Attila TW Previews

[Hooahguy]

They have released the complete campaign map:




And maybe its just me but I kinda figured that the Huns would start a bit more east than they do now.

[Bramborough]

I would think the same. That Hun start point looks somewhat too westerly.

Note the name form changes on many of the factions, with "-ians" replacing "-ii". I guess there must be a logical linguistic rationale for that, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what it is. Maybe because we have fewer historical primary sources for the period, and those few are from the Eastern empire (i.e., "Byzantine") and in Greek rather than Latin? Just a total shot in the dark....maybe it's nothing more than just another facet of CA trying to make Attila seem as different as possible relative to R2.

[Crandar]

Note the name form changes on many of the factions, with "-ians" replacing "-ii". I guess there must be a logical linguistic rationale for that, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what it is. Maybe because we have fewer historical primary sources for the period, and those few are from the Eastern empire (i.e., "Byzantine") and in Greek rather than Latin?

Not really. Take for example, the Roxolanians, both in Rome II and in BI, they were called Roxolanii. CA probably considers her audience to thick to understand the Latin names.

Also, the existence of the historically non-existent persian satrapies, just like the existence of the imaginary states of Cyprus, Arachosia, Parthava and so on, is a definitive proof that CA is incapable of balancing the large factions, like she did in BI or ETW.

[Littlefinger]

any idea of when reviews will be out? would be nice to have them before release day...... previews are nice but.......

[Hooahguy]

If I had to guess probably not until the week or so before release. Very few games have reviews posted almost a month before release date.

[KLAssurbanipal]

[lars573]

I would think the same. That Hun start point looks somewhat too westerly.

Note the name form changes on many of the factions, with "-ians" replacing "-ii". I guess there must be a logical linguistic rationale for that, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what it is. Maybe because we have fewer historical primary sources for the period, and those few are from the Eastern empire (i.e., "Byzantine") and in Greek rather than Latin? Just a total shot in the dark....maybe it's nothing more than just another facet of CA trying to make Attila seem as different as possible relative to R2.

My understanting is thus:

"ii" refers to a tribe or ethnic group
"ia" refers to the nations/kingdoms above might build
"ian" is a citizen/subject person from said nation/kingdom.

So taking one from that map, Quadians.

Quadii is the tribe, Quadia is the lands they rule, Quadian is someone from Quaida (with no regards to them being an ethnic Quadii or not)

[edyzmedieval]

From that campaign map, it looks like the Eastern Romans are really in for a war right from the first turn, given that the Ostrogoths are at the border, Visigoths are already in it and the Sassanids are waiting for an opportunity.