Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Rome II was so much better than Attila

DiplomattDiplomatt Senior MemberPreston, UKPosts: 1,136Registered Users
edited April 2015 in Multiplayer
April Fools :^)
[WOLF]Diplomatt

Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
Post edited by Diplomatt on
«1

Comments

  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Posts: 402Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    shoot me down for this, but i haven't had as much fun with any faction in attila as i had playing parthia or armenia in Rome 2. That said, this is an easy fix. Increase the speed differential on lighter units, and give more skirmish cav parthian shot ability, and make Sassanid Skirmishers far deadlier and done.
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • PirxPirx Junior Member Posts: 14Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    shoot me down for this, but i haven't had as much fun with any faction in attila as i had playing parthia or armenia in Rome 2. That said, this is an easy fix. Increase the speed differential on lighter units, and give more skirmish cav parthian shot ability, and make Sassanid Skirmishers far deadlier and done.

    Same here, the only difference is that I had great fun with Baktria.

    Of course, Attila is finally pretty balanced game, but I had more fun from the game on Rome 2. I donno - maybe its because of this icons above units on Attila. I feel like CA thinks we are all stupid and cannot differ sword from cavalry...
  • GevorgGevorg Banned Posts: 61Banned Users
    edited April 2015
    I actually think Rome 2 is better. No joke. Attila is boring.
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKPosts: 1,136Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    The variety and looks of Rome II were good but the gameplay and balancing are so much worse
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    April Fools :^)

    Good one mate :)
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    It is true story. Shogun 2> Rome 2 patch 14 ,15 beta > Rome 2 > Attila..
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Posts: 1,485Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Attila MP is awesomely boring.

    Moar variety please, no more cookie cutter factions.

    CA plz
    My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/brightbluejacket1
    Watch if you like high quality, edited and cinematic videos with informed content.
    My Rig:
    i7 8700k @ 4ghz
    1 x Titan X Pascal
    16GB 3000Mhz Ram
    1TB SSD Drive
    34" Curved Monitor 3440x1440p
  • Pine89Pine89 Senior Member Posts: 580Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I find rome 2 way too boring to endure anymore, it's all about boii/tylis and their infantry + freemen spam. plus I've played it for the last 2 years.

    I know, I know, on attila you have the germanics instead but at least the viable builds are much more balanced. you usually see infantry, missiles and cavalry. granted, cav is king but you don't see 15 out of 20 units made out of cav units. cav is more important but it needs many other units to work effectively. also with the last patch many other different factions became more viable (ok not the huns lol), they just need to be used differently from the germanics. germanics in general aren't so strong anymore since flaming shot got an increased reload time and their 200 range archers aren't so decisive as they were in patch 1. that's just me though :)

    disclaimer: I know it's an april fool's thread
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Attila MP is awesomely boring.

    Moar variety please, no more cookie cutter factions.

    CA plz

    Thats true... I started playing other game in fact... I find this one too boring. Theres no real nomad (no... the Huns are just a fing joke atm). ME SAD!
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • TinkerbellTinkerbell Member Posts: 33Registered Users
    edited April 2015
  • GamgeeGamgee Senior Member Posts: 1,819Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Rome 2 is way better.
  • Thorien_KellThorien_Kell Senior Member Posts: 1,529Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I know, I know, on attila you have the germanics instead but at least the viable builds are much more balanced. you usually see infantry, missiles and cavalry.

    99% of rome MP armies have inf/cav/missiles. Missiles can be excluded on small, flat maps if you want but pair of slingers cost little and it still allows some flexibility and lategame danger.

    Having sword heavy armies seems quite normal tbh. Cav heavy armies imo make no sense. If you give cav a hit power, staying power and cost efficiency (they already have mobility) then infantry has no purpose. It's just bad design.
  • SnipingAchillesSnipingAchilles Senior Member BelgiumPosts: 289Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    The only reason why Atilla is starting to feel really really static is because of the idiotic fatigue system. Rushing is not possible anymore, flanking is super easy to counter because it takes ages...
    AggonyAchilles on Steam.

    YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/snipingachilles
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    The only reason why Atilla is starting to feel really really static is because of the idiotic fatigue system. Rushing is not possible anymore, flanking is super easy to counter because it takes ages...

    Bad balancing is also a reason.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Missile and close combat are basic element in strategy game.Poor Missile units (%50 of game is broken) , unbalanced facitons, unblanced units , too much factions( unneceary) , too much germenic faciton ,poor map ,small map, slow units. Absurds guerilla tactics, historical untis etc...
  • AKKF32AKKF32 Senior Member Posts: 193Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    looks like im not the only one who thinks atw is repetitive...
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKPosts: 1,136Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Ok this is a joke thread. Someone else should make a thread complaining about lack of variety
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • GamgeeGamgee Senior Member Posts: 1,819Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    Ok this is a joke thread. Someone else should make a thread complaining about lack of variety
    Guess the joke was on you then. Doh ho ho. I like april fools day.
  • |Sith|DesertFox|Sith|DesertFox Senior Member Posts: 458Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Pine89 wrote: »
    I find rome 2 way too boring to endure anymore, it's all about boii/tylis and their infantry + freemen spam. plus I've played it for the last 2 years.

    I know, I know, on attila you have the germanics instead but at least the viable builds are much more balanced. you usually see infantry, missiles and cavalry. granted, cav is king but you don't see 15 out of 20 units made out of cav units. cav is more important but it needs many other units to work effectively. also with the last patch many other different factions became more viable (ok not the huns lol), they just need to be used differently from the germanics. germanics in general aren't so strong anymore since flaming shot got an increased reload time and their 200 range archers aren't so decisive as they were in patch 1. that's just me though :)

    disclaimer: I know it's an april fool's thread

    I am actually surprised that people still call the Huns useless. They are a far better faction than last patch. Not amazing, certainly not Germanic, but they are now good. 6 Stppe cataphracts 5 Uars, 4 chosen uars, and 1-3 archers is a really good army. If you play like a boss you can beat similarly skilled Germanic players. It's really how you use the Huns to how effective they can be. And no this is not an April fool's joke, they really can be used now in fun battles, but difenatly hesitate for competitive play, it can be done it's just hard with a player who knows what he's doing.

    I do agree that Hunnic HA need something and their melee cav needs just a little more help, but with Uars that might make them absurd, unless Uars lost 15 attack or so. No idea I'd have to mod that and test it.

    Anyway have a good day.
    "Who I am is not important, my message is." ~ Darth Reven
    MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL!!!! https://www.youtube.com/user/teubel98/feed
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Posts: 402Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I am actually surprised that people still call the Huns useless. They are a far better faction than last patch. Not amazing, certainly not Germanic, but they are now good. 6 Stppe cataphracts 5 Uars, 4 chosen uars, and 1-3 archers is a really good army. If you play like a boss you can beat similarly skilled Germanic players. It's really how you use the Huns to how effective they can be. And no this is not an April fool's joke, they really can be used now in fun battles, but difenatly hesitate for competitive play, it can be done it's just hard with a player who knows what he's doing.

    I do agree that Hunnic HA need something and their melee cav needs just a little more help, but with Uars that might make them absurd, unless Uars lost 15 attack or so. No idea I'd have to mod that and test it.

    Anyway have a good day.

    Yeah huns absolutely can beat germanic factions. I just want two things from Attila:

    1. Disengage your cav with fewer losses (would make shock cav more useful)

    2. Make sassanids stronger.
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I am actually surprised that people still call the Huns useless. They are a far better faction than last patch. Not amazing, certainly not Germanic, but they are now good. 6 Stppe cataphracts 5 Uars, 4 chosen uars, and 1-3 archers is a really good army. If you play like a boss you can beat similarly skilled Germanic players. It's really how you use the Huns to how effective they can be. And no this is not an April fool's joke, they really can be used now in fun battles, but difenatly hesitate for competitive play, it can be done it's just hard with a player who knows what he's doing.

    I do agree that Hunnic HA need something and their melee cav needs just a little more help, but with Uars that might make them absurd, unless Uars lost 15 attack or so. No idea I'd have to mod that and test it.

    Anyway have a good day.

    Your build is a occidental army type transposed to the Huns. Yes it can works, but I just dont find it appropriate to this faction. Yeah, nomads had infantry, I asked so many time for it in rome2, but the Huns that dont rely on ha arent the Huns.

    So in a way, the Huns arent the Huns, just asian looking germans (who are less fat and because of that, lighter in general).
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • SaltyJohnSaltyJohn Senior Member Posts: 147Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Honestly, simply giving Hunnic melee cavalry spears would probably do a lot to fix them. Their axes are fine against infantry, but the main issue with the Huns as a whole is that their cavalry is worse than useless compared to that of EVERY other faction bar the Celts.
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Posts: 402Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Salty John wrote: »
    Honestly, simply giving Hunnic melee cavalry spears would probably do a lot to fix them. Their axes are fine against infantry, but the main issue with the Huns as a whole is that their cavalry is worse than useless compared to that of EVERY other faction bar the Celts.

    The huns have by far the most cost-effective melee cavalry, it just also happens to be the cheapest. 475 odd talents for a melee cav with a heavy spear and 43 melee attack. The playstyle CA seemingly want players to adopt is apparent. Charge in with shock cavalry on to enemy cav, then immediately follow up with the cheap melee cav, use them to hold the enemy cav while you pull out with your shock cav. This is the playstyle that would work if you were to bring a nomadic or historically accurate (I guess) Hunnic army.
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    There are few tactics and builds. Steroids army every time. I can create unortdhox build in Rome 2 . ı Can make diffrent plans in Rome 2 .Attila is really boring game..
  • Sgt. JohnyMcChickenSgt. JohnyMcChicken Senior Member Posts: 405Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Yeah huns absolutely can beat germanic factions. I just want two things from Attila:

    1. Disengage your cav with fewer losses (would make shock cav more useful)

    2. Make sassanids stronger.

    Sassanids don't necceserly need a buff. Melee cav just needs to be worse on the charge(impact dmg), and archers need to be better overall. Overall the hegenomy of cav in this game get's really boring. Strong all nice and good, but it seems to be to much to balance factions. Factions with ****** cav don't have a place and it makes for ridicolous armys. Norse with horselord spam is silly and the access to heavy cav is also silly. With no access to such a unit they would be ****, but it's clearly not how you should play the northern germanics.
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Posts: 228Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Huns relied mostly on light cav units with low armor fighting in large numbers. Buffing their cav stats even more would change that. Maybe a simpler solution would be to give some key units increased numbers. Giving the cheaper melee and shock cav 160 men in large settings would probably do the trick.
    Maybe some price adjustments on this units, if necessary, and removing the 10 bonus vs inf from the Uars would fit more their fighting style.
    If we can have units that are smaller cause they are special and to good, why dont have some hunic units that are larger to better balance them out.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    The huns have by far the most cost-effective melee cavalry, it just also happens to be the cheapest. 475 odd talents for a melee cav with a heavy spear and 43 melee attack. The playstyle CA seemingly want players to adopt is apparent. Charge in with shock cavalry on to enemy cav, then immediately follow up with the cheap melee cav, use them to hold the enemy cav while you pull out with your shock cav. This is the playstyle that would work if you were to bring a nomadic or historically accurate (I guess) Hunnic army.

    The Huns need to relly on their ha, they are simply not cost effective enought for my taste and dont kill fast enought. Sure they can get some good amount of kills, but its not enought to make them appear in every hunnic armies (wich they really should).
    Huns relied mostly on light cav units with low armor fighting in large numbers. Buffing their cav stats even more would change that. Maybe a simpler solution would be to give some key units increased numbers. Giving the cheaper melee and shock cav 160 men in large settings would probably do the trick.
    Maybe some price adjustments on this units, if necessary, and removing the 10 bonus vs inf from the Uars would fit more their fighting style.
    If we can have units that are smaller cause they are special and to good, why dont have some hunic units that are larger to better balance them out.

    The Huns werent huge in numbers....... People and their nomad hordes illusion :rolleyes:

    They realied on disciplined and skilfull soldiers and good tactics.


    Hunnic units fought in small scadron and relied on mobility, giving them big units make absolutely no sense.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Posts: 228Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    The Huns werent huge in numbers....... People and their nomad hordes illusion :rolleyes:

    No one was huge in numbers in that time period unless it was a well planed and prepared battle with multiple alies on each side.
    By concentrating their forces and making surprise atacks on one single target/enemy huns, magyars, and later mongols where able to largely outnumber their enemies.

    Belialxv wrote: »
    They realied on disciplined and skilfull soldiers and good tactics.

    They were very well trained horsemen. Their infantry consisted of the poorest and badly trained tribe people that couldn´t even afford a horse and was only there for support purpose.
    They managed to win not because they were better trained than other armies but because of surprise factor, numbers and unknown warfare tacticts for europeans.
    People and their super nomad warriors illusions :rolleyes:

    Belialxv wrote: »
    Hunnic units fought in small scadron and relied on mobility, giving them big units make absolutely no sense.
    Small scadrons like 160 men perhaps?
    Care to give your opinion in how to make huns better and more balanced?
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    No one was huge in numbers in that time period unless it was a well planed and prepared battle with multiple alies on each side.
    By concentrating their forces and making surprise atacks on one single target/enemy huns, magyars, and later mongols where able to largely outnumber their enemies.




    They were very well trained horsemen. Their infantry consisted of the poorest and badly trained tribe people that couldn´t even afford a horse and was only there for support purpose.
    They managed to win not because they were better trained than other armies but because of surprise factor, numbers and unknown warfare tacticts for europeans.
    People and their super nomad warriors illusions :rolleyes:



    Small scadrons like 160 men perhaps?
    Care to give your opinion in how to make huns better and more balanced?

    They were outnumbered in alot of their battle. Especially the Mongols.

    Nomad warrior illusions? The feinted retreat is an illusion for you? wow... Thats the type of things I mean by tactics. Dont know how you interpreted that :rolleyes:

    The Huns surrounded their ennemies alot and moved around the battlefield in small detachment. Giving them bigger units make zero sense.

    I propose to make their ha deadlier and more cost effective in general, so the players have advantage in bringing them. More than they do now at least.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • Sgt. JohnyMcChickenSgt. JohnyMcChicken Senior Member Posts: 405Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    The huns had about equal numbers in most big battles. The most famous one of the catalaunian plains the huns and their allies fielded equal numbers to the allied romans and germanics.
    I wouldn't say that making their units bigger quite fits. I think it's just a mechanical question, charge speed the same for all weights, bad turn speed overall effectiveness of archers, these are all things that hurt the huns. With some changes in that direction you would buff them significantly without giving them illogical buffs like increasing mass.
    Also i don't think that they are that bad. There are not vandals, and alans. They are more mediocre like most of the factions. The game itself has a bad balance, beginning with unit classes and the superioty of melee cav over everything.
Sign In or Register to comment.