Attila Complaint Thread

[♔DARTH LEGO♔]

The new viking DLC has been finished for months: It's finally come to companies blatantly saying the stuff is done before hand, or at least implicity. I don't mind this myself, but I'm definitely not preordering just to find out the game isn't even worth playing for 8-9 months or something.

exactly this, but I think the casual gamer market is just too damn big now for them to give a damn, they reach target figures and that's all sega will care about, its like oil sponsored environmental projects .......they say they care.... but really?!?! .....seriously?!?

they then provide a watered down version of modding tools etc(oil company equivalent of sponsoring environmental awareness in schools, forgetting about the entire ecosystems that were destroyed in the first place) which they only did because they were losing support on forums like these in a big way.

everyone gets excited and praises CA as we are still amazed they even did that and we start having faith again....and what happens BAM!!

I still cant believe we expect anything different.... it started with BI and its never changed.....

[DavidtheDuke]

exactly this, but I think the casual gamer market is just too damn big now for them to give a damn, they reach target figures and that's all sega will care about, its like oil sponsored environmental projects .......they say they care.... but really?!?! .....seriously?!?

Yeah, Attila was no.1 on steam for a few hours yesterday an still is in top 10 while I write this. It looks like they'll just continue this stuff, and we'll probably not get a map modding tool. We never did with R1 OR MTW2, that was just because of the good graces of very competent modders. I'd be more than willing to kickstart a TW rival, maybe Darthmod and that gettysburg team could do a TW clone, I think the engine they have going now seems at least seem capable of doing so. It'd be 2-D I guess, but that's okay as long as it can still do all the things the TW engine can.

[♔DARTH LEGO♔]

I'd be more than willing to kickstart a TW rival, maybe Darthmod

i pray every day that his darkness returns

[kylephoenix17]

There's probably tons of stuff i want changed and i understand that CA can't do all of it number one being leaving the warscape engine even if we don't get a total war for a couple years that thing is a wreck, but i do realize that realistically it would probably save them more money to continue on with warscape instead of scrapping it.

But one major thing they need to change and would be simpilish is to get ride of armies needing to have a *** general to do anything. Go back to the other games where you can move troops freely of generals. This new system makes you not care about your general so when he dies its like ok ill just some other dude i have absolutely no feelings for, but in the old games your general dies in battle or is assassinated your like oh i better get some other good dude up here to save my army. Also its so unrealistic. CA says they're trying to make it more realistic, but in most of history battles were fought by little amounts of soldiers lead by very low tier officers say the equivalent of colonel and lower.

[Byzantineboy]

In the new video,CA team persevere in error and ignorance, making still a distinction between "Latin Christian" and "Greek Christian" in such an era where this distinction didn't exist.
Nicean Christianity was the same in east and west. Monks and pilgrims travelled through the empire. Holy fathers and Creed were exactly the same.

I will never buy a strategy game with a so serious historic mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7bOKsoMxUw#t=61

[NostalgiaFan]

Yeah, Attila was no.1 on steam for a few hours yesterday an still is in top 10 while I write this.

Just how much has it sold honestly? I mean, what other serious competition does it have? Dragon age Inquisition and the Witcher 3 seemed to have already had their prorders ready months ago, and Attila was no.1 because it was the first day it was announced for preorders. So logically it would have a lot on the first day so outside of that is it doing anywhere close to Rome 2?

[westy159]

So the problems with unit collision still exist. In the gameplay video with Gamespot that I just watched, at the 12:00 mark, one of the players units is engaged in battle with the enemy. A second unit of the players stands idle behind the engaged friendly unit, so the player gives order for it to attack the enemy.
It simply charges through the friendly unit as if its not there. In the old engine the second unit would have stopped at the back of the friendly unit just as you'd expect it to.

I can't take the battles seriously without proper unit collision. I should be required to think about positioning my troops so that they are effective. If this means sending them on a trek around obstacles so that they can engage (or accepting that they cant yet engage as there isnt room to do so) then so be it. Other units should be an obstacle. I think i'll play Medieval II again.

[Radzeer]

Please be aware that the moderation guidelines for this thread were changed. Read the following message (OP updated with the same text). Any questions should go to the moderation commentary thread.

***
Moderation Staff have decided to open a Total War: Rome II Complaints thread, which will work similarly to older Empire: Total War criticism threads (1, 2). The main purpose of this thread is to facilitate reasonable discussion and keep the forums clean of duplicate threads. It is not intended for extended discussion on any specific complaint. Thus, moderation will use it's discretion to split healthy discussion to new threads as well as remove posts it deems necessary to prevent disruption, derailment, and other unsuitable behavior. Moderation Staff will also use its discretion to merge 'complaint threads' with this larger thread. Questions and concerns should be directed to a Moderator or Administrator, or posted in the Moderation Commentary Thread.
***

[caratacus]

So the problems with unit collision still exist. In the gameplay video with Gamespot that I just watched, at the 12:00 mark, one of the players units is engaged in battle with the enemy. A second unit of the players stands idle behind the engaged friendly unit, so the player gives order for it to attack the enemy.
It simply charges through the friendly unit as if its not there. In the old engine the second unit would have stopped at the back of the friendly unit just as you'd expect it to.

I can't take the battles seriously without proper unit collision. I should be required to think about positioning my troops so that they are effective. If this means sending them on a trek around obstacles so that they can engage (or accepting that they cant yet engage as there isnt room to do so) then so be it. Other units should be an obstacle. I think i'll play Medieval II again.

I was hoping so much that Attila would offer a significant rebuild of the Warscape engine to make combat acceptable, but I am losing faith... yet again!!!
Is Warscape able to be re-engineered substantially I'm guessing not and even if it were I doubt there is sufficient interest by CA to do so. Look at the Wrath of Sparta,they have their own stop motion studio, perfectly able to include overhand Hoplite animations but didn't bother as it would have been extra effort. What made me expect that the Company was going to overhaul their game engine as long as they are able to successfully sell the game to those who like seeing eye candy. And you can bet that the next version of Total War will feature this mistake of an engine again, unless sufficient numbers of people object by simply not buying it.

The campaign play for Attila looks very promising indeed but unless the battle combat is significantly improved upon from R2TW, I won't be buying it.

[Emperor Domitianus]

They have sacrified the title "ROME" for a mess of a game. Yes, I admit I enjoyed the game even at release only because if was ROME TOTAL WAR. However now looking at Attila I can only feel disdain for those features and tweaks being reserved to this game instead of bring glory to the real admiral title of this series that is Rome.

[Ghostlizards25]

Given the size of the settlements and battlefields, pathfinding should not be an excuse (and I use units of 240-300 on Rome 2 and 400-500 on Shogun 2 with no real problems - except for navies)

Small units are my biggest gripe. Can't help but think about the 'final battle' in Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. "This is the grand army of the Empire... all 7 of us".

I really hope to hear some word from the devs on this issue.

Heck in Rome 2 I once made a unit sizes 2000, but that was slow so I turned it to 500

[craziii]

i pray every day that his darkness returns

we don't really need anything fancy graphic wise. rtw 1 lvl would do. if darth can improve on the campaign + battles, maybe it will finally deliver a wake up call to ca. darth mod for rtw1 had excellent ai. and it spawned alot of ai sub mods from others for it. why the flaming hell ca made ai unmoddable is beyond me. scared the modders might improve their game?

I will also back a ks for a game that competes with total war.

[Sheridan]

If Attila is to truly succeed as a game, I think it is going to need excellent battles to support a substantial multiplayer community. The campaign itself is more focused than the one in Rome 2, similar to how Napoleon had a more focused campaign compared to Empire. Even if they re-introduce a lot of well-liked features for the campaign, which appears to be the case, it's not going to be enough I suspect. The game needs good, inspiring battles that you actually want to play because that gives a replayability value that the campaign alone could never offer, if not else at least for a good many of us.

Rome 2 lacks this, on the most fundamental level it's just not engaging. The mechanics in battles feel off, the design likewise. All the health nonsense and unnecessarily high statistics make it arcady to the point at which it's simply dull. The health trades away certain battle dynamics, like collateral damage and decent damage balance, in favor of a completely arcady concept. The high scale of the unit statistics, along with the fact that several things are represented that don't need or should be, detracts from the value and purpose of the statistics in the first place. They're there to give you a good overlook of how a unit can perform, in a functional way - yet it's difficult to remember basic things, let alone compare unit to unit, because of the design.


There is also a general lack of details in this area; every unit is arranged more or less the same way. It's such a simple thing to adjust and so there's no good excuse for not taking that good opportunity to bring some variation to battlefields. Besides of all these points, I guess the biggest beef a lot of people, including myself, have with battles, is that they simply don't feel right. Which again isn't so strange when you take into account that they weren't designed to portray the combat of the period in any greater detail. Basic things like collision and cohesion should be there, and to get a vibrant and nuanced battlefield pushing mechanics for units also needs to make a return. Essentially, it feels like a lack of prescence on the battlefield on many levels because of all the poor designs/missing mechanics.

[gaunty14]

Welcome to Total War. You are a new player I assume?

Shogun
Medieval (Mod of Shogun)

Rome (New engine)
Medieval 2 (Mod of Rome)

Empire (New engine)
Napoleon (Mod of Empire)

Rome 2 (New engine)
Attila (Mod of Rome 2)


See the pattern?

Slight necro quote, but I would hardly call MTW2 a mod of RTW, and MTW a mod of STW given that yes the engine is the same but they are in completely different time periods, maps and units + new stuff. Compared to ETW/NTW.

[craziii]

he even got the engines wrong. total war games has been using the same engine since etw. I can see why he would think the games using the same engine after the first to be mods, but what is wrong with that? they are all full conversion mods where everything is changed and new. and supposedly pro quality(we can argue this point to death, but the point stands). I see nothing wrong with this. I don't think any game dev can code a new engine for every game. the cost would be too damn high.

keep warscape for gunpowder tw games.

make new engine for every other tw game.

voila.

[RuleBritannia]

I would've rather seen Empire 2: Total War or the ever-rumored Victoria: Total War. I'm honestly sick of the ancient settings the game's putting itself in now.

[crucify_ego]

Why? Because there's no worthwhile british factions!

[Cope]

Dear all people still on the fence about whether or not to buy Attila,

I suggest that you watch this video which I saw in another thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBPC...ature=youtu.be

Two important points which I drew from this video were:

1. Gate torching is still in the game and the AI in this case demonstrates that it will still use it even when there is a breach in the wall for them to use.
2. Battles will still degenerate into disgusting blob fests.

In other words, the battles in Attila are probably going to be lumbered with all the issues associated with Rome II. If you are not a fan of the combat in Rome II, based on this video, I would strongly recommend not buying Attila.

[Sun Jetzu]

Development in Progress.

[Cope]

Development in Progress.

If they haven't got torches (a feature which roughly 80% of people in a 2014 poll of over 2,500 people on tw.com said they wanted removing) out after 18 months, they aren't going to do it in the next 3 or 4 weeks. Unit collision will also not be fixed.