Page 18 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8910111213141516171819202122232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 754

Thread: New Attila Content in 2017

  1. #341
    IlluminatiRex's Avatar Are you on the square?
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illuminati Outpost #5123
    Posts
    3,693
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Based on this image from the "What the Teams are Working On" blog I think Saga is going to be Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic focused. They've covered the period before, and they said that's what they're doing with the Saga title, a period they have done previously but felt didn't give it the attention it needed. They'd probably pick the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, as that would make for a good FOTS like campaign I feel.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I am the author of the "Weaker Towers" and "Officers Of" series of mods for Total War: Warhammer!
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Holmes
    One of the problems with trying to write about the First World War is that most people have already read Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, Pat Barker and Sebastian Faulks before you get to them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie Fisher
    Can the Army win the war before the Navy loses it?

  2. #342
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,758

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Well, it's as good as any. It is an interesting area.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  3. #343
    FrozenmenSS's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Silistra,Bulgaria
    Posts
    1,014

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Hmmm... let's hope that influences them to make a game about the Balkan wars. Say period from August 1912 to July 1914, with 1 week per turn (i.e. ~100 turns).
    Can't see that theatre being as big a map as Attila frankly; good luck finding 180+ settlements in Northern Greece \ Albania \ Yugoslavia \ Bulgaria \ Northern Asia minor. But 100 settlements is doable.
    Well CA is overhauling major stuff in its historical title and thats the long delay.At this point the most logical pic is Total War: Victoria themed game starting in the 1880s with and a endgame with WW1 with DLCs expanding th map continent by continent just like Warhamer and the first idea for a preorder is a Faction pack with Greece,Serbia and Bulgaria,Romania. If CA dont add then as playables it it will be a real show on the forums all over again - preorder on not.


    We alslo dont know the staff of Crytek Black Sea went into what project. My 2 guesses are:
    1- teach/retrain them with the new code and send them to the next Major Historical Tittle
    2- teach/retrain them with for starters with the Saga,DLC for Attila and then jump into the sharks with the next Major Historical Tittle.

    By now every Bulgarian TW player casual or hardcore in the last 10+ years knows how CA have wasted all Oporunities to add the Bulgarians in the TW games:

    1.Medieval 2 - rebels with 2 rebel units looking as asians...The Nation that was on par with the Vikings that infuenced Eastern Europe the most and the history of Russia and what Russia is today would not have been for the 1st and 2nd Bulgarian Empires in the middle Ages.

    2.Empire - every balkan nation was a rebel emergent factions - Hungary,Romania,Serbia,Greece, no Bulgaria in the region of Sofia.
    3.Napoleon - Same story as Empire.

    Attila -
    The Grand Campaign:
    the biggest slap in the face: they beasicaly were already in Europe for at least 100 before the arival of the Huns and were part of the main hunnic army and the Legacy of Attila's stepe empire continued by the Bulgarians as a consept. And What we got instead? CA used outdated 19th century Victorian Turkic/Hungarian Nationalistic theories that are disregarded as such by at least 80-100 years and made the Huns Asians with Modern Hungarian names and ignoring all the lates findings in the last 30 years in archeology,the historical sources from the Armenians from that time and so on...

    Age of Charlemane dlc: From where do we start? The biggest Critism on the Aoc DLC to sumarise it with and older post of mine:

    1)What lacks in the AoC DLC is Faction Diversity !!! 80% of the map is again filled like in the Last Roman DLC with Germanic something something factions.The only faction as in the TLR good to be played Uniquely is The Islamic one(in the TLR is the Roman exp)

    2)Why there are 21 regions in Britain where with 12 they would have done the Job for example and Added the Balkans with 2 new playable factions the Byzantine and Bulgarian Empires fighting For their own survival - where Empire's Capitals were burned to the ground and Emperors were killed like animals in battles and Huge 60 000 big Armies were totally decimated in ambushes. And Above all that CA didnt even added the Charlamagne Figure of Eastern Europe in the DLC. What a waste of potentially Good DLC turning into a bad 1.

    3)Why there are 6 Regions in Ireland alone ,where 3 could have done the job?

    4)What the British isles had more important than the 2 other European Superpowers - The First Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire?As Faction Uniqueness,units starting positions and better gameplay ?

    5)What the British isles had in common with the Charlemagne's Franks at all? Oh 1 of the advisers/writers for Charlemagne was some guy from there? WoW - because of this idio tic thinking CA added the British isles because of this 1 guy? I asked on the Twitch CA AoC DLC streams chat the same question and CA Jack Lusted said exactly this in the Twitch Avars stream ... (that was really bad PR from CA on that part) Go watch it if you dont believe me on the CA's Twitch arhived videos...

    6)Why the Avars got Bulgarian Symbols from a Bulgarian Treasures ,at least 100 years after the Avars were wiped out, as Factional Emblems ? Was CA that desperatethat they could not found a true Avars factional emblem so they added emblems from the Bulgarians?


    7)The only interesting new thing in the DLC was the War Weariness mechanic - the rest was meh

    So to my main question: with that mindset from the new new staff members from Bulgaria joining CA and who have probably researched/remembered when playing the older TW games how they will infuence CA in fixing those mistakes(or for the future content) if those guys are chosen to work on the Saga/Next DLC campaign??

    Fast Example: for Rise of Islam starting in 634ad we can see a playable Great old Bulgaria of Kubrat north of the Black sea as the main nomadic faction in that campaign(together with the Avars and the Khazars)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by FrozenmenSS; July 13, 2017 at 01:55 AM.

  4. #344
    Huberto's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,313

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    My second argument is about warhammer. With announcement of Warhammer trilogy it was obvious that historical content is having break for at least 3-4 years.
    Disagree. If anything, CA promised they would continue to be making historical games. See this quote from CA staff within hours of the Warhammer announcement back in April 2015:

    Will CA wrote: ŧ
    Well, Total War was built on a tradition of historical eras, and we’ll continue to do exactly that. Total War: Warhammer is being developed in parallel with our historical titles by a dedicated team.

    -Will CA


    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    I must admit that if somebody is just history guy it might suck.
    I see you have stumbled into the truth. Indeed it does suck. Case closed. Looking forward to Saga though I like the idea and I hope they get it right. FotS was good.

  5. #345
    Darios's Avatar Ex Oriente Lux
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Dumbrava Roșie, Romania
    Posts
    2,259

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS View Post
    1.Medieval 2 - rebels with 2 rebel units looking as asians...The Nation that was on par with the Vikings that infuenced Eastern Europe the most and the history of Russia and what Russia is today would not have been for the 1st and 2nd Bulgarian Empires in the middle Ages.
    I quite agree with you that Bulgaria has really been shafted in Total War games. However, I will not blame CA too much for Medieval 2 because Bulgaria was part of the Roman Empire during the game's time frame. Furthermore, CA did not really take a very serious approach to historical research at the time, so I'd give them a pass on that. Even with the later games however, CA has not really shown a strong interest in researching and depicting Eastern Europe. The Romanian faction in NTW was neat, but all the characters had Russian names.

    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS View Post
    Age of Charlemane dlc: From where do we start? The biggest Critism on the Aoc DLC to sumarise it with and older post of mine:

    1)What lacks in the AoC DLC is Faction Diversity !!! 80% of the map is again filled like in the Last Roman DLC with Germanic something something factions.The only faction as in the TLR good to be played Uniquely is The Islamic one(in the TLR is the Roman exp)

    2)Why there are 21 regions in Britain where with 12 they would have done the Job for example and Added the Balkans with 2 new playable factions the Byzantine and Bulgarian Empires fighting For their own survival - where Empire's Capitals were burned to the ground and Emperors were killed like animals in battles and Huge 60 000 big Armies were totally decimated in ambushes. And Above all that CA didnt even added the Charlamagne Figure of Eastern Europe in the DLC. What a waste of potentially Good DLC turning into a bad 1.

    3)Why there are 6 Regions in Ireland alone ,where 3 could have done the job?
    I do not have anything against the portrayal of the British Isles in Charlemagne. For all intents and purposes, AoC is a campaign about the early medieval evolution of Western Europe and it would be amiss to omit the British isles, even if they were not directly involved with the exploits of Charlemagne. I like that the region is very well developed, giving people the opportunity to play as Anglo-Saxon England with its associated Viking invasions. Mercia is a really fun campaign to play.

    What does irk me is the obsession many people here have with wanting CA to make another campaign focused on Britain. What would a "Viking Invasion" DLC have that AoC doesn't already have? A sub-Roman Britain campaign MIGHT be interesting but I think that the only reason this is a popular theme is because of the vast sway and influence that Anglophone media has over much of the world. Let's compare the semi-mythological stories about Arthur to say...the late Roman Balkans where you have actual well documented wars between the Romans, Avari, Antes, and Sclavenians over control of the Danube frontier. We have the names of kings, khagans, chieftains, and minor generals from this conflict. We know how formerly great Roman trading cities in the Balkans devolved into castra by the reign of Justinian and how the Romans tried to protect the region with the Danubian limes system.

    If you want a great story about outnumbered Romans trying to defend an isolated region from barbarian invasion, there you go. Of course, the Balkans has never been an area of interest for CA. This is especially true when there aren't some kind of Celtic (Rome 2) or Germanic (Attila) invasions going on.
    Last edited by Darios; July 13, 2017 at 12:47 PM.
    Under the Patronage of PikeStance


  6. #346
    keona's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Rockies
    Posts
    220

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by IlluminatiRex View Post
    Based on this image from the "What the Teams are Working On" blog I think Saga is going to be Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic focused. They've covered the period before, and they said that's what they're doing with the Saga title, a period they have done previously but felt didn't give it the attention it needed. They'd probably pick the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, as that would make for a good FOTS like campaign I feel.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Love that image so much. A ton of atmosphere in there. Also, don't see a problem with that time period, Warhammer already have all the assets for the early medieval theme. Hopefully, it will dark, bloody, ruthless and gory game. My only hope no firearms because to me firearms is a dealbreaker with total war. (I know some people love them but for me is a turn off). Also, hope we can have more than three playable factions.

    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenmenSS View Post
    Well CA is overhauling major stuff in its historical title and thats the long delay.At this point the most logical pic is Total War: Victoria themed game starting in the 1880s with and a endgame with WW1 with DLCs expanding th map continent by continent just like Warhamer and the first idea for a preorder is a Faction pack with Greece,Serbia and Bulgaria,Romania. If CA dont add then as playables it it will be a real show on the forums all over again - preorder on not.
    I agree Bulgaria was overlooked a lot of times, I was pissed with AOC that we had Asturia () and we did not have Byzantine Empire () and 1000 time over I would prefer to play as Bulgars () rather than Avars ().

    Very excited to find out what Saga and new DLC will be about. I'm happy that CA is using their manpower to created historic games now (was pretty depressed when it felt like CA will focus on one Historic Game at that it) If we constantly have One Main Historic Title (large sandbox) with new Engine, One Title focused on Historic Characters (more narrative based) like Attila, Alexander or Napoleon, and Saga with (lots of events and narrative). Even if first Saga game will suck in some ways hopefully the second one will be better because Attila was sooooo much better that Rome II. Therefore CA trying to evolve and do things better. Love war weariness from AOC. That just me I'm super happy now and eagerly waiting for new games.

  7. #347
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by IlluminatiRex View Post
    Based on this image from the "What the Teams are Working On" blog I think Saga is going to be Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic focused. They've covered the period before, and they said that's what they're doing with the Saga title, a period they have done previously but felt didn't give it the attention it needed. They'd probably pick the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, as that would make for a good FOTS like campaign I feel.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    That knight artwork is from a two year old "Art of Total War" book
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    It was confirmed back in the day that it wasn't a hint for any new total war game, it's just the old total war logo made awesome ;-)
    Last edited by Daruwind; July 13, 2017 at 05:19 PM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  8. #348
    keona's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Rockies
    Posts
    220

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    That knight artwork is from a two year old "Art of Total War" book
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    It was confirmed back in the day that it wasn't a hint for any new total war game, it's just the old total war logo made awesome ;-)
    Thank you for sharing that. It looks fantastic anyhow.

  9. #349

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by IlluminatiRex View Post
    Based on this image from the "What the Teams are Working On" blog I think Saga is going to be Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic focused. They've covered the period before, and they said that's what they're doing with the Saga title, a period they have done previously but felt didn't give it the attention it needed. They'd probably pick the Polish-Lithuanian-Teutonic War, as that would make for a good FOTS like campaign I feel.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    No, this means that the next historical title they are working on is Medieval 3 Total War, which will be concentrated on Feudal Europe, but I think it must be more wiser to concentrate the attention on the Mongol invasions started with the rise of Genghis Khan
    in the 80s of 12th century. It also means that we shall probably see nothing from Attila TW or even from Rome TW.
    Through your intercession I hope to see the light of Thy son and the light of everlasting ages !

  10. #350
    keona's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Rockies
    Posts
    220

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    I don't know about Medival 3 because CA said they will not produce 3rd installment for any of the games. I actually love the idea of Sagas and Games focused on one person or short event. Because in this way we can have our Medieval III but without naming it a Medieval III. I really hope Saga games succeed.

  11. #351
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by keona View Post
    I don't know about Medival 3 because CA said they will not produce 3rd installment for any of the games. I actually love the idea of Sagas and Games focused on one person or short event. Because in this way we can have our Medieval III but without naming it a Medieval III. I really hope Saga games succeed.
    Don't suppose you happen to have a link to where they said no 3rd instalment please? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but haven't been able to track down the actual official statement. No 3s ever seems like a strange decision to me.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  12. #352
    keona's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Rockies
    Posts
    220

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Welsh Dragon View Post
    Don't suppose you happen to have a link to where they said no 3rd instalment please? I've seen it mentioned a few times, but haven't been able to track down the actual official statement. No 3s ever seems like a strange decision to me.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.
    To be honest with you I feel like I heard it in some interview with them, a while ago. I don't recall which one and I don't time to search for it. I don't doubt that you might be right, it was just hearsay on the forums that I got infected with misinformation and as it seems to keep spreading.

  13. #353
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by keona View Post
    To be honest with you I feel like I heard it in some interview with them, a while ago. I don't recall which one and I don't time to search for it. I don't doubt that you might be right, it was just hearsay on the forums that I got infected with misinformation and as it seems to keep spreading.
    Thanks. I just wondered.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  14. #354
    Dude with the Food's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Round the Corner.
    Posts
    1,800

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    It was a few years ago they said it, possibly before they announced Attila. It was close enough to the announcement of splitting into Warhammer and historical teams that the major historical release is the same not-a-3rd game they had planned then.



    Edit: Took me a while to track it down.
    Last edited by Dude with the Food; July 18, 2017 at 03:32 PM.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I am me. You are not me. You are you. If I was you, I wouldn't be me.
    If you were me, I'd be sad.But I wouldn't then be me because you'd be me so you wouldn't be me because I wasn't me because you were me but you couldn't be because I'd be a different me. I'd rather be any kind of bird (apart from a goose) than be you because to be you I'd have to not be me which I couldn't do unless someone else was me but then they would be you aswell so there would still be no me. They would be you because I was you so to restore balance you would have to be me and them meaning all three of us would become one continously the same. That would be very bad.


  15. #355
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Dude with the Food View Post
    It was a few years ago they said it, possibly before they announced Attila. It was close enough to the announcement of splitting into Warhammer and historical teams that the major historical release is the same not-a-3rd game they had planned then.



    Edit: Took me a while to track it down.
    Thanks. Interesting. Though it was a few years ago now, so plans could have changed. And he did say "never say never."

    Honestly, I'm in no rush for a Medieval, Shogun or Rome 3. There's still so much history they've barely touched, I'm looking forward to seeing them tackle whatever the new Era will be.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  16. #356

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    The waiting is killing me! Though I know it's all for the best. My top 3 hopefuls for the next historical:

    1. Renaissance
    2. Victoria
    3. China

    I still can't see them going modern, though the 100 year anniversary of WWI and the fact they have developed a lot of flying/vehicle models for Warhammer feel like strong arguments they might.

    I'm going to dive into a AoC campaign - can anyone recommend some good mods for that?

  17. #357
    FrozenmenSS's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Silistra,Bulgaria
    Posts
    1,014

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    + the Battlefield 1 Sales and overall success of that game and its the most logical thing because of the delay and the overhaul of the next Historical game.A game starting in the 1880s with endgame for WW1 with the posibility with DLC campaigns up till the modern Era.

  18. #358
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    China has problem with too similar factions, rosters....Itīs not like each faction is the same as next one but simply china guys vs china guys vs china guys....Much more interesting settings is Mongol Invasion as you can have much more different factions around map.....You simply cannot match this scope with china itself. Especially after Warhammer having so different factions and mechanics...

    WW1 is another bad setting probably. There are no smaller independent conflicts...itīs simply two side war. Simply real time part will sucks. At beginning or more likely at eastern front or in middle-east it could be similar to mobile warfare but majority of war is simply trenche warfare....one side charging MG guns,then switching sides....gas, mediocre planes, tanks...heavy static long range artillery like naval bombardment in FotS...almost no naval battles. Well subs hunting transports is pretty boring. Even major battles are more likely a campaigns....not short skirmish but many weeks od slow meat grinder... For these reason the last possible game setting in my eyes is American Civil War, Franko-Prussian War, Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War is probably just too newish for TW also...

    So Victoria could be setting.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  19. #359

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Echoing Daruwind, I just don't see the attraction of a China-based setting. I have an uneasy feeling that that is the next setting, though. So, I'm rather more interested in the Sagas and DLC for R2 and Attila. I'm also wary of the influence that that fantasy game may have had on CA. They talked about "exciting character development" and other such fluff in recent communications. So, will we see things like heroes and agents whizzing about on battlefields with flashing strobe light effects magically, miraculously energizing exhausted troops after titanic, nail-biting battles lasting 93 seconds?

    A Victorian setting would be great for the strategic geo-political and logistical gameplay, but I don't believe CA can produce an AI that could do such a game justice. For example, region trading would be absolutely essential, but CA has removed that feature from recent games (CA surely wouldn't release a Victorian era game without region trading, would they?), probably because it was too difficult to balance. Could CA now suddenly produce an AI competent enough to use such a feature in plausible ways?

  20. #360
    keona's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Rockies
    Posts
    220

    Default Re: New Attila Content in 2017

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    China has problem with too similar factions, rosters....Itīs not like each faction is the same as next one but simply china guys vs china guys vs china guys....Much more interesting settings is Mongol Invasion as you can have much more different factions around map.....You simply cannot match this scope with china itself. Especially after Warhammer having so different factions and mechanics...

    WW1 is another bad setting probably. There are no smaller independent conflicts...itīs simply two side war. Simply real time part will sucks. At beginning or more likely at eastern front or in middle-east it could be similar to mobile warfare but majority of war is simply trenche warfare....one side charging MG guns,then switching sides....gas, mediocre planes, tanks...heavy static long range artillery like naval bombardment in FotS...almost no naval battles. Well subs hunting transports is pretty boring. Even major battles are more likely a campaigns....not short skirmish but many weeks od slow meat grinder... For these reason the last possible game setting in my eyes is American Civil War, Franko-Prussian War, Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War is probably just too newish for TW also...

    So Victoria could be setting.
    I agree with you that I don't see them making WW1 Total War. Victoria is interesting to me but it is better than WW1 setting. Mongol invasion would be really interesting China alone would suck.

    *** Kinda Offtopic ***

    Actually, come to think of it, I would love to see a good cover system and animation in total war especially in ambushes, it would be so cool to see units taking cover. I really don't know how that would work but in my head, it looks pretty neat. Something like a company of heroes but in Roman or Medieval times. I know I deviated but when I was playing COH I always wished we could play as Small Roman Strike force. Don't pay too much attention to my rumbling I went to much of topic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •