Total War Center's Atilla Wishlist

[helmersen]

Exactly! Great list of things to add which would greatly improve the franchise since Rome 2.

[Lionheart11]

How about a everything that Atilla is that Rome 2 inst thread?.

[Cope]

I like your list and pretty much agree with all of your points. Nice post. I'm just going to try shed some light on some of the ones I know some stuff about. Just a quick note, pretty much everything I've written is based on insuation from what I saw in the pre-Alpha footage.

• Guard mode button.Probably won't happen. Warscape is bad and I didn't see any guard mode in the demo gameplay.
• City view. I think I heard someone say this was going to be incorporated. The addition of "civilians" to siege battles seems to indicate that city viewer will be returning.
• Faction into videos. Think these are making a return as well.
• Buildable walls. The Aurelian Walls, Hadrian's Wall, and Theodosian Walls are famous. I did hear someone say in the end of an interview that building walls for minor settlements is returning. Can't speculate on Hadrian's wall and the like. Would be a great idea but seems like too much to ask for a TW game.
• Loose formation for all units. It appears as though this will be a feature. All the units I saw in the demo appeared to have a loose formation option. That being said, I think all Roman units have it in v.Rome II anyway so..
• Ability to destroy constructed buildings during battles. I'm pretty confident that this is happening assuming you are talking about sieges. They made a big point about building damage carrying over from battles to the campaign map.
• Historical event messages and historical natural disasters. I can't say about the historical event messages, but again it this sort of thing seems like the path CA want to take with this game. It appears that we are getting Attila as a mid to late game challenge so I wouldn't be surprised to see a video for his arrival as well as an historical event message. In addition the "climate change" feature they are adding as well as the new focus on diseases makes it probable that natural disasters will be much more prominent than they have been previously.
• Disease. See above.
• Tunneling under city walls. From what I've seen and heard this will happen "covertly". What I mean by this is that since the new "siege escalation" mechanic will cause wall segments to collapse, I have heard some of the devs say that we are too imagine that such collapses are caused by attacks against the walls during the besieging phase. Sappers was a word I heard used more than once. I actually don't like this personally because it seems unrealistic for an army with no siege weapons to be able to magically knock down walls just because they are camped outside them for x number of turns, but there you go. Basically just imagine you have sappers.
• Removal of ridiculous fantasy siege weapons like the gigantic tortoise. I'm not sure that the gigantic tortoise is complete fantasy.
• Cities reduced to non goofy sizes on the campaign map. There is no megalopolis that big even today. From what I saw this isn't going to change. All provincial capitals are still the size of Lake Victoria. Unrealistic, causes lag and promotes endless settlement battles...but CA thinks it looks pretty.
• More realistic looking banners. They said they are going for a "darker" game. From the demo it looked as if they had toned down colour saturations for unit clothes and banners.
• Removal of torches attack in siege battles. I really, really want this, but the new emphasis on "dynamic fire" has probably been introduced solely to give torches a contextual place within the game. I'm really not holding my breath for their removal, but I would love it if they were gone.
• A non minimalistic UI that displays all the information I need in one place. This isn't a smartphone or tablet it's a desktop PC game. The UI looked greatly improved with more relevant information displayed better. It couldn't possible be worse than v. Rome II anyway.
• A trait system that develops naturally instead of the player just choosing their traits. The trait system looks like it has been altered somewhat. The introduction of an actual in-game skill tree improves character upgrades loads as well.
• Settlements outside of cities that can be raided like in the previous three games. From the alpha I did not see any buildings that existed outside of settlements. This is sad, since it was a much better way of building overall. I hate now that you can't build ports wherever you like assuming the region has a coastline. Now you have to hope that your city is sort of attached to the sea which looks idiotic and is completely unrealistic. Places like Athens, Antioch, Colchester etc were not built into the sea as is depicted in Rome II. Moreoever, it is completely idiotic that places like sparta can't build a port at all. Stupid mechanic to pander to their obbsession with the excessivley over-played combined land and naval siege battles. I wish they'd just revert to type on this one.

[Huberto]

30 or better 40 unit stacks standard in SP

[andrew881thebest]

I am so bored to watch same animations when zooming in. Graphics is cool, but watching same animations again And again makes everything more mechanical and lowers immersion. Maybe they should make less "moving duels" and more animations suited to steady melee combat in formation. That would solve so many problems, from lone duels inside enemy ranks to models going one inside the other.
And even other small things are very ugly, like those guys in the back ranks moving up and down their swords to give, what, a moral boost to front ranks? Animations of guys bashing Shields with swords are ok but do something cool, like Romans bashing Shields all at once, as a disciplined drill, while barbarians do some crazy and scary stuff... not everyone, civilized or not, doing the same things.

Peculiar tactics and formations, like a real Fulcum, first of all.

Adding civilians to the siehed towns, with people running from pillaged housed and barbarians pursuing them.

Then, new animations.

New realistic abilities and tactics to make battles for interesting. Like archers being able to shoot directly or at arch, throwing in air.
Infantry being able to throw plumbata and forming Fulcum.

[Hoplite of Ilis]

I expected ALL that when I heard Rome 2 was coming out... Formation fighting... They couldn't do it.

[Cesco]

As i wrote in another thread, the ability, for some unit, to disengage from melee without suffering too much casualities (maybe with a special formation?), in order to get a deeper gameplay on the battlefield!

[Riekopo]

Edit:

• Units fighting to the death when surrounded.
• Ability to zoom in closer during battles.
• Removal of the unit fading system from battles.
• Removal of the formation attack button. I really don't understand this button. Units should always fight in their specific formations.
• Message boxes that drop down the side of the screen and have unique sounds when opened on the campaign map.

[Causeless]

• Removal of the formation attack button. I really don't understand this button. Units should always fight in their specific formations.

I think the point of formation attack being a toggle was so spears could interact in cavalry fights in either a defensive or offensive formation. See:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Compare this (formation attack on):


To this (formation attack off):

In the latter, the soldiers are obviously a lot more effective at killing them, while in the former they're in a safer position and they'll lose less men while fighting them, it'd just take a lot longer.

Honestly, I'd rather just have them reintroduce guard mode and combine it with formation attack. Guard mode on, means formation attack is on, units hold ground defensively and fights in formation. Guard mode off, means formation attack off, and units fight offensively without such a rigid formation. IMO this would be the best solution as it brings back a much loved function, and subtly hides the confusing formation attack button into something that makes more sense.

Guard mode button.Probably won't happen. Warscape is bad and I didn't see any guard mode in the demo gameplay.

Shogun 2, on Warscape, had guard mode.

• Removal of ridiculous fantasy siege weapons like the gigantic tortoise. I'm not sure that the gigantic tortoise is complete fantasy.

Yup. The tortoise is actually a verified Roman weapon that was actually used:

Josephus

It is an immense beam, similar to a ship’s mast, with one end covered with iron shaped into a ram’s head; hence its name. It is suspended from another beam like a balance arm by cables around its middle, and this in turn is supported at both ends by posts fixed in the ground. It is drawn back by a huge number of men who then push it forward in unison with all their might so that it hits the wall with its iron head. There is no tower strong enough nor any wall thick enough to withstand repeated blows of this kind, and many cannot resist the first shock.

Just another case of people assuming things are realistic or unrealistic just because they dislike the idea... just like flaming javelins, which were an actual Iberian anti-infantry weapon.

• Removal of torches attack in siege battles. I really, really want this, but the new emphasis on "dynamic fire" has probably been introduced solely to give torches a contextual place within the game. I'm really not holding my breath for their removal, but I would love it if they were gone.

I'm fine with torches staying, as long as they don't burn down iron gates

• A trait system that develops naturally instead of the player just choosing their traits. The trait system looks like it has been altered somewhat. The introduction of an actual in-game skill tree improves character upgrades loads as well.

Rome 2 already has traits which develop naturally. Here's the run down of the system:

You have skills, (represented by upgradeable skill cards in Rome 2 and a skill tree in Attila) which are player-chooseable upgrades.

Then you have traits, which are semi-randomly chosen. These reflect what has happened in the characters life - for example, in Rome 2, after leaving a general in a city for a long while he developed a "dislikes foreigners" trait because of it. An event message actually told me keeping him locked up in there caused that. There's also things like likes/dislike certain cultures, depending on where they spend most of their time. This system was present in Rome 1, Rome 2, and Attila too judging by the above picture.

Then you've also got the household (or retainers). These are secondary characters which gives your general a buff of some sort. This was in Rome 1, too. You can swap these around to choose the best one (even in Rome 1, a mostly unknown feature) , and as far as I'm aware they just randomly appear. I think the only difference between Rome 1 and Rome 2 is that in Rome 1 you can't choose the retainers from a pool, only swap between generals, and also in Rome 2 you are limited to 3 households slots.

[Huberto]

Besides 30-40 unit stacks for land armies, I'd like naval combat to be slowed down and overhauled so we can rake oars and so that ramming would go the way of torches (much reduced incredibly poorly implemented feature of the game).

Honestly, I'd rather just have them reintroduce guard mode and combine it with formation attack. Guard mode on, means formation attack is on, units hold ground defensively and fights in formation. Guard mode off, means formation attack off, and units fight offensively without such a rigid formation. IMO this would be the best solution as it brings back a much loved function, and subtly hides the confusing formation attack button into something that makes more sense.

Except that many units of this era stayed in close formation when fighting offensively, no?

[Edit] Just had to respond to something else. Your flaming javelins remark is -- just wow. So someone somewhere found an example of a javelin set on fire used in battle in ancient times. And how exactly does this knowledge translate to every javelin unit having a flaming ability in every battle? Was lighting javelins on fire for use in battle a common practice in the ancient world depicted? -- of course not! You must know that, and yet you bring it up in a way that confers legitimacy of historical accuracy onto flaming javelins when it clearly is nothing more than fantasy video game BS. Feels like you are trolling us with that one.

.

[Causeless]

Besides 30-40 unit stacks for land armies, I'd like naval combat to be slowed down and overhauled so we can rake oars and so that ramming would go the way of torches (much reduced incredibly poorly implemented feature of the game).

Except that many units of this era stayed in close formation when fighting offensively, no?

[Edit] Just had to respond to something else. Your flaming javelins remark is -- just wow. So someone somewhere found an example of a javelin set on fire used in battle in ancient times. And how exactly does this knowledge translate to every javelin unit having a flaming ability in every battle? Was lighting javelins on fire for use in battle a common practice in the ancient world depicted? -- of course not! You must know that, and yet you bring it up in a way that confers legitimacy of historical accuracy onto flaming javelins when it clearly is nothing more than fantasy video game BS. Feels like you are trolling us with that one.

.

Except that many units of this era stayed in close formation when fighting offensively, no?

I suppose so... Although I'm less knowledgeable about this time period than classical antiquity (which I'm still no scholar ) There could be a separate guard mode and formation attack button, maybe?

[Edit] Just had to respond to something else. Your flaming javelins remark is -- just wow. So someone somewhere found an example of a javelin set on fire used in battle in ancient times. And how exactly does this knowledge translate to every javelin unit having a flaming ability in every battle? Was lighting javelins on fire for use in battle a common practice in the ancient world depicted? -- of course not! You must know that, and yet you bring it up in a way that confers legitimacy of historical accuracy onto flaming javelins when it clearly is nothing more than fantasy video game BS. Feels like you are trolling us with that one.

Firstly, CA tends to work off the idea that if something happened at least once, it's plausible that it happened more. Yes, I doubt that most javelin-men had the capability to make theirs incendiary, but it's not like the base concept of a fire javelin is unrealistic in itself.

Secondly, this isn't "an example of a javelin set on fire" (which implies it was some freak event that happened once) or "fantasy game BS". It's evidence that it was a weapon used regularly by at least a certain culture, or at least regularly enough to warrant it a specific name:

Livy, History of Rome

IX. The Saguntines had a missile weapon called Falarica, with a shaft of fir, round, except towards the end, to which the iron was fastened: this part, which was square, as in a javelin, they bound about with tow and daubed with pitch; it had an iron head three feet long, so that it could pierce both armour and body together: but what rendered it most formidable, was, that being discharged with the middle part on fire, and the motion itself increasing greatly the violence of the flame, though it struck in the shield without penetrating to the body, it compelled the soldier to throw away his arms, and left him, without defence, against succeeding blows.

That's not saying "one time, somebody set a javelin on fire". It's admitting detailed information about it's construction, saying it has a specific name, and tells us why it was used.

Now, is it realistic that most units get it? Probably not. But the actual concept of fire javelins isn't unrealistic.

[Huberto]

Livy, History of Rome

The implementation of what Livy reported in TWR2 is fantasy bs. Are we OK now?

[redxavier]

Not that this will make one iota of a difference, and I've been through enough of these cycles to learn not to ask for things like 'better diplomacy', but...

Guard mode/Hold ground - allow me to control of how my units (all of them) behave in battle again and most importantly, give it to missiles units, let me stop my goddamn archers from becoming suicidal.

Fixed pathfinding for units in settlements - I don't care if you have to make streets unrealistically wide or have the buldings just be cosmetic and clippable but it's long been a problem in the series and Rome 2 has some of the worst behaviour yet.

Separate tax levels - allow me to set taxes for settlements independently, or at the very least for provinces separately if that inane system must persist. Please, no more global tax level.

Independent armies - Rome 2 has a bollocks system to put it mildly. Way too many unintended restrictions all to create an artificial limitation which can be controlled by existing systems (economy, food) or legacy systems (population, specific unit recruitment restrictions).

More traits - remove restriction on traits beyond 3.

I genuinely won't be interested in Attila if it doesn't feature the above. A lot of the other poor design decisions could perhaps be modded but these are all hardcoded areas at the moment. It doesn't really matter how much prettier the campaign map looks, at this point I'd gladly take a parchment map Shogun 1 style map if it meant playing a compelling game again.

[jackwei]

Has horde mode been announced and is returning from Barbarian Invasions??

Wouldn't mind is the game had some content that included you as the ERE after Rome's Fall from the 6th Century until the Muslim Capitulate invasions of the near east as that could be the next great challenge after Attila the Hun.

[JERUSALEM]

I have posted it in the wrong place, now i will repeat it here:

All faction playable, forts to construct and to upgrade, more natural borders not to allow enemies to pass through them, more mobile and fast cavalry,
more historical reality while looking through the faction members and their political system, even for the non-playable faction (hope they want be anymore but anyway).
Better diplomacy, international marriages, strong alliances,less capability to destroy the factions, at least those factions that have fortified cities (they have to keep their independence somehow
for a long time)



And HISTORICAL ACCURACY


.

[zackstefy]

I would like a "Hero mode" ( mount&blade style, like a warrior, where we can control the general directly and fight as him. I would love to play as Attila and pierce the romans with arrows)

[Mary The Quene]

City view

[ChairmanCrassus]

The ability to change capitol city.

[Causeless]

The ability to change capitol city.

This, oh this, a million times over. It wouldn't feel right if I couldn't take Rome and make it my capital, as the eastern Roman empire.

[Hresvelgr]

This, oh this, a million times over. It wouldn't feel right if I couldn't take Rome and make it my capital, as the eastern Roman empire.

Or fix up Rome and make it the capital of the Western Roman Empire, as Ravenna was the capital of the west at this time.