Total War Attila: Not what we wanted.

[LexLuthor]

I welcome this new game/expansion, and as others have stated it falls in line with the pattern they are keeping up. CA has a HUGE opportunity with TW:A in the fact that they can release a very polished game, and not offer to to many DLCs on our plate, thus regaining the trust of many loyal customers.

- Lex

[Sol Invictus]

ATTILA looks very good to me. CA seems to have pulled Rome 2 out of the fire with the EE (though I haven't got it: probably won't), so I assume they have listened and learned and are applying those lessons to ATTILA. Using Rome 2 as a benchmark: if the reviews and comments in this forum are negative, but less hostile than Rome 2's were after the first week or so, then I'll assume it's a good game and I'll get it.

I kind of hope for something like '1453-1704: Constantinople to Blenheim'. That's 250/501 game turns and would include things like the transformation from pikes to muskets, discovery and colonisation, piracy, feudalism to absolutism, religious strife. I can only dream.

I would love to see that era covered as well.

[Serger989]

I am honestly really liking the game so far from what has been shown. The UI is one of the bigger improvements I am happy about. Either way, if they are NOT doing a Medieval 3, then I imagine they will do a Genghis Khan Total War since it will be in the medieval period... I really hope that happens. Honestly Attila looks like it will be my favorite Total War. Rome 2 (+DEI) and M2 (+Stainless Steel) were in contention for me until EE came out, I absolutely love EE, so with all they learned from that I am really looking forward to Attila... I shall rule the world as the ERE!

[Sir Sloaks]

I for one welcome our new barbarian overlords, The fall of Rome, moar barbarians was on my wishlist tbh.

[Green_Jacket]

As far as I'm aware a fair few people wanted a warhammer total war... seems it would have been a love or hate title.

[Sebidee]

Not what we wanted? Not what you wanted mate, don't speak for everyone.

[Caractacus]

Provided that it gets good reviews from people that I trust (Angry Joe I'm looking at you here) I would happily get this game. I thought the Barbarian expansion was an interesting take on empire building game in how do you put the dissolution of an empire into a game and make it interesting so I am looking forward to see if they have learnt from Rome II and come up with something worth playing. I don't care about the graphics - give me something gripping.

[Lionheart11]

Its not what i wanted, calling a patch 15 emperor edition only to announce a game that Rome 2 should have been a week later. Honestly some here have too much of daddy's money to waste if your going to lap up the gruel without thinking first.

[jimlawl]

5 kids screaming EMPIRE 2 and MEDIEVAL 3 over 500 times don't speak for the majority of the Total War community.

Google the terms 'vocal minority' and 'silent majority' and you'll know what I'm talking about.

[Sebidee]

Its not what i wanted, calling a patch 15 emperor edition only to announce a game that Rome 2 should have been a week later. Honestly some here have too much of daddy's money to waste if your going to lap up the gruel without thinking first.

How exactly is Attila what Rome 2 should have been?

Number one: You have not played Attila

Number two: Attila is a completely different setting and a completely different game. Barely comparable to Rome 2.

Is it the family tree? Is that what makes it what Rome 2 should have been? That's a pretty narrow and massively reductive view. Something tells me plenty of people have been lapping up some other equally crappy gruel.

[Huberto]

Attila is a completely different setting

"setting" = location. The location looks to be almost exactly the same with a few provinces added. They're even using the same map! Just changing some icons and city models.

a completely different game. Barely comparable to Rome 2.

Well yes, it's being marketed as a completely new game and it is a stand-alone, but the game we've seen so far looks remarkably similar to TWR2.

[Sebidee]

"setting" = location. The location looks to be almost exactly the same with a few provinces added. They're even using the same map! Just changing some icons and city models.

"Setting" can refer to whatever condition that the thing is taking place in. In this case it's several hundred years later with completely new factions, and completely different starting positions. It is not the same setting as Rome 2.

Well yes, it's being marketed as a completely new game and it is a stand-alone, but the game we've seen so far looks remarkably similar to TWR2.

You say the game we've seen so far, we've seen minutes, seconds even, of gameplay. We can't make any conclusions from that. Would you say that Barbarian Invasion was remarkably similar to Rome 1? Yes and no. Yes, it's based on the same engine and materials. No, it's a completely different experience.

[Lionheart11]

How exactly is Attila what Rome 2 should have been?

Rome 2 should of had this ATILLA family tree, building tech and political changes we are now seeing them do a massive back flip over, these core changes they argued about and telling us were wrong, what was cool and called streamlining was actually ing up the franchise. It is no wonder they had to back flip on design from Rome 2 , as that will go down in history as Total war abortion.

Even the graphics we are shown here is the same graphics we were shown before Rome 2 release, its some kind of Nasa computer with specail CA graphics setting that doesn't exits.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Even the graphics we are shown here is the same graphics we were shown before Rome 2 release, its some kind of Nasa computer with specail CA graphics setting that doesn't exits.

No it isn't. Its a pretty basic AlienWare gaming machine. I have played on it. Well on one of them anyways.

[Huberto]

"Setting" can refer to whatever condition that the thing is taking place in. In this case it's several hundred years later with completely new factions, and completely different starting positions. It is not the same setting as Rome 2.

Yeah that's it...while the map is almost exactly the same "conditions" have changed. So do those new "conditions" justify a new game?. "New" factions! .Weren't there new factions in all manner of TWR2 DLC and yet the game hardly changed at all? Different starting positions?...I know it can be difficult but isn't this the sort of thing a mod should be able to do? Of course as a stand alone, TWA is not supposed to be the same as Rome 2 it doesn't appear to distinguish itself from TWR2 any more than CiG or HatG did. Looks remarkably like TWR2 -- with some art changes and promises about graphics -- and a family tree.

[Xerrop]

With the announcement of total war attila it seems many fans have been somewhat let down and the majority of us wanted a new medieval or empire, but creative assembly have instead given us another Rome 2 clone how exciting.

Wasn't it clear for 99 % of the TW-fans that the next game after Rome2 will be an expansion based on Rome2? All TW games had an expansion so far.
Shogun -> Mongol Invasion
Medieval -> Viking Invasion
Rome -> Barbarian Invasion
Medieval2 -> Kingdoms
Empire -> Napoleon
Shogun2 -> Fall of the Samurai
Rome2 -> Attila (aka Barbarian Invasion2)

And it doesn't matter that NAPOLEON or the new ATTILA are standalone games. They are still expansions, even when some ranting players (like the OP) will never get it and start crying, why the new game is so similar themed to the previous one ...

[JERUSALEM]

All faction playable, forts to construct and to upgrade, more natural borders not to allow enemies to pass through them, more mobile and fast cavalry,
more historical reality while looking through the faction members and their political system, even for the non-playable faction (hope they want be anymore but anyway).
Better diplomacy, international marriages, strong alliances,less capability to destroy the factions, at least those factions that have fortified cities (they have to keep their independence somehow
for a long time)... many more and many more...

No, i wanted exactly the Attila period and expected this, and i have wishlist for this game, i will post it here.

OK these is that i expect from this game:

All faction playable, forts to construct and to upgrade, more natural borders not to allow enemies to pass through them, more mobile and fast cavalry,
more historical reality while looking through the faction members and their political system, even for the non-playable faction (hope they want be anymore but anyway).
Better diplomacy, international marriages, strong alliances,less capability to destroy the factions, at least those factions that have fortified cities (they have to keep their independence somehow
for a long time)... many more and many more...



PS double post, PLS delete first one.

[andrew881thebest]

I wanted Exactely the late Roman empire period. I am very satisfied. I don't like people (op) complaining about everything and pretending that everyone agrees with them.
For what I see right now, I like this game. It is a better version of rome 2, which is, though with some faults and some parts which can be better or much better, a really good game. Since it is the only game which lets players play ancient battles with those graphics and numbers. Simply that.
Developers of Attila seem to have read and understood what players wanted and put them inside the game, finally.

[Aenima]

How exactly is Attila what Rome 2 should have been?

Is it the family tree? Is that what makes it what Rome 2 should have been? That's a pretty narrow and massively reductive view. Something tells me plenty of people have been lapping up some other equally crappy gruel.

I can answer this and say that

- family tree (minor, but was wanted)
- improved UI
- improved building system
- more realistic unit cards
- government features etc

are more or less all what I'd hoped Rome 2 would have, and believe it should have. They're only improvements from what Rome 2 was released with and what it has, even now. I've only seen them in pics so far, but what I've seen just looked like the interface that I wanted/expected Rome 2 to have, not the "stream-lined," non-immersive UI that R2 has.

[Inhuman One]

I gues this will kind of rule out a dark ages total war. A pity.

I'd have loved to see a game take place from 500-1000. Its a neglected time period.

Same for the pike and shot era by the way.

Alternatively they could have gone back in time for an expansion and focus on the greek city states, with an early Rome as a minor underdog faction.
It would have been something truly new to the franchise instead of a rehashed expansion.