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

The Allegiance Update Beta and interview with game director Jack Lusted

2

Comments

  • InocybeInocybe Registered Users Posts: 154
    edited July 2018
    One of the biggest problem of Rome 2 TW, is that there are way too much mini siege battle (small setllment) with a small garrison. Those battle are not interesting at all and pointless. No garrison is the best solution (and the IA does not exploit this mechanism) and reduce the boring siege. One fortified city by province with an important garrison is better than small garrison everywhere. If there are people that want to exploit the AI, I don't understand why they play this game...

    I don't understand why people are complaining, there is already a mod for that, and with the new tools for modding it will be more easy to mod the game.

    People need to understand that "no garrison in minor settlements" or "governors limited to 10" are core game design decision, that will not change. I feel strongly that the people whining are those that will ultimately stop playing the vanilla game, and play with lots of mods instead. Mr. Lusted have a vision for this game, something that is unfortunately lacking in the game industry. He shall prevail.
  • Emperor_NapoleonEmperor_Napoleon Registered Users Posts: 122
    Inocybe said:

    Mr. Lusted have a vision for this game, something that is unfortunately lacking in the game industry. He shall prevail.

    Just because someone has "a vision for a game" doesn't mean that all of their decisions are correct and that any criticism is unfair and wrong. These last few lines of your post come across as very sycophantic and fanboy-ish.
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Registered Users Posts: 446
    Inocybe said:

    One of the biggest problem of Rome 2 TW, is that there are way too much mini siege battle (small setllment) with a small garrison. Those battle are not interesting at all and pointless. No garrison is the best solution (and the IA does not exploit this mechanism) and reduce the boring siege. One fortified city by province with an important garrison is better than small garrison everywhere. If there are people that want to exploit the AI, I don't understand why they play this game...

    I don't understand why people are complaining, there is already a mod for that, and with the new tools for modding it will be more easy to mod the game.

    People need to understand that "no garrison in minor settlements" or "governors limited to 10" are core game design decision, that will not change. I feel strongly that the people whining are those that will ultimately stop playing the vanilla game, and play with lots of mods instead. Mr. Lusted have a vision for this game, something that is unfortunately lacking in the game industry. He shall prevail.

    That's closer to M2TW. Need to put garrison by our decision, instead of auto-garrison and will result in countless mini VS garrison battle type. It force player to strategize more, forced to react to save the small but important settlement which was indeed like that time in Alfred's era. People getting accustomed to easy game, everything automatic streamlined game post M2TW, so no wonder they complained hard. But do remember one thing, this is strategy game, our brain should be put to use as that is the reason why we play it. Afterall we don't play strategy game because we want to relax in the couch, right ?
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • the_real_weedthe_real_weed Member Registered Users Posts: 240
    edited July 2018
    I don´t like the garrison system too. I want the old style back where you can recruit troops without a general and let them secure the cities. If so, it would be cool when the army system gets more diversity so that you really specialize your troops for attacking, defending, public order etc.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKRegistered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff Posts: 1,354
    We won't be adding garrisons to minor settlements. These represent villages with 50 odd people in them, having garrisons of even one unit would be far larger than the population that would've lived there. How you protect those minor settlements is a key part of the intended gameplay of Thrones.
    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.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomRegistered Users Posts: 1,433
    I think all the changes are really good.

    Allegiance is a very interesting concept and I think adds quite a lot to the game. The reworked UI elements are great too.

    Over the moon to have minor building specialisations.

    Would be nice to see some changes to the unique faction mechanics, as that's my main remaining criticism. I don't find most of them particularly interesting or engaging, and they have very little impact on my campaign.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,354
    Theodore said:

    There really 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 Vassil faction losing much of its loyalty to the player, or that acquiring territories via diplomacy cost fame points.

    So many community members would love a system where you can interact more with your vassals and trade regions with them. Jack can you at least let the mass know if this is being considered yes/no? What do you need to make this happen?
  • the_real_weedthe_real_weed Member Registered Users Posts: 240

    We won't be adding garrisons to minor settlements. These represent villages with 50 odd people in them, having garrisons of even one unit would be far larger than the population that would've lived there. How you protect those minor settlements is a key part of the intended gameplay of Thrones.

    For me this works totaly fine. But what bothers me is that you lose visually some parts of the map so often. I would like it when you only can see that when you lose the main city in this province. I hope you understand what i mean. I´m a fan of painting the map in "my" color. Or maybe some sort of mixed color on the map when you lose minor settlements but not the main city. I think this is in stellaris when you own colony in a system with another nation too.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKRegistered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff Posts: 1,354
    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.
    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.
  • norseaxenorseaxe Registered Users Posts: 402
    I understand your reasoning behind not having garrisons in minor settlements. I just wish we had the option to at least be able to build a wall in settlements with estates and have a small garrison just to protect estates. I was thinking in that way they could hold off a small invasion force until you can counter attack. I think it's way to easy for AI and human player to capture territory that's really the only reason I wanted garrisons in small settlements but I can live without them.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,730
    Under absolutely NO circumstances should minor settlements get any sort of garrison and hell should freeze over before you can give them walls.

    I'm sick and tired of the constant siege hopping the WH2 campaign boils down to in the lategame because all settlements are protected and armed to the teeth.

    I like how ToB actually puts the focus on field battles and that should never-ever be reveresed.

  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    Siege-hopping has been the bane of the TW series basically since forever. Glad they finally did away with it.

    To say nothing of the fact that historically, this is actually how things worked. Especially in this time period, there just weren't private fortified residences - an estate was a big house with some land attached, not a fortification.
  • TheodoreTheodore Member Registered Users Posts: 91

    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.

    Or we could try to acquire them via diplomacy if they are controlled by a vassal or allied faction, especially if you have regions to trade? Doesn't that sound like a feature that the game should have?
    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
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKRegistered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff Posts: 1,354
    Theodore said:

    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.

    Or we could try to acquire them via diplomacy if they are controlled by a vassal or allied faction, especially if you have regions to trade? Doesn't that sound like a feature that the game should have?
    I'm aware that lots of people would like to see region trading, however that is far from a small change. We're focusing on making big changes we know we can deliver to improve peoples experiences.
    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.
  • Emperor_NapoleonEmperor_Napoleon Registered Users Posts: 122

    Theodore said:

    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.

    Or we could try to acquire them via diplomacy if they are controlled by a vassal or allied faction, especially if you have regions to trade? Doesn't that sound like a feature that the game should have?
    I'm aware that lots of people would like to see region trading, however that is far from a small change. We're focusing on making big changes we know we can deliver to improve peoples experiences.
    To be honest I would definitely consider region trading, especially among vassals and their overlords, to be a "big change" that would "improve people's experiences". It's kind of absurd that vassals can take whatever land they want during war, even provinces that were our own, right in the heart of our kingdom, and there's no way we can take it back diplomatically. And conversely there's no way to give back provinces to our vassals that we've recaptured from the enemy after they took it from our vassal. It's also frustrating that we can't annex our vassals diplomatically after a certain period of time, or when certain conditions are met. It means we're destined to have bordergore where our vassals have land randomly all over the place that is indefensible and impractical, and the only way we can annex our vassal's land is to declare war on them, which is ridiculous.

    As long as this system continues to exist I'll continue to never use vassals, because they just aren't worth it with the way they're currently handled. EU4 is an example of a game where vassals are actually worth having and relying on, since there's a much greater degree of interaction available between you and your vassals; you can take and give land, pay off their debts, subsidize them, annex them peacefully, etc. I'd hoped CA would follow this example, especially for games set during the medieval era where vassalage was such a major part of society, but I guess not.
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,354

    Theodore said:

    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.

    Or we could try to acquire them via diplomacy if they are controlled by a vassal or allied faction, especially if you have regions to trade? Doesn't that sound like a feature that the game should have?
    I'm aware that lots of people would like to see region trading, however that is far from a small change. We're focusing on making big changes we know we can deliver to improve peoples experiences.
    To be honest I would definitely consider region trading, especially among vassals and their overlords, to be a "big change" that would "improve people's experiences". It's kind of absurd that vassals can take whatever land they want during war, even provinces that were our own, right in the heart of our kingdom, and there's no way we can take it back diplomatically. And conversely there's no way to give back provinces to our vassals that we've recaptured from the enemy after they took it from our vassal. It's also frustrating that we can't annex our vassals diplomatically after a certain period of time, or when certain conditions are met. It means we're destined to have bordergore where our vassals have land randomly all over the place that is indefensible and impractical, and the only way we can annex our vassal's land is to declare war on them, which is ridiculous.

    As long as this system continues to exist I'll continue to never use vassals, because they just aren't worth it with the way they're currently handled. EU4 is an example of a game where vassals are actually worth having and relying on, since there's a much greater degree of interaction available between you and your vassals; you can take and give land, pay off their debts, subsidize them, annex them peacefully, etc. I'd hoped CA would follow this example, especially for games set during the medieval era where vassalage was such a major part of society, but I guess not.
    Expanding your interaction with other factions and the campaign map should be the next step for the historical total war franchise. A vassal system especially in this time frame is a much needed and wanted future.

    If region trading is to big a thing perhaps consider adding the following:
    >Each faction at the start of the game has certain provinces on the map which they consider their core territory which is non negotiable.
    >Once a war starts all regions conquered by your vassals which they consider non core territory are directly transferred to their overlord.
    >All territories which they consider as core territory which they conquer are directly put under your vassals control
    >Each faction on the map can become a vassal so each faction needs to have provinces which they consider core

    Add the possibility for the player to give vassals regions which they consider as their core territory in order to increase loyalty are give them a full province to expand their ability to raise troops to support your war effort.
    Furthermore it would be great to add some events, mechanics to build the story around vassals.
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Registered Users Posts: 446

    Theodore said:

    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.

    Or we could try to acquire them via diplomacy if they are controlled by a vassal or allied faction, especially if you have regions to trade? Doesn't that sound like a feature that the game should have?
    I'm aware that lots of people would like to see region trading, however that is far from a small change. We're focusing on making big changes we know we can deliver to improve peoples experiences.
    Jack, is population system still feasible to add by this stage ?
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • InocybeInocybe Registered Users Posts: 154
    The absence of the population system is clearly a game design choice. I can safely say that it won't be added in the game. Furthermore, given the smaller scale of this game (both in terms of space and time) I don't consider such a system to be adequat.
  • Emperor_NapoleonEmperor_Napoleon Registered Users Posts: 122

    Theodore said:

    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.

    Or we could try to acquire them via diplomacy if they are controlled by a vassal or allied faction, especially if you have regions to trade? Doesn't that sound like a feature that the game should have?
    I'm aware that lots of people would like to see region trading, however that is far from a small change. We're focusing on making big changes we know we can deliver to improve peoples experiences.
    Jack, is population system still feasible to add by this stage ?
    CA are probably never going to add population to TW again.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    Pretty sure that the new recruitment system is meant to reflect population? Or at least to do the same thing ...
  • SuliotSuliot Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 685
    Looking good, I'm really excited about the Estates change, having multiple types that give characters different traits, that sounds awesome!
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Registered Users Posts: 446
    tak22 said:

    Pretty sure that the new recruitment system is meant to reflect population? Or at least to do the same thing ...

    It's different, the recruitment system indeed reflect how recruitment happened at that time. But population system, it defines big kingdoms from the small ones. It makes the battle much more intense, as if something goes wrong (the army wiped out) it will means disaster for the kingdom.
    It will make us to be more appreciate for our army, as losing them means losing the population (means losing the pool of which we can recruit soldier from) that takes time to replenish.

    It's more like XCOM, where losing a soldier is really a pain because he/she is irreplaceable. While in TW, how about if we accidentally made a mistake and lose the battle with heavy casualties with the pool of population already in the limit while the enemy army now marching unopposed into our territory ?

    That kind of situation makes the game much more intense and rewarding (in my opinion).
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • norseaxenorseaxe Registered Users Posts: 402
    Hey jack lusted can you add loot option after winning battles in allegiance update like you did in ancestral update for rome 2 if it's not to late thanks.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKRegistered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff Posts: 1,354

    Theodore said:

    They're not your colour because you don't own them, that won't be changing. If you want those regions to be your colour, you'll need to take control of them by conquering them.

    Or we could try to acquire them via diplomacy if they are controlled by a vassal or allied faction, especially if you have regions to trade? Doesn't that sound like a feature that the game should have?
    I'm aware that lots of people would like to see region trading, however that is far from a small change. We're focusing on making big changes we know we can deliver to improve peoples experiences.
    To be honest I would definitely consider region trading, especially among vassals and their overlords, to be a "big change" that would "improve people's experiences". It's kind of absurd that vassals can take whatever land they want during war, even provinces that were our own, right in the heart of our kingdom, and there's no way we can take it back diplomatically. And conversely there's no way to give back provinces to our vassals that we've recaptured from the enemy after they took it from our vassal. It's also frustrating that we can't annex our vassals diplomatically after a certain period of time, or when certain conditions are met. It means we're destined to have bordergore where our vassals have land randomly all over the place that is indefensible and impractical, and the only way we can annex our vassal's land is to declare war on them, which is ridiculous.

    As long as this system continues to exist I'll continue to never use vassals, because they just aren't worth it with the way they're currently handled. EU4 is an example of a game where vassals are actually worth having and relying on, since there's a much greater degree of interaction available between you and your vassals; you can take and give land, pay off their debts, subsidize them, annex them peacefully, etc. I'd hoped CA would follow this example, especially for games set during the medieval era where vassalage was such a major part of society, but I guess not.
    I realise I wasn't clear with my response to the previous post. Making the kind of changes people are suggesting in relations to vassals and region trading are not small changes. Doing that would be a big undertaking, so much so that we could devote all the effort we've put in so far to the Allegiance update, and also to the changes we've made that will come to the 2nd update of the beta, and not likely be able to make those changes people would like to see. We know this is a highly requested one, but for Thrones putting that effort into delivering improvements across the board in politics, building trees, allegiance and the changes to come including other big changes we feel is best for the game as it's improving the game as a whole.
    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.
  • riadachriadach Registered Users Posts: 161
    Could you get around it with the liberation system? Rather than trading, you could set it that your allies/subjects could liberate provinces back to you if you have a high level of allegiance therein? Would that be as complicated?
  • CJYXGCJYXG Registered Users Posts: 23
    Awesome update, most of the changes are useful and reasonable. And here are some other tips based on my experience:

    1-the Estates desire traits may look not so good. The loyalty in the game is generally very low and easy to decrease. Such a mechanism could make this worse and more complicated to deal with the low loyalty.
    So i would suggest that make the loyalty more dynamic rather than static accumulation. For example, the basic loyalty value should gradually increase by the growth of the empire or influence of faction leader, while some events may modify the loyalty a little bit. Since we have an reasonable basic loyalty, things like Estates desire could be added.

    2-New unique buildings looks great. However, actually all of the specific settlements with unique buildings appear no difference with ordinary settlements in the battle map. Special halls are just common houses and great cathedrals are merely small stone churches...kind of frustrated.
    I think it would be great to have unique buildings look unique in battle map(at least in major city), together with other functional buildings and facilitates correctly shown in the battle map according to the buildings list in the campaign map.
    If we can bring the "View city in battle map" button(like Rome total war ) back, that will be exciting because the settlement of ToB are bigger and more characteristic!
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,730
    CJYXG said:

    Awesome update, most of the changes are useful and reasonable. And here are some other tips based on my experience:

    1-the Estates desire traits may look not so good. The loyalty in the game is generally very low and easy to decrease. Such a mechanism could make this worse and more complicated to deal with the low loyalty.
    So i would suggest that make the loyalty more dynamic rather than static accumulation. For example, the basic loyalty value should gradually increase by the growth of the empire or influence of faction leader, while some events may modify the loyalty a little bit. Since we have an reasonable basic loyalty, things like Estates desire could be added.

    No, loyalty should DE-crease with your growing Empire. The Roman Republic was torn apart by internal struggles because it grew too big and the various generals could establish entire household powers for themselves. The same should be true here.

  • CJYXGCJYXG Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited July 2018


    No, loyalty should DE-crease with your growing Empire. The Roman Republic was torn apart by internal struggles because it grew too big and the various generals could establish entire household powers for themselves. The same should be true here.

    As you said Rome grew “too big” then have loyalty problem, while most of factions in ToB is relatively small, even when the whole Britain is united, it just matches one single roman province. A kingdom of such size could be well managed by a capable king and those nobles will be satisfied. So I think the increasing loyalty won't be historically inaccurate. It will reflect the positive emotions throughout a country which is in an upswing.
    what's more, there is no need to be 100% historically accurate, the gameplay factors are also important.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKRegistered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff Posts: 1,354
    Making loyalty increase as your faction got larger would give the opposite effect of what we want, which is that as you get bigger you should have more internal problems to deal with as you have more wealth and more for the characters in your faction to want. Having size of empire correspond with loyalty would mean civil wars would mainly happen in early game rather than late which is definitely not what we want.
    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.
  • CJYXGCJYXG Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited July 2018

    Making loyalty increase as your faction got larger would give the opposite effect of what we want, which is that as you get bigger you should have more internal problems to deal with as you have more wealth and more for the characters in your faction to want. Having size of empire correspond with loyalty would mean civil wars would mainly happen in early game rather than late which is definitely not what we want.

    Yes, I agree. what i mean is "limited increasing" during the faction growth (just a few points added to the basic value so that we can be more flexible in later game stage).

    @Jack_Lusted_CA Besides, how about the unique buildings in battle map? I know it won't be easy work for the develop team, many new models to be built and the cities being rearranged etc. But it really improve the game experience. we can wait~
Sign In or Register to comment.