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

There's just not enough faction variety

DiplomattDiplomatt Senior MemberPreston, UKPosts: 1,136Registered Users
edited April 2015 in Multiplayer
Some people complain about getting bored with attila. I'm not at that point yet but I can see where people are coming from. There are too many copy and paste Germanic units. Also, all factions looks the same in battle because of the unit icons.

Rome II had larger rosters with much more variety. Of course there will be crossovers but there needs to be more distinguishing features. You might say 'oh well its ok they're the same culture' but if you look at Rome II, there was even lots of differentiation between the Greek factions like Sparta and Athens, and then even the units they shared weren't key ones like hoplites. Celts were fairly similar but that was 3 factions out of loads. Then if you look at barbarians in general there was a massive difference between Iceni, Arverni, Lusitani, Arevaci, Suebi, Odryssian, Getae, Galatia ect.. Attila has just has Huns, Sassanids, Romans, Nordics and Germanics (oh and Celtics which are useless anyway).

Germanic Pikes, Archers, Noble Horse, Lancers, Bows, Hunters, Horse, Spearmen, Noble Spearmen are in too many rosters. Also Nordics lack good variety with the Skirmishers, Axe Warriors, Levy, Spears, Horse Lords and other Melee cav. Don't have Celtic DLC so can't comment on that.

Its the wrong way round, it shouldn't be a few unique units it should be a few shared units.
[WOLF]Diplomatt

Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
Post edited by Diplomatt on
«13

Comments

  • winsunshinewinsunshine Senior Member Posts: 820Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    The problem is not unit variety, but game balance. Spear melee cavs is to strong with so few weakness make people search for faction with strongest unit in that category, and the remain fund only allow them to invest in cheap generic unit.

    It is like the period of Oathsworn domination in Rome II, where people buy 6 Oathsworn and the rest for Levy Freemen.

    Same story happen in Attila, Germanic Archer and Spear Melee Cavs can do all the task and all you need left is either Pike/Noble Swordmen/Gothic Warband to hold the line.

    The first step is to nerf the impact damage of cavalry, buff recurve bow and sword/axe melee cavalry as well as skirmisher cavalry, and make unique unit more appealing.

    You may see people bring more unique unit like javelinmen, axe heerbann, jav cav....
  • AKKF32AKKF32 Senior Member Posts: 193Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    I dont know about you but all factions feel the same exact way. There is no real counter to another faction as its all the same. Yes, you have vikings, huns, sassanids, celts, romans and germans but every single game consists of cav charges followed up with high attack units (axes/shock), then its just a bloody blob and hope for the best.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    CA spamed german factions and ruined the other.
    AKKF32 wrote: »
    I dont know about you but all factions feel the same exact way. There is no real counter to another faction as its all the same. Yes, you have vikings, huns, sassanids, celts, romans and germans but every single game consists of cav charges followed up with high attack units (axes/shock), then its just a bloody blob and hope for the best.

    I agree.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • blademaster3090blademaster3090 Senior Member Posts: 402Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    Some people complain about getting bored with attila. I'm not at that point yet but I can see where people are coming from. There are too many copy and paste Germanic units. Also, all factions looks the same in battle because of the unit icons.

    Rome II had larger rosters with much more variety. Of course there will be crossovers but there needs to be more distinguishing features. You might say 'oh well its ok they're the same culture' but if you look at Rome II, there was even lots of differentiation between the Greek factions like Sparta and Athens, and then even the units they shared weren't key ones like hoplites. Celts were fairly similar but that was 3 factions out of loads. Then if you look at barbarians in general there was a massive difference between Iceni, Arverni, Lusitani, Arevaci, Suebi, Odryssian, Getae, Galatia ect.. Attila has just has Huns, Sassanids, Romans, Nordics and Germanics (oh and Celtics which are useless anyway).

    Germanic Pikes, Archers, Noble Horse, Lancers, Bows, Hunters, Horse, Spearmen, Noble Spearmen are in too many rosters. Also Nordics lack good variety with the Skirmishers, Axe Warriors, Levy, Spears, Horse Lords and other Melee cav. Don't have Celtic DLC so can't comment on that.

    Its the wrong way round, it shouldn't be a few unique units it should be a few shared units.

    nail on the head. if there was more variety there would inevitably be different ways to play the game, making it less boring.

    i really like the game right now, but i could play rome 2 matches for hours on end, just choosing different factions each time and switching my playstyle...i could take weird builds like all skirmish parthia or all infantry boii or chariot/elephant rush or bring cretans and rhodians and tank it out with the greek states and win.

    here, its just the same tactic over and over.
    Check out my youtube channel! Mainly Rome 2 Multiplayer tactics, tutorials and replays :)
    www.youtube.com/wolftotalwar
  • ArhuArhu Senior Member Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    Some people complain about getting bored with attila. I'm not at that point yet but I can see where people are coming from. There are too many copy and paste Germanic units. Also, all factions looks the same in battle because of the unit icons.

    Rome II had larger rosters with much more variety. Of course there will be crossovers but there needs to be more distinguishing features. You might say 'oh well its ok they're the same culture' but if you look at Rome II, there was even lots of differentiation between the Greek factions like Sparta and Athens, and then even the units they shared weren't key ones like hoplites. Celts were fairly similar but that was 3 factions out of loads. Then if you look at barbarians in general there was a massive difference between Iceni, Arverni, Lusitani, Arevaci, Suebi, Odryssian, Getae, Galatia ect.. Attila has just has Huns, Sassanids, Romans, Nordics and Germanics (oh and Celtics which are useless anyway).

    Germanic Pikes, Archers, Noble Horse, Lancers, Bows, Hunters, Horse, Spearmen, Noble Spearmen are in too many rosters. Also Nordics lack good variety with the Skirmishers, Axe Warriors, Levy, Spears, Horse Lords and other Melee cav. Don't have Celtic DLC so can't comment on that.

    Its the wrong way round, it shouldn't be a few unique units it should be a few shared units.

    All factions have their unique roster too but bringing them just isn't worth it because of the absolute power of melee cav, the annoyance of dealing with pike spaghetti lines and the power of the germanic bow
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Posts: 1,485Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    Some people complain about getting bored with attila. I'm not at that point yet but I can see where people are coming from. There are too many copy and paste Germanic units. Also, all factions looks the same in battle because of the unit icons.

    Rome II had larger rosters with much more variety. Of course there will be crossovers but there needs to be more distinguishing features. You might say 'oh well its ok they're the same culture' but if you look at Rome II, there was even lots of differentiation between the Greek factions like Sparta and Athens, and then even the units they shared weren't key ones like hoplites. Celts were fairly similar but that was 3 factions out of loads. Then if you look at barbarians in general there was a massive difference between Iceni, Arverni, Lusitani, Arevaci, Suebi, Odryssian, Getae, Galatia ect.. Attila has just has Huns, Sassanids, Romans, Nordics and Germanics (oh and Celtics which are useless anyway).

    Germanic Pikes, Archers, Noble Horse, Lancers, Bows, Hunters, Horse, Spearmen, Noble Spearmen are in too many rosters. Also Nordics lack good variety with the Skirmishers, Axe Warriors, Levy, Spears, Horse Lords and other Melee cav. Don't have Celtic DLC so can't comment on that.

    Its the wrong way round, it shouldn't be a few unique units it should be a few shared units.

    Yup, been saying the same for a while now.

    Still like the game, esp the game mechanics, but much variety is needed.
    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
  • SKill3ssSKill3ss Member Posts: 39Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Faction variety is pretty poor but the game is so close to being interesting in its current state. Give skirmisher cav PS, increase archer missile damage and give the Sassanid archers a buff. This would open up a host of new tactics - you could bring a skirmish heavy build and stand a chance.

    The game just feels cut and paste because there is only one viable tactic and no interesting maps.
  • sigrsigr Senior Member Posts: 714Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    SKill3ss wrote: »
    only one viable tactic

    This.
    <insert witty signature>
    Team Parthia
    Team England
    Team Maratha Confederacy
    Team Ikko-Ikki
    Team Something-Something-Germanic
    Team Tomb King, but until then Greenskin

    Please return the Parthian avatar to the profile picture choices.
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Posts: 228Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Interesting. A thread in which everybody agrees.
  • winsunshinewinsunshine Senior Member Posts: 820Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Interesting. A thread in which everybody agrees.

    Not sure if sarcasm or not. Just look at Rome II, we basically having the same tactic with different unit skin. Tribal Warrior or Galatian Legion or Sword Follower is same **** with different skins.

    Without fixing the underlying bad balance between units/unit types, you always end up with same army composition. Different unit skin =/= variety in gameplay.
  • ArhuArhu Senior Member Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Interesting. A thread in which everybody agrees.

    even the people saying shock and melee cav are fine as they are but fail to see that all these boring builds stem from the fact that cav is too cheap and melee too powerful against infantry and shock not powerful enough....
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKPosts: 1,136Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Not sure if sarcasm or not. Just look at Rome II, we basically having the same tactic with different unit skin. Tribal Warrior or Galatian Legion or Sword Follower is same **** with different skins.

    Without fixing the underlying bad balance between units/unit types, you always end up with same army composition. Different unit skin =/= variety in gameplay.

    At least there was some variety. Evert faction had its own version of heavy horse like fierce horse, scutarii cav and the iceni one i cant remember instead of just noble germanic. Also even if you group faction together that are similar, it doesn't matter because there is so much other variety so proportionally you could argue that 2 factions are similar but that's maybe 3 factions out of loads.

    People make a good point, there are a lack of viable tactics. Skirmishing needs to how it was in Rome II, that was one of the few areas that was done well. Elephants need to be reasonable and so do horse archers. Since CA loves guerilla tactics so much they need to be made to work in some form or another. Different play styles would be good.
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • ArhuArhu Senior Member Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    yeah skirmishers are way too expensive
  • Sgt. JohnyMcChickenSgt. JohnyMcChicken Senior Member Posts: 405Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Arhu wrote: »
    even the people saying shock and melee cav are fine as they are but fail to see that all these boring builds stem from the fact that cav is too cheap and melee too powerful against infantry and shock not powerful enough....

    Shock is powerful enough. Melee cav is just more powerful. Nordics fielding horselord spam which are way to good, is silly. The game is boring with it's current meta, and makes faction choosing playstyles which they totally not suited for. the nordics would be total garbage if their heavy cav wouldn't be so good. But access to good melee cav should not define the complete strength of a faction, sadly it's exactly that way.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Is Not "Faction diversity= tactic diversity "... Shogun 2 is total war game that have most tactic diversity. There are a lot of asymmetry .Bow , gun , sword , sword-spear hybird units,spear ,long spear,usefull sword cav , shock cav ,horse archer ,mount gunner.
    Main problem of Attila is poor misslile units. People must use heavy Mellee cav , shock inf as destriciton units. There are unit balanc eproblem. Alse we dont need 99999 germenic faciton. Max 12 facitons are enough for multi. Quantity or Qualty ? o course qualtiy.. There are a slavic , a celtic , wre ,ere ,huns ,sasanbids ,alans , a berberi facton , 4 gemenic faciton( Goth, Saxon, Vandal ,Franks..) There are good balance and some asymmetry betwwen 12 facitons.. But capitalsm DLC ,DLC,DLC ,monye money. I am total war fun. CA can sell a good full game 80 dollar. I still would buy it. But I wont buy any dlc after this. Attila is probobly last total war game.CA finished itself..CA exploting its fans.. Players ages fall . Total war game 's quality deacrease.

    I wonder .. . Are publisher team same in Attila ,Roma 2 ,Shogun 2. Did work diffrent people on Shogun 2 ?.Attila 's Muşti is constructed very bad. The game needs least more 10 patches..Somethings cant fixed..
  • TheokolesOfRomeTheokolesOfRome Senior Member The Highlands in me kilt.Posts: 1,485Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Is Not "Faction diversity= tactic diversity "... Shogun 2 is total war game that have most tactic diversity. There are a lot of asymmetry .Bow , gun , sword , sword-spear hybird units,spear ,long spear,usefull sword cav , shock cav ,horse archer ,mount gunner.
    Main problem of Attila is poor misslile units. People must use heavy Mellee cav , shock inf as destriciton units. There are unit balanc eproblem. Alse we dont need 99999 germenic faciton. Max 12 facitons are enough for multi. Quantity or Qualty ? o course qualtiy.. There are a slavic , a celtic , wre ,ere ,huns ,sasanbids ,alans , a berberi facton , 4 gemenic faciton( Goth, Saxon, Vandal ,Franks..) There are good balance and some asymmetry betwwen 12 facitons.. But capitalsm DLC ,DLC,DLC ,monye money. I am total war fun. CA can sell a good full game 80 dollar. I still would buy it. But I wont buy any dlc after this. Attila is probobly last total war game.CA finished itself..CA exploting its fans.. Players ages fall . Total war game 's quality deacrease

    You're so cheerful its inspiring.
    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
  • IllogicIllogic Junior Member Posts: 9Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    This gheym is neither historical nor appropriately balanced. Rome 2 was somehow historical in multiplayer, Romans had their supremacy for a few patches, Celts had (still have) their dominance, also Hellenic and eastern factions were good choices for a long time (some of them still are). Ofc, that's not how it should work, but it was still more interesting than this ****** meta and CA is so rude that they repeat these faults over and over again like a potato. I completely agree with Cagatay, CA got to the point where they're being successful while facerolling and laughing at their stupid community just like EA and Ubisoft, Gameforge is five steps away.
  • DiplomattDiplomatt Senior Member Preston, UKPosts: 1,136Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    The gameplay is good just overall balance and unit rosters that need work. Its not a **** game they just didn't spend enough time on the units
    [WOLF]Diplomatt

    Moderator of www.reddit.com/r/totalwar
  • ArhuArhu Senior Member Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    The gameplay is good just overall balance and unit rosters that need work. Its not a **** game they just didn't spend enough time on the units

    Each germanic faction (i count the alani as germanic) has between 10-20 unique units, not counting generals, that should open the door to many varies playing styles but since melee cav is so strong and relatively cheap none of these unique units really are a viable option
  • winsunshinewinsunshine Senior Member Posts: 820Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    memccann wrote: »
    The gameplay is good just overall balance and unit rosters that need work. Its not a **** game they just didn't spend enough time on the units

    The overall balance is bad. Whoever win the cav fight win the game, unit get into each other role kill variety of gameplay. Best shock cavs is those who have bonus vs cavs and melee cavalry do crazy amount of kill by sheer impact damage.

    Half of melee cavs are useless due to not having bonus vs cavs while the other half dominate the game.

    Range unit balance is also a disaster with only one type of viable skirmisher. Friendly fire also unnecessary high where it is 50/50 between enemy kill/friendly kill. It should be 30/70. Unit also tend to aim to high too often, so when you fight to the back of enemy, a lot of shot will fly over head and hit your own troop in their face. On another hand, they could not fire at high angle and easily get obstruct.

    Cheap melee unit also have no role. You can simply use cheap archer as meat shield.

    So the repetitiveness in Attila gameplay does not because there is not enough cosmetic different, but instead come from the flaw of core gameplay where unit roles are all mixed together. You end up with only a few unit types that can fill the role of all others. You have shock cav than can kill melee cavs and melee cavs that can charge infantry to oblivion, while archer can also act at meat shield.

    It repeat the same mistake as Rome II EE where Celtic Sword kill everything and Levy Freeman can act as both meat shield and anti Cav/Ele.
  • FalconZeroFalconZero Member Posts: 30Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Illogic wrote: »
    This gheym is neither historical nor appropriately balanced. Rome 2 was somehow historical in multiplayer, Romans had their supremacy for a few patches, Celts had (still have) their dominance, also Hellenic and eastern factions were good choices for a long time (some of them still are). Ofc, that's not how it should work, but it was still more interesting than this ****** meta and CA is so rude that they repeat these faults over and over again like a potato. I completely agree with Cagatay, CA got to the point where they're being successful while facerolling and laughing at their stupid community just like EA and Ubisoft, Gameforge is five steps away.

    If this game was even remotely historical in any sense, the diversity would not only come naturally, but the game itself as far as multi-player is concerned would be in constant state of dynamic change, just as was the case historically between nations. The best example of this was the Sassanids, and the impact they had on the Eastern Roman's style of warfare. They radically changed the style of combat in the east, where a typical Roman force consisted heavily of infantry, with small contingencies of cavalry and skirmishers. The Persians emphasized their archery prowess, combined with Parthian mastery of both mounted skirmishing and cataphract combat, and created forces with smaller melee infantry contingencies, and very large contingencies of both archer infantry and cavalry in equal measure. This forced the Romans once again to adapt, and gave way to the back and forth that was the Sassanid/ERE wars. History is the perfect place to consult for balance and variety, why CA decided to abandon that approach for the more generic one is beyond me, they just opened a whole list a problems for no real reason.
  • vaensonvaenson Member Posts: 45Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Best shock cavs is those who have bonus vs cavs

    I just find it curious why everybody say chock cav has bonus vs cav.

    here is the weapon table extract...do i miss something here?

    the only thing is see is 10 bonus vs ele for barbed lance and elite lance...does that count as Anti Cav too?


    bonus_v_elephants bonus_v_cavalry bonus_v_infantry key
    0 0 5 att_axe
    10 0 0 att_barbed_lance
    20 20 0 att_barbed_spear
    0 0 10 att_club
    0 0 20 att_club_heavy
    0 0 0 att_dagger
    0 0 20 att_dane_axe
    0 0 0 att_falx
    40 30 0 att_horse_hewer
    0 0 10 att_khanda
    0 0 0 att_lance
    10 0 0 att_lance_elite
    0 0 0 att_mace
    0 0 0 att_pike
    0 0 0 att_sax
    0 0 0 att_shotelai
    0 0 0 att_spatha
    0 0 0 att_spatha_heavy
    20 20 0 att_spear
    30 30 0 att_spear_heavy
    10 10 0 att_spear_short
    0 0 0 att_sword
    75 50 0 att_tusk
  • indi01indi01 Junior Member Posts: 5Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    AKKF32 wrote: »
    I dont know about you but all factions feel the same exact way. There is no real counter to another faction as its all the same. Yes, you have vikings, huns, sassanids, celts, romans and germans but every single game consists of cav charges followed up with high attack units (axes/shock), then its just a bloody blob and hope for the best.

    So true.
  • obelixthegreatobelixthegreat Senior Member Posts: 228Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    vaenson wrote: »
    I just find it curious why everybody say chock cav has bonus vs cav.

    here is the weapon table extract...do i miss something here?

    the only thing is see is 10 bonus vs ele for barbed lance and elite lance...does that count as Anti Cav too?
    Ele and Cav are inverted in this tab. Barbed lance has 10 bonus vs cav.
    "bonus_v_elephants" is applied to "stat_bonus_vs_cavalry" and "bonus_v_cavalry" is applied to "stat_bonus_vs_elephants". If you mod "ui_unit_stat_to_classes" to display "stat_bonus_vs_cavalry" and "stat_bonus_vs_elephants" it'll display 10 for cav and 0 for ele.
  • SKill3ssSKill3ss Member Posts: 39Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Arhu wrote: »
    even the people saying shock and melee cav are fine as they are but fail to see that all these boring builds stem from the fact that cav is too cheap and melee too powerful against infantry and shock not powerful enough....

    Perhaps elite melee cav should see a price increase but lets not encourage huge changes, sword / axe infantry should be decimated by head on cav charges, I like this mechanic. Both shock and melee do this but shock of similar quality will do a lot more damage.

    Disengaging cav is problematic but if the alternative is being able to pull through to your hearts content then I would rather it stay as it is.

    Buff archers, maybe give them a larger bonus vs cav. Parthian shot to skirmishers then lets see where we are.
  • ArhuArhu Senior Member Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    How else would you suggest can you prevent that the only winning army is one which consists of 30% heavy melee cavalry? I think that most killing should be done by the heavy infantry, not by cav (altough they could have more kills/unit than an infantry unit)

    Most top tier infantry is even more expensive than top tier melee cav...
  • SKill3ssSKill3ss Member Posts: 39Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Arhu wrote: »
    How else would you suggest can you prevent that the only winning army is one which consists of 30% heavy melee cavalry? I think that most killing should be done by the heavy infantry, not by cav (altough they could have more kills/unit than an infantry unit)

    Good news, there is already a game that meets your requirements - Rome 2
  • ArhuArhu Senior Member Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    SKill3ss wrote: »
    Good news, there is already a game that meets your requirements - Rome 2

    Sweet. I actually only started playing MP games with Attila because everyone said Attila was so hard and I wanted to reduce the cost of my army (better tactical skills require smaller armies and thus less cost)

    Anyway I made an edit above, what do you think about the fact that melee cav is even cheaper than good infantry?
  • SKill3ssSKill3ss Member Posts: 39Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    Lol - fair enough. You'll probably enjoy Rome 2 more than Atilla!

    Melee cav is too cheap, I agree, but I can't see CA drastically increasing the cost because this would impact the SP and thats all they really care about.
  • ArhuArhu Senior Member Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited April 2015
    SKill3ss wrote: »
    Lol - fair enough. You'll probably enjoy Rome 2 more than Atilla!

    Melee cav is too cheap, I agree, but I can't see CA drastically increasing the cost because this would impact the SP and thats all they really care about.

    They already have different prices and in SP and in SP infantry has a much more important role in seiges somewhat justifying the high price


    Just compare the mediocra taifali cav (but with precursor) against the royal antrutiones (also with precursor)

    http://www.honga.net/totalwar/attila/units_compare.php?l=en&v[]=attila&f[]=att_fact_franci&u[]=att_ger_royal_anstrutiones&v[]=attila&f[]=att_fact_franci&u[]=att_ger_taifali_cavalry
Sign In or Register to comment.