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.
Belialxv wrote: »
The problem isnt that some faction are op. It's that the game is boring as hell. Few playstyle are viable.
memccann wrote: »
You said there's no point bringing anything apart from melee cav. No. Shock cav just as important.
Sassanids and Huns perfectly viable.
blademaster3090 wrote: »
they're important in the same sense that anything on a horse is important in Attila. They have great impact damage, so do melee cavalry. They wreck melee cavalry on the charge if melee cav is not in wedge, but if they are in wedge/diamond, shock cavalry don't do anything.
So lets see the uses of shock cavalry:
1. Against infantry - Melee cavalry do a slightly worse job than them on the charge, but a MUCH better job once in the fight. Then there are the situations where the infantry is scattered over the place and thus, shock cav charge is nonexistent, in which case melee cavalry is a better choice. Overall, Melee Cavalry is a better choice.
2. Against cavalry - Except for Nordic HL, any cavalry that is brought now has access to diamond/wedge. Shock cavalry, except for Royal Lancers maybe, do terribly against any wedged melee cavalry. Again, after the charge, shock cavalry do terribly while melee cavalry do much better. Overall, melee cavalry is a better choice.
3. Against skirmishers - 90% of shock cav dont have shields, melee cav have shields so they can block missiles. Melee cavalry better.
Now, you could argue that this was the same case in Rome 2, except its not, because of one crucial difference - pulling through and pulling out were much easier which meant you could easily get consecutive charges with shock cav, making them so much more important. That's the opposite with Attila.
Also, Huns viable only due to melee inf spam. The viable Hun builds bring the cheapest shock cav. Sassanids are not viable, there's one final where the Sassanids won and that had vastly different rules from the usual IIRC. Compare that to the hundreds of times Jutes/Alans/ Vandals have been used.
Yes, Sassanids have been buffed but to call them truly viable would need elephants and their skirmishers to be buffed first.
winsunshine wrote: »
And also, Shock Cavs in Rome II have much better melee damage, plus bonus vs cavalry than Shock Cavs in Attila.
The only useable shock cavs in Attila are those with elite lance and bonus vs cavalry, thus making them semi-spear cavs.
But it is wrong to generalize all melee cavalries together. Half of melee cavalry rooster is still ****** though. Sword, mace, axe cavalry are totally garbage comparing to Spear cavalry. Sword, axe, and mace need a bonus vs infantry to make them stand out from the plague of spear cavalry.
I also agree that Elephant and high tier Archer are a waste of money at the moment. I rather see the number of elephant in each unit get a increase than HP buff, that way they are still vulnerable to missile but do much better in killing infantry.
Pine89 wrote: »
faction similarity does it for me. germanics are so similar to eachother, which is to be expected, they're all from the same general area/culture group.
now, CA has tried to give them some unique stuff but that's the real issue here, the vast majority of their unique units are terrible, and thus they rarely see any use, while the more cost effective generic/shared units are used most of the times.
visigothic slingers, the elite visigothic jav cav, frank's failband and all their other 1 handed axes, the other pikes from the ostrogoths (don't know if tournaments still limit pikes to 4, but there's no reason to imo).
for the romans it's the elite ballistarii, ravenna ballistarii, herculiani seniores, all the foederati units (javs, spearmen), to some degree the elite palatina too, so you end up taking shared units, blurring the difference between factions even more.
for the nordics the only good unique unit are the huscarls, so you end up seeing the juti all the time while the danes and the geats sit unused.
also, cav and 2 handed axes would not be so overused if skirmishers could actually kill stuff before everything is cleaned up and the battle is already over. the rate at which they kill even supposedly lightly armoured units is way too low. the bigger friendly hitboxes don't help either.
Dacder wrote: »
it's probly dying cuz the game is absolute garbage...
memccann wrote: »
Balance is ok. Not perfect not horendous. Even if it was perfect we wouldn't see loads and loads of active people. To get that we need an update with a shogun 2 type thing, that's the only way we'll get a substantial growth.
Dacder wrote: »
After playing a few games I think I've realized why this game is dying so early.
1) It's garbage.
2) It takes almost no skill.
3) It requires virtually no tactical sense.
4) It is basically "charge randomly into each other and the better units win"
5) The only "good" players are the ones who abuse #4 the most.
Good riddance to this trash. CA is never getting another cent out of me again.
Total war is best when it is kept simple and not overly complex
jonasnee wrote: »
in rome 2 every factions felt different, in attila all factions are the same with the exception of maybe WRE and sassinids, the others are just the same, shock inf and cav.
most factions in attila are as different as nervii and boii, sure they have some stuff different but playstyle doesn't truly change.
i still wished i coud go back and play rome 2 pre EE (anyone by any chance have the gamefiles? maybe i should ask CA)
memccann wrote: »
Total War multiplayer is one of the worst games to be interested in. We want to make multiplayer happen so bad but at the end of the day the devs don't care that much.
There's nothing fun to do apart from tourney games and they will die out unless something changes. CA tease us with a little bit of bare bones multiplayer and we can dream of good multiplayer but it just hasn't happened.
TheokolesOfRome wrote: »