lusted-plays-as-west-seaxe that's hours of pure, uncut footage from the game.

    The aim with Thrones is about making the choices you have in the campaign more impactful, and how those choices interact. How it all ties together if you will so let's start with the new recruitment system:
    • Units are no longer tied to buildings, instead you have a global recruitment pool. Each unit has a number currently available in their pool, the max number of units of that type that can be ready for recruitment, and chance for a new unit of that type to be added to their pool each turn
    • Levy unit pools replenish the fastest, elites the slowest
    • Extra units are made available for recruitment via technologies, and technologies also unlock upgrades for units that are available to recruit from the start
    • You can recruit as many units as you like each turn, if you're in a settlement or fortify stance. However, all units are recruited at 25% strength and take time to replenish up to full strength. Being in a settlement or fortify stance increases their replenishment rate
    • Similar to the unit pools, levy units replenish soldiers the fastest, elites the slowest
    • Units also cost food as upkeep which is new in Thrones, meaning if you recruit more units than you have food available for you'll start to suffer penalties across your faction
    A big chunky set of changes of their own, and then you factor in how other elements play into it.
    • As armies need food, the fact that minor settlements such as farms have no garrison means that attacking farms can be a way of really hurting your enemies, but they can also do so to you. Keeping you faction in only a few positive food means you're much more vulnerable to losing one of these settlements
    • Unit replenishment rates are important because of them being recruited at reduced strength. So do you spend a building slot in a major settlement on a building that will improve that, or go for one that will give you more income? Similarly if a general levels up do you put points into the Forager Follower who boosts replenishment, or into another like the Quartermaster who boosts the movement distance of the generals army
    • Losing an army can have a big impact, as unless you've not been recruiting for a while it's unlikely you'll immediately be able to field a whole full stack of troops, and even if you could it's going to take a number of turns for the units in that fresh army to get to full strength. Do you risk throwing them in straight away to defend your territory, or wait for them to replenish and risk losing some minor settlements?
    • Technologies are needed to unlock new units an upgrades, and as all of the technology lines require the players to fulfill certain requirements to unlock them (recruit 10 spear units, upgrade certain building types etc.), what you want to improve or choose to specialise in is likely to impact your recruitment choices so you can unlock the relevant technologies and start unlocking them
    • Certain generals come with traits that give reductions in recruitment or upkeep cost to certain unit types, further tying into the above
    The recruitment system is probably the most obvious change we've done for Thrones, but I hope the above shows how it ties back into many other changes we've made. Yes the feature set for Thrones is quite different to Attila, especially on the campaign, but it means the players time is focused on different areas not that there is less to do.

    I could go on and on about all the different areas, but this is getting quite long already. I hope people who play the game enjoy it thoroughly, and I certainly think there's a lot there for veteran players. Thrones is its own experience, and the choices of what features are in it reflect that.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,130Registered Users
    People like the op test my patience. I am going to try a new tacktic and not point out how stupid and pointless his entire post is.


    If you don't like the game don't buy it. Simple as that no, need to write an essay noone wants to read.

    There, as civil as I can manage.
  • kieran12kieran12 Senior Member Posts: 314Registered Users
    I will be buying because I think they have done good work on these new settlements, they look impressive. End of the day I just want to feel excited and hope the battles are fun to watch. If this game captures the Medieval Kingdoms feel I am happy.
  • fredericmeyernfredericmeyern Posts: 231Registered Users
    Seems like the main reason legend's video set off this "list", is that he claimed "no one was telling you" about these things, and in his videos on game, it's pretty clear he and CA have had some kind of falling out.

    This was the preview from IGN in feb,

    http://uk.ign.com/articles/2018/02/01/thrones-of-britannia-hands-on-the-most-detailed-total-war-yet

    --snip
    Beyond this, the campaign plays very differently from any previous, historical Total War for a few reasons. The first and most prominent is the distinction between province capitals and outlying settlements. Province capitals work like we’re used to Total War settlements working. They have walls that protect them against attack and can be specialized with an entire tree of buildings to pick from. Many also feature a unique building chain based on a historically-significant feature of the area. The capital of Mide is home to a unique religious community, for instance, that granted further bonuses to my church income.


    Outlying settlements, however, have only one building slot which can’t be swapped out and is highly specialized (like a mine, abbey, port, or farm). These settlements make up the large majority of the map and can be upgraded to boost their resource output, but can never have walls or an automatically-generated garrison from buildings.

    Controlling local fortifications gives you tremendous ability to project power over the surrounding countryside, but you’re also forced to constantly be vigilant against small raiding parties that can sack a monastery for quick cash and make off before a response can be organized –- which is more or less exactly how the vikings operated during this time period.


    Armies now cost food upkeep in addition to gold, so maintaining a good supply of mead and turkey legs is going to be more important than ever. There have also been major changes to how troops are raised. You’ll have a global pool of available recruits based on how much land you own that replenishes over time, meaning you can’t just cue up a dozen units of archers on Turn 1 even if you have the money to do so.

    armies in Thrones are much more focused on a small core of elite retinue troops supported by a larger number of mid- and low-tier levy units, as opposed to other Total War games in which your entire army usually consists of Elite Praetorian Kung Fu Master Immortal Demigod Ultra Boss Mode Greatswordsmen by the endgame.

    Agents will not feature in Thrones, with some of their former duties rolled into generals via Follower cards. Nor will we be hounded any longer by the hassle of bribing other factions to make trade agreements –- as long as you’re at peace with them, you’ll automatically trade with any faction that has a valid route to your capital.

    The video made by legend, is more him taking a personal feud with the company into public, listing things that are "missing", rather than going into any detail of what the changes are, then making another video when (for some reason) CA did not give him early access with the rest of youtubers a few days ago.

    In some ways, you can see his point of view, it hurts his channel numbers to not have early access, but his preview video was about as far from a fair appraisal as you could possibly get. Framed as "CA have 'cut' all this stuff, and they are trying 'cover it up' " so what did he expect?
  • mfr001mfr001 Senior Member Posts: 216Registered Users
    The new mechanics look interesting from what I have seen in the recent videos, so I can't wait to try them out for myself. The loyalty considerations in Thrones seems to be a reasonable reflection of what was actually happening at this period.

    If Thrones plays consistently as well as I have seen on the various videos I will be a happy (vampire) bunny.
  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,481Registered Users

    Seems like the main reason legend's video set off this "list", is that he claimed "no one was telling you" about these things, and in his videos on game, it's pretty clear he and CA have had some kind of falling out.

    This was the preview from IGN in feb,

    http://uk.ign.com/articles/2018/02/01/thrones-of-britannia-hands-on-the-most-detailed-total-war-yet

    --snip
    Beyond this, the campaign plays very differently from any previous, historical Total War for a few reasons. The first and most prominent is the distinction between province capitals and outlying settlements. Province capitals work like we’re used to Total War settlements working. They have walls that protect them against attack and can be specialized with an entire tree of buildings to pick from. Many also feature a unique building chain based on a historically-significant feature of the area. The capital of Mide is home to a unique religious community, for instance, that granted further bonuses to my church income.


    Outlying settlements, however, have only one building slot which can’t be swapped out and is highly specialized (like a mine, abbey, port, or farm). These settlements make up the large majority of the map and can be upgraded to boost their resource output, but can never have walls or an automatically-generated garrison from buildings.

    Controlling local fortifications gives you tremendous ability to project power over the surrounding countryside, but you’re also forced to constantly be vigilant against small raiding parties that can sack a monastery for quick cash and make off before a response can be organized –- which is more or less exactly how the vikings operated during this time period.


    Armies now cost food upkeep in addition to gold, so maintaining a good supply of mead and turkey legs is going to be more important than ever. There have also been major changes to how troops are raised. You’ll have a global pool of available recruits based on how much land you own that replenishes over time, meaning you can’t just cue up a dozen units of archers on Turn 1 even if you have the money to do so.

    armies in Thrones are much more focused on a small core of elite retinue troops supported by a larger number of mid- and low-tier levy units, as opposed to other Total War games in which your entire army usually consists of Elite Praetorian Kung Fu Master Immortal Demigod Ultra Boss Mode Greatswordsmen by the endgame.

    Agents will not feature in Thrones, with some of their former duties rolled into generals via Follower cards. Nor will we be hounded any longer by the hassle of bribing other factions to make trade agreements –- as long as you’re at peace with them, you’ll automatically trade with any faction that has a valid route to your capital.

    The video made by legend, is more him taking a personal feud with the company into public, listing things that are "missing", rather than going into any detail of what the changes are, then making another video when (for some reason) CA did not give him early access with the rest of youtubers a few days ago.

    In some ways, you can see his point of view, it hurts his channel numbers to not have early access, but his preview video was about as far from a fair appraisal as you could possibly get. Framed as "CA have 'cut' all this stuff, and they are trying 'cover it up' " so what did he expect?

    Legend was in a difficult position for a long time. He was very critical of the recent Total Wars (namely Rome II, Attila and Warhammer), and you could tell from his videos that he was not enjoying those games. So of course CA was reticent to give early access to a guy who's going to be bitching about every single aspect of the game, that's bad publicity.

    So when he complained about being ignored by CA, some of his subscribers mentioned that on Reddit and CA did give him early access. And Legend being of course far too blunt made a scathing review listing everything that was missing from Thrones, which forced Jack to explain himself (even though he was on Easter Holiday).

    So yeah, it was predictable that CA would not give him early access again. Why would they? It was pretty obvious that he was going to complain about every aspect of the game. With ToB so close to release, that's far too dangerous to have someone spreading a negative review.

    Which is a shame, really. I really like his videos and his insight on the game is pretty spot on, but I'm not sure if he could have been completely objective about this game.
  • julius_civilisjulius_civilis Posts: 365Registered Users

    Seems like the main reason legend's video set off this "list", is that he claimed "no one was telling you" about these things, and in his videos on game, it's pretty clear he and CA have had some kind of falling out.

    This was the preview from IGN in feb,

    http://uk.ign.com/articles/2018/02/01/thrones-of-britannia-hands-on-the-most-detailed-total-war-yet

    --snip
    Beyond this, the campaign plays very differently from any previous, historical Total War for a few reasons. The first and most prominent is the distinction between province capitals and outlying settlements. Province capitals work like we’re used to Total War settlements working. They have walls that protect them against attack and can be specialized with an entire tree of buildings to pick from. Many also feature a unique building chain based on a historically-significant feature of the area. The capital of Mide is home to a unique religious community, for instance, that granted further bonuses to my church income.


    Outlying settlements, however, have only one building slot which can’t be swapped out and is highly specialized (like a mine, abbey, port, or farm). These settlements make up the large majority of the map and can be upgraded to boost their resource output, but can never have walls or an automatically-generated garrison from buildings.

    Controlling local fortifications gives you tremendous ability to project power over the surrounding countryside, but you’re also forced to constantly be vigilant against small raiding parties that can sack a monastery for quick cash and make off before a response can be organized –- which is more or less exactly how the vikings operated during this time period.


    Armies now cost food upkeep in addition to gold, so maintaining a good supply of mead and turkey legs is going to be more important than ever. There have also been major changes to how troops are raised. You’ll have a global pool of available recruits based on how much land you own that replenishes over time, meaning you can’t just cue up a dozen units of archers on Turn 1 even if you have the money to do so.

    armies in Thrones are much more focused on a small core of elite retinue troops supported by a larger number of mid- and low-tier levy units, as opposed to other Total War games in which your entire army usually consists of Elite Praetorian Kung Fu Master Immortal Demigod Ultra Boss Mode Greatswordsmen by the endgame.

    Agents will not feature in Thrones, with some of their former duties rolled into generals via Follower cards. Nor will we be hounded any longer by the hassle of bribing other factions to make trade agreements –- as long as you’re at peace with them, you’ll automatically trade with any faction that has a valid route to your capital.

    The video made by legend, is more him taking a personal feud with the company into public, listing things that are "missing", rather than going into any detail of what the changes are, then making another video when (for some reason) CA did not give him early access with the rest of youtubers a few days ago.

    In some ways, you can see his point of view, it hurts his channel numbers to not have early access, but his preview video was about as far from a fair appraisal as you could possibly get. Framed as "CA have 'cut' all this stuff, and they are trying 'cover it up' " so what did he expect?

    You're right. He is so pesimistic it would hurt the sales lol.
  • cabbottcabbott Junior Member Posts: 31Registered Users
    Legends made it sound like he was the first to discuss these things. The features have been discussed all over the place. He also goes on to state that he doesn't expect any preferential treatment but then says hes upset about other people getting access, which is the same as asking for preferential treatment. I don't think he had to love the game but he just ended up making a giant list of individual items rather than discussing everything as a whole.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,130Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    Fossoway said:





    Legend was in a difficult position for a long time. He was very critical of the recent Total Wars (namely Rome II, Attila and Warhammer), and you could tell from his videos that he was not enjoying those games. So of course CA was reticent to give early access to a guy who's going to be bitching about every single aspect of the game, that's bad publicity.

    So when he complained about being ignored by CA, some of his subscribers mentioned that on Reddit and CA did give him early access. And Legend being of course far too blunt made a scathing review listing everything that was missing from Thrones, which forced Jack to explain himself (even though he was on Easter Holiday).

    So yeah, it was predictable that CA would not give him early access again. Why would they? It was pretty obvious that he was going to complain about every aspect of the game. With ToB so close to release, that's far too dangerous to have someone spreading a negative review.

    Which is a shame, really. I really like his videos and his insight on the game is pretty spot on, but I'm not sure if he could have been completely objective about this game.

    He is just complaining in a childish manner. It was a very unprofessional review which ammounted to a incoherent rant.

    If you can't act civil don't expect people to deal with you.
  • Michael4537Michael4537 Posts: 2,136Registered Users

    Just thought I'd let you know that this is going to be torn apart by some people on this forum..

    All the points you mention have been rationalised in previous threads and explained. So I'm not going to go through point by point (also I'm at work so don't really have the time).

    To wade in and basically say 'I want Warhammer again with a better campaign' is not really productive. Warhammer has no draw for me and I haven't played it so I'll leave it for others to comment on the battles and sieges etc.

    But I can tell you that this looks to be one of the most interesting campaigns for a long time.

    Hugs and kisses

    I know! :wink:
    I wasn't trying to make the point that I want another Warhammer. I don't think a historical Total War SHOULD be another Warhammer. It was just from what I understood, there wasn't enough to differentiate the campaign as it is the selling point for the title in my personal opinion. I should have mentioned in the OP that I wanted to know WHY these changes were made and what the changes would bring, but I was in a bit of a hurry and it slipped my mind.

    @Jack_Lusted_CA
    Thank you for your reply. The reasoning behind many of the "cuts" and/or changes are much clearer now. With the added explanation the overall experience seems much more enjoyable. I wasn't trying to pick apart the game and devalue it by evaluating each individual part (which it, I admit, did come out that way and for that I apologize), but I was concerned that these aspects were not in the game, not because it isn't the perfect game I wanted it to be, but because I genuinely enjoy Total War and I want to see it as the best game it can possibly be, and also because they had been in other Total War games. Now that I better understand why some features were removed/altered, it looks like a much more promising title. Again, thank you for the informative reply, and I do hope Thrones does well, even if it may not be the Total War game for me!

    @Mattzo
    I indeed do know what I Total War Saga is!
    I did make an effort to understand why the game is how it is, but I admit that I probably should have searched other sources. Jack Lusted's reply cleared up a lot of the content that I had questions on.
    Yes, I did use Legend's list, but only because I thought it brought up a lot of good points. Now that they have been clarified, I still agree with some of them, but far fewer of them.

    @CnConrad
    OP editing incoming to clear up some things that I did not mention and things that have changed my opinion. Don't write me off yet!
  • AxelradAxelrad Senior Member Posts: 632Registered Users
    edited April 2018
    Legend is just the latest example of why we shouldn't necessarily value youtubers wholesale over traditional review outlets, as they're often unprofessional and even more biased.
  • Butterkeks93Butterkeks93 Posts: 36Registered Users
    Axelrad said:

    Legend is just the latest example of why we shouldn't necessarily value youtubers wholesale over traditional review outlets, as they're often unprofessional and even more biased.

    Depends heavily on the youtuber and the traditional review outlet.

    I had an subscription of the "CBS", the biggest german newspaper regarding video games etc.
    I cancelled it some years ago as I recognized that somehow every game was just praised and downsides weren't even talked about. The best example is actually every issue about a new CoD game. They are basically the same game every year, yet the CBS praised every single one as "unique" and "sth that has never been there before". And they went on with that on every AAA title.
    Therefore youtuber's CAN be a good second source of information.

    I just want to make clear, I don't try to defend Legend. I don't even know who that guy is, but he seems a bit impolite to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.