• ?Good vs Bad – Thrones of Britannia – Community Review

    First: I do not own the game. Maybe I’ll pick it up when steam gives it a 75% discount, but no sooner than that.

    Everything I write is based on gameplay videos. I put the battles in a separate comment, since I can only choose 1 label.

    Get the bad things out of the way.

    1. No culture, so no dealing with converting the religion/culture of a province. It was a huge part since at least medieval2. And as much effort as it take, it gave depth to the campaign, more things to consider, or deal with. Removing it just makes the campaign a lot more dull.
    2. No agents. While the agent spam by the AI is more, than annoying, getting rid of them completely is just not the way to go. I’d like to scout out a territory, or harass an army somehow to give me the edge in a tight situation.
    3. No growth/population system. Just more dumbing down of the campaign. Or streamlining, if that’s the polcorrect word for it – but dumbing down is much more accurate.
    4. No army stances beside encamp and normal move. since medieval2, we always had at least an ambush possibility, even if it was not a stance set by the player. Why remove it? My opinion: simply dumbing down.

    There are also good things in the campaign:
    1. Tech tree and research. Thumbs up, I like the way it works.
    2. Missions/decisions/events. Nice touch, gives some variety, and this game desperately needs it.
    3. Recruitment system. Should have made it no.1 in the good list, because this is probably the best change they made. It does slow down the campaign, but it makes you think twice, when and where you want to recruit your new army. I’d go one step further and instead of a global recruitment, I’d combine it with a local recruitment system (like anything before WH), maybe even the warhammer-style local/global recruitment, but keeping the low troop count and replenishment over several turns.
    4. Automatic trade.

    The “haven’t decided yet” greyzone:
    Settlement system. It has pros and cons, that pretty much even out the balance.
    1. Only one building in a minor settlement. No variety, more “streamlining”, AKA dumbing down.
    2. No garrison at all. While we had a very similar system in Empire and Napoleon, I got used to them having at least a couple of units.
    1. Minor settlements are crucial, that makes you want to/have to defend them if possible.
    2. Strategic possibilities of depriving the enemy of it’s economical back by taking the minor settlements.

    And finally there are the usual Attila features with loyalty and family tree and things like that, which are basically the same.

    Overall the bad things outweigh the good things by a large margin in the campaign. The Battles compensate to a degree, but not enough to pay about 30-35 EUR.