New Attila Content in 2017

[Darios]

Maybe they just don't want it getting lost amongst all the Warhammer 2 prelaunch stuff? Could be waiting for a gap, which could be soon given Warhammer 2 is now out, and apart from Mortal Empires doesn't seem like there's much coming in the immediate future. But I could be wrong.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

This is what I am thinking. Once the Warhammer 2 release hype dies down a bit, you'll probably begin hearing more about historical content.

[eXistenZ]

thats the problem. it wont die anything soon. A few months after WH2, the dlc's/expansions come. then an event. And before you know it, its E3 2018 and WH3 gets announced.

So the good time to talk about historical content would be... never. Not at least any time soon

[Daruwind]

WH1 was released back in May 2016, 4 DLCs after 2,3,4,5.5 months...WH2 was relaesed September 2017..15 Months with just Norsca being in August. There was quite big time window after last planned DLC and before WH2 hype/Norsca. WH3 will be the same therefore plenty of time to promote and release campaign pack + Saga game in that window around Spring/Summer 2018 . Actually that would be great. More things to play yay. :-)

[Anna_Gein]

It does not look we historical fans are getting anything this year.

[Theramines]

It does not look we historical fans are getting anything this year

Not for Attila, but there was some kind of update for Rome 2's Steam page so a DLC may still drop before christmas.

[Nikron]

I'm so jealous that TWW get to have so much material to enjoy while me as a ancient history fan have to rely on a failure like Rome 2 since 2013. I love Attila's new features but the battles feel so easy, but perhaps thats realistic in portraying a typical barbarian fighting style.

If it weren't for Divide et Impera I would have switched to Europa Barbarorum II long time ago and would have forgotten that CA even exists. A bunch of fans create such amazing mods during their free time while the pros paid to do it take the pi$$ by throwing at us copy paste work that I can do in 1 day with CA Kit's or even PFM. I know we're not modifying the engine itself, but its those extra details that make the difference. Like I said, its those extra details that make EBII based on a 10 years old engine better than the 2013 one.

[Welsh Dragon]

I'm so jealous that TWW get to have so much material to enjoy while me as a ancient history fan have to rely on a failure like Rome 2 since 2013. I love Attila's new features but the battles feel so easy, but perhaps thats realistic in portraying a typical barbarian fighting style.

If it weren't for Divide et Impera I would have switched to Europa Barbarorum II long time ago and would have forgotten that CA even exists. A bunch of fans create such amazing mods during their free time while the pros paid to do it take the pi$$ by throwing at us copy paste work that I can do in 1 day with CA Kit's or even PFM. I know we're not modifying the engine itself, but its those extra details that make the difference. Like I said, its those extra details that make EBII based on a 10 years old engine better than the 2013 one.

We've been going through a dry spell recently it's true. But soon we'll probably have more historical content than we know what to do with. A "particularly large Campaign DLC" for (probably) Rome 2, a Saga game, the Next Major Historical and whatever else they may have planned but haven't said about yet.

As for the DLC, I disagree that they represent a days work for a modder or are "taking the pi$$." Yes they reuse assets where applicable, but that is only one part of the work that goes into these factions and is reflected in the prices. (See Warhammer DLC pricing for what happens when you can't reuse assets.) And because modders are using their spare time and not having to make a living from their work on the game, and because CA also has to tailor their games for a variety of players, while mods can be very focused, it gives modders a lot more freedom in certain areas. They can spend weeks on a single unit if they want, or mod the game to provide maximum challenge for experienced players, while CA has to think about costs, time, targets and making a game suitable for a broad spectrum of player tastes and ability.

Don't get me wrong, modders do amazing stuff and there is always room for improvement in what both them and CA offers. But I think CA does good stuff too. I happen to prefer their work and am happy to pay what is to me a fair price for it. But I respect others feel differently.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Palaiogos]

Maybe you should play with some of the mods that are around, like Fall of the Eagles, or Europa Perdita. Those two mods together changed my outlook on the game and made me enjoy it. But yes, I do agree that sometimes CA does make some really lazy copy-paste things. Great examples are all the faction DLCs for Rome 2.

[Welsh Dragon]

Maybe you should play with some of the mods that are around, like Fall of the Eagles, or Europa Perdita. Those two mods together changed my outlook on the game and made me enjoy it. But yes, I do agree that sometimes CA does make some really lazy copy-paste things. Great examples are all the faction DLCs for Rome 2.

I've looked into various mods over the years, but apart from a few ones I classify as tweaks/unofficial patches, they've never really appealed. Many change the turns per year (I'm fine with 1TPY in GC,) the unit cards (I like the ones in Rome 2 and find them easy to use,) or other mechanics. Unit packs tend to bloat faction rosters with loads of units (I like having a variety of roster sizes and tend to prefer factions with smaller focused ones,) and both they and mods which add factions tend to be balanced to other mods, not to the vanilla game. Plus some of those also change TPY.

I also disagree on the Rome 2 Faction DLCs. They have many of my favourite factions, and are to me fairly priced for the work involved, and I don't think there's any laziness involved. I don't really see the point of making new models when you have existing ones which fit the units you are trying to represent.

But like I said, I respect others feel differently.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[stevehoos]

Has the GPU industry released their new "future cards" designed for Attila yet? I don't care what DLC Sega CA releases, they should have fixed the performance, it's so bad it's absolutely pathetic. CA has an habitual lying problem, the modding tools they promised never worked either.

[Cesco]

I'm so jealous that TWW get to have so much material to enjoy while me as a ancient history fan have to rely on a failure like Rome 2 since 2013. I love Attila's new features but the battles feel so easy, but perhaps thats realistic in portraying a typical barbarian fighting style.

If it weren't for Divide et Impera I would have switched to Europa Barbarorum II long time ago and would have forgotten that CA even exists. A bunch of fans create such amazing mods during their free time while the pros paid to do it take the pi$$ by throwing at us copy paste work that I can do in 1 day with CA Kit's or even PFM. I know we're not modifying the engine itself, but its those extra details that make the difference. Like I said, its those extra details that make EBII based on a 10 years old engine better than the 2013 one.

If you are an ancient history fan like me, you might want to try Field of Glory 2...it seems quite a good simulation of ancient warfare, unlike any total war game.

[Theramines]

I've been looking at Field of Glory II and I see nothing but good reviews on Steam. I'm so tempted. My only quibbles are that it lacks a sandbox campaign and I was disappointed by their previous game, Pike and Shot. In fact, every other historical game I've tried has left me a bit disappointed, which is why I keep returning to Total War and pining for their next historical release in this forum. That said, even Total War has had its unsatisfying and boring releases, so maybe Pike and Shot was just an anomaly and I should give FoG II a try. It would be nice if it proved to be a more than adequate alternative to Total War, not because I think competition is necessarily a force for improvement and creativity (quite the contrary in my reckoning), but because it adds variety to a rather small niche market.

[Daruwind]

I don't care what DLC Sega CA releases, they should have fixed the performance, it's so bad it's absolutely pathetic.

64-bit engine for WH1+2 works way better. Great optimalization. Looks like CPU is bigger bottleneck than GPU. I have i7-6700K and GTX980 Ti and while I have no problems in WH1+2 at almost all ultra setting I still have bigger slowdowns in Attila or Empire....remeber old siege bug? Still there :-) And speaking about end turns in Empire and WH2...

So question is the optimalization for Saga game, campaign pack will be at the same engine as Rome 2 probably...but the next historic title should run as well as WH at least. :-)

[Nikron]

We've been going through a dry spell recently it's true. But soon we'll probably have more historical content than we know what to do with. A "particularly large Campaign DLC" for (probably) Rome 2, a Saga game, the Next Major Historical and whatever else they may have planned but haven't said about yet.

Easy for you to say mate. I can barely force myself to play Attila as the era puts me completely off. DLC's and Saga are fine but then again depends on which region they will focus, and if the Greco-Roman world is not its focus then I'm out. Many of us became TW fans because of Rome 1, although many regard Medieval 2 as the best ever. Personally I see the medieval era as boring because of the messy fighting style. Just recruit heavy armored cav and inf and shoot at the back with missiles.

So a next Historical title will not be as good as Rome 3 if you know what I mean Now for you lucky fantasy fans it's perfect as long as it's Warhammer, but even Warcraft or Lord of the Rings I believe (but I could be wrong).

As for the DLC, I disagree that they represent a days work for a modder or are "taking the pi$$." Yes they reuse assets where applicable, but that is only one part of the work that goes into these factions and is reflected in the prices. (See Warhammer DLC pricing for what happens when you can't reuse assets.) And because modders are using their spare time and not having to make a living from their work on the game, and because CA also has to tailor their games for a variety of players, while mods can be very focused, it gives modders a lot more freedom in certain areas. They can spend weeks on a single unit if they want, or mod the game to provide maximum challenge for experienced players, while CA has to think about costs, time, targets and making a game suitable for a broad spectrum of player tastes and ability.

Don't get me wrong, modders do amazing stuff and there is always room for improvement in what both them and CA offers. But I think CA does good stuff too. I happen to prefer their work and am happy to pay what is to me a fair price for it. But I respect others feel differently.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

I have all the DLC's from Rome and they are indeed a joke. I'm a modder myself and I've never played TW or mod without editing it myself for at least 1 week up to 1 month. Just by myself I create a new faction from scratch, a complete roster of 15-20 units with the best variantmeshes possible, edit shield patterns, helmets, armour, etc., tweak the building and technology system to make all my units upgradable as I recruit only levy ones and through experience I upgrade them by adding better equipment, increased skills and morale. And i'm not even going to the startpos side of the story, so if I can do this in a couple of days during my spare time (which is not little as i go to gym 5x/week), CA should be able to do better than a bunch of "different" units with different colour helmet crests, some ok shields, and campaign stuff.

So the perfect scenario would be a separate Rome/Antiquity team, historical, and fantasy team

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The quality of the DLCs is ok. As modder i can reuse their assets for new unit mods or change them easily by new decals. But the big difference is: i have time, because its my hobby, not my job, from which i must live.

[Daruwind]

I have all the DLC's from Rome and they are indeed a joke. I'm a modder myself and I've never played TW or mod without editing it myself for at least 1 week up to 1 month.

You are right. BUT if we look at DLC evolution from times of Empire/Napoleon, Shogun2, Rome/Attila and finally WHs. They are getting better. Yeah you need more money but then again, just check what we get in Empire as DLCs. Games are still not without downs but if one thing is probably true for future historical titles, it would be the quality of DLCs. :-)

[FrozenmenSS]

Not for Attila, but there was some kind of update for Rome 2's Steam page so a DLC may still drop before christmas.

What are you talking about ? I just got a somekind of a update for the Attila's modding tools yesterday. And lets not forget that CA updates the Total War launcher again and again because of Warhammer.

Making DLC's for a dead Game with bad popularity like Rome 2(where the game to be at least somekind of playeable you need between 1-100 mods put together or mods like DEI) is a No go for any company. For the most part Attila got Good reception from the comunity.Its Same was the Story with Napoleon compared with Empire.

In Matter of fact when Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai came out there were still 2 more DLCs comming out for Napoleon,but nothing for Empire at all.Yes its true that those were unit packs used for multiplayer for the most part ,but it showed where CA put its efforts in the past and they prefered Napoleon over Empire - not because of Empire sold far more than Napoleon and having more active playerbase and with bad reputation,but with the game that was more polished and with the better reputation.



Napoleon: Total War:
Heroes of the Napoleonic Wars - Releace Date:18th of June 2012
http://store.steampowered.com/app/34...poleonic_Wars/


Imperial Eagle Pack - Releace Date:18th of June 2012
http://store.steampowered.com/app/38...al_Eagle_Pack/


Total War: Shogun 2 - Fall of the Samurai - Releace Date: 22th of March 2012
The last DLC for Vannila Shogun 2 : Otomo Clan Pack DLC was releaced on 30th of November 2012



I cant imagine a DLC for Rome 2 in 2017-8 with none of its core problems fixed - people will laugh again again at the AI and and by being limited by its UI,the bugs and so on.Like this one on the Imperator Augustus campaign:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Attila on the other hand it has less problems compared with Rome 2 in terms of development for CA's developers. So what are the main core problems and complains about Attila? Most of them are about the Grand Campaign,not for the other Campaign DLCs - The Huns, Climate change,the romans and mostly that.Also fixing their Mooding tools for Attila with a new DLC is good reason to do it. The optimisation of Attila can be fixed when the DLC for Attila is in production together with the Saga Campaign DLCs combining game ( thats the real product behind the future Saga game).

I still think if CA goes Back to the classical Ancient Period the Saga game fix most of the problems for CA from development point of view.

[Daruwind]

Actually it make sense to produce DLC for Rome 2. It has still large active playerbase AND a lot people bought it. So CA can easily expect almost every potential customer to own Rome 2 already AND and for the rest CA can always make some sweet sale of Rome 2 + New DLC Campaign pack. Especially if they fix a thing or two...

What DLC we are talking about? Check https://steamdb.info/app/214950/dlc/ there is new APP ID from a few months ago and profile just seems to be constantly updated. You can easily check WH2 for comparison https://steamdb.info/app/594570/dlc/ Only Mortal Empires is fixed but you can already see how many DLCs + FLCs probably are in the air... or WH1 https://steamdb.info/app/364360/dlc/ all DLCs+FLCs are known , same for Attila... https://steamdb.info/app/325610/dlc/ And it again makes sense as they have to meddle with ingame things,features,mechanics ...not with optimalization of engine itself. Such DLC campaign would be quicker to put together.

On contrary Attila had way lower sales so making direct DLC makes no sense as player base is not saturated with core game for such DLC....hence standalone makes sense as you can put yourself away from original game... and produce Saga game. It is just my call, but I expect very much the same standaloness as FotS in comaprison with Shogun 2 ;-) that would allow CA to do maybe a few following DLCs for Saga because anything bigger and we are getting scope of Attila with some minicampaigns and way more DLCs..(too much for this team, short development time/resources commited...)

[keona]

64-bit engine for WH1+2 works way better. Great optimalization. Looks like CPU is bigger bottleneck than GPU. I have i7-6700K and GTX980 Ti and while I have no problems in WH1+2 at almost all ultra setting I still have bigger slowdowns in Attila or Empire....remeber old siege bug? Still there :-) And speaking about end turns in Empire and WH2...

So question is the optimalization for Saga game, campaign pack will be at the same engine as Rome 2 probably...but the next historic title should run as well as WH at least. :-)

Same setup (except I have i5) and same issues.

If you are an ancient history fan like me, you might want to try Field of Glory 2...it seems quite a good simulation of ancient warfare, unlike any total war game.

Wow awesome tip, I will gladly buy it. I dreamed of playing a game that has turn-based combat system and MTW II depth. At least I can try good turn-based combat. I think TW series would have been so much better if it was turn-based on battlefield and campaign map but it will never happen due to financial reasons, people in general hate turn-based combat. FOG II reminds me of all game that I played non stop in 1996 called Conquest of the New World (https://www.gog.com/game/conquest_of_the_new_world). The game was so innovative at the time. Loved turn-based combat there but in addition to awesome combat, it had strategy layer similar to Civilization. Actually come to think of it, turn base can actually look good. When units selected to attack or defend they can play the real-time animation from total war games where soldiers fighting each other. Probably just me find turn based gameplay cool.

Easy for you to say mate. I can barely force myself to play Attila as the era puts me completely off. DLC's and Saga are fine but then again depends on which region they will focus, and if the Greco-Roman world is not its focus then I'm out. Many of us became TW fans because of Rome 1, although many regard Medieval 2 as the best ever. Personally I see the medieval era as boring because of the messy fighting style. Just recruit heavy armored cav and inf and shoot at the back with missiles.

So a next Historical title will not be as good as Rome 3 if you know what I mean Now for you lucky fantasy fans it's perfect as long as it's Warhammer, but even Warcraft or Lord of the Rings I believe (but I could be wrong).


I have all the DLC's from Rome and they are indeed a joke. I'm a modder myself and I've never played TW or mod without editing it myself for at least 1 week up to 1 month. Just by myself I create a new faction from scratch, a complete roster of 15-20 units with the best variantmeshes possible, edit shield patterns, helmets, armour, etc., tweak the building and technology system to make all my units upgradable as I recruit only levy ones and through experience I upgrade them by adding better equipment, increased skills and morale. And i'm not even going to the startpos side of the story, so if I can do this in a couple of days during my spare time (which is not little as i go to gym 5x/week), CA should be able to do better than a bunch of "different" units with different colour helmet crests, some ok shields, and campaign stuff.

So the perfect scenario would be a separate Rome/Antiquity team, historical, and fantasy team

I really hope you right. Rome II compared to Attila was rubbish but the timeline is much better, I wish they made Ancient Rome timeframe when they were just bunch of farmers with no organized military. Something ancient. Don't agree on a medieval timeframe comment, it was very interesting time but if we go toward Victorian era is no longer fun. For me, it is the invention of gunpowder.

Actually it make sense to produce DLC for Rome 2. It has still large active playerbase AND a lot people bought it. So CA can easily expect almost every potential customer to own Rome 2 already AND and for the rest CA can always make some sweet sale of Rome 2 + New DLC Campaign pack. Especially if they fix a thing or two...


What DLC we are talking about? Check https://steamdb.info/app/214950/dlc/ there is new APP ID from a few months ago and profile just seems to be constantly updated. You can easily check WH2 for comparison https://steamdb.info/app/594570/dlc/ Only Mortal Empires is fixed but you can already see how many DLCs + FLCs probably are in the air... or WH1 https://steamdb.info/app/364360/dlc/ all DLCs+FLCs are known , same for Attila... https://steamdb.info/app/325610/dlc/ And it again makes sense as they have to meddle with ingame things,features,mechanics ...not with optimalization of engine itself. Such DLC campaign would be quicker to put together.

I really hope (not realistic) they are updating Rome two engine with all the Attila features but I don't think they will make a transition to 64bit till saga comes out. But who knows.

Cesco thx for the tip again.

[Frunk]

You might ask about it in the Other Games forum.