Never Ending Huns

[The_Bulgar_Slayer]

Has anyone else ran into a never ending stream of Hunnic armies (or any other faction for that matter)?

I don't have very much time to play so I'm only in 405 AD of my original ERE legendary campaign, but I am getting spammed by Hunnic armies! I destroyed the Sassanids and all their clients by 403 AD, securing the East, while holding on for dear life in Thrace. By the end of 405 AD (40 turns I think), I've destroyed 10 non-Hunnic armies in Thrace (2 Visigoths, 1 Alan, 1 Bastarnian, 1 Iazyges, 3 Alamans, & 2 Quadi), but the real crazy part is that I have fought no fewer than 19 Hunnic armies (of which I've destroyed 18)!!! I understand the AI gets all sorts of bonuses on Legendary; I'm fine with that. But 19 Hun armies (most were full stacks, all had at least 17 units) in only 40 turns!?! That's crazy! And even after all this, the Huns are still number 2 in the faction rank behind me! This doesn't affect my enjoyment of the campaign much. I just thought it was crazy...

Has anyone else seen something like this?

[Slaists]

Huns do have a ton of stacks in my VH campaign (around 420 AD). But 19... no, I have not seen that.

I believe, the AI gets extra army allowance for each imperium level on legendary.

Also, they get extra 2 (or 3) recruitment slots. Combined with income and upkeep bonuses that allows the AI to spam troops quickly.

[Aeratus]

The Huns are endless until Attila dies. Attila doesn't even show up until 420, so you have 60 turns to go before you can even start killing off the Huns. Until Attila is dead, there is no point in playing offensively against the Huns because their stacks will just respawn. One Attila shows up, you have to keep killing him until you get an event message saying that his next defeat will be his last.

[Lugotorix]

Make sure you fight him personally when he shows up on the map, every time. Don't bother with assassins. I killed him 7 times and he still didn't die until 445. You'll need to do it way before 445 on legendary.

[iloveyourz]

like the mongols in mwtw even if you wipe the army the ai spawns more stacks


if you play the huns that a different matter i cant even get a 4th horde rolling x.x

[craziii]

like the mongols in mwtw even if you wipe the army the ai spawns more stacks


if you play the huns that a different matter i cant even get a 4th horde rolling x.x

nope, mongols had 12 stacks max, that is it. you could even camp their spawn point if you wanted to. the biggest killer was they all spawn within reinforcing range of each other. fighting them while they are = 100% suicide. it was also epic. I tried it once. I brought 12 stacks my self and only managed to kill off 7 stacks before I lost all my 12 stacks. every single mongol soldiers got bows

[Aeratus]

The Mongols in M2TW were finite, actually. There were only 3 waves of 4 stacks. So if you kill all 3 waves, then they are done for real.

On the other hand, the Huns in TW Attila are infinite. There's no point in killing their stacks since they respawn. In fact, it's probably better to leave their stacks in a weakened state (which generally causes them to fill the missing ranks with crappy mercs) so that they don't respawn with a full lineup of elite troops.

[Heartfire]

On one hand, it would suck it the player went after the Huns and killed them off before Attila was even able to become leader.

On the other hand, they are a massive nuisance, and it seems unfair that if the player is able to defeat the Huns, the faction simply respawns.

There has to be some middle ground, here. If the Huns traveled in larger groups, most factions, even with the player in control, would be unable to defend against 3+ stack armies. That'd be a much more simple coding change. Really, only the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanids should even be able to defend against them.

Ultimately, it will be extremely hard to make the Huns controllable enough to not ruin games, but also fair enough to not seem pointless to fight against. CA or modders will have to eventually find a balance there.

[Damocles]

Has anyone else ran into a never ending stream of Hunnic armies (or any other faction for that matter)?

I don't have very much time to play so I'm only in 405 AD of my original ERE legendary campaign, but I am getting spammed by Hunnic armies! I destroyed the Sassanids and all their clients by 403 AD, securing the East, while holding on for dear life in Thrace. By the end of 405 AD (40 turns I think), I've destroyed 10 non-Hunnic armies in Thrace (2 Visigoths, 1 Alan, 1 Bastarnian, 1 Iazyges, 3 Alamans, & 2 Quadi), but the real crazy part is that I have fought no fewer than 19 Hunnic armies (of which I've destroyed 18)!!! I understand the AI gets all sorts of bonuses on Legendary; I'm fine with that. But 19 Hun armies (most were full stacks, all had at least 17 units) in only 40 turns!?! That's crazy! And even after all this, the Huns are still number 2 in the faction rank behind me! This doesn't affect my enjoyment of the campaign much. I just thought it was crazy...

Has anyone else seen something like this?

Hah. Perfect epitome of a TW game. Destroying the Sassanids by 405 AD. This and other reasons, are why I should stop giving money to CA, and more money to Paradox. At least Crusader Kings, when modded, can play out semi-realistically.

[JustCrabbe]

Hah. Perfect epitome of a TW game. Destroying the Sassanids by 405 AD. This and other reasons, are why I should stop giving money to CA, and more money to Paradox. At least Crusader Kings, when modded, can play out semi-realistically.

Surely you jest?

They would charge you words if they could. They don't even create new content anymore, they just copy mods or former games.

[Bramborough]

I have to admit, the Hun-spam is getting tiresome. It didn't bother me much on the first campaign, because everything was still new and I was just trying to see how the game worked. Now, however, it's become wearying. Even when playing a cautious, conservative style, they come along and screw everything up. Hard to take on a neighboring faction for expansion's sake, while also defending against the Huns at the same time, since you have to leave armies dispersed throughout your territory, defending almost every town. And as others have pointed out, there's really no viable proactive strategy to deal with it...Attila is essentially immortal for a big chunk of the campaign.

I know that's the way it's supposed to be, and is meant to reflect (however superficially) the situation of those times. And the first time through, I appreciated all that. I liked the challenge. But now I'm wondering just how much replayability there is here. I completed 11 R2 campaigns through to one of the 3 victory conditions. Right now I'm having a hard time envisioning 11+ Hun Invasions to do the same in Attila.

For me, an acceptable "middle ground" would be to shorten the duration of the Hun onslaught. My understanding is that the great Hun burn-everthing-to-the-ground invasion was really confined to about a 10-15 year period, from the time Attila became undisputed king (438 or 439, I think) until his death (453). To my mind, the game's Hun-spam should run during that time period, but before then, they should behave pretty much as any other AI horde faction. Attila can still be un-killable and the Huns un-destroyable until then...but how about toning it down to let the player have a good 40 years to acquire and develop territory before having to deal with these guys, rather than just 5-10, depending on faction start location?

[Lugotorix]

I have to admit, the Hun-spam is getting tiresome. It didn't bother me much on the first campaign, because everything was still new and I was just trying to see how the game worked. Now, however, it's become wearying. Even when playing a cautious, conservative style, they come along and screw everything up. Hard to take on a neighboring faction for expansion's sake, while also defending against the Huns at the same time, since you have to leave armies dispersed throughout your territory, defending almost every town. And as others have pointed out, there's really no viable proactive strategy to deal with it...Attila is essentially immortal for a big chunk of the campaign.

I know that's the way it's supposed to be, and is meant to reflect (however superficially) the situation of those times. And the first time through, I appreciated all that. I liked the challenge. But now I'm wondering just how much replayability there is here. I completed 11 R2 campaigns through to one of the 3 victory conditions. Right now I'm having a hard time envisioning 11+ Hun Invasions to do the same in Attila.

For me, an acceptable "middle ground" would be to shorten the duration of the Hun onslaught. My understanding is that the great Hun burn-everthing-to-the-ground invasion was really confined to about a 10-15 year period, from the time Attila became undisputed king (438 or 439, I think) until his death (453). To my mind, the game's Hun-spam should run during that time period, but before then, they should behave pretty much as any other AI horde faction. Attila can still be un-killable and the Huns un-destroyable until then...but how about toning it down to let the player have a good 40 years to acquire and develop territory before having to deal with these guys, rather than just 5-10, depending on faction start location?

Yeah, this is just the logical conclusion. Replay doesn't hold a candle to Rome II at the moment and there's just so much incredibly more going for Attila. I can see myself doing ERE, trying WRE, finishing Langobards, but I don't want it to feel like work by the time I get to the Franks. I anticipate a Justinian/Belisarius campaign, and then it will be a modded endeavor to limit the amount of razing for me.

[Heartfire]

For me, an acceptable "middle ground" would be to shorten the duration of the Hun onslaught. My understanding is that the great Hun burn-everthing-to-the-ground invasion was really confined to about a 10-15 year period, from the time Attila became undisputed king (438 or 439, I think) until his death (453). To my mind, the game's Hun-spam should run during that time period, but before then, they should behave pretty much as any other AI horde faction. Attila can still be un-killable and the Huns un-destroyable until then...but how about toning it down to let the player have a good 40 years to acquire and develop territory before having to deal with these guys, rather than just 5-10, depending on faction start location?

I agree with this (although I don't know if that interpretation of the Huns' action is correct or not). Tone down the stacks and the Huns until Attila becomes their leader. That cutscene where he is crowned would mean so much more if we knew it meant the Hunnic armies were coming in force, and we had to prepare.

[Maist]

So basicly if i kill atilla he'll just respawn again?

[The_Bulgar_Slayer]

Thanks for the info everyone. I actually didn't realize that the Huns literally cannot be destroyed until sometime after Attila is king. I had been thinking that if you were aggressive (and possibly lucky) enough, then you could destroy them anytime, just like every other faction.

[peoplescavalry]

The good thing about trying to kill Attilla numerous times is that he has a penchant for leading from the front so if you wait or are lucky you can kill his stack when it's not supported. When he does his walking dead impression he can turn up in any of the Hun stacks so look for the crown logo at the top of the stack appearing.

[TheSavage]

Seems like a good middle ground is just to give the Huns some sort of reserve, but one that is not endless. So they can respawn a few times, but not indefinitely.

Either that, or give a break of 3-5 years between respawns so they can lick their wounds.

[RexJayden]

I think having Attila show up with 10 to 15 stacks initially is fine. Just do not allow for endless income to maintain those stacks. They should "dissolve" as they lose units from war, attrition, disease, or famine. This would still make for an initial earth-shattering event that would shake up any campaign but not make their ever-spawning forces unrealistic or frustrating to players who would like a chance for victory against his forces. A beatable enemy is far better than an immortal one who re-spawns continually. Just my two-cents.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

Right... Found out their infinitive mechanic after an experience in a Hunnic Campaign. I encountered the Ostrogoths and saw that they outnumbered me in the beginning, so instead I quit that campaign, started one with the Goths and destroyed all three stacks of the Huns. At the end of that slaughter I saw that a new Hunnic horde had spawned in the far North.

In their current shape the Huns are more a nuisance than a appreciated challenge.

[Lugotorix]

Right... Found out their infinitive mechanic after an experience in a Hunnic Campaign. I encountered the Ostrogoths and saw that they outnumbered me in the beginning, so instead I quit that campaign, started one with the Goths and destroyed all three stacks of the Huns. At the end of that slaughter I saw that a new Hunnic horde had spawned in the far North.

In their current shape the Huns are more a nuisance than a appreciated challenge.

It's 11 stacks at all times on Hard O)o