Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia

[fantadomat]

No navies - Pardon my lack of education on the subject, but who had any navy to speak of in that region, in that period? Any known cases of naval battles around the 9th century British isles?

Hmmmm the guys that sailed from their homeland to raid pillage and rape....on their longboats....that were able to go up the rivers and thus giving them an advantage. Vikings are kind of infamous about their seafaring skills.

Religions & Cultures - I can live with that. In the game's timespan it doesn't make sense to have big shifts in religion and culture of whole regions. Also, this is a map of the British isles only. Do you see it as more realistic to shift the culture of one shitty village without causing any change to the neighbouring villages? It's implausible, because of the size and scale of the campaign map. Think of it this way - if you win the grand campaign, that's when cultural and religious changes actually begin.

Well religion and culture are always important thing. You have a Norse pagan conquering Christians and in the north you have the Picts with their pagan religion. Also it is always satisfactory to see your religion cover the map.


The game will most certainly be total garbage and it will have zero effort to make it interesting experience set in that time. If anyone likes to play interesting game set in this time period,then he should get Expedition:Viking a far superior game.

https://af.gog.com/game/expeditions_viking?as=1649904300

http://store.steampowered.com/app/445190/Expeditions_Viking/

 

[AwesomeButton]

Viking raiders doesn't equal "a navy" in the sense of an arm commanded by a state.

Ok, they conquer them and what's next? In 6 months everyone turns a little more pagan than they were? I don't see this mechanic making much sense. If anything, the vikings would have to turn less and less pagan, but this would take generations.

You should not be able to convert the map to your religion in the span of 50 years.

I would have preferred it if there were religious and culture stats which were set in stone and remained constant, but lack of any region and culture stats which can be altered still seems more realistic than being able to paint the map.

I have Expeditions Viking on my wishlist.

 

[fantadomat]

Viking raiders doesn't equal "a navy" in the sense of an arm commanded by a state.

Ok, they conquer them and what's next? In 6 months everyone turns a little more pagan than they were? I don't see this mechanic making much sense. If anything, the vikings would have to turn less and less pagan, but this would take generations.

You should not be able to convert the map to your religion in the span of 50 years.

I would have preferred it if there were religious and culture stats which were set in stone and remained constant, but lack of any region and culture stats which can be altered still seems more realistic than being able to paint the map.

I have Expeditions Viking on my wishlist.

If we are talking about history then yes,but in TW you are able to convert shit relatively fast. It would have been nice there was the optio convert people by the sword and bring more vikings to replace the local populace. Also the modern day Scotland and Ireland had some cultural and religious similarities with the Norse. The game is supposed to be a sandbox set in historical setting. The biggest appeal of such a game is the option to change the world if you are good enough. In this game all you can do is just beat rebels and conquer shit to become great Britain a few centuries earlier. It is a shallow game at best.

On the navy i do agree,still the system should have been changed not deleted.

 

[mbv123]

This title is literally just filler to satisfy the history autists while they work on the Dynasty Warriors Total War and Warhammer 3 which will bring them the big bucks.
Expect them just to release it and forget about it. I think it's obvious they put minimal effort in it whatsoever since it looks like a simplified Attila mini campaign.

 

[fantadomat]

This title is literally just filler to satisfy the history autists while they work on the Dynasty Warriors Total War and Warhammer 3 which will bring them the big bucks

Dynasty warrior is better History game than this shit.... at least for me. The setting is not that interesting in my opinion.

 

[Mark Richard]

This title is literally just filler to satisfy the history autists while they work on the Dynasty Warriors Total War and Warhammer 3 which will bring them the big bucks

Dynasty warrior is better History game than this shit.... at least for me. The setting is not that interesting in my opinion.

The Saxon Stories are a popular series of books set in the same time period, and The Last Kingdom television series is based off those books. Generations of people brought up in the ruins of a forgotten civilisation since the Roman withdrawal, a younger religion supplanting the old, and a seafaring barbarian horde annexing a huge portion of land. Seems like an excellent setting to tell a story.

 

[fantadomat]

This title is literally just filler to satisfy the history autists while they work on the Dynasty Warriors Total War and Warhammer 3 which will bring them the big bucks

Dynasty warrior is better History game than this shit.... at least for me. The setting is not that interesting in my opinion.

The Saxon Stories are a popular series of books set in the same time period, and The Last Kingdom television series is based off those books. Generations of people brought up in the ruins of a forgotten civilisation since the Roman withdrawal, a younger religion supplanting the old, and a seafaring barbarian horde annexing a huge portion of land. Seems like an excellent setting to tell a story.

Every country have its books and stories about historical periods,that doesn't meant that every person on earth should give two shits about it. In the time of the three kingdoms there were battles with more casualties than the population of Britania. Also the one is a bunch of border skirmishes that ended with the solidification of a few kingdoms,while the other is a war waged for around a century by three empires.

Also i never heard about the books and the show. When i see another one of pseudo historical sex and violence shit i just ignore it.

 

[mbv123]

This title is literally just filler to satisfy the history autists while they work on the Dynasty Warriors Total War and Warhammer 3 which will bring them the big bucks

Dynasty warrior is better History game than this shit.... at least for me. The setting is not that interesting in my opinion.

The Saxon Stories are a popular series of books set in the same time period, and The Last Kingdom television series is based off those books. Generations of people brought up in the ruins of a forgotten civilisation since the Roman withdrawal, a younger religion supplanting the old, and a seafaring barbarian horde annexing a huge portion of land. Seems like an excellent setting to tell a story.

Let's be honest here - literally NO ONE except bunch of inbred yellow teeth'd bongs care about this period

 

[Mark Richard]

Every country have its books and stories about historical periods,that doesn't meant that every person on earth should give two shits about it. In the time of the three kingdoms there were battles with more casualties than the population of Britania. Also the one is a bunch of border skirmishes that ended with the solidification of a few kingdoms,while the other is a war waged for around a century by three empires.

If everyone's interest in history was measured in bodies, World War II would be all that matters.

 

[mbv123]

But WW2 is the most popular period. Even the biggest casual knows about Hitler and the Nazis.

 

[fantadomat]

Every country have its books and stories about historical periods,that doesn't meant that every person on earth should give two shits about it. In the time of the three kingdoms there were battles with more casualties than the population of Britania. Also the one is a bunch of border skirmishes that ended with the solidification of a few kingdoms,while the other is a war waged for around a century by three empires.

If everyone's interest in history was measured in bodies, World War II would be all that matters.

Yeah said the man promoting some show about butchering people. The hypocrisy is thick in you mate. Don't care about British history,it is boring and tedious,bunch of tribes killing each other for millennia and a few mad kings.

 

[Mark Richard]

But WW2 is the most popular period. Even the biggest casual knows about Hitler and the Nazis.

Oh the scale of a war is definitely a big contributing factor in determining which setting leads the pack when it comes to public interest, but that doesn't mean every other setting is worthless.

Every country have its books and stories about historical periods,that doesn't meant that every person on earth should give two shits about it. In the time of the three kingdoms there were battles with more casualties than the population of Britania. Also the one is a bunch of border skirmishes that ended with the solidification of a few kingdoms,while the other is a war waged for around a century by three empires.

If everyone's interest in history was measured in bodies, World War II would be all that matters.

Yeah said the man promoting some show about butchering people. The hypocrisy is thick in you mate. Don't care about British history,it is boring and tedious,bunch of tribes killing each other for millennia and a few mad kings.

I'm merely holding up a mirror to show how you're contradicting yourself. If your logic held true, nobody would care about the wars of The Three Kingdoms either because the scale was smaller than -insert war here-. I hate that bullshit mindset of diminishing the interest or importance of something because there's a bigger example around the corner, it's just a variation on the 'there are kids starving in Africa' line that people think wins arguments.

 

[fantadomat]

But WW2 is the most popular period. Even the biggest casual knows about Hitler and the Nazis.

Oh the scale of a war is definitely a big contributing factor in determining which setting leads the pack when it comes to public interest, but that doesn't mean every other setting is worthless.

Every country have its books and stories about historical periods,that doesn't meant that every person on earth should give two shits about it. In the time of the three kingdoms there were battles with more casualties than the population of Britania. Also the one is a bunch of border skirmishes that ended with the solidification of a few kingdoms,while the other is a war waged for around a century by three empires.

If everyone's interest in history was measured in bodies, World War II would be all that matters.

Yeah said the man promoting some show about butchering people. The hypocrisy is thick in you mate. Don't care about British history,it is boring and tedious,bunch of tribes killing each other for millennia and a few mad kings.

I'm merely holding up a mirror to show how you're contradicting yourself. If your logic held true, nobody would care about the wars of The Three Kingdoms either because the scale was smaller than -insert war here-. I hate that bullshit mindset of diminishing the interest or importance of something because there's a bigger example around the corner, it's just a variation on the 'there are kids starving in Africa' line that people think wins arguments.

Yeah mate,whatever,it is great moment of history that the whole world must care about. Now leave me be.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Don't be a dumbfuck, the history of the British Isles is central to the history of the West, and the West's history has been central to that of the world for the past 500 years.

 

[fantadomat]

Don't be a dumbfuck, the history of the British Isles is central to the history of the West, and the West's history has been central to that of the world for the past 500 years.

During the Victorian age,sure. But before that not that much. Certainly not during its tribal years.

 

[AwesomeButton]

True, not yet, but if you want to roleplay a viking, that's the time and place. And as we all know vikings bring $$$. They are the zombies of 2017.

Since I'm in the mood for weird period music:

 

[Maggot]

During the Victorian age,sure. But before that not that much. Certainly not during its tribal years.

Also tribal years lol.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Now you've done it. He will go on a medieval greatness rant.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Viking raiders doesn't equal "a navy" in the sense of an arm commanded by a state.

Nevertheless, the Great Heathen Army had dozens of ships, perhaps even hundreds. And during this period they were mostly united under a handful of major leaders. Guthrum, Hastein, maybe the semi mythical Ragnarson boys. They would have commanded unified squadrons of ships. Same goes for the Danish kings of Jorvik. So the Norse should absolutely have naval units.

As should everyone else. There's a reason Alfred the Great is widely regarded as the father of the English navy. He spent a fortune on warships and allegedly designed them himself; they were just as integral to the defense of Wessex as the construction of burhs. We have records of his naval battles in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle. No state in 9th century Britain could be safe unless it controlled its coastline. I agree with you about most of the stuff they stripped from the game, but they should've kept naval warfare.

http://www.hampshire-history.com/king-alfreds-navy/

 

[AwesomeButton]

They would have commanded unified squadrons of ships. Same goes for the Danish kings of Jorvik. So the Norse should absolutely have naval units.

Did they do sea battle with those naval units, and if yes with whom?

There was no significant naval combat, was there. Hence, no naval units. It's not the end of the world.

Alfred's attempt at building a naval force to ward off the Danes doesn't justify every faction in the game having naval units.

Unless you've started playing TW last year, you should be aware that the game abstracts away big parts of a ruler's toolset, as well as of its map features and the factions inhabiting it. Much bigger compromises have been made and are being made, than depriving Wessex of a few poor naval units which would serve no purpose but to be beaten by the Danes 90% of the time.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

There was, though. From the Anglo-Saxon chronicle:

A.D. 897. In the summer of this year went the army, some into East-Anglia, and some into Northumbria; and those that were penniless got themselves ships, and went south over sea to the Seine. The enemy had not, thank God. entirely destroyed the English nation; but they were much more weakened in these three years by the disease of cattle, and most of all of men; so that many of the mightiest of the king’s thanes. that were in the land, died within the three years. Of these. one was Swithulf Bishop of Rochester, Ceolmund alderman in Kent, Bertulf alderman in Essex, Wulfred alderman in Hampshire, Elhard Bishop of Dorchester, Eadulf a king’s thane in Sussex, Bernuff governor of Winchester, and Egulf the king’s horse-thane; and many also with them; though I have named only the men of the highest rank. This same year the plunderers in East-Anglia and Northumbria greatly harassed the land of the West-Saxons by piracies on the southern coast, but most of all by the esks which they built many years before.

Then King Alfred gave orders for building long ships against the esks, which were full-nigh twice as long as the others. Some had sixty oars, some more; and they were both swifter and steadier, and also higher than the others.

They were not shaped either after the Frisian or the Danish model, but so as he himself thought that they might be most serviceable. Then, at a certain turn of this same year, came six of their ships to the Isle of Wight; and going into Devonshire, they did much mischief both there and everywhere on the seacoast. Then commanded the king his men to go out against them with nine of the new ships, and prevent their escape by the mouth of the river to the outer sea. Then came they out against them with three ships, and three others were standing upwards above the mouth on dry land: for the men were gone off upon shore. Of the first three ships they took two at the mouth outwards, and slew the men; the third veered off, but all the men were slain except five; and they too were severely wounded. Then came onward those who manned the other ships, which were also very uneasily situated. Three were stationed on that side of the deep where the Danish ships were aground, whilst the others were all on the opposite side; so that none of them could join the rest; for the water had ebbed many furlongs from them. Then went the Danes from their three ships to those other three that were on their side, be-ebbed; and there they then fought.

There were slain Lucomon, the king’s reve, and Wulfheard, a Frieslander; Ebb, a Frieslander, and Ethelere, a Frieslander; and Ethelferth, the king’s neat-herd; and of all the men, Frieslanders and English, sixty-two; of the Danes a hundred and twenty. The tide, however, reached the Danish ships ere the Christians could shove theirs out; whereupon they rowed them out; but they were so crippled, that they could not row them beyond the coast of Sussex: there two of them the sea drove ashore; and the crew were led to Winchester to the king, who ordered them to be hanged. The men who escaped in the single ship came to East-Anglia, severely wounded. This same year were lost no less than twenty ships, and the men withal, on the southern coast. Wulfric, the king’s horse-thane, who was also viceroy of Wales, died the same year.

A longship with sixty oars has a crew of 70 or 80 men. Say 700 men from Wessex. That's a substantial number in the late ninth century. This was a significant battle. Naval warfare wasn't that sophisticated--everything was a boarding action--but its significance cannot be overstated. Once Alfred started denying the Danes his rivers and coastline, Wessex stopped being attacked.

I hope that even without naval combat, the game will still treat rivers as highways rather than obstacles. Would have been good to have ships in land battles, too, because burning the enemy's transportation was an effective and commonly used tactic.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I did say "significant naval combat" for a reason.

But ok, if the scale is similar in the game as it was historically, there is absolutely reason to implement ships for 2-3 factions, which will have fleet battles of 5-6-10 ships on each side. Because there were a few instances of ship to ship combat in the late 9th century.

Makes zero sense from game perspective but whatever.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

That was just from the first google hit and any fight with a thousand combatants is significant in 9th century Britain.

In 884 Alfred’s fleet captured 16 Danish longships in East Anglia, killed all the prisoners, then lost all of their new captures to a second Danish fleet on the way home. That’s the perfect size for a naval engagement in TW.

There was lots of ship to ship combat. The Danes were notorious pirates and the channel is a very good place to hunt for fat merchantmen. Aside from the great heathen army, nearly every single Norse or Danish incursion started with an amphibious landing. That was the Viking way of war. There are numerous instances in the chronicle of the Saxons challenging Danish landings. One time, under Ethelred the ill-advised, they let the Danes come ashore to have a fair fight; it did not end well (incidentally, a century after this game Ethelred built the largest navy in Europe to fight the Danes, only to lose to their superior seamanship). Fifty years before Thrones, King Egbert got his ass whooped on the beach at Carhampton, meeting 35 Danish longships. Given the scale of the map, being able to contest landings should be a thing in this game.

So yeah, it’s kind of crazy to make a game about this period with no naval combat. The Danes were only able to take the northern and central Saxon kingdoms because they controlled the sea and then the rivers. Same goes for their kingdom in Ireland. Presumably Alfred wasn’t the only British ruler building warships, but we don’t have a contemporary Hibernian chronicle and the chronicle of the kings of Alba is very short and probably incomplete.

 

[AwesomeButton]

You can have naval landings without naval combat. Regarding naval combat proper, you could have two factions with navies, though in my opinion that could easily be covered by armies transporting over water fighting it out in ships which would be with similar stats.

 

[Beowulf]

The largest naval battles happened between vikings themselves, and a century or two later, than the period in which the game starts.

English (lets call it that) navy was created with the sole purpose of discouraging viking raiding.
It's a concept hard to implement in a not boring way in a Total War game. It'd be perhaps better to just resolve it as some kind of a decision with +/- percentages to reinforcements or tribute.