• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Total War Attila announced [Up: Preview]

i wish this game was getting more coverage here on gaf, it looks like its doing everything to fix the problems of the base game and its only 45 bucks and i believe its a standalone expansion....seems like a very good value.

hell the campaign sounds fun as shit with the horde factions, which is exactly what i wanted if you read my previous posts in this thread :)
 
The core fan base got burned badly last time around. This time people are waiting for reviews before getting on the hype train. Gamespot has a review up,
7/10
.

One of the things mentioned is the various glitches/bugs. So again, sensible thing appears to be wait-for-patch/es-then-buy.
 
Honestly I would wait until it's in the wild. No one cares/trusts the reviews of the general press (because they'll only put a dozen hours or so in for review, which is not wrong, but that's on top of the typical 'can't spell ignorant without IGN' crowd) and I get the feeling there's a bit of distrust with youtubers getting review copies and being way too positive about the game.
 
I just. Started Rome 2 Emperor Edition, again. I played it when it came out, but haven't touched it Since. Downloaded the 4 turns a year mod and I'm currently having a blast.

I've looked up the next expansion on steam, but could someone clarify what else the game will have? It's Somewhat expensive IMO and it just doesn't sound like there's anything drastic going on..? Maybe it's just me though :)
 
Just watched some previews of it. Looks interesting. Definitely welcoming the family tree! Not sure about what appear to be a reduced and streamlined tech tree though. Map appear smaller? Or well same area, but maybe it's just because Rome 2 with DLC factions is more full of smaller factions? Anyway greenmangaming had a 20% discount last time I looked. might be worth a try
 
So this released out of nowhere from my perspective. I guess Total War's reputation is catching up with it.
Gaf has always had a small TW fan base, but yeah Rome 2 did not do the franchise any favors with its awful launch. Early word on Atilla seems much improved.
 
I'm pretty amazed how well Attila runs.
The Benchmark seems to give me 20-30 fps
But when I do a large army custom battle I get 40-60 fps.

However turn times seem to be the same as Rome 2, which is disappointing.
 
Gonna wait for this one to hit the sales, I think.

I still have so much friggin Rome2 dlc to play through that I can wait a few months.
 
I bought Rome II day one but may wait with this. Hoping that now this is out CA can talk about the infinitely more interesting Warhammer Total War.
 
I'm pretty sure this one will have a lot less problems than Rome 2 if you use Napoleon Total War as an example. Still it's no like Creative Assembly deserve a day one purchase, they have earned their infamy by themselves and must deal with it.
 
Been hearing good things so far. The game is what Rome 2 should have been. Few bugs or technical issues. Also the new horde mechanic seems really interesting. My copy is coming tomorrow, pretty excited to play some TW, after that debacle of a launch R2 had.
 
I've watched quite a few videos for this and everything seems to be looking a lot better than Rome 2 was at launch. Probably gonna pick this up on Steam tonight...anyone going to make an OT for this??
 
Huh sort of a stealth release.

Was completely surprised when I saw the game was out opening up steam this morning. Had no idea the game was releasing anytime soon. Since I have bought Rome 2 at launch I will probably hold off until the summer sale for this game. Played a lot of 2 recently.
 
Game needs an OT!

Want to see how everyone is liking it. I'm waiting to finish up my latest Rome 2 campaign before jumping in on this. Just about to take Britannia and have to clean up the Iberian peninsula a bit then I'm done!
 
I agree, but usually Sega does a massive PR push for these.

True. They've done a lot in terms of hyping up the community with weekly streams, contests, etc.

But no marketing at all behind the title, which sucks. For better or worse (well, worse let's not kid ourselves) marketing is kind of a big deal.
 
True. They've done a lot in terms of hyping up the community with weekly streams, contests, etc.

But no marketing at all behind the title, which sucks. For better or worse (well, worse let's not kid ourselves) marketing is kind of a big deal.

I actually think they would be smart to not advertise it til a couple patches hit. Though this is basically just a reworked Rome II right, so things should be pretty tight?
 
I'm pretty amazed how well Attila runs.
The Benchmark seems to give me 20-30 fps
But when I do a large army custom battle I get 40-60 fps.

However turn times seem to be the same as Rome 2, which is disappointing.
So would you say it runs better than Rome 2 at the same settings or are you amazed that the game which is graphically good, is running so well on your PC so well?
 
I actually think they would be smart to not advertise it til a couple patches hit. Though this is basically just a reworked Rome II right, so things should be pretty tight?

Indication so far have been pretty solid from both youtubers with ealry access and reviewers. This si definitely NOT a Rome 2 situation.

But you're right, maybe SEGA wants to get a clear impression from the fanbase before sinking dollar sinto advertising.
 
little hype but a well deserved expansion pack. ive been seeing some game play and it looks great. now i havent followed the past total war releases (didnt have a pc) but they did have bad launches before rome 2?

Empire: Total War was famously completely broken on launch as well. They seemingly were able to rebuild their repuation with the release of Napoleon & then Shogun 2 but Rome 2 was a massive shit show and kind of tore them right back down.
 
So little hype for this one.. Rome 2 really burned people.

Everybody is waiting for Warhammer.

little hype but a well deserved expansion pack. ive been seeing some game play and it looks great. now i havent followed the past total war releases (didnt have a pc) but they did have bad launches before rome 2?

Yes, Empire Total War's launch was way worse than Rome II's. They come in cycles, they have one ambitious game that is buggy as hell, then they tone it back and take their time with a polished product from day one.
 
I enjoyed the brief amount of time i've had with it, unfortunately campaign is bugged or something for me because it keeps on crashing on end turn, apparently a fair few are having the same problem.

Hopefully it's sorted soon.
 
Everybody is waiting for Warhammer.

I don't think so. Warhammer isn't anywhere near as popular as Total war proper is. I mean, it definitely sounds good, and might bring in some new blood, but I doubt it's really a big thing.

Yes, Empire Total War's launch was way worse than Rome II's. They come in cycles, they have one ambitious game that is buggy as hell, then they tone it back and take their time with a polished product from day one.

Why don't they just make sure they do that for all releases? why CA?!
 
Empire: Total War was famously completely broken on launch as well. They seemingly were able to rebuild their repuation with the release of Napoleon & then Shogun 2 but Rome 2 was a massive shit show and kind of tore them right back down.

Morale was so high after Shogun 2. I consider it their magnum opus for the series.It's wear the series started so it was only fitting. But I think Rome was the game that got many people playing. Shame it couldn't live up because Rome is sort of the definitive Empire in my mind to explore.

I'm honestly sort of surprised they went with the Huns over the Mongols for this game. Genghis Khan is a far more interesting character.
 
I've learned to just stay a year behind on all Total War games. It's really for the best. I love CA and appreciate them making games like this , but they really struggle.

This is the first TW i've got at launch myself as i'm fairly new to the series, i didn't get Rome 2 until Emperor edition after hearing about all the problems so i really enjoyed it.

I thought they couldn't possibly fuck it up again so soon ;_;
 
Morale was so high after Shogun 2. I consider it their magnum opus for the series.It's wear the series started so it was only fitting. But I think Rome was the game that got many people playing. Shame it couldn't live up because Rome is sort of the definitive Empire in my mind to explore.

I'm honestly sort of surprised they went with the Huns over the Mongols for this game. Genghis Khan is a far more interesting character.

Well, Mongols would be more likely an expansion for Medieval.

Reading again about Rome 2's launch, good thing I got it later on when the big bugs were gone.
 
Well, Mongols would be more likely an expansion for Medieval.

Reading again about Rome 2's launch, good thing I got it later on when the big bugs were gone.

Yeah I guess it's something a little different. Speaking of different, We've never gotten a game set in a Chinese Empire.
 
The core fan base got burned badly last time around. This time people are waiting for reviews before getting on the hype train. Gamespot has a review up,
7/10
.

One of the things mentioned is the various glitches/bugs. So again, sensible thing appears to be wait-for-patch/es-then-buy.

How does TW manage to do this every release LOL





Waiting on some more GAF impressions before picking this up...
 
So I bought it even though I wanted to wait. Got the 20% discount from GMG. First thing I noticed when I turned on the games was.. FUCKING DLC! Ugh, I mean pre-order dlc like this makes my piss boil.
This is kinda made further annoying due to not having that many factions to play as. You have your horde factions, Rome, middle eastern (1 I believe) Saxon/Franks. That mostly it. Having 3 more factions (or 1 faction with 3 sub factions) locked away is kinda BS. Mostly because I'm Danish and the DLC includes Danish vikings, oh well...

Anyway game do indeed appear to run more smooth both on the campaign map (which looks gorgeous btw) and in battles with two 20 unit armies clashing it out. My first fight was against the saxons (playing as Franks) and it was a very foggy field. I really liked it, quite atmospheric.
So two things about the battle: it was for whatever reason quite chaotic and units appear to die quite fast. Units dying fast means that you have to be all over the place because otherwise it'll go bad quickly I think.
I'll have to try out more combats to see if it truly is fast, but that was my initial impression from one big fight. I think it lasted overall 10 minutes and the armies didn't have to march long before close combat.
It was great though! Maybe a bit fast, but great.

Anyway family tree is back, yay! Such a pleasure to have that again and not only that, but you can manage two different kind of things within your family. Candidates which was similar to the promotion thingy from Rome 2, however now it works kinda differently and then there's the Governor position for each province. When it's all kept together by the family tree the overall experience of running your family dynasty like this is much much better than Rome 2.

Having only one province to begin with I didn't have to manage so much, but then I realized the insane amount of different buildings. Atleas I feel like there are quite a lot to choose from and this makes me happy. Unfortunately though the game manual/wiki is horrible imo. No search button makes it really annoying to find things and when every construction option is new including the tech tree it easily becomes super annoying. For instance I want to have a veteran so I can gain more experience for my troops. In Rome 2 you needed to take the war path and only research two items. This time, for me, it's under civil and it's at the 3rd or 4th item and you need a specific building to rectify them. Needless to say I had to go through all kinds of things to figure this out and all of that would've been fine if I at the very least could've had the chance to use a proper search.

Now people might disagree with me on this, but I dislike the new skill tree on both the armies and generals. Not only does the army one make no sense (gaining skills to increase stuff to a city..?!, but I also don't like the way they're set up. It's more akin to Shogun 2, but tbh I like it more in Rome 2 where your agents and generals specialized in authority, cunning and zeal. Now it's just.. Kinda weird tbh. I'll have to try it out some more and get a better feeling for it. Maybe I'll grow to like it.

The research tech tree have been more streamlined it appear. Not sure what to think. Again it has kinda moving away from specializing, at least specializing in the way you did in Rome . I'm not too bothered by this though, although I still think I prefer how Rome 2 handled it.

Overall I like the game, only bug so far have been my cavalry unit acting weird. Giving orders to 3 cavalry units resulted in then doing something I did not intent for them. Just picking two units and they did as I said. Very weird and kinda made me micromanage them more than necessary. On the battlefield of course.

I'll dig some more into it later, but for now I'm happy. Some new changes and not all of them are my favorites, but I think I'll manage. Obviously I cannot say whether or not the game is good-good, but my impressions so far are positive.

Feel free to ask questions :p
 
The Total War series was (and possibly still is) my favourite series of games on pc. But I'm not touching any more of CA's games until they move on from Warscape. No amount of programming can compensate for that engine's lack.
 
The Total War series was (and possibly still is) my favourite series of games on pc. But I'm not touching any more of CA's games until they move on from Warscape. No amount of programming can compensate for that engine's lack.

What did they do Isolation on? UE4? Wouldn't mind them switching over to that tbh.
 
What did they do Isolation on? UE4? Wouldn't mind them switching over to that tbh.

Not sure, they definitely did a good job with it though. UE4 or not, I don't think there's any engine out there that would suit a Total War game. They'll have to develop their own, as they have in the past. I hope they're working away on it...
 
I'm honestly sort of surprised they went with the Huns over the Mongols for this game. Genghis Khan is a far more interesting character.
A true Mongol game would require that they make a map stretching from Japan all the way to the British Isles. It would be the most ambitious project that Creative Assembly has ever worked on, but it's far too ambitious for an expand alone. I assume that they've been working on it for a long time. It's really too bad that we haven't been able to officially play as the Mongols since the Mongol Invasion back in 2001 though.

Yeah I guess it's something a little different. Speaking of different, We've never gotten a game set in a Chinese Empire.
I assume that we're going to get one sooner or later, but Creative Assembly is going to concentrate on more marketable periods for the time being. Unfortunately, the first Chinese game will probably be Three Kingdoms instead of the more untapped periods. It's interesting that Indian history is even more obscure than Chinese history so no one ever brings up the idea of an Indian game (at least not without European involvement).
 
I bought Rome II day one but may wait with this. Hoping that now this is out CA can talk about the infinitely more interesting Warhammer Total War.

...which really ought to be named "Total Warhammer". It's not too late, Sega!
 
Top Bottom