New TW Title Announcement: Total War: Attila

[The Outsider]

So this is from their facebook page:

"EGX has just announced they will be revealing our next Total War Title at their show in London on the 25th-28th of September! This unannounced title joins our ongoing ROME II content development and the previously announced ARENA F2P project.

There are still currently limited tickets available for Thursday at EGX so be quick! For more information on EGX London and how to purchase your tickets click the link below".

What do youg guys think? Fall of Rome expansion (eg. BI II) or Warhammer Total War or something else? Does this mean that the patching of rome 2 is going to be shelved soon? Are you guys planing on pre ordering? (I know I wont :D)

Linky https://www.facebook.com/TotalWar/ph...type=1&theater

[Hooahguy]

They have already stated that Rome 2 will have a 2 year support cycle and we are only just past year 1 so Im really hoping for an expansion like a new version of Barbarian Invasion. Warhammer might be the realistic answer though, thats been in the rumor mills for a while now.

[lars573]

My thinking is that the late Roman empire game will be a standalone game ala Napoleon or Fall of the Samurai. My thinking is also that Emperor campagin is the last major piece of content we get.

[Hooahguy]

The last major piece of content? Maybe, but they have stated that it will not be the last DLC for the game.

[lars573]

I'd say the future is another faction pack and another unit pack or two. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong of course.

[Hooahguy]

You probably are right, though of course Im expecting some sort of big expansion pack, but this is probably the last addon campaign we will get.

[Slaists]

What else is left there from this period (and location)? Either roll back in time to Alexander or forward to the barbarian hordes.

[Hooahguy]

I want to say the Roman wars in Germania or in Dacia but Im not sure those were of enough importance for a whole DLC.

[The Outsider]

I think Lars is right. We won't be seeing any more mini campaigns like dacian wars. They are probably not selling good enough. What I think is another culture pack like desert factions possibly masasyle, axum and nabatea perhaps. Also some unit packs and minor bug fixes. Other than that the game is done. I think they will announce a stand alone expansion eg Barbarian invasion 2 with a fancy name like fall of Rome or something. We will see soon enough.

[lars573]

I wouldn't take Emperor edition being free as a reflection of sales of Hannibal and CIG sales. More like a free taste of DLC content for new players that come alone during the holiday steam sales

You probably are right, though of course Im expecting some sort of big expansion pack, but this is probably the last addon campaign we will get.

That's my point though. CA does the big expansion pack as a separate game now.

[Myth]

A new TW title. I want the dark ages through the entire middle ages. Med 2 with the Rome 2 engine but a reimagined building system and extended family trees, bloodlines, nobility ties intrigue and diplomacy. Basically a hybrid between Medeival 2 and Crusader Kings 2.



Oh man oh man oh man I so want this!

[AntiDamascus]

Holding out hope for Med 3 but knowing them we'll get like WWI Total War

[hoom]

I suspect they would do Empire2 or a new time period (3 Kingdoms China?) before Med3.
I would be inclined to expect a late Rome period expansion.

Maybe a Late Rome/early Medieval could be an interesting kind of time? Possibly feeding to full blown Med3...

Could be a good time for a Greece focussed/Pelloponesian War/Rise of Macedon type period.
Carthage, Syracuse & Massilia in the West (but no Iberia), Etruscans, Magna Gracia & rising Rome in Italy (with Gallic invasions) much expanded Greece (again Gallic invasions), Big scary Persia in the East (maybe only Asia-Minor modeled but politically/diplomatically meddling Persia with big Invasions if you piss them off).


I hope (most likely forlornly as I have since Rome1) for a return to the more simple Risk type campaign map of the past.

I think it should have the old drag & drop counters with turns resolved simultaneously after End Turn like Shogun & Medieval 1.
It really helped the Campaign AI & gameplay in my opinion.
There are several great things which were common in that system which are impossible or only very kludgingly shoehorned into the current system. (like you could reliably retreat from a superior attack, it was easy for AI allies to send aid, AI could counter-attack if you left provinces underguarded while attacking, AI could send itself reinforcements)


It should in my opinion then go to a Province level visually similar to the current Campaign (but only a single Province) when 2 or more armies wind up in the same province, then you get a few turns of Province level army maneuvring per Campaign turn (doing stuff like loot, withdraw, find defensive terrain, setup ambush, bypass enemy, attack, not necessarily having a battle)


Then once there is a combat it would go to the 3rd level Real Time battles that we all know & love.

[BroskiDerpman]

Don't get too hyped up folks! :P

I could list many things but in the end what I really think matters after thinking of it is a TW with solid fundamentals ever since the original Shogun stuff like:

Solid ui (immersive yet functional)
Good soundtrack
Balanced battle mechanics with minimal bugs to exploit
Functional ai (especially sieges)
Good Pathfinding (especially sieges)
Smooth animations (that also ties into battle mechanics)

Etc, stuff you'd expect from solid TW game, sure TW fails at some parts but yeah the basic idea is there.

Then you add a nice sprinkle of newer features which is whatever CA decides to modify, delete, or add in to the newer game.

[hoom]

I fully endorse the above

[lars573]

I hope (most likely forlornly as I have since Rome1) for a return to the more simple Risk type campaign map of the past.

I think it should have the old drag & drop counters with turns resolved simultaneously after End Turn like Shogun & Medieval 1.
It really helped the Campaign AI & gameplay in my opinion.
There are several great things which were common in that system which are impossible or only very kludgingly shoehorned into the current system. (like you could reliably retreat from a superior attack, it was easy for AI allies to send aid, AI could counter-attack if you left provinces underguarded while attacking, AI could send itself reinforcements)


It should in my opinion then go to a Province level visually similar to the current Campaign (but only a single Province) when 2 or more armies wind up in the same province, then you get a few turns of Province level army maneuvring per Campaign turn (doing stuff like loot, withdraw, find defensive terrain, setup ambush, bypass enemy, attack, not necessarily having a battle)


Then once there is a combat it would go to the 3rd level Real Time battles that we all know & love.

No, just no. All you really seem to want is to plaster V1 TW campaign on top of the current TW campaign. You keep harping on this (5th time I've read the exact same thing), and it's never not gonna suck. It's way way way way too much crap you gotta go through just to do one minor thing. Conquer a little bit of territory. You've been, for years mind you, advocating for turning territory acquisition/defense into an mini-campaign. That the rest game must grind to an immediate halt for the player that wants to take/defend one province (as even if you could manage more than one mini-campaign at once the hardware or software might not). It would drag out the grand campaign immeasurably. Especially since the V1 TW AI would just throw every single military resource it had at couple provinces at once (until either you were destroyed or they were). And make it really boring. It already gets really irritating in the late game as it is.

Comparatively I never liked the Risk style map. Mostly for how the campaign AI behaved. The all or nothing army rushes that'd be thrown at you were irritating. And that if you survived this army rush the AI faction had a very hard time recovering unless it was the late game and they had over a dozen provinces. The Risk map is dead and needs to stay dead. Despite the flaws in the current system it's hugely better.

[Neric]

I am interested but not very excited at the moment in the next Total War game. Maybe its partly me getting older
Rome 2 was just ok for me and I am still looking forward to Patch 15 and the next additions to the game. So, a new title in 2015 would be too soon for me.
Regardless of the scenario I am hoping for something that makes the next game special and me wanting it. Personally I would like more depth and complexity - starting with a more immersive UI and descriptions in the encyclopedia. And chocolate.

That being said I guess it is going to be Medieval Total War 3...

[Sp4]

I would like something like M3 but it is probably just going to be some standalone expansion like FotS. Something about Atilla? Fall of Rome? Or maybe earlier..

[hoom]

It would drag out the grand campaign immeasurably. Especially since the V1 TW AI would just throw every single military resource it had at couple provinces at once (until either you were destroyed or they were). And make it really boring. It already gets really irritating in the late game as it is.

Yes I've been harping on about it for years.
Because I think its a better way of doing what they tried to do with the Rome1 & later campaign map.

I don't think it would really drag out campaign play because the basic moving armies around between provinces is simplified.
I don't think the mini-campaign bit would necessarily take significantly longer than the current army movement.
Certainly there would be no hardware/software issue, the Risk style map was running on way weaker PCs in the past & the Province level maps would be similar quality to current Campaign map but much smaller so potentially it would be much lighter resource wise.

I do concede that with the end of turn resolution you would have those Province turns all plonked together after the End Turn button, I don't think its necesarily a bad thing though.
There generally aren't that many combats in 1 turn & you would have opportunity to auto-resolve before going into that mini-campaign.

Additionally it would have the advantage of not letting you forget to do certain combats.
I have had an issue in current system where quite often I have been distracted with events in one part of my empire, clicked End Turn without resolving things I had meant to do elsewhere, causing opportunities & even armies to be lost.

Comparatively I never liked the Risk style map. Mostly for how the campaign AI behaved. The all or nothing army rushes that'd be thrown at you were irritating. And that if you survived this army rush the AI faction had a very hard time recovering unless it was the late game and they had over a dozen provinces.

Yes it is exactly that ability to pile in reinforcements and the fact that a significant loss takes some time to recover from which I want.
The ability of Rome & subsequent AI to just spam stack after stack after stack at you is what actually cripples late game play with the current system.
I really enjoyed not only the advantage from winning a significant battle but also the ability to fall back when outnumbered/having lost, regrouping before counter-attacking with combined & reinforced army.

[Hooahguy]

So someone on Reddit posted this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And if you look here the cavalry guy is holding a bow!

My guess would be something having to do with Attila. That or Mongols. I suspect it will be another Napoleon/FOTS-esque expansion.

[AntiDamascus]

It's the Mulan tie-in we've all been waiting for.

[edyzmedieval]

Most likely it's Barbarian Invasion II - which means that we're back to saving the Roman Empire from destruction or we get the fun part where we get to have Cataphract battles between the Eastern Romans and the Sasanids.

[Hooahguy]

Well the answer is Total War: Attila! Looks very interesting, plus family trees are back!

Main trailer:



Some campaign gameplay and impressions:



Some battle gameplay and impressions:

[Kamakazi]

Battle system and the looks of it seem awesome. The way he was talking about it seemed very interesting. The overall campaign map view seems off to me for some reason though.....

[ReluctantSamurai]

Comparatively I never liked the Risk style map. Mostly for how the campaign AI behaved. The all or nothing army rushes that'd be thrown at you were irritating. And that if you survived this army rush the AI faction had a very hard time recovering unless it was the late game and they had over a dozen provinces. The Risk map is dead and needs to stay dead. Despite the flaws in the current system it's hugely better.

While I agree that the 3D map is more immersive to play, the AI was always better at dealing with the 2D map and therefore more of a challenge. I remember back when R1 had been out for a year or so and players began trickling back to Shogun after the honeymoon was over. Almost to a player the comments in the Dojo were to the effect that the Shogun AI continually kicked their a$$ because it was smart and aggressive.

As hoom stated, there were battles that you absolutely HAD to win in S1 and Med1. I never got that feeling in any TW release from R1 onwards. The bum rushes in S1 aren't any different than looking at the campaign map in R1, for instance, and seeing endless stacks of Roman spam headed your way.

Having said all that, what really would be nice is an AI that is capable of fully handling a 3D map with the same level of skill as a 2D map

[AntiDamascus]

Can we do a Mulan mod then? Instead of "How far will you go for Rome" we can have "I'll make a man out of you"

[Slaists]

While I agree that the 3D map is more immersive to play, the AI was always better at dealing with the 2D map and therefore more of a challenge. I remember back when R1 had been out for a year or so and players began trickling back to Shogun after the honeymoon was over. Almost to a player the comments in the Dojo were to the effect that the Shogun AI continually kicked their a$$ because it was smart and aggressive.

As hoom stated, there were battles that you absolutely HAD to win in S1 and Med1. I never got that feeling in any TW release from R1 onwards. The bum rushes in S1 aren't any different than looking at the campaign map in R1, for instance, and seeing endless stacks of Roman spam headed your way.

Having said all that, what really would be nice is an AI that is capable of fully handling a 3D map with the same level of skill as a 2D map

It's not exactly 2D versus 3D maps. For the purposes of moving armies, the maps are still 2D. What gets the AI lost is the open-ended free path for armies. Instead of considering 2-4 possible directions for an army, the AI now has to consider almost an infinite number of possible directions.

But yes, I remember fondly those decisive battles in MTW 1 and S1. You're right, nothing like that in any titles since MTW 1.

[Hooahguy]

So I got to watch a livestream of one rather famous Total War Youtubers (Lionheart) playing a siege battle at EGX. He played it three times, lost the first time, narrowly won the second time, and after he re-evaluated his strategy he managed to win quite handily.

I really like the deployable barricades, though I wish they added in a stronger barricade option to really block off city streets.

I also really like how as enemy troops enter the city more of the city begins to burn. Rather atmospheric, though Im going to need a new system to run this game well with all that fire and smoke. I also like how the defenders morale goes down as more of the city burns.

AI seemed pretty competent as well.

[quadalpha]

Yes I've been harping on about it for years.
Because I think its a better way of doing what they tried to do with the Rome1 & later campaign map.

I don't think it would really drag out campaign play because the basic moving armies around between provinces is simplified.
I don't think the mini-campaign bit would necessarily take significantly longer than the current army movement.
Certainly there would be no hardware/software issue, the Risk style map was running on way weaker PCs in the past & the Province level maps would be similar quality to current Campaign map but much smaller so potentially it would be much lighter resource wise.

I do concede that with the end of turn resolution you would have those Province turns all plonked together after the End Turn button, I don't think its necesarily a bad thing though.
There generally aren't that many combats in 1 turn & you would have opportunity to auto-resolve before going into that mini-campaign.

Additionally it would have the advantage of not letting you forget to do certain combats.
I have had an issue in current system where quite often I have been distracted with events in one part of my empire, clicked End Turn without resolving things I had meant to do elsewhere, causing opportunities & even armies to be lost.

Yes it is exactly that ability to pile in reinforcements and the fact that a significant loss takes some time to recover from which I want.
The ability of Rome & subsequent AI to just spam stack after stack after stack at you is what actually cripples late game play with the current system.
I really enjoyed not only the advantage from winning a significant battle but also the ability to fall back when outnumbered/having lost, regrouping before counter-attacking with combined & reinforced army.

Yes, I've been saying this for years as well, though not so persistently. An operational layer (like the current 3d campaign map) between a (Risk) strategic and tactical layers. It improves campaign AI, connects the the tactical battles to the campaign in a meaningful way, and simply make better sense of the campaign. Currently, the entire concept of the 3d campaign is ridiculous and non-representative of the actual mechanisms of having an existing force in a theatre.

[Hooahguy]

So apparently, the Huns are playable, despite the rumors that they wouldnt be.