Can anyone red pill me about this game? I'll try my first Total War game because of the sales, so I'll try this or Rome 2. Which one do you recommend me the most? Im looking for a good multiplayer experience, a nice campaign and good battles overall. I dont really care about the settings. Thanks!
>>322302284
I heard Attila is the better game. But if you prefer the classical Roman period then Rome 2 is what you want.
If multiplayer is your main concern I'd get Rome 2. The community hates Attila's multiplayer and has effectively abandoned it. If you are set on buying one or the other get Rome.
>i'll try my first Total War game because of the sales, so I'll try this or Rome 2
just no. original rome, medieval 2 or even shogun 2 would be better choices. These games are better and cheaper.
>>322303687
but Im looking for an active multiplayer community on a polished game
Has anyone tried the Game of Thrones mod for Medieval II?
Is it good?
Attila is the better game, Rome 2 has more lively MP.
Rome 2 had a god awful launch and is still very clunky even after the patches. Reason being it has very hamfisted mechanics like the provincial system, leveling generals, and politics that don't work too well and detract from the overall game. Battles feel sorta floaty and the overall graphics are kinda eh due to a very pale color palette. The battle AI is decent but a player will pretty much always still win given an equal force, but that's a standard in any RTS. The campaign AI however is horrendous at managing its food supply and actually expanding. AI armies will often be found starving due to lack of food. Lategame suffers because "final boss" type factions are rare because the AI is so bad at expanding. Regardless, Rome 2 has great unit and faction variation and because of that the multiplayer is still pretty lively.
Attila is basically Rome 2 but way more refined. For the most part, all the dodgy mechanics introduced in Rome 2 have been reworked. Politics specifically have been vastly improved by re-adding a character trait system sorta reminiscent of older total wars as well as a family tree. Battle AI is more or less the same as Rome 2 with improvements on sieges. In fact siege battles in general are very much improved in Attila. Graphically it looks pretty good and the whole sorta apocalyptic theme works well. AIs do well to expand on the campaign map for the most part, but they seem to like razing provinces a lot and don't often recolonize them. Unit variation is somewhat of an issue though, with both Roman Empires sharing a faction and lots of units shared between the germanic hordes. Attila still probably has the best battles in a total war to date though, if not FotS.
Overall though, there's still some underlying issues with both games and there's still CA being a DLC jew. I'd recommend Fall of the Samurai if you wanna get into total war. It's based around gunpowder rather than melee tho
>>322305183
Then play Rome 1
>>322307343
>based around gunpowder
I'd say it does a pretty good job of making melee units feel viable though.
>>322307343
I love you anon, thanks for your time. I'll go for Attila then. Any DLC that should I buy? What about this jewish blood DLC? is there any free mod that does the same?
>>322305183
no TW games have good multiplayer (besides co op campaigns) so don't even bother if that's what you're looking for in a game
>>322307749
>I'd say it does a pretty good job of making melee units feel viable though
You're sure you're talking about FotS right?
Melee is effective in the first couple dozen turns before you tech into better units/can afford a real army, but the effectiveness drops horrendously mid game. Artillery and line infantry will shred through advancing melee units before they even get close enough to engage.
>>322308103
>what are shogitai
fuckers will shred your ass in sieges
>>322308103
I don't know, I always manage to do pretty well as the traditionalist factions while primarily using melee units.
Granted I don't play multiplayer, where I imagine that melee units are much less useful.
