Geat Campaign - Attila Chronicles

[Bramborough]

I'm not doing an AAR per se with this new campaign (Geats, Normal/Normal, vanilla). But I decided to explore the new Chronicles a bit further. My plan is to upload a "chapter" to the Chronicles every 15-20 turn or so. I'll use the turn-by-turn commentary feature; hopefully that will help tie all that data together with some overarching narrative. I'm also hopeful that posting in 3-5 year increments will be more digestible, rather than trying to wade through an entire campaign's worth of events.

So here's a link to the first chapter, covering 395-400AD. The Geats unite Scandza and begin expanding southward a little.

https://chronicles.totalwar.com/Bram.../chapter/14687

(btw, yes I did say in an earlier post today that I was going with something different like Sassanids or ERE. And I did even log into an ERE campaign to take a look at the starting situation. Heh, changed my mind and decided to go with one of the pre-Viking factions instead...).

[Bramborough]

Link to the 2nd installment. The Franks decide to raid in my territory; I was going to take them on pretty soon anyway. So war with the Franks and their Alamani buddies.

https://chronicles.totalwar.com/Bram.../chapter/14990

It turns out then when you upload a campaign to the Chronicles, you can't specify a different beginning date. The game uploads the entire campaign, beginning in 395AD, again...and of course doesn't include all the commentary you may have typed in the earlier version.

So this "chapter" contains all the previous 395-400AD data. The new commentary begins in Summer 400AD.

Rather clunky...and doesn't do much to increase my enthusiasm about the current version of the Chronicles. Hopefully they tinker with this thing some more.

[Paradigmatic]

As much as it's clunky, it looks very promising. I wouldn't hold my breath though, until the next total war game. CA is not Paradox.

Nice campaign btw. I'm starting a Burgundian one, maybe I should do the same

[Bramborough]

3rd installment. New commentary beginning in Spring 405AD, and goes through Fall 410AD. A short dust-up with the Saxons to unify Frisia, and then the FH goes on a long raid in Britain.

https://chronicles.totalwar.com/Bram.../chapter/15531

Gotta say, the AI is being unusually passive, even for Normal difficulty. Most of my neighbors are neutral or friendly, even the WRE seems quite happy with me. My few enemies do little more than stand still and take punches in the face. And I know it's because of geographic location, but I haven't even seen a Hun stack yet...they remain "Undiscovered" 15 years into the campaign.

[Bramborough]

Chapter IV. New commentary begins Winter 410AD, and runs through Spring 416AD. Four years of fighting results in Britannia Superior/Inferior incorporation into the kingdom.

https://chronicles.totalwar.com/Bram.../chapter/15886

Attila has its flaws; all TW games have...heck, all games do. CA/Sega have got plenty of here to correct and/or improve. But it struck me again last night how much they did get right this time, at least in terms of character immersion. I caught myself indecisively dithering over the royal succession question, in large part because I was worried about how Prince Heidrek might feel about it.

Gameplay-wise, it's no big deal, I can pretty much pick whoever I want as FH, and just bombard everyone else with wives' influence to make it work. But the imaginary opinions of various imaginary characters entered into the question. I felt rather silly about it...but also thought "no WAY does that happen in R2!"

(for the record, Heidrek remains FH...mainly because I don't want to tap somebody else and piss him off)

[Bramborough]

Chapter V (last one). New commentary begins in Summer 416AD, and runs into 420. The Geats complete the conquest of Britain with a scorched earth policy in Caledonia et Hibernia. The Picts, Caledonians, and Ebdanians are all sent packing.

https://chronicles.totalwar.com/Bram.../chapter/16375

I've chosen to end it here. Partly because completing the conquest of Britain seems a logical end-point...and the next several decades will probably be spent developing this territory and fending off infinitely-respawning Hun stacks. Also because 5 chapters has been enough to firmly cement my opinion of how the Chronicle lends itself to an AAR (which is to say, "not very well, in its current form").

I'll probably post the full campaign when it's finished, although I doubt I'll go through and add new commentary.

[Slaists]

I was looking through the chapters in general and came to think, this is a great feature for someone trying to write an AAR. All the important events are automatically recorded so you can upload chapters to your workspace on the server and then write your AAR from these serving as notes.

[Hooahguy]

I think they are good to look back on and use as notes so you can remember the important stuff, but otherwise it is far too cluttered with irrelevant data.

[Cazbol]

I really enjoyed these chronicles. I filtered them for military and diplomacy and wasn't too bothered about the redundant recruitment notifications. I'm playing my first campaign and chose the Geats for that, so this was therefore of increased interest. My grand plan is largely the same as yours.

One question about game mechanics. My daughter married the high king of Rugion, who is now listed as my son-in-law in my family tree. If my sons die before me, does the Rugian king get any claim to the Geatish throne?

[Bramborough]

Thanks for taking a look, and glad they were of interest. I think I eventually posted the outcome of that campaign (although without commentary); wound up able to complete the Minor Victory through diplomatic means; got a bunch of military allies to reach the 30-region condition. It was easy to get the allies because I sent an army raiding through Spain, sacking a bunch of WRE towns. This made pretty much the rest of the world fall in love with me as if I were a basset hound puppy.

As for the succession, I don't know for sure, because I don't think I've run into that specific situation. On the face of it, a great question; in history, I'd have to say "yeah, the guy has a great claim". But I don't think territory-acquisition-by-marriage is a mechanic in this game. (It's kind of an interesting idea for future TW titles though, especially if/when there's an Medieval III).

Instead, my impression is that the FT displays the Rugian king mainly just to show that's where your daughter went, and a reminder that you have a diplomatic marriage active with that faction. The game considers your daughter to have joined his family, but not vice versa. Notice that neither one of them have any influence/loyalty values, and do not have political actions available. Just to be sure, try designating him as your heir just to see if he's even eligible...I'm 99.99999% sure that you won't be able to.

I do know that even if it were possible, it could only happen if you have no other Faction Heir designated at all. You can choose pretty much any male member of your family as Heir, doesn't have to be a legitimate or bloodline direct descendant. Can be an uncle, cousin, brother-in-law, nephew, etc. Just be careful about rank, traits, legitimacy/adoption status. A low-rank bastard is likely to result in a pretty big loyalty hit, among both your own family and the Other Nobles.

If your Faction Leader dies without a designated heir, then the game will automatically choose one for you, and will default to a male descendant....even if it's a young boy. If the heir is a minor, then his mother will rule as Regent until he comes of age. This happened to me in my first campaign when I was still trying to figure out the basics of FT management...lol, you definitely want to avoid this, it has a detrimental effect on loyalty, influence, and control.

[Cazbol]

You were right about the Rugian king not being eligible as heir. I just tested that.

[Cazbol]

After 4 months of relentless playing, I have finally completed my Geats campagin.


I supposedly lost it.


I guess one of these was the winner:


I found this campaign most excellent and had a lot of fun playing it. The threat from the Huns required me to set up a long term strategy, co-operate with other factions and manoeuvre very carefully. Battles on land and sea felt rewarding. I liked how the agents have been toned down from Rome II. I liked the city management. I think corruption is still too drastic for major empires, as it just feels like a gimmick to take away one's money, rather than an actual economic phenomenon. I ignored all missions, as they're just telling me to do random things and thus make no sense, and I find the same to be true for the victory conditions.

All in all, Creative Assembly and Total War have once again made me very happy.