Would you call TW Warhammer a step forward?

[clench]

Ok, check it out. You originally compared WTW to R2TW. Your argument was that it was a less simplistic game with more depth and breadth with tactical options. I disagree with that. Now, this other thing you keep doing by dropping other games into the mix that are literally in a completely different genre has absolutely no relevance to the conversation. Yes, there are more complex strategy games out there. So what? You were arguing about R2TW and TW games going off in some simplistic direction. R2TW doesn't resemble any complicated military strategy game. Under the surface and all the bloated gameplay, it was a stupidly simple game to play. The core of the game was just lathered and covered in layers and layers of completely irrelevant tedium. Again, there are many people who equate that with complexity. I do not.

The truth is that you just don't like the game. And if you're someone who likes true military simulators than I can see why. I don't understand why you would waste the time and money on something you clearly would never like.

He's not even talking about another game.

He's talking about a ing army field manual lol.

Translation: "you have no understanding of tactics". Again FM 3-90 is your friend, highly recommend it. You continue to fail at understanding the limitation in techniques is the very thing that makes the battles so dumbed down and devoid of thought. Let alone the sieges.

I don't take orders from google trained tacticians.

[M2TWRocks]

Translation: "you have no understanding of tactics". Again FM 3-90 is your friend, highly recommend it. You continue to fail at understanding the limitation in techniques is the very thing that makes the battles so dumbed down and devoid of thought. Let alone the sieges.

You're in a forum for video game about bright green monsters, wizards, flying lion birds, and a 100% fictitious world and you're suggesting people consult an army field manual? Real war and military strategy isn't glamorous and it certainly isn't fun. If you're looking for a hardcore strategy game, you are awful at decision making. Not only did you allegedly buy a game that a 10 ten old could have told you wasn't a hardcore military game, but you're complaining about it on a forum designed for people who are interested in non-hardcore games. I'm certain you don't truly think R2TW was a complex strategy game.

[Viva Espana!]

No. Lack of region-trading. Mandatory five-turn tutorials for Empire/Dwarfs every single new campaign. Weak cavalry charges (Reiksguard having trouble killing many Crossbowmen on the charge...). No reloading animations for gunpowder weapons (both hand-held and artillery). Lack of ammo variety (cannons can't use grapeshot or singleshot).

Worst of all, the same city/town/province construction system which limits your development to a ridiculous degree.

[M2TWRocks]

You're bouncing around when it suits you. If honestly expect me to think you truly believe R2TW was on par with your required level of strategic/tactical complexity, yeah, no. You don't think that at all. Again, R2TW was a joke. An overbloated, dare I say, overambitious attempt at the most involved total war to date. And all it did was demonstrate the horribly inept AI and bore most of us to tears clicking "end turn" over and over again. It wasn't difficult. The end result was decided within the first 20-30 turns. All that extra nonsense contributed nothing to the actual difficulty of the game. And, as I said earlier, the battles could easily be won with the most simplistic lineup of troops and in the most simplistic manner.

You have lost. Warhammer Total War is a great game within it's class. Yes, it's not Graviteam Tactics. No-one but you would even bring up a game in the same sentence. You are clearly bored. Now go back to defending us with all that knowledge. If you're telling the truth, it seems odd that you'd even be interested in this genre.

[Druout]

You're bouncing around when it suits you. If honestly expect me to think you truly believe R2TW was on par with your required level of strategic/tactical complexity, yeah, no. You don't think that at all. Again, R2TW was a joke. An overbloated, dare I say, overambitious attempt at the most involved total war to date. And all it did was demonstrate the horribly inept AI and bore most of us to tears clicking "end turn" over and over again. It wasn't difficult. The end result was decided within the first 20-30 turns. All that extra nonsense contributed nothing to the actual difficulty of the game. And, as I said earlier, the battles could easily be won with the most simplistic lineup of troops and in the most simplistic manner.

You have lost. Warhammer Total War is a great game within it's class. Yes, it's not Graviteam Tactics. No-one but you would even bring up a game in the same sentence. You are clearly bored. Now go back to defending us with all that knowledge. If you're telling the truth, it seems odd that you'd even be interested in this genre.

RTW2 is not the epitome of the series; however, it offered more tactical depth than Warhammer does by a mile. The dumbed down arcade combat practically devoid of techniques at the tactical level. Don't feel bad, not everyone appreciates some tactical depth in their games, and that's why this is more a hero simulator than a battle simulator. You no longer need to impose simplicity on yourself because you lack an understanding of tactics; Warhammer simply takes the tactics out of the equation for you. Anyone who has even a basic grasp of tactics can see this clearly; and earlier iterations allowed for (again) the potential (unless you self impose simplicity on yourself) to exercise the grey cells and apply the techniques inherent within tactical strategy. The combat in Warhammer is a mindless hero clickfest moshpit. And there are three levels of war involved, not two. Strategic, operational, and tactical.

The concern is that this max casual approach to battles will carry over to the historical portion of the series; rather than attempt to improve the sieges and siege AI they simply removed the siege to the assault itself, limited to a couple of walls with all units within range of towers. Even Rome I had more tactical depth there for certain. Some people (and I'm not alone, my brother won't even touch this game once I informed him of the stripping of tactical depth) have enjoyed the tactical options available (if one chooses) for solving the tactical challenges within the battles and removing them turns the game into something more in line with BFME (as I previously stated) rather than improving on the tactical options available previously in tandem with the required improvements to the the AI to match.

[Druout]

Blah, blah, blah. You're in the wrong forums of the wrong game. The total war series wasn't designed for your self-perceived, extensive strategic insight. And that includes every single release since the original Shogun. You should play something else. Seriously. Go play "self-righteous douchebag military simulator" or something. Please.

Yeah, it's confirmed now that your level of maturity in discourse doesn't measure up to someone with leadership experience; you can't refrain from name calling, have no capacity for critical assessment, and have no understanding of what tactics are at all. Again, Rome I-Attila had far more tactical depth than Warhammer, because the techniques were there for employing tactics using a wide array of options from the individual formations to the group formations (sans self imposed simplicity, again) ; additionally there was no uber hero unit you could tie up a bunch of units with for minutes at a time. The sieges require the least thought of any of the 3D series.

[M2TWRocks]

Yeah, it's confirmed now that your level of maturity in discourse doesn't measure up to someone with leadership experience. Again, Rome I-Shogun 2 had far more tactical depth than Warhammer, because the techniques were there for employing tactics using a wide array of options from the individual formations to the group formations; additionally there was no uber hero unit you could tie up a bunch of units with for minutes at a time. The sieges require the least thought of any of the 3D series.

So now your benchmark has shifted from Rome 2 to Rome 1, right? Rome 1, with flaming pigs, screeching women, Egypt's anachronistic units from 1,000 years earlier, no naval invasions, and an AI that sent 100's of 1-2 unit stacks towards your fully garrisoned settlements? You really want to go that route? Shogun 2, by contrast, was a solid game. But that tactical battles weren't any more complex than Warhammer. It was spearmen, archers, swordsmen...the same ole, same old. And the battles panned out exactly the same every time. For fun, I created nothing but spearmen in FoTS campaigns and steamrolled the AI. Had literally nothing but the lowest level spear units. And you claim that is where total war should regress back to?!

Again, you don't like the game. And if I had to guess, you're not a fan of fantasy either.

[Druout]

So now your benchmark has shifted from Rome 2 to Rome 1, right? Rome 1, with flaming pigs, screeching women, Egypt's anachronistic units from 1,000 years earlier, no naval invasions, and an AI that sent 100's of 1-2 unit stacks towards your fully garrisoned settlements? You really want to go that route? Shogun 2, by contrast, was a solid game. But that tactical battles weren't any more complex than Warhammer. It was spearmen, archers, swordsmen...the same ole, same old. And the battles panned out exactly the same every time. For fun, I created nothing but spearmen in FoTS campaigns and steamrolled the AI. Had literally nothing but the lowest level spear units. And you claim that is where total war should regress back to?!

Again, you don't like the game. And if I had to guess, you're not a fan of fantasy either.

Lol, and like I stated, no capacity for assessment and no understanding of tactics. "Rome I-Attila had far more tactical depth than Warhammer, because the techniques were there for employing tactics", you missed the main piece of the assessment....which is the tactical depth, little import if there are flying pigs or Elves. The complexity of tactics is determined by the number of available options that can be applied to a tactical problem; Warhammer has nowhere near that depth by virtue of having been stripped of tactical depth at the unit level and at the siege level. Even Rome I sieges allowed for multiple approaches to taking a city for example. Again, you imposing simplicity on yourself does not negate the available options that were available to employ at the tactical level if one wanted to exercise the grey cells. I'm not sure how you can't grasp that you using nonsensical tactics as a means to make the game easy for yourself and devoid of tactical thought relates to the OPTION to apply tactical thought. In Warhammer there isn't even that option, it has been utterly removed for casual appeal via minimal thinking involved.

[Abdülmecid I]

So now your benchmark has shifted from Rome 2 to Rome 1, right? Rome 1, with flaming pigs, screeching women, Egypt's anachronistic units from 1,000 years earlier, no naval invasions, and an AI that sent 100's of 1-2 unit stacks towards your fully garrisoned settlements?.

Yeah, at least in the final version, the last two grievances are totally untrue. The entire campaign is based on Roman early invasions (Julii-Sardinia, Scipii-Africa, Brutii-Apollonia), but I have often seen many other factions launching naval invasions, like the Numidians in the Balearic Islands and the Greeks in Crete and Halicarnassus. I also find Rome II more accurate than its predecessor, but let's not exaggerate. In Rome II, we also have bersekers, scorpion-throwing catapults, crocodile warriors and female gladiators, not to mention a dozen of nonexistent factions (Cyprus, Parthava and etc.), some of which are not even in the correct geographical position (Media, Drangiana). Better than a unified Gaul or Iberia, I suppose, but only slightly.

[Garbarsardar]

A number of posts were edited, a number of posts were removed. Apart from not insulting one other, if possible, I would also suggest to avoid revealing personal information in a public forum. Thanks.

[Aurelius Silvanus Tacitus]

Also I repeat my statement that any power that the consumer has over CA/SEGA comes from banding together and the free flow of information throught deep discussions about games. It is quite similar to the power of trade unions, it comes from themultitude of people willing to take part at an action characterised by inaction(the strike becomes the boycot). This is impossible if each and every discussion of the game is brought down at a very low level comprised of superficiality and personal attacks, just because the other person has a different opinion.
IMO, discussion about games should not be superficial, criticism or praise should not be silenced and most of all, we should not descend into flame wars and ad-hominem attacks

[M2TWRocks]

Also I repeat my statement that any power that the consumer has over CA/SEGA comes from banding together and the free flow of information throught deep discussions about games. It is quite similar to the power of trade unions, it comes from themultitude of people willing to take part at an action characterised by inaction(the strike becomes the boycot). This is impossible if each and every discussion of the game is brought down at a very low level comprised of superficiality and personal attacks, just because the other person has a different opinion.
IMO, discussion about games should not be superficial, criticism or praise should not be silenced and most of all, we should not descend into flame wars and ad-hominem attacks

And just like the 100's of other times people have suggested strikes and boycotts, not a single person follows through with it. Warhammer, like every game before it, is selling because A LOT of people like the game. Almost every person on here talking trash about Warhammer, talked trash about prior releases, suggesting boycotts and similar actions, then end up playing the game anyway.

[clench]

And just like the 100's of other times people have suggested strikes and boycotts, not a single person follows through with it. Warhammer, like every game before it, is selling because A LOT of people like the game. Almost every person on here talking trash about Warhammer, talked trash about prior releases, suggesting boycotts and similar actions, then end up playing the game anyway.

OMG MAGIC LADDERS AND NO FAMILY TREE, TOTAL WAR IS RUINED FOREVER BECAUSE OF THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY!! (Hours played over 9000 since RTW1)

[Viva Espana!]

Everyone is just arguing back and forth and nobody cares what I had to say.

[Huberto]

I wonder what made CA backpedal (somewhat) on Day 1 DLC and mod support?

[clench]

Everyone is just arguing back and forth and nobody cares what I had to say.

\

I'll do it for you.

No. Lack of region-trading.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Mandatory five-turn tutorials for Empire/Dwarfs every single new campaign.

You can turn the tutorial off. It's only for the faction leaders for each faction, so franz and ungrim, etc. Just check the box for enable intro on their portrait.

Weak cavalry charges (Reiksguard having trouble killing many Crossbowmen on the charge...).

Haven't noticed this. Cavalry are quite strong, very fast and can hang out in melee combat better than any previous TW title. Charges actually look great when you're watching them. Lethality depends on the total strength of the unit. Charging a full health unit isn't going to do so much damage as a unit that is already engaged and losing hp.

No reloading animations for gunpowder weapons (both hand-held and artillery).

Cosmetic, not really a big deal. Can be fixed pretty easily, though it's not very necessary.

Lack of ammo variety (cannons can't use grapeshot or singleshot).

Instead of ammo variety, the main artillery factions have a diverse selection of artillery that specialize in many different functions that more than makes up for the lack of ammo types. Minor issue, not really a big deal.

Worst of all, the same city/town/province construction system which limits your development to a ridiculous degree.

I'd argue that the settlement/province system doesn't limit your development one bit. It forces you to think about planning your provinces instead of just building every single building in every single settlement like M2TW and the previous entries to the series.
You have a province for military, a province for economy, a mixed province, or a defensive province on your borders. Forcing you to think and plan isn't limiting just like letting you build everything everywhere is not very strategic or challenging. I can see the argument against this system is that it limit a modder's creative ability, but it certainly doesn't limit your development in fact quite the opposite. It forces you to think and develop your lands smarter because you can't build everything everywhere.

I have a dreadful nostalgia in M2TW and it's mods of endlessly queuing the same damn buildings to build every turn in every settlement. Conquering new lands made this worse and takes away from my ability to conquer more lands and enjoy myself doing it.

[Lionheart11]

I see it like this. A child grows up in love with certain cartoons on television. However, upon reaching 12-13, he begins to look at the newer cartoons that are being released with disdain as he finds them to be a bit too "elementary" for his maturing and evolving tastes. The genre, on the other hand, has little interest in evolving with the said adolescent, as their job is to keep children 5-12 in front of the television. I guess the same works for Total War games? Sure many of us are adults who can think of a million and one ways to make TW games more awesome and exciting, but a majority of adults around the world will never be swayed to become gamers. The teenage crowd however is extremely vulnerable in this regard. I guess this is why CA decided to 'reset' the series with Rome 2, much to the disdain of older fans. Our money is no good to them anymore.

I'm actually older than many would think here , I'm the twc old fart, I was about 29 when Empire came out and I may have had some input to the Australian studio's wink wink, It was a great game for Adults but its only gone down hill to kidsville in recent titles.

[simplemind07]

TWW has alot more tactics imput then previous total war, with the addtion of monster, flying, single units, i actually to put reserves behind the main line to counter those units. Formation is actually a thing now, no i never use the formation that they provide, its best to come up with your own.

[Carl Jung was right]

I can't help but throw in my own weight behind the entire war realism in a fantasy TW game side, although to call it a debate is a rather strong choice of words, since both sides seem to shut off their ears and fail to comprehend the opposite position.

Let's look at the state of the game currently, and the net outcome of the so called commitment to the "fantasy" nature of the Warhammer universe, which I feel serves as nothing but a convenient excuse for the game's shortcomings. Combat is shallow and unrewarding, even though it works well compared with Rome II at launch, tactical diversity is still embedded in hot button skills and a "rock paper scissors" balance system. Regiments of soldiers are essentially blobs of numerical values, a system very similar to Dawn of War, but a step away from the randomly factored, individualized combat model of previous TW titles. The most common available tactic is outflanking and charging from the back, which the AI exploits to the point of frustrating annoyance (while its general battle performance has hardly progressed since Shogun 2, in fact I'd still rate ReallybadAI from Med II as being a step above any CAI). Oftentimes I just leave a battle to run its course without issuing any commands, and just let my army's superior composition to win the day, even when repeatedly charged from the back. Gentlemen, this is not fantasy. There's another word for a strategy game termed "Total War" which comes short of delivering on either aspect of this term. Mediocrity.

I think that someone who never beheld meaningful, thoughtful battle mechanics, can never understand how much fun some of these realistic features can be if the design approach solicits the creative effort needed. I absolutely don't see why one must cling to the notion that in the lush fantasy world of Warhammer, battles absolutely can't proceed by standards at least befitting the basic common sense analogies to what occurs in real life combat. I mean in the universe of Warhammer, regiments of soldiers are just blobs sharing a hit point pool, which bounce against other blobs to inflict damage. The only thing that differentiates them is a bog standard HP based numerical system which minimizes the role that random chance and tactical maneuvering play in battle. Forest concealment, terrain, light vs. heavy equipment, morale effects don't matter, because hey it's fantasy. And in a fantasy, a horse can move through brush, bog, mud and forest just as well as it can move through hard open ground, missile projectiles can pass through solid objects, and soldiers react to the unfolding situation around them based on a statically decreasing morale bar. Battles are essentially stat matches, with any perspective of a greater strategic design or planning, essentially removed or dumbed down into oblivion. The most important thing about a strategy game, the creation of a player defined narrative as embodied in one's personal AAR experience of the campaign, is reduced and relegated by streamlined abstract mechanics which limit the player's actions at every step into a narrow mold of predetermined gameplay. And we're supposed to believe that all of this is because of the game being set in a fictitious place with no bearing to reality whatsoever?

All this time I hear with sadness players who rush to defend the design approach of this AAA equivalent of 52 pickup is because they think that no better card game is possible! After all it's just cards. Who can imagine that you can have more fun with them if you infuse the card game's rules with complexity and creativeness that permits open ended, self contained narrative play with a high repeat value?

So to use that as an analogy, there are a number of little design themes that can improve what I would term as the immersiveness of the real aspect of the game, without necessarily seeming out of place in the fantasy universe of Warhammer due to onerous realism.

-Meaningful fatigue mechanics. Fatigue should significantly impact the offensive and defensive capacity of a unit, rather than just being a rather irrelevant modifier to its speed. Since even a heavily armored unit can become very vulnerable to damage once fully fatigued, it means fielding lighter units can be viable in long term battles, as heavier units grow exhausted over time they become significantly less effective. A commander fielding all-elite, all-armored force, will have to keep in mind to force the outcome of a battle as quickly as possible, because if it drags on, the advantage that his force draws from heavy armor will dissipate! Minding unit fatigue becomes a crucial factor in the game, prompting the player to pull back exhausted units from the front and replace them with reserves.
-Missile units being effective depending on their positioning in relation to their enemy targets. In general, missile units inflict morale rather than casualty damage, reduce enemy speed and fatigue/morale recovery. However under the right position/elevation, they can inflict significant hurt even upon an otherwise invulnerable unit...
-The impact of projectile on armor depends on the issuing ranged weapon. AP units fire a small volume of projectiles which threaten smaller groups of elite, heavily plated foes. Missile units that fire a large volume of projectiles can inflict significant casualties upon unarmored/unshielded enemies, but are largely useless against front facing armored opponents.
-The impact of multiple fire concentration on both morale and fighting capabilities of a target unit. This could even lead to the notion of a "combined arms" attack, where a missile or artillery barrage immediately followed up with a melee assault is exploited to a great effect by the combat engine.
-A "suppression" mechanic for artillery and archer units, which enables them to reduce the effectiveness of enemy ranged unit advantage.
-A simple "assault" or "retreat" command to melee units. Under "assault" mode (triggered by double clicking a target the unit is engaged in melee with) a unit will try to expend more fatigue and casualties in order to force an enemy unit or formation backwards to its breaking point, inflicting greater morale damage. Assault is like the opposite of guard mode, a unit behaves more aggressively, but loses formation and is significantly more vulnerable to a charge. Likewise, a "retreat" button, causes a unit to retreat in good order, facing the enemy, which enables Cannae like battle line management tactics, or simply to preserve your fighting strength in case the battle doesn't go your way.
-More permanent unit formations. Polearm infantry can assume spear wall like stances, while assault units can deploy in deep, wedge like formations with a bonus to mass and penetration. Hardly a new in the TW series but I'm surprised why it's seen as "too realistic" for W:TW.
-A two vector psychological system. Leadership and morale now effect two respective factors: how well a unit performs in combat and how quickly it breaks under duress. Instead of linear morale exhaustion caused by taking damage, and depending solely on a single fixed quantity, unit leadership and morale can now be impacted by many factors, not limited to: agent actions, active presence of commanders (i.e. a commander charging into a fight or killing a powerful foe would increase morale, running away would do the opposite, etc), weather, techs, terrain, movement points, chaos corruption and other events occurring in the campaign. In Warhammer there's already a leadership stat which appears to modify the morale bar of a unit, and I would like it to play a greater role in affecting combat performance. Units with low morale can still have a very high leadership and visa versa. Leadership affects how quickly a unit recovers its morale and the extent of the benefit conferred to how it performs in combat when morale is close to the maximum. Depending on leadership, units with very low morale might not break outright, but they aren't very effective at carrying out orders either! So the bottom line is that leadership is something that is modified by the campaign, whereas morale is something that vacillates depending on battle situation. Breaking an enemy army's morale should be just as important as defeating them militarily, and an inclusion of psychological warfare as a viable victory pursuit will add a huge new dimension to combat scenarios!
-A technology tree that seamlessly fits into the unfolding campaign narrative, rather than being an abstract set of statistical improvements. For instance instead of techs, you can call them "policies" and they would require assigning characters in your faction to progress through. Different characters, depending on their ancillary pool, are better suited for different trees, and they receive benefits and traits associated with the policies they are appointed to implement. Tech trees are mutually exclusive, and require player commitment to a specific policy goal that encompasses a specific gameplay strategy. Technologies don't just add banal bonuses like +1% to skirmisher speed, but unlock new units, abilities and buildings, determine unit size, morale and performance, and thus play a significant role in the make up and tactics of your military forces. The choice of tech tree for each faction reflects the choice of tactics the player prefers to pursue on the battlefield - for example fast vs. slow units, small elite forces, vs. large and armies, forces that focus on large number of marauders and monsters, or forces that focus on small number of chosen elite, armies that follow the unique methods, flavor and tactics of a particular god etc, etc, etc. Warhammer has its own notion of realism too you know!
-To not even begin talking about the botched campaign management side, which everybody I spoke to so far, even those who enjoyed the game, agreed was a weak point. In my opinion CA should give up settlement management whatsoever, because it clearly no longer sees it as fit to develop into an actual meaningful or interesting part of the campaign. The campaign should focus on politics, character management, diplomacy, territory control and most importantly battles and logistical preparation for such. Cities provide a set tax income, but it's the aforementioned policies and control over trade resources which modify this income, and not settlement constructions. I wouldn't mind it if EVERY faction was deployed in a "horde-like manner" of current Warriors of Chaos, (i.e. army based, rather than settlement based faction management) if it would mean placing a greater emphasis on general strategic gameplay. To those who think it's too radical a change from the established TW theme, just look at the hugely successful EU IV, which has next to no province micromanagement. So bottom line is, remove the 6 slot building system altogether, leave settlement management to the background engine, and focus the player's attention on the entire faction rather than select, interdependent parts.
-Finally, and some people might find this a little trivial, but I would like to listen to unit quotes that are actually interesting and reflect the deep mythology and symbolism of the Warhammer universe. Remember Dawn of War quotes? "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" or "I feel the Warp overtaking me...it is a good pain." or "Last Oone t' da fight, iz a runty squig!!" Yes it was hammy, but in an awesome way. Warhammer TW unit quotes are just dull and uninspired.

Of course it's too late to talk about any of these things as suggestions or expect them to be implemented in either the game or the mods. But I would say that these ideas are closer to the vision of the game that I would like to have seen from CA, and which I think is within its means to do.

CA, do not shy away from sophistication or "realism" in your games, even if they happen to be fantasy. Gamers aren't stupid. Most of us appreciate "hardcore" elements, which if done right, add to complexity and immersion.

[stevehoos]

You have some laughable arguments as well, considering that provinces (not regions) are equal to old mtw2 provinces you can build about the same amount of unique buildings in Attila provinces as in MTW2 provinces. Even though i dont like this system very much it does make some settlements more unique, since in MTW2 build order was the same for every province (specially later on when ur flowing in money).

Generals take one turn to reassign - but i think u know the reason behind this general/army limitation - everybody was fed up with fighting 1-3 unit armies all the time.

No Mongols in Attila nor RTW2. Huns on the other hand dont have ships - when they are on the sea they use only transports.

But i wont dive into the flaws of MTW2 or RTW1 this is not the topic for it, and i also think u know them well enough, if not just juggle your memory a bit.

Moguls, Huns... a bit of a mix on my part.. But that does not change the facts.
A transport and a ship are two different things? A ship is a sea going vessel, a transport is a sea going vessel. But it's clear you don't understand the reason why I would even bring that up.

So having 6 building slots in major settlements produces more variation than 20 or 30 in Medieval 2? That's nonsensical rubbish; I have my own modded version which has unique buildings for all of England, I made them myself. That alone is 30X more variation than in Attila.