New Attila Content in 2017

[FrozenmenSS]

The ppl who says Medieval 2's sieges were fun I can tell you they were more broken than Rome 1's.The Pathfinding was stupid,you cant deploy units in the streets due to limitations and so on and so on.The AI and ssieges back then and now is still the same overall. Back then it was Pathfinding,deployment ect , now - the AI makes the game into slideshows sometimes( even in Shogun 2)

[Daruwind]

New twitch interview with Jack : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/207208003?t=01h03m38s cca 15 minutes

-siege battles
16 diferent maps for major settlements - hill fort, ring fort, viking port?, old roman wall towns, saxon river towns
not for particular city but they aim for maximum variety

-no big castles, no knights with heavy charge ...scouting, flanking no cavalry charging into shieldwall
aka battle of hastings - cavalry with javelins, great mopping up infantry
cavalry master - welsch, bodyguard, Tulu? javelins + spear for close....aka old roman cavalry
vikings very limited cavalry

-shieldwall king of battlefield , aracher + javelins trying to crack it,
anglosaxons - standing arming, heavy inf, average cav
viking - a lot of axes to crack shieldwall, very limited cavalry
Ireland - low armor, more skirmish,harrasing enemy
Wales - longbowmen

"just British Islands" (so probably no Vikinglands..)

-units upgrades - yes, mixed of Attila and Age of Charlemagne
Attila - long chain of upgrades from low level to high level
Age of charlemagne - a fewer upgrades across the types
both of them
each unit 1,2 units ....better equipment ....,older look, during this time,normal conquest

Alfred the Great 1 of 5, others later
next week some info, just right hitting alpha build

[Sir Sesshaku]

The ppl who says Medieval 2's sieges were fun I can tell you they were more broken than Rome 1's.The Pathfinding was stupid,you cant deploy units in the streets due to limitations and so on and so on.The AI and ssieges back then and now is still the same overall. Back then it was Pathfinding,deployment ect , now - the AI makes the game into slideshows sometimes( even in Shogun 2)

Yeah, I remember MTW2 being my first dissapointment. The entire game was bugged, the performance sucked, and mostly, it felt like a big mod of Rome 2. It's not a bad game, but it wasn't an improvement.
I think people who over idolize MTW2 are the ones that either started with MTW2, or got it very close to when they started playing the franchise.
In my experience, there's nothing in your mind like THE FIRST tw you play. Because after that you start noticing the lack of improvements in depth core mechanics of the game, you start to realize that TW is nothing more than the Call of Duty of strategy wargames, or the football manager of wargames. You can enjoy the game, you can spend hours in them. But at the end of the day, they're just reselling the same product without making any serious moddification.

I get it, making a triple A strategy game for a pc market it's a financial risk, they're playing it safe. But I think they're missing the chance to really shine. The worst part is thay they made some little changes that are actually good: like paying more importance to historical aspects (goodbye blue and green legions, asterix berserkers and mumakil elephants), adding skills to characters, making city-buildings more dynamic, making a separate branch for the casuals and over the top players (warhammer). But I want them to make changes in what really matters, to take some risks. Go to the basics, question everything: Is the turn based system really neccesary? What happens if you apply a Paradox time system? What about something different? How can you really make diplomacy useful? Do current victory conditions provide enough diversity? How did games like civilization or CK2 addressed that problem? What about multiplayer? Can we make an online campaign with more than 2 players that actually works? How did paradox, civilization or age of wonders addresed multiplayer? Can we take something useful from that? Does the tech tree provide interesting decision making? How can we improve it? How can we make players roleplay more in their campaign? A history book with the big succeses? Dynamic chronicles of a war? How can we make war between factions more interesting? Adding more weight to strategic regions? What about sieges? Can you learn something from other franchises like Stronghold?

You get the gizz, I'd like them to actually try making TW new again. Add new mechanics, more diversity, change the way wars are played, economy is made, etc. We'll see if the new TW actually tries anything new.

[LinusLinothorax]

New twitch interview with Jack : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/207208003?t=01h03m38s cca 15 minutes

-siege battles
16 diferent maps for major settlements - hill fort, ring fort, viking port?, old roman wall towns, saxon river towns
not for particular city but they aim for maximum variety

-no big castles, no knights with heavy charge ...scouting, flanking no cavalry charging into shieldwall
aka battle of hastings - cavalry with javelins, great mopping up infantry
cavalry master - welsch, bodyguard, Tulu? javelins + spear for close....aka old roman cavalry
vikings very limited cavalry

-shieldwall king of battlefield , aracher + javelins trying to crack it,
anglosaxons - standing arming, heavy inf, average cav
viking - a lot of axes to crack shieldwall, very limited cavalry
Ireland - low armor, more skirmish,harrasing enemy
Wales - longbowmen

"just British Islands" (so probably no Vikinglands..)

-units upgrades - yes, mixed of Attila and Age of Charlemagne
Attila - long chain of upgrades from low level to high level
Age of charlemagne - a fewer upgrades across the types
both of them
each unit 1,2 units ....better equipment ....,older look, during this time,normal conquest

Alfred the Great 1 of 5, others later
next week some info, just right hitting alpha build

Sounds like they are really trying. Looking forward to in-game screens, especially from the campaign map. It's "teulu", btw.

[keona]

New twitch interview with Jack : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/207208003?t=01h03m38s cca 15 minutes

-siege battles
16 diferent maps for major settlements - hill fort, ring fort, viking port?, old roman wall towns, saxon river towns
not for particular city but they aim for maximum variety

-no big castles, no knights with heavy charge ...scouting, flanking no cavalry charging into shieldwall
aka battle of hastings - cavalry with javelins, great mopping up infantry
cavalry master - welsch, bodyguard, Tulu? javelins + spear for close....aka old roman cavalry
vikings very limited cavalry

-shieldwall king of battlefield , aracher + javelins trying to crack it,
anglosaxons - standing arming, heavy inf, average cav
viking - a lot of axes to crack shieldwall, very limited cavalry
Ireland - low armor, more skirmish,harrasing enemy
Wales - longbowmen

"just British Islands" (so probably no Vikinglands..)

-units upgrades - yes, mixed of Attila and Age of Charlemagne
Attila - long chain of upgrades from low level to high level
Age of charlemagne - a fewer upgrades across the types
both of them
each unit 1,2 units ....better equipment ....,older look, during this time,normal conquest

Alfred the Great 1 of 5, others later
next week some info, just right hitting alpha build

Thank you for the summary. Very good news.

[Theramines]

[QUOTEI get it, making a triple A strategy game for a pc market it's a financial risk, they're playing it safe. But I think they're missing the chance to really shine. The worst part is thay they made some little changes that are actually good: like paying more importance to historical aspects (goodbye blue and green legions, asterix berserkers and mumakil elephants), adding skills to characters, making city-buildings more dynamic, making a separate branch for the casuals and over the top players (warhammer). But I want them to make changes in what really matters, to take some risks. Go to the basics, question everything: Is the turn based system really neccesary? What happens if you apply a Paradox time system? What about something different? How can you really make diplomacy useful? Do current victory conditions provide enough diversity? How did games like civilization or CK2 addressed that problem? What about multiplayer? Can we make an online campaign with more than 2 players that actually works? How did paradox, civilization or age of wonders addresed multiplayer? Can we take something useful from that? Does the tech tree provide interesting decision making? How can we improve it? How can we make players roleplay more in their campaign? A history book with the big succeses? Dynamic chronicles of a war? How can we make war between factions more interesting? Adding more weight to strategic regions? What about sieges? Can you learn something from other franchises like Stronghold?

You get the gizz, I'd like them to actually try making TW new again. Add new mechanics, more diversity, change the way wars are played, economy is made, etc. We'll see if the new TW actually tries anything new. ][/QUOTE]

Good stuff in there and it got me thinking about a few points. I would guess that CA do question these things regularly, for that is only human, but as you mentioned money- and risking that money- is the problem. Of all that you mentioned, I think the turn based strategy map amongst a number of other aging and creaking systems is holding Total War back the most. I absolutely love Attila, but in no other TW game does the turn-based system so let down the game. While it ominously started becoming a problem in Rome 2, chasing hordes and raiders in Attila is the very definition of ahistorical anti-fun. I haven't played the Warhammer iterations, but I believe similar, more vociferous, complaints were made about those games.

Certainly I'd like CA to experiment with some kind of real time strategy map, though I'm not a game designer, nor do I have a particularly deep knowledge of different genres of strategy games, so I cannot argue in depth beyond "why not?". Real time strat brings its own set of problem I'm sure, but TW needs to bring something fresh to its usual predictable turn-based system.

The 20 units stack system needs a shake up too. Its limitations are there for obvious reasons, but I'd like the unit ceiling removed entirely. "But how can a human player compete against an AI stack containing potentially 60, 80, 120 units?" I hear you ask. The answer is also obvious: manpower, supply and economy. No stack of more than, say, 30-40 units should be possible in all but the most exceptional circumstances simply because there shouldn't exist sufficient forage, supply, money or manpower to sustain it in any given area. How the AI could handle such a system? Alas, I don't know (I acknowledge it's weak to point out a problem and offer only the most facile solution), but I'd like TW to move beyond the current system. Attrition, raiding, and economic warfare to need to become real strategic choices. At the moment it's 20 vs 20 whack-a-mole warfare of little depth and variety.

Finally, mention of the Civ series reminded me of something that occurred to me recently. I used to love Civ and played Civ 1, 2 and 3 like crazy. Civ 4 much less so. I hated Civ 5 and uninstalled it after 8 hours, and have no intention of ever buying Civ 6. What caused this shift from love to aversion and contempt? Basically, and ironically, the improving graphics (plus a few gameplay design choices, which I won't go into). The more realistic Civ's graphics became, the less I was able to suspend my disbelief and become immersed in the experience. The distance between the "reality" of the graphics and the essential absurdity of the game-play had become too great. This paradox was tacitly acknowledge in Civ 6 where the graphics are hilariously and grotesquely cartoonish (and, quite frankly, a disgrace to a once magnificent series) in order to reconnect the game-play with the graphics.

This paradox perhaps looms large over the TW series. At the moment steadily improving graphics lift each TW game in my opinion. I can barely stand the graphic of Empire and Napoleon now, and I love Attila partly because it looks fantastic in my opinion.

However, will there come a point where the clunking, creaking game-play model of TW no longer sustain the steadily improving graphics? At this point I would suggest that the cracks are appearing and CA might already have seen this and acknowledged it with the Warhammer series. So, where to now for historical Total War?

[Daruwind]

Good stuff in there and it got me thinking about a few points. I would guess that CA do question these things regularly, for that is only human, but as you mentioned money- and risking that money- is the problem. Of all that you mentioned, I think the turn based strategy map amongst a number of other aging and creaking systems is holding Total War back the most. I absolutely love Attila, but in no other TW game does the turn-based system so let down the game. While it ominously started becoming a problem in Rome 2, chasing hordes and raiders in Attila is the very definition of ahistorical anti-fun. I haven't played the Warhammer iterations, but I believe similar, more vociferous, complaints were made about those games.

Well and there is your first big problem. WHs are already shaking the formula a lot. New mechanics are added - magic, rpg heroes/lords, items/followers overall, factions are finally different with mechanics even units - no longer it is just reskin, for the first time. And looking back and forward CA is able to lose one part like Naval Combat or try new Siege (yeah it is not better but kudos for trying it differently). And one super new feature is this combined campaign map. That is really something for Total War. And about army running all around. That is nothing new. You know how often armies move around just to get in better position?

Certainly I'd like CA to experiment with some kind of real time strategy map, though I'm not a game designer, nor do I have a particularly deep knowledge of different genres of strategy games, so I cannot argue in depth beyond "why not?". Real time strat brings its own set of problem I'm sure, but TW needs to bring something fresh to its usual predictable turn-based system.

Real time is big nono. It is not problem in battles but how exactly do you think we can have 100+ factions playing at the same time? Thank you but nope. I´m pausing Cursaders Kings all the time to think ahead. I would like bigger map, more factions, more immersive world. Not more limited one just to have clickfest..

The 20 units stack system needs a shake up too. Its limitations are there for obvious reasons, but I'd like the unit ceiling removed entirely. "But how can a human player compete against an AI stack containing potentially 60, 80, 120 units?" I hear you ask. The answer is also obvious: manpower, supply and economy. No stack of more than, say, 30-40 units should be possible in all but the most exceptional circumstances simply because there shouldn't exist sufficient forage, supply, money or manpower to sustain it in any given area. How the AI could handle such a system? Alas, I don't know (I acknowledge it's weak to point out a problem and offer only the most facile solution), but I'd like TW to move beyond the current system. Attrition, raiding, and economic warfare to need to become real strategic choices. At the moment it's 20 vs 20 whack-a-mole warfare of little depth and variety.

Except pretty often I have already 40 stacks in battle. Either as reinforcement or like garisson in city. Question is, do we want more units or more bodies per unit? I would prefer the second one as more more there is no point in have more units with fewer men than less units with more men.

Finally, mention of the Civ series reminded me of something that occurred to me recently. I used to love Civ and played Civ 1, 2 and 3 like crazy. Civ 4 much less so. I hated Civ 5 and uninstalled it after 8 hours, and have no intention of ever buying Civ 6. What caused this shift from love to aversion and contempt? Basically, and ironically, the improving graphics (plus a few gameplay design choices, which I won't go into). The more realistic Civ's graphics became, the less I was able to suspend my disbelief and become immersed in the experience. The distance between the "reality" of the graphics and the essential absurdity of the game-play had become too great. This paradox was tacitly acknowledge in Civ 6 where the graphics are hilariously and grotesquely cartoonish (and, quite frankly, a disgrace to a once magnificent series) in order to reconnect the game-play with the graphics.
This paradox perhaps looms large over the TW series. At the moment steadily improving graphics lift each TW game in my opinion. I can barely stand the graphic of Empire and Napoleon now, and I love Attila partly because it looks fantastic in my opinion.

Heck no. TW are not only about textures but even about model details. Collisions, physics....there is so many things that could be added.

However, will there come a point where the clunking, creaking game-play model of TW no longer sustain the steadily improving graphics? At this point I would suggest that the cracks are appearing and CA might already have seen this and acknowledged it with the Warhammer series. So, where to now for historical Total War?

Again nope. Warhammer will just get new experimental lab FLC to try some CPU/GPU demanding tricks like unit size up to 10x? Unit scale for monsters, magic...

[Daruwind]

Little news from FB

We've chosen 10 historical settlement names which feature on the THRONES OF BRITANNIA campaign map, and mixed in 10 fake ones of our own. Can you tell the difference?

Click here to find out: http://bit.ly/ThronesSettlements

The real ones are:

Wigraceaster (Worcester)
Forais ?????
Cnódba (Dubad)
Guldeford (East Guldefort)
Rocheberie (Warwickshire)
Middeherst (Midhurst)
Dyflin (Dublin)
Hlymrekr (Munster)
Snotingaham (Nottingham)
Loidis (Leeds)

I was unable to find any interesting city there...All seems to be from England, Ireland. Nothing like town in Brittany, North Europe or something. Except Forais. :-)

EDIT: what about possible starting locations? There should be 10 playable factions...we have 10 settlements...

[bigdaddy1204]

I think CA should have released new content for Attila rather than Rome II. Attila is a much better game.

I won't go for this new Rome DLC. But I might have considered one on the lines of the Charlemagne expansion. Perhaps a Rashidun caliphate expansion in which you can conquer the map set in the 7th or 8th century could have been epic.

[bigdaddy1204]

I think the turn based strategy map amongst a number of other aging and creaking systems is holding Total War back the most. I absolutely love Attila, but in no other TW game does the turn-based system so let down the game.

Certainly I'd like CA to experiment with some kind of real time strategy map... Real time strat brings its own set of problem I'm sure, but TW needs to bring something fresh to its usual predictable turn-based system.

I've thought about this too. The problem with the turn based map in every TW game since they moved away from the old risk style 2D map is that it is possible for the human player to exploit the AI by simply ignoring/walking around AI armies and taking their cities. The AI cannot respond until its turn, when it's too late.

This is particularly noticeable when for example the AI leaves its cities poorly defended, while wandering about aimlessly with a full stack nearby. In some cases, it is possible to simply take the enemy city right out from under their noses, either by attacking with siege weapons or spies immediately, or sometimes even laying siege the AI makes no attempt to relieve its city but just stands there or wanders off.

In the old 2D style map this wasn't a problem - the minute you moved a single unit into an enemy province, it automatically triggered a battle between you and ALL the enemy units in that province. But once we got the 3D map starting with Rome TW in 2004, the AI has never really adjusted fully. The AI still thinks it is trying to take over the whole of 16th century feudal Japan. Especially in games like Medieval II. Which is what I mainly play.

In Attila the AI is more logical in diplomacy and behaviour. Even here though, they will sometimes leave an important city unguarded, moving a full stack away for no apparent reason and allowing you to come in and take the settlement free of charge. Perhaps the AI needs to learn to guard it's borders better. I think more could be done to improve the way cities are garrisoned, walls etc. Perhaps the ability to take more control over exactly how many units are in the garrison, what type of units they are and more building options to customise this. E.g. instead of buildings granting two or three units, you should be able to build strong garrison buildings that provide a larger, stronger garrison. This would also give the player more flexibility to deal with annoying AI sneak attacks on your settlements, Which can get annoying if you are constantly fighting defensive siege battles against impossible odds with the handful of default garrison units, Which just isn't fun.

[Daruwind]

Campaign map for Thrones of Britanny ( https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...gn_map_reveal/ )

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/throne...ign-map-reveal

-Blue-dot minors have ports, red-dot minors don't.
-The minor settlements have set types, whether that be a farm or mine etc. There is no choice in what you build. If you want more food you can construct a building in a major settlement to give you that, or go and take it from someone else.
-Province capitals are still walled and have 6 building slots as well as garrisons. Minor settlements do not. They will have no walls and either one or two building slots . The available building types for each settlement will be pre-defined and based on the characteristics of the land around it. That could be a farm, or an iron mine, or an abbey.

[Charerg]

Well, I was originally very uninterested in Thrones of Britain, but seeing that CA has decided to use period-authentic names definitely gives hope that the final product might actually be worth buying/playing. Also, the map looks much more extensive than I expected, definitely beats the ones we have seen in DLCs so far. If CA actually makes "Thrones" more of a new stand-alone expansion pack rather than a glorified DLC, I may actually end up buying this (especially if it's moddable, though no word about that so far).

[Daruwind]

Crosschecking previously known 10 settlements into factions owners - possible playable factions?

Wigraceaster (Worcester)
Forais ?????
Cnódba (Dubad)
Guldeford (East Guldefort)
Rocheberie (Warwickshire)
Middeherst (Midhurst)
Dyflin (Dublin)
Hlymrekr (Munster)
Snotingaham (Nottingham)
Loidis (Leeds)

EDIT: this is probably not relevant. It is hit for West Seaxe but we are missing Welsch,Britons even Aileach? This is probably not real ...

[Athos187]

Well, I was originally very uninterested in Thrones of Britain, but seeing that CA has decided to use period-authentic names definitely gives hope that the final product might actually be worth buying/playing. Also, the map looks much more extensive than I expected, definitely beats the ones we have seen in DLCs so far. If CA actually makes "Thrones" more of a new stand-alone expansion pack rather than a glorified DLC, I may actually end up buying this (especially if it's moddable, though no word about that so far).

Ya I think CA are finally realizing that historical accuracy really helps with immersion and makes the game more fun.

[keona]

I think Cerneu would playable because it was emphasized in the blog (it talks of an interesting position, also being a vassal of Wessex that can rebel against its masters). To play as Welsh rebels in the heart of Wessex to me sound like an interesting scenario.

[FrozenmenSS]

Am Im the only one who got the same Britania Mediaval 2 Kingdoms campaign vibe if there is a Medieaval kingdoms 1212ad themed mod?

[keona]

That picture in the header of the blog update. Is that first screenshot from the game or it is Attila?

[Anna_Gein]

First screenshot

[bigdaddy1204]

What is this? Medieval Total Peace?

[LinusLinothorax]

-The minor settlements have set types, whether that be a farm or mine etc. There is no choice in what you build. If you want more food you can construct a building in a major settlement to give you that, or go and take it from someone else.
-Province capitals are still walled and have 6 building slots as well as garrisons. Minor settlements do not. They will have no walls and either one or two building slots.

Not sure if I get this right: Does that mean, that 3/4 of all settlements are essentially just like the provincial towns from Empire, but with the difference that you can't even decide what you wanna build there?