Attila - pulled the trigger at 50% and I'm glad I did...

[easytarget]

Thanks for the response, good to know I'm not the only one being annoyed by these traits, I guess I'll just have to man up and tolerate them as I don't have any way of predictably knowing what triggers them. Odd thing though is, we all know these are just coded in, so it's not like CA doesn't know what triggers them, yet as many times as this topic has come up in the main forum they never pop in to clarify. A behavior all too common for CA I'm afraid. It's as if they don't enjoy talking to their own customers about the games they make, which to me is just bewildering.

[Cazbol]

Regarding the inability to rebuild, was there by any chance a Hunnic horde in the province? Their presence in a province prevents armies from replenishing troops, so I'm hypothesizing that they might prevent the rebuilding of settlements.

[easytarget]

I don't believe there was, I think at this point I'll have to go with the stance hypothesis since I was subsequently able in regular stance to fix the neighboring province.

But thanks for mentioning that, I was not aware of this Hun trick and it'll be good to know that when I run into them, both from a rebuilding perspective but also just from a battle engagement perspective as I was not aware of that because luckily I've not run into them yet.

[Cazbol]

To correct myself, the Hunnic block on replenishment affects the region, not the province, as I previously mentioned.

[easytarget]

I know this much after playing most of one full campaign, the Sassanids need to be toned down. Or change the name of the game from Attila to Revenge of the Sassy empire as they are a much bigger problem in this game than the Huns. They produce way too many stacks and have puppets that are zombie like loyal with their own endless wave of stacks.

[easytarget]

Stopping back by for one other observation: does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that the victory conditions (I've only seen one so far mind you, so perhaps this isn't true for all of them, like the roaming tribes) include a deadline you must survive to? While I've not played enough campaigns to know for sure, it feels like I'm likely often to complete the rest of the conditions for victory (as I have in my current campaign) and then just be left waiting for the clock to run down. From a game play perspective it feels like it only encourages boredom at the back end of a campaign, something CA often struggles with anyway....

Thoughts?

[Cazbol]

Stopping back by for one other observation: does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that the victory conditions (I've only seen one so far mind you, so perhaps this isn't true for all of them, like the roaming tribes) include a deadline you must survive to? While I've not played enough campaigns to know for sure, it feels like I'm likely often to complete the rest of the conditions for victory (as I have in my current campaign) and then just be left waiting for the clock to run down. From a game play perspective it feels like it only encourages boredom at the back end of a campaign, something CA often struggles with anyway....

I most definitely feel that this seems out of place. It only means a victory cannot happen before a certain time. It seems to be there to allow the split into chapters but ends up just being odd. But then again, pretty much all but one of the victory conditions in every campaign seems nonsensical. The only victory condition that makes sense to me is the one stating how big you must be.

As much as I admire Creative Assembly for bringing me Total War, I cannot help thinking that the making of the victory conditions is outsourced to a lunacy asylum. Make this building that I don't want, have these units I don't need, do this, do that, call your mom, wipe your butt. It's a list of random things that you're supposed to do because they put it in a list of random things to do. It has made me totally ignore the victory conditions. I've completed the main campaign and the last Roman campaign in Attila by holding every single province, yet I have supposedly failed to win, because they made this list... that I refuse to complete.

The missions in most campaigns seem to be outsourced to the same loony bin. Every now and then, you get told to do something entirely random, like raising a fleet, even though none of the remaining factions have a coastal region. Somewhere, someone thinks that being told to do random meaningless things is engaging and providing guidance. The silliest missions I have seen so far, were the chapter missions in Rome II, Hannibal at the Gates (which was a nice campaign). As Carthage, I first got some objectives regarding North Africa, which was logical enough. I was then told something about strengthening my position on the Iberian peninsula. However, I adopted the more efficient strategy of attacking Sicily and move north from there, simply ignoring Iberia. This was as unexpected to the Romans as it was to Creative Assembly, because soon after I'm besieging Rome and then receive the next chapter objective. It tells me that now that I've secured much of Iberia, I can start preparing to move into Gaul, and if I succeed there I may be able to starting thinking about moving into the northern part of Roman lands. Thanks.

I therefore ignore the missions, like the victory conditions. The exception being the missions in the Last Roman campaign. They were actually good and not this random nonsense. It was a bit different because I played Belesarius as fully loyal to Justinian and did everything he asked. There was a story behind the missions, which worked, even though its connection to my family tree was bugged, but that was a minor oddity. Still, the victory conditions in the Last Roman are still the same nonsense, after reclaiming all the lands of the empire, you're expeced to change your armies into shops that sell stuff to hordes of slingers. I ignored those as well and enjoyed the campaign.

[Slaists]

Thanks for the response, good to know I'm not the only one being annoyed by these traits, I guess I'll just have to man up and tolerate them as I don't have any way of predictably knowing what triggers them. Odd thing though is, we all know these are just coded in, so it's not like CA doesn't know what triggers them, yet as many times as this topic has come up in the main forum they never pop in to clarify. A behavior all too common for CA I'm afraid. It's as if they don't enjoy talking to their own customers about the games they make, which to me is just bewildering.

Regarding the harsh and unjust trait: I did a bit of experimentation. Seems, taking captives into your army and killing them (both options) trigger the two traits. In my last Aksum campaign, I religiously sold captives instead and my 70 year old ruler (a level 10 general too) is free of the nasty traits despite me auto-resolving left and right.

It seems, you have to abide by this captive approach with all your generals and admirals though. I integrated captives a couple times with non-ruler generals while still having my original ruler and he became both unjust and harsh. I completely avoided integration or killing with my second ruler and he seems to be doing fine still in the old age. P.S. If you constantly sell captives, integrity can potentially become a problem. I guess, this was designed that way - as in, you can keep bad traits from your ruler, but your integrity will suffer.

Another nasty trait is "unfavored" and this one seems to trigger both, in reasonable situations (being passed on for promotion, for example) and .... when a general enters a town to garrison it; especially, if entry is done right after a battle. I reported this in the bug forum way back when Attila came out. CA acknowledged it (sort of) then did nothing about it. I guess, works as intended. Garrisoning a rebellious town is a disgrace.

Here is an old discussion of this topic; things seem to be the same at this point: http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...eader/page4#40

As to Sassanids, it seems, the key to dealing with them is "holding the line" (if you have a direct front) and then, sneaking some stacks into their back-yard. Burning Sassanids down results in all vassals abandoning them.

As to the Hun trait that prevents replenishing: some of the desert tribes have it too. Himyar, for example, has it.

[easytarget]

Ok, well, I can live with the traits, I just find them annoying I guess because it feels like most of what you get is negative not positive (it would be ok if it was balanced but it doesn't feel that way to me). Thanks for the experimentation, least I know how to avoid that one trait which strikes me as particularly harsh.

As for that unfavored trait, doesn't sound like I'll be able to avoid that one, I mean who can? Of course the general who just successfully attacked is going to be the one that has to sit in and subdue the place, I mean what on earth is CA thinking there? Again, often feels like they don't play test these enough to see what they did in action.

Finally, on Sassanids, I remain completely convinced they are unbalanced as hell. The idea of giving them so many provinces along with like 8 or so puppets right out of the gate means they have insane resources. Not only is it historically wrong it's game play design wise not in line with what TW is about. If you are anywhere in their vicinity you have no choice but to deal with them as if they are the only opponent in the game, rather ironic given the name of this one is Attila and not Sassy, haha. And it virtually insures ERE get destroyed almost immediately due to barbarians and Sassanids carving them up. While your strategy works, it's flawed from a game design stand point because immersion is based on what if and not getting channeled down one path. It needs a tweak.