Attila: Total War (PC game)

[EvilNed]

GPH282GUtlA

So this tuesday Creative Assembly released the latest Total War for those amongst us (prob just me) who enjoy amassing large armies and conquering empires.

The previous title Rome 2 got excellent reviews, but was completely shredded by fans. The most interesting part of it was that the release of Rome 2, which was so obviously flawed in so many ways, shed light on the way the gaming industry works. A lot of big magazines are paid or in otherways persuaded to give top score to big budget games. Rome 2 was a financial success, and 90,000 players were shown playing it on the same time on steam shortly after release. Rome 2 is still the 13th most played game on Steam with more than 20,000 players. Attila, now 1,5 days after release, has climbed to 20,000 players and is thus the number 10th most played game on Steam. But 24,000 is a far cry away from the 90,000 that Rome 2 enjoyed post launch... We'll see what the weekend brings.

http://www.totalwar.com/games/total-wartm-attila

[shootemindehead]

You're not the only one.

However 'Rome 2' was such a massive disappointment that I will be very careful about going near ANY CA game again. Coupled with the monumental problems I had with Steam and 'Shogun 2' as well, I am developing a, damn near, aversion to their stuff.

Hopefully, CA have learned from their past mistakes on 'Rome 2' and put their best foot forward this time. I'm not one hundred percent stoked about the area of focus though. I been hoping for an American Civil War period since 'Empire', as I think Total War's basic game model would fit that brilliantly.

[Neil]

It's interesting... We prefer playing Rome (1) to Rome 2! Seems more tactical! Plus you can have 6 humans vs AI!

[EvilNed]

It's interesting... We prefer playing Rome (1) to Rome 2! Seems more tactical! Plus you can have 6 humans vs AI!

Regarding Rome 1, I hear a lot of people say they still play it. Myself, I can't see it happening. Rome 1 was made in a time when CA (the developers) weren't all that keen on historical accuracy, so it has factions like "Spain", "Gaul", "Germania",when these were in fact only regions. Also the egyptian faction is a joke... They're supposed to be a hellenic successor state, yet the game depicts them as something Ramses II might have fielded a thousand years earlier. Well, you get the idea. I loved Rome 1 when it came, but today it seems a little bit to limited for me... I'd disagree on the tactical aspect too, I think Rome 1 prob has the easiest battles in the Total war series tbh. Just cavalry charge anything from the rear with any type of cavalry unit, and you've won. Cavalry is super fast too, so it's never a problem...

As for Attila, I've played about 2-3 hours so far. It's really fun, but I'm not sold on the time period. Playing as the Saxons currently, invading Britain (as you do). It's fun to get a little dark ages british action going, fighting in the foggy fields against other proto-feudal kingdoms. I really dislike the fact they put the vikings in there, tho. Seems like a throwback to that Egyptian fuss I was mentioning. Those vikings are like 400 years off, they're simply NOT supposed to be there.

[EvilNed]

ps: What do you make of Attila? I've found the Total War games less and less enjoyable...

Attila seems to me, and the community at large, to be the most stable Vanilla release since Napoleon, and is probably a top contender for being the best Total war in it's Vanilla state.
There's some issues with it. They deliberately tried to shy away from various things that have been present in every game thus far, AND the campaign management itself is largely an improvement of the Rome 2 formula, but not an overhaul (like Rome 2 was compared to it's predecessors). The added family tree is awesome, and is the most indepth family tree featured in any TW game so far. Civil war is now a constant threat, wherein nobles can revolt, take a small army with them and flee your kingdom in an attempt to establish a kingdom of their own somewhere else.

The game feels incredibly apocalyptic (in a good way). Let me post my campaign map to show you what I mean:

1370

You see all those brown/tan regions? They are regions that have in one way or another been razed to the ground via warfare between various huns, or left behind by tribes who have taken to migrating somewhere else. Any razed region can be resettled, but at a cost of much gold.

Climate change is also a thing. I'm playing the saxons, and that's my greenish kingdom focused around the british isles. But every couple of years, the climate gets harsher to the point where even in springtime, upper Britain is still covered in snow. as you can imagine, this has negative effects on food yields.

I'd say, after playing this game for a few days, this Total War is much less focused on expansionism, and much more focused on Survival. In that sense, it's unique in the series. Overall, I really dig the game. But keep in mind that the period itself is very, very dark. It's essentially a representation of the dark ages (albeit at a very early stage).

[Neil]

The only RTS game I play at the moment is War Game: Red Dragon...