The Evolution of Britannia from Rome: Total War to Total War: Attila in pictures!

[helmersen]

So I'm just making this thread because I thought it would be cool to see how the graphics and art styles have changed in the course of about 10 years!

So! Without further adoooooo, here are some screenshots for you!

Rome: Total War:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Medieval 2: Total War:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Empire: Total War:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Napoleon: Total War:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Total War: Rome II:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Total War: Attila (official screenshot):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And that's it, folks! Which is your favourite and why?

[Prof]

I think, it looks the most detailed in Napoleon.

[Sheridan]

Napoleon or Empire due to the detail and accessible design (the fact that most areas on the isles can be accessed by armies).

[Kraut and Tea]

Cant make a judgement over Attila yet, since I havent tried it.

Empire is in my opinion the worst.

And so far most tw games have done a bad job representing the british isles. To few provinces and to few towns and settlements.

All of which force wars in the British isles to be short campains mostly only containing one single siege battle. When I fight to conquere britain, I want that war to last more than 3 turns.

By far the best Britain map so far was the map used in the Britain campain in medieval kingdoms.

[Abdülmecid I]

All of which force wars in the British isles to be short campains mostly only containing one single siege battle. When I fight to conquere britain, I want that war to last more than 3 turns.

Come on, man, even my username suggests I am an Ireland fanboy, but the British Isles always had too many regions, when compared with the other provinces of the map. Take R1, for example, the British Isles (without counting Scotland, which was cut out), the most backwater province of the Roman Empire, had four cities, while Egypt and Mesopotamia, the two wealthiest regions of the Hellenistic era, had only three and two cities respectively.

[Doe3000]

Aesthetically I think the Empire and Napoleon ones look best. Attila and Rome II seem to have the most settlements in Britain outside of the Medieval II: Kingdoms Britannia campaign.

[Nelfe]

I prefer Attila's Britain, it seems more "detailled".

[Humble Warrior]

I preferred the paper map of Shogun and the paper map (briefly appeared) in Shogun 2.

I like maps that looks like what a General might may have had in reality. I certainly don`t like this modern fetish with GPS style `holo` maps. If any of the games were set in 2020, maybe.

I hope one day, a period game dev will be brave enough to make period-era maps of the time depicted.

[Cadian Guardsman]

I preferred the paper map of Shogun and the paper map (briefly appeared) in Shogun 2.

I like maps that looks like what a General might may have had in reality. I certainly don`t like this modern fetish with GPS style `holo` maps. If any of the games were set in 2020, maybe.

I hope one day, a period game dev will be brave enough to make period-era maps of the time depicted.

It would be nice if you could actually do stuff on the "paper map" themed overview even if it was a bit limited. I can't say I'd prefer paper in Vanilla Total War (because it's not a simulator game), but if some indie dev made a Simulator style Total War paper would suit it. Alas it seems even Paradox Interactive is moving away from paper maps on to 3D GUI's so I think that it's a thing of the past.


(You've always got Medieval I)

[Kirila the Kitten]

It would be nice if you could actually do stuff on the "paper map" themed overview even if it was a bit limited. I can't say I'd prefer paper in Vanilla Total War (because it's not a simulator game), but if some indie dev made a Simulator style Total War paper would suit it. Alas it seems even Paradox Interactive is moving away from paper maps on to 3D GUI's so I think that it's a thing of the past.


(You've always got Medieval I)

Too bad Medieval 1 doesn't work on most of today's PCs. I really wish they would remake it in HD. Also something more than sprites in battle would be nice.

[Sherm]

majestic and limited (yes both)

you know what i'm saying.

[Emperor Domitianus]

Rome 2 and Attila are pratically the same even if the Attila one is darker. I prefer the last one R2/Attila since it's the more realistic and most detailed.

[helmersen]

I feel like Rome 2's and Attila are vastly different! Rome 2's is enormous with deep woods and towering mountains in Wales, while Attilas is more detailed but smaller in scale. I wish they would make the Attila one but with Rome 2's scale.

[Insert Username Here]

I feel like Rome 2's and Attila are vastly different! Rome 2's is enormous with deep woods and towering mountains in Wales, while Attilas is more detailed but smaller in scale. I wish they would make the Attila one but with Rome 2's scale.

Ya the attila one seems a bit smaller but that could just be that they've increased how far you can zoom out on the campaign map like they seem to have done in battles.

[damien007]

I feel like Rome 2's and Attila are vastly different! Rome 2's is enormous with deep woods and towering mountains in Wales, while Attilas is more detailed but smaller in scale. I wish they would make the Attila one but with Rome 2's scale.

You can zoom out further on the campaign.

[Insert Username Here]

You can zoom out further on the campaign.

Nice that'll be handy to keep an eye out for any armies or agents trying to sneak through my territory.

[Totalheadache]

Yes it does look better but cant see the wow factor...if anything its about what we should expect. Actually I dont have a problem with how CA portray the campaign map..thats something they do fine!

I thought by the op this was something analysing uk...maybe i need to see it again..

wait we got bigger?

cmon lets concentrate on other regions...we're a backward sort of place

[craziii]

hate to say it but rome 2 or attilla is easily #1 n 2. attilla color scheme is more realistic.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Attila's looks pretty nice, but I didn't like Rome II's map. Not really just for the British isles, but the whole thing.

My main issue is that it went backwards to the Pre-warscape map system of everything being in the main settlement. So boring!

In Empire, I would invade from three points. Dragoons would split off and scout the area, take a minor settlement, say Oxford, and set up a forward HQ there. Quick light cavalry would hurry to disable the port towns, making sure my ships could get in, and their ships could not. My main army would battle their field forces, and lay siege to London.

But in Rome II, it's just:

Gather one big army. Siege one settlement. Take it. The end.

Now, you could technically do that in Empire as well, but that's boring. I wish they had expanded on that system, rather than gotten rid of it. Like, all the minor settlements can be garrisoned and upgraded with minor fortifications, and each one provides a certain amount of garrison troops to the main settlement depending on what type it was. You could march an army in, burn their farms and occupy their forts, and starve out the province slowly, without ever even besieging the main city.

These were the sorts of things I was imagining when they implemented the province system, but that just turned out to be a slightly different version of what M2TW had. Was rather disappointed, myself.

[PointOfViewGun]

This one's better:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So much accuracy!!!

Hard to pick though. They're all great for their time.