New Attila Content in 2017

[Dude with the Food]

What was the time between announcement and release of Imperator Augustus? Assuming the DLC campaign is a similar size which isn't a given but it might give us an idea how likely CA will be able to keep to this year.

[Daruwind]

Emperor Edition is patch 15. Beta was out like September 2014 and patch was live in October 2014. In hurry I don´t see any earlier notes,comments....so 1-2 months at max before release date. Basically all DLCs for Rome 2, Attila, WHs are announced like 1-2 months before release at the max. I won´t be even suprised to see two more for WH2 till this Christmas. First paid DLC for WH1 was released after 2 months, second after 3,5....WH2 was released "end" September...making end of November 2017 and Christmas-January 2018 possible dates for next ones...

[Dude with the Food]

Has anyone got odds for Jan/Feb historical dlc, early summer first WH2 mini-campaign and then the Saga in time for Christmas next year?

[Welsh Dragon]

To avoid another lengthy post from me, which I'm sure many will be happy not to have and I don't really feel up to writing anyway, here's some quick bullet point replies.

@Abdülmecid I

• I missed out Napoleon by accident, so good catch. "Big and small" I was meaning more Big = Medievals, Romes, Empires, Small = Shoguns, Napoleon, FOTS.
• I took the Mike Simpson line to be talking about their next game after what they were discussing (so post Saga and Next Major Historical,) but I see what you mean. I think it's just a slip up in wording though, as everything else states Next Major Historical is going to be a new era. They also previously stated in June that "Development on the next major historical release continues apace, with the team focusing on some fantastic UI and environmental work recently to capture the mood of this unique setting, that we’ve yet to explore in any previous Total War game." So I definitely don't read into one contradiction that could be a simple slip of the tongue or poor word choice that development hasn't begun yet.
• I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the multiple teams thing. I see no reason for them to lie about it, especially as that's how CA have worked since at least Rome 1 / Medieval 2, and I believe Medieval 1 as well, and CA has been ramping up their staffing levels over the last few years. Though I do recognise the point made by @Huberto that "multiple teams active" is not the same as "multiple teams at full strength."
• It was never my intention to "label everyone who disagrees with CA's policies or your posts together" and if that is how it came across I can only apologise. There is a lot of good constructive criticism posted by many people, saying what they like and don't like. And yes, using a critical eye on information is a valuable tool. My issue is with the small minority who seem to equate "constructive criticism" with "criticise everything someone does and always see the worst" and it's those sort of posts I find particularly frustrating. But it was never my intent to lump both groups together, so as I said I apologise if that's how it read.

@Marcus_Iunius

• Interesting analysis of the concept art, thanks. I do think 3rd/4th Century looks like an interesting possibility for the Campaign DLC, especially if they choose to focus on the Crisis of the Third Century.
• Bit confused about how you lay out all this information supporting it being a 3rd/4th Century setting, then end by saying you think it's Alexander. Or did you mean 3rd/4th Century BC, which is closer to Alexander's time?

@Huberto

• I never said they were being produced and released at the same rate. (Well, didn't mean to anyway. In hindsight can see how some of what I wrote earlier could give that impression.) My point was that they are and have been working on both. Also as I said above, CA have worked on multiple titles at the same time using different teams. e.g. Shogun 1 and Rome 1 were Team A, Medieval 1 was Team B, and Medieval 2 was CA Australia (as CA UK was working on creating the engine for Empire.)
• I do take your point that "multiple teams active" is not the same as "multiple teams at full strength." Though I don't think they're as skeletal as you might think. I could see them having two mid sized teams working on the main games full time, while having others move around as and when their talents are needed.
• Basically, what I'm trying to say is where as before we had Historical A and Historical B, now we have Historical and Warhammer, which is how I've read various comments like Wills and Blog Posts.
• Later this year could still mean end of November or sometime in December. There's also no hard and fast rule on time between announcement and release, so they could still announce it next week and have it out by Christmas, for example.
• I do agree that the focus being on Warhammer for so long has been frustrating, especially when you're a Historical fan. I take the Blog post this week as the start of redressing the balance a bit.
• I'd rather they announce the Historicals one at a time, than give us a big infodump of all three at once. Let each have it's moment to shine.

Anyway, sorry that still turned into a long one. I really can't write short.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I mean that its 3/4 century AD, but the warrior belongs to the Saga game, not to the DLC-Expansion and only accidently is named to belong to the DLC.

After Attila a bearded warrior dlc and then another bearded warrior saga? A Germanic DLC seems a bit small in relation to update the base game...

[Welsh Dragon]

I mean that its 3/4 century AD, but the warrior belongs to the Saga game, not to the DLC-Expansion and only accidently is named to belong to the DLC.

After Attila a bearded warrior dlc and then another bearded warrior saga? A Germanic DLC seems a bit small in relation to update the base game...

Oh right, now I get what you meant. I disagree though. It's clearly marked "Concept Art From The New Historical Content Team's Forthcoming Campaign Pack" and from the Blog Post from June it says that the Historical Content Team is working on the "particularly large Campaign Pack DLC." If it was a mistake, you think someone would have said by now.

Also while yes it represents a Germanic warrior, that doesn't necessarily mean they are the focus. He could be a Mercenary, or a unit or agent for a non-playable faction, or even a unit for a playable one that still isn't all that the Campaign is about. Wouldn't put it past CA to do something like that to get people talking, without giving the game away.

But we shall see.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Daruwind]

Has anyone got odds for Jan/Feb historical dlc, early summer first WH2 mini-campaign and then the Saga in time for Christmas next year?

WH1 (+ Chaos Warriors preorder) - end May 2016
Beastmen DLC - end July 2016 (2 months)
Grim/Grave DLC - beginning September 2016 (3,5)
Warlords/Kings DLC - end October 2016 (5)
Wood Elves DLC -beginning December 2016 (6,5)
Bretonnia FLC - end February 2017 (9)
Norsca DLC, Foundation update - August 2017 (14,5)

WH2 (+ Norsca preorder) - end September 2017 (16 months)
Mortal Empires FLC - end October
....

We can easily expect similar number of content for WH2, two faction expansions for core factions and two new factions/minicampaigns. Up to March? After that there will be surely window up WH3 - Christmas 2018 / Spring 2019. Even if CA will use the last 3 months for hyping we still have like 6-7 months inbetween....Plenty of time for both Campaign pack and Saga game And because first mention of these historical teams is from March (Jack forming his team) I can easily see their release date around Spring 2018. This Christmas optimistic quess, Spring probably realistic, Summer the furthest possibility... with Saga following Summer/Autumn 2018.

[Welsh Dragon]

WH1 (+ Chaos Warriors preorder) - end May 2016
Beastmen DLC - end July 2016 (2 months)
Grim/Grave DLC - beginning September 2016 (3,5)
Warlords/Kings DLC - end October 2016 (5)
Wood Elves DLC -beginning December 2016 (6,5)
Bretonnia FLC - end February 2017 (9)
Norsca DLC, Foundation update - August 2017 (14,5)

WH2 (+ Norsca preorder) - end September 2017 (16 months)
Mortal Empires FLC - end October
....

We can easily expect similar number of content for WH2, two faction expansions for core factions and two new factions/minicampaigns. Up to March? After that there will be surely window up WH3 - Christmas 2018 / Spring 2019. Even if CA will use the last 3 months for hyping we still have like 6-7 months inbetween....Plenty of time for both Campaign pack and Saga game And because first mention of these historical teams is from March (Jack forming his team) I can easily see their release date around Spring 2018. This Christmas optimistic quess, Spring probably realistic, Summer the furthest possibility... with Saga following Summer/Autumn 2018.

Couple of things.

They've ditched Mini-Campaigns for Warhammer after the complaints to do with Beastmen and Woodelves. In their place some Race Packs will be what I've dubbed Race Pack+ which have 4 Legendary Lords instead of the normal 2.

Jack's team is Saga, while Maya's team is the Campaign DLC. In the latest Blog post Maya says they've been working on the Campaign DLC for "best part of a year," so I'm thinking a late November or probably December release is looking more likely. It makes sense to go for the pre-Christmas spending spree period if they can, and means that they continue the trend of releasing something new Historical each year (last Attila DLC was in 2016, Attila was 2015, Rome 2 2014 and 15 etc.)

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Hmm, if this germanic warrior belong to the Rome II-Campaign DLC and they add Horde-Mechanic to Rome II, maybe a Cimbrian or Teutonic King? A Campaign around Marius and Sulla with Jugurtha, Cimbrian wars to Mithridatic Wars would be awesome.

[Nikron]

I think it's even useless to use logic and anticipate their moves based on hints. One thing I learned about CA is that they focus on anything commercial, obviously Rome (instead of calling it Antiquity for instance).

So basically I expect them to always focus on Spartans after the 300, Vikings after the Vikings TV show (throw in there Charlemagne too), so it wouldn't be strange if they indeed make some DLC or Saga on Spartacus.

[Daruwind]

Couple of things.

They've ditched Mini-Campaigns for Warhammer after the complaints to do with Beastmen and Woodelves. In their place some Race Packs will be what I've dubbed Race Pack+ which have 4 Legendary Lords instead of the normal 2.

-Actually they ditched minicapaign only for the next new race. ;-) I can find you the statement but I specificaly remember they were talking only about the next one..(well at least there was no implication about next next one )
(There might be more reason and having more playable LL is one of them as well as no DLC for other DLC policy .....another reason is probably TK and their lore. Minicampaign should be around return of Naggash or what? But this is quite big for just minicampaign..it could be almost alternative Vortex mechanics, we are speaking about Chaos invasion level event.... Besides that most of TK other conflicts were a long ago with vastly different factions and in current timeline I can think only about Cripplepeak - Skaven vs TK as famous Warpstone mine for Skavens... http://warhammerfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Nagashizzar which is also quite old ...before Skaven civil wars etc...)

EDIT:

So the biggest change we’ll be making with the first large DLC for Warhammer II is to swap out the mini campaign for two more additional Legendary Lords, for a total of 4 playable Lords in the pack.

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/early-adopter-post-launch

-We already know there will be new one LLs as FLCs so far for HE,Skavens,Lizardmen (probably DE as well)
-The core race expension packs will be also similar to WH1 as all four WH2 races are missing units, LL.....
(together these will bring LL count to four for all core races)

-I will point out that the leaked datamined info was quite correct with Mortal Empires map and DLCs so far. Marking Tomb Kings and Skavens as bigger DLCs for WH2. I actually can see Skavens getting quite big DLC because they have enough clans / characters for that and such minicampaign will allow WH2 players to get a feel of Under-empire without access to Mortal Empires map. Basically what I´m saying is that Vortex campaign is not doing justice to Skaven realm....no Skavenblight,Hell Pit....(it si one possibility...after that getting Araby and probably Tilea/New World Colonies/Pirates/Roaming Armies)

Jack's team is Saga, while Maya's team is the Campaign DLC. In the latest Blog post Maya says they've been working on the Campaign DLC for "best part of a year," so I'm thinking a late November or probably December release is looking more likely. It makes sense to go for the pre-Christmas spending spree period if they can, and means that they continue the trend of releasing something new Historical each year (last Attila DLC was in 2016, Attila was 2015, Rome 2 2014 and 15 etc.)

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

Well my optimistic part is saying they could manage to do it before Christmas. My realistic part is saying six months is quite insane tempo for completely new project and I won´t be mad if they release things in Spring. (March forming of the teams or at least the Jack´s one, first info about projects from June). Still they have a lot time to publish everything before WH3 anyway. Next year looks anyway very well in my eyes! :-)

[Polemaios]

There are three possible titles that CA can return to, in my opinion - Rome 2, Attila and Medieval 2 (yeah...).

I think the newest content will be for Attila and it will be set in early middle ages, just look at the picture with a monk, posted in the blog. Then Marcomannic Wars or other germanic-related stuff as a theme of Total War: Saga game.

[Pugzilla]

They don't really seem to grasp that there are many of us who don't give a rats' ass about fantasy TW and are upset that this has gone on for so long with no clear end in sight.

Sick of history snobs like you, I love history but Warhammer was needed to re-invigorate the franchise, many of the historical titles are dull in comparison. The universe is ahistorical, but has a very rich and long established lore. Hard to beat dinosaurs and hordes of rat people. Opens up many more avenues and playstyles. Faction variety s over any previous games. Lots of people find history overdone, fantasy just has a far bigger market and wider mass appeal. WH1 and 2 habe been their best selling titles. They won't stop making fantasy games after realising the market is there for it. Wouldn't be surprised if we'll see a Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings total war in the future.

[Nikron]

Some guy from Total War Forum (thewhiteindian) suggested a Rome 2 DLC based on Marcus Valerius Corvus and I must say it's quite a good guess and it could be indeed very interesting.

According to legend, prior to one battle a gigantic Gallic warrior challenged any Roman to single combat, and Valerius, who asked for and gained the consul’s permission, accepted. As they approached each other, a raven settled on Valerius’ helmet and it distracted the enemy's attention by flying at his face, allowing Valerius to kill the enemy Gaul. The two armies then fought, resulting in the Gallic forces being comprehensively routed, and ending in a decisive Roman victory. As a reward for his courage, Valerius was apparently given a gift of ten oxen and a golden crown, and he was eventually given the agnomen Corvus, which is the Latin term for a raven (Crow)



In 302 BC, Corvus was appointed Dictator for the second time. This appointment was brought about by the revolt of the Marsi at Arretium and Carseoli, and Corvus was able not only to defeat them in battle, but to take the fortified towns of Milionia, Plestina and Fresilia. The Marsi sued for peace, and for his victories over them he was awarded his fourth Triumph. For the following year (301 BC), he was again appointed Dictator, this time to engage in operations against the Etruscans. While Corvus was in Rome taking the auspices, his Magister equitum (probably Marcus Aemilius Paullus) was ambushed by the enemy, and forced to retreat to his camp, in the process of which Paullus lost a portion of his army. Corvus, coming quickly to his rescue, engaged and defeated the Etruscans in battle, earning Corvus an additional Triumph




After his sixth consulship Corvus retired from public life, and he died at the age of 100, around the year 270 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Valerius_Corvus

[keona]

Some guy from Total War Forum (thewhiteindian) suggested a Rome 2 DLC based on Marcus Valerius Corvus and I must say it's quite a good guess and it could be indeed very interesting.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Valerius_Corvus

Thx for sharing that very interesting theory.

[Daruwind]

Some guy from Total War Forum (thewhiteindian) suggested a Rome 2 DLC based on Marcus Valerius Corvus and I must say it's quite a good guess and it could be indeed very interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Valerius_Corvus

Yup Nikron, I was thinking about him yesterday too..even wrote paragraph down.

So let´s beware the crow....corvus.... Hi Marcus Valerius Corvus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Valerius_Corvus) How was your duel with a Gaul champion with little help of a crow by the way? Cool, what about lorica hamata? Think Celts invented the thing in 3rd BC..so you definitely could wear it, even if you have no time machine for looting some damn Cherusci shield or something like spangenhelmet.. Anyway while Marcus were kicking things in first and second Sammite Wars, just little to the east Alexander were kicking the Persian Empire. We are in time before Punic wars, Pyrrhic War..so Carthage is also not yet master of Medditeranean, actually Syracuse "are".

I would say there are two problems. Firstly the guy in art looks way more germanic ,not taking into account Cherusci shield and helmet, but what about the beards, hairs? And second more bigger problem is. While Sammite wars etc are quite fun for history geeks, how they might be implemented side by side with Alexander conquest? He never turned to the west so it is theorethical question what if he did....Because neither Rome nor Carthage nor Syracuse were as big problem back in that day to his empire.. CA would probably try to expand map to the east to bring in India, central Asia..not to the west as there were no Alexander´s expansions...but then we have still the Germanic looking warrior. Corvus would like more roman like,gaul like or celt like..not like german, right? Simply importance of Sammite Wars vs Alexander expansion, that´s the problem here..

EDIT:
Marcus Valerius Corvus (370 - 270 BC) , fight vs Gauls in northern Italy 349 BC, First+Second Sammite Wars (343-341 BC, 326-304 BC), around 300 BC fighting vs Etruscan..well they refused to fight lot somewhere after this he retired from public life
Rome was then heading into third Sammite war (298-290 BC), Pyrrhic War (280-275 BC) ...here here Corvus died at the age of 100 and then finally started Punic Wars (first 264-241 BC)..

In meanwhile Philip II of Macedon reigned (359-336 BC) then we are heading into Alexanders conquest (336-323 BC) and then into Diadochi Wars (322- 275 BC +/- depends what we put in)

And during this time we have the ending of Greco-Punic War / Sicilian War (600-265 BC) between Greek colonies and Carthage about control of western Medditeranean / Sicily

This is a lot of material just for one even big campaign. Philip+Alexander, Diadochi Wars, Greco-Punic War + Roman expansion in Italy...My conclusion is, Corvus was quite capable but Alexander is still Greater So probably Marcus is not our Crow..

[Aduna]

I read thought a large portion of this thread, and I don't see people touching on the biggest issue here. This isn't like adding another awesome expansion to Sogun II, Total War. We're talking about Rome II and Attila. Rome II's release was the WORST Total War release in CA's history, surpassing even Empire: Total War. They spent an entire year releasing patches every two weeks, all the while launching their most aggressive DLC campaign yet seen in a Total War game. The early purchasers of Rome II were previous fans of Shogun II, which is one of the most revered Total War games of all time. There was an enormous amount of good will and respect burned. Essentially, many, dare i say "most" of the the current Rome II owners are filled with salt, and still chaff and squirm in their seats at the memory of hour long turn cycles, ships sailing across land, getting assaulted constantly by armies with 1-2 units from halfway around the world, , etc. Granted, things are 'better' now, but when people use things like Steam spy to see the install base of Rome II, are they accounting for all those burned, pissed off owners? And when you do see how many active players there are of Rome Ii currently, how of those players are playing Rome II with mods, and would consider Rome II unplayable without them? Steam Spy numbers couldn't be anymore deceiving.

Attila was a decent offering, but it Attila was to Rome II what Napolean was to Empire, an attempt to pander to the Total War base after an utter release debacle. And Total war players didn't respond to Attila, because they had enough, and the total sales, being that of 1/3 Rome II, show it. The overall install base of Attila is small, and it's unlikely users will pony up to buy the base game of Attila after all this time just to play a DLC for it.

This is all very concerning, because it really means if they release their expansion/DLC for Attila or Rome II, it will NOT sell well. Now if the expansion was say, a major graphics overhaul and improved the Avatar system to Shogun II, and say added China, expanding the campaign map, it'd sell ...very well ...but instead, we're going to see lack luster sales with a Rome II or Attila expansion. I'm hoping for the best, but I just can't see how were going to avoid a future where CA looks at it sales and says "...historical wars are too 'niche' and it seems going with games that have broader appeal, albeit shallower, like Warhammer makes more money."

[keona]

I read thought a large portion of this thread, and I don't see people touching on the biggest issue here. This isn't like adding another awesome expansion to Sogun II, Total War. We're talking about Rome II and Attila. Rome II's release was the WORST Total War release in CA's history, surpassing even Empire: Total War. They spent an entire year releasing patches every two weeks, all the while launching their most aggressive DLC campaign yet seen in a Total War game. The early purchasers of Rome II were previous fans of Shogun II, which is one of the most revered Total War games of all time. There was an enormous amount of good will and respect burned. Essentially, many, dare i say "most" of the the current Rome II owners are filled with salt, and still chaff and squirm in their seats at the memory of hour long turn cycles, ships sailing across land, getting assaulted constantly by armies with 1-2 units from halfway around the world, , etc. Granted, things are 'better' now, but when people use things like Steam spy to see the install base of Rome II, are they accounting for all those burned, pissed off owners? And when you do see how many active players there are of Rome Ii currently, how of those players are playing Rome II with mods, and would consider Rome II unplayable without them? Steam Spy numbers couldn't be anymore deceiving.

Attila was a decent offering, but it Attila was to Rome II what Napolean was to Empire, an attempt to pander to the Total War base after an utter release debacle. And Total war players didn't respond to Attila, because they had enough, and the total sales, being that of 1/3 Rome II, show it. The overall install base of Attila is small, and it's unlikely users will pony up to buy the base game of Attila after all this time just to play a DLC for it.

This is all very concerning, because it really means if they release their expansion/DLC for Attila or Rome II, it will NOT sell well. Now if the expansion was say, a major graphics overhaul and improved the Avatar system to Shogun II, and say added China, expanding the campaign map, it'd sell ...very well ...but instead, we're going to see lack luster sales with a Rome II or Attila expansion. I'm hoping for the best, but I just can't see how were going to avoid a future where CA looks at it sales and says "...historical wars are too 'niche' and it seems going with games that have broader appeal, albeit shallower, like Warhammer makes more money."

I agree Rome II was a bad game, in the beginning at least, now it is pretty decent even though boring by endgame. With DeI it is a very good game. Add-ons are not as bad as Empire (worst TW game in my opinion). Hopefully, CA will update Rome II with all of the Attila features making it more exciting game to play ( I inclined to think so because it does not take a year to develop Campaign DLC). Shogun II was a great game but it is lacking unit variety and sieges looked horrific (0 building just walls). I personally think that Fall of Samurai was a good end note for Shogun II. If they do update Rome II with Atilla features then Rome II will be like a new game and CA will redeem themselves. Hopefully, soon we will hear something meaningful.

Love you positive attitude

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Even without DeI i have spent 3000 hours in the game. An update with Attila features, which fit, would be good, like war weariness or ships leaving the beaches after embarking or horde mechanic, but please no desolation planet in Rome II.

[Welsh Dragon]

I read thought a large portion of this thread, and I don't see people touching on the biggest issue here. This isn't like adding another awesome expansion to Sogun II, Total War. We're talking about Rome II and Attila. Rome II's release was the WORST Total War release in CA's history, surpassing even Empire: Total War. They spent an entire year releasing patches every two weeks, all the while launching their most aggressive DLC campaign yet seen in a Total War game. The early purchasers of Rome II were previous fans of Shogun II, which is one of the most revered Total War games of all time. There was an enormous amount of good will and respect burned. Essentially, many, dare i say "most" of the the current Rome II owners are filled with salt, and still chaff and squirm in their seats at the memory of hour long turn cycles, ships sailing across land, getting assaulted constantly by armies with 1-2 units from halfway around the world, , etc. Granted, things are 'better' now, but when people use things like Steam spy to see the install base of Rome II, are they accounting for all those burned, pissed off owners? And when you do see how many active players there are of Rome Ii currently, how of those players are playing Rome II with mods, and would consider Rome II unplayable without them? Steam Spy numbers couldn't be anymore deceiving.

Attila was a decent offering, but it Attila was to Rome II what Napolean was to Empire, an attempt to pander to the Total War base after an utter release debacle. And Total war players didn't respond to Attila, because they had enough, and the total sales, being that of 1/3 Rome II, show it. The overall install base of Attila is small, and it's unlikely users will pony up to buy the base game of Attila after all this time just to play a DLC for it.

This is all very concerning, because it really means if they release their expansion/DLC for Attila or Rome II, it will NOT sell well. Now if the expansion was say, a major graphics overhaul and improved the Avatar system to Shogun II, and say added China, expanding the campaign map, it'd sell ...very well ...but instead, we're going to see lack luster sales with a Rome II or Attila expansion. I'm hoping for the best, but I just can't see how were going to avoid a future where CA looks at it sales and says "...historical wars are too 'niche' and it seems going with games that have broader appeal, albeit shallower, like Warhammer makes more money."

You make some interesting points, but I really don't think this is an issue.

Yes Rome 2 had a bad launch. And yes, there are some who are still sour about the game because of it. But I think they are the minority, and many others are just getting on and playing a game they enjoy. As you yourself highlight, CA put a lot of time and effort into fixing the problems and improving the game, and I think many players respect that. I agree that purchase or install numbers don't tell the whole story, which is why I stick to numbers of people actually playing, and in that Rome 2 comes out on top be quite some margin.

Shogun 2 is a great game. But it's also a game with many of its own flaws, like a relative lack of faction and unit diversity, a fairly niche setting, AI issues (it's been a while, so can't remember if they fixed the suicidal generals?,) a smaller playerbase (at time of posting it's not even in the Top 100 games played today on Steam while Rome 2 currently has 3,000 and has peaked at 8,000.) I also agree with @keona that Fall of the Samurai was a great end note for that game.

Meanwhile Rome 2, for its flaws, has many advantages. It's a popular setting, both amongst Total War and Historical fans and gamers as a whole. It's a game that is still played a lot by players even 4 years after its bad release (as I said above, almost always in the Top 100 and regularly the second most played Total War.) It offers greater diversity in units and factions, and with the built in potential for more in whatever period they set the Campaign. And the setting is full of major and minor historical events upon which a campaign can be built, with centuries of history to draw upon (Alexander, Brennus, Crisis of the Third Century, Arminius, various wars between Rome and other major powers, Boudicca's Rebellion, Roman Conquest of Britain, Marcomanni war etc.)

Yes, many play with mods. But many play without mods too. And any update made to Rome 2 may "break" mods in the short term, but may also offer new areas for modders to develop. If recent history is anything to go by, they'll also keep Patch 17 available in the betas tab, so those who want to can continue to play with it.

Attila, I just can't see them making this Campaign DLC for it. Smaller playerbase, less popular era and issues with optimisation to me rule it out. Anything older than Shogun 2 is I think too old for this particular project and again has issues with playerbase.

So given all that, I think making it for Rome 2 is the best decision they can make. I really don't see a Shogun 2 DLC being a good first step, or selling as well. That's not to rule one out in future, but for now as a proof of concept they need to go for something that is big, with mass appeal, that will sell well. And to me that's Rome 2.

As for the update, I'd rather see them develop what is already there, than bolt a bunch of Attila features on. Make it too much like Attila and while you may gain some players, you're also going to turn some people off of it, because era and optimisation aren't the only unpopular features of that game.

But we shall see.

*

I agree Rome II was a bad game, in the beginning at least, now it is pretty decent even though boring by endgame. With DeI it is a very good game. Add-ons are not as bad as Empire (worst TW game in my opinion). Hopefully, CA will update Rome II with all of the Attila features making it more exciting game to play ( I inclined to think so because it does not take a year to develop Campaign DLC). Shogun II was a great game but it is lacking unit variety and sieges looked horrific (0 building just walls). I personally think that Fall of Samurai was a good end note for Shogun II. If they do update Rome II with Atilla features then Rome II will be like a new game and CA will redeem themselves. Hopefully, soon we will hear something meaningful.

Love you positive attitude

I don't really see why CA need to redeem themselves for Rome 2 (especially given the amount of work, patching and free content they've already given for that game,) or how adding a bunch of Attila stuff would do that? As I highlighted above, Attila isn't universally liked either, and so I don't see the risk of alienating existing Rome 2 fans to chase new ones is worth it.

I also think with the year figure it may well take that long, because if they're taking the campaign to another part of the era they need to do extensive research on it which will eat into that year. There's also testing, which takes time too. Wouldn't surprise me if they've been testing it for months already. And to the phrase "particularly large campaign DLC" makes me think it's probably going to be closer to Grand Campaign or Imperator Augustus size than CiG, HatG or WoS, which again adds to the size and length of the project.

And I agree, I'm hoping for news soon.

Even without DeI i have spent 3000 hours in the game. An update with Attila features, which fit, would be good, like war weariness or ships leaving the beaches after embarking or horde mechanic, but please no desolation planet in Rome II.

Definitely no desolate wastelands please, as I'm really not a fan. I also never get the whole ships leaving the beaches after disembarking. It makes no sense to me, as surely they'd just be stuck on the beach. Limited suitable landing areas is realistic, and to me adds to the strategy as you can't just overwhelm the defenders with massive numbers of troops landed from the sea (that sort of mass landing only really became possible in the 20th Century.)

And nice to see someone else whose played a lot of Vanilla and had fun.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.