New Attila Content in 2017

[Theramines]

I don't think reusing assets is such a bad thing if they're fitting for the period. As I already posted above, my only gripe based on the small info we have thus far-and it is a minor gripe-is that Alfred's appearance matches none of my life-long imaginings of a driven yet lean, anxious and frail man (an emo king?..oh god). That 1969 Alfred the Great film, the Alfred Jewel and the recent TV series each adding form and colour to my imaginary portrait.

Do the gleaming textures look somewhat like a cross between the plastique aesthetic of Shogun 2 and detachable mix-and-match of the Warhammer games to anyone else?

The one thing we can optimistic about is that insta-fleets might not have as great a strategic impact as they do in Mediterranean Rome 2 and Attila, and perhaps they're even somewhat appropriate for the setting. The battles look as Total War-ish as ever, so no surprises there. I'm sure re-balances will hit the workshop within the hour of its release, so we need not fear the mg42 towers and casualty rates akin to the Somme.

I'm looking forward to it immensely.

[Huberto]

The battles look as Total War-ish as ever, so no surprises there. I'm sure re-balances will hit the workshop within the hour of its release, so we need not fear the mg42 towers and casualty rates akin to the Somme.I'm looking forward to it immensely.

You miss the point, this isn't about balancing watchtowers' effectiveness. The same old watchtowers imply that the town battles will be same-old as well. I'm tired of fighting all those town battles in TWR2 and Attila--especially Attila. If this is in fact a new game, and Daruwind, ThroB is being marketed as not only a NEW GAME but a NEW SERIES, not as Attila DLC, then of course we need new battle experiences and not recycled ones. Come on CA!

[Theramines]

Yeah, true, I have to agree, Huberto. I think the TW battlefield does need freshening up. I'd love to see mixed units, for example. To be fair, the BAI in each TW is better than the last so there's something to look forward to at least. And there tends to be new mechanics introduced with each title. Consider the fire mechanic and hordes of Attila. Hopefully it's not something to do with rapidly clicking extra buttons and agents whizzing about flinging wizard glitter and magically buffing troops. I was pleasantly surprised by Attila, so I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be enjoyable to play.

[NostalgiaFan]

Daruwind, ThroB is being marketed as not only a NEW GAME but a NEW SERIES, not as Attila DLC, then of course we need new battle experiences and not recycled ones. Come on CA!

Exactly. You can't go and say "CA made this as a Attila DLC" when the guys have been all about how this is a "Brand new game in it's own series!". It Doesn't matter how much you try to sugar coat it, CA are just recycling things here because they are being lazy. It's not even the costumes or buildings that annoy me, it's the combat looking as poor and boring as always. If the camping can at least be and feel different enough it could help but it's always disappointing when the campaign has to make up for the dull battles.

[Daruwind]

You miss the point, this isn't about balancing watchtowers' effectiveness. The same old watchtowers imply that the town battles will be same-old as well. I'm tired of fighting all those town battles in TWR2 and Attila--especially Attila. If this is in fact a new game, and Daruwind, ThroB is being marketed as not only a NEW GAME but a NEW SERIES, not as Attila DLC, then of course we need new battle experiences and not recycled ones. Come on CA!

Agree agree :-) Each game should have unique feelings especially for battles. And I will point out a few things that look already different. Cavalry seems to play lesser role, probably even siege equipment as well as fortification as not every city would have proper walls. It is probalby more easier to get in new campaign features opposing to battle features as for majority of human history well..combat is pretty similar with people stabbing each other with pointy sticks...we cannot get giants, steam tanks and uber elvish soldiers after all. :-)

Attila is in my eyes one of best TW so far even with some downs. So building upon it as base is not bad idea. But i get it, so far ToB doesn´t look visually so far from Attila as FotS from Shogun2.

Just one minor thing. It is not new series, it´s more likely new branding type of game. Like we have core games, dlcs, expansions around famous persons and now around "famous"/interesting periods of time. It was compared multiple times to FotS only this time it will be really standalone. (FotS could be too or integrated into Shogun2) So I expect a little bigger size and maybe even little more DLCs for it. But it will be neverthless build upon Attila... If we look at spectre: FotS - DLC/standalone, BoT -bigger,definitely not dlc/yet probably not as big as Attila itself. (probably as CA don´t like DLC for DLC policy, so yep, must be big enough for justification) That´s why I don´t expect every aspect to be completely new

[caratacus]

For me, the disappointing aspect of that Alfred the Great preview was the combat, it is exactly the same as RTW2/Attila. Although those orange and yellow stripey pajama pants of the Saxons can be modded and maybe something added that looks like a functioning shield wall. There are no new kill animations shown, something which makes for visually interesting and dynamic battle views. Apparently to develop RTW2 they acquired an expensive new motion capture machine for animations, but haven't used it since.

[Welsh Dragon]

I think maybe people need to start tempering their expectations (and criticisms) of the Saga games by considering what they're actually supposed to be, instead of criticising this for being exactly what it said it would be. This isn't going to be revolutionary, and they never claimed it would be. This isn't the next major historical set in a new era, and they never claimed it would be either. In fact they've clearly stated both of those things:

Michael: So what makes a game a “Total War Saga”?

Jack: Total War Saga games will be the same mix of turn-based campaign strategy, real-time battle tactics and hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay as a regular Total War game, but focussed down on a distinct moment.

Sagas won’t be revolutionary new titles or introduce brand-new eras; they’ll follow-on from previous Total War games and inhabit the same time-period, or at the very least relate to it. But these are certainly Total War games.

Michael: How is this different to previous Total War games?

Jack: In terms of core gameplay, it’s not. If you’ve enjoyed previous games, you’ll certainly be interested in Total War Saga games. It’s more about focus. There might be as many playable factions or conquerable territories in them, but that could all be focussed down to one specific region or country and a particular point in time.

In fact, we’ve done it before. Fall of the Samurai is exactly the kind of thing we’re talking about here. It was a standalone spin-off from Total War: SHOGUN 2, focussed on the pivotal event of the Boshin War. A concentrated Total War game which puts you right in the middle of a really dynamic moment of history, where the outcome could have gone in a huge number of different directions.

If you liked Fall of the Samurai, and the kind of gameplay we delivered with it, then you’re going to enjoy what we’ve got planned for our first Saga title. But it’s important to say that it isn’t our next major historical release. It is an iteration on a previous game, built on something we’ve already released.

Source for extracts: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/a-tota...-announce-blog


They've repeatedly stated that Thrones will be built upon Attila, so it's no surprise that it looks like Attila in many ways. Which isn't to say they won't have new things too, as we've already seen new ideas introduced in the blog posts.

And to me it's not lazy to reuse existing assets when it makes sense to do so. It's efficient use of their finite resources, and I'd much rather they do that, (and use the resources they save in other parts of the game,) than keep building everything from scratch every game, essentially reinventing the wheel every time.

As for settlement battles, I think we cannot assume anything based on the limited information we've been given thus far. We do know that the settlement system is changing in campaigns (see this Blog Post: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/throne...ign-map-reveal ,) and that:

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 .

That's already a not insignificant change from the past four games (Rome 2, Attila, Warhammer 1 and 2,) that could have knock on effects on other parts of the game.

They also said:

In this way the system is more of a cross between the SHOGUN 2 provinces, with resource buildings located outside the main settlement, but combined with the ROME II and later system that allows for each of the minor settlements to be controlled independently.

So, if they're using Fall of the Samurai as a basis for how Sagas will work, then there is room for new features and changes in battle mechanics, whilst still being built on an existing framework. (e.g. FOTS brought off map artillery.) If the minor settlements aren't going to have garrisons, and are going to function more like the resource buildings in Shogun 2, that could lead to a different kind of battle. So yes, maybe it will be a minor settlement battle like recent games had (though without garrisons that could be kind of tricky.) But maybe it will trigger a field battle instead (like in Warhammer,) or some kind of hybrid (I forget if resource buildings appeared on the battlemap in Shogun 2, but perhaps that could be an option. A field battle but with some buildings too perhaps?)

The removal of garrisons in minor settlements alone should lead to a lot less minor settlement battles (no point launching a battle if there's nobody defending the settlement.)

In conclusion, if you're waiting for that next big revolution in Total War, set in a new era with all new everything, this probably isn't going to be the game for you. But if you look at Thrones and Saga for what they're supposed to be, a game that's new but familiar, something that falls between a £15 Campaign DLC and a £40 major title (say maybe £25-£30, though that's just me speculating,) I think there's a lot to like.

But I respect others feel differently.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

P.S. Sorry if this seems a bit random or disjointed. I'm currently full of flu and so my brains not firing on all cylinders.

Sorry for the double post, but it wouldn't let me edit the first one for some reason, so...

For me, the disappointing aspect of that Alfred the Great preview was the combat, it is exactly the same as RTW2/Attila. Although those orange and yellow stripey pajama pants of the Saxons can be modded and maybe something added that looks like a functioning shield wall. There are no new kill animations shown, something which makes for visually interesting and dynamic battle views. Apparently to develop RTW2 they acquired an expensive new motion capture machine for animations, but haven't used it since.

Shield Walls don't really lend themselves to that sort of dynamic action trailer/film (see 300 ) so maybe wait till we see some in game battle footage before worrying about shield walls? As for kill animations, well we've only seen part of one battle in a trailer for a game that's not finished yet so far, so there may be more we just haven't seen yet. Though there is only a finite number of ways to kill a man. But I get what you mean, it's nice to have variety in the animations.

*

In general I'd say a lot of concerns (though not all) being expressed seem to be based on making assumptions based on limited or no information. Maybe we should start waiting till we actually know something is a problem before worrying about it?

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[caratacus]

I think maybe people need to start tempering their expectations (and criticisms) of the Saga games by considering what they're actually supposed to be, instead of criticising this for being exactly what it said it would be. This isn't going to be revolutionary, and they never claimed it would be. This isn't the next major historical set in a new era, and they never claimed it would be either. In fact they've clearly stated both of those things:

Source for extracts: https://www.totalwar.com/blog/a-tota...-announce-blog

They've repeatedly stated that Thrones will be built upon Attila, so it's no surprise that it looks like Attila in many ways. Which isn't to say they won't have new things too, as we've already seen new ideas introduced in the blog posts.

And to me it's not lazy to reuse existing assets when it makes sense to do so. It's efficient use of their finite resources, and I'd much rather they do that, (and use the resources they save in other parts of the game,) than keep building everything from scratch every game, essentially reinventing the wheel every time.(

Isn't that called modding? I mean if it were possible to modify and create new maps, this type of campaign would probably have already been added to Attila. SEGA shouldn't try competing with modding and instead work with it. and that requires adding new content. It doesn't have to be too fundamental, new buildings, new textures, new models, new voices, new animations! I welcome that Attila is being developed further I really do, it was a significant improvement to RTW2. But any further addition should bring with it further enhancement to game play for Attila TW after 3 years! It should be an opportunity to refresh it, not simply have another campaign added on, scripted or not.

I agree though that it is too early to judge yet, but lets say I'm not building up great expectations.

[Daruwind]

Isn't that called modding?

Nope. Look at FotS. Almost all battlefield are heavily using Shogun 2 assets, sieges....castles are pretty much the same..Yet units and naval combat are heavily different.

They probably keep in pocket the exciting new stuff and it is really early to jduge the game just because we see the same watchtowers and parts of units...

[Welsh Dragon]

Isn't that called modding? I mean if it were possible to modify and create new maps, this type of campaign would probably have already been added to Attila. SEGA shouldn't try competing with modding and instead work with it. and that requires adding new content. It doesn't have to be too fundamental, new buildings, new textures, new models, new voices, new animations! I welcome that Attila is being developed further I really do, it was a significant improvement to RTW2. But any further addition should bring with it further enhancement to game play for Attila TW after 3 years! It should be an opportunity to refresh it, not simply have another campaign added on, scripted or not.

I disagree. For me modding will always come secondary to game development, and so just because a modder can do something, doesn't mean a game studio shouldn't. Personally, I would much rather pay for a DLC/game developed by one of my favourite studios and made by people who have a track record of making games I enjoy, than play a mod that tries to represent the same thing "for free."

Don't get me wrong, modding is great, modders do amazing work in their spare time which I respect, and I'm glad people get to enjoy mods. But I think treating mods and modders as if they replace games and developers, or that mods have "turf" that those actually making games for a living shouldn't enter just feels wrong to me. It's kind of like saying an author can't write a new book with his or her established characters, if somebody has been writing fan fiction about them.

If a game offers gameplay I enjoy, to the point that I'm happy to buy other similar games, I don't really feel the need to be reinventing or refreshing it for a game to be good. I think doing this this way, with refreshing older content (Rome 2's Power & Politics and Empire Divided,) new "smaller" standalones that build upon what we have(Thrones of Britannia,) and the big new revolutionary releases (Next Major Historical,) as well as modders making mods within the constraints set by the developers (whose toys we are ultimately playing with,) we get the best of both worlds, with something for everyone.

I agree though that it is too early to judge yet, but lets say I'm not building up great expectations.

Which is a shame, but as every different things will appeal to different people. I've been hoping they'd do a more modern Total War take on Medieval 1: Viking Invasion for years, so for me this is a dream come true. I just hope I can play it (though there should be a lot less in the way of flashy effects than Warhammer, and probably less of a focus on fire and laying waste to the map than in Attila, which should hopefully both be better for me with my light sensitivity.)

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[caratacus]

I disagree. For me modding will always come secondary to game development, and so just because a modder can do something, doesn't mean a game studio shouldn't. Personally, I would much rather pay for a DLC/game developed by one of my favourite studios and made by people who have a track record of making games I enjoy, than play a mod that tries to represent the same thing "for free."

Don't get me wrong, modding is great, modders do amazing work in their spare time which I respect, and I'm glad people get to enjoy mods. But I think treating mods and modders as if they replace games and developers, or that mods have "turf" that those actually making games for a living shouldn't enter just feels wrong to me. It's kind of like saying an author can't write a new book with his or her established characters, if somebody has been writing fan fiction about them.

If a game offers gameplay I enjoy, to the point that I'm happy to buy other similar games, I don't really feel the need to be reinventing or refreshing it for a game to be good. I think doing this this way, with refreshing older content (Rome 2's Power & Politics and Empire Divided,) new "smaller" standalones that build upon what we have(Thrones of Britannia,) and the big new revolutionary releases (Next Major Historical,) as well as modders making mods within the constraints set by the developers (whose toys we are ultimately playing with,) we get the best of both worlds, with something for everyone.

It's nothing to do with modding being a replacement of a game developer, whose advocating that? For me the two should not be drawn as distinctly as you claim. Where did Jack Lusted start his career? Right here on TWC as a modder. Would have CA been able to address many of the issue of that buggy mess RTW2 was at release, without the assistance of the modding community. What are the Assembly Kits if not to build modding into being a key feature of Total War?

Which is a shame, but as every different things will appeal to different people. I've been hoping they'd do a more modern Total War take on Medieval 1: Viking Invasion for years, so for me this is a dream come true. I just hope I can play it (though there should be a lot less in the way of flashy effects than Warhammer, and probably less of a focus on fire and laying waste to the map than in Attila, which should hopefully both be better for me with my light sensitivity.)

Yes it is a shame isn't it, but still borne out by experience.

[Welsh Dragon]

It's nothing to do with modding being a replacement of a game developer, whose advocating that? For me the two should not be drawn as distinctly as you claim. Where did Jack Lusted start his career? Right here on TWC as a modder. Would have CA been able to address many of the issue of that buggy mess RTW2 was at release, without the assistance of the modding community. What are the Assembly Kits if not to build modding into being a key feature of Total War?

Yes, sorry. I thought you were advocating that, basically saying "if they'd given us the tools a modder could have made Thrones in Attila, so CA shouldn't make Thrones." But rereading what you said you weren't... I misread and misunderstood you, and for that I apologise.

Yes there's overlap in what modders and developers do, with some even crossing from one to the other (like Jack Lusted as you mentioned.) And there is a certain amount of back and forth between the two, with modders building their mods on the back of developers work making the games, and with developers being able to incorporate some things from mods into their games (like the bug fixes you mention.) Each makes the other better, so we're better off with both.

I do feel a distinction does need to be made between those doing it for a hobby that they subsidise themselves, with all the freedom that comes with that and ability to distribute it for free (modders,) and those doing it for a job, who have to earn a living and face finite resources and deadlines and other constraints, and so need to sell their work (developers.) Because sometimes it just feels like for some, modders can do no wrong, and developers (especially CA) can do no right. That if a modder does something and releases it "for free" (really absorbing the costs themselves) they are applauded, but if a game studio does the same and charges money for their work to cover the costs, they are criticised. Which I find both unfair and annoying.

Especially as some of my favourite factions for games like Rome 2 are the ones in DLCs, which if some would have their way would never have been made because "a modder already did it, and 'better,' and for free!"

Ideally, I just want to see both the games studios and modding community make amazing things that people enjoy, and receive the credit and rewards that they deserve in return. Plus it gives us all more options of games to play, which is good.

Yes it is a shame isn't it, but still borne out by experience.

Well, hopefully they will surprise you.

And like I said, I badly misread you and I apologise.

Also sorry everyone for taking this discussion off on a major tangent. We now return you to the latest Thrones Blog news and discussion.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[FrozenmenSS]

Reused assets are still making sense. It is saving money to add other new things. Like if you have money for one model, then adding parts or complete another one model from older compatible assets is doubling the amount in game.

Keep in mind. Thrones of Britanny is in same boat as Empire Divided. Resources were allocated a long time ago, probably fixed number not as high as for other brand new DLCs for Warhammer. Simply because it is just big one experiment. IF these DLC/title prove to be possible way, we may yet to see fully fledged out titles. Thrones of Britanny as title is definitely bigger than ED but still they will try to reuse whatever is possible just to have more things in.

I will wait with judgement after release to see how many new things they added. :-)

Why? This is first time CA is returning to older title. They surely did survey, surely asked a lot people...still it is jump into darkness. And it is definitely not their top level project (WH2/3,next tentpole historical one...) New smaller teams, proably limited resources just to lost nothing or almost nothing if things won´t go in good way after actual release..

Not every company is able and willing to alter older games. (like enhance editions for Witcher series) Look at EA...no additional resources for Mass Effect 2 to improve the colour endings. No story DLC for new Mass Effect Andromeda because low sales...

In that light CA is quite brave to try this experiment..because these teams cost serious money even if they are small. It is not kickstarter project after all..

And dont take me wrong. I´m curious to see all new things and toys. Just units textures are not the most crucial right now. Modders will overhaul them anyway if need be even if there is no need

+1 Lets Be realists. Its not the next Big thing.And CA have said it in the past...

[KLAssurbanipal]

Please make a new forum for this game. It's not Attila DLC but separate game.

[Daruwind]

New blog post for Anglo-Saxon units:
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/anglo-saxon-unit-rosters

[Dude with the Food]

I know it's personal taste and some people like the feeling of progression but I really hate the Attila system of levelling up units.

Ceorl Spearmen, Fyrd Spearmen, Militia Fyrd Spearmen, Select Fyrd Spearmen, Select Militia Spearmen - what's the difference? I'm guessing tiny stat differences, slightly higher costs and Ceorl Spearmen won't wear helmets. Maybe throw in late-game kite shields. It just seems unnecessary.

[Mattias Tannhäuser]

Please make a new forum for this game. It's not Attila DLC but separate game.

I agree, it's time for a new forum gathering all available information in one place.

[Dude with the Food]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=#post15485627

for the records: a new subforum will be up soon

[NostalgiaFan]

Please make a new forum for this game. It's not Attila DLC but separate game.

Oh really? Because last I heard this was just an expansion to Attila in all but name only? At least that's the excuse I hear from people in this thread concerning it recycling old assets.

[Darios]

Well, Thrones of Britannia is little more than a glorified DLC for Attila and probably doesn't really need its own forum. Judging by the rate that CA is releasing information concerning the game we're probably looking at a release this spring. I would not be surprised if excitement/interest in the game dies down significantly upon release, especially considering that early screenshots and footage appear somewhat underwhelming.

However, it is no longer 2017 and this thread was created to speculate new historical Total War content. The speculation was that the new content would be for Attila itself but ended up being released for Rome 2. Empire Divided is a very good campaign, perhaps the best that was released for Rome 2. However, after a few weeks of playing ED, I started a WRE campaign in Attila over the weekend and was reminded of simply how much better of a game Attila is compared to Rome 2. It feels more immersive and exciting. The campaign map feels as if it is a living breathing world that can be interacted with.

I do sincerely hope that CA will revisit this game with new content/fixes/optimization. Perhaps we should start a new thread concerning this?