After replaying both Saga titles, a few things Thrones of Britannia genuinely does better than Troy
Been going back through both Saga games lately and figured id share some thoughts, since ToB always gets treated like the black sheep. Not trying to start a war, just think its underrated in a couple specific ways.
The historical grounding. ToB feels real. Youre Alfred trying to hold Wessex together against the vikings and it plays like something that actually happened, no magic, no giant guys in cow masks, just shieldwalls in the mud. If you come to Total War mainly for the history, Britannia hits that note cleaner than Troy does.
No mythology. Troy's "truthful mythology" is a neat idea but for the straight-history crowd it can pull you out of it a bit. Some of us just dont want Achilles playing like a demigod. ToB has none of that and honestly some people prefer the simplicity.
Roster feel. Troy's bronze age setting means mostly light infantry, spears and archers with barely any cav, historically accurate, but battles can start feeling same-y. ToB's viking/anglo-saxon shieldwall combat has its own identity that i ended up enjoying more.
To be clear im not saying ToB is the better overall game. Troy wins on economy depth, hero variety and general polish. Just think the ToB hate is a bit overblown and its a solid pick if you want a no-frills historical campaign.
Curious if anyone else who played both feels the same, or if im in the minority here.
