Something that just struck me about Attila:TW

[WelshDragon]

So I've tried several campaigns and last night is struck me (albeit a little late) the reason why this game feels so different than any other in the series... it way be old news to some of you but it may explain why some people don't like it.

In order to match the age (fall of WRE/beginning of the Dark Ages), this game is extremely non-linear. By that, I mean that it reflect the age of kingdoms, and the death of empires... so it's really not meant to play in a linear fashion of conquering territory, blitzing enemies, building an empire. Rather, as was the case historically, it's an opportunity to carve out a modest kingdom and survive. If you blitz this game, you can still build an empire, but I have found that playing as a smaller kingdom, using the chapter objectives as a guide, provides a much more challenging and fun campaign, and lets the unpredictability of this TW game shine. For example, I started a campaign last night as the Geats, tood Scandinavia, and stopped there, using my armies to raid Roman territories and build a trading allaince with my neighbors and other barbarian kingdoms. The Jutes migrated to England with the Saxons (very cool as this is historical) and they own both Brittania provinces, while the Franks carved out a nice kingdom in Gaul. I've made cash trading and raiding, but have resisted the urge to expand outside my homeland, and it's been challenging and very fun!

I also played a very defensive campaign as the WRE and it was also a different kind of fun, trying to hold together a crumbling empire against an onslaught from pretty much every other tribe in the game who wants my land. It was tedious and challenging, again reflecting reality.

Anyway, thanks for the rant and the stating the obvious, but it just really struck me last night that for THIS game, for ME, this is the most fun strategy to employ... and the non-linear gameplay and variable makes every campaign completely different


Thought? Criticisms?

[Baldwin of Jerusalem]

Yes, I think I have to agree with you. In actual fact, this was the type of experience I was hoping for even way back when I first bought Shogun 1 but have not until now received. Paradox of course do the whole, evolving, dynamic campaign map experience rather better than CA but their games are pointlessly overcomplicated (in my opinion to the point of being impenetrable) and of course there are no 3D battles.

This release does finally allow you to have some degree of "rule", even with a small kingdom, so that there is more to concern yourself with than rolling across the map like some sort of contagious disease until you've painted it all in your colour. There is as usual bags of room for improvement but its all heading the right way.

[stevehoos]

Yes, I think I have to agree with you. In actual fact, this was the type of experience I was hoping for even way back when I first bought Shogun 1 but have not until now received. Paradox of course do the whole, evolving, dynamic campaign map experience rather better than CA but their games are pointlessly overcomplicated (in my opinion to the point of being impenetrable) and of course there are no 3D battles.

This release does finally allow you to have some degree of "rule", even with a small kingdom, so that there is more to concern yourself with than rolling across the map like some sort of contagious disease until you've painted it all in your colour. There is as usual bags of room for improvement but its all heading the right way.

"pointlessly overcomplicated"


No no and no. That's called strategy and depth. Some people like that instead of button clicking competitions. All this means is you have never taken the time to understand the game.

[Baldwin of Jerusalem]

"pointlessly overcomplicated"


No no and no. That's called strategy and depth. Some people like that instead of button clicking competitions. All this means is you have never taken the time to understand the game.

No, it doesn't mean that I haven't taken the time to understand the game and that is a fairly large assumption to make about someone you don't know.
Are the rules to chess complicated? No. Does chess have strategic depth? yes.

[wulfgar610]

An interesting point. Attila has more complexity than Rome2 and this makes the nerds happy. Indeed I struggled a bit at the start unsure of what to do. But for CA this limits the broader appeal to the cash paying consumer, who generally aren't going to have the patience to learn the ropes.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I don't think so. Crusader Kings 2 is very successful, and consistently remains a best seller on Steam basically every time it goes on sale. IT's far more complex than anything Total War ever does.

Total War isn't complex, it's complicated. It's obtuse. The systems are relatively simple, it's just that much of the information is hidden or unclear.

Attila: I have a family member who's loyalty is consistently low. Why? Where do I view the conditions affecting his loyalty? Is he just randomly angry with me? Does he dislike me, or is he just ambitious?

CKII: I have a family member who's loyalty is consistently low. Why? Oh, because he's a different religion. Or I am ugly and he hates that. Or I castrated his wife. (If you hate hard enough, anything is possible.)

CKII is far more complex, but it's also far easier to understand the systems in play, because they give you all the information you need.

In Attila, do trade ports affect the wealth of the entire province, or just the trade that passes through them? When is it best to focus on commercial, industrial, or agricultural economies? If I build Britain full of trade buildings, but all of my actual trade routes are passing straight into Italy, do I still make trade income from Britain? When I raid a sea province, do I raid every faction that owns a port there? Or just the ports/trade routes I am close to?


Paradox games aren't overly complicated. They are complex, with many different systems interacting and different ways to do things and lots of things you must pay attention to, but they give you much more information than Total War games do. Total War games are simple, but overly complicated due to poor communication of game play mechanics.

Complexity is a good thing. Complications are not. Total War needs to move towards more complexity in it's features, like trade and logistics, but less complications in it's UI, and better communication. They are getting better, though, like with Attila's improved diplomatic interactions. There's not been a lot of talk about it on these forums, but I absolutely love that the personality of AI leaders now has effects on your diplomatic relations, and their faction goals and interactions. But they've still got more they can improve.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

I don't think so. Crusader Kings 2 is very successful, and consistently remains a best seller on Steam basically every time it goes on sale. IT's far more complex than anything Total War ever does.

Total War isn't complex, it's complicated. It's obtuse. The systems are relatively simple, it's just that much of the information is hidden or unclear.

Attila: I have a family member who's loyalty is consistently low. Why? Where do I view the conditions affecting his loyalty? Is he just randomly angry with me? Does he dislike me, or is he just ambitious?

CKII: I have a family member who's loyalty is consistently low. Why? Oh, because he's a different religion. Or I am ugly and he hates that. Or I castrated his wife. (If you hate hard enough, anything is possible.)

CKII is far more complex, but it's also far easier to understand the systems in play, because they give you all the information you need.

In Attila, do trade ports affect the wealth of the entire province, or just the trade that passes through them? When is it best to focus on commercial, industrial, or agricultural economies? If I build Britain full of trade buildings, but all of my actual trade routes are passing straight into Italy, do I still make trade income from Britain? When I raid a sea province, do I raid every faction that owns a port there? Or just the ports/trade routes I am close to?


Paradox games aren't overly complicated. They are complex, with many different systems interacting and different ways to do things and lots of things you must pay attention to, but they give you much more information than Total War games do. Total War games are simple, but overly complicated due to poor communication of game play mechanics.

Complexity is a good thing. Complications are not. Total War needs to move towards more complexity in it's features, like trade and logistics, but less complications in it's UI, and better communication. They are getting better, though, like with Attila's improved diplomatic interactions. There's not been a lot of talk about it on these forums, but I absolutely love that the personality of AI leaders now has effects on your diplomatic relations, and their faction goals and interactions. But they've still got more they can improve.

You can tell why a character has low loyalty if you mouse over the white ring on their portrait in the family tree window! It works like public order pretty much it lists bonuses and negatives.

I agree with the rest of your post though, personally I'd like a much more detailed game but alas I like my 3d battles so...

[LestaT]

So I've tried several campaigns and last night is struck me (albeit a little late) the reason why this game feels so different than any other in the series... it way be old news to some of you but it may explain why some people don't like it.

In order to match the age (fall of WRE/beginning of the Dark Ages), this game is extremely non-linear. By that, I mean that it reflect the age of kingdoms, and the death of empires... so it's really not meant to play in a linear fashion of conquering territory, blitzing enemies, building an empire. Rather, as was the case historically, it's an opportunity to carve out a modest kingdom and survive. If you blitz this game, you can still build an empire, but I have found that playing as a smaller kingdom, using the chapter objectives as a guide, provides a much more challenging and fun campaign, and lets the unpredictability of this TW game shine. For example, I started a campaign last night as the Geats, tood Scandinavia, and stopped there, using my armies to raid Roman territories and build a trading allaince with my neighbors and other barbarian kingdoms. The Jutes migrated to England with the Saxons (very cool as this is historical) and they own both Brittania provinces, while the Franks carved out a nice kingdom in Gaul. I've made cash trading and raiding, but have resisted the urge to expand outside my homeland, and it's been challenging and very fun!

I also played a very defensive campaign as the WRE and it was also a different kind of fun, trying to hold together a crumbling empire against an onslaught from pretty much every other tribe in the game who wants my land. It was tedious and challenging, again reflecting reality.

Anyway, thanks for the rant and the stating the obvious, but it just really struck me last night that for THIS game, for ME, this is the most fun strategy to employ... and the non-linear gameplay and variable makes every campaign completely different


Thought? Criticisms?

I am playing as the Jutes using the campaign guides. It's fun for me that way. Painting the map your own faction colors is so old already.

[WelshDragon]

CK2 certainly has more depth on the intrigue and politics side... one thing I like about it that I WISHED TW had was more provinces/settlements/strongholds. This would make taking territory (and defending it) much more difficult and more immersive. A "province" should be much smaller, and there should be at least 4X the nuber of them on the map. Capturing 3 cities should not give the player a whole region... lol.

But my point was that if you're not a "blitz the map" player (which I am not), Attila is a step in the right direction IMHO. If the map had more/smaller provinces, it would be a huge step in the positive!

[gusington]

Thanks for posting OP. This thread nails what I have been trying to express about Attila, what makes it surprisingly different from other preceding TW games. It's taken me a while to wrap my brain around the new dynamics.

[Bramborough]

I agree with OP. I've completed 3 campaigns, and each time the Minor Victory felt like a satisfying accomplishment, and an appropriately-scaled "win" for the time period.

[Darios]

You know, Attila is going to make so much more sense once they release all of the DLCs and the intended factions have been released/balanced. Rome 2's campaigns were a chaotic mess for the longest time (*cringes at the thought of the Galatians conquering the entire steppe*) until they released the last faction DLC (Black Sea Colonies) and somehow, the game magically balanced itself. When I play nowadays, the Seleucids fight the Ptolemaioi over the East, the Romans expand in the West and besides the whole Athens/Sparta killing Macedon thing, the campaign plays very well.

Attila was (sorta still is) the same pre-patch 1 but with the release of the Celts I'm starting to see that the West plays out very interestingly in game. The game is very fun when you're following your campaign missions and focusing on building a kingdom/surviving as opposed as doing the classic total war thing by trying to color the entire map your faction color. This game has a ton of potential and I'm hoping that CA will help realize it with patching/balancing/good DLC.

[Lugotorix]

I agree with the OP. Literally the only thing that kills replay for me is Attila and his eleven stacks themselves. Not so much of a repetitive obstacle if I'm playing as the Ebdani or ERE, which gives me a solid three campaigns of three different cultures, which is pretty neat.