No settlement/province modding... Please add Achaia Province CA

**Durand** · January 31, 2015, 04:27 PM

I was really hoping that mods could fix the unfortunate design decision not to include the Province of Achaia; but alas, it is not to be. Overall I am very happy with the map, but for some reason this is really souring my excitement for Attila.

My request is this:

Add Gortyn, Larissa, and Athens. The province of Achaia will have the capital of Corinth, plus Athens and Gortyn. The province of Macedonia would have its capital as Thessaloniki, with Larissa and Dyrrachium as minor settlements.

As you can see from the distance samples, it these do not appear to crowd the map more than some other regions. Compare the following:

Note that Dacia is much more densely populated (not historically accurate).

This would be a nice step in evening the imbalance of power currently between the WRE and ERE as well as much better represent the prominence of Greece at this time. Furthermore, it would provide more ports in the Western Aegean and the Southern Peloponnese, which is sadly lacking right now.

**Lionheart11** · January 31, 2015, 04:36 PM

Agreed and signed.

**Durand** · January 31, 2015, 05:07 PM

@CA How many man hours would copy-pasting some settlements, adding some pathing, tweaking provinces, etc take? This is important enough to my enjoyment of this game that I would raise the money for this to happen.

**Humble Warrior** · January 31, 2015, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Durand

@CA How many man hours would copy-pasting some settlements, adding some pathing, tweaking provinces, etc take? This is important enough to my enjoyment of this game that I would raise the money for this to happen.

I can tell you one thing: You won`t see it happen in two weeks, which about when the game gets released.

**Durand** · January 31, 2015, 06:28 PM

Clearly.

**stevehoos** · January 31, 2015, 06:41 PM

If CA won't remove torches (perhaps they can't?) I'd be shocked if they listened to any pleading from their most loyal fans.

**Durand** · January 31, 2015, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by stevehoos

If CA won't remove torches (perhaps they can't?) I'd be shocked if they listened to any pleading from their most loyal fans.

The difference here is that a new province doesn't require a fundamental change in how the ai is written to deal with seiges, though I do sympathize with that particular issue.

**stevehoos** · January 31, 2015, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Durand

The difference here is that a new province doesn't require a fundamental change in how the ai is written to deal with seiges, though I do sympathize with that particular issue.

Very true, but given that Attila has that new auto wall destruction mode I was hoping they could do away with one ahistorical element. Oh well.

**swoosh so** · February 04, 2015, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by stevehoos

If CA won't remove torches (perhaps they can't?) I'd be shocked if they listened to any pleading from their most loyal fans.

That's BS, most of the features in Attila have been stuff the community wanted, I barely see torches anymore in rome 2 its become a flagship comment for whining against CA and quite tiresome.

**Earende** · January 31, 2015, 07:51 PM

Sure, it'll be added in Attila: Total War - Devastation Edition.

**MathiasOfAthens** · February 01, 2015, 02:36 AM

Originally Posted by Earende

Sure, it'll be added in Attila: Total War - Devastation Edition.

Haha good point. They made Sicily a capital, answering our demands, in Rome II Imperial Edition. But not in the regular edition in which we asked for it.

**MagicCuboid** · January 31, 2015, 09:31 PM

Unfortunately they're probably not even working much on this part of Attila anymore, Durand. I've never known CA to change the campaign map of an existing game, ever... Achaea is a really sad loss, though. Flabbergasted Corinth isn't a major settlement.

**Durand** · February 01, 2015, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by MagicCuboid

Unfortunately they're probably not even working much on this part of Attila anymore, Durand. I've never known CA to change the campaign map of an existing game, ever... Achaea is a really sad loss, though. Flabbergasted Corinth isn't a major settlement.

Though this has not been done in the past, it can't be more time consuming than changing unit models, which has been done on multiple occasions. Hopefully they will consider it.

**MagicCuboid** · February 02, 2015, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Durand

Though this has not been done in the past, it can't be more time consuming than changing unit models, which has been done on multiple occasions. Hopefully they will consider it.

Oh, no it's way way more complicated than that. They need to edit AI logic, animate the cities to grow in certain directions, edit ESF to assign ownership, garrison, etc. I'm not saying this is overly difficult, but it does require work from multiple employees, and if their work isn't already in the flow schedule ain't going to be. Large companies aren't nimble enough to turn that around. Just ask my GF who spends ~20% of her paid worktime in meetings.

Put more simply: CA employees are not free agents. They are told what to do by directors, who are guided by publishers. Unless we're talking very small indie startups, the "hub of creativity" image of developing company really is a myth.

**AnthoniusII** · February 03, 2015, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by MagicCuboid

Put more simply: CA employees are not free agents. They are told what to do by directors, who are guided by publishers. Unless we're talking very small indie startups, the "hub of creativity" image of developing company really is a myth.

That is an interesting theory! If that's true then there is a conspiracy against East Roman Empire inorder to rise West Roman Empire in to players eyes as the ONLY real Roman Empire that existed and every western european has a Roman heritage from that state! I wonder if some day a CA member will give us an explanation on this! Juck Lusted and JoeyCA posted some posts in TWC yesterday without clear answers though in other crusial matters. Lets wait and see IF they will bother to answer that too!

**Darios** · February 03, 2015, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Stavroforos

In some ways, their portrayal of Greece fits into Roman administrative divisions of 395. Macedonia was the Prefecture which included all of Greece, and its capital was Thessalonike, so making a Macedonia province in the game with the capital as Thessalonike is not inaccurate. This does of course go back to that extremely irritating Rome II feature which made only the provincial capital a major city, but since that is what it is, their choice for Greece's portrayal isn't really problematic. I wouldn't object to there being more cities in Macedonia, but can't really fault them otherwise.

Voila (+Rep)

Originally Posted by AnthoniusII

That is an interesting theory! If that's true then there is a conspiracy against East Roman Empire inorder to rise West Roman Empire in to players eyes as the ONLY real Roman Empire that existed and every western european has a Roman heritage from that state! I wonder if some day a CA member will give us an explanation on this! Juck Lusted and JoeyCA posted some posts in TWC yesterday without clear answers though in other crusial matters. Lets wait and see IF they will bother to answer that too!

Now, I have had issues before over how CA depicts Eastern Europe in games, mainly their thing with throwing Celts and Germans all over the place (while ignoring Illyrians, Daco-Thracians, Balts, etc) but this is just silly. I have no problem with Greece in the campaign map, but I do have an issue with how CA depicts the ERE as "Byzantines" rather than late period Romans. As one of my friends joked, the "Byzantines" have a medieval double headed eagle, kataphraktoi, and horse archers while the WRE will still probably have "equites". I'm not saying that I agree with your theory, but westerners do often have a hard time acknowledging the ERE as the continuation of the Roman Empire and instead portray it as a more "exotic", "eastern", and "byzantine" empire.

**AnthoniusII** · February 01, 2015, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Durand

I was really hoping that mods could fix the unfortunate design decision not to include the Province of Achaia; but alas, it is not to be. Overall I am very happy with the map, but for some reason this is really souring my excitement for Attila.

My request is this:

Add Gortyn, Larissa, and Athens. The province of Achaia will have the capital of Corinth, plus Athens and Gortyn. The province of Macedonia would have its capital as Thessaloniki, with Larissa and Dyrrachium as minor settlements.

As you can see from the distance samples, it these do not appear to crowd the map more than some other regions. Compare the following:

Note that Dacia is much more densely populated (not historically accurate).

This would be a nice step in evening the imbalance of power currently between the WRE and ERE as well as much better represent the prominence of Greece at this time. Furthermore, it would provide more ports in the Western Aegean and the Southern Peloponnese, which is sadly lacking right now.

My friend its a well diocumented request...But "modders" and "defenders" of CA will tell you that westrn europeans do not ask for accuracy but they want to play in west europe that they live in today!
How do i make this conclusion? By the increase of seetlements in Spain!! Who gives a damn about Greece (then Eastern Roman Empire)???
In CA developers eyes that faction should not even exist in the game (those heretic barbarians that though they were Romans)..How do i make this conclusion?
But with CA's desision to make the huge mistake of existance of Orthodox and Catholic dogmas instead of one basic Christian Dogma that realy existed!
Attila is a highly focused game on the west europe ignoring the rest of the world...Steppes, ERE, africa ,asia exist ONLY because west europe focused game needs a background and a country yard for players of west europe that dream to conquer the entire world and elliminate all other religions and dogmas!

**Nandor** · February 01, 2015, 03:05 AM

I think the idea behind giving the WRE more regions is that with all the Germanic tribes, WRE will lose a lot of land fairly quickly in the campaign. If the WRE had less regions, they'd probably be finished off pretty quickly (and miss any interaction with the Huns).

**MathiasOfAthens** · February 01, 2015, 03:39 AM

Even if you play with a minor barbarian tribe like the Jutes as soon as you conquer a region your empire will be larger than anything ever created in history. The regions are too large. No room for buffer zones. Small regions to take first before taking the rest of the region.

**Abdülmecid I** · February 01, 2015, 05:22 AM

I'm not a fan of Attila's region distribution either, but Gortyna, Corinth, Athenes, Larissa and Thessalonice is definitely an exagerration. Better add those extra provinces in Egypt or Mesopotamia. Also, with the awkward settlement growth, I'm pretty sure Gortyna would be half-sunk and Larissa's outskirts would be found in Parthenon.