Answer to will Rome 2 get the same features as Attila?

[Dynamo11]

"Add much wanted features into Rome 2? Nah, but you will get more DLC"

Great, get ready for a Family Tree DLC

[PointOfViewGun]

Every owner of Rome II should just approach this situation reasonably and NOT pre-order Attila UNLESS CA changes its current position on the matter.

Why is the two connected? What's reasonable about that?

I don't know. More than successfull sales I would say how they will deal with Rome2. Do not forget that they used the Rome name of the first game to sell this one. I don't think a new mistake and bad move will be welcome by the community.

What was wrong with how they dealt with Rome II after the launch?
They hardly used Rome I to sell Rome II in a way that was not granted.
If Attila continuously sell a lot that will be an indicative of how much people like the new features. It will pave the possibility of selling more Rome II copies as the new features will hype up more interest.

[The Roman Republic]

Every owner of Rome II should just approach this situation reasonably and NOT pre-order Attila UNLESS CA changes its current position on the matter.

Hardly a convincing statement when you don't even back yourself up.



-what is the current position on the matter.

-Have they abandoned R2TW and left it as it is? No, they've patched it, supported it, gave out free content in a way to apologise and it's now a very stable playable game

-Are they not trying to revive themselves by doing the period on Attila like they did with NTW, (the fall of the Roman Empire) (the rise of Napoleon) the anti period of the previous game period

You need to open your eyes more.

[Cope]

Hardly a convincing statement when you don't even back yourself up.



-what is the current position on the matter.

-Have they abandoned R2TW and left it as it is? No, they've patched it, supported it, gave out free content in a way to apologise and it's now a very stable playable game

-Are they not trying to revive themselves by doing the period on Attila like they did with NTW, (the fall of the Roman Empire) (the rise of Napoleon) the anti period of the previous game period

You need to open your eyes more.

I think ultimately Rome II is just a poor game, but as you say they've supported it plenty and it is now at least stable. I agree that its kind of pointless expecting CA to release new features for the old game since that would completely dissuade anyone from actually buying Attila.

I think they have completed their obligations to the customers, even though in my view v. Rome II remains a pretty dreadful game by comparison to older titles in the series.

[nameless]

Meh depends if they can do it or not. Some features may or may not make it in. I think with FOTS it bought 40 vs 40 battles into Shogun 2 but that was it.

It's funny because I'm pretty sure since RTW there hasn't been an expansion that actually adds anything to the core game. I remember Barbarian invasions being simply another campaign with new factions and some new features with only 1-2 stuff being added to the core game.

Then came Kingdoms which was really just 3 mini campaigns in one.

I can keep going on but I'm curious where this attitude came in when CA has never done any of the things these posters are sprouting and yet nobody bothered to say anything about it in those older games.

I think ultimately Rome II is just a poor game, but as you say they've supported it plenty and it is now at least stable. I agree that its kind of pointless expecting CA to release new features for the old game since that would completely dissuade anyone from actually buying Attila.

I think they have completed their obligations to the customers, even though in my view v. Rome II remains a pretty dreadful game by comparison to older titles in the series.

You know that attitude goes both ways.

I can't play RTW vanilla without an extensive mod because I couldn't stand the factions, the ridiculous civil war set up, the 30 second battle, suicidal generals, and ridiculous population mechanic that pretty much prevented the AI from expanding because they literally drained their cities and made steam rolling totally easy.

[Ganossa]

I think ultimately Rome II is just a poor game, but as you say they've supported it plenty and it is now at least stable. I agree that its kind of pointless expecting CA to release new features for the old game since that would completely dissuade anyone from actually buying Attila.

I think they have completed their obligations to the customers, even though in my view v. Rome II remains a pretty dreadful game by comparison to older titles in the series.

While it would make no sense right now to port features from Attila to EE, it is something that could (should) happen after the release and sales of Attila, since it will give EE the chance to be known as one of the best strategic games in the past years (which is the best marketing they can have). The benefits will be higher than the cost, considering that Attila and EE share the same base game.

[MagicCuboid]

I'm not sure about that LuciferHawk. Does a (mostly) single-player game's reputation really change after the first two years of reception? I suppose that's something rather unique and new about the current climate of game development. I'd be delighted if features were backported into Rome 2, of course, since the RPG elements would encourage me to keep playing it for years as I have Medieval 2.

However, I think the name itself, Attila: Total War, signifies a retreat from the tainted "Rome 2" brand. It is similar to how they retreated from the Empire: Total War brand and made Napoleon.

Fall of the Samurai, on the other hand, was still released as Total War: Shogun 2 - Fall of the Samurai. This is because Shogun 2 was a respected name by the time of release, and a well received title by comparison. Using Attila to benefit Rome 2 just seems not to follow the marketing strategy CA is pursuing.

[Cope]

While it would make no sense right now to port features from Attila to EE, it is something that could (should) happen after the release and sales of Attila, since it will give EE the chance to be known as one of the best strategic games in the past years (which is the best marketing they can have). The benefits will be higher than the cost, considering that Attila and EE share the same base game.

I don't think that's how CA will view it. As MagicCuboid noted, Rome II's reputation has already been tarnished by its release and CA's strategy since that debacle has seemingly been to save rather than enhance their business reputation.

EE pretty much signaled that CA are done providing major support for Rome II (I'm sure they'll continue to release minor hotfixes and DLC however). They probably made a lot of money from the game - perhaps more than they've made for any Total War - and probably feel as though they've adequately recovered their reputation over the last twelve months.

As we both agree, it makes no sense for them to port features from Attila to EE. I mean why would anyone pay $$$ for Attila if the features are just going to be transposed into Rome II anyway? As you say, they are basically going to be the same game (at a core level at least) so what would even be the point of Attila if it had no "unique" features? After all, if the features were ported over to Rome II (even after Attila's release) then someone could pretty much just mod in the time period of Attila (a la "Constantine") and there would then be zero reason for anyone to pay CA a dime.

As I said, Rome II was a disaster in my opinion, but I feel like CA have completed their obligations to the customers now. I don't think it's practical for us to be demanding features be added in for free just because we want them. At the end of the day they never promised us things like the family tree for Rome II, and so even though the lack of such features makes the game much worse than it could have been, that's just life. Assuming Attila gets good reviews I will buy it, but if it ends up being as soulless as Rome II is then CA will have burned out their rep with me.

[Tetrew]

I don't think that's how CA will view it. As MagicCuboid noted, Rome II's reputation has already been tarnished by its release and CA's strategy since that debacle has seemingly been to save rather than enhance their business reputation.

EE pretty much signaled that CA are done providing major support for Rome II (I'm sure they'll continue to release minor hotfixes and DLC however). They probably made a lot of money from the game - perhaps more than they've made for any Total War - and probably feel as though they've adequately recovered their reputation over the last twelve months.

As we both agree, it makes no sense for them to port features from Attila to EE. I mean why would anyone pay $$$ for Attila if the features are just going to be transposed into Rome II anyway? As you say, they are basically going to be the same game (at a core level at least) so what would even be the point of Attila if it had no "unique" features? After all, if the features were ported over to Rome II (even after Attila's release) then someone could pretty much just mod in the time period of Attila (a la "Constantine") and there would then be zero reason for anyone to pay CA a dime.

As I said, Rome II was a disaster in my opinion, but I feel like CA have completed their obligations to the customers now. I don't think it's practical for us to be demanding features be added in for free just because we want them. At the end of the day they never promised us things like the family tree for Rome II, and so even though the lack of such features makes the game much worse than it could have been, that's just life. Assuming Attila gets good reviews I will buy it, but if it ends up being as soulless as Rome II is then CA will have burned out their rep with me.

This seems reasonable.

As far as it goes the most easiest thing how to show CA you are not approving their bussines model is...do not pre-order Attila and wait for reviews or let´s play videos

[Abdülmecid I]

We already knew that pre-release Rome 2 wouldn't have family trees etc.

No, we didn't. CA had made absolutely no reference to the family tree, so we all assumed that it was going to be included. It was quite a shock when they found out the truth, and in the official forums, iirc, people didn't believe the first reports about it.

[Destraex]

I hate some of the new features. They just do not make sense. So glad tone will not get them.
Other features like unit cards would be good for rome2.

I also notice that black ant syndrome is still in. They paint everything they can black.
In real life it has to be some hard core shadows to make people. That black.

[The Roman Republic]

What features don't make sense??

[Destraex]

What features don't make sense??

THe dangerous civilians destroying entire units sounds dodgy to me without a defending regular army backbone to rally them

Civilians helping is one thing. But civilians destroying army units that represent maybe scaled 1000 well armed and trained men. Not likely.
Where are my rowers in rome2 if they can have civilians running about taking on armed and trained "units".



I also don't like the idea that walls automatically crumble without being attacked after a few turns of being besieged (thats right NOT sieged!!!! ). This pretty much means that no walls are safe and i assume it is so Attila and his hoards can attack walls without siege equipment. You just rock up to the walls of byzaaantium with a few light cavalry and you can breach wwalls.

In one of the lion heart previews i thought i saw crossbowws firing over things without aaa line of sight

Being able to slash and burn entire cities off the map as you retreat the Romans seems to be a standard feature. I would be interested to read if this regularly happened. Happy to. Be proven wrong here.

I wonder if during battle the barbarians get a choice orr whether they automatically just burn buildings down.

Thank goodness loose and normal formation is back. Was that in rome2?
Not as fan of the black shadows once again drowning out all colour especially on units.

[Causeless]

THe dangerous civilians destroying entire units sounds dodgy to me without a defending regular army backbone to rally them

Civilians helping is one thing. But civilians destroying army units that represent maybe scaled 1000 well armed and trained men. Not likely.
Where are my rowers in rome2 if they can have civilians running about taking on armed and trained "units".



I also don't like the idea that walls automatically crumble without being attacked after a few turns of being besieged (thats right NOT sieged!!!! ).

In one of the lion heart previews i thought i saw crossbowws firing over things without aaa line of sight

Being able to slash and burn entire cities off the map as you retreat the Romans seems to be a standard feature. I would be interested to read if this regularly happened. Happy to. Be proven wrong here.

I wonder if during battle the barbarians get a choice orr whether they automatically just burn buildings down.

Thank goodness loose and normal formation is back. Was that in rome2?
Not as fan of the black shadows once again drowning out all colour especially on units.

THe dangerous civilians destroying entire units sounds dodgy to me without a defending regular army backbone to rally them

Civilians helping is one thing. But civilians destroying army units that represent maybe scaled 1000 well armed and trained men. Not likely.
Where are my rowers in rome2 if they can have civilians running about taking on armed and trained "units".

The peasants are going to be extremely weak...

I also don't like the idea that walls automatically crumble without being attacked after a few turns of being besieged (thats right NOT sieged!!!! ).

After several years of sieging, the attacker is going to have sappers go under the enemy walls and send small attacks up. It's a more realistic representation of siege warfare - it's wasn't a big sudden event usually, there was years of smaller attacks and damaging before the final assault.

In one of the lion heart previews i thought i saw crossbowws firing over things without aaa line of sight

Crossbows weren't guns. They only fired a tiny bit stronger than bows... Their advantage was not needing much training to use.

[The Roman Republic]

THe dangerous civilians destroying entire units sounds dodgy to me without a defending regular army backbone to rally them

Civilians helping is one thing. But civilians destroying army units that represent maybe scaled 1000 well armed and trained men. Not likely.
Where are my rowers in rome2 if they can have civilians running about taking on armed and trained "units".



I also don't like the idea that walls automatically crumble without being attacked after a few turns of being besieged (thats right NOT sieged!!!! ). This pretty much means that no walls are safe and i assume it is so Attila and his hoards can attack walls without siege equipment. You just rock up to the walls of byzaaantium with a few light cavalry and you can breach wwalls.

In one of the lion heart previews i thought i saw crossbowws firing over things without aaa line of sight

Being able to slash and burn entire cities off the map as you retreat the Romans seems to be a standard feature. I would be interested to read if this regularly happened. Happy to. Be proven wrong here.

I wonder if during battle the barbarians get a choice orr whether they automatically just burn buildings down.

Thank goodness loose and normal formation is back. Was that in rome2?
Not as fan of the black shadows once again drowning out all colour especially on units.

Civilians aren't going to be able to destroy an army! They'll just be a much weaker version of the mob.

Siege escalation (wall crumble) as you say starts around the 2rd turn of maintaining the siege.

Maintain Siege
-turn summer
-turn Autumn siege escalation level 1
-turn winter siege escalation level 2
-turn new year Soring Siege escalation level 3

That's how it will be,

Every unit has the line of sight, it's a generic feature, there's no option to toggle it for each individual unit in the game files if that's what you think.

Loose formation was is in Rome 2

[Destraex]

The peasants are going to be extremely weak...



After several years of sieging, the attacker is going to have sappers go under the enemy walls and send small attacks up. It's a more realistic representation of siege warfare - it's wasn't a big sudden event usually, there was years of smaller attacks and damaging before the final assault.



Crossbows weren't guns. They only fired a tiny bit stronger than bows... Their advantage was not needing much training to use.

If peasants are going to be so weak then that is a lot of effort for a feature that will have minimal effect on the battle and is not really realistic. Like i said without military leadership or at least a few troops mixed in they would be extremely unlikely to attack.

Some factions won't have the ability to besiege.
I would have been happier if they added a part every turn where you could control your siege equipment. Instead of auto siege.
Why should we assume the walls are even going to be breached. I might surround a town but have no siege equipment.
I just think the walls of the defenders need to have a chance of actually working. After all some places were almost impregnable.

You misunderstand me about the xbows. I mean they should not be able to easily fire over things accurately like normal bows. Crossbows should not be fired up but straight with line of sight.


I actually don't remember putting rome2 legionaries in loose formation. But will have to try that next time i play.

I suggest everybody goes and looks up sieging in the dictionary.

[Lugotorix]

I'm not sure about that LuciferHawk. Does a (mostly) single-player game's reputation really change after the first two years of reception? I suppose that's something rather unique and new about the current climate of game development. I'd be delighted if features were backported into Rome 2, of course, since the RPG elements would encourage me to keep playing it for years as I have Medieval 2.

However, I think the name itself, Attila: Total War, signifies a retreat from the tainted "Rome 2" brand. It is similar to how they retreated from the Empire: Total War brand and made Napoleon.

Fall of the Samurai, on the other hand, was still released as Total War: Shogun 2 - Fall of the Samurai. This is because Shogun 2 was a respected name by the time of release, and a well received title by comparison. Using Attila to benefit Rome 2 just seems not to follow the marketing strategy CA is pursuing.

I feel their obligation is fulfilled, but I'm almost convinced the 'Family tree.' feature will be back-ported. All this development time with the same engine, and they're not that much different of products, there's no reason not to. People would start declaring the death of the companies integrity if it was DLC. It will probably be announced FLC.

[Comrade_Rory]

I'm pretty sure there's more difference between Shogun 2 vanilla and Fall of the Samurai than between Rome II and Atilla but they managed to retrofit that and not sell it as a full game.

It's like I said on the other thread. They must have been working on Atilla for the past year. That means they were working on all these features for the past year. They KNEW what everybody was saying about Rome II and they simply said features that we wanted or should have been in the game weren't possible or not a priority.
I just don't understand how anybody here can be defending such a blatant act of ripping-off.

[the lightning legion]

maybe the statement was true originally and they spent that last year shoehorning the features in which means they listened to the community

[Maximinus Thrax]

Moved from TW: Attila General Discussions to Rome II General Discussions.