New Attila Content in 2017

[Athos187]

I don't see this game as really that much of a Vikings themed game. It starts like 12 or 13 years after the great heathen invasion, so it's likely that the Vikings won't be invaders by this point, just an established kingdom or two to deal with like any other. Of course the marketing types at CA are going to put out a video that has to tie in nods to current pop culture. They'd be pretty stupid if they didn't. It helps to sell the games.

A promo video like that is meant to grab the masses who get their history from TV mini-series and get them interested. The real meat of that video to me is that the game is most likely more centered around Alfred the Great and his exploits in defeating the Vikings and consolidating the country to some extent or if one chooses an alternative to play---any of the regional kings or even the local Viking kingdoms and thus make one's own history.

I'm quite looking forward to it.

Cheers

There were still large Viking incursions over the next century, ever heard of Cnut the Great? kinda took over most of england, and they say the game plays out to 1066 which allows for the final viking assault under Harald Hardrada and to some extent under William the Conqueror.

[Abdülmecid I]

The third game is the Next Major Historical, and we know for certain it's a new era.

No, we don't know for certain that it's a new era. The statement you quoted has been obsolete, since CA's last general announcement about its plans regarding the historical franchise:

Mike Simpson gave an interview years ago that we see fans quote all the time, where he says he doesn’t think we’ll do a “3”. That is a long time ago. We’ve changed our minds a hundred times on that since, so all bets are off when we’re thinking of our next game.

If the artwork they uploaded is indicative of the period it will cover, then 17th century is the likeliest candidate, but the focus would of course be the European continent, not the Americas. Anyway, not surprised about the Saga reveal, it was obvious that a "Dark Age" setting in the British Isles was a much stronger possibility than the adventures of the relatively obscure Marcus Valerius Corvus, whose campaigns would hardly appeal to a larger audience. Of course, the Vikings had already been exploited at least four times by CA, but their popularity equals that of the 300 Spartans, which were included in two DLCs concerning Rome II alone. Even if potential customers are tired of massacring British peasants or Norse invaders since the times of Medieval I and II, it's already obvious that their marketing strategy will be based a lot on the popular culture of famous TV series. The references to Game of Thrones were not even implicit (notice the song, when a town is emerging from the earth), but it's perfectly understandable that CA will try to capitalize on that, which would lure many new buyers and even serve as a negotiation tool to convince the relevant parties of cooperating with CA for a TW: GoT, after the end of the Warhammer trilogy.

It's undeniable that the Saga project is more ambitious than Empire Divided, which prospects I had clearly overestimated, which is why I expected Alexander instead of Aurelian. In reality, the goals of Empire Divided were much more moderate, essentially aiming at producing an apparently over-priced DLC, with the addition of 11 new units and a very lightly modified Augustus map. Of course, they always intended to dedicate more resources to the Saga franchise than Empire Divided, whose purpose was to preserve the interest of history fans, who wavered considerably, after the Warhammer trailer controversy. That being said, there was no reason to suppose that the Saga game will involve a geographically huge era and a new time-frame, as CA had clarified from the beginning that it would be, despite its only superficially new name, a continuation of the "independent expansions", such as Napoleon or the Boshin War. Probably its cost would be similar, slightly lower to that of the main game, while I personally predict either May or June for the release date. Definitely not earlier than March and I seriously doubt that they will publish it after the summer vacations, although this premature announcement, approximately half a year before the spring and while Empire Divided has just been revealed, is a bit bizarre.

[LinusLinothorax]

A uniform that's actually fairly uniform for a change,* and a basic face which may not even be the final version and which most people won't actually pay much attention to anyway.
(*Uniforms. Seriously. I see so many people complaining about lack of variety in units uniforms, when that is the whole point of a uniform. That it be, well, uniform!)

Curb your apologetics. There were no uniforms in ancient Rome, especially not such with entirely anachronistic armours and helmets and unpainted shields. This unit is just a lazily mashed up piece of crap without the sligthest bit of personality, using various Rome II and Attila assets. Not more, not less (If it can even get any less).

(What's the source of that image anyway, out of interest?)

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15442680

[Anna_Gein]

–]Jack_CACreative Assembly162 pointsil y a 3 heures
The Thrones of Britannia campaign will have 4 turns a year, we went for the start date of 878 AD as it is a fascinating time period of history that's perfect for Total War.

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...ia_why_878_ad/

[Daruwind]

No, we don't know for certain that it's a new era. The statement you quoted has been obsolete, since CA's last general announcement about its plans regarding the historical franchise:

I would consider the very next sentence after the one you quoted. I read it as while rule of "3" is off table for the future, the next historical major title will be indeed in new era. :-)

Mike Simpson gave an interview years ago that we see fans quote all the time, where he says he doesn’t think we’ll do a “3”. That is a long time ago. We’ve changed our minds a hundred times on that since, so all bets are off when we’re thinking of our next game.



But this one, will be brand new, and that means we can explore interesting new concepts while still bringing what makes it ‘Total War’ to the game.

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/update...rical-releases

[Welsh Dragon]

No, we don't know for certain that it's a new era. The statement you quoted has been obsolete, since CA's last general announcement about its plans regarding the historical franchise:

"Mike Simpson gave an interview years ago that we see fans quote all the time, where he says he doesn’t think we’ll do a “3”. That is a long time ago. We’ve changed our minds a hundred times on that since, so all bets are off when we’re thinking of our next game."

I took that to mean the next game after the one we're currently making could be a "3." Which I think is supported by this quote from earlier in the exact same article:

Last but not least, Janos, expectation is going to weigh pretty heavy on your team, being responsible for the first new historical Era title since 2013? And a whole new time period we’ve never been to?

Janos: Expectation is high, but so is the excitement amongst the team here. A brand new era brings a completely different look and feel to this Total War game.

And this quote, directly after the bit you quoted:

But this one, will be brand new, and that means we can explore interesting new concepts while still bringing what makes it ‘Total War’ to the game.

So I'd say it's pretty certain Next Major Historical is a new era. But maybe the one after that might be Medieval 3.

It's undeniable that the Saga project is more ambitious than Empire Divided, which prospects I had clearly overestimated, which is why I expected Alexander instead of Aurelian. In reality, the goals of Empire Divided were much more moderate, essentially aiming at producing an apparently over-priced DLC, with the addition of 11 new units and a very lightly modified Augustus map. Of course, they always intended to dedicate more resources to the Saga franchise than Empire Divided, whose purpose was to preserve the interest of history fans, who wavered considerably, after the Warhammer trailer controversy. That being said, there was no reason to suppose that the Saga game will involve a geographically huge era and a new time-frame, as CA had clarified from the beginning that it would be, despite its only superficially new name, a continuation of the "independent expansions", such as Napoleon or the Boshin War. Probably its cost would be similar, slightly lower to that of the main game, while I personally predict either May or June for the release date. Definitely not earlier than March and I seriously doubt that they will publish it after the summer vacations, although this premature announcement, approximately half a year before the spring and while Empire Divided has just been revealed, is a bit bizarre.

I don't really see how Empire Divided (+ Power & Politics, as one pays for the other,) is "over-priced DLC." But then value is all a matter of personal opinion really.

I've seen "11 new units" quoted quite a bit, and I think those doing it might be missing something important. That's 11 new units For Rome.

New Units

Alongside the existing unit rosters from ROME II, Empire Divided introduces a number of unique and signature units for every faction. Each faction features its own variant style and unique take on the classic Roman look and feel, with Aurelian’s Roman forces bearing the closest resemblance to the classic template. Unique Roman units are:

Which leaves 7 other factions across 4 Cultures, some or all of whom could also have new units. Not to mention the possibility of reskins for some or all of the units that may have the same name and maybe stats as an existing unit in Rome 2, but have their appearance changed to be in keeping with the Third Century setting.

I agree on your estimations for release date. I'd say 6 months minimum between Empire Divided and Thrones of Britannia seems reasonable. I'd have liked to see a larger gap between Empire Divided and Thrones of Britannia announcements, but maybe this is the "slot" they have between other planned announcements.

Curb your apologetics. There were no uniforms in ancient Rome, especially not such with entirely anachronistic armours and helmets and unpainted shields. This unit is just a lazily mashed up piece of crap without the sligthest bit of personality, using various Rome II and Attila assets. Not more, not less (If it can even get any less).

No need to be rude.

Also, have you considered the possibility that A) They're not actually the finished article (as everything I've seen says "Development in Progress,") and/or B) They're a very low tier unit, maybe even a Militia or something, equipped with battered old equipment that's seen better days. I mean those shields don't exactly look like they've just come off an assembly line (or Roman equivalent.) It's not exactly unheard of to equip militia with old gear (the stuff that's too modern, yeah that's an odd one.)

If we are to judge Empire Divided, let's judge it on the finished product, not In Development images and one unit that might be a Militia.

And thanks for providing the source of where you got that image. Now I'm wondering where your source found that image. (I mean he mentions videos, so guess it's from one of those as I don't really watch those.)

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Forward Observer]

There were still large Viking incursions over the next century, ever heard of Cnut the Great? kinda took over most of england, and they say the game plays out to 1066 which allows for the final viking assault under Harald Hardrada and to some extent under William the Conqueror.

I realize there were subsequent invasions, and I never said there wouldn't be any nor did I mean to imply there would be none. I hope there are, but I just don't see this as the main theme of this game. I see this as themed more about taking on all comers and establishing a unified British Isles----and if you read Jack Lusted blog about "why start with 878 AD" he pretty much says the same thing--at least that's how I read it.

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/throne...itannia-878-ad


Remember this is a "saga" game which was formerly called a "flashpoint" game in their earlier blogs. They have also continuously compared this type of game to FOTS, which has a fairly short time span.

I was surprised when he mentioned that date of 1066 would be included in one of the blogs. However, covering that many years may be the reason they dropped the "flashpoint" title in favor of "saga" since the latter term could apply to any time frame within reason.

However, if you are going to have to contend with two invasions back to back like King Harold Godwinson almost did, you will need to be totally unified. Regardless, the possibilities seem pretty exciting to me.

Cheers


Post Scrip Edit:

I got to looking and nowhere could I find a reference to an end date of 1066 AD by anyone from CA. It was simply mentioned by several posters on the official forum

2nd edit. I was mistaken, Jack did mention the date of 1066 AD in his original FAQ and he confirmed this on the official forum.
I'll re-post if I get this time frame resolved to my satisfaction.

I did find a post by Jack Lusted on Reddit that stated the game will have 4 turns per year just as Attila does. If the game starts in 878 AD, to get to 1066 AD or cover 188 years at 4 TPY, the game would stretch for 752 turns. No vanilla TW game to date has had ever had that many turns.

This leads me to believe that unless it's added in a DLC as another era, the main game could not possibly reach 1066 AD. A more typical range of turns for the TW games now is around 200 to 240 turns to achieve the victory conditions. Attila starts in 395 AD and along with other requirements one must survive until 450 AD to meet the long game victory conditions. This means a typical game will last at least 220 turns.

Consequently, the Game will probably cover only a range of 50 to 60 years, which now fits the warring period for the control of England and Ireland that Jack has described. See 2nd edit above for correction.

[Charerg]

Also, have you considered the possibility that A) They're not actually the finished article (as everything I've seen says "Development in Progress,") and/or B) They're a very low tier unit, maybe even a Militia or something, equipped with battered old equipment that's seen better days. I mean those shields don't exactly look like they've just come off an assembly line (or Roman equivalent.) It's not exactly unheard of to equip militia with old gear (the stuff that's too modern, yeah that's an odd one.)

If we are to judge Empire Divided, let's judge it on the finished product, not In Development images and one unit that might be a Militia.

I sure hope that unit won't be in the final version, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. It's literally something a modder could throw together in 5 mins. Hunnic leather armour and standard spangenhelms from Attila, tunic is probably straight from Attila too, and just port the shield from Rome 2, and there you have it. As I recall from CA's gameplay video, this unit is supposed to be the "Roman Militia" or something along those lines.

Tbh this is a textbook example of horrible unit design. I know CA gets a lot of criticism, perhaps excessively so, but as I see it there is just no excuse for giving Hunnic Leather Armour to a 3rd century Roman unit. It's just...the only response I can think of is this: "CA, what have you done with my legions!"

[Gäiten]

While the artwork does not fit, a game about the Era of the Sea People (The End of the Late Bronze Age 1170s BC) would be very interesting and something very new.

We would have New Kingdom of Egypt, Mycene, Troja, Hittites, Assyrians, even the Exodus of the Jewish People of Egypt and many more.

[Daruwind]

While the artwork does not fit, a game about the Era of the Sea People (The End of the Late Bronze Age 1170s BC) would be very interesting and something very new.

We would have New Kingdom of Egypt, Mycene, Troja, Hittites, Assyrians, even the Exodus of the Jewish People of Egypt and many more.

I would love TW: Age of Empires Whole map starting without settlements (like ruins), with just nomafdic hordes moving around and settling down from time to time. Basically opposite to Attila wastelandization....slow spread of civilization. Empires popping out from time to time to interact with others....from 3000 BC to 900 BC? Basically sea people would be end game...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Vardano]

Just because they didn't address the things you felt needed looking at, doesn't make this "a quick buck with minimum work and resources." For many the politics system has been one of the weakest points of Rome 2, when it was meant to be one of the strongest, so this overhaul of that system is very well received. And taking the game to a new period of Roman history not covered by any of the existing campaigns that requires a significant amount of work to do isn't my idea of making "a quick buck with minimum work and resources."

Are you seriously saying that things I have mentioned were only my expectations? If so, you have no idea what majority of community were asking for years and nice addition of politics can't make up for it. If those things would be fixed I'm sure people would be happy and new DLC would also be received much better too.

As for Attila, no settings tweaking helps when major battles happen, there is no stable FPS. We all know they can fix it because of example of Warhammer but they don't do it. CA treat me very badly as their customer and my purchase of Attila till this day. I'm a business owner I have no idea where I would be with this kind of attitude towards my clients.

[Welsh Dragon]

Are you seriously saying that things I have mentioned were only my expectations? If so, you have no idea what majority of community were asking for years and nice addition of politics can't make up for it. If those things would be fixed I'm sure people would be happy and new DLC would also be received much better too.

No, I'm saying there's more than one opinion on this, and that you don't necessarily represent the majority of the community, and neither do I. I haven't had any issues with Battle AI, Sieges or optimization for years, and I'm not even sure what you're referring to by "missing/wrong maps on IA map" and "pike phalanx behavior problems" it's made that big an impact. And that's with over 1200 hours of gameplay, most of it vanilla, and being across multiple Total War forums for years.

But calling their hard work "shallow" and "a quick buck with minimum work and resources" achieves nothing. It just comes across as "they didn't do what I wanted them to do, so complain." You say you're a business owner. Well if a client/customer starts acting like that do you listen more? Or does it just become noise and you switch off?

Finally, they also have finite resources and can't please everyone. This time they decided to look at politics. If Empire Divided and Power & Politics does well, maybe it will lead to future DLC and patches for Rome 2 and other older games and they'll look at other areas.

As for Attila, no settings tweaking helps when major battles happen, there is no stable FPS. We all know they can fix it because of example of Warhammer but they don't do it. CA treat me very badly as their customer and my purchase of Attila till this day. I'm a business owner I have no idea where I would be with this kind of attitude towards to my clients.

I can't play Attila or Warhammer because they trigger my light-sensitivity and migraines, so I haven't encountered those issues myself. Thought those ideas might help, but okay they don't. Sorry, it was worth a try.

Anyway, I don't think it's quite so easy to just fix the problems, even if they have found something that works for another game. Just because when they built Warhammer they were able to find solutions that worked for that game, doesn't mean that's something that can easily be applied to an existing game. Yes, it would be better if they could fix the problems, and maybe they will be able to at some point. But it may be something that they can't just patch, it might go down to the very basics of how Attila was built in the first place. And again, they have finite resources, and maybe they exhausted the ones they had for Attila on the existing patches. Attila sold relatively badly, and there's only so much time, money and resources to go around.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Daruwind]

Interview with Jack Lusten

- Map size : Like Attila but zooomed in
- Something between story narrative and sandbox, sounded like narrative should be different each time according to AI factions progress...
- Gameplay preview next year
- Saga game will be really standalone. No ties to Atilla like FotS to Shogun 2 = Attila probably won´t get any free patch, update,optimalization..., Anyway, it is based on Attila engine, minimum specs won´t be same and they tweaked it for better performance..

[Gronndar]

Interview with Jack Lusten

- Map size : Like Attila but zooomed in
- Something between story narrative and sandbox, sounded like narrative should be different each time according to AI factions progress...
- Gameplay preview next year
- Saga game will be really standalone. No ties to Atilla like FotS to Shogun 2 = Attila probably won´t get any free patch, update,optimalization..., Anyway, it is based on Attila engine, minimum specs won´t be same and they tweaked it for better performance..

Nice. If they want to make storyline crap, they should hire that Bernard Cornwell or whatever his name is, that Last Kingdom writer

[Dude with the Food]

Nice. If they want to make storyline crap, they should hire that Bernard Cornwell or whatever his name is, that Last Kingdom writer

What've you got against Bernard Cornwell?

[Gronndar]

What've you got against Bernard Cornwell?

Huh? What I meant, if they are going to invest on faction specific storylines, just get the man who knows what to do in writing departmenet regarding this era. Still, wishful thinking and expensive.

Lähetetty minun Hol-U19 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[Dude with the Food]

My bad. I read "make storyline crap" as "make the storyline crap" and thought you were hating on him for the tv show. It would be nice if there were some references towards that.

[General Maximus]

Now that Rome 2 is getting some political overhauls, I hope CA can do a bit of work on making the Attila politics/dynasty game better than before as well.

[achilles-91]

I seriously hope that they optimise engine for this saga, but i highly doubt that . If not optimised, this will be one more 'no' from me, and probably i will leave TOTAL WAR for good.
I really like idea of of this specific saga, and Im very interested in it. But i cant get over lags, it absolutly ruin games.
So il have to wait for AOE4, ancestors legacy and bannerlord.

[Theramines]

I seriously hope that they optimise engine for this saga, but i highly doubt that]

They said they'll make some changes to optimise it. Whether that carries over to Attila itself is unclear.