Does Attila lack sufficient Historical DEPTH? Compared to RTW:BI

**ray243** · February 22, 2015, 01:23 PM

I like most of the game design for Attila, such as giving us the family tree for instance. However, it seems that Attila doesn't seem to be a game that is as well researched as the previous Total War game, which makes it feel less enjoyable as a historical immersion game.

Not only do we have ahistorical units, we do not even have a proper representation of how the late Roman army is organised. There is a complete lack of ability to recreate the Limitanei and the Comitatenes system and weird troop upgrading system. It's not as if this is too difficult to achieve gameplay wise, which is dissapointing for anyone trying to play as the Roman Empires.

**Doe3000** · February 22, 2015, 01:46 PM

Compared to Barbarian Invasion I think it's miles ahead - in BI we had units like Roman rapid fire ballista-chariots, Catholic priests as battle units, Roxolani Warrior Virgins, Hounds of Culaan, Graal Knights, Gaelic Galloglasses, Kerns, Scotti Chariots,Battlefield spies etc . What's weird though is how some of the ahistorical units from Rome: Total War and BI, such as Germanic phalanxes, have made a re-appearance in Attila. It's not as accurate as Rome II though in terms of unit depiction.

**Karnil Vark Khaitan** · February 22, 2015, 01:47 PM

WOHOLOLOLO!!

Ahhh I should make a unit pack with those monks!

**Generaal Van Heutsz** · February 22, 2015, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Doe3000

Compared to Barbarian Invasion I think it's miles ahead - in BI we had units like Roman rapid fire ballista-chariots, Catholic priests as battle units, Roxolani Warrior Virgins, Hounds of Culaan, Graal Knights, Gaelic Galloglasses, Kerns, Scotti Chariots,Battlefield spies etc . What's weird though is how some of the ahistorical units from Rome: Total War and BI, such as Germanic phalanxes, have made a re-appearance in Attila. It's not as accurate as Rome II though in terms of unit depiction.

Do we get flaming pigs

**amelius** · February 22, 2015, 04:18 PM

Well, have you actually played BI before? I find Attila to be a alot more improved than BI.

**Ataegina** · February 22, 2015, 04:26 PM

wait are the OP serious............???

**Godz_Mercenary** · February 22, 2015, 04:50 PM

It's a game based on the period only, key word being based. CA have never stated anything other than they would choose gameplay over historical accuracy. A statement they've repeated over and over. It's not a historical simulator. I would be fine if they had flaming pigs even, it doesn't take out the immersion of the amazing world they created.

Originally Posted by ray243

Not only do we have ahistorical units, we do not even have a proper representation of how the late Roman army is organised.

Don't think anyone cares, they're history, books will keep their tactics etc alive, I just wanna swing my swords and have fun, 'cause it's a game first.

**Ataegina** · February 22, 2015, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Godz_Mercenary

It's a game based on the period only, key word being based. CA have never stated anything other than they would choose gameplay over historical accuracy. A statement they've repeated over and over. It's not a historical simulator. I would be fine if they had flaming pigs even, it doesn't take out the immersion of the amazing world they created.

yeah........ CA never said this was a simulator and such, its just a damn game for enterteinment......... yet people keep crying over historical accuracy in a game that never said to be historical accurate or simulator of the same.......

**Aenima** · February 22, 2015, 05:04 PM

I can't agree with this at all, and BI was one of my favourite, if not my favourite, vanilla TW campaign

In BI there were only a few horde/barbarian factions; you could overcome them in a few battles and find yourself as the WRE without a real challenge to your authority in Europe. Celts, Huns, Vandals, Sarmatians, Goths, Rhox., Franks, Saxons, Lombards, Burgundii and, eventually, the Slavs. Those are all the factions you'd fight in Europe, horde or settled. There are probably at least twice that many in Rome 2 - you feel more under threat.

Unit variety and the Roman roster could certainly do with some work, but it really doesn't matter all that much - Limitanei were pretty terrible so Foederati became the standard spear warriors in an army anyways. It'd be nice for the roster to be re-worked to represent Limitanei and Comitatenses existing together and being separate soldiers, but it doesn't feel like a big deal for me.

**Yoke** · February 22, 2015, 05:24 PM

Rome I was actually the least historical apt game CA have done, by far. Yet It was also my favorite, so there's that :/

**6040610** · February 22, 2015, 08:11 PM

There needs to be more regions and less generic factions.

**The Useless Member** · February 22, 2015, 08:16 PM

Ahh yes. The complaining about the lack of "historical authenticity." The only phrase overused more than that in terms of Total War is "streamlining." Never thought that the WRE having its capital as Rome in BI signified "historical authenticity", but okay.

**ray243** · February 22, 2015, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by The Useless Member

Ahh yes. The complaining about the lack of "historical authenticity." The only phrase overused more than that in terms of Total War is "streamlining." Never thought that the WRE having its capital as Rome in BI signified "historical authenticity", but okay.

It's not even about historical accuracy in the sense that the team has to get everything right. It's about making a game that feels fun as if you are managing the complexity of an dying Empire with the tools they have.

**The Useless Member** · February 22, 2015, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by ray243

It's not even about historical accuracy in the sense that the team has to get everything right. It's about making a game that feels fun as if you are managing the complexity of an dying Empire with the tools they have.

I don't see anything about what you just mentioned in the OP. How about you rewrite the OP?

**prithupaul** · February 22, 2015, 11:47 PM

Pictish Vikings FTW!

**Fedual** · February 23, 2015, 03:36 AM

I am starting to think some people commenting about BI actually did not play BI. It was horrible, but sure lets all bring back King Arthur & his crew lol.

**FrozenmenSS** · February 23, 2015, 03:38 AM

[*]So much Historical Inaccuracies - its off the Roof compared with Rome 2.Still not like Rome 1 where we had Egyptians from the Bronze age.The modders Have to fix this ASAP

[1]No Red Huns( The Kidarites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidarites ),No White Huns(The Hephthalites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalite_Empire ) on the Eastern Bourders of the Sassanids and waged war with them. The Sassanids are just like Selucids 2.0 in Attila. They were 1 homogenic Nation, not Broken into 2 -Vassals and the Core Regions. The Sassanids Campaign compared with the other Factions is Boring - you got only the ERE as major enemy and Surounded by Friends. If the Sassanids were 1 Homogenic nation + the Red and the White Huns battling Eachother + ERE it would have been Fun and far better than the Vannila that we got right now.Parthia is on the map as a Vassal and the parthians were overthrone in the 3rd Century by the sassanids.The Atropane,Aria,Makhran,Abarashahr,Parhtia and Africhids shoud have never been added on the Campaign map and those Regions to be Given to the Sassanids.They still would have had Armenia,Lakhmids and Mazun as Puppet states.

[2]So lets go to Europe - The 3 Slavic Tribes + the Celts in Britain Got coppy paste Germanic units.Soo lazy.Yes they will be DLCs but we wont see the Removal of the Germanic units that they got now.If they are removed in Patch 125 all the savegames till now will not work anymore.So have fun with those new DLC factions with 3-4 new units per Factions(Im using The rome 2 DLC strategy done By CA for looking into the Future)

[3]TheFrissians,The Swedes(Sviones) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedes_(Germanic_tribe) ,Proto-Bulgarians( http://groznijat.tripod.com/p_bulgar/p_bulg1a.htm ),Avars(they are in the game by 1 unit in the Hunnic unit Rouster)is not on the Campaign map and in the game.
The idea that they were Removed or not added into the game,because a certain culture, faction or country is not included in the game it is purely due to design reasons or for Balancing its not the Answer. All those factions could have been added into the game by starting the game in Horde mode.Its so simple as that. even western Ireland is Empty for 1 new Faction and make the Irish isles area in the Campaign more interesting.

[4]Thracian Warriors in the Ostrogothic unit Rouser??? Everybody knows by 400AD there were no thracians in the Balkans.The Thracians were assimilated by the Romans Long before that.At least Rename that unit to be more Historical - Like Bastranae Warriors or something else,but Thracian Warriors -What a Joke.

[5] Pikes as units its also speculative described by the Historian records from that time. the Shield wall should have done the trick and far fitting into the game,but hey Barbarian Invasion expansion for Rome 1 had them too....

Attila lack sufficient Historical DEPTH? Compared to RTW:BI?? No, RTW:BI was Fulled with Historical Inaccuracies like King Arthur and the Romano-Brittish.

**Linke** · February 23, 2015, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS

The Swedes(Sviones) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedes_(Germanic_tribe)

The Svear, Swedes, Sviones lived just north of where the map ends so it's not ahistorical to not include them.

However it does create a weird rather ahistorical situation were the Geats are free to expand without having to look to their northern borders. There is evidence that the two peoples fought with each other, especialy the fact that the Swedes eventualy
controled their land but also from sources like Beowulf (Not very reliable source but it does seems weird that they would just make up a conflict)

**Atraphoenix** · February 23, 2015, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS

[1]No Red Huns( The Kidarites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidarites ),No White Huns(The Hephthalites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalite_Empire ) on the Eastern Bourders of the Sassanids and waged war with them. The Sassanids are just like Selucids 2.0 in Attila. They were 1 homogenic Nation, not Broken into 2 -Vassals and the Core Regions. The Sassanids Campaign compared with the other Factions is Boring - you got only the ERE as major enemy and Surounded by Friends. If the Sassanids were 1 Homogenic nation + the Red and the White Huns battling Eachother + ERE it would have been Fun and far better than the Vannila that we got right now.Parthia is on the map as a Vassal and the parthians were overthrone in the 3rd Century by the sassanids.The Atropane,Aria,Makhran,Abarashahr,Parhtia and Africhids shoud have never been added on the Campaign map and those Regions to be Given to the Sassanids.They still would have had Armenia,Lakhmids and Mazun as Puppet states.

Kidarites well may be on the map but Hephtalites were a vassal to Rauran Khanate so I would vote for them not for Hephtalites.