FIRST LATE-STAGE CAMPAIGN PREVIEW

[Siger V]

Ok I see, thanks for the explications and the screenshots Blank !
I have some ideas on how to simulate a sort of republic's feeling in the game with some vanilla's mechanics but I'm not sure if it's possible to do. I will share them on the AE forum when I have more time and maybe someone will find them interesting and will be able to create a submod, we'll see

[The_Blank97]

Ok I see, thanks for the explications and the screenshots Blank !
I have some ideas on how to simulate a sort of republic's feeling in the game with some vanilla's mechanics but I'm not sure if it's possible to do. I will share them on the AE forum when I have more time and maybe someone will find them interesting and will be able to create a submod, we'll see

Are you a modder than can help out with this sort of stuff? If so, you can join the dev team. Or if your idea is good, fitting, and possible, without being a modder, your idea can be implemented in the main mod! Please share it, even if here, I constantly contact UMC multiple times a day so I'd communicate the idea with him.

[Totalknight]

anymore previews guys??

[Sheridan]

anymore previews guys??

Oh, why not

Some of UMC's excellent new UI work on the main menu and other screenshots. At the bottom, you can see the rebalanced economy in action. The previous large figures have been removed.

Spoiler for Main Menu, Nabatea: 

Spoiler for Main Menu, Pontus: 

Spoiler for Parthian Main Mission: 

Spoiler for Villius Tappulus, Swordmaster of Rome: 

Spoiler for Roman Garrison Line: 

[LordKainES]

Could we see roman and carthaginian leaders in campaign selection menu???

Also, a nice screenshot of Hispania would be very well received

[Sheridan]

You need only ask

Spoiler for Hannibal Barca: 

Spoiler for Publius Scipio Africanus: 

Spoiler for Welcome Message: 

Spoiler for Iberia: 

Spoiler for Carthaginensis, Iberia: 

[The Wandering Storyteller]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's like Europa Barbaroum/Roma serrectum

Pontus and Nabetaea look awesome!

I'd love to see the Parthians!

If it's not too late to ask, could we some screenies of port assaults and sieges?

[Sheridan]

There will be more Parthian content coming up soon. I will try and capture some siege footage if I get spare time

[The Wandering Storyteller]

[LordKainES]

Love you Sheridan!!!

[beedougie]

Wow, just wow. I usually just lurk and don't post, but I have to say, this mod looks better than I could ever have imagined. Well done gentlemen.

[lurumagno]

You have returned my illusion for the total war.

Good Job guys.

[adambomb1]

We need more information, like that robot, "Need more Info"!!!

[Toho]

Bravo!

Just one small feedback regarding the naming...
Why not just change the categories from something like "Rome and Carthage" to something more general like Republics as it would describe both factions very aptly at the start of the campaign.
Or else you need more categories (btw where are the "barbarians" like celts or germans?

Edit: Btw can you please explain the design idea behind the insane numbers seen in the previews for food, income, unit upkeep and etc...?
I even saw some Youtube "lets plays" that had 34 units in 1 army.
If these design choices are intentional for the final release will there be a submod that makes armies 20 units and the numbers more... normal?
Maybe its just me but I prefer nice clean numbers rather what seems to be random sequence of numbers like:

57851 food.
43728904893 income
3042961904 Treasury

rather than

823 food
5470 income
3020 treasury

[The_Blank97]

Bravo!

Just one small feedback regarding the naming...
Why not just change the categories from something like "Rome and Carthage" to something more general like Republics as it would describe both factions very aptly at the start of the campaign.
Or else you need more categories (btw where are the "barbarians" like celts or germans?

Edit: Btw can you please explain the design idea behind the insane numbers seen in the previews for food, income, unit upkeep and etc...?
I even saw some Youtube "lets plays" that had 34 units in 1 army.
If these design choices are intentional for the final release will there be a submod that makes armies 20 units and the numbers more... normal?
Maybe its just me but I prefer nice clean numbers rather what seems to be random sequence of numbers like:

57851 food.
43728904893 income
3042961904 Treasury

rather than

823 food
5470 income
3020 treasury

Hi! Looks like you have a lot of inquiries! I'll answer all of them.

First, most barbarian factions will be unplayable at release as more work will be put on them to bring them to a playable standard later. There was a previous poll on what factions the public would like to see on release and we might have gotten more than that to a playable standard already, but for some other factions more time is still needed.

As for the categorization of Rome and Carthage, I'll inform UMC.

As for the large armies: currently in the build present now, the only army that is over 20 units is Hannibal's, with a probable decision in the future to break down this army into two.

And as for the money: There has been a recent change in AE where the economy has been scaled down to make reading them easier. The initial vision when scaling them to large numbers, though, was to make you feel like running a real nation, dealing in heaps of money rather than just hundreds and thousands. Still, for those who prefer these larger numbers (because some people liked the idea when advertised) UMC has a submod where the economy is large in scale as seen in the pics.

[Toho]

Thanks for answering!
Edit: I decided to give a little feedback on what you said and elaborate what i mean... I had no idea it would become such a large rant. So I apologize in advance.

Yeah the naming conventions is just a "marketing" thing if you will, there is no perfect way though the vanilla game's distribution of these factions but in my opinion the base Attila game was made for only 7 categories and 6-7 factions in each category otherwise things will "stick out"

So... if you guys like keeping the factions and their categories within the margins of the menu art then I humbly suggest the following breakdown. I could not find your playable faction list so I made do with an image.
The only issue with this suggestion is the "Other Barbarians" because that term is not accurate and the culture bonus might not be representative either.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Republics:
Rome
Carthage

Hellenic:
Aetolian League
Achaean League
Pergamon
Macedon
Seleucids
Ptolemaics
Bactria

Eastern Empires:
Pontus
Armenia
Atropatene
Parthia

Steppe Tribes:
Royal Scythia
Roxolani
Tauri

Celtic:
Arevaci
Lusitani
Averni
Tectosages
Aedui
Nervii
Galatia

Germanic:
Suebi
Marcomanni
Boii
Cimbri

Other Barbarians:
Iceni
Massyli
Dalmatae
Getae

More importantly regarding the economy and their extremely large numbers... personally I don't think just having large numbers thrown at you makes you feel like you are running an empire.
Excuse my ignorance but I am sure you guys have probably poured hundreds of hours over how the economy, upkeep, resources and cities should function.
One of the things I think is completely missing in TW games are cashflow negative cities.
Thats why the Western Roman Empire needed its African holdings or Eastern Roman Empire's help not only for food but riches as well. If the player decides to make a certain city Military oriented it should drain food and much more money. Industrial cities drain a lot of food and so on. Meanwhile there are some settlements that just have no capability of being industrial or a great market place due to lack of nearby resources or trade routes.
In total war we have never had tough decisions like "Do I really need this region? it sucks!" or "I can't afford the secondary costs of these buildings... my current region can't support the food cost I need Egypt or North Africa to feed my industrial cities. All new territories are positive cashflow ranging from wealthy to really wealthy, there is just no downside besides some negligible public order penalties. No tough decisions needed for a certain treaty or territory.
The base Attila game had some nice mechanics like local food shortage/sanitation to cause public order penalties. Its a great idea, historically Rome at its later periods could not feed itself so most of the food was imported from far away... Now I don't think rome was perpetually unstable because they imported food rather than ate locally so this vanilla system has its limitations but if you guys can enhance this vanilla feature I think it can greatly help you guys achieve the "tough economic decisions" required for running an empire.


Personally I feel these types of decisions and hard economic choices are what makes you feel like truly running an empire. Situations where the player says to themselves "Jesus Christ I need Egypt for its food or I am screwed" rather than "where do I feel like conquering next?"
If you guys can manage some sort of diplomacy options for one faction to send "food" like through trade that would be truly amazing. This allows the players more interested in diplomacy and client state/satrapy creation a chance to stay in the game rather than conquer everything to stay alive.

[Tenerife_Boy]

Great previews @Sheridan, congrats

[Sheridan]

Yeah the naming conventions is just a "marketing" thing if you will, there is no perfect way though the vanilla game's distribution of these factions but in my opinion the base Attila game was made for only 7 categories and 6-7 factions in each category otherwise things will "stick out"

Felt an urging need to continue on the sensible thoughts you present here, and answer any question that may have appeared to the best of my ability. Rants are always welcome, they help to widen one's perspective of things. In terms of how the factions are represented in the menu, it's actually surprisingly similar now to what you suggest above. I'm attaching a screenshot from a much older build where it shows what the UI looks like with all faction groups there. In terms of the naming conventions, I'm personally not strongly biased for any particular name for Rome & Carthage. Republics sounds short, accurate and on point. I'm leaving up to the other members of the team to decide on any change, as I'm quite indifferent here.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More importantly regarding the economy and their extremely large numbers... personally I don't think just having large numbers thrown at you makes you feel like you are running an empire.
Excuse my ignorance but I am sure you guys have probably poured hundreds of hours over how the economy, upkeep, resources and cities should function.
One of the things I think is completely missing in TW games are cashflow negative cities.
Thats why the Western Roman Empire needed its African holdings or Eastern Roman Empire's help not only for food but riches as well. If the player decides to make a certain city Military oriented it should drain food and much more money. Industrial cities drain a lot of food and so on. Meanwhile there are some settlements that just have no capability of being industrial or a great market place due to lack of nearby resources or trade routes.
In total war we have never had tough decisions like "Do I really need this region? it sucks!" or "I can't afford the secondary costs of these buildings... my current region can't support the food cost I need Egypt or North Africa to feed my industrial cities. All new territories are positive cashflow ranging from wealthy to really wealthy, there is just no downside besides some negligible public order penalties. No tough decisions needed for a certain treaty or territory.
The base Attila game had some nice mechanics like local food shortage/sanitation to cause public order penalties. Its a great idea, historically Rome at its later periods could not feed itself so most of the food was imported from far away... Now I don't think rome was perpetually unstable because they imported food rather than ate locally so this vanilla system has its limitations but if you guys can enhance this vanilla feature I think it can greatly help you guys achieve the "tough economic decisions" required for running an empire.


Personally I feel these types of decisions and hard economic choices are what makes you feel like truly running an empire. Situations where the player says to themselves "Jesus Christ I need Egypt for its food or I am screwed" rather than "where do I feel like conquering next?"
If you guys can manage some sort of diplomacy options for one faction to send "food" like through trade that would be truly amazing. This allows the players more interested in diplomacy and client state/satrapy creation a chance to stay in the game rather than conquer everything to stay alive.

This is a sentiment I strongly share with you. To me, the numbers in the treasury could matter less. Each faction had its own currency, and I can only speculate on the exchange rates. To balance an entire economical system for one faction (e.g. Rome), with Roman currency as reference, would throw off the 'realism' aspect when playing any other faction. Having incomes and expenditures in the millions perhaps does reinforce the illusion that one is managing a large historical empire, but the clear downside is that these figures are more difficult to process. It adds nothing in terms of strategical impact. If I may be cynical, I would call it a pretentious form of realism. I think you raise a very important point here about how a well thought-out economical balance can actually bring about the crossroads empires would find themselves at, the type of strategical gameplay choices that we all crave. That to me is realism that adds tremendous gameplay value.

I remember the older titles, Rome and Medieval 2, sometimes having cities that cost more money than they provided. It really activated you to think about how you could bring them up to par with positive-income settlements - and consider how far you would go to defend them. Can we model the same thing in Attila? The truth is, I don't know. But I think so. Every building has upkeep in the mod. Some buildings produce more than they cost, and others cost more than they produce (e.g. military buildings, certain farms, roads etc). I like the idea of providing people with the choice between producing money or producing other things of military or infrastructural worth. There is an additional mechanic at play in the mod, Urbanisation. Each individual region has a development level in terms of its roads, recruitment capacity, industrial capacity etc. This is to some degree overlapping with the concept of a population mechanic (which I will stress is not part of AE and will not be on May 18th). Combining these two, there is definitely potential for more strategical options and crossroads. Building up a military base in a rural region may be essentially worthless, because the recruitment capacity is very low there, and transporting the troops to other regions takes longer. Conversely, building up farms in an urban province like Italia does little good since there isn't enough farmland to make full use of the building. Things like that.

I like the examples you provide and will keep them in mind. Right now, a large section of the buildings are being revised to improve the visual cues to the player about what they provide, better effects and to iron out any bugs that may still be there. Would love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject, Toho.

/Sheridan

[Toho]

Haha Thanks Sheridan.
Well... you asked... I deliver.

I have not played the mod yet so I can't really judge yet but based on some lets play's I get a general idea.
Please note all of the statements below are my own opinion.

First off for any good intuitive game you guys need good UI and honestly your buildings all kind of have non-descriptive design which only leaves most new players (like me) confused initially what they do and mean.
It might be a nice idea to add background colors like blue, red, brown, purple, yellow and etc...
So not only I have an idea what the purple is (Red: War) but the additional icons in the corner like flag, swords, anvil, resource picture that indicate how special this location is.
Furthermore you could make unique buildings similar to Warhammer 2 (the pink building chains) for unique bonuses, tougher battles (garrisons) and etc... it really adds individuality to each region and faction.

Secondly, while its really awesome you guys are thinking of re-designing icons so its more intuitive please be sure that each building and its chain serve a very specific and undeniable purpose.
I really, really hate games but mostly mods that shower you with huge building options but once studied closer the buildings just give you a few % bonuses here or there... who cares?
Warhammer TW I think really did its job nicely, each building does, their purpose and I really feel its impact when I construct it by getting something tangible out of it.
I will give some example later on what I mean but its important to keep this point in mind when progressing further.

Thirdly with buildings purposes sorted via UI re-design lets talk about the whole upside and downside of a real economy.
Personally I don't think you guy need a population system like Rome 2 has.
You can easily have the same effects with unit recruitment limits and building chain requirements which will inherently make the province infrastructure more important.

My idea, inspired somewhat from your urbanization is to make your city center/walls your main building chain.
So the player has to decide do they want Romanized military settlement or maybe local culture auxiliary type of settlement.
Narrow these choices for industry, local resources, important trade route, unique settlements and etc...
There is a lot of potential here for example more romanized style settlement unlocks signature buildings for military/cultural/economic/etc options depending on what type of romanized settlement type you picked.
But allowing the local culture type of settlement gives you access to a more stable settlement depending on the local culture, auxiliary forces for military as well as bonuses for some cultural/economic buildings.

Then when one of these types of settlements is constructed you reap their tremendous benefits that could range from unlocking more maximum recruitable units (for example legions limited to only 10 units but with more military/industrial buildings you can make recruit more than 10).
For example you can make Military capital city unlock certain units and even add 1 army slot meanwhile industrial buildings (like metal working ones) unlock more maximum advanced units.
Meanwhile you make certain buildings available only if the main settlement building chain is military/cultural/trade and etc...
So each settlement has distinct purposes.
Meanwhile these buildings have certain costs in food and maintenance. Now maintenance fees limit the player in not making too many of them and food determining if your empire has enough local infrastructure and supply chain management to handle it.
For example make the Military Province Capital City that gives you 1 extra army slot cost 100 food. This should force the player to strategize what to build and where to go if you guys are taking full advantage of the fertility system

Now regarding useless settlements or negative chashflows, the whole purpose is to give the player the idea to assign importance to certain settlements.
For example.
The main city building chain for minor settlements has 2 default economy or military buildings which both give you a very small income in taxes.
And these default building chains unlock only a few building chains for military or economy and even then they are limited to how much they can be upgraded.
The upside to these cities is that they don't have huge economic costs to you.
The main city building chain for province capitals and other more advanced building chains for minor settlements have huge costs but unlock way better buildings.

These effects will ensure some settlements are important to your empire while others not so much.
Resources and major historical trade routes will also really give importance to certain settlements in your empire.
For example the Persian settlements are in more Arid regions... but does that mean they have to suffer compared to the Gauls who live in fertile france? Absolutely not.
The persians have the silk road and access to the Persian gulf they should not have any problems with food and be unable to afford great industrial cities.

I think I can ramble on more but I think you get the point.
Control the "population" with the main building chains for each city.
Give players default low cost low reward settlements if they can't afford it.
That makes their powerhouse settlements that much more important.
The fertility system forces the player to make more strategic decisions on where to go or whom to trade with.
Building requirements for certain City types, fertility and resources makes these conquest decisions even more important.
Give huge effects to these buildings like unlocking armies or maximum recruitable units for certain units which adds realism and importance to some "veteran" legions compared to other hastily assembled ones.
(Vanilla had a bad system where Noble Swordsmen can be spammed like there was wallmart handing out noblemen to be trained as elite units.)
Regardless with the color scheme and huge effects (and costs) associated with these buildings should make for a very wonderful and challenging campaign game.

AND OF COURSE AS WITH ALL COMPLEX MODS... Let the AI cheat... Otherwise I will be fighting levy spearmen for the next 200 year campaign!

[Palaiogos]

Can you play as other houses of Rome? It would be interesting playing as the Gens Cornelia.