Thrones of Britannia: Criticism Thread

[Commissar Caligula_]

Moderation Staff have decided to open a Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia Criticism thread, which will work similarly to the old Total War: Rome II criticism thread. The main purpose of this thread is to facilitate reasonable discussion and keep the forums clean of duplicate threads. It is not intended for extended discussion on any specific complaint. Thus, moderation will use it's discretion to split healthy discussion to new threads as well as remove posts it deems necessary to prevent disruption, derailment, and other unsuitable behavior. Moderation Staff will also use its discretion to merge 'complaint threads' with this larger thread. Questions and concerns should be directed to a Moderator or Administrator, or posted in the Moderation Commentary Thread.


Regards,
Total War Center Moderation Staff

[Commissar Caligula_]

Does anyone know whether there's any particular reason historical battles were removed from Thrones of Britannia? I was actually thinking of making a few.

[Radious]

They choosed to make campaigns more story based where each playable faction has its own "adventure", historical battles would not fit into the way game is presented and played. But yep, i would not mind them to have them in as a seperate part.

[Gomer_Pyle]

Suggestion: Why after so many years have they not implemented settlement trading yet? Reason why it would be nice to have this feature is when you reclaim ally settlements lost in war. You should either be given the option to hand back settlement, occupy or sack. Also there should be a diplomacy "trade settlement" option so you could manually give back or demand settlements through diplomacy. Was this not a thing back in Rome 1? Why take away a game option that makes better gameplay?

[Hassie]

If you conquer a settlement that was owned by an Ally, you can choose to give it back to them and they will love you for it. If you occupy it instead, they will hate you for it.

[Nizam]

Performance is ok, battles are ok. But, I said before, I think campaign is soooo shallow.

Plus they have to do something for Attila too, ofc I am talking about performance :/

[RobG4]

Playing as Sudreyar on Legendary. Some initial thoughts:

1. It's too easy if you have TW experience, at least in the early game.

2. AI seem dumber than in previous titles. Keeps moving armies into dis-advantageous situations where it can be easily outnumbered.

3. Campaign moves so fast that there is no need to develop settlements other than some initial +food and ongoing capital building upgrades to +recruitment pool. It's a mad race to spread out as fast as possible. By turn 83 in my game there are basically only 5 factions of any strength left.

I'd love it if it were slower paced, more difficult to expand, and if building out settlements was meaningful & necessary.

[Sertorius Macro]

Suggestion: Why after so many years have they not implemented settlement trading yet? Reason why it would be nice to have this feature is when you reclaim ally settlements lost in war. You should either be given the option to hand back settlement, occupy or sack. Also there should be a diplomacy "trade settlement" option so you could manually give back or demand settlements through diplomacy. Was this not a thing back in Rome 1? Why take away a game option that makes better gameplay?

Absolutely agree. As far as I remember this feature was only present in Empire TW and it's a pity. It would have been specially useful and immersive in Attila, where the Roman player would have been able to trade a settlement for military alliance with some barbarian/nomadic faction, just like in the foedus treaty. I also expected to have this feature back in ToB, but apparently I'll have to keep on waiting. By the way, I'm afraid that most of diplomacy is hardcoded stuff, so nobody could add the "settlement trading" option through modding.

If you conquer a settlement that was owned by an Ally, you can choose to give it back to them and they will love you for it. If you occupy it instead, they will hate you for it.

Well, that's a great improvement; in Rome2 or Attila you would recover allies' settlements from the enemy and keep them for yourself without having any diplomatic penalty for it -kind of unrealistic.

[Ostrogoth]

Guys how is CAI in your experience? Do the AI factions declare war on you directly? So far not even one faction has declared war on me(very hard difficulty) except scripted small viking raiders. Ah, and sometimes allies drag me into unwanted wars. Maybe something is wrong on my end? They eagerly declare war on one another but ignore me.

[roaringsilence]

This is based on what I have seen on streams since I don't own the game (which I likely never will), It's sad to see that they for some really strange reason kept the feature with
big colourful flashing arrows during the sieges. It looks really cheap. We've managed without it prior to R2 and we'll do just fine without it now as well.

[zoner16]

Guys how is CAI in your experience? Do the AI factions declare war on you directly? So far not even one faction has declared war on me(very hard difficulty) except scripted small viking raiders. Ah, and sometimes allies drag me into unwanted wars. Maybe something is wrong on my end? They eagerly declare war on one another but ignore me.

Playing as Gwined VH. Mierce moved one and a half stacks to my border and declared war on turn 10.

It'll typically only happen when you're very small though. Never though I'd miss the great power diplo malus, but once you get big most of the other big powers seem more inclined to be friends.

[alQamar]

Having invested only 42 minutes of benchmarking and playing one AI battle here are my pro / cons, please do not consider this as a full review, it's rather a flashlight review


pro:
- welcomed re-theme of Attila with some improvements made ot UI and graphics

- collision with cavalry is somewhat improved

- fire and smoke quality and animation is great at all graphic presets! Great job!

- Multiplayer looks same as expected map picker is still there

- Multiplayer automatching still exists

- preset "extreme" is back, wasn't there in WH1/WH2


cons:
- 32bit engine of Attila was a no-brainer having 2.4% percent of players using this as an Windows OS platform on Steam. Performance is "okayish".
Have first results here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ted-04-05-2018

- music is borrowed from TW Battles Kingdoms, still fits though

- intro is the same style than TW Battles Kingdoms (cartoon with some nice effects). Not saying the artwork is too bad but it's too simple considering the great trailers they made for youtube

- unit hitbox and movement[1] is still at Rome 2 level units in the back rows will not interact with the other unit only front row will fight 1v1 animations. Sorry I have to keep whining about this for sake of Rome 1

- multiplayer chat is hidden by default in the lobby quite unfortunately.


[1] you can see this point clearly in the benchmark that comes with the game.
Also the fact that artillery is not really shooting at a wall but just in front of it (in front of the center of an object) means everything is static and calculated. There are not enough variants and interaction.



summary: Overall feeling is that TW Britannia is another spin-off like TW Battles Kingdoms, made by a small team with few ressources. I appreciate their artwork and love the setting in medieval time using the theme of "Vikings" TV series, which I embrace personally.

[stevehoos]

Picture of an AI unit standing with their backs toward the player. CA....

https://imgur.com/a/I2AJ4lQ.

[miguel11]

This could have been called 'ATTILA REMASTER'. This could have been release as a DLC for Attilla for a fair price of $20 USD. To release this as a new, independent game for $40 USD is just a racket. I just returned my copy to STEAM.

My advice is, wait until it has gone 50% or more on sale and buy it. We do not have to pay CA for fixing deficiencies to an old game.

[OldStyle]

Well I guess I just saved me forty bucks.

[Man Sandwich]

I mean it's pretty petty but why does Norse York have the Saxon name for York instead of Jorvik and no way of changing it?

[Obi Wan Asterix]

This could have been called 'ATTILA REMASTER'. This could have been release as a DLC for Attilla for a fair price of $20 USD. To release this as a new, independent game for $40 USD is just a racket. I just returned my copy to STEAM.

My advice is, wait until it has gone 50% or more on sale and buy it. We do not have to pay CA for fixing deficiencies to an old game.

Not much remastered about it as they never finished the odd unit behaviour and the animated feel to the battles. I wish they would have dared to use the Warhammer engine...

[Krieglord]

Not much remastered about it as they never finished the odd unit behaviour and the animated feel to the battles. I wish they would have dared to use the Warhammer engine...

Does the Warhammer engine allow for formations? has someone modded them in? that has been the main thing holding me back from playing them

[BlackFire Forge]

--

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Not much remastered about it as they never finished the odd unit behaviour and the animated feel to the battles. I wish they would have dared to use the Warhammer engine...

Couldn't agree more.