Attila Complaint Thread

[craziii]

Ca has to bring out new features. or you will read endless crying posts about how ca is selling reskins of their original game for 60$.

I just wish ca does a better job at figuring out which features they must keep 100% of the time.

[Thesban The Great]

I was not slanting or having a dig at him for his language whether English be his first or second language, It's the way his post is formed and written. it's quite hard to read and frankly that makes it harder to understand.

[Earende]

While I don't agree with the op, I'm sure everyone slating him will now write what they want from the game in a 2nd language. Oh the arrogance of the English speaker..

You can understand him, so feel free to translate. Here, these are some points that I have trouble understanding so help me:

[1] I have never understoud why TW ,not CA,didnt continue to use the throne room that existed on Shogun Total War
- So, does he believe TW is its own developer or something?

[2] stop increasing the power of the PC+s game after game.
- Is he asking to stop making units/agents too powerful which he mentioned in the same sentence, or is he talking about how each new TW requires a better PC to run?

[3] For some reason TW mods ,reduce speed,increase the time of the units when in battle, limited elite units,seasons,dust on the fields,DECREASE OF PC PERFORMANCE.
- Did his message went from talking about missing old features to ranting about mods decreasing the performance of his PC?

[4] Your fan number 1 for 15 years .
- Is his message simply a rant or is this message intended for CA?

[foot soldier]

Mabye i should start to write in portuguese and than you could google it since you only know 1 language.

[InferiorBeing]

I have no idea of what I just read.

Oh the arrogance of the English speaker..

Yeah! Screw us for expecting someone to coherently speak a world language in 2015, right?

-A Norwegian.

[foot soldier]

I have no idea of what I just read.



Yeah! Screw us for expecting someone to coherently speak a world language in 2015, right?

-A Norwegian.

A Norwegian ,everyone knows that English is more spoken in your country than your own language and your proud of that .

Do you speak Mandarin ,its the language number one it world ... trolls .. cant stand them we cant live without them either.

[Mathieu Of Belgium]

Why everyone love the mods here. Why TW,CA and SEGA dont see this . How is it possible to not to see what TW community want is a TW like old days.
We want trailers for missions. We want merchants. We want throne rooms to receive diplomats and others. We want simple control with the units. We want to declare war on our allies in a battlefield .

That brings me back, this was a feature in Medieval total war (1) and viking invasion was it not. Oh the amazing feeling you got when backstabbing your ally after they won you a bloody victory.

[AnthoniusII]

Throne room video at 9:09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0e1R-YOU8U

[Shapur e Sassani]

Please don't use turban for Sassanids That's an Islamic thing

[Meelis13]

honhestly, my main complaint is that it seems to be just another campaign with full game price tag on it. I mean, campaign map covers EXACTLY the same area as rome 2 did with exception of 1, maybe 2 areas....

[reliablePersian]

allthough i have to admit that the flaming arrows look ing awsome and stuff but i think il give this game a pass .

Why? well......there still many issiues with the game as DarrenTotalWar said .
my main reason why il pass the game to a certain point :

1: unit collsion wich is realy wierd to watch when cav glitches through soliders
2: TORCHES!!!!!!!!!
3: lack of historical accuracy
4: still a stupid ai with awfull matched combat
5: blobbing ( wich i hope is fixed by now )
6: no general´s cutseenspeech
7: DLC whoring as usual
8: even more broken siege battles through this Eskalation "feature" when walls magically fall apart after 1-2 turns
9: building limitation to max 5 buildings . remember in rome 1 and medival 2 you could build as many buildings as possible without risking for a revolt cause of food problems or magical unhappyness through new buildings
10: probably just as rome 2 , 15-20 patches to fix the game

well CA i am sorry allthuogh i am interested , rome 2 marked me realy bad and when i heard that you guys took out content of the game to RESELL it to us .....that was just wrong ( beasts of war dlc )
siriously CA return to the golden ages of total war ....dont go to the dawn of IOS mobile games ....please

[Darios]

allthough i have to admit that the flaming arrows look ing awsome and stuff but i think il give this game a pass .

Why? well......there still many issiues with the game as DarrenTotalWar said .
my main reason why il pass the game to a certain point :

1: unit collsion wich is realy wierd to watch when cav glitches through soliders
2: TORCHES!!!!!!!!!
3: lack of historical accuracy
4: still a stupid ai with awfull matched combat
5: blobbing ( wich i hope is fixed by now )
6: no general´s cutseenspeech
7: DLC whoring as usual
8: even more broken siege battles through this Eskalation "feature" when walls magically fall apart after 1-2 turns
9: building limitation to max 5 buildings . remember in rome 1 and medival 2 you could build as many buildings as possible without risking for a revolt cause of food problems or magical unhappyness through new buildings
10: probably just as rome 2 , 15-20 patches to fix the game

well CA i am sorry allthuogh i am interested , rome 2 marked me realy bad and when i heard that you guys took out content of the game to RESELL it to us .....that was just wrong ( beasts of war dlc )
siriously CA return to the golden ages of total war ....dont go to the dawn of IOS mobile games ....please

With the utmost respect, these type of complaints became boring over a year ago.

1) I would like to see this cleaned up a bit but it's Warscape, unit collision is never going to be what people would like to see.
2) Again, it's an issue of Warscape not being able to properly handle sieges. CA has done tons to improve siege AI over the past year and I haven't seen torches used in ages during my battles.
3) The game is called "Total War" not "Historical Simulator." The developers are under no obligation to stick exactly to the book. People often fail to understand that there is usually some kind of gameplay concern to why the game doesn't always match up perfectly with history. Look at the starting position of factions like the Huns, Suebians, and Goths. They're not historically accurate, but are designed to make sure that the factions' AI expand in the right direction.
4) Warscape...matched combat has been going on since Empire. The AI in R2 was actually far better than in any previous Total War game.
5) Blobbing concerns have come a long way since patches 1-5 of R2.
6) Nostaglia for RTW/BI?
7) It's a fact of life in the gaming industry nowadays....as long as Attila comes out to be moderately good then DLC would go a long way towards expanding upon the game as opposed to CA spending more than a year finishing the game like they did for R2.
8) Again it's a Warscape thing....the engine wasn't designed to properly handle sieges. Hence, I understand the workarounds. They're preferable to units climbing back down from ladders.
9) Did you complain about this in ETW, NTW, or S2 as well? Can't say that it's my favorite thing but that's how the game has been played for a while now.
10) I'm willing to bet more on 5-10. Attila doesn't look like it's going to nearly have the same amount of issues R2 had upon release. There are always bugs that the developers cannot find/tackle before release but "fixing" Attila will probably more straightforward than R2 was.

I don't understand why people still complain about these things when they know that's how the game engine simply works. I hope that CA is working on a next generation game engine for whatever is coming next but to see people continue to moan and complain about torches is so...2013. Attila is essentially built with Rome 2 as its base so if you're expecting to see magical fixes for sieges and a whole new building system then I wouldn't recommend getting this game.

[DeliCiousTZM]

I think the Total war game development team knows which engine(or set of engines) that works best for total war. So it is time to take these "Warscape" complaints out into the street and shot it dead.

[Fredrin]

With the utmost respect, these type of complaints became boring over a year ago.

1) I would like to see this cleaned up a bit but it's Warscape, unit collision is never going to be what people would like to see.
2) Again, it's an issue of Warscape not being able to properly handle sieges. CA has done tons to improve siege AI over the past year and I haven't seen torches used in ages during my battles.
3) The game is called "Total War" not "Historical Simulator." The developers are under no obligation to stick exactly to the book. People often fail to understand that there is usually some kind of gameplay concern to why the game doesn't always match up perfectly with history. Look at the starting position of factions like the Huns, Suebians, and Goths. They're not historically accurate, but are designed to make sure that the factions' AI expand in the right direction.
4) Warscape...matched combat has been going on since Empire. The AI in R2 was actually far better than in any previous Total War game.
5) Blobbing concerns have come a long way since patches 1-5 of R2.
6) Nostaglia for RTW/BI?
7) It's a fact of life in the gaming industry nowadays....as long as Attila comes out to be moderately good then DLC would go a long way towards expanding upon the game as opposed to CA spending more than a year finishing the game like they did for R2.
8) Again it's a Warscape thing....the engine wasn't designed to properly handle sieges. Hence, I understand the workarounds. They're preferable to units climbing back down from ladders.
9) Did you complain about this in ETW, NTW, or S2 as well? Can't say that it's my favorite thing but that's how the game has been played for a while now.
10) I'm willing to bet more on 5-10. Attila doesn't look like it's going to nearly have the same amount of issues R2 had upon release. There are always bugs that the developers cannot find/tackle before release but "fixing" Attila will probably more straightforward than R2 was.

I don't understand why people still complain about these things when they know that's how the game engine simply works. I hope that CA is working on a next generation game engine for whatever is coming next but to see people continue to moan and complain about torches is so...2013. Attila is essentially built with Rome 2 as its base so if you're expecting to see magical fixes for sieges and a whole new building system then I wouldn't recommend getting this game.

As far as I can see, none of your answers to his points actually refutes them, they just explain, justify the reasoning behind them or dismiss them off hand.

For a regular user of the forums I can see why the interminable repetition of some of them can grow tiresome, but perhaps you could lay some of the blame at the door of CA for not fixing them (I mean, torches? Still in Attila after all the rage they've caused?! ).

Reliablepersian probably hasn't posted on these topics in the course of his 68 posts so I don't see why someone can't register their reasons for not buying just because a load of people have made similar points in the past. May be helpful to the devs to know these are still major outstanding problems

[barry12]

I think the Total war game development team knows which engine, or set of engines works best for total war. So it is time to take these "Warscape" complaints out into the street and shot it dead.

They do, but is that the most profitable way to sell a game? The engine is 32 bit unless I'm mistaken which means it's meant for really basic systems, most people have 64 bit OS these days. They keep it on this limited engine so they can sell the game to as many people as possible. Sort of understandable but when its preventing a lot of your existing fanbase from getting the enjoyment they expect, merely for some extra bucks, you will lose respect and interest. That said, I don't lmow the full details of the engine, so apologies. But it's 2015, and I know that most decent PCs can run battles with more than a few thousand men involved.

Also that guy Darios above just dismissed loads of valid complaints by saying, "These complaints are boring". That doesn't help the argument at all, these grievances need addressing as they are all valid. Just because no-one's done anything about it, does not mean they are any less valid.

[AnthoniusII]

allthough i have to admit that the flaming arrows look ing awsome and stuff but i think il give this game a pass .

Why? well......there still many issiues with the game as DarrenTotalWar said .
my main reason why il pass the game to a certain point :

1: unit collsion wich is realy wierd to watch when cav glitches through soliders
2: TORCHES!!!!!!!!!
3: lack of historical accuracy
4: still a stupid ai with awfull matched combat
5: blobbing ( wich i hope is fixed by now )
6: no general´s cutseenspeech
7: DLC whoring as usual
8: even more broken siege battles through this Eskalation "feature" when walls magically fall apart after 1-2 turns
9: building limitation to max 5 buildings . remember in rome 1 and medival 2 you could build as many buildings as possible without risking for a revolt cause of food problems or magical unhappyness through new buildings
10: probably just as rome 2 , 15-20 patches to fix the game

well CA i am sorry allthuogh i am interested , rome 2 marked me realy bad and when i heard that you guys took out content of the game to RESELL it to us .....that was just wrong ( beasts of war dlc )
siriously CA return to the golden ages of total war ....dont go to the dawn of IOS mobile games ....please

Glad to see people with such ideas!!! I am not alone it seams!!

[Birk]

With the utmost respect, these type of complaints became boring over a year ago.

1) I would like to see this cleaned up a bit but it's Warscape, unit collision is never going to be what people would like to see.
2) Again, it's an issue of Warscape not being able to properly handle sieges. CA has done tons to improve siege AI over the past year and I haven't seen torches used in ages during my battles.
3) The game is called "Total War" not "Historical Simulator." The developers are under no obligation to stick exactly to the book. People often fail to understand that there is usually some kind of gameplay concern to why the game doesn't always match up perfectly with history. Look at the starting position of factions like the Huns, Suebians, and Goths. They're not historically accurate, but are designed to make sure that the factions' AI expand in the right direction.
4) Warscape...matched combat has been going on since Empire. The AI in R2 was actually far better than in any previous Total War game.
5) Blobbing concerns have come a long way since patches 1-5 of R2.
6) Nostaglia for RTW/BI?
7) It's a fact of life in the gaming industry nowadays....as long as Attila comes out to be moderately good then DLC would go a long way towards expanding upon the game as opposed to CA spending more than a year finishing the game like they did for R2.
8) Again it's a Warscape thing....the engine wasn't designed to properly handle sieges. Hence, I understand the workarounds. They're preferable to units climbing back down from ladders.
9) Did you complain about this in ETW, NTW, or S2 as well? Can't say that it's my favorite thing but that's how the game has been played for a while now.
10) I'm willing to bet more on 5-10. Attila doesn't look like it's going to nearly have the same amount of issues R2 had upon release. There are always bugs that the developers cannot find/tackle before release but "fixing" Attila will probably more straightforward than R2 was.

I don't understand why people still complain about these things when they know that's how the game engine simply works. I hope that CA is working on a next generation game engine for whatever is coming next but to see people continue to moan and complain about torches is so...2013. Attila is essentially built with Rome 2 as its base so if you're expecting to see magical fixes for sieges and a whole new building system then I wouldn't recommend getting this game.

We had torches in Shogun 2 and it was beautiful. For some reason we don't seem to have it in Rome 2 or Attila.

[Darios]

They do, but is that the most profitable way to sell a game? The engine is 32 bit unless I'm mistaken which means it's meant for really basic systems, most people have 64 bit OS these days. They keep it on this limited engine so they can sell the game to as many people as possible. Sort of understandable but when its preventing a lot of your existing fanbase from getting the enjoyment they expect, merely for some extra bucks, you will lose respect and interest. That said, I don't lmow the full details of the engine, so apologies. But it's 2015, and I know that most decent PCs can run battles with more than a few thousand men involved.

Also that guy Darios above just dismissed loads of valid complaints by saying, "These complaints are boring". That doesn't help the argument at all, these grievances need addressing as they are all valid. Just because no-one's done anything about it, does not mean they are any less valid.

These complaints are boring. No one likes torches, but if it were possible for CA to fix it without compromising the game don't you think they would have already done so for Attila? They have added things like family trees and the what not into the game, but some things are simply beyond the capabilities of the game's engine to handle. Unfortunately, we all know why CA went ahead with using Warscape for R2/Attila instead of going in a new direction. These things were valid complaints over a year ago, now people are beating their heads on the wall. The R2 threads still have people complaining about "Fix Pikes!" when it's already understood that "pikemen" in R2 are, code-wise, swordsmen with a pike "special ability." R2/Attila are full of these little "workarounds" that remind us of how smooth RTW was but one also has to accept that we're working with a different engine that might not handle ancient warfare very well. Warscape was created for gunpowder warfare remember?

[DeliCiousTZM]

They do, but is that the most profitable way to sell a game? The engine is 32 bit unless I'm mistaken which means it's meant for really basic systems, most people have 64 bit OS these days. They keep it on this limited engine so they can sell the game to as many people as possible. Sort of understandable but when its preventing a lot of your existing fanbase from getting the enjoyment they expect, merely for some extra bucks, you will lose respect and interest. That said, I don't lmow the full details of the engine, so apologies. But it's 2015, and I know that most decent PCs can run battles with more than a few thousand men involved.

Also that guy Darios above just dismissed loads of valid complaints by saying, "These complaints are boring". That doesn't help the argument at all, these grievances need addressing as they are all valid. Just because no-one's done anything about it, does not mean they are any less valid.

Game developers profitability is in Metacritic score.

[Totalheadache]

Game developers profitability is in Metacritic score.

How little you know...!

Re the engine it's pretty important. People will soon notice the game running like poo and if that happens no amount of "fun" will save your game...