A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia

I'm writing this review specifically because of the Historical Total War sales going on today.
This game caught a lot of flak upon release, and while some of that was warranted, I believe it was mostly a case of expectations being too high which will almost always lead to disappointment. It is probably the most straight forward Total War, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a more streamlined Total War game, which allows for more battles, and shorter campaigns; Thrones of Brittania (ToB) is perfect for you. Not to mention if you're a fan of the time period, but if that's the case you've probably already bought the game.
Here are my Pros when comparing ToB with the other Historical Total Wars:
-Possibly has the best siege battles, with a ton of unique siege maps that can make for really epic and interesting battles
-Has 8 distinct factions that all play quite differently, allowing for fairly decent replayability
-The campaign map is gorgeous
-Has "short campaign" victory conditions, allowing for shorter campaigns that can still feel satisfying, and not at all drawn out/tedious (unlike essentially every other Historical Total War, save for maybe Shogun 2)
-Yet it also has the "ultimate campaign" victory conditions, which plays out as probably the best end game (again save for maybe Shogun 2). Although it's unlikely you'd play this long of a campaign too often, as it can be tedious to get to this point.
-The focus on food as a resource and the recruitment system plays out much better to me. Wiping out an enemy army actually has an impact, and you'll rarely want to disband troops in the early game. This is in contrast to games like Rome 2 and Attila where I always found myself going back and fourth from times of conquest, then disbanding all my non-elite armies, and focusing on the economy.
I'm not going to list any cons because IMO there's not really anything wrong with this game that wasn't already wrong with Rome 2 or Attila. It is a slightly different take compared to those two, but I think the changes they are all positive (okay, except for maybe the estates system).
In conclusion, I'd highly recommend getting this game now that it's 66% off and try putting all the negative reviews you've heard about it out of your mind. Give yourself a chance to have some fun with it.
Although if you don't have Rome 2 or Attila yet, at 75% off, you'll get SIGNIFICANTLY more content buying those games.
On top of that, Age of Charlemagne and Rise of the Republic are probably the best Historical Total War DLCs we've had in a long time. They'd also have great content/dollar ratio. Grab em if you haven't already done so.
All that being said, if you never gave ToB a chance because of all the negative reviews, now's a great time to do so. (if you've already bought most of the other Historical Total War content...). Although I should note that I've yet to play 3 Kingdoms, so if money ain't no thang, probably try that out first.

I hated this game at first but after giving it a chance it has become one of my favourite Total War games.
My primary frustration with the game was that, unlike most other TW games, you have to consider two resources when recruiting units: your units cost BOTH money AND food. Now, this may be more realistic- starving soldiers can't eat gold coins, I guess- but it makes ToB into arguably the most difficult game in what is already a hardcore series within the strategy genre.
The problem is not simply one of having an extra resource to worry about - if it were just that, one would quickly get used to the new mechanic and merely have to remember to check food surplus levels before spamming the recruit button - but that this unfamiliar dual requirement combines with other changes to the core game mechanics to produce situations that are exceptionally difficult to recover from.
In particular, the fact that only provincial capitals have garrisons really exacerbates the impact of the new food mechanic; because typically your primary food production buildings will be located in the minor settlements, which there is no way to defend efficiently (because they never get a garrison and there is no way to build walls there either) beyond parking an actual army there (which trust me, you will be even less able to afford in ToB than other TW instalments, because of the food mechanic in particular). And so every settlement in the game that is not a provincial capital (i.e. the vast majority of them) can be captured at any time without resistance.
The predictable result is that you will often lose a settlement or two during the AI turn to an AI invasion that you didn't see coming (the absence of agents from this game - a change I actually like - makes unforeseen incursions especially likely); and if that settlement contained a big chunk of your food production, you may start the next round with a big food deficit.
Maybe this makes for a fun challenge: simply reconquer the lost settlement and food production will be restored, right? Well yes: that is exactly what you should endeavour to do; and if you have no armies at all in the vicinity, then I guess one could fairly ask, why are you investing in all these farm buildings and failing to protect your investment?
But in practice you often won't be able to retake the lost food settlement immediately (perhaps because you have no adequate army nearby) which will leave you with the choice of whether to recruit further (driving your food deficit even further into the red, possibly risking rebellion somewhere in your kingdom) or whether to accept your losses, disband some existing units to balance your food level once more and hope to get revenge at some future point.
I personally don't (now) have a problem with these moments: actually they make for quite dramatic and interesting situations where I have had to agonize for minutes over what I should do. But whether you agree that these situations make for a 'fun dilemma' or not will be the biggest single factor in whether you grow to respect and enjoy ToB, or whether you give up on it at that point. Judging by the reviews, many people couldn't get past the perceived unfairness of such predicaments; and who am I to say that they are wrong, not least because I nearly gave up at that point too!
The real problem I have with this design choice is it is so unforgiving: if you make the 'wrong' choice (to disband units when short of food, and not reconquer lost food settlements) you will quickly end up in a 'Catch-22' situation, where you have lost your campaign without realising it or, for newer players, perhaps ever quite understanding why. If you get into a situation where you can't recruit because you have no food and can't conquer food because you have no units then really it may be best to chalk up that campaign to experience and start afresh, but not everyone thinks that way: many players expect to succeed at their first attempt (even on higher difficulties) and wounded pride results in harsh reviews.
It doesn't help that you can't simply 'buy' food from friendly factions (subsequently a welcome innovation in Total War Three Kingdoms, I gather): it is especially frustrating to be rolling in cash, late-game, but starving because apparently early medieval Britain hasn't learnt that the whole point of currency is that it can be exchanged for goods and services!
The revised recruitment system also takes some getting used to for veteran TW players: until now, provided you had enough cash, you could simply 'buy' a unit and it would appear, ready to fight, next turn; but in ToB (and I believe, 3K) a freshly-recruited unit starts off greatly depleted and takes several turns to reach full strength. This is no doubt a more realistic approximation of how units were raised in medieval times, and ultimately doesn't prevent you from sending your 'unfinished' units into battle prematurely.
I guess you could say, the delay between recruiting a unit and having it at full strength will reward players who think several turns ahead; but these changes will also have annoyed many players who were comfortable with the established mechanic of simply 'purchasing' a unit 'off the peg'.
Another consequence of food being such a limiting factor in army recruitment is that it will often be better to disband units who are not where you presently need them, and simply recruit a fresh army nearer to the action ('Thrones of Disbanding'ya'...?). Sure, it won't be at full strength for several turns, but the revised recruiting system does allow the player a lot of flexibility: subject to having sufficient cash and food (and available manpower, i.e. you haven't recruited too much recently), you can potentially raise a twenty-unit army (albeit in an initially depleted state) in a single turn, so it's not like all the changes are restrictive: ToB allows you to do some things that would have been impossible in earlier TWs even with full coffers.
ToB's restrictive mechanics often result in situations that are both dramatic and authentic, as in real life, where Harold Godwin had to decide whether to fight Harald Hardraada or William of Normandy first, because he could only afford one army (or didn't trust any of his nobles to lead one?). So in many ways, the developers have succeeded in creating a TW game more authentic and challenging even than previous TWs.
Some further positives about the game: the art style is uniquely beautiful, evidently drawing upon contemporary works such as the Book of Kells and making each portrait into a work of art.
The campaign map feels large (similarly to the Japan-only setting of Shogun 2) and the battlefield maps are spacious and resemble rural Britain.
No agents (yay!), naval combat mostly avoidable (yay!), no substantive DLC (no extra content you really need to buy).
Unit variety within each faction is decent (e.g. Northumbria features ten different types of axe unit) and the unit variety between the few 'races' makes them feel different to fight.
Some further negatives: the 'traits' system (lifted from CK2?) feels overwhelming at times even if there is a logic underpinning it, and the random 'events' come so thick and fast that they feel arbitrary rather than special.
Nobles are often absurdly disloyal from the outset and managing the estates system to remedy that fact is a hassle (albeit one with which feudal rulers were no doubt familiar!). My advice: always keep 1k gold handy for emergency assassinations or just desperado the least loyal into the nearest doomstack...
TLDR:
DO buy it if you are an experienced TW player comfortable with learning new mechanics;
OR if you have a particular liking for the Anglo-Saxon/Viking era setting;
DON'T buy it if you feel TW games are already verging on 'too difficult' or if you are simply looking for a 'reskinned' iteration of the standard TW formula/mechanics in a different setting.

This game released badly, like Rome 2. I can most definitely say it has improved since then. If you are a Total War fan who is doubtful about this game, don't be! It is well worth the asking price. It has a much different feel to other TW games, being more concerned with being true to the time period. The result is the game favours a slower, more methodical playstyle, managing your food, gold, recruitment, loyalty and public order to build the best shieldwall of meaty bearded men to crush your enemies shieldwall of meaty bearded men.
The AI functions well both on and off the battlefield. The siege battles are definitely the highlight (look up a youtube video if you are curious) with fantastic city designs. Infantry is king in this game, as it was in the time period, and you can no longer wipe out an enemy stack with a General's Bodyguard and 2 Mailed Knights. Having built up a strong army before the battle even begins, attacking when the enemy is weak, and taking advantage of terrain and cavalry/archer positioning is key to winning the infantry grind.
The economic aspect of the game supports the slower style of play in this game. With you needing to manage your food and public order (these two gave me the most trouble anyway) to stop your realm splintering into rebellion expansion is a bit slower. The economic management isn't the best in a TW game, but it works well for the game and I enjoyed it.
Overall, for TW fans, it is fun, offers a good challenge, really brings the time period to life, and feels different enough to other TW games that you aren't just playing an inferior version of an existing title.
If you are looking for your first Total War title, I suggest Shogun 2 (vanilla not Fall of the Samurai) or Rome 2 to get a better idea of what the series is like,and come back to this game when you want something different.

Thrones of Britannia was pretty widely criticized upon release by many total war veterans and the game itself received many negative and lukewarm reviews by well known total war Youtubers, such as Legend of Total War. Despite this, Thrones of Britannia is not a bad game, its just not a great one. At its essence, Thrones of Britannia is a stripped down version of most total war titles with a far greater focus on unique faction story lines and battles and far less focus on other traditional parts of the total war campaign. There are no agents and province customization ,in the form of unique settlements, is extremely limited and province edicts are nonexistent. While this may be somewhat historical to Viking age Britain, conquering parts of the map for financial gain and province development, an aspect present in virtually every other total war game, simply doesn't have any role in Thrones of Britannia.
Every faction has a unique mechanic that essentially guides a player's strategy. The viking sea kingdoms must essentially always be at war to ensure that the "plunder bar" does not drop below a certain level and generals and armies lose loyalty and melee attack if this happens. The Irish Kingdom of Mide, similarly, must expand and control "cultural lands" and take back land from Irish invaders to ensure that the Kingdom retains legitimacy and the loyalty of its troops and lords. The paradox of this is that the game tries to promote expansion and constant war but hamstrings the player from actually expanding and building up an army. All units that are recruited cost 10 food, which means that the player must own and upgrade their farms before recruiting a large army. All units when recruited begin at about 33% strength and must replenish overtime, in a process that can take 5 to 10 turns depending on the replenishment rate. While in theory this represents the traditional mustering of a viking society, the last I checked, it did not take a peasant or lord's retinue 2 years to cross 50 to 100 miles of a lord's realm on foot or horse. This makes it extremely frustrating for a player that has to expand but doesn't have the troops or farms to do so. Generals, statesmen, and Governors' loyalty to the faction leader often drops overtime and to avoid a rebellion the faction leader is often forced to give up influence, grant estates, or resort to assassination. While this has the potential to be an interesting game play addition, it falls short by embroiling the player in tedious political management that feels out of place for a game with so many other features that are stripped down or lacking. Public order, for example, is far from intuitive and unlike Rome 2, there is no clear breakdown of what is affecting public order beyond vague terms such as "allegiance", "buildings", and "characters". Essentially the player has very little idea what is affecting public order and only a vague notion of how to fix it. There are also no garrisons in minor towns in the game and the AI will also continuously run away from you to attack your undefended farms causing revolts and desertion in your armies because troops lack food. This is extremely frustrating when you have reduced a faction to their last settlement and their one unit general army evades your army to take all of your farms.
Despite glaring problems, the battles and the battle maps in the game are very fun , and CA did a great job of creating fun unique factions in a time period where there was little difference between an Anglo Saxon army and a Viking one. As somebody else put it, if any other studio had made this game other than CA and total war, this would be considered a really good game. Unfortunately, expectations were clearly not reached with this title. For a game designed to meet a very niche market (veteran total war players with an interest in the viking era) CA stripped out a lot of the content and gave areas that were already problematic from previous titles (such as politics) an out sized role. For anyone who is a total war fan, I recommend this game, but please buy it on sale, have an interest in the era, and play it with low expectations. I really wish CA would just make a Shogun 2 version of every new total war game. I consider Shogun 2 to be the apogee, although far from perfect, of all total war titles. Unfortunately, by attempting to appeal to everyone, CA may end of appealing to no one, especially veteran total war fans. That being said, still give this title a chance if you haven't, maybe it will surprise you.

Good game, play it. Especially if you like this period of history. Uhtred of Bebbanburg (Bernard Cornwall) Saxon Chronicles (The Last Kingdom on Netflix. The books are the best though!)

The amount of negativity some people are pushing here is just ridiculous. These people were complaining that; "this is like Attila with some differences WTF this is not really a new Total War game!?" - and these people are just confused: this was never meant to be anything else than a sideshow (a spin-off, if you will) of the mainstay Total War series, and that it makes use of existing engine from Attila is just fine. To stress the point; Total War Saga is meant to be a sideshow of the mainstay series that uses existing engine to offer smaller campaign in sense that it focuses on a relatively small region in a more limited time period - but this allows the campaign map to be more focused with lots of settlements, so it really isn't that small despite being set only in Britain and Ireland - it is for people who want something Total War to play besides a full-blown mainstay Total War game, and I like that. Many people have asked for Total War games being set in that time and place and that time and place - but making full-blown games like that for all those settings would be difficult - smaller gamer, on the other hand, are very possible.
There's nothing inherently wrong here. Actual battles on the battlefield mode play out very much like they do in Attila, which is to be excepted, but things are different on the campaign map: as stated, the game makes use of assets from Attila (which by itself is a very good game), but also adds new things, with politics being vastly improved, reflecting on the nature of Feudal politics with you as the Feudal overlord having to "play the game" with those below you in the Feudal system. The game's army management is also different, since this is the time of Feudalism in the early Middle Ages, and armies being raised took a toll on the Feudal system.
Visually the game's very nice. The game is based on Attila (which still looks good to this day), and Thrones of Britannia improves upon that with more details and effects: it is not Three Kingdoms detail (again; it is not supposed to be), but is looks nice. The game's audio is just great, with good voice acting that includes various different accents and music (my favorite being the Welsh).
If you want a sideshow Total War game that isn't trying to completely reinvent the wheel but adds some new things based on an existing model (Attila), then this is for you. There's a lot of playability here for both old and new players. I highly recommend it and I'm looking forward to the next Total War Saga game.

Currently own about 80% of all total war games. Thrones of Britannia still does not fail to impress me, although the map is quite small for my liking. Also, I hope that SEGA and CA makes a LOTR total war for all the LOTR fans out there . Cheers