The Last Roman Campaign Pack Unit Spotlight!

[Darren_CA]

The Last Roman Campaign Pack for Total War: Attila is out now! Whether you’re defending your new found Barbaric Kingdom or leading The Roman Expedition to reclaim past glory, you’ll have an arsenal of new and unique units at your disposal. In this unit spotlight, we take a look at some of the higher tier units available in The Last Roman Campaign Pack, the role they played in history and how they can be used on the battlefield.

I'll never look at biscuits the same.

Find out more about The Last Roman Campaign Pack for Total War: Attila here:http://store.steampowered.com/app/343462/

[Darios]

Nice video Darren! Makes me feel like firing up TLR again)

[Wolves In The Throne Room]

Nice map, it is much better than the original, now let's get a Charles to Charlemagne era expansion to go with it

[Efix]

Nice map, it is much better than the original, now let's get a Charles to Charlemagne era expansion to go with it

Carolingian Empire !!!!!!

I have to say the new map is gorgeous maybe expend it a bit more to include the Balkan, Saxony and such. That's the closest to a medieval III we will get for now .

[guyblack]

Images in movies really very beautiful
Exquisite technique catching duwnjh

[Timhawk]

Can somebody explain to me how a horse archer is supposed to light a fire arrow, nock it, draw it and loose it on horse back at the gallop ?
The only historically plausible explanation I can think of is:
..
...
...
ALIENS
...

[foot soldier]

Can somebody explain to me how a horse archer is supposed to light a fire arrow, nock it, draw it and loose it on horse back at the gallop ?
The only historically plausible explanation I can think of is:
..
...
...
ALIENS
...

History Channel CA

[Humble Warrior]

Can somebody explain to me how a horse archer is supposed to light a fire arrow, nock it, draw it and loose it on horse back at the gallop ?
The only historically plausible explanation I can think of is:
..
...
...
ALIENS
...

STOP asking perfectly logical questions!

[riskymonk]

Can somebody explain to me how a horse archer is supposed to light a fire arrow, nock it, draw it and loose it on horse back at the gallop ?
The only historically plausible explanation I can think of is:
..
...
...
ALIENS
...

well if we're going to go down that route then maybe we should ask logical questions about all the games out there.

Space engineers is the most realistic game I can think of and even that has some questionable moments and people opening threads like "Someone explain to me where in space can you find gravity"

[Humble Warrior]

well if we're going to go down that route then maybe we should ask logical questions about all the games out there.

Space engineers is the most realistic game I can think of and even that has some questionable moments and people opening threads like "Someone explain to me where in space can you find gravity"

But there is gravity in space. Our planets are where they are literally because of it.

[riskymonk]

But there is gravity in space. Our planets are where they are literally because of it.

[riskymonk]

But there is gravity in space. Our planets are where they are literally because of it.

I was just giving a really simple example and this is an early access game so there are plenty of space problems.

Ill go in depth. The gravital problems they were having in space engineers was that they were experiencing earth-like Gravity. Space engineers doesn't have planets, only rocks with minerals.

Give me me an example of an illogical mechanic in a game you've recently played.

Ive recently played the fantastic, immersive and rich Dying Light and could go on and on about why this is there and how that became that.

We are playing games. The US army developed Full Spectrum Warrior for their officers and commanders. That game is not perfect and was meant to be a realistic representation of war.

[Humble Warrior]

I was just giving a really simple example and this is an early access game so there are plenty of space problems.

Ill go in depth. The gravital problems they were having in space engineers was that they were experiencing earth-like Gravity. Space engineers doesn't have planets, only rocks with minerals.

Give me me an example of an illogical mechanic in a game you've recently played.

Ive recently played the fantastic, immersive and rich Dying Light and could go on and on about why this is there and how that became that.

We are playing games. The US army developed Full Spectrum Warrior for their officers and commanders. That game is not perfect and was meant to be a realistic representation of war.

I see.
Dying Light is a very good game. Maybe you`ve just got tired of the whining, but I don`t see it as an excuse to let things go, just because. I tolerate games today, but I don`t tolerate the acceptance of laziness from some Devs just because `it`s a game`. Years back games adhered to realism far more, even games that were set in fantasy. To me a game is more immersive if it follows a reality yardstick.

For example, you had to sleep in Baldurs Gate or your stats would be affected. you also had to sleep to heal quicker. Sometimes it took days even weeks of resting to get back up to fitness.
Then it got changed with later games to just kneeling and resting for 5 seconds, then it got changed to now ingames like Skyrim, you don`t need to sleep at all for anything. All this because for some, the loudest whiners, sleeping was a pain, even though, the actual act of sleeping took about 5 secs real time. Technically it was as short as a pause, but more realistic. But that wasn`t enough.

With the advent of the greater push to make more money than sin and pleasing the most impatient babies, we are now left with the wan attitude of it`s `just a game, this isn`t realistic, so why make that realistic` argument, which suits companies and Devs fine as it means they do less for more money.

It leads to stupid dumbing down such as in Mass effect 3 where it got so bad that they stick 3 actions on one button to the point I rage quit in frustration and never touched it again. Games these days are an insult to the intelligent.

I am the `whiner` now, so Devs as much as they don`t care at least `hear` and see that some of us still want `realism`.

[Sharpe]

It leads to stupid dumbing down such as in Mass effect 3 where it got so bad that they stick 3 actions on one button to the point I rage quit in frustration and never touched it again. Games these days are an insult to the intelligent.

You sound emotionally fragile mate - are you ok?

[riskymonk]

I see.
Dying Light is a very good game. Maybe you`ve just got tired of the whining, but I don`t see it as an excuse to let things go, just because. I tolerate games today, but I don`t tolerate the acceptance of laziness from some Devs just because `it`s a game`. Years back games adhered to realism far more, even games that were set in fantasy. To me a game is more immersive if it follows a reality yardstick.

For example, you had to sleep in Baldurs Gate or your stats would be affected. you also had to sleep to heal quicker. Sometimes it took days even weeks of resting to get back up to fitness.
Then it got changed with later games to just kneeling and resting for 5 seconds, then it got changed to now ingames like Skyrim, you don`t need to sleep at all for anything. All this because for some, the loudest whiners, sleeping was a pain, even though, the actual act of sleeping took about 5 secs real time. Technically it was as short as a pause, but more realistic. But that wasn`t enough.

With the advent of the greater push to make more money than sin and pleasing the most impatient babies, we are now left with the wan attitude of it`s `just a game, this isn`t realistic, so why make that realistic` argument, which suits companies and Devs fine as it means they do less for more money.

It leads to stupid dumbing down such as in Mass effect 3 where it got so bad that they stick 3 actions on one button to the point I rage quit in frustration and never touched it again. Games these days are an insult to the intelligent.

I am the `whiner` now, so Devs as much as they don`t care at least `hear` and see that some of us still want `realism`.

Dying light is one of the best games Ive ever played. I'm in love with it. My point was that even a great game like that has it's flaws and shortcuts.

You say devs cared years ago but I think time is a healer. It took one year to patch medieval 2 and after 2 small patches and 1 major patch it was not fixed of bugs. There was no character differentiation between Greeks, Italians and the Spanish. The moors were copies of the Turks and for whatever reason Hungarians had the same accent as the Danish. You could never build a port as that was an easy way to get attacked by a distant faction.

The Aussie team went as far as saying "fixed pikes" in their patch notes so even back then they were lying to us and in denial. God knows how bad it was for shogun 1 with the complaints about geishas.

For you, every game released today will never be as good as the ones you played in your early life and there's a strong psychological reason behind that.

When end you say devs do less for more money could you give us some examples. Because the latest tw games address the complaints of the previous tw games. The main complaint being a stupid AI that can't accept peace and is player focused. Then we go the other way, an intelligent AI that always wants peace as you're bigger and never declares war and there's still complaint said I see progress because we only need a few more years before we see both.

The devs heard family tree, you got family tree. Sometimes you get what you ask sometimes you don't. The resources and time dictates that. Confirmation bias shows what you didn't get while ignoring what you did get.

Realism will never exist in a game. Would you rather spend your evenings watching documentarys or playing games.

[Humble Warrior]

Sigh... You force me into a detailed response, which I thought better of you. have you not seen me here years before? You should know the answer to all this? Why have you changed character?

Dying light is one of the best games Ive ever played. I'm in love with it. My point was that even a great game like that has it's flaws and shortcuts.

Yes, but its flaws can be in general overlooked. Night time is deadly. Medical kits take time to heal (although way too fast of course). You have to play smart or you die. Of course, you can carry too much as usual, but generally it`s way better than most of today`s offerings. Hmm. The two Player would be very enjoyable, I think. I might even consider giving it a run on 2 player on Steam.

You say devs cared years ago but I think time is a healer. It took one year to patch medieval 2 and after 2 small patches and 1 major patch it was not fixed of bugs. There was no character differentiation between Greeks, Italians and the Spanish. The moors were copies of the Turks and for whatever reason Hungarians had the same accent as the Danish. You could never build a port as that was an easy way to get attacked by a distant faction.

But the main mechanic of the game was solid and worked in a fashion that was realistic. I only ever played the English and the Moors. Neither did I notice the problem about ports. But I would have that rather than instaship armies starting from and landing anywhere- far worse in my opinion.

The Aussie team went as far as saying "fixed pikes" in their patch notes so even back then they were lying to us and in denial. God knows how bad it was for shogun 1 with the complaints about geishas.

Shogun 1 was the first of its kind, so can be forgiven. Geishas were indeed overpowered (much better in S2), but it had great solid gameplay mechanics. I loved the diplomacy throne room scenes still not matched by anything CA since and the BAI was canny.

For you, every game released today will never be as good as the ones you played in your early life and there's a strong psychological reason behind that.

I understand that. But sometimes a later game is worse than earlier game simply because it actually IS.

When end you say devs do less for more money could you give us some examples. Because the latest tw games address the complaints of the previous tw games. The main complaint being a stupid AI that can't accept peace and is player focused. Then we go the other way, an intelligent AI that always wants peace as you're bigger and never declares war and there's still complaint said I see progress because we only need a few more years before we see both.

Instant ship armies that can jump from land to sea to land again. Compare that to say MTW1, MTW2 and even Empire and Shogun2 where the AI manages to put armies on ships and gets them where they need to go. Realistic. Great for gameplay and it creates an actual feasible FRONT LINE. This means that I can technically plan where the a faction might attempt invasions. The insta-ship armies is ludicrous because because there is no way to really see what`s feasible. They jump from one land to another land like it`s nothing. There is no way to plan ahead or see a reasonable `frontline`. Further it kills immersion because in ancient days sea travelling was something to be done warily as it ended up in death often. Here in R2 and Atilla there is no sense of fear on the sea, it`s just Blue land!

Also take it as an example of laziness from CA. It`s way easier to have an AI that just instantly turns into a ship on sea than write detailed code where it needs to get armies to a port and synchrnhise with a waiting built ship.

I have no problems with smarter AI that wants peace and an even smarter one that can make alliances in an attempt to win- properly!

The devs heard family tree, you got family tree. Sometimes you get what you ask sometimes you don't. The resources and time dictates that. Confirmation bias shows what you didn't get while ignoring what you did get.

The Devs heard family tree and gave us a family tree. the Debvs heard `more realistic sieges` and refused to give us that, even though they managed it in M2. Either they are stubborn or incompetent with Warscape. They had a year of time and resources to fix Rome 2 sieges and they still didn`t, stopping short from doing it right. I have praised them where they did well and criticised where they haven`t. Surely you have been around to see those times? in fact I made huge starter threads when I praised. You were bloody well there!
I`m disappointed by your words.

Realism will never exist in a game. Would you rather spend your evenings watching documentarys or playing games.

Sophistry. But you know all this anyway. I say nothing new. It saddens me to see you do this. In a bad mood?

[riskymonk]

"Yes, but its flaws can be in general overlooked"

youre basically telling me, in an elaborate and detailed response, that flaws in one game are justified and flaws in another are not.

Before we continue, I want to see if you're really as unbiased as you come across.

Im able to give a list of 5 things Rome 1 does better than Rome 2 and 5 things medieval 2 does better than Attila. This is because I appreciate the pros of each game and can see the flaws in each game (but I don't let the flaws bother me as much as it seems to seriously bother you)

Are you able to provide 5 pros Rome 2 has over Rome 1 and 5 things Attila does better than Medieval 2?

the rest of what you wrote is just an opinion and can be agreed or disagreed depending on which side you sit. However, there are very few people who can look at it from both sides.

I wont be expecting an answer as I never got an answer from my previous "can you give me a list of flaws in other games" question. The point was to make you realise you're the same as a critic of the older titles or a fanboy of the newer ones.

In in my eyes you are no different. In your eyes you believe you're right.

Also, just because I agree with you on some points doesn't mean I agree with you on every point you make. That's what you're used to because that's what the biased person does. If you say something I disagree with, I'll let you know. Have you never come across a person who's able to appreciate all the games for what they've done and a person who's able to see the flaws in all the game? Have you only had conversations with critics and fanboys?

[Humble Warrior]

"Yes, but its flaws can be in general overlooked"

youre basically telling me, in an elaborate and detailed response, that flaws in one game are justified and flaws in another are not.

Before we continue, I want to see if you're really as unbiased as you come across.

Im able to give a list of 5 things Rome 1 does better than Rome 2 and 5 things medieval 2 does better than Attila. This is because I appreciate the pros of each game and can see the flaws in each game (but I don't let the flaws bother me as much as it seems to seriously bother you)

Are you able to provide 5 pros Rome 2 has over Rome 1 and 5 things Attila does better than Medieval 2?

the rest of what you wrote is just an opinion and can be agreed or disagreed depending on which side you sit. However, there are very few people who can look at it from both sides.

I wont be expecting an answer as I never got an answer from my previous "can you give me a list of flaws in other games" question. The point was to make you realise you're the same as a critic of the older titles or a fanboy of the newer ones.

In in my eyes you are no different. In your eyes you believe you're right.

Also, just because I agree with you on some points doesn't mean I agree with you on every point you make. That's what you're used to because that's what the biased person does. If you say something I disagree with, I'll let you know. Have you never come across a person who's able to appreciate all the games for what they've done and a person who's able to see the flaws in all the game? Have you only had conversations with critics and fanboys?

Fine, I don`t have the time or inclination to go through a stupid dick-measuring, passive aggressive contest with someone who should know better. knock yourself out.

[riskymonk]

Fine, I don`t have the time or inclination to go through a stupid dick-measuring, passive aggressive contest with someone who should know better. knock yourself out.

No need to get personal and there's certainly no need to get defensive. The moment we feel anger is the moment we stop striving for the truth and begin striving for ourselves.

I understand your points I really do and if we had a choice between realism and gamey/arcadey then I'd go for realism as I love to immerse myself in the history. In medieval 2 I used to zoom in and look up the walls watching the outnumbering enemy jump out of the siege tower. Moments like that are priceless.

I agree that in Rome 2 the lack of collision makes for rubbish battles compared to the collision and 2v1 battles of medieval 2 but on the other hand we have to look at it from a business perspective. Most people will protest for something else when a decision is made and yet never make the calculations themselves.

For example in Britain we agreed to take in 20,000 immigrants. Yet British people demanded more. Not one of those people who demanded we take in more did the maths to see how many immigrants Britain was able to financially look after. The figure came after many calculations and considerations.

You are the perfect example of what happens when the ill informed protest for something better. You have no idea whether your ideas would actually work in practice.

[Diocle]

"Yes, but its flaws can be in general overlooked"

youre basically telling me, in an elaborate and detailed response, that flaws in one game are justified and flaws in another are not.

Before we continue, I want to see if you're really as unbiased as you come across.

Im able to give a list of 5 things Rome 1 does better than Rome 2 and 5 things medieval 2 does better than Attila. This is because I appreciate the pros of each game and can see the flaws in each game (but I don't let the flaws bother me as much as it seems to seriously bother you)

Are you able to provide 5 pros Rome 2 has over Rome 1 and 5 things Attila does better than Medieval 2?

the rest of what you wrote is just an opinion and can be agreed or disagreed depending on which side you sit. However, there are very few people who can look at it from both sides.

I wont be expecting an answer as I never got an answer from my previous "can you give me a list of flaws in other games" question. The point was to make you realise you're the same as a critic of the older titles or a fanboy of the newer ones.

In in my eyes you are no different. In your eyes you believe you're right.

Also, just because I agree with you on some points doesn't mean I agree with you on every point you make. That's what you're used to because that's what the biased person does. If you say something I disagree with, I'll let you know. Have you never come across a person who's able to appreciate all the games for what they've done and a person who's able to see the flaws in all the game? Have you only had conversations with critics and fanboys?

This is a great post! Congrats! I've thought about your questions but .. I've not found 5 things Rome2 does better than RTW, nor I've found 5 things Attila does better than Medieval2!

Probably only the detail of the units is far superior in the new games but the gameplay of both Rome2 and Attila is abysmally inferior to that of RTW and Med2.