Creative Assembly Business Practice Discussion Thread (Attila)

[Causeless]

The difference with FOTS was that EVERYTHING that was updated in it was also passed onto the base game. It's why I initially bought FOTS, to thank CA. This never happened with Nappy and Empire which is why I refused to buy Nap.

What about BI/Alexander? Improvements for those games weren't passed down.

[Humble Warrior]

What about BI/Alexander? Improvements for those games weren't passed down.

I actually can't remember, I do remember that improvements from the original Viking Invasion expansion were passed on to MTW.

[Ecthelion]

Does it bother anyone else that Attila, a relatively minor figure in this period is being used as the bogeyman for this expansion?

Yes, I’m aware the man has popular appeal, and is one of the few, if not only, men whom most laymen can name from this period, but still, this is a Total War game, I would like to believe we’re a little less pop-history than some chav off the street.

The overwhelming foreign threat to Rome of this period is Germanic, not Hunnic.

By the time Attila came to the fore, riding through Gaul in his orgy of death and destruction, Gaul was already lost to the Romans. The Goths under Theodoric I were keen to defeat Attila not because they were allied with Rome (they really weren’t) but because the lands that Attila was tearing through were already Goth.

The Eastern Roman Empire had their brief run-ins with the Huns as well, but the Theodosian Walls, and their mortal enemies, the Goths, effectively contained their ravages to the lands immediately south of the Danube. The court at Byzantium had to pay a hefty tribute, but that was about it.

The Huns were mainly a threat to Goths, not the Romans.
The "scourge of God" title only came as a result of Attila's brief campaign in Northern Italy where he bumped into the Pope.

[wulfgar610]

Well no, the Gaul Attila tore through was Roman and Frankish. Although his avowed aim was to attack the Visigoths, or so Jordanes claimed.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Attila was in no way a 'minor figure', he commanded a vast empire and army and did serious damage. Plus, marketing a game to have mass appeal is not a crime. 'Total War: Stilicho', 'Total War: Aetius' or 'Total War: Alaric' would simply sell less well. Lastly, your phrase 'some chav off the street': not to mention the unpleasantness of your snobbery, chav is an offensive term, please edit your post.

[Hresvelgr]

Because "Total War: Goth" is right out for sending the wrong impression and making people more inclined to laughter, "Total War: Vandals" is no better and sounds more like a news story and still doesn't give context, and for all your historical hindsight hipsterism Attila was in fact a major figure and especially feared by the Romans during the time he reigned.

[Theo]

Yes, the total war series is mostly pop-history. Always has been. The total war series focuses on historical setting rather than actual history. I think people will find much less disappointment with these games if they recognize this before making any purchases. Ideally any portrayal of history should strive for accuracy and detail. But video game designers will never offer that in any satisfactory way.

[VladimirTW]

You shouldn't think of this as an Attila campaign, its just Barbarian Invasion 2, they just don't want to call it that. The word Attila is just another way of saying savage killer, same as saying, Hun, Genghis, Subotai, Mongol, Viking, etc, they convey an idea. The name is more about giving the tone than making Attila the driving figure.
We are not even playing AS the Hun, instead will be defeating them.

[Ecthelion]

They didn't have to give it a name. I realize that "Total War: Galla Placidia" would hardly sell.

So why not just "Barbarian Invasion 2"
And I don't think Total War: Gothic Invasion, would be all that bad. Yeah yeah, "goth" teeheehee, but I would like to think that most of us are more mature than that.

Even for the game itself the title is extremely misleading. Attila doesn't do his thing till almost 40 years after the start of the game.

[Xerrop]

Well I second the OP.

The name 'Total War: Attila' is really a bad choice. When making a remake why not naming it as such (BI 2). Another option would be 'Fall of Rome' or something like that, as this is the real theme of the game.

All other individual persons (Alaric, Galla Placidia) or peoples (Goths) would still be the same bad choice as Attila. The game is about a whole era that had to do with many different states, dynasties and generals. Plus it was not a matter of one or two decades, it lasting over a century. No ruler had such a key role as e.g. Napoleon. Here his name as a TW-title was justified, as he defined a whole era.

[Carl Jung was right]

I don't care if they named it "Total War: Edward Gibbon" for all that matters, the title should the LEAST of worries about the upcoming game.

Honestly we've gotten so used to CA dissatisfying us in some way that it's natural some of the complaining can get a little overboard. But complaining over the name? For god's sakes people have some decency. The name makes no more sense than "Rome". For that matter why call it Rome anyway? In the grand picture of things, the Greeks and Phoenicians played a much bigger role colonizing, warring and developing the Mediterranean world for a much longer period of time than the Romans. I would argue even that they also left behind a much more significant cultural and historical legacy in the region than the Romans. Even in the early Principate they held key posts in government, finance and education. Most people don't know, or care. What matters to everyone is that Rome won at the end. It was the most successful player.

The same reasoning applies to other TW games. Kingdoms? Why kingdoms, when there were empires, caliphates, sultanates and republics with much more power and historical importance? Shogun? Why Shogun and not "Daimyo" when the Ashikaga were a fairly meager power in Sengoku Era Japan and played no significant role in the campaign anyway? Fall of the Samurai? Why "fall"? There are still samurai in Japan, last time I heard, the gentry houses still exist and often wield considerable power in society.

Now we have a time scale of 100 years, from 400-500 AD, focusing on Western Europe. If you look at all the participants in historic events during this age, who was the most successful? Whose name stands out the most? Was it Alaric who shifted sides, lost battles and managed to snatch Rome at a time of internal turmoil? Was it Genseric, who played hopscotch with one African town after another? Was it Aetius who desperately tried to clutch in his hands the final scraps of imperial prestige and power?

No, it was Attila.Sure he wasn't the best general, or really the most important or powerful figure in Europe, or even a statesman of any renown. He is simply known as a brutal and insane tribal leader who assisted in the migration of his horse bound people to the fertile lands of Eastern Europe, violently displacing the region's previous inhabitants. That's it. But he did a damn good job at it, and no other warlord won as many battles, looted as many cities or occupied as much land. He left behind a historical legacy, and yes, sadly when mentioning the 400's most people will recall Attila even in the present day. So if we go by the standard of previous titles betting on the era/region's most memorable or notorious figures, the name is perfectly logical.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

What about BI/Alexander? Improvements for those games weren't passed down.

the answer is sadly no it didn't, most mods chooses to built BI/Alexander.
But I am really not the right guy to ask there.

[Ecthelion]

No, it was Attila.Sure he wasn't the best general, or really the most important or powerful figure in Europe, or even a statesman of any renown. He is simply known as a brutal and insane tribal leader who assisted in the migration of his horse bound people to the fertile lands of Eastern Europe, violently displacing the region's previous inhabitants. That's it. But he did a damn good job at it, and no other warlord won as many battles, looted as many cities or occupied as much land. He left behind a historical legacy, and yes, sadly when mentioning the 400's most people will recall Attila even in the present day. So if we go by the standard of previous titles betting on the era/region's most memorable or notorious figures, the name is perfectly logical.

I think you need to do your homework on Attila. He did none of the things you mentioned.

Attila came at the tail end of Hunnic influence in the region. He was effectively the last (arguably only) Hunnic leader of note. The Huns were decisively defeated by the Goths at Nedao and Bassianae shortly after Attila's death (and what an awesome way to go it was).

By the time Attila was born, the Huns had already long completed their migration and settled in the lands north of the Danube.

The Huns never settled within the borders of the Empire, and left no permanent mark on the Empire. They came, burned, and went.

[Abdülmecid I]

By the time Attila came to the fore, riding through Gaul in his orgy of death and destruction, Gaul was already lost to the Romans. The Goths under Theodoric I were keen to defeat Attila not because they were allied with Rome (they really weren’t) but because the lands that Attila was tearing through were already Goth.

Tha works the opposite way, too. If the Romans didn't control any part of Gaul, why did they send their largest army to defend Gaul? The situation was a bit more complicated than that, with autonomous warlords, with warlords being clients of the Romans (or the Romans being clients of them) and so on...

So why not just "Barbarian Invasion 2"

My guess is that Attila is better for marketing purposes. The BI2 is too long.

That's it. But he did a damn good job at it, and no other warlord won as many battles, looted as many cities or occupied as much land.

Don't you overestimate him? I mean he inherited an empire and his two most famous campaigns failed.

[Roboute Guilliman]

I would prefer attila to be an add-on, instead of a new game. I don't understand why it is even a stand alone game? Its basically a reskinned rome 2 with better campaign mechanics.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

I would prefer attila to be an add-on, instead of a new game. I don't understand why it is even a stand alone game? Its basically a reskinned rome 2 with better campaign mechanics.

Well I hope they are going to do it like Fots style. That would be awesome and reduce my worries a bit. :S

[The Roman Republic]

As is Fall of the Samurai with Shogun 2. Yet the games share the same menu.

And?

That's doesn't oppose the point I'm making,
which is Attila has no relation to Rome 2 in terms of you don't need to own Rome 2 in order to play Attila.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Does it bother anyone else that Attila, a relatively minor figure in this period is being used as the bogeyman for this expansion?

Yes, I’m aware the man has popular appeal, and is one of the few, if not only, men whom most laymen can name from this period, but still, this is a Total War game, I would like to believe we’re a little less pop-history than some chav off the street.

The overwhelming foreign threat to Rome of this period is Germanic, not Hunnic.

By the time Attila came to the fore, riding through Gaul in his orgy of death and destruction, Gaul was already lost to the Romans. The Goths under Theodoric I were keen to defeat Attila not because they were allied with Rome (they really weren’t) but because the lands that Attila was tearing through were already Goth.

The Eastern Roman Empire had their brief run-ins with the Huns as well, but the Theodosian Walls, and their mortal enemies, the Goths, effectively contained their ravages to the lands immediately south of the Danube. The court at Byzantium had to pay a hefty tribute, but that was about it.

The Huns were mainly a threat to Goths, not the Romans.
The "scourge of God" title only came as a result of Attila's brief campaign in Northern Italy where he bumped into the Pope.

Gaul was certainly not lost to the Romans. Spain and Africa? Sure, although Aetius would re-take much of Spain (again) shortly after Chalons.

The Huns also destroyed 3 Eastern Roman field armies (about the equivalent of three battles of Adrianople) and decimated the Danubian Limes so badly that the border wouldn't be secure again until Basil II.

Well no, the Gaul Attila tore through was Roman and Frankish. Although his avowed aim was to attack the Visigoths, or so Jordanes claimed.

His aim was to put Childeric on the throne of the Franks and loot the hell out of north Gaul, to which he did not succeed per se, thanks to Aetius who supported Merovech and met Attila at Chalons. But Attila was leaving at Chalons because his effective campaigning season was more or less over, likely because he had run out of supplies and forage.

I think you need to do your homework on Attila. He did none of the things you mentioned.

Attila came at the tail end of Hunnic influence in the region. He was effectively the last (arguably only) Hunnic leader of note. The Huns were decisively defeated by the Goths at Nedao and Bassianae shortly after Attila's death (and what an awesome way to go it was).

By the time Attila was born, the Huns had already long completed their migration and settled in the lands north of the Danube.

The Huns never settled within the borders of the Empire, and left no permanent mark on the Empire. They came, burned, and went.

The Gepids overthrew the Huns at Neado. The Goths of Valamir the same year, but in a different engagement. Bassianae came later; the Huns had a large number of different Goths under their control.

The Huns did leave a myriad of permanent marks. Dr. Kim could explain it to you better, but the Huns introduced several medieval court practices and early medieval dress, introduced characteristic art like Cloisonne, and helped with the beginning of Lance-and-Bow warfare in the Roman military, just for a few examples.

[Damocles]

Does it bother anyone else that Attila, a relatively minor figure in this period is being used as the bogeyman for this expansion?

Yes, I’m aware the man has popular appeal, and is one of the few, if not only, men whom most laymen can name from this period, but still, this is a Total War game, I would like to believe we’re a little less pop-history than some chav off the street.

The overwhelming foreign threat to Rome of this period is Germanic, not Hunnic.

By the time Attila came to the fore, riding through Gaul in his orgy of death and destruction, Gaul was already lost to the Romans. The Goths under Theodoric I were keen to defeat Attila not because they were allied with Rome (they really weren’t) but because the lands that Attila was tearing through were already Goth.

The Eastern Roman Empire had their brief run-ins with the Huns as well, but the Theodosian Walls, and their mortal enemies, the Goths, effectively contained their ravages to the lands immediately south of the Danube. The court at Byzantium had to pay a hefty tribute, but that was about it.

The Huns were mainly a threat to Goths, not the Romans.
The "scourge of God" title only came as a result of Attila's brief campaign in Northern Italy where he bumped into the Pope.

There's nothing more infuriating than dealing with marketing people about history, and what they consider 'obscure' or 'relevant'. So obviously, most people on this forum will agree with you, and just as obviously, we're not CA's main audience. CA's main audience is 13 year old Joey's mom, and what she might recognize to buy for her borderline sociopathic ADHD son.

[Causeless]

I would prefer attila to be an add-on, instead of a new game. I don't understand why it is even a stand alone game? Its basically a reskinned rome 2 with better campaign mechanics.

Medieval 2 is basically a reskinned Rome, by those standards...