Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 203

Thread: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

  1. #1
    Linke's Avatar Hazarapatish
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,800

    Default Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Attila Total War seems to have great gameplay, great immersion and is often very good looking. I'd say one of the best Tw3 engine games. Certainly better then Shogun and Rome II.

    Yet still compared to these games it lacks something, accuracy. (not sure how accurate Shogun II is).
    From Empire onwards Total War games have in vanilla had a greater emphasis on history than previous games. Culminating in Rome II where CA depicted more unique cultures than in any previous game (and fairly accurate most of the time).
    The factions were almost all based on reality, of the playable factions only the Suebi and Iceni may not have existed at the start of the game.

    And then we look at Attila, when it comes to factions it is of course better than Rome I but still not as accurate as the games mentioned above. The Ostrogoths for example certainly didn't exist in 395 yet they are playable, the Sassanid Empire is a lot of states instead of one (More understandable for the Seleucids as they had several independently ruling satraps), three minor Norse Peoples are regional powers in North-West Europe, a few of the steppe factions are innacurate I hear
    and a few of the Roman succesor states are very implausible (nice concept I say but really Italia?). I think they represented the eras factions ok when it comes to whom they are.


    However the real innaccuracy is in how factions are depicted, not what factions are depicted. I hear there are quite a lot of visual inaccuracies, some pieces of shields and helmets never being used and also a tiny variety in helmets.
    The rosters are way weirder, making factions unique at the price of going beyond historical plausability. A few examples of anachronistic or non existing units are: Germanic Phalangites, All the "dessert units", middle age era east Roman
    units (Tagmata, Menualatoi and I hear Varangians), generic Limitanei represented only as a low tier spear unit. And more..

    Also many factions have no unique representation, for example the Brittons , the Nomads (as they are depicted, generic asian nomads), I hear that the Africans and Arabians share a roster of "desert units" but I'm not entirely sure.



    As we see above a massive downfall since Rome II. A few possible reasons:
    The low variety in unique cultures and models is almost certainly becuase of lack of time to work on Attila. Most likely they want as many as possible on the Warhammer game as soon as possible.

    Some of the inacuracies are intentional to benefit gameplay: For example partly the differences betwen Germanic and Roman factions and the divided Sassanid empire. Since they want large rosters they have to look beyond realism.

    A few of the inaccuracies are probably included to make the game appeal to more people, for example the Varangians are their partly becuase they are well known. And the Vikings becuase Vikings are "Cool" and you get many Scandinavian buyers (From my observetions many of my fellow Scandinavians dont care).


    The question now remains, is it more or less accurate then lets say Barbarian invasion. Wich also had inaccurate rosters and factions.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    More accurate than Barbarian Invasion. Not as accurate as some fanatics want it to be. But atleast those rosters remind me of the culture they came from.
    Last edited by Scythion; February 16, 2015 at 01:46 PM.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    This looks more like people are nitpicking Total War games more than they used to nitpick old games. Did Rome I had great accuracy with incredible amount of detail? Not really.
    The Armenian Issue

  4. #4
    priam11's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Toronto-Home of the crack smokin Robbie Ford
    Posts
    1,756

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    This.

    Just wait a day for the final release, play the game, then pose the question.
    "Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you.
    Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure."
    -George Carlin

  5. #5
    Linke's Avatar Hazarapatish
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,800

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    This looks more like people are nitpicking Total War games more than they used to nitpick old games. Did Rome I had great accuracy with incredible amount of detail? Not really.
    No, thats even the point if the thread comparing it to the lack of accuracy in RtW I, I dont hate Attila.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    here we go............ "New game, worst TW ever, i will never again buy TW game EVER, this game is the worst [insert reason]....." seems to be a tradition here for each bloody new game, 5% constructive criticism 95% nitpicking non sense flooding this forum for months....... YAY
    Common sense removed due being Disruptive.

  7. #7
    Linke's Avatar Hazarapatish
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,800

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ataegina View Post
    here we go............ "New game, worst TW ever, i will never again buy TW game EVER, this game is the worst [insert reason]....." seems to be a tradition here for each bloody new game, 5% constructive criticism 95% nitpicking non sense flooding this forum for months....... YAY
    Never in the op do I mention me disliking the game or the unhistoricity. I was hoping for neither any bashing of me nor the game but I'm not sure that discussion is possible. My own personal views I dont intend to mention at the moment

    Any expert on Shogun IIs History know if that was more inaccurate?

  8. #8
    Lugotorix's Avatar non flectis non mutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    2,016

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    It's not that the Ostrogoths didn't exist at 395. They were just homogenous with the Visigoths. There are two different groups called Ostrogoths, in different times of history, that are from the same group (north and just south of the Danube)
    Last edited by Lugotorix; February 16, 2015 at 03:45 PM.
    AUTHOR OF TROY OF THE WESTERN SEA: LOVE AND CARNAGE UNDER THE RULE OF THE VANDAL KING, GENSERIC
    THE BLACK-HEARTED LORDS OF THRACE: ODRYSIAN KINGDOM AAR
    VANDALARIUS: A DARK AGES GOTHIC EMPIRE ATTILA AAR


  9. #9

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Then there is the issue arguing as if all the examples you come up with are accurate criticisms themselves. Units in Total War games are usually not meant to be fully accurate but feasible. If you wanted complete accuracy you'd get a lot more of the copy-paste you mention.

    How can Ostrogoths, for example, not exist in 395 when they're mentioned in historical records from 388?
    The Armenian Issue

  10. #10
    Lugotorix's Avatar non flectis non mutant
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Carolinas
    Posts
    2,016

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Then there is the issue arguing as if all the examples you come up with are accurate criticisms themselves. Units in Total War games are usually not meant to be fully accurate but feasible. If you wanted complete accuracy you'd get a lot more of the copy-paste you mention.

    How can Ostrogoths, for example, not exist in 395 when they're mentioned in historical records from 388?
    Somewhat off topic, but I think it's relevant to your point : This bothers me somewhat. For example, people will insist that Atilla is a full-priced game, when it's not. Also, Setekh, it's a true example of a tribal confederation, that's why he's confused. They (different Goths) parted ways later and were called geographically as such.
    Last edited by Lugotorix; February 16, 2015 at 03:47 PM.
    AUTHOR OF TROY OF THE WESTERN SEA: LOVE AND CARNAGE UNDER THE RULE OF THE VANDAL KING, GENSERIC
    THE BLACK-HEARTED LORDS OF THRACE: ODRYSIAN KINGDOM AAR
    VANDALARIUS: A DARK AGES GOTHIC EMPIRE ATTILA AAR


  11. #11

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    With all the migration going on in this time period it's quite hard to be historically accurate.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Linke View Post
    Never in the op do I mention me disliking the game or the unhistoricity. I was hoping for neither any bashing of me nor the game but I'm not sure that discussion is possible. My own personal views I dont intend to mention at the moment

    Any expert on Shogun IIs History know if that was more inaccurate?
    if you re-read i didn't specified a target, but you're trying to be the self-proclaimed one. also i didn't meantioned "disliking" did i? No. about inhistoricity well for thread titled " Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?) " it self-answers the issue here. If my post that didn't targeted anyone in specific, seems to bother you in specific, well maybe something i said was not so wrong afterall.......... since i post clear states a trend and not "a specific user here", TW is NOT history simulator, its a GAME that uses historical elements along with creative elements for the sole purpose of provide entertainment. About being or not being the most historical, has been said countless times that this game seems to be the most immersive TW and historicaly quite "aceptable", but of course has some non sense...but like i said, its a game and not an educational tool....... But theres no denial that on past years we've seen this type of threads woth sole purpose of causing in-conflict among the community. besides Medieval 2 or even Rome 1 was the most unhistorical TW games ever......... do you see the point? Gosh how much i miss those Rome 1 "Iberian bull warriors " and those egyptians from ramses timeframe.......
    Common sense removed due being Disruptive.

  13. #13
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Considering that (vanilla) RTW had 3 Roman factions, Pharaonic Egyptians and Arcani battlefield assassins, "historicity" should not be anywhere near this forum. The only issue that relates to immersion (to a variable degree) is plausibility. For that, we need to wait.

  14. #14
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Meh. Back to OP question.

    I think Attila is indeed the least accurate. Not just by mistakes, misconception and plan lack of work but for the simple fact that CA decided to introduced bits from Late Antiquity up to the very end of Early Middle Age. This mix of 700 years of history introduced in a game set in a time frame of less than one century means it can only have poor historic accuracy.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Torch tech and towers that inexplicably fall are the most inaccurate elements of any Total war to date.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    Torch tech and towers that inexplicably fall are the most inaccurate elements of any Total war to date.
    Well with towers not really. As in every other total war game towers just get changed teams magically. Which is completely unrealistic. Like priests converting units and buildings in age of empires lol. Stone towers self destructing is rather strange but wooden towers not so much. The men would try and destroy the tower from the bottom. Which is better than your units singing Wololo and the tower magically converting to your side.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonater47 View Post
    . Stone towers self destructing is rather strange
    Ya think....
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  18. #18
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Patrician Artifex Magistrate

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    11,087

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Lol, well I haven't been paying much attention to TW:Attila, but I just read in a review that it has climate change as a driving factor behind the great migrations. How about that. I know I was taught that in elementary school decennia ago, but is that even mentioned anymore as a contributing factor in academic circles these days?
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  19. #19

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    the problem with the current newer games is that the units feel like... sponges. And no this is not some nostalgia problem, the units when they fight and collide feels 'real' but the current R2 game they feel like sponges pressed against each other. The units dont feel real or actually in a fight, they just try to perfectly line up and sometimes it makes for some ridiculous positioning. It just kills it for me.

    The only game that did not feel this way since the new engine is shogun 2, yes I despise shogun 2 because of its limiting cultures and limited units but god the battles felt so awesome. When those Samurai crashed into those Yari spearmen you could actually see and feel them getting shredded like paper but in Rome 2? its just a sponge that twists and turns until the other sponge runs away. its not as good as the original Rome or Medieval where some individual units just dig through one part of line.

    anyway TDLR:
    the current games are fantastic but the only problem is that the battles flat on their face in comparison.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    Torch tech and towers that inexplicably fall are the most inaccurate elements of any Total war to date.
    Torches??! What torches!!

    Last edited by swoosh so; February 16, 2015 at 05:37 PM.
    Support Totalwar Youtubers:
    Jackiefish commentary my Quarter final match tosa cup*
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcr52zUAoTo
    Showing Pointman a 2v3 Tactic: He does well and carries it out to perfection first time*..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBrfDUr8f6M&feature=plcp
    Aggony Clan 1v1 Tournament match: Multiple casters check description for their youtube channels*:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHoz8nS7ulY


Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •