The battle balancing seems better, or is it just me?

[Toodlepipski]

Just installed ATW, started a campaign as ERE, very first siege battle was a drawn out affair as opposed to the 10 seconds flat skirmishes I have become used to in Vanilla TW games.

As a veteran player of DEI in Rome 2 I am spoiled by the epic, drawn out battles that take place, so I am surprised, and very pleased that my first experience of ATW battles has been positive. The battlefields are gorgeous, the game runs smooth (I do have a high end machine though) and the atmosphere created by the look and sound of the game, particularly the music is impressive.

Just how good could this game once the brilliant Modsters out there get to grips with it?

[craziii]

the game is great so far, easily a 9/10.

[geyserik]

I would agree the CAI & BAI are better than rome 2 and I like rome 2 so yeah the potential for Attila is great!!

[Kirra]

I like the early Rome 2 Era ,but yes Attila is by far the superior game...i only hope tools will be released so we can change the look of Attila (eg.city names,units etc.) whilst keeping all the features that are in Attila at present.

[AnonMilwaukean]

Attila is far, far better with morale.

In R2 battles, morale was dealt with rather poorly: the lowest tier of units often had unbelievably bad morale (Eastern Spearmen in particular), and then every single other tier of units would often fight until the last 20-30 men. In R2, units that routed were not worth rallying since no unit routed until it was almost broken anyways.

In Attila battles, units rout more easily if they are tired, or take a sudden influx of casualties, or are too far from the general. Units don't just go down to 20-30 men and then rout and instantly break.

The only wonky part of Attila is the fatigue... morale is very good, now, but fatigue is just silly. The time to recover from 'exhausted' seems like nothing at all compared to all other TW games I remember. But to go back and end on a positive, they made ranged units a counter to pikes, so the balanced problems of release-day R2 are finally fixed: elephants can go berserk from ranged units, and pikes that are in pike-formation now are weak enough to ranged units that you actually have to screen them with your own ranged units.

So, long story short, I really agree: Attila got battles almost entirely right, though it would have been more of an achievement if R2 hadn't been such a trial-and-error process to get to Attila...

[Zwirbaum]

Attila is far, far better with morale.

In R2 battles, morale was dealt with rather poorly: the lowest tier of units often had unbelievably bad morale (Eastern Spearmen in particular), and then every single other tier of units would often fight until the last 20-30 men. In R2, units that routed were not worth rallying since no unit routed until it was almost broken anyways.

In Attila battles, units rout more easily if they are tired, or take a sudden influx of casualties, or are too far from the general. Units don't just go down to 20-30 men and then rout and instantly break.

The only wonky part of Attila is the fatigue... morale is very good, now, but fatigue is just silly. The time to recover from 'exhausted' seems like nothing at all compared to all other TW games I remember. But to go back and end on a positive, they made ranged units a counter to pikes, so the balanced problems of release-day R2 are finally fixed: elephants can go berserk from ranged units, and pikes that are in pike-formation now are weak enough to ranged units that you actually have to screen them with your own ranged units.

So, long story short, I really agree: Attila got battles almost entirely right, though it would have been more of an achievement if R2 hadn't been such a trial-and-error process to get to Attila...

While they recover from exhausted much faster, they also become fatigued faster.