dlc

[johnmck]

I was thinking the other day that it would be interesting to see a map emphasizing the different areas of Europe that have been released as DLC so far in Attila. I'm in the group of people that disagree with the DLC program so far with Attila, I'm not saying everyone has to agree with my POV but I've shown this to people who have no knowledge of the Total War games and have never played them themselves at all and they were quite surprised at these areas that are unplayable without paying more $$, when the map is based on the European continent. Does this pictorial representation influence you guys either way, I'm actually really interested to know. Maybe people who haven't bought the game at all yet could give some input. Who knows i might even update this map as they bring out more DLC in the future.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

NO! DON'T GIVE THEM MORE CASHGRAB IDEAS!

Joking aside, it'll likely not happen. It seems thus far that CA are focusing on cash-quick schemes with minimal (or pre-made) effort, rather than well developed expansion packs.

[evenflowjimbo]

NO! DON'T GIVE THEM MORE CASHGRAB IDEAS!

Joking aside, it'll likely not happen. It seems thus far that CA are focusing on cash-quick schemes with minimal (or pre-made) effort, rather than well developed expansion packs.

Wait ... Attila TW wasn't an expansion!?

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Wait ... Attila TW wasn't an expansion!?

I see what you did there

[johnmck]

Haha not sure if you understand the post, i meant those are the areas of Europe that are unplayable without the DLC's that have been released so far (Celtic, Longbeards and Viking). I know you can conquer them with other factions but that's not my point.

[Fanest]

I think it would be better to show ppl what factions/areas are playable and where the biggest gaps are, and map would be completely different. Moreover your map/circles are inaccurate - specially in Britannia

EDIT:
here smt like this is more representable (dlc factions are blue)

[johnmck]

I'm more of the opinion that all factions should he unlocked and that they could find a better way to sell dlc. I think even though these factions technically weren't involved they were very much impacted by the migrations caused by Attila the Hun. With the collapse of the Roman Empire only the barbarian factions in central Europe continued to be influenced by Latin culture. That's why English differs from the romantic languages so much today, because of the strong anglo-Saxon influence. I personally think it's important to integrate all factions because they were all influenced by the 5th centuries political transformations in europe.

And also its impossible to say that these areas wouldn't know of the stuff going on in the rest of Europe. Saint Patrick comes to Ireland in the 5th century to convert Ireland, changing Ireland forever.

[veverčák]

Not to mention all dlc factions are rather irrelevant in great picture of history. Vikings do not come in prominence until 10th century. Celts never rise to power outside Irland and today Scotland (after Ceasers conquest and rise of Germanic tribes in Central Europe). Burgundians, Langobards and Allemans at the end of the day were defeated and assimilated into other Germanic kingdoms (Frankish at the end). So, if this faction are not fair game in terms dlc, then which one is?

[Abdülmecid I]

Not to mention all dlc factions are rather irrelevant in great picture of history. Vikings do not come in prominence until 10th century. Celts never rise to power outside Irland and today Scotland (after Ceasers conquest and rise of Germanic tribes in Central Europe). Burgundians, Langobards and Allemans at the end of the day were defeated and assimilated into other Germanic kingdoms (Frankish at the end). So, if this faction are not fair game in terms dlc, then which one is?

Defeat, especially when it happened out of the game's timeframe (just like the case of the Lombards, Burgundians and Alemmani), doesn't excuse DLCs. By your logic, all the Rome II factions could be DLC, apart from Parthia and Rome. In fact, even those could be DLCs, as they were eventually defeated. Doesn't make much sense, vevercak.

[johnmck]

Hmm that's a good point now do you think that those areas justifies approximately 30 dollars extra? Keeping in mind the original price of 45

[veverčák]

No, but you do not have to buy all. You can chose those factions you like and let rest rot on Steam. Or you can wait for sale. After all one of the main advantage of PC gaming is relativly solid rivalry between on-line sellers which bring us better prices then those on console enjoy.

[veverčák]

So something like Europa Universalis III and IV then? Technically you can play as any nation but good luck if they do not flesh them out like West European powers (Castile, Aragorn/Spain, France, England/Great Britain, Austria, Brandenburg/Prussia etc.), some chosen nations (Ottomans, Muscovy/Russia, Ming, Japan) and Native Americans (through 2 dlc as Aztecs and Inkas would be overkill for Conquest of the Paradise).

[veverčák]

*Sight* I was arguing in favor of historical prominence/impact. Saxons, Franks and Romans sure made bigger one then Allemans, Burgundians and Lombards. It is not about defeat as every single state/group of people will one day fall to darknes and only in tales and legends will once more proud people of the past being bring back to life....Wow, I am Silvertongus Wormtonginale today.....

[Abdülmecid I]

*Sight* I was arguing in favor of historical prominence/impact. Saxons, Franks and Romans sure made bigger one then Allemans, Burgundians and Lombards. It is not about defeat as every single state/group of people will one day fall to darknes and only in tales and legends will once more proud people of the past being bring back to life....Wow, I am Silvertongus Wormtonginale today.....

That completey contradicts what you said in your first post, where you claimed that the fact that the Lombards, Burgundians and Alemmani were eventually defeated made them historically irrelevant and therefore perfect DLC material. Also, "significance" is subjective, for example, I believe that the Lombards had a much greater influence on history than the Saxons...

[Påsan]

That completey contradicts what you said in your first post, where you claimed that the fact that the Lombards, Burgundians and Alemmani were eventually defeated made them historically irrelevant and therefore perfect DLC material. Also, "significance" is subjective, for example, I believe that the Lombards had a much greater influence on history than the Saxons...

IN Atilla TW's time-frame they were just another couple of Germanic tribes. The Alemani was the most relevant but far from a main player. Lombards and Bergundians just sat around in germanium/gaul doing virtually nothing throughout this timeframe.

[Abdülmecid I]

IN Atilla TW's time-frame they were just another couple of Germanic tribes. The Alemani was the most relevant but far from a main player. Lombards and Bergundians just sat around in germanium/gaul doing virtually nothing throughout this timeframe.

Can't say I disagree about the Lombards, but you're being harsh with the Burgundians. In 407, they crossed the Rhine, invading Roman territory, they established their kingdom in Savoy around 411 and they continously intervened in Roman politics (e.g. Emperor Glycerius was the puppet of the Burgundian king, Gundobad). That's a rather active participation in the period's events, I think. And that concerns only their interactions with the Romans.

[veverčák]

And yet when I last time checked history textbooks I see Saxon, Franks, Vandals, Ostro- and Visigoths, Romans, Huns and Sassanids as main protagonist for 5th and 6th century.

[johnmck]

And if the faction existed at all during that time period we should be able to change its history since this is supposed to be a historical sandbox

[Fanest]

TW vanila games never had all ingame factions playable and i doubt they ever will - not without modding that is. Why would u expect this to change for Attila i donno, what is important in my opinion is that they we get to play factions that had the most impact on the historical time period and in that CA didn't fail imo.
However for those who want more they are making these culture DLCs which are optional, and thats fine by me.
Where CA failed in my opinion is in unit rosters of some playable and unplayable faction - like the Celts before DLC, Slavs, Alans, Sarmatians etc. these factions even though some unplayable should have unique units and not just copy paste germanic/norse units

[Imperator Artorius]

TW vanila games never had all ingame factions playable and i doubt they ever will - not without modding that is. Why would u expect this to change for Attila i donno, what is important in my opinion is that they we get to play factions that had the most impact on the historical time period and in that CA didn't fail imo.
However for those who want more they are making these culture DLCs which are optional, and thats fine by me.
Where CA failed in my opinion is in unit rosters of some playable and unplayable faction - like the Celts before DLC, Slavs, Alans, Sarmatians etc. these factions even though some unplayable should have unique units and not just copy paste germanic/norse units

That is an excellent point in regard to the unit rosters, and in fact has significantly contributed to me uninstalling Attila (hopefully temporarily). One of my criticisms is that the campaign map feels a bit gutted because significant numbers of factions that would in theory be fun to play as i.e. Celts, Germanic tribes, are locked behind a paywall, and to make matters worse, most of the playable factions i.e. Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Saxons, Alans, Vandals feel pretty much the same because they all share the basic Germanic roster with minor differences. Now, I know very little about the time period so I can't speak as to how accurate this is, but having totally unique rosters for each of these factions on release, or at least mostly unique, would go a long way to make the base game feel more complete.