A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia

1. dlmdarkfire

   May 3, 2018

   10

   As a guy with 386 hours on attila i can easily say that everyone saying "this is an attila rip off" is wrong
   
   There's so many new mechanicsAs a guy with 386 hours on attila i can easily say that everyone saying "this is an attila rip off" is wrong
   
   There's so many new mechanics and old mechanics brought back from the old games. The new village system is great, the new recruitment system reminds me of the good old days of medieval 2. The battles are rather similar to attila, but that's also the only similarity between the 2 games
   
   over all, a great new adition to the series… Expand

   • 16 of 35 users found this helpful
2. Talmanes

   May 3, 2018

   9

   A solid entry into the series and one that introduces some very welcome features, particularly considering it's a saga title and not aA solid entry into the series and one that introduces some very welcome features, particularly considering it's a saga title and not a mainline entry. To start with, positives in no particular order:
   
   - The campaign map is absolutely gorgeous. It's huge and detailed.
   - The new recruitment mechanics make armies a lot more interesting. No elites on demand, you actually have to think through what units you're going to recruit and when, as they take several turns to fully muster. Elite and retinue units actually feel valuable now.
   - The soundtrack is really immersive
   - The period appropriate art style works really well. The main menu background is beautiful
   - The siege battle maps are some of the best I've seen in any Total War game
   - No stupid AI refusing trade agreements. These are now automatic if you're at peace and have a connection between your capitals. Very welcome.
   - New province system is an interesting design choice. The lack of garrisons in minor settlements requires you think a bit more strategically about where you build up and where you station your armies. This can only be a good thing.
   - No agents! I always found these a chore in previous titles so glad to see them gone.
   - I like the added emphasis on generals/governors and 'followers' (basically a skill tree). A general's bodyguard unit size will increase with his command skill which is a really nice touch.
   - Narrative events are a welcome addition
   
   Negatives/Less good things
   
   - No ambush battles
   - No forced march. I don't really mind, but it is missing
   - No building trees. All buildings are linear upgrades. I like choice.
   - AI has good moments but it also has bad moments. Same as any Total War game
   - Some clipping issues occasionally and collision isn't always particularly satisfying. Sometimes it works really well though.
   
   All in all a really refreshing experience.
   
   Besides, it's £30, compared to the £150 I've spent on the Warhammer Total War titles. Yet I fully expect to get as many hours out of this. Highly recommended.… Expand

   • 10 of 25 users found this helpful
4. Gibbonici

   May 5, 2018

   8

   I've played most of the Total War games and this one is a worthy addition to the series. It took a bit of getting used to after the truly epicI've played most of the Total War games and this one is a worthy addition to the series. It took a bit of getting used to after the truly epic scale of the Warhammer ones and Empire (I'm a sucker for 18th Century history and have played that one to absolute death), but once you get the hang of it there's a surprising amount of depth that comes with the scale. There are various vital mechanics regarding your generals that would be way too micro-managey in a larger scale game.
   
   Historically, the game is a pretty good depiction of late 9th century Britain, with the various factions occupying the right places and feeling as they should as you play them. There is a Welsh faction in Scotland, which seems a bit weird, but I guess that's a nod to the linguistically different Celts (the Brythonic speakers rather than the later-arriving Gaelic speakers).
   
   One thing that I've had issue with in a lot of Total War games is that the battles can get a bit formulaic. In Empire, for example, your formations are usually the same (musket in the middle, artillery on the flanks and cavalry on you far flanks) with little scope for variety, which means your battles play out more or less the same each time. I had similar issues with Medieval 2 and the Romes, but maybe that's just how I played them out.
   
   With Thrones of Britannia, there are nine standard deployments you can use and customise from, and so far I've found a very distinct use for each one depending on terrain, numbers and the type of opposing army. Similarly, there seems to be quite a lot of tactical variety in how you can play your battles out, and the timing and targets of your charges and counter-charges can win or lose a battle.
   
   It is a very big departure from the epic, OTT battles and strategies of the Warhammer games, and there seems to be a lot more nuance in the way that Thrones plays out. I can see how that would throw a lot of players, especially when you have to consider the loyalty and influence of your generals as well as the usual happiness in your provinces. Managing these elements are probably more important in the strategic layer than getting your production and technology chains built.
   
   I've also read a lot of complaints about missing mechanics, but the mechanics that are there (including the new ones) are there to reflect the social and military orders of the time. 9th century society wasn't anything like as organised as the Roman or feudal periods, and this becomes a natural part of the way the game plays.
   
   As a game set in a relatively small area with varied factional goals, cultures and internal intrigues, Thrones of Britannia works and plays well. In terms of pure gameplay it's not the best Total War game to date (say what you like but I have to give that to the Mortal Empires campaign in Warhammer 2), but as a serious historical game set in an interesting period, it's definitely up there - especially if you're bit of a history nerd.… Expand

   • 4 of 12 users found this helpful
5. GarethB

   Nov 11, 2018

   6

   Moderately enjoyable for awhile, but the small map and lack of challenge meant that I finished it rapidly and haven't really gone back to it,Moderately enjoyable for awhile, but the small map and lack of challenge meant that I finished it rapidly and haven't really gone back to it, when it is competing with warhammer 2 for my time. Hopefully a Roman invasion of Britannia mod full conversion comes along soon.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
6. Redrusty66

   May 7, 2018

   4

   As usual, "Critics" are idiots who know nothing about the genre they review...same with movies most of the time. This game is horrible, bare,As usual, "Critics" are idiots who know nothing about the genre they review...same with movies most of the time. This game is horrible, bare, simplified to appeal to the simpletons of this day and age it seems. CA is still milking this game engine and franchise for all they can, as with most other companies that turn into greedy sharks as opposed to actual game developers who care about their games. As of now, with TWW and TWW2 barely being pretty enjoyable, it looks as though you may as well go back from TWW2 and never buy another of CA/Sega's games. Add to that the fact they included that SCAM called "Denuvo" and you've got a super stick bomb as it deserves.… Expand

   • 10 of 16 users found this helpful
7. juliiouse

   May 3, 2018

   3

   I'm not one to give kneejerk reviews to any products: I feel it's a little insulting given the amount of time a developer puts into a newI'm not one to give kneejerk reviews to any products: I feel it's a little insulting given the amount of time a developer puts into a new release. I normally spend a few weeks formulating an opinion on something before finally publishing my opinion, but Thrones of Britannia has left an extremely sour taste in my mouth, not least because I am an avid Total War fan and booked the day off work to play this. So here we are, seven hours later.
   
   The central issue here is that the Total War series is one of incremental steps: as the games are released, certain aspects of the campaign and battle mechanics get modified, removed, dummied out etc. The problem with Thrones of Britannia is that it removes many previous features without bringing anything new or interesting to the table to replace them.
   
   This is especially irritating following my gripe with Warhammer I & II's campaigns being a little shallow: the justification in that case is that the races and factions featured in the game are so diverse and different from each other that many of the usual Total War campaign features wouldn't really work for many of them, and to develop specialised campaign mechanics that have the depth of Atilla for each faction would be a massive ask. Thrones of Britannia does not have this justification. The narrow lack of breadth in the game (focusing solely on the British Isles in the latter half of the 9th Century AD) should have allowed for an immense amount of mechanical depth the likes of which Total War has never seen, but there is none of this here. Many features are either directly copied or dummied out versions of what we saw in Atilla.
   
   The closest the game gets to true innovation is to feature historically accurate settlements and structures on the map, such as churches, farming communities and towns in the state they were back in the period. The issue with this is that it removes much of the variety the previous games afforded in building settlements. A market town will always be a market town and a church settlement will always be a church settlement. The closest comparison to this game is either Medieval I's Viking Invasion or the base game version of Shogun II Total War-- Viking invasion because it focuses on the same area a few centuries before, and Shogun II because it focuses on a race to the throne on a single island: in both cases, these games took advantage of their narrow scope and allowed for a great deal of depth and strategic planning to settlements. In Viking Invasion, you can opt to not even build a settlement at all and leave the region for farming or defence, and in Shogun II you can manage your food to have bustling economic centres at the heart of your clan's territories and strong troop production centres at the edges. Thrones of Britannia offers none of this, which is especially frustrating when a faction you know is going to attack you decides to and you're forced to concede land to them because that's how the settlements are set up.
   
   Character development and faction management feels worse: the skills tree has been replaced with a far messier looking retinue system and characters feel significantly less personal for it. For a game about roleplaying your own early medieval British dynasty, I felt extremely disconnected with my faction and it's characters: ignore the usual issue of forgetting who your heirs are, most the time I couldn't even remember my faction name without mousing over a settlement. Even in lategame Shogun II, I could remember the name of my finest generals, the towns they'd defended and the members of my increasingly messed up clan, but there is none of this here. It wouldn't be too strong to say that the characters feel like those pointless figures that show up in Rome II's politics tab.
   
   Battles are pretty much the same as they were in Atilla. Things feel a little faster paced in places but the game does little to capture the precise point in time that the game is aiming to portray. The shield wall is interesting enough, but given that it can't move, it's basically just a version of the one in Atilla but more restrictive. The AI is also extremely suicidal. It's happy to rush the heaviest part of my line with light cavalry and it has no the consideration for the safety of ranged/artillery units.
   
   Ultimately, the game is functional other than the odd bug, so how can I justify not just aiming for a middle of the road 5? Because the game abjectly fails to achieve any of it's objectives or justify it's existence in the series. It doesn't utilise the era very well, doesn't feel distinct from Atilla and doesn't feel any deeper than the fantasy games.
   
   Ultimately, this is a very sad outing for Total War and a pretty terrible showcase for their new "Saga" project, which I a shame because I was interested in narrow focus games.
   
   My only hope to the game in it's current state is that Steam will waive their usual two hours refund clause for me.… Expand

   • 17 of 24 users found this helpful
8. Adi321

   Sep 20, 2020

   0

   Without doubt the worst game of all Total War games. The game has no deep, the interface and graphic design is horrible and 40€ for this trashWithout doubt the worst game of all Total War games. The game has no deep, the interface and graphic design is horrible and 40€ for this trash is a joke!… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful

See all 41 User Reviews