Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia

[PikeStance]

It's lazy and lacks depth. You can't do anything with them now besides click a button and try and kill someone/... It's bare bones.

Much of what you described is not historical or arcade

No saboteurs to take down buildings and important structures,

Is there any historical data that suggest this was remotely a factor in any war in any period?

no spies to help you spot an army or check their ranks or even unlock a gate,

Competent armies used a variety of methods to "spot" the enemy. Leading up to the Battle of Kircholm (1605) It was a captured soldier that revealed the size and disposition of the Polish army. In Paradox, you can set-up an espionage network. This would be much more historical without resorting to cheap arcade gimmick.

no merchants to help accumulate wealth,

You need a physical incarnation of a "merchant" to accumulate wealth? How is this superior to a more historical manner of using, research of a new idea, the invention of a new technology or a building of a trade network?

and no Priests to help keep public order high and put witches away (thanks for taking away Religion and Culture CA).

A policy would be a more historical means to promote public order. I have always thought priest "converting" the masses as an arcade-like gimmick the sooner they put an end to agents like this, the better.

As I mentioned earlier, I was fine at first with Shogun using a Ninja to assassinate, but they overused agents in later titles when there are definitely better more historical options. I only hope this is a trend and not an anomaly.
You described the lack of agents as "lazy and lacking depth, but the concept of agents has always been a lazy means and a silly arcade approach to a game that claims to be historically based game. The only difference now is that instead of sending an agent across the map, a complete waste of my time, I can simply give the order and it is either done or not done.

[zoner16]

I have to agree with PikeStance. The only game that I found agents to be worth interacting with was Shogun 2 because the combination of the compact map, active and passive actions that made sense, and limit on the number of them meant that I had a small contingent of agents that I could 1) keep track of and 2) always have something meaningful to do. They all had a wrothwhile interplay too. All agent types could take part in the inevitable agent wars during mid/late game, with the rock-paper-scissors style balance keeping things fresh.

Medieval II's agents turned into a mess the moment you stepped out of early game. Enemy (and even allied) agents swarmed your lands. There was simultaneously too many agents to keep track of and not enough that could do anything useful on any given turn. Either their chance of success would be too low because there was no way of training them except either repeating incredibly easy tasks over and over or taking very big risks that would inevitably require you to recruit a replacement and repeat the process. Now that I think about it, Pike's assessment that they felt like an arcade button is pretty accurate for me, though perhaps a board game piece is more appropriate. For the most part, I found them to be more distractions that I was forced to put up with than any that added to my experience of the game.

Empire was a step in the right direction. Most were either combined or folded into another subsystem where they made more sense. However, the random nature of gaining agents made a lot of people wary of putting them in any danger, so they'd usually end up hiding somewhere for much of the game.

The Rome II/Attila problem was that the agents had no active abilities that were worth using (except poison supplies, which every other mod either removes or rebalances), and just turned into followers by a different name. The only thing their map presence amounted to was scouting, otherwise they were stuck somewhere where their passive buffs would be useful, and forgotten.


I think agents can be done right. They're just not a thing I find very necessary to my enjoyment of Total War, so their existence or nonexistence in a game doesn't impact my purchasing decisions. In any case, there's been no point in any of the Thrones LPs that just came out that made me go "this would be much better with agents." Perhaps some points where a spy would be useful, but not any that felt like spies were needed as board pieces.

[Daruwind]

Actually Warhammer gets agents also quite well. They are no longer just campaign passive/active stuff but can participate directly in battles as heroes. And with 30/40 levels it is really long term investment especially with items and such things...

EDIT: but it is not way for any historical title... :/ sadly

[NostalgiaFan]

Much of what you described is not historical or arcade

Bull.

Is there any historical data that suggest this was remotely a factor in any war in any period?

Why do they need to be? Did I not already say that Agents were better when they were not overpowered? Doing something like set an important building fire so it could help reduce public order of a settlement to make it possibly riot and revolt should not need to be huge, just a small part to help me in taking over a settlement if I would like to try something out besides just taking it over in full force.

And based on your statement you would be implying that Saboteurs did nothing in history when we know that is wrong in periods like WW2.

Competent armies used a variety of methods to "spot" the enemy. Leading up to the Battle of Kircholm (1605) It was a captured soldier that revealed the size and disposition of the Polish army. In Paradox, you can set-up an espionage network. This would be much more historical without resorting to cheap arcade gimmick.

And now what does Total war have? Barely anything? Not helping your point here. A cheap gimmick is better then no gimmick. You are also ignoring various times throughout history when spies were used to help an army throughout history like at thermopylae and Antioch.

You need a physical incarnation of a "merchant" to accumulate wealth? How is this superior to a more historical manner of using, research of a new idea, the invention of a new technology or a building of a trade network?

"need' You just love shoving words into other mouths don't you? I prefer to have more ways in handling merchants, don't need it but would like it overall over what we have now. Just pressing a button or a building is not being more "historical" like you are trying to have me think. How about something like a selection of merchants you have throughout your kingdom in a panel that you can choose to send someone to as you like to make better profits as you want instead? or set up actual trade wars with other rival factions to get more wealth by sending said merchants to take them over and try to dominate the trade and set up a monopoly or lose and end up having to pay more to materials you wanted? make the various merchants guild almost like the cardinal system in Med 2 where you try setting up your merchants in higher positions over time until they become the head merchants and add more wealth to your faction. Sounds way more historical and in depth then what you are suggesting.

A policy would be a more historical means to promote public order. I have always thought priest "converting" the masses as an arcade-like gimmick the sooner they put an end to agents like this, the better.

Yeah because priest's did nothing to help out the population, they just sat on their rears all day and let things go on. It's not like time periods like the middle ages actually had religion be more dominate in people's lives and said priests and saints actually went out converting people and such to spread the faith and confront witches and heretics to stop unwanted beliefs getting into the populaces minds.

Do you even research the Medieval period?

As I mentioned earlier, I was fine at first with Shogun using a Ninja to assassinate, but they overused agents in later titles when there are definitely better more historical options. I only hope this is a trend and not an anomaly.

That's idiotic when Agents have been involved in far more then just one period which you seem to be constantly mistaking it for.

You described the lack of agents as "lazy and lacking depth

Because it is.

but the concept of agents has always been a lazy means and a silly arcade approach to a game that claims to be historically based game.

And simplifying it to the way it is now is as lazy as you can possibly get. No don't try to make them more historically accurate and in depth just downplay it to the point of almost irrelevance. That has been CA's motto for too long.

The only difference now is that instead of sending an agent across the map, a complete waste of my time, I can simply give the order and it is either done or not done.

The difference is now you only have one agent who does one thing ans that's all. It's as bare bones as possible.

[PikeStance]

Why do they need to be? Did I not already say that Agents were better when they were not overpowered? Doing something like set an important building fire so it could help reduce public order of a settlement to make it possibly riot and revolt should not need to be huge, just a small part to help me in taking over a settlement if I would like to try something out besides just taking it over in full force.

And based on your statement you would be implying that Saboteurs did nothing in history when we know that is wrong in periods like WW2.

I am not interested in the way they have implemented int he game in regards to being over or underpowered.
I cannot think of a single incident in which sabotage played a vital role in winning or losing the war and I am including WW2. The French Resistance, for example, was instrumental in far more important areas like troop movements and disposition. You are really overplaying the role of saboteurs in history.

And now what does Total war have? Barely anything? Not helping your point here. A cheap gimmick is better then no gimmick. You are also ignoring various times throughout history when spies were used to help an army throughout history like at thermopylae and Antioch.

You are actually illustrating my point better than me. There were a variety ways in which a commander could learn about the movement and composition of the army and it goes beyond an icon on a map. Good commanders often acted on excellent reconnaissance and information, while bad commanders would behave imprudently on limited information. Moreover, battles were often decided on the maneuvers leading up to combat. This is better represented by a set of attributes of the commander himself. Moreover, the AI can act better assuming he does not have to also manage an agent as well. It is definitely more historical and much easier to assure the AI can keep up with a human player.

"need' You just love shoving words into other mouths don't you? I prefer to have more ways in handling merchants, don't need it but would like it overall over what we have now. Just pressing a button or a building is not being more "historical" like you are trying to have me think. How about something like a selection of merchants you have throughout your kingdom in a panel that you can choose to send someone to as you like to make better profits as you want instead? or set up actual trade wars with other rival factions to get more wealth by sending said merchants to take them over and try to dominate the trade and set up a monopoly or lose and end up having to pay more to materials you wanted? make the various merchants guild almost like the cardinal system in Med 2 where you try setting up your merchants in higher positions over time until they become the head merchants and add more wealth to your faction. Sounds way more historical and in depth then what you are suggesting

What you are describing seems more appropriate for a first-person role-playing game, than a strategy game. The economic system in TW games has always been simple. In more recent titles they have been adding more dimensions to this, so this sort of gameplay may be int he future. There are limits to how 'real" you can make this. Paradox did something similar in Victoria II but most let the AI deal with it. Either way, a more realistic economic mechanic would require the lack of agent icons on a map.

Yeah because priest's did nothing to help out the population, they just sat on their rears all day and let things go on. It's not like time periods like the middle ages actually had religion be more dominate in people's lives and said priests and saints actually went out converting people and such to spread the faith and confront witches and heretics to stop unwanted beliefs getting into the populaces minds.

People didn't convert because a priest came calling. They built an infrastructure and in engage in community services in much the same way they would today. The effectiveness was decades rather than years represented in the game and as I said, they had to develop a significant infrastructure and network. In the end, most converted when the ruling class had converted.

Do you even research the Medieval period?

LOL, you can't strawman an argument and then as a silly question.

That's idiotic when Agents have been involved in far more then just one period which you seem to be constantly mistaking it for.

Another strawman

Because it is.

And simplifying it to the way it is now is as lazy as you can possibly get. No don't try to make them more historically accurate and in depth just downplay it to the point of almost irrelevance. That has been CA's motto for too long.

The difference is now you only have one agent who does one thing and that's all. It's as bare bones as possible.

Agents are a silly concept really design to make gameplay "interesting." It certainly is not a realistic way of representing this time period. Personally, I think the developer's used the agents has a cheap way of balancing the game between human and AI. I suspect this is why they were "overpowered" in the game. I am sure most did not use the agents with the same vigor as the AI. If anything, the developer's need a find a new way to aid the AI to keep up with the human player. It would require far less laziness, not more.

[NostalgiaFan]

I am not interested in the way they have implemented int he game in regards to being over or underpowered.

Well too bad because there are others who do. And you are acting they should just be left in the dust

I cannot think of a single incident in which sabotage played a vital role in winning or losing the war and I am including WW2. The French Resistance, for example, was instrumental in far more important areas like troop movements and disposition. You are really overplaying the role of saboteurs in history.

Really dude? you are just going to ignore how British intelligence was one of the key reason the Brits won the Battle of Britain by stealing information and giving false ideas to the enemy?

Moreover, the AI can act better assuming he does not have to also manage an agent as well. It is definitely more historical and much easier to assure the AI can keep up with a human player.

All these comes down to is "we are too lazy to make it work so we won't bother" exactly as I said before, CA's current motto.

What you are describing seems more appropriate for a first-person role-playing game, than a strategy game. The economic system in TW games has always been simple. In more recent titles they have been adding more dimensions to this, so this sort of gameplay may be int he future. There are limits to how 'real" you can make this. Paradox did something similar in Victoria II but most let the AI deal with it. Either way, a more realistic economic mechanic would require the lack of agent icons on a map.

"more appropriate for a first-person role-playing game" Are you kidding me? nothing I described even comes close to that. It's basically no different then how you look up your nobles in TOB where you just look up on your agents and immediately send them somewhere and check up on them every turn to see how your progress goes. You keep acting as if being realistic means we should have less control, but that logic only leaves us going to the point where why bother having anything but a first person chamber view and nothing else? Why even have Generals or Nobles to select? there is a point where it gets too far.

People didn't convert because a priest came calling. They built an infrastructure and in engage in community services in much the same way they would today. The effectiveness was decades rather than years represented in the game and as I said, they had to develop a significant infrastructure and network. In the end, most converted when the ruling class had converted.

You are really over exaggerating what went into a priest just going somewhere to preach. Some of the most famous missionaries literally just went into a place and went around converting, they do that stuff even in the modern day even, we call them missionaries. It's no where near as arcadey as you are trying to make me us believe especially when you could build said churches to make it easier. And so what if it took decades and not just years? you think it was only a few turns in the older games for you to turn a population of an opposite religion to your faith? it took me dozens of turns just to convert even a quarter of the populace over when I used just one low level priest. You really just want to replace anything to do with agents to just buildings and upgrades which just takes away personal involvement in the game and makes it feel way more hollow.

LOL, you can't strawman an argument and then as a silly question.

And just what Strawman are you even talking about? You act as if priests converting a population was an arcade gimmick, which was wrong since priests did a lot to quell heresy and such while also helping raise peoples spirits and such which was important in the time period. There was nothing arcade about it.

Another strawman

Another fallacy you are just throwing out to ignore my point.

Agents are a silly concept really design to make gameplay "interesting." It certainly is not a realistic way of representing this time period.

No, agents when used right provide a way to give you better involvement as a player and better Roleplay elements to play with. There is nothing inherently "silly" about them. I could make the same argument for nobles and generals as well since as a king why would you even command them in battle when in real life you had to deal with letting them go on their own and hope they are competent enough to fulfill your plans?

Personally, I think the developer's used the agents has a cheap way of balancing the game between human and AI. I suspect this is why they were "overpowered" in the game.

Wrong they were overpowered because they decided to give them super powers like stop an army in it's track over and over to where they keep losing men to sabotage and Winter to the point it got retarded. Before Shogun 2 they were no where near as powerful but the Ai still used them decently.

I am sure most did not use the agents with the same vigor as the AI. If anything, the developer's need a find a new way to aid the AI to keep up with the human player. It would require far less laziness, not more.

Nope, it is exactly as lazy as I said because it it downplays the mechanic itself to being almost irrelevant.

Look if you hate agents as much as you want, why not instead we just get a mode where guys like you don't have to deal with them at all, while others can play with them and hopefully have them be given more depth instead of downplayed. Would that not solve both our issues?

[PikeStance]

Really dude? you are just going to ignore how British intelligence was one of the key reason the Brits won the Battle of Britain by stealing information and giving false ideas to the enemy?

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.

All these comes down to is "we are too lazy to make it work so we won't bother" exactly as I said before, CA's current motto.

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

"more appropriate for a first-person role-playing game" Are you kidding me? nothing I described even comes close to that. It's basically no different then how you look up your nobles in TOB where you just look up on your agents and immediately send them somewhere and check up on them every turn to see how your progress goes. You keep acting as if being realistic means we should have less control, but that logic only leaves us going to the point where why bother having anything but a first person chamber view and nothing else? Why even have Generals or Nobles to select? there is a point where it gets too far.

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

You are really over exaggerating what went into a priest just going somewhere to preach. Some of the most famous missionaries literally just went into a place and went around converting, they do that stuff even in the modern day even, we call them missionaries. It's no where near as arcadey as you are trying to make me us believe especially when you could build said churches to make it easier. And so what if it took decades and not just years? you think it was only a few turns in the older games for you to turn a population of an opposite religion to your faith? it took me dozens of turns just to convert even a quarter of the populace over when I used just one low level priest. You really just want to replace anything to do with agents to just buildings and upgrades which just takes away personal involvement in the game and makes it feel way more hollow.
And just what Strawman are you even talking about? You act as if priests converting a population was an arcade gimmick, which was wrong since priests did a lot to quell heresy and such while also helping raise peoples spirits and such which was important in the time period. There was nothing arcade about it.

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.

Another fallacy you are just throwing out to ignore my point.

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.

No, agents when used right provide a way to give you better involvement as a player and better Roleplay elements to play with. There is nothing inherently "silly" about them. I could make the same argument for nobles and generals as well since as a king why would you even command them in battle when in real life you had to deal with letting them go on their own and hope they are competent enough to fulfill your plans?

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.

Wrong they were overpowered because they decided to give them super powers like stop an army in it's track over and over to where they keep losing men to sabotage and Winter to the point it got retarded. Before Shogun 2 they were no where near as powerful but the Ai still used them decently.
Nope, it is exactly as lazy as I said because it it downplays the mechanic itself to being almost irrelevant.

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.

Look if you hate agents as much as you want, why not instead we just get a mode where guys like you don't have to deal with them at all, while others can play with them and hopefully have them be given more depth instead of downplayed. Would that not solve both our issues?

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

[Anna_Gein]

Are we going to philosophise about the notion of suspension of disbelief in gaming ?

[Totalheadache]

Something I just saw in a lets play is raising taxes now increases food? So you get more money and food when you increase the slider...just wondering thats all.

[Pathstrider]

Could make sense - you’re not producing more food, you’re just taking more from your peasants to use for your armies.

[Gaius Baltar]

After watching all the pre-release videos I could, I went ahead and purchased TOB and got the 10% (4$) discount. I am somewhat wary having experienced the agony of the RTW2 pre-release hype. That being said, I intend to open a campaign on day one and make real player reports on what this SAGA release looks like. So stay tuned.

I will also be compiling an AAR along with my reports. And screenshots. Should be fun.

[Zerg93]

I'm always quite excited for a new Total War realease...but the more i watch the trailers and the more i can't help seeing an Attila Total War with little modifications set in Britain.
I really don't get why Sega and CA want to release it as a full game, personally i do think it would had been better as an Attila expansion.
I really do hope i'm wrong here and that i will be able to fully enjoy the game...but so far i'm more hyped for Three Kingdoms right now.
By the way i really do like new settlements .

[Gusten Grodslukare]

The videos on Youtube reveals that it's still too easy to expand and blob and cities/towns are still more or less without any protection. If players want to have battles, there could be other reasons to do it without grabbing a lot of land. But more importantly, I think, is that it should be more important to take care of the land one has and the internal politics than grabbing even more land too quickly. Some people maybe say "Well, don't go out and take land, then" and my reply could be "It's not only the player that can blob but the AI can do it too".

[zoner16]

Honestly, one of the issues I see right now is that the Autoresolve is really generous, even on higher difficulties. There were several fights in the most recent batch of lets plays that should have been either even engagements or close to even, yet the balance bar gave the player the advantage.

[PikeStance]

I'm always quite excited for a new Total War realease...but the more i watch the trailers and the more i can't help seeing an Attila Total War with little modifications set in Britain.
I really don't get why Sega and CA want to release it as a full game, personally i do think it would had been better as an Attila expansion.
I really do hope i'm wrong here and that i will be able to fully enjoy the game...but so far i'm more hyped for Three Kingdoms right now.
By the way i really do like new settlements .

I somewhat agree. They should have chosen a different time period for the first Saga. I suspect this was supposed to be some sort of appeasement for those wanting a "Med III" title. Either that, it was just easier to develop the game that is not that far from Attila given the length of time between Attila and now. The announcement dates are not that far apart, but it is obviously easier to develop a similar game to what has already been released.

Where I disagree is in the game. The landscape is beautiful. The internal politics is a positive step in the right direction. I hope it is just a part of what is to come. Personally, this needed to be done for any realistic interpretation of internal Chinese politics. I do wonder if Saga secondary purpose is to 'test" new concepts for the larger titles.

[Anna_Gein]

After watching all the pre-release videos I could, I went ahead and purchased TOB and got the 10% (4$) discount. I am somewhat wary having experienced the agony of the RTW2 pre-release hype. That being said, I intend to open a campaign on day one and make real player reports on what this SAGA release looks like. So stay tuned.

I will also be compiling an AAR along with my reports. And screenshots. Should be fun.

I am looking forward to your review

Do you know which faction you will play ? Northumbria maybe ?

[mauiaw]

The impression I get from the lets plays is that the campaign is pretty easy, even for the factions with a 'hard' start, and especially for West Seaxe. I think you could improve the politics and add some difficulty if you made it so that giving away an estate reduced the income from that estate. Since estates are attached to buildings in settlements, it makes sense that handing over control of that building would reduce its income. It also makes the estate game more interesting than what is looks like now: simply just giving estates to those who are unloyal. Perhaps you desperately need the money so have to strip someone of their estates? Perhaps less loyal subjects could withhold all money from their estates?

[caratacus]

I am looking forward to your review

Do you know which faction you will play ? Northumbria maybe ?

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

[Gaius Baltar]

I am looking forward to your review

Do you know which faction you will play ? Northumbria maybe ?

I have not decided on which faction to start with. I am leaning toward one of the Viking Sea Kings. I may start several simultaneously to get a better perspective of the game play.

[Huberto]

The impression I get from the lets plays is that the campaign is pretty easy, even for the factions with a 'hard' start, and especially for West Seaxe. I think you could improve the politics and add some difficulty if you made it so that giving away an estate reduced the income from that estate. Since estates are attached to buildings in settlements, it makes sense that handing over control of that building would reduce its income. It also makes the estate game more interesting than what is looks like now: simply just giving estates to those who are unloyal. Perhaps you desperately need the money so have to strip someone of their estates? Perhaps less loyal subjects could withhold all money from their estates?

Some good ideas here. I've been skipping let's plays until I have the game but it's disappointing to hear that the campaign is easy. If anything the SAGA series games should be harder and more daring than the major titles.