New Attila Content in 2017

[Charerg]

I used to disagree with this, but now since they've added the Slavs I don't see why they shouldn't add the Bulgars, and other factions that didn't play a major role during Attila's timeframe.

The Bulgars and the Huns were effectively the same thing during Attila's timeframe. One might say that the Bulgar states that emerged later on were essentially successors of the Hunnic Confederation. As to the Khazars, they were probably predominantly Turkic and in any case only emerged much later (late 6th/early 7th century as I recall, in any case after the Göktürk conquest of the Pontic Steppes). Similarly, the Avars were first of all, not Sarmatians (they had clearly Central Asian, Turco-Mongol origins), and secondly, didn't enter Europe until the 6th century (fleeing the Göktürks).

In short, all of these factions would be very inappropriate for Attila's era.

[Lucem Mundum]

The Bulgars and the Huns were effectively the same thing during Attila's timeframe. One might say that the Bulgar states that emerged later on were essentially successors of the Hunnic Confederation. As to the Khazars, they were probably predominantly Turkic and in any case only emerged much later (late 6th/early 7th century as I recall, in any case after the Göktürk conquest of the Pontic Steppes). Similarly, the Avars were first of all, not Sarmatians (they had clearly Central Asian, Turco-Mongol origins), and secondly, didn't enter Europe until the 6th century (fleeing the Göktürks).

In short, all of these factions would be very inappropriate for Attila's era.

Yeah I am aware of the Avars' origin, and that the Bulgars weren't even around as an independent group until the 7th century. Anyways, I am not here to debate history and this isn't the thread for that, all I meant was that if CA included a group that didn't exist or didn't play a major role at the time, such as the Vikings and Slavs, I don't really see why adding the Bulgars is any different.

[Darios]

Yeah I am aware of the Avars' origin, and that the Bulgars weren't even around as an independent group until the 7th century. Anyways, I am not here to debate history and this isn't the thread for that, all I meant was that if CA included a group that didn't exist or didn't play a major role at the time, such as the Vikings and Slavs, I don't really see why adding the Bulgars is any different.

Well to be fair, the Geats, Jutes, and Danes were all around in Late Antiquity/Dark Ages, but CA referred to them as "Vikings" simply as a (in my opinion) really cheap marketing ploy to sell an otherwise lackluster DLC. You know....VIKINGS! yeah...

The Slavs were also around during the time, but had yet to enter the proverbial Roman world, hence we only have retold oral legends from Jordanes regarding their 4th century conflicts with the Goths and Huns. Tacitus had mentioned the Wends/Venedians centuries prior, and the Antes were originally an Alanic/Sarmatian tribe from Ukraine that was largely Slavicized by the time they reached the Roman frontier during the 6th century.

The Turco-Mongol peoples (asides from the Huns) have nothing to do with Europe in the timeframe of Attila Total War. The Huns were the first of such peoples to appear in the European theater, but it would be a few centuries later before Turkic peoples would establish themselves as the rulers of the Pontic Steppe and play an important role in Eastern European affairs. Demanding the Bulgars, Avars, Khazars in a campaign starting in AD 395 is really stretching history at best, nationalistic raving at the worst.

[Santa_Anna]

I wish they cuold bring more engine fixes, such as the weight/push mechanics, also a file in wich we could tweak the charriot, horse and elephant mechanics. And finally a campaing Map editor.

[Diocle]

They are just fake news by CA, in this way they keep alive the interest of hardcore historical-players, meanwhile they are making new DLCs for WH and preparing the next historical title (Victoria? I hope!).

[Darios]

They are just fake news by CA, in this way they keep alive the interest of hardcore historical-players, meanwhile they are making new DLCs for WH and preparing the next historical title (Victoria? I hope!).

To be perfectly honest, that wouldn't surprise me at all. The Attila threads, in particular, pretty much died last year.

My manager at work was laughing yesterday that Warhammer is CA's "divine" punishment for hardcore historical-players.

[Geronimo2006]

TW Atilla: The Arab Invasion.

Or else a campaign about the Seljuk/Ottoman conquests.

Also some proper updating of the Celtic factions. Sources clearly indicate that chariots were still used in Ireland until 800AD. In fact one has been found.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Huns were the first of such peoples to appear in the European theater, but it would be a few centuries later before Turkic peoples would establish themselves as the rulers of the Pontic Steppe and play an important role in Eastern European affairs. Demanding the Bulgars, Avars, Khazars in a campaign starting in AD 395 is really stretching history at best, nationalistic raving at the worst.

It's really hard to work out. There's clear indications that Oghur-dialect speaking nomads were living on the Pontic steppes near the Volga in the first quarter of the the 4th century (the Alpidzuri and Tonguri who were probably offshoots of the various Dingling (Tingling, Tiele, or Gaoche) peoples). It's possible the 3rd century "Vurugundi" that aprticipated in the Gothic invasions of the 250's-270's may have been an Oghur-speaking tribe who strayed west.

The Huns probably weren't originally Turkic speaking if they did descend from the Xiongnu aristocracies, and were certainly their own class of Altaic nomads because the Ethonogenesis of the Turks was only beginning as the Huns entered Europe. I would tentatively simply call them "Oghur" since that was the dialect of Turkish they spoke which may even be the original Turkish dialect. But the Hunnish invasion included various peoples which would later self-identify (including the Huns themselves) as "Bulgar" in the 6th century, before the Hunnish empire collapsed under the reign of Justinian and the invasion of the Avars. The majority of these Oghur "Hunno-Bulgars" arrived in the 460's, along with the Sabirs who were the descendants of the proto-Mongol Xianbei (that etymology is somewhat shoddy, though).

Putting a separate Bulgar faction into the game would be a-historical, and so would the Khazars who formed out of the remnants of the Hunnish peoples and the Gokturks.

And no, the Hungarians are not related to the Huns, that has long been disproven. The Bulgar prince list tying Kubrat to Attila is really shoddy too, and is probably not accurate although it is possible their family may have been Hunnish nobility.

The modern Chuvash are thought to be remotely connected to the Sabirs or at least the Khazars.

[Geronimo2006]

Just found this fascinating scythe chariot-style weapon in the Notitia Dignitatum that I think CA should ad for the Romans. Its called the Currus Drepanus. Not totally sure whether it was in Eastern or Western army. Its not quite a chariot. Its like a scythed-plank of wood drawn by armoured cavalry.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Boogie Knight]

In what context is that chariot included in that manuscript? Is there anything else to suggest the Romans still used chariots at this time? Because to my knowledge, Tacitus was still marveling over how backwards the Britons were for using them nearly 400 years before that manuscript was written. Hell, half a millennium before that the Greeks thought the same of the Carthaginians for their use of chariots.

[Geronimo2006]

In what context is that chariot included in that manuscript? Is there anything else to suggest the Romans still used chariots at this time? Because to my knowledge, Tacitus was still marveling over how backwards the Britons were for using them nearly 400 years before that manuscript was written. Hell, half a millennium before that the Greeks thought the same of the Carthaginians for their use of chariots.

I dont know whether the ND also showed images of enemy weapons but Im assuming its a Roman weapon. Its not really a chariot. Its sortof looks like a cart drawn by horses - but with the riders being on the horses not in the cart.

Its possible this is the weapon mentioned by Vegetius in De Rebus Bellicis. I think he proposed the weapon - not sure whether it existed - but the drawing in the ND suggests to me that it might have done.

The Milner translation of Vegetius says:

'Pairs of cataphract horses were harnessed each to a chariot; mounted on (the
horses) were cataphract cavalrymen who aimed sarisae, that is, very long pikes,
at the elephants. Being covered in iron they were not harmed by the archers
riding on the beasts, and avoided their charges thanks to the speed of their
horses' (Milner 2001)

'This type of combat vehicle, armed as you see in an unusual manner, owes its
invention to the exigencies of battle with the Parthians(Sasanids?) (there is a
picture of the chariot in the book that this part means you should study, it
shows both riders and horses in armor and the riders each have a long spear).
This car, then, is swept into battle at full speed by a crew of two men,
carefully protected by mail clothing and weapons, and each mounted on a
well-caparisoned horse. Its rear part above the chassis is defended by knives
projecting in a row, so that no one can easily mount it from behind. Further,
very sharp scythes are attached to the axles of the afore-mentoned chassis, with
rings upon their sides to which ropes are tied: these ropes are slackened to let
down the scythes and tightened to raise them, at the two riders will. Those who
know warfare from personal experience will describe better than I can what
losses machines of this kind inflict upon the enemy and what slaughter they
cause among broken ranks(my italics) (Thompson 1996)

If they are mentioning use against war elephants then perhaps it was more likely used by the Eastern Roman Empire, as the Sassanids were using elephants?

[legate]

So the rumours of a Boudica campaign and a Norman Conquest one were just rumours?

[Darios]

So the rumours of a Boudica campaign and a Norman Conquest one were just rumours?

I hope that they're just rumors. The Norman Conquest goes way beyond anything that could be considered Late Antiquity/Early Dark Ages.

[legate]

I quite fancy a campaign set around 60AD. Yep I know it would be boring to most

[WhatAnArtist]

I quite fancy a campaign set around 60AD. Yep I know it would be boring to most

I would actually really like that for a setting. Playing as Rome in its full imperial might and splendour without everybody in the known world hating your guts.

[Diocle]

.. Playing as Rome in its full imperial might and splendour without everybody in the known world hating your guts.

Maybe even holding the One Ring .. it would be perfect!

[Geronimo2006]

Maybe a Constantine DLC? Or a Crisis of the Third Century one.

[Darios]

I would actually really like that for a setting. Playing as Rome in its full imperial might and splendour without everybody in the known world hating your guts.

Essentially the Imperator Augustus Campaign without the Roman civil war and very little in the way of major enemies (The Iceni and Dacians were not serious threats in the grand scheme of things) to fight.

There's a reason why the Early-Mid Imperial period hasn't been covered by a Total War campaign. The only scenario from the period that makes any sense to me is Aurelian and the Crisis of the Third Century.

Pax Romana doesn't exactly fit in the theme of "Total War."

[MarkusAntonius]

I'm Happy to hear there is hope. I personaly dream with an Alexander campaign for Rome 2 and and a serious Optimization for Attila. A new campaign for Attila would not be a bad idea. Something earlier like Constantine and Maxentius, Rise of Islam, or even later like the Viking Expansion.

[AK47]

I want to see them add another Ethnic group to both games:

For Rome 2 I want to see them expand the map to the east to include India & the Maurya Indian faction as playable. This will expand sales in India & likely the UK.
Also they can do a Desert Kingdoms pack featuring playable Numidian faction, Arab faction, an Ethiopian faction (Meroe, Aksum, etc).

For Attila I want to see them expand the map to the east so they can add the Indian Gupta empire.