How To Fix Thrones of Britannia

[Daruwind]

Auto resolve - Sure but um how? I always get superior result no matter what difficulty? Basically Auto-resolve usually produce very high casualties. I just finished multiple legendary campaigns. Only area where auto-result is clearly better is 2+vs1 army situation where it produce low casulties and navy combat. I suck at navy in this time period without ramming speed :-) Not saying it cannot be better...

Loyalty - altenatively there could be penalty corresponting kingdom size. 10 Provincies = -1 , 20 = -2, 30 = -3 and so on to the loyalty....this would force us to add more and more estates,titles over time.

Money - there should be some money drains. I usually somehow track food for majority of game but after mid game, money are no more issue. Majority of provincies is irrelevant due to corruption, except key provincies with rank 10 governors so I can transform majority of space into food production because that is untouched. I´m missing heavy money upkeep for some endgame buildings. Not sure what else can be use here...

Estates - as i said, there should be more layers to it. Basic level one what we have - agriculture, noble, church. Then level 2 as desire to be governor/vassal, getting office and so Like if every province capitol for example provide one level II estate.

About garrisons - not sure. I finished multiple campaigns and small garrison are not detterent. Morelikely ability to build garrison chain in some villages. Basically adding +1 slot to those. So I can tailor coastal ones or border ones for defense while keeping heartland as food/money production center...

[Daruwind]

So I had some downtime without main PC so I tried to investigate ToB and got a few results. UI support up to two building slots in every minor settlements ...and UI is large enough for 6 minor slots over 4 minor settlemenets at max. (Technically UI could be altered up to 4 slots per minor settlements as in Attila but honestly I´m not sure it is feasible at all as that would definitely require to recontruct whole thing not just horizontally but vertically adding second row to fit all slots. Definitely 6/4 would be limit as is in Attila/R2.)

With startpos overhaul and little tweaked UI panel it looks nicely.

Original

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

into this

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So basically adding new secondary slot for any minor settlement without second building. So building overhaul to create some money sink and deeper economy.

Next idea might be adding level II estates to top levels of primary chains in major settlements. Something like Longphorts,Great halls are level II noble estates, Monasteries are level II religion estates and Markets maybe agricultural level II ones? (only top level of those buildings will grand the estate...so basically this is forcing players to build up provincies) Now those level II estates will grant more loyalty and, influence maybe, basically being much much powerfull ones but with actual money cost? -1000 per estate? Idea is to introduce loaylty penalty depending on kingdom size. Something like 10 provincies -1, 20 ...-2, 30....-3 (or maybe region? will try to balance it later) so basically player will be force to hand over those level two estates to keep loyalty of characters up....

[lolIsuck]

I quite like the recruiting units at 20% strength feature, I dislike how it takes 10/15 turns in the early game before that unit is fully replenished though. It'd make more sense to include a mustering stance, perhaps at the expanse of some food, where these units replenish in 3 or 4 turns to simulate the army taking time to fully muster. I'd assumed when I heard about the feature that that's how it functioned anyway, not that I'd have to wait 5 turns for them to even be at half strength. It's less of an issue later in the game as the ridiculous replenishment rates of the latest games kick in again. Something else CA should really have a look at as it makes any losses that do not result in a complete wipeout of the unit largely trivial.

[alex1963]

have you tried the one turn recruitment and minor town garrisons mods ?....i have them installed and they work great

[Musculus Maximus]

Thats cool with the second Slot
I was working on it, but without solution for me. Wich files do you have changed for that?
I want add this to my new "Last Kingdom" Mod.

+rep

[streety]

I'm afraid Malcolm's claims that "Welsh" is far less appropriate than "Cumbric" or "Brythonic" etc are way off. Firstly, the term Welsh (or if you insist Wēalas or other early spellings, etc) comes from this era as a generic Anglo-Saxon term for most of the pre-existing peoples of Britain (as Wales as a distinct nation didn't exist). Btw, the Anglo-Saxon term derives from the Germanic word for Gauls.

But Malcolm wants to impose a Mediaeval term. Yes, Cymry is first mentioned in poem attributed to a 7th poet, but it's not certain if it was actually first written down in that form in 633-ish or only when transcribed a few hundred years later when collated with other scant early Welsh writings. And even if it was actually penned as cymry in circa 633, did it refer to a collective name or just mean "kindred"? Either way, even among the Welsh, the term Brythoniaid was more common in early Mediaeval times prior to circa 1200 - Cymry only becomes common afterwards. However, even Brython (Briton), was applied to more than just the Welsh in what is today Wales, so it's all much of muchness. What we do at least know is that Anglo-Saxons were using the term Welsh - the rest is at best highly debatable.

Malcolm also complains about the use of Alban - I agree but for very different reasons, as the term Alba is again one retro-imposed on the period by mediaeval writers. And no, it didn't mean "little Scotland", but (derived from Albion and shortened from a term meaning Northern Britain), and it wasn't contemporary as it was only later introduced by mediaeval scholars (such as in the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba) to refer to Scotland during its earlier period under the Pictish kings. A better term would indeed be Pictish, as it's a term (as Picti, painted) that dates back to Roman times, and the historical character leading this faction, King Áed mac Cináeda, was the king of the Picts, not the king of Circnen or Alba. Cinaeda was just his dad's name, he was Áed, son of Cináeda, not Áed, king of Cináeda.

[Malcolm]

I'm afraid Malcolm's claims that "Welsh" is far less appropriate than "Cumbric" or "Brythonic" etc are way off. Firstly, the term Welsh (or if you insist Wēalas or other early spellings, etc) comes from this era as a generic Anglo-Saxon term for most of the pre-existing peoples of Britain (as Wales as a distinct nation didn't exist). Btw, the Anglo-Saxon term derives from the Germanic word for Gauls.

But Malcolm wants to impose a Mediaeval term. Yes, Cymry is first mentioned in poem attributed to a 7th poet, but it's not certain if it was actually first written down in that form in 633-ish or only when transcribed a few hundred years later when collated with other scant early Welsh writings. And even if it was actually penned as cymry in circa 633, did it refer to a collective name or just mean "kindred"? Either way, even among the Welsh, the term Brythoniaid was more common in early Mediaeval times prior to circa 1200 - Cymry only becomes common afterwards. However, even Brython (Briton), was applied to more than just the Welsh in what is today Wales, so it's all much of muchness. What we do at least know is that Anglo-Saxons were using the term Welsh - the rest is at best highly debatable.

Malcolm also complains about the use of Alban - I agree but for very different reasons, as the term Alba is again one retro-imposed on the period by mediaeval writers. And no, it didn't mean "little Scotland", but (derived from Albion and shortened from a term meaning Northern Britain), and it wasn't contemporary as it was only later introduced by mediaeval scholars (such as in the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba) to refer to Scotland during its earlier period under the Pictish kings. A better term would indeed be Pictish, as it's a term (as Picti, painted) that dates back to Roman times, and the historical character leading this faction, King Áed mac Cináeda, was the king of the Picts, not the king of Circnen or Alba. Cinaeda was just his dad's name, he was Áed, son of Cináeda, not Áed, king of Cináeda.

Hi Streety,

Thanks for the contribution but you seem to have misunderstood. The term Welsh, is an Anglo centric one - as you mentioned yourself it was an Anglo-Saxon catch all for the inhabitants of these islands. And as the category within this game covers more than just the Brythonic factions within the area of what is modern day Wales, the term Welsh is less suitable than Brittonic/Brythonic. Obviously if the only playable factions in the game were Anglo Saxon, your suggestion would be more appropriate.

Again you misunderstood with regards to my complaints about "Alban" not "Alba". Firstly the origins of the word Alba are not exactly clear, and while Albion is a worthwhile suggestion, it is just speculation - but as this is a game, that doesn't bother me. It is worth noting however that for all we know, Alba may have been a name used by the Picts to refer to themselves which would go someway to explaining its eventual use for Scotland. "Alban" is a nothing word, like a nickname for Alba (usually Gaelic words with an "an" added to end sybmolises something small eg. "little Scotland"). Again, using Pictish is problematic because you are simply taking what the Romans called them to being their name. Similar to the calling of all Brythonic peoples "Welsh". It's also likely that there were several kings of the Pictish at any one time so using a blanket term like Pict would have meant the other kingdoms (represented in game as Athfocla and Fortriu) would have been left hanging.