Attila, the game the community asked for

[C.Maximus]

Haha fml of course it is, I've never studied it ffs. Get the stick out mate. Why would you say something like that lol? You sound like such a stuck-up tit.

I'm talking about video games, not recreations with ridiculous verisimilitude.

As a history grad, not a period of history I concern myself with.

Part of the reason these types of video games are fun is because they try to represent historical settings. Just like how some people (me) enjoy reading non fiction over fiction (History is just so damn interesting) I would rather play a game that reflects this history than just being a video game. For instance, I will never get to experience the dark ages, nor will I be able to through a video game. However it would be fun to see how history played out or human beings of the said time period developed their kingdoms and settled their lands.

On the OP's note. Id have to agree that Rome 2 is more geared to a general crowed. The time period just has more appeal for drama and entertainment. Movies like 300, Alexander, Gladiator, HBO's Rome. HBO's Rome was based in a time period that Shakespeare wrote multiple plays on and simply just has a lot of good conflict and drama. (EE campaign was this exact drama played out for you).

The Dark ages do not really get popular until the 800's when the Vikings, Franks and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms start to emerge. I have been waiting for a mod to reflect this time period but have been enjoying the 500 AD age mod (Clovis). anyways, this 400 AD Bs only sells to people who may know about that time period (Or has some fanboy thing with Attila but tbh Ghenghis Khan is way more popular than Attila if they were trying to use that as a selling point.)

Shakespeare didn't write any plays based on 400 AD (that I know of) and many people have no idea who the hell Clovis is (and he even came 100 years or 400 turns after the main campaign even starts) and get mad when they see the Romans throwing lead darts and wearing chainmail like armor over being a cliche roman soldier. I think that is why they put in the viking units and the Byzantine type units in Attila in the first place.

Anyways, it is an expansion... I am sure Barbarian invasion did not sell as much as Rome 1. I expect the same. Perhaps as time goes and a really good dark age kingdoms mod comes out (atleast I think so) It will pick up more people. But for anyone who watches HBO Rome or is a fan of SPARTANS or Gladiator or even reads Shakespeare, Rome 2 is the obvious favorite. Maybe there are some King Arthur fans who want to be the roman regiment in GB but other than that Attila's time period does not attract much attention from the entertainment industry. (When was the last movie on Attila ever?)


Problem is... I can play EE Rome 2 coops vanilla (mods always crash coops for some reason) and it is good and fun. Especially an Antony-Egypt one on EE campaign. Atilla on the other hand, is still broken Vanilla IMO.. I dont know how much of eastern/central Europe the Huns leveled to the ground... but I know it sure as hell didnt leave a nuclear wasteland which stretched from Berlin to Moscow... The razing cities is absurd and there MUST be a mod to fix it. That being said, any mod that does fix it leaves the migration and nomadic tribes pretty weak and changes the entire game.

[LordInvictus]

But when it comes to core game mechanics, most Total War fans would agree that Rome 1 (and Medieval 2 for the same reasons) was a better and more accurate game.

Meh, the camera controls are clunky after playing the newer games, several problems still exist with the battles, and the limitations on modding hamper the potential of such mods as EB and RSII.

- unit collision which physically depicted much more realistic battle scenarios.

Rome 2 has unit collision also...

- more realistic morale settings (units would waver and route more readily when put in bad situations).

Rome 2 is far more realistic as the morale penalty/bonus values are actually make sense. In contrast, Rome 1's morale system was opaque at best, with the unit's morale value being the only thing you could control. This is why in mods that lengthen combat, most units have absurdly high morale that allows them to fight to the death when flanked and rear attacked. In Rome 2, you can make each of these penalties very high so that even elite units will break when faced with impossible odds.

- full player control over settlement construction (also allowed the player to set it on auto-manage).

I don't understand, you have full control over construction in settlements. If you meant the restricted building choices, then I agree that there should be larger, but still limited, number of construction slots.

- more realistic individual actions within the unit (multiple soldiers within a unit would gang up on a single enemy fighter, unlike Rome 2)

This myth needs to die right now. Units can gang up on each other in Rome 2 and Attila. The perpetuation of this lie is very annoying as almost every complaint about Rome 2 mentions this and therefore everybody accepts it as truth, although it is blatantly false.

- do I really need to continue?

I wouldn't mind if you gave some more "examples."

Attilla seems like CA's best attempt to date to fix the issues with Rome 2, but its still based on a game engine which is inherently limited....which means there is no real unit collision (which is kind of essential to a melee-based strategy game) and most of the kills are based off of unit 'kill moves' rather than unit #'s and proximity (which is what made Rome 1 and Medieval seem so much more realistic, even though their graphics are dated by comparison).

Refer to the rebuttals above. Attila has all the things you wanted.

[Patronus]

I'll respond to the more important aspects of this discussion:

.Rome 2 has unit collision also...

No it doesn't. Rome 2's engine, which is a brand new engine from the Medieval 2 and Rome 1 games, does not have unit collision. They fiddled with the programming to make units not run through each other and form disorganized blobs (like they used at release), but they do not have unit collision in the same way that Medieval 2 and Rome 1 did. See the below videos, which provide a very in-depth analysis of this issue:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy5GRaHzFnI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmE9-e0M45o

Rome 2 is far more realistic as the morale penalty/bonus values are actually make sense. In contrast, Rome 1's morale system was opaque at best, with the unit's morale value being the only thing you could control. This is why in mods that lengthen combat, most units have absurdly high morale that allows them to fight to the death when flanked and rear attacked. In Rome 2, you can make each of these penalties very high so that even elite units will break when faced with impossible odds.

I remember the morale system in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 being very logical and also much more clear to the player. Flank/rear attacks, fire arrows, presence of a general all had effects, and you could determine how your units were being affected simply by looking at the unit card (which you couldn't do initially in Rome 2, at least not as easily due to their configuration). In medieval 2, it would even tell why your men were experiencing morale issues (it would say 'being flanked', or 'surrounded'). Rome 2 doesn't have nearly the same clarity when it comes to seeing how your units are being affected (a lot of that has to do with how unit cards are displayed).

Units can gang up on each other in Rome 2 and Attila. The perpetuation of this lie is very annoying as almost every complaint about Rome 2 mentions this and therefore everybody accepts it as truth, although it is blatantly false.

Again, No they don't, at least not the way they used to in previous games. The combat system is based almost exclusively on unit 'kill moves' which have to be executed. In Rome 1 and Medieval 2 units would naturally flex in the battle and combatants would find themselves in various situations (1v1, 1v3, 2v3, ect.) and the outcome of individual fights would be determined not only by unit stats but also by how many combatants were involved. Whereas in Rome 2, the combat is being determined by choreographed kill moves which mostly occur on a 1v1 basis...the new patches have allowed some 2v1, 2v3, ect. scenarios, but not to the same extent that the previous games did. Again refer to the videos above to see what I am talking about.

I get it. A lot of people put time and money into this game, so they don't want to hear that it has major issues. The fact is it has been ranked lower than Rome Total War: Alexander by the average user/player:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-rome-ii
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/ro...-war-alexander

Anyone who isn't paid-off reviewer at one of the big gaming media groups pretty much acknowledges that this game was a broken piece of crud at release, and has only been made playable due to the numerous band aids that have been put into place...the game engine was never truly fixed, but rather made adequate enough to play.

[Fanest]

I'll respond to the more important aspects of this discussion:

I remember the morale system in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 being very logical and also much more clear to the player. Flank/rear attacks, fire arrows, presence of a general all had effects, and you could determine how your units were being affected simply by looking at the unit card (which you couldn't do initially in Rome 2, at least not as easily due to their configuration). In medieval 2, it would even tell why your men were experiencing morale issues (it would say 'being flanked', or 'surrounded'). Rome 2 doesn't have nearly the same clarity when it comes to seeing how your units are being affected (a lot of that has to do with how unit cards are displayed).

Attila has even better system since u can watch what happens with morale all the time - real time if u want by looking at morale numbers on unit card details

And tbh rtw1 and mtw2 had serious issues with morale specially in some of their mods since u could hammer and anvil charge or surround units completely and do this day and night until no men was left in their unit that is because morale system was broken completely usually for the purpose mention before - longer battles

Again, No they don't, at least not the way they used to in previous games. The combat system is based almost exclusively on unit 'kill moves' which have to be executed. In Rome 1 and Medieval 2 units would naturally flex in the battle and combatants would find themselves in various situations (1v1, 1v3, 2v3, ect.) and the outcome of individual fights would be determined not only by unit stats but also by how many combatants were involved. Whereas in Rome 2, the combat is being determined by choreographed kill moves which mostly occur on a 1v1 basis...the new patches have allowed some 2v1, 2v3, ect. scenarios, but not to the same extent that the previous games did. Again refer to the videos above to see what I am talking about.

Lusted said this like 100 years ago i think that calculations are made for 1v:number: fights but animations not necessarily show this, also this myth has been rebuffed by others

[LordInvictus]

No it doesn't. Rome 2's engine, which is a brand new engine from the Medieval 2 and Rome 1 games, does not have unit collision. They fiddled with the programming to make units not run through each other and form disorganized blobs (like they used at release), but they do not have unit collision in the same way that Medieval 2 and Rome 1 did.

Rome 2 does have unit collision, it's just that the radius at which units stop moving into each other is smaller than previous games. If the game had no unit collision, then you would see your forces smush into one line when charging, but they don't because there is a (small) collision threshold. I already expressed my criticisms of Reynold's videos in this thread.

I remember the morale system in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 being very logical and also much more clear to the player. Flank/rear attacks, fire arrows, presence of a general all had effects, and you could determine how your units were being affected simply by looking at the unit card (which you couldn't do initially in Rome 2, at least not as easily due to their configuration). In medieval 2, it would even tell why your men were experiencing morale issues (it would say 'being flanked', or 'surrounded'). Rome 2 doesn't have nearly the same clarity when it comes to seeing how your units are being affected (a lot of that has to do with how unit cards are displayed).

All in Rome 2 and with much more consistent results. In Rome 1, it was impossible to make elite units have excellent morale without them being unbreakable and fight to the death. You can see the morale effects on your units in Rome 2 by mousing over a unit or its card. They even have a small icon in the tooltip to show your unit's morale state (green=confident/eager, yellow=steady, red=shaken/wavering). And if all that wasn't enough, a wavering unit's card flashes to draw attention to it.

Again, No they don't, at least not the way they used to in previous games. The combat system is based almost exclusively on unit 'kill moves' which have to be executed. In Rome 1 and Medieval 2 units would naturally flex in the battle and combatants would find themselves in various situations (1v1, 1v3, 2v3, ect.) and the outcome of individual fights would be determined not only by unit stats but also by how many combatants were involved. Whereas in Rome 2, the combat is being determined by choreographed kill moves which mostly occur on a 1v1 basis...the new patches have allowed some 2v1, 2v3, ect. scenarios, but not to the same extent that the previous games did. Again refer to the videos above to see what I am talking about.

Unmatched combat is in Rome 2, the same as Medieval 2 and Rome 1, though better looking. It happens all the time if the soldiers are close enough to be within weapons reach. The shifting battle lines occurs in Rome 2 also, but mostly with barbarian units that don't hold formation.

I get it. A lot of people put time and money into this game, so they don't want to hear that it has major issues. The fact is it has been ranked lower than Rome Total War: Alexander by the average user/player:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/total-war-rome-ii
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/ro...-war-alexander

Anyone who isn't paid-off reviewer at one of the big gaming media groups pretty much acknowledges that this game was a broken piece of crud at release, and has only been made playable due to the numerous band aids that have been put into place...the game engine was never truly fixed, but rather made adequate enough to play.

The large amount of zeros is a testament to the unreasonable rating of Rome 2. A zero indicates a completely unplayable game. Disliking features does not make a game unplayable. An FPS of 45 does not make a game unplayable. Nostalgia does not make a game unplayable. Contrast this with Alexander's much more reasonable ratings of 5's and 6's. These rating indicate a mediocre game, which is what Rome 2 was at launch (okay, i wasn't there so maybe drop it to 4 or 5). Those scores also don't reflect the game in its current state (imo 8-8.5).

Attila has even better system since u can watch what happens with morale all the time - real time if u want by looking at morale numbers on unit card details

Yeah I love this addition.

Lusted said this like 100 years ago i think that calculations are made for 1v:number: fights but animations not necessarily show this, also this myth has been rebuffed by others

The visual animations correspond to those calculations so we basically got what we wanted, but many people refuse to accept it or haven't played in a while.

[Patronus]

And tbh rtw1 and mtw2 had serious issues with morale specially in some of their mods since u could hammer and anvil charge or surround units completely and do this day and night until no men was left in their unit that is because morale system was broken completely usually for the purpose mention before - longer battles

I remember the morale being dependent on the situation...there were plenty of times where my knights/cav would plow into the rear or flanks of a low tier infantry unit, causing them to route and starting a chain reaction of routing/wavering amongst nearby units....on the other hand I remember trying similar tactics against high tier infantry, and the tactic didnt work as quickly....I loved aspect of the morale...it seemed very realistic to me, but i guess thats a subjective point.

Lusted said this like 100 years ago i think that calculations are made for 1v:number: fights but animations not necessarily show this, also this myth has been rebuffed by others

I'd like to see who/where it was rebuffed. I've seen the 1v1 fights happen in most cases, with a few exceptions. This game is based off of the same engine as Empire...poor or no unit collision...unit cohesion that goes to crap once units engage....it was never really designed with melee combat in mind. The patches have helped, but the deficiencies still show themselves quite frequently.

[D@gget]

It's impressive to see people still believe 1v1 combat is mandatory in Rome 2.

[Sheridan]

And tbh rtw1 and mtw2 had serious issues with morale specially in some of their mods since u could hammer and anvil charge or surround units completely and do this day and night until no men was left in their unit that is because morale system was broken completely usually for the purpose mention before - longer battles

Have you played the games - recently? If there is one thing that has changed relatively little throughout the course of the series, it's morale. Rome 1 vanilla had very quick combat, and very dynamic morale, that would shift from one state to the other within seconds given the circumstances allowed for it. Judging the whole game based on some of its mods, well, that's frankly ridiculous. MTW2 has combat speed on par with Rome II's EE edition. The morale there too is very dynamic. Attack a unit in the rear, and you will likely see it rout, even if it's a noble unit (knight, guard etc.)

The fact that some mods, and I have an idea of which you are talking about, went their way to create longer battles through a less dynamic morale coupled with slower casualty rates, simply has nothing to do with the vanilla games. It doesn't make an argument, because you're talking about two different things. Vanilla Rome II's "serious issues" can't be figured out by playing DeI.

[Joshua the Bear]

Actually, no. In most warfare throughout the ages, even when the entire Nation might be destroyed, no woman has been called up to fight. When it happened it was their choice- and they were always wiped out. Heck even in the fantasy LOTR the women weren`t called up to fight.


Joan of Arc is proven to exist. Like Boudicca, she was an extreme rarity. Even there, it`s highly unlikely she even swung a sword in anger. This woman is venerated out of all proportion and the tens of thousands of MEN who did all the REAL fighting and the dying- Forgotten. However, it was acceptable in MTW because you didn`t have hundreds of women fighting among the soldiers. I can allow 1 or 2 women that might sneak in if they were stupid and wanted to die.

But... how do you know Boudicca was an extreme rarity? The only history we have of british leadership in the classic era comes from the romans. And sure, Boudicca was a rarity... To the romans, who had a very patriarchial society up the point that Septimus Severus eventually banned Gladiatrices because they were too feministic.

Russia used women in their military forces and won WW2.
The IDF utilizes women in their armies and is still standing.
Women fought in American armies
Women fought in rebellions
The Normans used quite a few women in their migration to Britian, but we did not know that because we always assumed that somebody who was buried with a sword was a man.
The Siege of Sparta was won by the virtue of Sparta's women.
Women have fought in wars as long as there have been people.

So I'm sorry, but you are letting your political beliefs into a discussion about historical accuracy.

[Sheridan]

On the subject of unit collision - every Total War game models it, or "soft collision" as they seem to call it. Had this not been the case, soldiers would literally move right through each other. On the other hand, it's true that this soft collision differs from TW3 to the previous engines (and, more than likely, small variations within the current engine as well).

In my opinion, it's not really a question in which engine this type of interaction is represented better. It's a question of how much.

Most of the other points in discussion are pretty trivial, to be honest. The games are there, it doesn't require much to compare and analyze them accurately.

To OP - I'd like to second the sentiments of other members here. It's clear you're arguing from a point of confirmation bias, venting a distinct dislike of the newest installment over the forum rather than keeping it to yourself. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but a little substance to back up your opinions - that's what they are currently - could lead to a more constructive discussion.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Heck even in the fantasy LOTR the women weren`t called up to fight.

Yeah, but then the one women who did sneak in to fight actually killed the Witch King, so probably not the best example you could have used. Lord of the Rings is full of incredibly powerful, martial women. Galadriel was possibly the most powerful Elf in Middle Earth at the time of the War of the Ring.

[Joshua the Bear]

Any usage of LOTR to prove a point concerning historical accuracy is rather pointless though, as Tolkien was not a historian (he was a language professor).
Not that one can assume that Eowyn was the only woman who snuck in, she just happens to be one of the characters we follow - all the battles in LOTR are fought by nondescript armies.

To loop back Eowyn's example of cross-dressing with actual historical stuff, I'll give you an excerpt of the final link I provided in the previous post.

C. INDIVIDUAL WOMEN FIGHTERS The most widespread involvement of women in combat has been neither in all-female nor in gender-integrated units, but rather as individuals scattered through the ranks. Such women combatants are found in many cultures around the world, and in many historical periods, although generally in extremely small numbers compared to male combatants. Put together, these thousands of cases add up to a strong endorsement of the conclusion that individual women can hold their own in combat when circumstances permit (or force) them to do so.
Cross-dressers
Historically, women who have participated in combat usually did so disguised as men. An Englishman joked in 1762 that “so many disguised women were serving in the army that they ought to have their own regiments.” (Emphasis mine - J) This presents a real problem for assessing the evidence: we cannot know how many women have successfully participated in this manner – surviving (or being buried) without detection. We can only know those whose gender came to light, which most often occurred after a serious injury requiring prolonged medical care. Historically, most armies have not provided such care in the way we take for granted today, and wounded women may have left the ranks without discovery. Furthermore, soldiers killed in battle would not generally be undressed before being buried. Thus, we do not know how many women lie in soldiers’ graves. Nonetheless, scholars have documented enough cases of cross-dressing women warriors, discovered before or after death, to draw some inferences.¹¹⁷

Also interesting in that article are the points regarding Geurilla Warfare, which is the stage at which the women combatants in Atilla appear (the lightweight units for migrationary factions).

[The Despondent Mind]

Yeah, but then the one women who did sneak in to fight actually killed the Witch King, so probably not the best example you could have used. Lord of the Rings is full of incredibly powerful, martial women. Galadriel was possibly the most powerful Elf in Middle Earth at the time of the War of the Ring.

His point is that women didn't not enlist in mass in LOTR or in real world, how hard is that to grasp? Just because Einstein was a genius that doesn't mean all humans or physicists or mustached men are genius.

[Fanest]

Have you played the games - recently? If there is one thing that has changed relatively little throughout the course of the series, it's morale. Rome 1 vanilla had very quick combat, and very dynamic morale, that would shift from one state to the other within seconds given the circumstances allowed for it. Judging the whole game based on some of its mods, well, that's frankly ridiculous. MTW2 has combat speed on par with Rome II's EE edition. The morale there too is very dynamic. Attack a unit in the rear, and you will likely see it rout, even if it's a noble unit (knight, guard etc.)

I played EB about 2 years ago and thats the impression i still have in my mind, its true, vanila doesn't suffer from this that much however problem for vanilla and even more so modded rtw, mtw2 game is that in my opinion on higher difficulties battles sometimes aren't "realistic" (problems mentioned before) anymore because of the buffs that units get while in Attila or RTW2 etc. u can play on legendary and still have a completely enjoyable and "realistic" battles.

[Joshua the Bear]

His point is that women didn't not enlist in mass in LOTR or in real world, how hard is that to grasp? Just because Einstein was a genius that doesn't mean all humans or physicists or mustached men are genius.

They don't enlist en masse in Atilla either.

[Sharpe]

On the subject of unit collision - every Total War game models it, or "soft collision" as they seem to call it. Had this not been the case, soldiers would literally move right through each other. On the other hand, it's true that this soft collision differs from TW3 to the previous engines (and, more than likely, small variations within the current engine as well).

In my opinion, it's not really a question in which engine this type of interaction is represented better. It's a question of how much.

Most of the other points in discussion are pretty trivial, to be honest. The games are there, it doesn't require much to compare and analyze them accurately.

To OP - I'd like to second the sentiments of other members here. It's clear you're arguing from a point of confirmation bias, venting a distinct dislike of the newest installment over the forum rather than keeping it to yourself. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but a little substance to back up your opinions - that's what they are currently - could lead to a more constructive discussion.

Have you seen the collision from Arena recently? Looks like the charges out of the film "Troy". All the units get mashed up, looks awesome.



About a 1:45 in - it needs a LOT of work but could be big step.

[Patronus]

But... how do you know Boudicca was an extreme rarity? The only history we have of british leadership in the classic era comes from the romans. And sure, Boudicca was a rarity... To the romans, who had a very patriarchial society up the point that Septimus Severus eventually banned Gladiatrices because they were too feministic

You found 8 or so examples of women fighting in organized (and disorganized warfare) compared to the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of examples of warfare that occurred throughout history....that really doesn't much to support your case IMO.

Russia used women in their military forces and won WW2.

Yeah women fought on the Russian front of WWII (as did many partisan French and Dutch women in the European resistance) which was mostly out of necessity (the Germans were literally on their doorsteps and in their houses). But it did not occur nearly as much as people like to believe. And if you read your own wikipedia article (which is a horrible way to argue a historical issue), it even says that the Russians made a point of putting women into combat roles that avoided close combat:

The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops.

The IDF utilizes women in their armies and is still standing.

That's also out of necessity, since Israel's total recruitment pool is easily dwarfed by any one of its nearby neighbors. Also if you read about the details, you'd realize that Israel only integrated females into a select few combat units, and ones that usually kept away from the spearhead operations. All of their top tier commando and light infantry units are still male-only.

Women fought in American armies

The exception, not the norm.

Women fought in rebellions

Mass uprisings usually do encourage everyone to join in.

The Normans used quite a few women in their migration to Britian, but we did not know that because we always assumed that somebody who was buried with a sword was a man.

Despite what modern media/movies might tell you (like History's Vikings) women rarely fought in Norse cultures. Especially in those groups that participated in raids, since someone needed to stay back to watch the kids and tend the farms.

The Siege of Sparta was won by the virtue of Sparta's women.

Most modern historians concede that there is great deal of hype surrounding Spartan warrior culture. They were very militaristic, but they also lagged behind most of their contemporaries economically. Their reliance on mass-slave labor meant that most of the military was continually tied down putting down slave revolts or preparing to do so. Their warriors were defeated by other Greek cities much more frequently than most would believe (Thebans citizen-soldiers trounced them pretty good at Leuctra).

As for Spartan female warriors...they didn't exist. Spartan warrior culture was very much a male-dominated culture. And I'm not sure how female Spartans saved their city from Pyrrhus's assault? They may have been helping to man the walls but that was totally normal for any city during those times due to the possibility of rape and pillage should the attackers succeed.

Women have fought in wars as long as there have been people.

This article discusses the exceptions, not the norm.

The overwhelming majority of conflicts have been fought by men, mostly because men are on average physically (and perhaps mentally) more capable of dealing with the rigors/hardship associated with such an experience. The latter part of that statement may be open to debate (I argue from position of experience) but the former part is a fact....regardless of which history books you cite.

[Joshua the Bear]

exceptions, not the norm.

So here's the thing: The units in which women appear in Atilla are only the lower tier units, and they only appear in horde-capable factions (or actual horde factions). The final article goes on to explain that many geurilla movements had a significant amount of women fighting in it, only to dissappear when those armies become more organized when the war was won.

This is exactly what happens in Atilla. As your army progresses trough the technological tree and gains more advanced units (Which happens whilst you're settling down due to the dynamics of the campaign game) women start dissappearing. In my current Visigothic campaign, the only place I still see women are in my archer units. Your argument is that women in fighting forces are the exception, not the norm (which incidently is also the point of the chapter included in the last link, it's part of a research paper that tries to find out *why* women have always been an exception) - but almost all of Atilla's factions are faced with exceptional situations (Mass migrations and all that), and the major empires (Sassanids and Romans) do not employ women in any of their units.

You are arguing for women as an exception - In Atilla, they are the exception. Humble Warrior is arguing for a complete removal of women fighting (because, according to him, no one ever did and those that did died), and I'm arguing that this does not make sense for the desperate situations that many factions find themselves in, based on historical accounts of other people who have been desperate. History has shown that, in the end, realpolitik beats any other politics any time.

[Patronus]

So here's the thing: The units in which women appear in Atilla are only the lower tier units, and they only appear in horde-capable factions (or actual horde factions). The final article goes on to explain that many geurilla movements had a significant amount of women fighting in it, only to dissappear when those armies become more organized when the war was won.

This is exactly what happens in Atilla. As your army progresses trough the technological tree and gains more advanced units (Which happens whilst you're settling down due to the dynamics of the campaign game) women start dissappearing. In my current Visigothic campaign, the only place I still see women are in my archer units. Your argument is that women in fighting forces are the exception, not the norm (which incidently is also the point of the chapter included in the last link, it's part of a research paper that tries to find out *why* women have always been an exception) - but almost all of Atilla's factions are faced with exceptional situations (Mass migrations and all that), and the major empires (Sassanids and Romans) do not employ women in any of their units.

You are arguing for women as an exception - In Atilla, they are the exception. Humble Warrior is arguing for a complete removal of women fighting (because, according to him, no one ever did and those that did died), and I'm arguing that this does not make sense for the desperate situations that many factions find themselves in, based on historical accounts of other people who have been desperate. History has shown that, in the end, realpolitik beats any other politics any time.

In real world history, women rarely, if ever, fought alongside the barbarian tribes as they migrated throughout the Roman Empire. Are there examples you can find where they did? Certainly. Does that mean it was common or accepted within the cultures of that time? Absolutely not.

In this case the game is breaking with historical accuracy (not a first for this series, and not a big deal), by trying to incorporate female warriors into some of the units, albeit lower tier units...the game is trying to create an exception [to the norm] that never existed in the first place.

Honestly, my gripe is not with the game having women incorporated into some of the units (the Total War series has never been 100% accurate, and I've always migrated to mods for immersive experiences in that regards). Rather I find it odd and somewhat humorous that so many forum members here are willing to jump on the politically correct band wagon and make the absurd claim that females in warfare has been a relatively normal occurrence, because that is not at all how history has played out.

The fact that you took the time to provide 8 or so poorly researched examples of females involved in warfare (within the context of many tens of thousands of conflicts that have occurred over humanity's history) is what kept me involved in this conversation. I could care less about CA's decision to include women in the units, because that is a unit skin problem that can easily be fixed and there are far more egregious mistakes made by CA that warrant criticism.

[Lugotorix]

Joshua the Bear, this is the Roman 'Gaul.' faction. They might be Bagudae, I just don't remember seeing them recruited. I just don't care at all. Those who want male only regiments can have it modded in. There's no noticeable change, especially since most players play zoomed out.