Attila Complaint Thread

[stevehoos]

This is way way pre alpha.......


I see (or I hear) "a shameful display" by a new voice actor (intern) made it into Attila as well as Torches and blob battles. I may have considered buying this if it was an expansion to Rome 2 -should have been- that added family trees and a UI that doesn't cause you to throw things. It took about a year to mod medicate Rome 2 (God Bless DEI) to at least help some of the niveous barrenness. Again if these "torches" were so effective, why did empires bother to build walls or gates? It's a counter intuitive game from its fundamental inception. It's a really hard to right a ship when it leaves the port -again- with pre made holes before voyage. But it has kill moves!

[Cope]

This is way way pre alpha.......


I see (or I hear) "a shameful display" by a new voice actor (intern) made it into Attila as well as Torches and blob battles. I may have considered buying this if it was an expansion to Rome 2 -should have been- that added family trees and a UI that doesn't cause you to throw things. It took about a year to mod medicate Rome 2 (God Bless DEI) to at least help some the niveous barrenness. Again if these "torches" were so effective, why did empires bother to build walls or gates? It's a counter intuitive game from fundamental inception. It's a really hard to right a ship when it leaves the port -again- with pre made holes before voyage.

Sanity remains.

[NostalgiaFan]

Development in Progress.

Even the blind can see this is not going to change. Why can't you?

[stevehoos]

"We don't need Cannons for Constantinople Sultan, we need torches !" -Circa 1453


Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug!

[Cope]

"We don't need Cannons for Constantinople Sultan, we need torches !" -Circa 1453

You don't even need torches: all you need is to wait for the turn to end and the mighty walls will magically collapse.

[stevehoos]

You don't even need torches: all you need is to wait for the turn to end and the mighty walls will magically collapse.

My mistake,
The Jericho trumpet ancillary is a must!

[Jay the Byzantine]

Anyone else find the replacements of the flags with those smartphone icons disgusting? Was not gonna buy on release 1/2 year before, and now I'm never gonna do it if CA doesn't realize that they express enough of their opinion on how good their game is if they advertise Android and iOS beside PC as if all three were equal platforms. Seriously, I still think Rome 2 with good mods is better than this. More than enough tier 1 mod content on R2 to keep me from tier 3 CA TW:A.

[Maximinus Thrax]

Similar thread merged.

[Jay the Byzantine]

Just stay to ancient times please. I've seen Darren's video and it seems the new disgusting smartphone icons+over emphasis on characters and not battles means CA is trying to push a game of thrones vibe on to the series and make it a tablet/ mobile game for casuals. And I imagine that would increase to ludicrous levels in later time-periods than the 17th century. So yeah, seems I just got in as the ship hit the ice-berg

[Humble Warrior]

I can`t believe the torching of gates are still in. They manage to make the basic siege mechanic work right but still left the BS torches???
If it`s to allow the Player to win as a last resort then I call BS on that. Are Ca so afraid that people will be turned off by having to retreat that they MUST have a way in siege weapons or not? Do CA care about authenticity? Do they care to show people how it really was? What`s the point of all the dark gritty siege realism if you allow the idotic torches at the end to blow all that?

No siege weapons end battle- attacker retreats to try another day!

Make those siege weapons mean something, CA. Otherwise it`s just a placebo. You managed it in RTW and MTW2. Do it here. Sieges are one of the most important battles for me- I can`t buy while that ludicrous mechanic is still in.

Why? And, no, It don`t make it alright just cos now buildings can be torched. I know CA don`t give two hoots what I do, but I will not buy while this still remains. A pity this has been moved to the Complaints thread and not out in the open where CA might actually read and have a change of heart. I doubt they ever look in here.

[aliedi]

Hi guys. Here is the 3 examples of persian kings faces.they are darius,shapur and bahram. Here is my question: why not the real faces ? According to history all kings of persia had beard and mostache.in attila i can see. That bahram is completly shaved and his skin is so dark and why ghassanid king or other arab kings have the crown of shahanshah(king of kings)?

[aliedi]

Hi guys. Here is the 3 examples of persian kings faces.they are darius,shapur and bahram. Here is my question: why not the real faces ? According to history all kings of persia had beard and mostache.in attila i can see. That bahram is completly shaved and his skin is so dark and why ghassanid king or other arab kings have the crown of shahanshah(king of kings)?

and this is the Creative assembly bahram

and this is the Creative assembly bahram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oq029b7xm1...ahram.png?dl=0

[Lord Baratheon]

why ghassanid king or other arab kings have the crown of shahanshah(king of kings)?

Noticed this too. I was looking to see if there was a unique arab general portrait. Guess not.

[JERUSALEM]

Noticed this too. I was looking to see if there was a unique arab general portrait. Guess not.

Even Abasgian king has the crown of Shahanshah like he was an Emperor, which is funny indeed. Also Abasgian king has a Persian name - Ardashir, which is not correct, Abasgians did not used Persian names
they used Sarmatian or the Latin names. I do not know, but here is a tons of mistakes which could be corrected even thought the help from wikipedia, not looking the sources or the special literature, but
they do not want to do it.

The faces of Sassianid Shahs simply can be copied from the coins, which are on th web, tons of them are in internet.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

Even Abasgian king has the crown of Shahanshah like he was an Emperor, which is funny indeed. Also Abasgian king has a Persian name - Ardashir, which is not correct, Abasgians did not used Persian names
they used Sarmatian or the Latin names. I do not know, but here is a tons of mistakes which could be corrected even thought the help from wikipedia, not looking the sources or the special literature, but
they do not want to do it.

The faces of Sassianid Shahs simply can be copied from the coins, which are on th web, tons of them are in internet.

Not only that, but they also had a few distinct crowns. You can see CA has to imitate one type of crown but have got it horribly wrong, maybe deliberately as they were magnificent. CA's version of the Bahram crown, The centre bulging effect around the crown is very badly done giving the Qajar head piece effect aliedi pointed out on the official forum.
Also Sassanid kings had a sword attached to the front centre of their belts (most of the time) or by the side as well as earings, highly decorated hair and facial hair, ribbons etc ...just look at this http://danamotor.ir/Sassanid_Khosrau...lden_Plate.jpg
http://www.worldhistoria.com/sassanids_topic126782.html
(Also note the 2 'balloon looking' attached to the rear back of the horse which appear to 'float' or maybe catch the wind which lifts them up. In the first link you can see that the 2 attachments are have wolves head and maybe suck air to make them float? Very interesting.)

[aliedi]

Not only that, but they also had a few distinct crowns. You can see CA has to imitate one type of crown but have got it horribly wrong, maybe deliberately as they were magnificent. CA's version of the Bahram crown, The centre bulging effect around the crown is very badly done giving the Qajar head piece effect aliedi pointed out on the official forum.
Also Sassanid kings had a sword attached to the front centre of their belts (most of the time) or by the side as well as earings, highly decorated hair and facial hair, ribbons etc ...just look at this http://danamotor.ir/Sassanid_Khosrau...lden_Plate.jpg
http://www.worldhistoria.com/sassanids_topic126782.html
(Also note the 2 'balloon looking' attached to the rear back of the horse which appear to 'float' or maybe catch the wind which lifts them up. In the first link you can see that the 2 attachments are have wolves head and maybe suck air to make them float? Very interesting.)

i hope they pay attention and fix this

[NostalgiaFan]

i hope they pay attention and fix this

I really doubt it. CA honestly just seem to not care about this faction as shown by their poor and unhistorical representation of it in the trailers and gameplay videos.

[Doe3000]

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.

Each to their own. I personally dislike the 18th-19th century eras depicted in the Total War series (barring Fall of the Samurai). Total War is far better suited to melee combat than to ranged combat. If they ever do go back the gunpowder age, I hope they do a Renaissance era game instead, because at least that's new territory.

[JERUSALEM]

Also Armenian king is named as Vardan, which is not correct for 395 - in 395 the King was Vramshapuh, There was no Vardan as a king of Armenia from 189 BC to 428 AD, when kingdom was annexed by Persians.
Vardan was the Armenian naxarar in the 5th century, later in 484 he was appointed as marzban of Armenia by the Sassanids, but he never been the king, nor even the any guy with this name.

They can simply rely on wiki, which has far more good info about Armenia rather than they have in Attila Tw as i see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsacid_dynasty_of_Armenia

this is about the Armenian King Vramshapuh (389–414) from the same wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vramshapuh

Looking any other reliable sources about the Armenian history you will find the same information, King was Vramshapuh in 395, not the Vardan, or whoever








.

[JERUSALEM]

How come there is a complaint thread about a game that hasn't even been released yet. And how come complainers can fill up 6 pages of complaining about a game that hasn't even been released yet. I'd like to complain that there is 6 pages of complaining in a complaint thread about a game that hasn't even been released yet.

beta has been released and if they do not change something game will luck much.

See the beta testing from the members of community or from other youtubers here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...y-previews-hit


1) Also, we have Ataulf's bodyguard as infantry unit, but in reality one of the leader of Visigoth's must have cavalry unit and not infantry. As well as most the the Visigothic army has to be composed of cavalry not of infantry.

see here 1:09 min. for the bodyguard unit and whole video for the Visigoth army vs Romans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBPCcHR7tqA

2) Also, from the same video 13:35-13:55 - while engaged Roman Cavalry (scount equites) and Gothic cavalry (Germanic mounted warband) they almost do not shake their weapons against each other, they act more as a friends rather than enemies. That is very funny indeed and while looking into cavalry engagements with other cavalry units or even against infantry units cavalrymen are very lazy to shake their weapons in hand-in-hand engagements. This should be corrected, otherwise cavalry engagements will be looking very poor in the game.

see the video from 13:35 to 13:55.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBPCcHR7tqA


If I am wrong, correct me PLZ, but i am not blind and this engagement is really very poor, so CA has to work a lot.