Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia

[Pathstrider]

Is Northumbria playable? In the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms preview, only West Seaxe and Mercia were included.

Northumbria is a "settled" Viking faction - though one of their mechanics is they need to keep their Anglo-Saxon subjects happy.

[fewnmeyer]

Took some effort to find this sub forum. It will get it's own section on release?

I'm not sad to see certain things removed, though I think I will miss agents. They needed toning down, rather than removal.

[Cope]

As I stated twice before, there are a number of ways to gather intelligence. What occurred in WW2 is not relevant to total war series.


Agents make it easier for the AI to compete with the human player. It was/ is a cheap gimmick.


So why do we need them running across the map? Generals make sense.


Once upon a time, I taught early church history. I know how it was spread.
If I want to convert a population to a certain faith then I will build a network of schools, Monasteries, and churches to do so.

LOL, I was pointing out your ad hom. The rest of what you wrote was an assumption about what I know and don;t know on the subject.


This is not exactly true, but I would not opposed to restricting how many "Generals" you can recruit. Agents are not the same thing. There is no need to show the icon on the map. I do not need that nonsense to feel involved.


Yes, and this aided the AI. It was a shortcut, "arcadic" way of doing it.
You really do not need a priest "waving his hand converting the masses." A simple task of promoting a policy of conversion would do the same thing without the silliness.


Because you still need the gameplay in the game. They would be developing two different games.

I think you're being a little harsh on the concept of agents. This is a odd considering that you appeared to praise the move toward a more "CKIIish" approach - a game in which agents are paramount. In my view there is a limited scope for agents in TW, particularly when they add flavour to the campaign. Whilst I agree that agents in Rome II were overpowered and tedious, I really enjoyed the scholars (gentlemen) from ETW which I thought were decently balanced and introduced a bit of character to the title by giving us access to influential individuals from the period like Newton.

For a medieval period like Thrones, something like an "engineer" agent to give siege bonuses or unlock/speed up the construction/research of siege equipment might be interesting. Spies for vision would also be fine, as would diplomats or senior bishops. Really anything that isn't invasive or overpowered, but generally behaves passively to provide minor effects.

[zoner16]

I think you're being a little harsh on the concept of agents. This is a odd considering that you appeared to praise the move toward a more "CKIIish" approach - a game in which agents are paramount. In my view there is a limited scope for agents in TW, particularly when they add flavour to the campaign. Whilst I agree that agents in Rome II were overpowered and tedious, I really enjoyed the scholars (gentlemen) from ETW which I thought were decently balanced and introduced a bit of character to the title by giving us access to influential individuals from the period like Newton.

For a medieval period like Thrones, something like an "engineer" agent to give siege bonuses or unlock/speed up the construction/research of siege equipment might be interesting. Spies for vision would also be fine, as would diplomats or senior bishops. Really anything that isn't invasive or overpowered, but generally behaves passively to provide minor effects.

If agents are too passive, they tend to be forgotten very quickly. At that point, what's the difference between them and a paid-for follower that levels up every once in a while?

Again, I think Shogun 2 had the right balance of passiveness and activeness between agent types. All agents could do some kind of useful action in a given situation, but if you didn't have the money or want to risk failure, they could be assigned to something passive until you could level them up a bit. However, it had a lot of other virtues that helped the agent game from getting stale which haven't translated into later Total Wars.

[PikeStance]

I think you're being a little harsh on the concept of agents. This is a odd considering that you appeared to praise the move toward a more "CKIIish" approach - a game in which agents are paramount. In my view there is a limited scope for agents in TW, particularly when they add flavour to the campaign. Whilst I agree that agents in Rome II were overpowered and tedious, I really enjoyed the scholars (gentlemen) from ETW which I thought were decently balanced and introduced a bit of character to the title by giving us access to influential individuals from the period like Newton.

CKII or any paradox games does not have a"little dudes" running about the screen. ToB has a set up similar to Paradox games. IMO, is more authentic than the agent system developed by CA.
I like ETW as well, but not the agents. I would prefer a different way (paradox- style) for improving technology. With Paradox, you could set up a network for spying. You could set up one for technology or for military information.

For a medieval period like Thrones, something like an "engineer" agent to give siege bonuses or unlock/speed up the construction/research of siege equipment might be interesting. Spies for vision would also be fine, as would diplomats or senior bishops. Really anything that isn't invasive or overpowered, but generally behaves passively to provide minor effects.

Naw... just research engineering and that could give bonuses, etc.. Spies, same as above, set up a network. Diplomat, send an emissary. Do you really need a manifestation of a diplomat to do this?

[Cope]

CKII or any paradox games does not have a"little dudes" running about the screen.

I mean...they don't "run", but they're still "little dudes" with animations that stand in the provinces you send them to. Last time I checked, in order to proselytize a province you do in fact need to locate a "waving" cleric to do the job. So far as I remember this is also true in EU IV (it is certainly the case that you need to send missionaries to convert the religion).

ToB has a set up similar to Paradox games. IMO, is more authentic than the agent system developed by CA. I like ETW as well, but not the agents. I would prefer a different way (paradox- style) for improving technology. With Paradox, you could set up a network for spying. You could set up one for technology or for military information.

Naw... just research engineering and that could give bonuses, etc.. Spies, same as above, set up a network. Diplomat, send an emissary. Do you really need a manifestation of a diplomat to do this?

You can abstract things however you like, but TW has always been a more of a visual and interactive series than Paradox titles. CA probably shouldn't attempt to copy Paradox's campaign systems (which is effectively what you're arguing for here) because they're pretty different games. The spy network feature from EU IV, for instance, is tied to a whole host of game mechanics and systems which simply don't exist in Total War. It suits the global nature of the EU IV campaign which spans 400 years of history and is not turn-based.

[PikeStance]

I mean...they don't "run", but they're still "little dudes" with animations that stand in the provinces you send them to. Last time I checked, in order to proselytize a province you do in fact need to locate a "waving" cleric to do the job. So far as I remember this is also true in EU IV (it is certainly the case that you need to send missionaries to convert the religion).

I never saw anything other than military units and ships.

You can abstract things however you like, but TW has always been a more of a visual and interactive series than Paradox titles. CA probably shouldn't attempt to copy Paradox's campaign systems (which is effectively what you're arguing for here) because they're pretty different games. The spy network feature from EU IV, for instance, is tied to a whole host of game mechanics and systems which simply don't exist in Total War. It suits the global nature of the EU IV campaign which spans 400 years of history and is not turn-based.

As I said, I welcome the change as a more mature approach. The system adopted would be based on the TW3 engine I presumed. Having different engines does not exclude capabilities. It simply means it will function differently.

[Cope]

I never saw anything other than military units and ships.

No idea how you could miss this. There are models for all of the council members when they're deployed on missions.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As I said, I welcome the change as a more mature approach.

Yet you don't seem to think its immature when CK II does it...?

The system adopted would be based on the TW3 engine I presumed. Having different engines does not exclude capabilities. It simply means it will function differently.

Not sure what the game engine has to do with it. I'm not talking about the engine.

[PikeStance]

No idea how you could miss this. There are models for all of the council members when they're deployed on missions.

Yet you don't seem to think its immature when CK II does it...?

Never noticed the little guys before. It actually irrelevant since I would rather not see any agents at all.
I didn't say it was immature. I said it was a more mature approach.

Not sure what the game engine has to do with it. I'm not talking about the engine.

You mentioned that CA shouldn't copy Paradox's campaign because it is different; stating that I am advocating for it. I am not advocating for the same system given the difference of engines. I said a similar approach. As I said already, I prefer to have a central location to determine a policy rather than physically move a guy across the map and then select some action. I also didn't get why the time span would make a difference and what I prefer would not be affected by any time scale in any game.

[Magnar]

Will there be a mod forum set up for this on release day?

[Huberto]

Will there be a mod forum set up for this on release day?

I hope so. I'll be playing and would like to do all my whinging at TWC. No one can find this place.

[Malcolm]

I just heard that ambush battles have been left out of Thrones of Britannia. Apparently the reasoning behind this was two fold:

1) players hardly ever use ambush battles

2) historically ambush battles didn't take place much in this period?

On the first point, I'm not entirely sure how CA would know that, and if it were true that would surely still make sense to keep them. CA apparently said ambushes were not that common, so if players only use them now and then, that would make complete sense.

On the second point, what a total load of crap. The reason I am holding off buying ToB is because I believe CA are going to be cutting corners all over the place when it comes to research. Specifically I think they will be focusing on Alfred & the Vikings and everything else will largely be window dressing. Everything that I have seen soo far would suggest I was right in my thinking. Off the top of my head (and this isn't my primary era of history) I can list two occasions in the time period of this games where there were likely large scale and very decisive ambush battles in Scotland.

There is a lot to be looking forward to with Thrones of Britannia, but again, I can't justify paying full price to (primarily) play as Scottish factions when they haven't really done any research on them.

On a plus note, the modding community could really save this aspect of the game. I'll keep following it, as well as all your reviews once it's out.

[Daruwind]

I just heard that ambush battles have been left out of Thrones of Britannia. Apparently the reasoning behind this was two fold:

1) players hardly ever use ambush battles

On the first point, I'm not entirely sure how CA would know that, and if it were true that would surely still make sense to keep them. CA apparently said ambushes were not that common, so if players only use them now and then, that would make complete sense.

Directly from Jack Lusten about it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...s_and_thrones/

Now, I know this won’t come as much consolation for the people who made use of ambush and considered it to be an important tool, but the data from how people played Attila doesn’t really support that feeling in most players. Ambush battles were only 0.05% of battles fought in campaign in Attila. Not 5%, not 0.5%, 0.05%. There were over 1,750 other battles fought for every ambush battle in Attila. Judging by the statistics a majority of the Attila player base never fought a single ambush battle.

I don´t know, but 1750:1 is pretty bad score. If they are unable to improve ambushes to WH level usefulness then it makes perfect sense to cut them. Saying to fix it is easy but we don´t know limits of attila engine. That being said, I would also prefer to keep them. :-)

Because CA is able to dig up some info through steam probably? They probably keep track on many things just to have feedback....just some stats lower:
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussi...ek-infographic
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussi...es-infographic

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Malcolm]

Directly from Jack Lusten about it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...s_and_thrones/


I don´t know, but 1750:1 is pretty bad score. If they are unable to improve ambushes to WH level usefulness then it makes perfect sense to cut them. Saying to fix it is easy but we don´t know limits of attila engine. That being said, I would also prefer to keep them. :-)

Those are some pretty shocking statistics! I'm starting to think that a lot of Total War users didn't know how the ambush mechanic works! Anyway, I stand by the assessment that it is a bad idea (and historically inaccurate) to get rid of them.

I find it a little creepy that "they" are watching us all game... Is no aspect of life sacred anymore?!

[Dynamo11]

Typical of CA now, "people don't use them enough to warrant us actually putting the effort in and refining them". It should be there as a matter of completion, instead it's another "oh armies can now "walk" on water and magically become navies" debacle. They only did this because they couldn't get naval invasions to work properly in the engine after Empire. If your engine is so poor in your military strategy game that you can't have ambushes then that really tells you something.

[Malcolm]

Typical of CA now, "people don't use them enough to warrant us actually putting the effort in and refining them". It should be there as a matter of completion, instead it's another "oh armies can now "walk" on water and magically become navies" debacle. They only did this because they couldn't get naval invasions to work properly in the engine after Empire. If your engine is so poor in your military strategy game that you can't have ambushes then that really tells you something.

I actually really agree with regards to the "completion" of the game, ambushes should form part of it and it seems mad that they would take it out of the game. I used ambushes heaps of time and found them really useful in Attila.

The fact that armies can instantly transform into navies is also really annoying. Never understood why that is part of the game.

I obviously don't know much about game engines or anything like that so I really don't know how hard it is for them to sort out these problems but I do find it strange that there hasn't been much change with issues like armies magically becoming navies.

[zoner16]

I actually really agree with regards to the "completion" of the game, ambushes should form part of it and it seems mad that they would take it out of the game. I used ambushes heaps of time and found them really useful in Attila.

The fact that armies can instantly transform into navies is also really annoying. Never understood why that is part of the game.

I obviously don't know much about game engines or anything like that so I really don't know how hard it is for them to sort out these problems but I do find it strange that there hasn't been much change with issues like armies magically becoming navies.

I agree about ambushes. I think their importance to campaign is a lot more outsized than the actual number of ambush battles fought would tell. Ambushes aren't fought often in my campaigns, but they are usually very decisive engagements with some pretty major impact. Also, the mere threat of ambush has an effect on campaign strategy.

Regarding the armies->boats thing, the engine is far less of a problem than the AI. Simply put, the AI having to work with two entities with different roles and rulesets in order to traverse a segment of the map make it a lot harder for it to forecast possible future outcomes and plan accordingly.

I personally have never had a problem with that particular change. It was always weird that entire armies had to stow away on warships and you never saw transports anywhere. So long as the rules remain fairly intuitive (transport fleets lose to war fleets, it takes a turn to built transports if you can't commandeer them from a port), I don't see a problem.

[Cope]

Never noticed the little guys before.

Perhaps its a graphical option that can be toggled on and off.

It actually irrelevant since I would rather not see any agents at all.

I understand that, I was just highlighting that referencing CK II was counter productive for making that point.

I didn't say it was immature. I said it was a more mature approach.

I'm not sure why you think this. As I've attempted to demonstrate, even Paradox titles (which are toward the more "mature" end of the strategy game spectrum) make use of animated agents.

You mentioned that CA shouldn't copy Paradox's campaign because it is different; stating that I am advocating for it. I am not advocating for the same system given the difference of engines. I said a similar approach.

With respect to the use of agents, Paradox titles are broadly similar to what we've seen in Total War in terms of passive bonuses. Agents assigned to specific provinces will provide more money, less religious disunity, improved military recruitment etc.

As I said already, I prefer to have a central location to determine a policy rather than physically move a guy across the map and then select some action. I also didn't get why the time span would make a difference and what I prefer would not be affected by any time scale in any game.

My point is that what you refer to as centralization is more critical in Paradox titles than a game like ToB on account of scope. It would become almost impossible to manage a game like EU IV if you had to manually move agents from place to place. I don't think this is necessarily true for ToB: a Paradox style centralized command and control system might even make the game less engaging and too easy. The time span is relevant because in a game which covers hundreds of years, you'd be forced to redeploy agents constantly whenever they died of old age. This wouldn't be a problem in a game that spans a few decades.

It is worth nothing that there are some significant draw backs to PI's approach. For instance, a colonist in EU IV cannot simply move over to an adjacent province if needed: instead it must return to the pool prior to being redeployed. This creates bizarre scenarios where the player is pointlessly forced to wait, sometimes for years on end, in travel time. The same can also occur with respect to diplomats. Conversely, missionaries and generals have no travel time at all, meaning that they can just magically appear where needed, even if that's thousands of miles away from the capital. Moreover, via the ledger, you can see how many men the AI is fielding, what its tech level is, what its force limit is, what his modifiers are and so on. The TW equivalent would be a list which showed you the composition of every single army and navy on the map.

So for me its an issue of balance and personality. And I don't think making use of spy agents, for instance, is somehow less appropriate than just clicking a button and waiting for a network to be constructed. The EU IV approach is much less personal in terms of characters. It's just lists, menus and nameless actors. But it needs to be that way in order to make playing manageable. I don't agree that this is the case in TW, which sits somewhere in between EU IV and CK II in terms of character focus. I've often really enjoyed leveling up agents and assigning them strategically, particularly since CA reintroduced skill trees. In my view it can add a bit of personality to the game if its done right - much like it does in CK II when developing your leaders and dynasty.

[PikeStance]

I agree about ambushes. I think their importance to campaign is a lot more outsized than the actual number of ambush battles fought would tell. Ambushes aren't fought often in my campaigns, but they are usually very decisive engagements with some pretty major impact. Also, the mere threat of ambush has an effect on campaign strategy.

If the TW3 and warcape 32-bit engine is not capable of effectively using ambushes it is best to leave it out. I think people are making the assumption that they have not attempted other options. Their efforts is probably less because they feel it is minor issue. I bet people will still buy the game without them.

Regarding the armies->boats thing, the engine is far less of a problem than the AI. Simply put, the AI having to work with two entities with different roles and rulesets in order to traverse a segment of the map make it a lot harder for it to forecast possible future outcomes and plan accordingly.
I personally have never had a problem with that particular change. It was always weird that entire armies had to stow away on warships and you never saw transports anywhere. So long as the rules remain fairly intuitive (transport fleets lose to war fleets, it takes a turn to built transports if you can't commandeer them from a port), I don't see a problem

I think the boat thing is a bit silly. Negotiating a water obstacle was a big deal in strategy and tactics. THis is actually more important in the Three Kingdom scenario when and if you decide to conquer southern China. It would had been nice if the game alowed for the building of bridges like Julius Caesar did in his campaigns. I think the concept of shipbuilding and commandeering of ships could had resulted in a longer delay.

Perhaps its a graphical option that can be toggled on and off.
I understand that, I was just highlighting that referencing CK II was counter productive for making that point.
I'm not sure why you think this. As I've attempted to demonstrate, even Paradox titles (which are toward the more "mature" end of the strategy game spectrum) make use of animated agents.
With respect to the use of agents, Paradox titles are broadly similar to what we've seen in Total War in terms of passive bonuses. Agents assigned to specific provinces will provide more money, less religious disunity, improved military recruitment etc.
My point is that what you refer to as centralization is more critical in Paradox titles than a game like ToB on account of scope. It would become almost impossible to manage a game like EU IV if you had to manually move agents from place to place. I don't think this is necessarily true for ToB: a Paradox style centralized command and control system might even make the game less engaging and too easy. The time span is relevant because in a game which covers hundreds of years, you'd be forced to redeploy agents constantly whenever they died of old age. This wouldn't be a problem in a game that spans a few decades.

It is worth nothing that there are some significant draw backs to PI's approach. For instance, a colonist in EU IV cannot simply move over to an adjacent province if needed: instead it must return to the pool prior to being redeployed. This creates bizarre scenarios where the player is pointlessly forced to wait, sometimes for years on end, in travel time. The same can also occur with respect to diplomats. Conversely, missionaries and generals have no travel time at all, meaning that they can just magically appear where needed, even if that's thousands of miles away from the capital. Moreover, via the ledger, you can see how many men the AI is fielding, what its tech level is, what its force limit is, what his modifiers are and so on. The TW equivalent would be a list which showed you the composition of every single army and navy on the map.

So for me its an issue of balance and personality. And I don't think making use of spy agents, for instance, is somehow less appropriate than just clicking a button and waiting for a network to be constructed. The EU IV approach is much less personal in terms of characters. It's just lists, menus and nameless actors. But it needs to be that way in order to make playing manageable. I don't agree that this is the case in TW, which sits somewhere in between EU IV and CK II in terms of character focus. I've often really enjoyed leveling up agents and assigning them strategically, particularly since CA reintroduced skill trees. In my view it can add a bit of personality to the game if its done right - much like it does in CK II when developing your leaders and dynasty.

Is there a point to this? I already said I find the removal of agents a more mature approach. That's that. Moreover, I was speaking about the Paradox approach, not an exact copy.

[LoneWolf_Sam]

Directly from Jack Lusten about it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...s_and_thrones/

I don´t know, but 1750:1 is pretty bad score. If they are unable to improve ambushes to WH level usefulness then it makes perfect sense to cut them. Saying to fix it is easy but we don´t know limits of attila engine. That being said, I would also prefer to keep them. :-)

I mean, as they put settlements right frigging next to each other, I would not be surprised if 95+% of battles were sieges. A more useful number would be ambushes as a percentage of total field battles.

I literally played 2 ambushes last night! and 1 siege (while autoresolving a bunch more sieges). I think 80 turns in and I've had maybe 6 field battles with one of them an ambush earlier on. So my count is currently at 50%...0

Side note: Anyone know whats happening with Steam Workshop support? I thought I'd pop on and upload a couple of simple ones but noticed there wasn't currently support and I couldn't find any web pages discussing it with a quick google.