At first I thought, "Wow, Attila is such an underrated game, I love it so much, DARKNESS AND DESPAIR!"
Now I have realized Attila is the best game ever made by a human, and that nothing shall ever surpass it. A true diamond in the rough, the misunderstood peak of the Total War franchise and the mark of a true gentleman is to see it for its virtues. It is probably the peak Total War when it comes to both battles and campaign, a masterpiece in all senses of the word. It is a human achievement.
Why won't CA ever make an Attila 2?
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
The problem is they did make an Attila 2 - Pharaoh - and it proved that CA is a shell of what it once was.
Shitty setting, full of fantasy
YWNBAW
Poorgay seethe, works for me with an SSd.
It's a terrible rome 2 mod.
Yes, but why does it takes 1 min for AI to end it's turn? Thrones of britannia takes about 35 secs. I'm sick of looking at the screen waiting for the AI to end its turn.
This. Atilla's biggest problem is that it runs horribly even on decent computers. Wait till u get to turn 100 how long it takes the AI to finish. The battles in Atilla are so good but the campaign really sucks cuz of being slow. I literally just play age of Charlemagne because its way quicker
You took the /vst/ pill to it's natural conclusion OP, congratulations. This is what Total War shouldn't been, but because we live in the shittiest timeline, it's never going to reach it's true potential.
Why? Because of gross incompetency, greed and stubborn narcissism of that Bartholomew Black person
I mean I do wonder what's next, Warhammer 4?
They have nothing else, I guess the chink sequel maybe
because setting sucks
learn to spell jeet, not every game needs poo
frick off
setting sucks and there is nothing you can do about it other than cry
it also suffer from the same shitty recruitment/building/army system like all nuTW games have and it run like shit
its mediocre at best and only because rest of nutw sucks donkey balls
Yes, it is!
It's time to do an official /vst/-tier list at some point, but i guess paradrones would just vote up their slop to the top 10
make a paradoxtrash containment tier
Attila could be good, but imo they set it too early. It should have been set in the 470s A.D out of the gate when Western Rome was already mostly divided among barbarians. You could split WRE into Odoacer-ruled Italy, Soissons, Mauretania, Dalmatia and sub-Roman Britain, each trying to survive and possibly unite with each other. The Byzantine campaign could be about settling internal conflicts and keeping the Persians at bay, then pulling a Belisarius to retake western Rome. One thing that really triggers my autism in the vanilla campaign is that AI migrating tribes can settle half the world away from where they did historically, like the Suebians in Greece, so putting all of them where they were historically at the start would have been awesome.
true, it would have been awesome but they wanted to remake barbarian invasion instead and it must include Attila because he's the only one people remember from that time period.
let's face it, History is made by those who shape it so.
and some people prefer to play as famous figures instead of growing a promising nobody to greatness.
Attila
Charlemagne
hollywood vikings
You do realize the Last Roman exists, right?
Also playing as Western Roman Empire is fun as frick.
sure, with half the map and no western Roman rump states like Soissons
>western Roman rump states like Soissons
"Soisson" (name given by historians, obviously never used that at the time) wasn't really a polity. It was just an area under the control of Syagrius in his role as a general of a Roman army.
Also arguably the kingdoms of the Franks, the Ostrogoths, the Burgundians and the Visigoths were just as much Roman "rump states", with the main difference being that they were actual polities with political organization.
oops wrong image
>>it wasn't conquered by the Franks
>>Why?
there were Franks on the losing side too
???
>watch Historian's Craft
>come out knowing less than before and even propagandized
Stop spouting barbarian propaganda.
The problem with historical TWs since M2TW is the lack of distinct starting dates.
Rome's biggest mistake was not using the Carthaginian solution on every last Gaul and Iberian. They got greedy thinking of short term gains from exploiting the population instead of being thorough.
Anon.The romans rebuild Carthage themself just a few years later.
Rebuilt it without Carthaginians.
nuTW titles should have more starting dates
all TW titles could benefit from it
do you know what plural is?
Is it true that you can partially unfrick the games' performance by drag and dropping files from ToB? If so, would anyone happen to have a download for said files? I never bought ToB.
How does Atilla compare to Rome 2 with DEI mod?
pretty much the only thing Attila has over Rome 2 now is actual horde gameplay.
>actual horde gameplay.
What's that like? Armies passively generate income and can recruit units from encamp stance?
No, much better. Horde factions don't even have cities. You can only control armies, which have buildings like cities but you can move them wherever you want.
did they fix the shitty performance yet?
I hate the battle maps in attila
Lipstick on a pig. It’s Rome 2 with an edgy coat of paint, with all of the same bad battle mechanics. It CA weren’t so greedy it would have been a DLC for the game instead of sold separately.
Attila needs the performance treatment Warhammer got, AI turns take forever.
AI turn times are completely repulsive. Rome 2 takes about 30 seconds on turn 200 meanwhile Attila takes 50 at turn 25. It's fricking stupid.
they didn't fix the performance like with rome 2, it's permanently stuck as a 32bit game that runs at 30fps max because the only shot of it getting patched was with the "britain made unmoderated chats illegal so bye bye ingame chat" update
>but muh performance
I have a $600 PC I bought 3 years ago, not even an SSD, and Attila runs just fine for me.
what kind of machines are people playing on?
just seems like luck, not related to specs. my pc is 9 years old but runs attilla decently too and i'm glad it does because i love this game.
Hard to come up with reasons as to why they haven't moved Attila to the Rome II new engine build, given whats come out regarding their "branches" and how the newer games are based off the Attila Warscape engine you'd think it be easy to folder it back in. Maybe just limitation is money.
The company leaks revealed that they planned on doing this with every game, as well as remastering Medieval 2 and Empire, but those plans have apparently been scrapped due to backlash to recent titles throwing the company into turmoil.
Do you have any links? It's something I'd love to read more on.
I'd give anything for an unbuggy empire.
does everyone play as horde?
because that is the only thing that sets this trash fire apart from other TW games
ok jeet
I almost always play as huns, even white huns get boring for me after i destroy the sass. I played a few times as both romans and the alans but the alan campaign models stabbing dudes with axes bothers me, and i get tired of siege defense after turn 20
bump
it was ok
I agree 100%
it's a ok game, very good if you consider that it's base is rome 2, but has his big problems: a stupid "great power" diplo penalty, killing all the diplomacy; the raze settlement option leaves you with an empty map in late game, it's just you and a few factions with no real interest in it.
The battles are not fun, cav counter everything, and that's it.
Too bad because barbarian invasion was unpolished but I enjoyed more than rome1
total war games are trash in general