While it's usually best to visit a Total War game after a few months of patches, some of Creative Assembly's work is still pretty good out of the box. So, how is Thrones of Britannia doing?
Something that's always been a bit perplexing to me has been the way Total War handles army stacks. For a game that keeps trying to mimic as much of historical warfare (minus the Warhammer series, obviously), the principle that you could just immediately muster another army in the next turn seemed ... excessively game-y.
And while games have to take plenty of liberties for the sake of fun - the Nintendo devs made this point at GDC when explaining systems like how Link could launch boulders in Breath of the Wild - army recruitment always seemed like something that should be shaken up.
So the effect of losing a general or, god forbid, a king is welcome if only for the impact it has on your troops. The limit on higher tier units makes a lot of sense too, and refocuses a bit of attention on the battle. Being able to recruit units anywhere on the map is a good quality of life change as well, even though in practice you're still waiting a few turns (because you have to wait before those recruits are at full strength).
Other changes are a bit strange: changing the public order system so it represents a chance that rebellion might occur - meaning a slight dip into the red could result in a revolt - doesn't sound great. And while the inclusion of food upkeep for standing forces makes a lot of sense, it also means you can abuse the hell out of the AI by doubling down on conquering their sources of food production, making the rest of the campaign a cakewalk.
Conversely, there's 10 factions at launch and Creative Assembly's love of history is on full display. The game is also a lot more streamlined, although for some that might veer too close to being oversimplified, such as the automated trade routes.
But what do you think, especially if you enjoyed Total War: Atilla? Is Britannia worth conquering all over again?