Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

[Linke]

Attila Total War seems to have great gameplay, great immersion and is often very good looking. I'd say one of the best Tw3 engine games. Certainly better then Shogun and Rome II.

Yet still compared to these games it lacks something, accuracy. (not sure how accurate Shogun II is).
From Empire onwards Total War games have in vanilla had a greater emphasis on history than previous games. Culminating in Rome II where CA depicted more unique cultures than in any previous game (and fairly accurate most of the time).
The factions were almost all based on reality, of the playable factions only the Suebi and Iceni may not have existed at the start of the game.

And then we look at Attila, when it comes to factions it is of course better than Rome I but still not as accurate as the games mentioned above. The Ostrogoths for example certainly didn't exist in 395 yet they are playable, the Sassanid Empire is a lot of states instead of one (More understandable for the Seleucids as they had several independently ruling satraps), three minor Norse Peoples are regional powers in North-West Europe, a few of the steppe factions are innacurate I hear
and a few of the Roman succesor states are very implausible (nice concept I say but really Italia?). I think they represented the eras factions ok when it comes to whom they are.


However the real innaccuracy is in how factions are depicted, not what factions are depicted. I hear there are quite a lot of visual inaccuracies, some pieces of shields and helmets never being used and also a tiny variety in helmets.
The rosters are way weirder, making factions unique at the price of going beyond historical plausability. A few examples of anachronistic or non existing units are: Germanic Phalangites, All the "dessert units", middle age era east Roman
units (Tagmata, Menualatoi and I hear Varangians), generic Limitanei represented only as a low tier spear unit. And more..

Also many factions have no unique representation, for example the Brittons , the Nomads (as they are depicted, generic asian nomads), I hear that the Africans and Arabians share a roster of "desert units" but I'm not entirely sure.



As we see above a massive downfall since Rome II. A few possible reasons:
The low variety in unique cultures and models is almost certainly becuase of lack of time to work on Attila. Most likely they want as many as possible on the Warhammer game as soon as possible.

Some of the inacuracies are intentional to benefit gameplay: For example partly the differences betwen Germanic and Roman factions and the divided Sassanid empire. Since they want large rosters they have to look beyond realism.

A few of the inaccuracies are probably included to make the game appeal to more people, for example the Varangians are their partly becuase they are well known. And the Vikings becuase Vikings are "Cool" and you get many Scandinavian buyers (From my observetions many of my fellow Scandinavians dont care).


The question now remains, is it more or less accurate then lets say Barbarian invasion. Wich also had inaccurate rosters and factions.

[Scythion]

More accurate than Barbarian Invasion. Not as accurate as some fanatics want it to be. But atleast those rosters remind me of the culture they came from.

[PointOfViewGun]

This looks more like people are nitpicking Total War games more than they used to nitpick old games. Did Rome I had great accuracy with incredible amount of detail? Not really.

[Linke]

This looks more like people are nitpicking Total War games more than they used to nitpick old games. Did Rome I had great accuracy with incredible amount of detail? Not really.

No, thats even the point if the thread comparing it to the lack of accuracy in RtW I, I dont hate Attila.

[Achilles Lacedaemon]

This looks more like people are nitpicking Total War games more than they used to nitpick old games. Did Rome I had great accuracy with incredible amount of detail? Not really.

Modern technology, prices and gaming industry requires better and more developed games over time. But if you fail to presume that then I guess no explanation will ever help you.

[Monglor]

Modern technology, prices and gaming industry requires better and more developed games over time. But if you fail to presume that then I guess no explanation will ever help you.

In fairness to the Total War series, the prices haven't changed. I mean not counting sales. Pretty sure the first TW game back in 2000 cost the same as this one. I mean sure they have DLC, but it's always optional.

At the same time, most of those martial arts don't fair very well in combat sports. Technique is extremely important, no doubt, but when the difference in strength and size is such that you're basically a child fighting an adult in his prime, you're going to have some serious issues. When people state technique is more important than size, it seems like they're assuming the larger, stronger person has zero skill. This is the case in movies from the 80s starring Patrick Swayze, but both in the military and combat sports, this is rarely the case. If they have similar skill levels, the bigger guy is probably going to win unless he has terrible cardio and gasses out. Be it grappling, striking or whatever, a bigger guy's hits are going to do significantly more damage. Case in point, Brock Lesnar vs. Frank Mir. Frank Mir is a great fighter (arguably better than Lesnar), but Lesnar was such that it was like fighting the Juggernaut. After that loss, Mir retooled his game plan, got significantly stronger...and then lost again. Because Lesnar's technique improved, and he still retained his physical advantage. That happens a lot. At the same time, you'll have someone like Fedor have a joke fight like he did against Hong Man Choi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3QzX1ZadJM), and just completely destroy him. Why? Though Choi was certainly taller, he completely lacked skill, had always relied on his natural strength and reach advantage, and just wasn't a good fighter. Fedor, on the other hand, was a monster. He was powerful, he was very fast for his size, he was patient and he was masterful in his technique.

So yeah, technique is important in individual combat, but if your punches are glancing off some dude, or if you're trying to put him in an arm lock but can't close it because he's manhandling you, your technique isn't going to do much.

When I say martial arts, I probably should have said fighting styles. Talhoffer is one of the few remaining European manuals for combat from the 15th century, the stuff described in that makes a lot of use of deflection, balance, speed and so on. Brute force can't be used as much as you'd think on the battlefield, because people would tire too badly. Efficiency of action is more valuable than the sort of explosive power of a boxer or MMA fighter when you're fighting for several hours rather than a few minutes.

Because of the reliance on technique a trained fighter in armed melee combat will always beat an untrained one. The difference is as simple as understanding basic principles. This evens out as fighters get more highly trained of course, then skill, improvisation and so on become bigger factors, and of course when this happens the best will be the most physically fit. But the general point is that if you're an army commander in this sort of time period, if you can train women up to a reasonable standard, they'll do just about as well as men, up to the point where they run into soldiers with equal or better training.

I think the thing is that nobody is arguing that women make better soldiers in this time period. But would they be good enough to do a job in battle? I think for some units, sure. I think that's doubly true for units like spear levy types or militia where a big part of the strength and power of the unit comes from its numbers.

[priam11]

This.

Just wait a day for the final release, play the game, then pose the question.

[Ataegina]

here we go............ "New game, worst TW ever, i will never again buy TW game EVER, this game is the worst [insert reason]....." seems to be a tradition here for each bloody new game, 5% constructive criticism 95% nitpicking non sense flooding this forum for months....... YAY

[Linke]

here we go............ "New game, worst TW ever, i will never again buy TW game EVER, this game is the worst [insert reason]....." seems to be a tradition here for each bloody new game, 5% constructive criticism 95% nitpicking non sense flooding this forum for months....... YAY

Never in the op do I mention me disliking the game or the unhistoricity. I was hoping for neither any bashing of me nor the game but I'm not sure that discussion is possible. My own personal views I dont intend to mention at the moment

Any expert on Shogun IIs History know if that was more inaccurate?

[Ataegina]

Never in the op do I mention me disliking the game or the unhistoricity. I was hoping for neither any bashing of me nor the game but I'm not sure that discussion is possible. My own personal views I dont intend to mention at the moment

Any expert on Shogun IIs History know if that was more inaccurate?

if you re-read i didn't specified a target, but you're trying to be the self-proclaimed one. also i didn't meantioned "disliking" did i? No. about inhistoricity well for thread titled " Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?) " it self-answers the issue here. If my post that didn't targeted anyone in specific, seems to bother you in specific, well maybe something i said was not so wrong afterall.......... since i post clear states a trend and not "a specific user here", TW is NOT history simulator, its a GAME that uses historical elements along with creative elements for the sole purpose of provide entertainment. About being or not being the most historical, has been said countless times that this game seems to be the most immersive TW and historicaly quite "aceptable", but of course has some non sense...but like i said, its a game and not an educational tool....... But theres no denial that on past years we've seen this type of threads woth sole purpose of causing in-conflict among the community. besides Medieval 2 or even Rome 1 was the most unhistorical TW games ever......... do you see the point? Gosh how much i miss those Rome 1 "Iberian bull warriors " and those egyptians from ramses timeframe.......

[Lugotorix]

It's not that the Ostrogoths didn't exist at 395. They were just homogenous with the Visigoths. There are two different groups called Ostrogoths, in different times of history, that are from the same group (north and just south of the Danube)

[PointOfViewGun]

Then there is the issue arguing as if all the examples you come up with are accurate criticisms themselves. Units in Total War games are usually not meant to be fully accurate but feasible. If you wanted complete accuracy you'd get a lot more of the copy-paste you mention.

How can Ostrogoths, for example, not exist in 395 when they're mentioned in historical records from 388?

[Lugotorix]

Then there is the issue arguing as if all the examples you come up with are accurate criticisms themselves. Units in Total War games are usually not meant to be fully accurate but feasible. If you wanted complete accuracy you'd get a lot more of the copy-paste you mention.

How can Ostrogoths, for example, not exist in 395 when they're mentioned in historical records from 388?

Somewhat off topic, but I think it's relevant to your point : This bothers me somewhat. For example, people will insist that Atilla is a full-priced game, when it's not. Also, Setekh, it's a true example of a tribal confederation, that's why he's confused. They (different Goths) parted ways later and were called geographically as such.

[Lemonater47]

With all the migration going on in this time period it's quite hard to be historically accurate.

[Garbarsardar]

Considering that (vanilla) RTW had 3 Roman factions, Pharaonic Egyptians and Arcani battlefield assassins, "historicity" should not be anywhere near this forum. The only issue that relates to immersion (to a variable degree) is plausibility. For that, we need to wait.

[Anna_Gein]

Meh. Back to OP question.

I think Attila is indeed the least accurate. Not just by mistakes, misconception and plan lack of work but for the simple fact that CA decided to introduced bits from Late Antiquity up to the very end of Early Middle Age. This mix of 700 years of history introduced in a game set in a time frame of less than one century means it can only have poor historic accuracy.

[stevehoos]

Torch tech and towers that inexplicably fall are the most inaccurate elements of any Total war to date.

[Lemonater47]

Torch tech and towers that inexplicably fall are the most inaccurate elements of any Total war to date.

Well with towers not really. As in every other total war game towers just get changed teams magically. Which is completely unrealistic. Like priests converting units and buildings in age of empires lol. Stone towers self destructing is rather strange but wooden towers not so much. The men would try and destroy the tower from the bottom. Which is better than your units singing Wololo and the tower magically converting to your side.

[stevehoos]

. Stone towers self destructing is rather strange

Ya think....

[Lemonater47]

Ya think....

I'm saying towers converting is equally strange.