Attila Patches, Hotfixes, Betas and Such (B&B hotfix released)

**Hooahguy** · 03-18-2015, 16:45

Total War: ATTILA - Tin Isle Mercenaries Update

Due next week, alongside Celts Culture Pack Release.
This update brings with it many performance, technical and gameplay improvements, and plenty of unit rebalancing. It also introduces a raft of mercenary Celtic units and ships which may be recruited by any forces stationed in and around the Brittanic, or as the Greeks named them, Tin Isles.
All players will get access to these mercenary units, even if they do not purchase the separate Celts Culture Pack.
All Celtic units have the Guerrilla Deployment trait, which gives them a vastly larger area in which to deploy across any given battlefield. This can bring a disruptive new dimension to your army’s skillset, enabling it to perfom surprise attacks early in the battle and from unexpected directions – even from concealment behind the enemy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Link

**Bramborough** · 03-19-2015, 19:09

A lot to like here, particularly in the "Campaign Improvements".

Although I wonder exactly what they mean by "Huns more active when Attila is king". Hun stacks become more aggressive (i.e., seek out actual battle rather than clump together and raid)? Or just spawn even more stacks than is already the case? I guess we'll find out next week...

**Hooahguy** · 03-19-2015, 19:17

I guess the idea is that they should be wiping out way more settlements than they are as of now. They really are playing on the whole "bringer of the apocalypse" thing.

Looking forwards to more general units for the Long Beards factions. They were woefully underpowered.

**Bramborough** · 03-20-2015, 01:55

Maybe. My general experience with Huns over two campaigns has been that they enter your territory to raid, stay in 2-3 stack groups (often more) making them difficult to attack, and are more than happy to swoop in on an undefended minor settlement within range and raze it. What I haven't seen them do (on Normal difficulty) is lay siege to a walled city, or attack a full-army-stack-defended town. One would think that's why they lug around all those onagers....

**Slaists** · 03-23-2015, 18:32

Originally Posted by Bramborough

Maybe. My general experience with Huns over two campaigns has been that they enter your territory to raid, stay in 2-3 stack groups (often more) making them difficult to attack, and are more than happy to swoop in on an undefended minor settlement within range and raze it. What I haven't seen them do (on Normal difficulty) is lay siege to a walled city, or attack a full-army-stack-defended town. One would think that's why they lug around all those onagers....

That's pretty much how I play with Huns, LOL.

I do lug a single onager in my horse archer armies so I can autoresolve against garrison-only defended walled settlements.

By the way, that previous pic I posed: with a burnt down AI fort. It seems, this bug applies to square-shape forts, not the barbarian round ones. If I bring arty to a battle with barbarians: they do sally out.

Incidentally, it is much easier to burn down the square-form fors. The barbarian ones seems sturdier (by the virtue of having more wall sections so fire is limited to a smaller area).

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-29-2015, 05:37

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I guess the idea is that they should be wiping out way more settlements than they are as of now. They really are playing on the whole "bringer of the apocalypse" thing.

Looking forwards to more general units for the Long Beards factions. They were woefully underpowered.

On medium campaign difficulty I have seen the Huns raze every settlement they attacked bar two.

The thing is, razing a settlement for a Horde is largely pointless unless you just want to destroy the enemy faction because, ultimately, it's easier to take and convert that to recolonise all that blasted land. Also - Razed settlements can't be raided for more loot later.

Finally it's worth pointing out that Attila only did this ONCE that we know of, whilst he devastated many cities he only razed one to the ground, arguably the Germanic Hordes were more destructive, irrc Alaric of the Visgoths destroyed Corinth such that it had to be refounded.

I'd much rather razing a settlement was this horrific thing that happened occasionally and was really devastating rather than knowing that if you lose to the Huns everyone will die - because that's what happens, unless the Huns have been (temporarily) knocked down to their last stack and think they need cash.

**Slaists** · 03-30-2015, 18:32

Well, for Huns, razing settlements makes a lot of sense. Of course, it would be better for them to sack and then raze on the same turn. I do it all the time myself (playing as Huns). For one, in razed areas, settlements do not impede army movements. Second, there are no new enemy troops being raised in razed areas. Third, if Huns are playing the subjugation game, you need to get the target faction down to 1 settlement before you can subjugate them.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-30-2015, 19:38

Originally Posted by Slaists

Well, for Huns, razing settlements makes a lot of sense. Of course, it would be better for them to sack and then raze on the same turn. I do it all the time myself (playing as Huns). For one, in razed areas, settlements do not impede army movements. Second, there are no new enemy troops being raised in razed areas. Third, if Huns are playing the subjugation game, you need to get the target faction down to 1 settlement before you can subjugate them.

I would argue it would be better for them to sack both settlements in a province, pocket the cash and then attack the walled city and sack that. This will pretty much guarantee a rebellion, which will then take one of the the settlements, and then the Huns can subjugate the rebel faction.

From the point of view of the WRE player it just means you station big armies in Illyria and Dacia and fight those sieges tooth and nail. In fact the way the Hunnic AI works means that without the script to preserve it the player would beat the faction to death because they're such a menace.

In fact, all the Hords have this problem, the "Great Migration" ended around 402 in my game after the Hordes beat themselves to death against my legions. The dangerous hordes are the ones that stay "friendly" and wander around casually raiding as they present a dilemma about whether to start a war with them or not.

**Slaists** · 03-30-2015, 21:12

For those friendly hordes: an easy way to deal with them is to grant them a border region when they wander in. That way you get rid of the horde (and get an ally) and reduce your corruption a bit too.

As to that sack + wait for a rebellion: it usually takes too much time (the horde needs to keep moving in order to stay ahead of the non-stop hate entourage following it) + the other AI's shadowing Hun stacks (the player's stacks) tend to destroy the rebels before they have a chance to take anything.