What do you like the most about Attila Total War?

[FrozenmenSS]

The opposite thread of the ''What do you dislike the most about Attila Total War?''

Fast Example from my side - Modding.

[Darios]

What do I like the most? I like that in Attila, CA has started moving away from campaign victory conditions that simply require you to conquer much/most of the campaign map in lieu of various cultural/economic objectives for many factions. It makes factions play more unique, and helps give soul to the game.

I also like that you have the option to simply sack or raze a city as opposed to being forced to occupy every city after conquering it. Rome 2 is really bad in that regard, and it is a major reason to why I tend to quit my R2 campaigns after a short while (I enjoy fighting enemies without always having to occupy them. I don't see the point of creating a vast, expansive empire with say...Colchis or Cimmeria.)

Something else that I really love - War Weariness. It is a feature that has truly breathed new life into Total War games. I truly hope that CA will continue to tweak and improve upon it with future releases.

[FrozenmenSS]

By Modding I mean for the First Time since Medieval 2 TW ,TW:Attila can be the most moddable due to the Modding tools and so on. Another thing loving about the Game is the Horde mechanic that makes Rome 1 BI's one looks like a monkey compared with the Horde mechanic in Attila.

[Frunk]

Off-topic comments were removed. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

[Lugotorix]

Political actions, influence and the family tree. So much to work with.

[JERUSALEM]

Political actions, influence and the family tree. So much to work with.

Yes, But still those are weak, they need more realism. Actually they need to have several family tree, they have family tree only for the royal dynasty. Influence has to be based on more complex issues
and even political actions need more realism.

[Staal]

For it is always the family tree and politics that make the game endlessly replayable. The more depth they add there the better.

[WhatAnArtist]

There are many things I love about this game (which is probably the best Total War game), but one very small thing I first experienced yesterday that I like is how after you get another kingdom to join your empire, any armies they currently have will become yours, but you don't need to replace their general with one of your own, since technically they are your own now. I just thought it was really cool how now there's the possibility to marry one of my family members (of the Himyar dynasty) to a Garamantian general. This kind of things makes me hopeful that CA will continue to expand the political and diplomatic aspects.

[econ21]

Atmosphere - at least as WRE, it feels oppressive and apocalyptic. Up there with Shogun 1 and 2 for immersion.

Sustained challenge - at least as WRE, you have to juggle so many constraints and enemies, it takes a long time before you get onto an even keel.

Family tree - very welcome return.

Balance of arms - generally speaking cavalry, light and heavy infantry all have a useful role. A few tweaks in the direction of realism might be nice (onagers & crossbows seem a little too strong) but it's decent.

Diplomacy - arguably, the best of TW series. For example, even as WRE, who everyone hates, smart use of diplomacy can be decisive. I like TW faction leaders having traits - they start to resemble Civ leaders in having distinct personalities.

[douglas]

Provincial and City Management, Research Tree layout and, though limited in number, the field and city battle maps.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Something else that I really love - War Weariness. It is a feature that has truly breathed new life into Total War games. I truly hope that CA will continue to tweak and improve upon it with future releases.

After having recently played Age of Charlemagne, I definitely agree. This chages dynamics of your campaigns enormously as at some point (reasonably with WW 30%) you have to start fighting to end the war, that's your goal - otherwise you risk crumbling into a spiral of death: a defeat increases WW, what makes you much weaker, what prompts another defeat, what increases WW and so forth.

[Yerevan]

The campaign map.

I feel like we get back to M2TW Kingdom's level of depth on the campaign map. The poltical system is a step in the right direction. Too bad CA didn't feel the need to perfect it. Imagine a "politics and powers" expansion for Attila !

With that improved and the pike units improved (might have been done already), there would be the base for the perfect TW game. Like Darios I also think that the fact that the ultimate conqueer everything ain't the only victory condition anymore is a relief. But it was already like this in FOTS where you just had to conqueer and hold 2 settlements to win. Which makes me think that for me the next TW of my dreams would be a medieval 3 completely focused on crusades where your goal would be to unite a powerfull country of reasonable size, stabilize and reinforce it and once it's done launch an expedition to the holy land.

Is there really a "What do you dislike the most about Attila Total War?'' thread ?

[Jurand of Cracow]

The campaign map. I feel like we get back to M2TW Kingdom's level of depth on the campaign map.

I agree up a to a point. It makes the operational manouvers matter a bit more than in R2TW and with the AoC much more.
Eg. the mountain passes take toll on the armies and are very slow to move through. This changes things much in Spain or in the Alps. For instance, as Asturia it's difficult to keep play the strategy of "central position" from Ovieto simultaneously to Braga, Leon and Santander. Simply going to Leon is such a long way that it's hardy effective. This forces you to expand to Leon and defend Braga and Santander from this position - what it more difficult.
In the Alps the various passes really give many opportunities for Longobards (or Avari or Thema of Sicily - if they take these lands).
However, the map feels still very arcade. Big cities, long marching ranges etc. Operational art still matters less than in the M2TW.

BTW - I think the changes with the map that ToB is about bringing may be in the right direction. The raiding and plundering are likely not to be "abstract" anymore. For now (M2TW, ATW) you put an army in the province and you get some money or the owner loses some money. Only plundering the wall-less towns reflect something, err, "real": buildings are destroyed. Now, with smaller regions with 1/2 buildings, the raiding will more visible and loses for the owner more obvious. If the movement points will be properly adjusted, this might give the place for operational manouvers. Well, it could be also the case in ETW, but then it was placed in a botched up context of other features of the game (and was not fit for the era) that it had no chance.
I'm looking forward to how it looks like in ToB.

Is there really a "What do you dislike the most about Attila Total War?'' thread ?

You may start with this entry, as most of this has been transmitted (like a genetic disease) to the ATW.

[Yerevan]

BTW - I think the changes with the map that ToB is about bringing may be in the right direction. The raiding and plundering are likely not to be "abstract" anymore. For now (M2TW, ATW) you put an army in the province and you get some money or the owner loses some money. Only plundering the wall-less towns reflect something, err, "real": buildings are destroyed. Now, with smaller regions with 1/2 buildings, the raiding will more visible and loses for the owner more obvious. If the movement points will be properly adjusted, this might give the place for operational manouvers. Well, it could be also the case in ETW, but then it was placed in a botched up context of other features of the game (and was not fit for the era) that it had no chance.
I'm looking forward to how it looks like in ToB.

I have to check that, it would be very good news indeed. The turning point where raiding and plundering became abstract (with the side effect of making siege battles much more frequent than field battles) was R2TW. If I remember well, in FOTS and S2TW's the province specialized industries (temples, paper, textile, ports, etc...) were outside the cities and this was perfectly simulating the raiding and plundering AND was making non siege battles more relevant. Especially in FOTS where the distances between them was much bigger.

Anyway, I would be so happy if ToB brings back more strategic depth on the campaign map. I feel a bit pessimistic though considering total war warhammer and all its strategic aberations (for exemple the fact that army's composition doesn't affect campaign movement points).

About Attila's campaign map I was not only mentioning the choke points and its richer strategic value (even if you're right to mention that it still far from M2TW) but also the faction's screen, family tree and offices. There are so many interesting choices and things to do outside of the battle maps.

[Jurand of Cracow]

The turning point where raiding and plundering became abstract (with the side effect of making siege battles much more frequent than field battles) was R2TW. If I remember well, in FOTS and S2TW's the province specialized industries (temples, paper, textile, ports, etc...) were outside the cities and this was perfectly simulating the raiding and plundering AND was making non siege battles more relevant. Especially in FOTS where the distances between them was much bigger.

Anyway, I would be so happy if ToB brings back more strategic depth on the campaign map. I feel a bit pessimistic though considering total war warhammer and all its strategic aberations (for exemple the fact that army's composition doesn't affect campaign movement points)

I think ETW was the first - but in this case it very badly implemented as one unit of cannons would plunder your in-the-field buildings.
I don't know Warhammer, but the thing you've mentioned is actually not so ahistorical (but should Warhammer be historical ??).
The common misconception about the Middle Ages (widespread also in the strategy games) is that a mounted army is strategically faster than an infantry army. In reality, it was true in the operational dimension, up to 4 days. In the longer run, such an army was actually slower than an infantry army given that supplies needed by the horses had to be gathered and it took time (plus other issues like injuries or weariness). The army had to disperse somehow and take long rests.

[Yerevan]

No, Warhammer doesn't have to be historical, but come on, it's still a wargame and takes place in a world held by gravitational rules, I also thought siege engines and cannons would slower your progression... It's interesting though what you write about cavalry and logistics. But if the nature of units doesn't change the speed of an army, doesn't its size does, at least?

[Jurand of Cracow]

No, Warhammer doesn't have to be historical, but come on, it's still a wargame and takes place in a world held by gravitational rules, I also thought siege engines and cannons would slower your progression... It's interesting though what you write about cavalry and logistics. But if the nature of units doesn't change the speed of an army, doesn't its size does, at least?

Warhammer, like other fantasy games, is a very easy and very attractive path for development of the Total War games - especially because it doesn't need to be constrained by the rules of our world... The current game is indeed spectacular. I like FATW and TATW mods, but with the Warhammer engine they'd be even greater.
Artillery should slower armies, but not that much - they were dismantled and put on the carts, moving along the rest of the army. No roads and no long-range wheels for artillery.
The size indeed does change the speed of the army. But there's a deeper problem with the size: it constrained by many factors in history (food, transport, command). It's why you've got armies of a few thousand people in the MA. I think it's one of the neglected issues in the TW series, only sometimes dealt with in the mods (like SS-BGR: supply overcharges).

[Yerevan]

Artillery should slower armies, but not that much - they were dismantled and put on the carts, moving along the rest of the army. No roads and no long-range wheels for artillery.
The size indeed does change the speed of the army. But there's a deeper problem with the size: it constrained by many factors in history (food, transport, command). It's why you've got armies of a few thousand people in the MA. I think it's one of the neglected issues in the TW series, only sometimes dealt with in the mods (like SS-BGR: supply overcharges).

Damn, you seem to be very well documented on the matter of field army's logistics !

Great that you mention Byg's Grim Reality for SS6 ; it 's among my three favorite TW mods ever ! The way this guy implemented issues like supplies/foraging, army recruitment and all is not only great, it made for really fun, suspenseful campaigns (well, as soon as you've read the manual...). Frankly, without such mods I would have stopped buying TW games after Rome 2.

[Anna_Gein]

At least in Attila there is no 'teleportation' shortcut so your army instantly reachs a location that is +30/40 turn away using regular movement.

What I like the most about Attila is the family/political system. It is simple and effective. It offer good gameplay and immersion.

[Jurand of Cracow]

What I like the most about Attila is the family/political system. It is simple and effective. It offer good gameplay and immersion.

could you describe in details what do you mean? Actually, I find the ATW system quite unwieldy and irrelevant (unless you've got Honorius with problems at the beginning - but then a couple of battles is enough to get you out of troubles). The ATW-AoC is even more irrelevant (even if AoC is much better than ATW).

Great that you mention Byg's Grim Reality for SS6 ; it 's among my three favorite TW mods ever ! The way this guy implemented issues like supplies/foraging, army recruitment and all is not only great, it made for really fun, suspenseful campaigns (well, as soon as you've read the manual...). Frankly, without such mods I would have stopped buying TW games after Rome 2.

Byg was the most ingenious historically-true moder I've seen. His systems are still very playable even if the mods move a bit forward - you may check SSHIP, perhaps the next version when it will be out (couple of weeks, I hope, or at least this year).