[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Spoiler?[]
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File[]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 135 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: attila.jpg (50 KB, 390x544)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
I wish that I were as swift as the /Total War Attila Thread/.
>>
What are the best vanilla expanded mods for this? Just Fall of the Eagles?
>>
I wish I had the patience to complete a full campaign of that game. I like it, but it's just so much waiting and so much tedium for no gain. The game expects you to do the same settlement defense with your two legio guys and scout equites or whatever, like at least four times per turn, every single turn. It's too much of a time investment to play the way you're supposed to to be enjoyable. Otherwise, it's the best Total War title to release since Shogun 2 (I haven't played the Warhammer games).
>>
DESOLATE WORLD
>>
>>788567
when i played i used europa perdita + fote
>>
What's the essential mod list to get the absolute most out of a vanilla Attila campaign?
>>
>>788327
How broken are those Slavic poison arrows? They ignore everything, just to kill them after a few seconds.
>>
>>788567
>>788589
Did FOTE ever get finished properly? Because when I last tried playing with it sometime around early 2020 it felt really unfinished
>>
>>788567
All the overhauls suck dick
>>
>>791505
Very.
Note that friendly fire murders your dudes just as well.
>>788567
>Just Fall of the Eagles?
That one isn't particularly vanilla.
>>
This "game" and all of Rome 2's "DLC" is atrocious. Even on sale buying it all is like hundred dollars or something.
A dlc has it's own dlc. That's where we're at. Have they patched atilla yet ? Or is it still the buildings are total crap and you gotta build everything in a specific way ?
>>
>>791525
Made by the same guys who work on DEI, which is their priority, so no.
There was one autist who was working on a new version of Europa Perdita and making it compatible with FOTE but it doesn't seem very good.
>>
>>791505
They're utterly broken. A single arrow applies DoT to the entire enemy unit, which ticks down their collective healthpool for a few seconds, refreshing with every new arrow hit. There's two classes of poison (from the basic/elite versions of the archer) and they stack.

But while dealing extremely high DoT that ignores all mitigation, they also drain stamina extremely quickly. Two full cycles of the DoT reduce the stamina of a Fresh unit to Exhausted and leaves them Exhausted permanently for the remainder of the battle. Once a unit has been poisoned once, they can never regain stamina lost via poison. For the most part, a single unit of poison archers can route any melee infantry before they get in range.

The only caveat is that poison deals friendly-fire as well, and like with enemies it only takes a single stray arrow hit to apply the full poison effect to an entire unit. This can make it awkward to screen for your archers properly, but they're just so fucking broken it doesn't matter. 20-stacks of pure poison archers can spawncamp the huns.
>>
>>788327
Shame so many plebs got filtered by this kino
>>
>>792083
Most of them never even tried it, but tonnes of people were filtered by its abysmal optimization and performance rather than the game itself.
>>
>>788567
Just a mod that turns off climate change. Then the game becomes perfect.
>>
>>788579
>I never played any whorehammer
Based
>>
>>788579
It boggles my mind how many play a game about barbarians and nomads, pick the "not intended for beginners" crumbling, derelict empire challenge campaign and then immediately turn around and complain the game filtered them because it was too challenging and they spent too much time defending their underdeveloped, thinly spread territory with minimal forces. Like no fucking shit. The point of the WRE campaign is to force you into a lot of disadvantaged defensive battles as an intentional challenge campaign. It's ancillary to the primary gameplay experience, which is literally any other campaign except Rome.

Romaboo larpers are a special breed.
>>
>>788327
>buy game
>runs like dogshit
>refund
never again
>>
>>792646
If I remember correctly all it took to fix the framerate was right clicking on the process, turning off a core, then turning it back on. It rebalanced the load on the cpu.
>>
>>792726
There's also a complicated permanent fix that involves manually patching in files from ToB that have the optimization fixes they never bothered to patch into Attila themselves.

But yeah Attila's performance being completely terrible even on modern rigs because of abysmal optimization, and the fact they never actually bothered to patch the fix in themselves is unforgiveable.
>>
>>788327
If this shit was optimised it would be a whole different story. I love the period, the climate change mechanics, and the the fact that units recover their stamina quickly so battles never slow down but the optimization is pure dogshit.
>>
>>792560

i use the fertility increasing sanitation buildings mod, and i feel that's a compromise that still offers fair challenge.
>>
File: angons.jpg (527 KB, 1920x1080)
527 KB
527 KB JPG
>>792058

i generally just recruit germanic mercenary archers if i really need the conventional stuff, but especially siege defenses against the huns can be super satisfying as the slavs.the sclavenians in particular are just designed as a "fuck you nomads" faction and after the annoyance the huns pose as any other faction, its a nice bit of payback
>>
>>791850
Which is a shame because performance issues aside, Attila is so much better than R2
>>
You also wish this game ran swiftly as well fag
>>
>>792641
The wre is the easiest faction in the game if you just focus on defending and building up Italy before reconquering the rest.
>>
File: 1615403623465.png (416 KB, 500x737)
416 KB
416 KB PNG
>>793326
>giving up even a single inch of trve roman soil
>>
>>793373

i only abandon britannia because its a shithole thats worthless. Colonia Agrippina in belgium on the other hand has burned its name into my memory for being the frontline city that never caved, built that one up to have a 18 unit garrison by the end of the campaign too.
>>
File: 1606660933928.png (417 KB, 402x759)
417 KB
417 KB PNG
>>793391
>Colonia Agrippina
>in belgium
>>
>>793326
I wouldn't say "easiest" they still have the issue that their roster is terrible outside of having easier access to large onagers and half of their tech tree actively sabotages them.

If you want an 'easy' rome campaign, just play ERE. They're under much less threat so it's easier to hold onto their territory, have innately better economy and their roster is a direct upgrade especially lategame.
>>
>>793410

yep, in game its right on the west side of the rhine
>>
File: 1611105261369.jpg (403 KB, 800x1086)
403 KB
403 KB JPG
>>793509
Anon, the western bank of the Rhine isn't Belgium
>>
>>793538
as i said, it is in game lol
>>
Ironically the game is so much more fun when you play any middle-east/african starting location rather than in europe proper. It's crazy how much of a difference it makes just having actually consequential rivals to contend with while you're building up instead of a bunch of dying barbarians and a big empty empire that concedes all its territory for free. And then not having to worry about camping half your army along Pannonia to have a staredown with the huns for a 100 years is so liberating.
>>
>>788327
Last time I pirate this it lagged pretty bad, even though Warhammer run ok for me. Wish I could play it.
>>
File: 1633689255153.png (536 KB, 698x729)
536 KB
536 KB PNG
>mfw the family bloodline mechanics go way deeper than I thought and I ignore them even harder than before

I appreciate this TW for being the most complex out of all of them, but I do understand some aspects of the complaints about it.
>>
>>793426
>their roster is terrible

What in particular anon? I actually enjoyed it alot, and find that their roster suits the "On the defence" theme that they have
>>
>>796073
I just mean balance-wise
Their spearmanii are worse than the germanic equivalent after the germs get their first upgrade, but roman ones are much more expensive
Their cavalry are in every category pound-for-pound worse than equivalent cavalry in virtually any other culture. They don't have proper spear-wielding heavy cavalry, meaning they're at a huge disadvantage in cav vs cav battles and their shock cavalry are genuinely the worst in the game. But once again, are more expensive than the better options in other factions.
They have no armour piercing melee options, so they don't have good ways to deal with other factions' heavy infantry
And their ranged options are very limited; only paper-thin t1 archers that melt to counter fire and crossbows, which are good but horribly outranged by bows. They have no good way to deal with heavy-ranged factions.

A general pattern in their roster is that their units are pound-for-pound worse than everyone else's but also really, really expensive relative to what other factions pay and they're lacking a lot of important options in favour of just having a tonne of redundant defensive infantry.

The only real upside of their roster are crossbows, Scorpions, Large Onagers (they get access to them a whole research-tier early than non-roman factions) and Federati Spears, which are genuinely a good unit (and probably the only exclusively WRE unit that stands out as being actually good).

For the most part, every standard part of the Roman Army gets an elite endgame upgrade in the ERE, which lets them pull off the whole 'defensive line' faction better than the WRE, and they have a massively better cavalry roster, elite pikes, dane axes and elite bows so they just generally have a more flexible and balanced roster while having almost all of the same advantages as WRE (eg. early access to Large Onagers). Plus the ERE's passive eco boosts greatly offset the higher cost of some of their shared units.
>>
>by late campaign climate change makes entire map infertile except for small parts of italy and africa

I hate this shit for real what was CA thinking
>>
>>796145
It's kind of silly that a cold snap is hurting the fertility of Egypt and North Africa. If they were smart they would have limited the impacts to Europe proper.

The loss of fertility doesn't really affect germanic factions too much, because they have enough sources of food that don't rely on fertility that they can cover all of their food needs lategame in barren soil, and eastern factions get broken camel farms to completely ignore the mechanic entirely.

It's only Rome that really gets fucked by climate change, which is really frustrating when you play a non-roman faction and you're looking forward to Rome being the final boss of the campaign, only to discover the AI is in a permanent famine, all their settlements have been downgraded to t1 to reduce the food upkeep and all their armies and garrisons are attritioning to nothing.

I wish they could've just let the AI cheat some of these resources so they at least survive properly.
>>
>>796156
Rome wouldn't survive even with those cheats because they are at war with the whole world. Even with those cheats the germanic barbarians alone would kill Rome in a few turns.
>>
>>796144
I would add to this that the general pattern within the WRE, especially as the game progresses, is speed over power. Their units are usually worse than other equivalents; their defensive infantry are less durable and don't hold the line as well (outside of the immediate start of the game). Their cavalry are fast and strong within their weight class but outclassed in a straight up fight by heavier options.

But what they excel in is: skirmishing (some of the best javelins in the game, huge variety of anti-cavalry precursors on melee units, the strongest armor-piercing xbows) and artillery. Probably how the WRE were actually intended to fight is to use have individual units of Federati Spears up front to support their cavalry. Federati are the only unit in the game that can form squares, meaning they cannot be flanked and don't need a line of supporting troops to deal with cav charges. They're standalone area-denial vs cavalry, and have anti-cavalry precursors so they're the ideal unit to support your own cavalry against enemy cavs. You micro your faster cavalry around the enemy's slower but stronger cavs using Federati to hide behind and skirmishers to support them (noble federati javelins have spears and great melee stats so they can actually fight cavalry in melee, too), and support this cavalry dance with backline artillery and crossbows. You don't really have much use for infantry beyond that except maybe a unit or 2 of Elite Palatina or Heculiani to break through chokepoints (ie siege battles) or tie up spearmen protecting archers.

But since the AI is so stupid you can usually just get away with smashing battle lines together and come out on top.
>>
>>796166
The WRE is fucked but the ERE almost always survives in some form or another to the end of the game and then just disintegrates because the last tick of climate change starves them. The Roman splinter factions that constitute most of the former WRE territory are in the same boat. They can do really, really well for most of the game and there will almost always be 1 or 2 roman rump states as the top european powers by that point of the game, but then the final tick of climate change is too much for the AI to handle and they just starve off.

In general, the lategame of Attila being a bit of a wet fart because no AI faction survives well enough to still put up a fight is a major problem with the game, but it's most palpable with the ERE, which has access to High Walls and a lategame-oriented army but can never make use of them.
>>
>>796144
Yeah, the WRE really feels like the devs just straight up intended for them to not survive past the midgame. Which is fine from a historical perspective but really dumb when you make them a playable faction. Luckily there's mods that give them (parts of) the ERE roster
>>
Which faction has the strongest naval marines?
I have a lot of fun using naval infantry to attack settlements from the sea. It's by far the most fun type of battle for me personally, and super novel since it's basically exclusive to Attila.

But it's hard as fuck to actually look up details about any given faction's marines. Literally everyone has different stats on their marines, even two factions in the same culture with the same ships and marines with the same names, they'll all have different stats. And like, extremely different. One will have 60 armour and the other will have like 7. Or a unit will look good until you disembark them and then they just have 4 melee defense and get shredded, or have great stats but no shields and get slaughtered by garrison archers.

I want to play a faction that goes all-in on their marines but there's just no good source for stats on them. Honga and the official encyclopedia both just use their 'on the ship' stats, which aren't the same as their disembarked stats.
>>
>>796254
Probably the vikangz? Honestly, this game is such a janky mess I don't get why people keep coming back to it.
>>
>>796254
Your best bet is probably just doing custom battles and unloading the marines to look at thier stats. Anyway, it's probably one of the Vikangz, maybe Jutes?
>>
>>788327
I haven't played anything since Shogun 2.
Is Rome 2 or Attila worth it?
I thought Attila was just a Barbarian Invasions tier reskin of Rome 2? Are they really that different?
>>
File: Burgundian autism.jpg (314 KB, 1920x1080)
314 KB
314 KB JPG
>>788327
God this game is great
>>
>>788327
age of charlamagne is my favorite campaign map. battling for every region, england, ireland, france, spain, germany, italy, and beyond, feels like its own game. the legendary campaign is so good when you wrap your head around managing the economics and public disorder. i can regularly get 2 vs. 2 or even 3 stack battles in these campaigns. this mod was the reason i got attila, and it didn't let me down.
>>
>>796293
Rome 2 is basically the old adage "you can't polish a turd". It was released a broken mess and has received an inordinate amount of post-release support to 'fix' it but is still just kinda shit despite all the polishing. People mostly like it for the roleplay factor since it's a great era and great to look at graphically, but it's comparable to Empire TW in jank and poorly implemented systems. The campaign is so pared down and shallow that it's a glorified map-painting simulator. Probably the worst thing about it (aside from the AI being braindead) is just how shit the battles are. There are no real roles or purposes behind units, they're just sort of a generic soup of minor stat variations and reskins and the dominant strategy is to just blob generic heavy infantry and walk into the enemy. Also naval combat exists but is so broken it's not even worth doing.

Attila is to Rome 2 what Napoleon is to Empire. It's a spiritual successor to Barbarian Invasion but its scope isn't just an expansion campaign. It rebuilds a lot of the systems that just didn't work in Rome 2, uses a different (and much better) campaign map where terrain creates paths and chokepoints and settlements actually control the passage of armies through the world. Most importantly, it reimagines the battles. Units have clearly defined roles and functions, factions have different playstyles based on their unit rosters. Sieges are redesigned pretty much completely from R2 and are by far the best in the series.

But unlike R2, Attila got almost no post-release support and still has some bugs and optimization issues. And its approach to campaign mechanics make it by far the most difficult TW game, which filters a lot of people. Rather than expanding endlessly, the game makes it a challenge to survive, and while it's awesome while you're just scraping by it's probably not very fun if you're losing.

I'd recommend giving it a try at least and seeing if it's up your alley.
>>
>>796293
attila is debateable but i think age of charlamagne is totally worth it
>>
>>796068
>mfw the family bloodline mechanics go way deeper than I thoug
what?
>>
tanukhid chads where we at?
>sanic speed lancers
>armored pikes
>>
>>796499
I adore them because they're the Pike faction I've been waiting for since M2.

But it kind of sucks that eventually you have to deal with the Huns as a faction with shit archers and no armoured/shielded cavalry. Standing around and waiting for them to run out of arrows and charge into your pike lines isn't super fun.
>>
>>796481
He's probably referring to how there's a whole hidden system in place for how offspring inherit traits from their parents
>>
File: 1625107051629.png (594 KB, 945x835)
594 KB
594 KB PNG
>>796517
Fighting the Huns is just straight up never fun, as any faction.
>tfw mounted archers somehow outshooting your foot archers
>>
File: ONLY A MAN2.jpg (159 KB, 540x681)
159 KB
159 KB JPG
>>796652
Don't be afraid of the Huns, anon. They're only human.
>>
>>792641
Personally I can't play as the barbarians.
I've completed every Roman and Sassanid campaigns but being a barbarian faction just feels wrong. You just built a great and mighty empire in Rome 2 and now you have to govern and defend it, that's the whole point.
Part of the problem is the game didn't really capture the period right. It wasn't really a bunch of barbarian invasions that brought down Rome as much as it was civil wars, political intrigue and shitty factionalism. Most of the famous and powerful "barbarians" besides the Huns were latin-speaking christian people with positions in the Roman military. They didn't even see themselves as conquerors as much as preservers of the Roman state against incompetent greedy emperors. It should have played more like 3 kingdoms.
>>
File: 42323512.jpg (45 KB, 412x400)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>796652
The music is dope though
>>
>>797095
The civil wars mostly cooled down by the end of he 3rd century, anon.
The game takes place at the beginning of the 5th century, when the roman military had genuinely collapsed to the point that they were no longer effectively able to secure their borders against raids from tribes east of the rhine. The visigoths were crusading, ironically, for roman citizenship but tribes like the vandals, franks and ostrogoths were looking for a new home and took it by force.

What makes the period interesting is that it's the origin story of most of the medieval period as we know it. The Ostrogoths, lombards and eastern romans contend over Italy, leading to its fractured political landscape through the middle ages, the franks migrate westward and conquer gaul to become the progenitors of france, the angles, saxons and jutes all migrate to britain, etc. These "barbarians" are our ancestors in a much more real and tangible way than rome ever was.

Except the vandals, of course.
>>
>>797490
Still mad that the Foederati mechanic is so poorly implemented
>>
>>797556
Yeah that was a big ball-drop, especially since rome starts with so many hordes on their borders or even in their territory that you should be able to manipulate with treaties. It's kind of funny they have the unique diplomacy action to give settlements to hordes, but there's 0 incentive to ever do so unless you're trying to handicap yourself for a challenge run.

I guess CA didn't think such a complicated campaign mechanic was worth the effort just for the WRE, which are basically an NPC faction you can play as an optional challenge campaign. I think it's kind of silly they didn't realize that Rome would be the most popular campaign in a game immediately following Rome 2, but I guess in their defense Attila came out too early for them to really be putting crazy amount of effort into designing unique campaign mechanics like Troy/3K/WH have.
>>
>>792641
>Man, this is boring.
>HAHA TOO HARD FOR YOU GIT GUD U HAVE BEEN FILTERED!!!1!
Why are anons like this?
>>
>>797590
>get filtered
>default excuse is "i-it's boring!"
We get it, anon. It's not fun unless you're winning.
>>
>>797590
You don't have to do those dumb defensive sieges early on, you can just fall back and abandon Germania, Britain and most of Gaul, they aren't that useful anyway. If you plan on going full not one step back then you have to git somewhat gud, yes.
>>
>play as western rome
>win on first try

IDK what people are complaining, yeah sure it was ridiculous like the northern africa entirely rebel, become a super power and then I ally then because of our heritage affinity but it was doable and fun.
>>
>>797632
It's mostly because it's not about building an Empire, but keeping one from completely dying. There are a lot of people who just want to paint the map.
>>
>>797632
People get frustrated with playing WRE because, as >>797637 said they're just looking to map-paint and that isn't what playing WRE is about. The issue is more or less than the 'main' gameplay experience for Attila isn't connected to the Rome campaign, and people tend to default to playing rome because rome cool, regardless of what kind of gameplay experience it's going to give them, then complaining it didn't give them the experience they wanted.
>>
>>797632
>giving Africa independence
DELENDA
>>
>>797632
>>797644
>best strat as WRE is to abandon large chunks of your empire and then slowly get it back
>best strat as ERE is to dynamically do nothing and watch the WRE crumble, then kick the Sassanids in the fork and take over everything between Portugal and India
Still beats playing as mudhut barbarians or steppe niggers though
>>
>>797657
The most fun I've had as the ERE involved rushing across the black sea to colonize Scythia and building a maginot line of upgraded settlements across the edge of the map to spawncamp the huns. If you're quick you can have basically the whole place fortified with walled settlements by the time Attila ascends to power.

As a general rule, the quicker you contain/kill Attila and the less you let him torch, the more fun your campaign will be. Aside from Hun-hunting itself being a fun little minigame, the AI absolutely can't handle any Hun aggression but actually does pretty well lategame if the map isn't a wasteland. In mine, the Alamans took all of western Europe and became a pseudo-medieval superpower with captured field artillery, crossbows and roman defectors, while the Burgundians expanded into all of the eastern/northern european territory Attila would've otherwise torched and the Sassanids got so huge they were fighting the Alamans for control of Spain. Actually getting to have big lategame battles where the AI fields multiple stacks and elite units, defends upgraded settlements and so on is pretty great.
>>
>>797657
I found harder to play as ERE than WRE.
>>
>>797651
I blame the east for allowing their rebels to become so strong they steamroll me and found a new faction.
>>
>>791850
>Made by the same guys who work on DEI, which is their priority, so no.
No, meloncat is a separate guy

he just got a life
>>
>>796330
People can just play Ancient Empires on Attila too, though its really hard as well which filters plebs. Especially Dei plebs.
>>
>>797679
>move your two stacks in Greece/Thrace into the two settlements threatened by the Visigoths turn 1
>let them attack you, trash them because lol AI still can't into sieges, then chase them down turn 2, wiping them off the map
>fortify Thrace, maybe take Pannonia once the WRE loses it if you really feel like making a defensive line
With that you're pretty much set, you just need to keep an eye on the Sassanids because they will break your non-aggression pact (if you don't break it first)
>>
>>797698
The tricky part of playing ERE is the fucking norther border of Thrace. There's no good way to defend it and you'll be doing with Huns trickling right into your heartland all game.
As WRE you just need to fortify Pannonia and your Rhineland border and the campaign is over.

Ironically, despite supposedly struggling due to imperial overreach, your only real defensive front is to the east. Africa and Britain both just have a couple weakass minor players threatening them and they're basically expendable territory since the sea isolates them anyways, and there's nothing threatening Spain or Gaul or even Italy since the AI can't into navies so you only have one front to concentrate your forces on after the opening turns of the game. ERE at least has to deal with an obnoxiously long and strung out border with the Sassanids on one side, minor players in Armenia, Africans lurking around Egypt, Pannonia and whatever germans occupy it, AND your northern bulwark against the huns. Not to mention the Sassanids and their daycare center are pretty much the only factions that thrive as the game progresses rather than collapsing--they're the only real threat on the map besides the huns. Your starting situation is better than the WRE but your strategic position is objectively more difficult to defend.
>>
>>797698
Yeah I learned about the sassanids on the hard way, it's pretty much war on two fronts against one huge swarm on Western campaign.
>>
>>797805
While whatyou said is absolutely true, you also have much better avenues for expansion as the ERE. The WRE can only conquer a bunch of mudhuts and forests but you have nice region like Armenia or Media Atropatene for the taking. Also the Sassanids really arne't that much of a threat early on imo and letting them survive to where they become one is at your own discretion
>>
File: 1625734779727.jpg (140 KB, 1125x1097)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
idk ,what to think about Attila. I loved the barren hopelessness that came with the time period, the utter desolation, nostalgia that came with playing the WRE. Although I found it very annoying when the huns just sent 12 full stack armies to take out Aquilea every turn. If they were too do this again. I definitely think they should either choose the time of the emperor Heraclius, the fall of Byzantium, or the wars of the Diadochi. If they did actually work the mechanics, and optimisation correctly. They'd have the best Total War game on there hands. Although I think CA are dumb retards who wont ever make anything good.
>>
>>792641
having an anti-tech tree that only hurts you is an interesting idea and worked for that one civ v scenario but it sucked in this game
>>
>>797950
The only techs that 'hurt you' are the main line religious techs, which aren't prerequisites to anything but their own branch and only unlock bigger churches and some global public order buffs. It basically just exists for roleplay purposes and doesn't actually impact how you progress through the tech tree and yet I will never stop seeing comments like yours claiming it ruins the whole fucking game for them.
>>
>>797990
It's certainly a very poor way to implement such a mechanic. Rome should absolutely (at least temporarily) lose the ability to build great architechtural wonders like amphitheatres or huge aqueducts, but it shouldn't be tied to religious tech.
>>
Does anyone know how to make Attila run well? There's no fucking reason it should look and run worse than Rome II when they're basically the same game
>>
>>798654
What are you talking about it looks way better.

Runs worse yes but thats because it looks better + badly optimised
>>
>>798654
>Does anyone know how to make Attila run well?
Go to CA's headquarters and force them at gunpoint to make an optimisation patch. Also Attila looks a lot better than R2
>>
>>797490
>civil wars mostly cooled down by the end
I still have to fight 5 rebellions per turn
>>
>>798654
One of the problems is that it doesn't access multicore processing very well. There's an old trick where you block it from accessing your primary core in task manager, forcing it to shift everything onto the next core, then re-enable the first core and it'll split things between them like it should.

There's also a trick that involves replacing a few game files with files from Thrones of Britannia, which is literally just an in-engine Attila scenario but with optimization fixes patched in. This completely fixes all of the issues with Attila's performance. However, this requires you actually HAVE these ToB files in the first place. There's an old pastebin floating around that has both the instructions and a link to download just the relevant ToB files without having to buy the game, but I don't have it saved.
>>
File: 1620397499476.png (887 KB, 945x681)
887 KB
887 KB PNG
>>798860
>There's also a trick that involves replacing a few game files with files from Thrones of Britannia, which is literally just an in-engine Attila scenario but with optimization fixes patched in. This completely fixes all of the issues with Attila's performance.
Fucking CA man, how are they still in business?
>>
>>798860
https://arch.b4k.co/vg/thread/306937024/#306962461
Finally found it after combing through the /vg/ archives. May or may not be dolphin porn, will report back in a few minutes
>>
>>798895
Alright, that took a lot longer to actually implement than I thought. Still, no dolphin porn and it seems to actually improve performance
>>
>>792641
I didn't pick them first, for what it's worth. My first campaign was as the Saxons. Sure is fun playing as barbarian mud-hut dwellers with no sanitation so you have to constantly endure starvation and disease. People see a game that challenges you to play as the Romans against all odds, so they naturally want to play as them.

Anyway, WRE isn't truly hard, it's tedious. Winning the same defensive battle with your basic town garrison ten times a turn every single turn isn't difficult, you just pin them with your infantry and cycle charge with the scout equites over and over and rout them. That's easy. The problem is that it takes so long for what it's worth and you do it so often that it sucks the fun out of playing as the WRE. People pick the WRE because they want to hold on against all odds and reclaim some great glory, to get the feeling of surviving with barbarians at the gates, and they instead get something so tedious that it makes you want to uninstall the game so that you can have space for something else on your computer.

Keep in mind that I actually like TW: Attila. Aksum campaign is seriously fun and is one of my favorites in any TW game, and Age of Charlemagne is great as well. It's just that the experience that most encapsulates what most people want out of the game, the attempt to preserve the Roman Empire, is really disappointing and frustrating.
>>
File: 1607076834532.jpg (115 KB, 891x960)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>799197
It's the game subtly nudging you towards playing as the cooler Rome so you can paint the map blurple
>>
>>799197
>people play WRE to defend against barbarian hordes, not to play frequent outnumbered defensive battles against barbarian hordes!
k
>>
>>799219
I like Byzantium as much as the next guy, but they have a lot of the problems West Rome has in this game. They're better than WRE by a long shot but they still have the "defend a million settlements against the horde with your three garrison units in a 30-minute-long battle" problem.

Keep in mind that I'm talking out my ass here mostly, because I'm no game designer. I have no proposals for solutions to this problem. I don't know how I would design a game set in this period without this happening, so I've got nothing against CA for it. But that doesn't change the fact that it makes this game unpleasant to play.
>>
>>799228
I see what you're saying here, and maybe I'm just full of shit, but hear me out. What I mean to say is that it's executed poorly. You have your basic town garrison and play the same unimaginative defense against the same retarded AI. I just wish that they could deliver it in a cooler way. How? I don't know. But you don't get the same feeling of hopeless defense that you would in some kind of game with a good horde mode, I guess. It just feels like tedium and errands.
>>
>>799234
That really shouldn't happen much past the initial few turns, unless you let things get really out of hand
>>
>>799244
To be honest it shouldn't happen at all as ERE. The only immediate threats to your empire at the start are the Visigoths, who you have two armies in position to defend from, and the Tanukhids, who you also have two armies in position for. After that you have time and resources to build up enough forces to actually defend your borders properly so by the time you're facing off with the Sassanids there shouldn't be any undefended settlements getting sniped by wayward hordes anymore.

That's the important difference between campaigns. The WRE campaign is designed with the intention that you uncontrollably bleed territory you can't possibly defend and then slowly retake it as you stabilize and expand into a fundamentally changed europe. Only autism compels people to cheese minor settlement battles over and over until they turn into a superpower. The ERE gives you all the tools to defend your sprawling territory from the beginning and is more about being caught between the Huns to your north and the map's only real superpower to your east
>>
Anyone use a recommended mod to make the lighting (or option tweaking) less disgusting ? I think a lot of what make Rome 2 looks better for me is that Attila is orange and brown
>>
>>799268
I guess I just suck at the game then, lol. I was always better at Shogun 2 where you just need to advance up or down a pretty linear map.
>>
>>793546
Are you an unironic geographylet? Germany doesn't end west of the Rhine, that was just Napoleons wet dream that never came into fruition
>>
>>799285
In his defense, Colonia Agrippina in the game isn't where it was in real life and the province is called Belgica
>>
>>792880
>>792875
I've had this game on steam for a year now and never touched it until now. What do I need to do to fix its performance? is there a guide somewhere.
>>
>>796248
The WRE had many chances to survive it took hilariously shit luck and terrible emperors (who were just puppets to the magister militum) for things to actually decay and this was long after the Theodosians. Romans also did have good quality troops like the Clibanarii but the game portrays these high quality troops born after an unholy fusion of evolving roman military fused with barbarian cavalry as perpetual jobbers just like the rest of their roster. If theres a mod that makes things more "even" quality wise I'd be up for it.
>>
>>797490
Many of those "barbarians" had little population compared to the Romans which is why everything south of and including France speaks romance. Now it's true that civil wars changed but they didn't stop, usurpers like Odoacer, Theoderic, etc were all associated with the roman state in some way or another. Odoacer being a roman general under a weak child emperor and Theoderic being quite literally invited to kill Italy's current master by the ERE and still maintained roman traditions like a senate. Lombards did not number even a million, while the Vandals got rolled out of existence by Belisarius and his Hunnic Foedarati Many of these "barbarians" are our ancestors yes but they are only one side of the coin and fused with the local roman institutions to create something entirely new. I would not compare Saxons to the more civilized Franks whose descendants would claim legitimacy from the WRE and the pontifex in rome. I don't like the term barbarian because it implies everything before Augustus and up to late antiquity stayed the same unchanged naked tree fuckers when in reality they adopted more and more roman practices including religion, laws and equipment with a language that borrows hundreds of words from latin including the script. It really was a time where anything could have happened and this is why Late Antiquity is the most underrated period for games like these.
>>
>>797600
>You don't have to do those dumb defensive sieges early on

Unironically I've tried to fight as many of them as I can because I find it fun defeating a full stack with my garrison.
>>
>>799823
See: >>798895
>>
>>799830
There are as many conflicting theories about the fall of the roman empire as there are stars in the night sky but by far my favourites are: "the decline began with the reforms of Marius" and "the decline began with Caesar crossing the Rubicon." The upshot of both being basically that the development of a separate and privileged military class independent of the political authority of the state was always inevitably going to lead to the army becoming kingmakers, eroding social and administrative systems and causing a catastrophic collapse in territorial integrity as it drove the society towards feudalism, and the process only took ~500 years because the systems in place were so robust that their decay had to proceed for a very long time before it created visible consequences in the structure of society.

The catch 22, and where people often confuse the fall of rome, is that bad emperors were a necessity. The emperor was fundamentally a military title that used the threat of violence to access legislative authority; in the early dynasties they maintained a pretense of political legitimacy that limited their power, but after the period of the 5 good emperors that pretense was all but lost and the Emperor was simply a general that briefly acquired majority support from the military. A commander-in-chief whose sole claim to power over Rome itself was purely the threat of occupation, and whose function was to secure the necessary food, manpower, resources and money necessary to keep the military logistically satisfied. They were dependent on the popular support of the military, of its existing institutions of power and the officers beneath them who could, at any moment, claim the title for themselves and trigger a civil war. At some point, 'good' for the Roman Empire meant divesting from its military and in its ailing social and economic institutions, and that kind of behaviour is what got you assassinated or deposed. The system itself precluded 'good emperors'
>>
File: carla-salle3.png (404 KB, 397x731)
404 KB
404 KB PNG
>>800081
The decline began, as any economist would tell you, with Septimius Severus, Paarthunax and Commodus. Inflation, once it kicks in, makes everyone's economies useless. It is an invisible taxation on the poor and the rich who get the money first are the only benefitted by it. Once inflation knocks on your door, economy quickly starts dying. Diocletian's reforms also did not work since although he created a gold currency that was immaculate, he also implemented maoist economic practices that made roman society as frozen in time as it could be.

Then you add that lack of pay to the cultural clash of bringing in millions of immigrants who did not share the values of Rome and just wanted a better life and you get an empire where no one believes in the empire anymore. Why should they?

The emperors themselves created an economic, political and social situation where the life of the average man became unbearable and the army only existed to bully and extort the peasants, since they barely ever won a battle.
>>
>>799837
>I don't like the term barbarian because it implies everything before Augustus and up to late antiquity stayed the same unchanged naked tree fuckers when in reality they adopted more and more roman practices including religion, laws and equipment with a language that borrows hundreds of words from latin including the script.

this is also the reason i dont really like playing as barbarians in attila. i hate that all the buildings are basically mudhuts and the units never progress pass shaggy cavemen. there is no sense of progress or of dawning of a new era while playing them.
you just feel like a plundering barbarian, which is fine for the early game, but i dont feel it does justice for the actual tribes of the time.
this is also why i like charlemagne better in this respect, being more distinctively medieval and the like
>>
>>800087
>Paarthunax
Nice try, Todd, but I'm not going to buy Skyrim again
>>
The WRE's roster kind of sucking seems egregious until you realize it was probably done for balance reasons.
Rome has access to arguably the best garrisons in the game, High-Walled settlements that are virtually impossible for the AI to capture, access to t3 armour/shield/weapon upgrades, the best crossbows in the game, scorpions, and they get access to game-breaking Large Onagers a full tech tier earlier than anyone else that can get them does, which saves you like ~30 turns of research.

If the rest of their roster was up to snuff then you'd just be able to roll things with superior stats and battles would be boring as hell. I think it's interesting that they balanced them around having explicit weaknesses in infantry and cavalry in favour of having exceptional firepower and defensive advantages. It makes their roster one of the most unique and interesting to actually play, plus the fact that they steadily transition from a roster of expensive and weak heavy infantry and mediocre, cumbersome cavalry to a roster of fast and aggressive light infantry and cavalry is really cool. The entire shape of your army and your tactics change fundamentally through a campaign without every abandoning the core 'heavy firepower supported by mobile forces' identity.

I think a lot of people miss out on just how well-designed this is because they resort to autoresolving most of their battles past the earlygame where their economy is developed enough to just throw money at any problem.
>>
>>800116
That's absolutely wrong, though. New Kingdom and Migrator armies all evolve from being basically rabble light infantry with little to no armour or abilities to being disciplined heavy infantry with chainmail, scale armour and plate that can use formations. Their cavalry evolve from basic dude-on-horse to being early medieval knights with roman armour and lances that charge in wedges or diamonds. Most of them start out with basically nothing but chaff, a basic spear cav only good for killing other cavs and some kind of paper-thin shock infantry for breaking lines in suicidal charges. By endgame they have ordered battle lines of heavy infantry to support powerful noble cavalry that are basically untouchable. You know, like an actual medieval kingdom.

I struggle to think of any germanic faction that ends the game still using shabby barbarous units. All of them end up fielding better heavy infantry that rome.
>>
i know this is an atilla thread but if you're playing rome 2 as a barbarian faction and one conquers a greek city and you bring along barbarian balistas and and you lose some men in the unit for whatever reason. is it suppose to regenerate as a greek scorpion and not what you brought with you?
i lost a couple dudes to a cav charge and wasn't paying attention like a moron lol before i took their city
>>
>>800474
Obviously not, but you have a random chance to capture enemy artillery when you win a battle against them. Your own artillery unit probably got wiped and replaced with one you captured from the enemy.
>>
>>800169
maybe im misremembering then about the units.
in any case what i said is still true for the buildings.
>>
I played the black guys and then I took provinces from the eastern roman empire and got bored
>>
>>800606
>the black guys
Huns?
>>
>>800132
Good take but it does feel very frustrating coming from the ERE who get to steal a ton of shit from everyone around them like cataphracts, horse archers and camel skirmishers but for some reason the WRE doesn't really get to do the same with Germanic or Alani/Vandal troops
>>
>>800589
I'm not sure how you're expecting buildings to change? There's a fixed number of siege maps in the game. Their layout and structures don't change because you built different buildings in them, they're just based on your settlement's main building and its upgrade level. And it wasn't until hundreds of years after the end of rome that France or England were building their own stone fortifications instead of just occupying and maintaining roman ones. Hell, that's why it's so expensive to convert roman settlements into germanic ones. The game wants you to occupy roman cities and keep them like that.

It's also why the germanic building tree mostly uses sanitation/squalor as a resource. Capturing a roman aqueduct turns that city into an economic powerhouse, because capturing irreplaceable roman infrastructure is the whole point.
>>
>>800570
oh okay i didn't even know about that. thats pretty awesome. i thought maybe it was somehow related. if as a barbarian if one captures foreign military wharfs or docks.
they can recruit like persian trireme scutarii or roman onager boats and stuff
>>
>>800613
>ERE who get to steal a ton of shit from everyone around them like cataphracts, horse archers and camel skirmishers but for some reason the WRE doesn't really get to do the same with Germanic or Alani/Vandal troops
Elite Palatina are just upgraded Gothic Warband. The ERE borrows cavalry tactics from the east while the WRE borrows infantry tactics from the goths. The ERE's roster is great for hunting huns and protecting cities because they're the frontline against Attila. The WRE's roster is great for sieging cities and taking territory because they're meant to lose most of their land in the earlygame and then steadily retake it (though this never really happens).

Having played both, you can pretty easily adapt the WRE's roster for dealing with the huns and other ranged/cavalry-heavy armies because general artillery is so good, but you can never make offensive siege battles less of a pain in the ass as ERE because they just don't have aggressive infantry with Shield Wall that can fight on walls or force their way through chokepoints.
>>
>>800662
i just want the building cards to look pretty :((
dont care about siege maps desu
>>
>>800775
Trve Roman building cards for trve Romans only, barbarians get mudhuts
>>
>>800169
>I struggle to think of any germanic faction that ends the game still using shabby barbarous units
Celts kinda do in a way but that's their gimmick in itself.
>>
>>800927
>Germanic faction
>Celts
Do Americans really?
>>
>>797990
Researching the tech to make your churches bigger should not take away your ability to make cement or plumbing.
That is fucking retarded.
>>798365
Realistically, the tech should be on some meter that goes down with your growing corruption, or when some major roman citizenship center gets occupied by barbarians.
It would simulate the brains with proper education being lost to chaos.
>>
>trade income suddenly drops by 13k denari because the fucking faggot WRE allowed Mediolanum to get cut off from the sea and trade routes always get calculated from the capital
FUCK warscape, what the fuck were they thinking?
>>
>>801042
It was like that in M2 and Rome 1 too, wasn't it?
>>
>>800983
Yeah I agree that the loss of certain abilities as you transition into the Middle Ages is an interesting idea, it's just implemented in a way that makes it very frustrating. These aqueducts are extremely necessary buildings and some of the only boons the Roman factions enjoy from the start, and nobody likes permanently losing such an important asset just for going down the tech tree. I've got no good ideas as to how it could be improved because I'm no game designer, but I don't think anyone likes the system completely as is.
>>
>>801251
The very concept of the transition to feudalism and into the middle ages wouldn't really happen if Rome didn't collapse so naturally the systems feel really out of place if you actually manage to hold onto your crumbling empire. I don't know how much of this is even possible with warscape, but it'd be cool to see it tied to empire level or something like that
>>
>>801146
Always, yes.
>>
>>801146
>>801280
Wait, really? Fuck, early onset dementia, here I come, could've sworn that pre-warscape TWs didn't have this
>>
>>801281
Warscape TWs inherited a lot of earlier TW jank just fine, fixed some and added more of their own.
>>
File: 1606285310458.jpg (593 KB, 1920x1080)
593 KB
593 KB JPG
My reconquest of the former WRE lands from the barbarian hordes is coming along splendidly. For some reason, the actual Germanic kingdoms have barely done anything throughout the campaign, instead their historical campaigns have been somewhat mirrored by vikangz and celts. In fact, the Jewtes are currently rank 2 with the Picts rank 3
>>
>>802473
In my experience Jutes either flounder and never expand beyond their starting city or they explode and become the strongest tribe in europe. No in-between. The celts always do well because they all ally each other rather than fighting over Britain and just sail all over Spain and Southern France, but they end up claiming random plots all over instead of consolidating territory and never manage to actually hold their own in a fight.

Usually its the Alamans and the Suebi that end up dominating the map and conquering all the former roman territory before crumbling to the huns.
>>
>>802687
Well, the huns spend like 90% of their time trying to get into Thrace and Pannonia, where they were routinely turned into fertilizer by me. The Suebi got wiped early by the WRE and I don't think I ever even saw the Alamans. My main adversaries in the west up to this point were the Garamanthians who had taken over almost all of WRE Africa and southern Italy as well as the Alani who held the rest of Italy safe for Liguria.
>>
>>802703
>Well, the huns spend like 90% of their time trying to get into Thrace and Pannonia
Those settlements in Hercynia, Germania, Raetia et Noricum and so on sure as shit didn't raze themselves.

Even if most of the hun forces end up camped on your border they'll usually have a cheeky stack or two wander off into Gaul to burn shit. The AI in general is so bad at defending and threat assessment they usually can't even hold back a single hun army, and since the germanic factions don't colonize razed settlements they usually death-spiral and collapse after losing only one or two. Unfortunately this means if you want a real lategame you have to hunt the huns so proactively that, if possible, you stop them from ever reaching as far as Germania, otherwise they eat too much of the map and leave the remaining european powers crippled.
>>
>>797095
>>797490
>>799830
>convert to Christianity
>empire collapses a few centuries later
>implying Byzantium was ever really Rome
>>
>>802745
>Those settlements in Hercynia, Germania, Raetia et Noricum and so on sure as shit didn't raze themselves.
Most razing was done by the Norsemen and Celts, with some Germanics also chipping in.
>>
>>802976
Ironically it was collapsing before the conversion to christianity and Constantine was only a brief reprieve before it went right back to crumbling. The catholic church actually helped keep things together for a while by being a political entity with enough influence to disrupt what had become an endless procession of military dictatorships where succession was decided exclusively by costly civil war, but eventually the army became it's own special class of citizen and there was no more hope of power balance between the army and state, and the decline was pretty much unstoppable from thereon out.
>>
Can someone upload a working mod to keep Roman legacy tech, please?
>>
>>803391
>t. Christcuck who conveniently forgets religious unrest caused by retarded Christian zealots
>>
>>803578
I'm certain one already exists but why does it matter? Legacy tech is only disabled by the religion tree, which is self-contained and only provides bigger churches and some public order bonuses. You can ignore that branch entirely and still unlock all of your economy buildings and bonuses, t3/4 settlements and so on.
>>
>>803626
The religious tree gives a bunch of bonuses too. And if you do not build those high level churches you almost have to go back to paganism to control unrest, otherwise you're handicapping yourself too much. I get that this system is supposed to represent the transition from Roman to Byzantine Empire but greeks didn't simply forget or got banned by the church from building aqueducts. The player already will not build any when he's fighting the namesake of this game while having five other tribes settling in Egypt, so fuck this technology-based ban.
>>
>>803780
Right like, I understand the autism of not liking the immersive implication of those mechanics, but you're just wrong. You don't ever need to go beyond the second tier of church to keep your population christian thanks to how insanely good priests are and the church levels beyond that aren't even cost-effective. Plus the bonuses are trivial things like +1 public order. They just exist to give an upside to the optional thematic "make my empire dumber" techs for roleplaying. They're not something you're handicapping yourself by skipping. They wouldn't even be worth researching if they lacked the tech penalty.

And all of that is only assuming you choose to stay christian when paganism lets you bypass that tree and build high-level religious buildings anyways while being the better religion for gameplay.
>>
>>803817
>like +1 public order
In total you get: +10 public order (another +1 from the 2nd full tier), +2 state religion influence, -7% corruption (and -10% from the 4th), +5% taxes (and +3% from the 3rd) and 25% less political events.
I'm sorry but this is a lot, and it is handicapping for no reason other than devs being autistic.
>>
File: 20211021173904_1.jpg (663 KB, 1920x1080)
663 KB
663 KB JPG
>>
File: TWA_Tech.jpg (297 KB, 1631x419)
297 KB
297 KB JPG
I've done some digging through the files but now it's time to guess the right way to edit these and not break something. Also can't find where the descriptions are. Fuck my life.
>>
File: TWA_Legacy_Kept.jpg (741 KB, 1920x1080)
741 KB
741 KB JPG
>>803904
Got 'em. Easier than I thought it would be.
>>
what is the most >"/fun/" faction for single player
>>
>>804048
Depends on what you're looking for.
There aren't many differences in campaign mechanics so mainly 'fun' is a function of starting situation and roster.

In general, migrators are all a lot of fun because you basically get to choose your starting position, but any germanic/slavic/celtic/norse faction can actually abandon their starting settlements and migrate at the start of the game to pick a new one, and this is how, for example, the Jutes are intended to start their campaign--abandoning their homeland to migrate to england instead.

In general, germanic factions have well-balanced rosters. They have share unique elite longbow archers that outrange everything else, cost-effective spearmen, strong offensive infantry and very strong heavy cavalry, while some of the unique units available to specific factions can steer them in one direction or another, such as the Franks having amazing Shock Cavalry, The Vandals being a cavalry power and also stealing all of rome's navy but better, or the goths getting elite pikes and aggressive shock infantry. They start weak but upgrade their units with tech to transform over time, becoming more heavily-armored and medieval-like. They're a good beginner choice if you're looking for faction with no real weaknesses and an interesting lategame specialization one way or another.

Alani are a notable unique faction: their roster is almost entirely cavalry with very few infantry options and no ranged units but also 100% unique and extremely strong. Great fun if you want to play around with cavs a lot.
>>
>>804048
>>804880
Norse factions (Saxons, Jutes) have an infantry-focused roster with some of the best offensive infantry and shock infantry in the game but weak cavalry and very poor ranged options. Since the AI tends to spam infantry, they can be a lot of fun to just barbarian charge and smash lines with, but they struggle against factions that actually do use cavalry extensively.

Burgundians have unique shotgun slingers and special shock cavalry, the combination of which makes them amazing hun-hunters. They get a passive food bonus for cultivating low-fertility land which makes them one of the few factions that can effectively develop eastern europe and confront the huns head-on.

Slavs have very simple rosters but game-breakingly overpowered poison archers that absolutely shit on basically everything and will let you literally spawncamp the huns. Being overpowered makes their campaign kind of braindead but it's fun having a mechanically unique unit as the core of your armies and the map evolves very differently over a campaign when you can contain the huns completely. Their unique mechanics let them boost the fertility of their territory with buildings, making them the only other factions that can make good use of infertile territory in eastern europe, and immunity to snow attrition means they can move freely in the winter that steadily covers most of the map.
>>
>>804048
>>804880
>>804891
Tanukhids are the most interesting desert boys. They start as a horde with unique mechanics (must win battles for food) and follow a chain of missions that eventually lead them to settling and becoming an empire. Their roster is unique, being the game's main pike faction with heavily armored and heavily shielded frontline pikes available from the start, and pair these with the fastest shock cavalry in the game, with the highest damage output in exchange for paper-thin defenses. Basically the playstyle of Macedon from the old R:TW. They also get unique guerrilla shock infantry that can move across open terrain without being revealed.

Aksum is the other notable desert faction. Almost completely unique roster with a lot of neat tricks, like ealygame shock infantry and a unique starting position. They have a bit of an 'everything but the kitchen sink' roster with strong options for basically everything except shock cavalry, but they get double public order penalties from religion so managing that is basically the 'hook' of the campaign.
>>
>>804932
>play Aksum expecting all my troops to be dark niggas
>only 1 or 2 units are actually africans
Dropped
>>
>>804048
>>804880
>>804891
>>804932
WRE, ERE and the Sassanids all begin with a huge amount of territory already, essentially obviating the expansion phase of the game, but none of their infrastructure is developed and public order is plummeting. In all 3 you spend the earlygame building up settlements at which point you just hit critical mass and become unstoppable. The WRE is intended to be a challenge campaign, with you starting military spread thin while you're attacked from every side, but you can cheese minor settlement battles with like 3 garrison units and never give up any ground, turning the campaign into a tedious slog. You do have the option to actually give ground, and then spend your campaign retaking lost territory from the new medieval kingdoms occupying it, which is probably more fun.

ERE and Sassanids are the same idea but without the hordes of enemies from every angle, meaning you just have to deal with a couple starting threats and then you're safe to build up and become a superpower.

ERE and WRE share the same base roster; mediocre defensive infantry that suck but are narrowly better than what the barbarians start with thanks to heavy armour, bad cavalry, no offensive infantry but fantastic artillery (which you get earlier than everyone else) and fantastic crossbows (which are Attila's equivalent to guns in Shogun 2). They split over time, with the ERE doubling down on defensive heavy infantry but also gaining exceptional elite archers and a large roster of fantastic cavalry (including cavalry archers, letting them match the huns 1 for 1). Conversely the WRE shifts towards lighter armour, faster units, strong skirmishers, highly mobile light cavalry and ironically one of the most cost-effective offensive infantry units in the game. They're probably the faction that most rewards combined-arms strategies and basically follow the inverse trajectory that the germanic rosters, but with the added bonus of amazing artillery and crossbows
>>
>>804048
>>804880
>>804891
>>804932
>>804952
Sassanids have shit infantry (but good elite spearmen) in exchange for amazing archers and both the largest and strongest selection of armoured heavy shock cavalry, while also having a big selection of ranged cavalry including really strong crossbow cavalry unique to them.

Overall these 3 are kind of 'easy' even though they're supposed to be difficult, because you only need 3 or 4 provinces to max out your economy and can affords to lose a lot of ground when you start with so much; holding on to all your territory just isn't important. As a result, I'd probably only recommend these factions if you're looking for a comfy campaign or if you have some kind of idea for a crazy challenge run since they basically have a head start towards whatever it is you wanna try. Though, it's probably worth giving them a shot at least once since their rosters are all pretty unique and promote a very different playstyle from everyone else.
>>
>>804952
>ironically one of the most cost-effective offensive infantry units in the game.
Which one is it? The Elite Palatina line?
>>
Oh yeah and worth noting:
Desert factions, norse, slavs and celts are all DLC so you have to pay for them if you didn't pirate the game. I wouldn't really recommend doing so unless you really, really love the game and want more, and even then the Desert factions are the only faction pack worth the pricetag. The only premium norse faction worth using is the Jutes (the others are all just generic units), the celts are very half-baked and the slavs are pretty much all the same and only interesting for their poison archers.

Also worth noting that Saxons are base game and have the norse roster + their own unique units, and there are two desert factions that were FreeLC, IIRC the Garamantians and Lakhmids, so you can take them and some of their campaign mechanics for a test drive without buying.

>>804977
Yes, Elite Palatina are amazing for a couple reasons:
Their stats are comparable to the best offensive infantry a lot of the more offense-oriented rosters get, but wield Heavy Spathas which have all of the upsides of normal swords (attack faster than every other melee weapon) but are also armour piercing. But on top of that they're Medium Infantry with Rapid Advance while most lategame offensive infantry are Heavy. This lets them outrun and outmaneuver basically everything they don't outright beat in melee. They're outclassed by things like nordic Chosen Warriors (thanks to Frenzy) and hunnic Elite Uar Warriors but both of these have a much higher pricetag and move slower. Plus they have both mobile testudo and shield wall, so unlike a lot of light infantry they don't get slaughtered by arrows and can hold ground in situations where charging isn't an option.
>>
I really wish I could run Attila at more than 15 fps.
>>
>>805566
I have a black magic trick that may or may not work. I noticed that Atilla performance is garbage, but on my machine at least it gets way better if you set core affinity in task manager and disable one or 2 cores. I have no idea why this works, something with multithreading and task scheduling must be fucked but it does.
>>
>>805566
Check >>798895
>>
File: ASNRQoG.png (312 KB, 597x805)
312 KB
312 KB PNG
>>788327
I just want a mod focused on post-Roman Britain
>>
>>806294
It's called "Thrones of Britannia"
>>
>>806294
Fuck you
>>
>>791837
This “nigger” has no “idea” how retarded they sound
>>
>>806294
I've got good (or bad) news anon.
>>
>>802473
very nice map anon, nice conquests
>>
>>803606
t. atheist/TRVE pagan that writes Roman space marine fanfiction
I know your trauma from having to go out on Sunday is strong, but the empire was fucked long ago, before even the Iconoclasts threw a shitfit.
>>
File: 1629073935362.jpg (515 KB, 1920x1080)
515 KB
515 KB JPG
>>808746
Won't be long now. Still undecided on whether I should go full blurple or leave Germania and Britannia to the mudhut barbarians.
>>
>>809528
Whatever it takes for Divine Victory
>>
>>809585
>defeat 40 factions
Guess I'll really have to clear house for that
>>
WARRIORS ALL
>>
File: 1625773786276.jpg (152 KB, 800x800)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
>>809917
WARRIORS OF CHRIST
>>
File: Fixed building slots.jpg (302 KB, 2341x1394)
302 KB
302 KB JPG
>Browsing the Attila workshop
>Come across this
>Fixed missing building slot of Argentoratum, Nova Trajana Bostra, Caesaria Eusebia and Ancyra.
>Test it out
>It works

It's been 6 years... It is done.
>>
Are vassals useless in this game? I just turned one of the germans a vassal and literally next turn they declared war on me.
>>
>>810673
When first forcibly vassalized, if your vassal is a different culture from you (eg. german vs roman) they'll get a diplomatic penalty called something like "feeling oppressed" or something. They'll usually rebel a couple of times before giving up and accepting their fate. You can keep an army nearby and repeatedly vassalize them until they're fully cowed. By the end they'll have like 500+ positive relations with you because the bonus from vassalizing them stacks while the penalties go away. Then they stay friendly for the rest of the game.

Vassals are useful because the AI doesn't like declaring war on someone unless they share a border and don't like declaring war on AI's of the same race. This lets you create a buffer of vassals on your border that basically prevents anyone on the other side from attacking you and narrows the fronts you have to actively defend. You can also donate a settlement to a wayward horde and then immediately attack the undefended city and vassalize them to basically domesticate them. Do this to the Vandals and you'll be able to recruit Alani cavalry via the vassal levy system, which is better than any cavalry the WRE can field on their own.
>>
File: 1634122404630.png (75 KB, 290x265)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
>>810670
Why do those cities have missing slots anyway?
>>
I love it but I also can't play it. Its rewarding to fight against the dying of the light and winning as Rome. It also so exuasting for me.
>>
>>811007
Just a silly oversight. Attila is full of little lingering bugs because CA threw it out to die and then abandoned it without proper post-release support. Lots of factions have weird bugs with unit recruitment, like randomly losing access to certain units when they upgrade buildings.

Probably my favourite is the Himyar (a dlc faction no less) with a special t5 recruitment building that requires a certain amount of religious conversion. Upgrading your unit recruitment building to this t5 version causes you to lose access to all the units it recruits in tiers 1-4.
>>
>>811205
Just seems like a weird thing to leave in. I can see that they didn't give enough fucks to solve the performance issues but this seems like it'd be super easy to fix.
>>
>>811205
>>811209
It wouldn't be as strange if they wouldn't return to fucking Rome2 to fix it instead.
>>
>>796320
Is there a mod that disables auto-resolve? I always find myself going for one of these campaigns and then absent mindedly clicking auto-resolve and then realizing my mistake moments later.
>>
>>788327
How much fun is Attila's actual campaign? He seems so fucking busted when used by the AI that I don't know how good/fun he'd be to play. I
>>
>>811311
You don't get any of the AI cheats (free respawning armies or immortal Attila) so Huns aren't that broken. They're just one of the easier horde factions.
>>
>>811311
Kinda sucks, which is understandable since it was CA's first try at horde campaigns.
Your units are really, really strong. Horse archers are just sort of nuts in the hands of the player since you can micro and kite, split the enemies forces and just always get to shoot past shields. Virtually every hun archer has special high-damage armor piercing bows so the mulch even the most powerful infantry. Battles are really easy, and you have some really strong infantry so sieges are easy too.

There aren't really any unique mechanics or gimmicks to make it fun. You don't get free upkeep or spawning armies when Attila grows up or anything like that. You just fill both of your stacks and march uncontested through europe burning everything until you hit your victory conditions and the campaign is over. If you really, really want a mindless parade of easy battles that's about all it has to offer.

If you want a horde campaign, you're better off picking a faction that can actually settle, spending the earlygame as a horde and just making your way to whatever corner of the map you want to settle to play your empire as. Not having that option makes the hun campaign a lot less fun, though there's a mode to make them able to settle.
>>
File: C59C-N591595N-2.jpg (169 KB, 700x519)
169 KB
169 KB JPG
Best piece of the soundtrack coming through
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Npwtt6_MXY&ab_channel=PeachesLamb
>>
I downloaded the ToB files but I've never modded stuff before. I'm gonna lose my mind. I can't follow the instructions at all to patch em in. Someone please guide a poor retard. I'm indescribably dumb at this stuff. Most I ever did was mod M&B Warband.
>>
>>812021
Look at the instructions given >>798895 here. If you can't do it with that, consider just playing Candycrush instead
>>
File: 1516329441566m.jpg (57 KB, 1024x683)
57 KB
57 KB JPG
>>812109
those are the instructions ive been trying to follow
>>
>>813176
did you download the pack file manager?
>>
>>813199
Yeah but I didn't understand what I was looking at. I tried to figure it out, couldn't, and when I tried to back out, it started schizzing out and giving me all kinds of error messages.
>>
>>813176
>>813295
What are you struggling with? Because the instructions are super clear to me, honestly
>>
File: 1619030348301.jpg (155 KB, 868x960)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
>>803606
Rome died a century before Christ was even born
>>
>>813464
The file pack manager thing. I've never used that kind of thing. Like I said in an earlier post, I tried to use it but royally fucked up in every conceivable way
>>
>>814732
>open ToB data.pack file
>export fsx (or whatever it's called) directory
>open Attila data.pack file
>delete fsx directory insert ToB fsx directory
>if necessary repeat for the blood files
>profit
How can you struggle with this? This just seems so easy and straightforward to me
>>
File: tentacuddle.jpg (18 KB, 530x376)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>814750
I know it's not much of a defense but many of my friends say I'm the "dumbest smart person" that they know. I know a lot about some things, and almost nothing about other things. Messing with files is one I know nothing about.
I'll give it a try soon and report back. Thank you.
>>
>>814750
>>814766
Took a while for me to make time to try again but I got further this time. However, I think I fucked up after I moved all the ToB data over to Attila for the first time. I hit save and I got an error that I didn't understand, so I uninstalled and reinstalled Attila to start over.
>>
>>817433
Ah I think it's because I deleted the extracted fxc before saving
>>
Is it possible to play the ERE normally considering how busted their campaign gimmick is?
>>
>>817467
So I finally did the whole process...and now when I launch the game, the screen is black but I can hear the menu music. Wtf
>>
>>817505
Probably inserted the ToB fxc directory into Attila's fxc directory. Happend to me too the first time around. You have to delete the entire directory (not just its contents) from the Attila data pack and then insert the new directory from ToB.

>>817488
Define normally.
>>
>>817599
Does that mean I have to start over from square one or is there a short way to fix this?
>>
>>818144
Just open up the data file again, completely delete the fxc directory, then insert the ToB fxc again.
>>
>>817488
It's hard to fail as the ERE, really. No matter what you do, you'll quickly have more money than you know what to do with. There's only so much territory you can abandon to handicap yourself, because you just aren't under that much threat early on. The Goths won't keep advancing on you after taking a settlement and the Tanukhids just kind of meander and raid a bit without really accomplishing much. The AI is too timid so you'd basically have to crank your taxes and wait for your empire to rebel if you actually wanted to lose ground.

Their starting situation is superficially hard because you've got a few big armies nearby, but you have so much territory, so much money and such a good location on the map that it's almost impossible to fail.
>>
>>818271
The only real "challenge" for the ERE imo is to sit by and do nothing as the WRE burns to the ground and then try to go full Justinian and reconquer it all. On the off chance that a single faction manages to take most of the WRE's land (instead of it being a patchwork of disjointed conquests) that can actually make for a decent mid-late game smackdown
>>
>>818176
I'm beyond demoralized. I finally did it and the benchmark performance was just as bad as before, maybe slightly worse.
>>
>>788327
this was the only Total War game that actually felt like a challenge while playing as western rome, it was pretty kino having to strategically let enemies take part of the territory and retreat while slowly improving the economy

the only problem is that it was quite easy to defend cities and attila armies were inmortal
>>
>>813618
this. the Italian allies killed it when they demanded to be called Romans.
Roman government was never designed to work for anything other than a city-state.
>>
>>788327
I want to love you, Attila, babe, but you run like such crap I just can't do it.

Also holy shit is that lighting all over the place whoever was in charge of that should be serving time.
>>
File: 1610041387164.jpg (45 KB, 500x598)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>818882
Yeah, sadly even with all the various performance enhancing tricks Attila still runs remarkably worse than TWW2 or R2
>>
So does the fix from ToB actually impove fps? Is this anon >>818416 just retareded?
>>
>>800087
>The cultural clash of bringing in millions of immigrants who did not share the values of Founding fathers and just wanted a better life and you get an empire where no one believes in the empire anymore. Why should they?
or maybe
>The cultural clash of bringing in millions of immigrants who did not share the values of European humanism and just wanted a better life and you get an union where no one believes in the union anymore. Why should they?

Hilarious how history repeats itself. And even better how you can't even say those things in public anymore.
>>
Never played Attilla, because it just looked like a reskinned Rome 2 Barbarian Invasions.

1. Am I right?
2. Is Constantinople a custom city built on the Golden Horn and a massive Theodosian Walls? If not, then wtf is wrong with CA. I won't play this garbage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walls_of_Constantinople
>>
>>818948
Yes, it's a Rome 2 expansion advertised as a full game.
Yes, it's a custom map with the walls.
>>
>>818948
It looks way better than Rome 2, adds or reworks many features and is just all around a way better game, performance issues notwithstanding.
>>
>>818952
mkay. that's good and was a minimum threshold. are the other cities also custom historically accurate maps?
>>
>>818956
Honestly I only remember Constantinople but I think Rome has a unique map too.
>>
>>818956
Ravenna is.
>>
File: attilasiege.png (1.7 MB, 1022x1069)
1.7 MB
1.7 MB PNG
>>818956
also Ctesiphon
>>
>>803817
you need every point of public order you can get on difficulties harder than normal
>>801251
like I said it worked in the civ v scenario because you only got the re-branded culture points when you lost a city or unit and after accumulating enough for a rebranded social policy you were forced to chose some debuff, in attilla you just don't go through the religious line until you've done every other tech and spend 80% of the game miserably wiping out pathetic rebel stacks that are just strong enough to keep you bogged down but too weak to ever provide an interesting fight
>>
>>818956
IIRC it's: Rome, Constantinople, London, Ctesiphon and Ravenna
Constantinople has a different layout depending on how upgraded the settlement. At low-tier, it's just the Constantinian Walls. Upgraded, the map is expanded considerably and includes the Theodosian Walls, as well as fortified landing points along the Golden Horn your naval forces can assault to bypass the primary defenses.
>>
>>819015
>you need every point of public order you can get on difficulties harder than normal
Not really. I play on Very Hard pretty much exclusively and have completed a Legendary run of the WRE. Rome's public order structures are so insanely good that Public Order ceases to be a concern entirely beyond the earlygame, and you have so much territory by default that you can afford to build churches and arenas everywhere and still generate basically infinite money by the time Attila takes command of the huns. Rome's building set is insanely good compared to everyone else, which makes things like this trivial once you get over that initial crumbling empire hump.
>>
>>819046
>build churches and arenas everywhere and still generate basically infinite money
If anything, the only limiting factor is food, seeing how lvl 4 arenas generate almost enough money to pay for lvl 4 churches
>>
>>819051
Food us ostensibly the weakness of the roman building set, since they can't build farms in Major settlements like the germanic factions and don't have broken camel farms like the eastern factions. But that only begins to catch up with them lategame since their starting territory is so fertile, and by then you're literally too rich to fail.

Though it's annoying when any powerful AI roman faction just starves to death after chapter 3.
>>
>>819063
That's why I'm playing with mods to alleviate the climate change, areas like Egypt or Southern Italy becoming nearly infertile just tickles my tism too much
>>
>>819065
I'd rather there be a mod to just make the AI completely ignore food restrictions, since they clearly can't handle it. If the AI could cheat things like food, bypassed unit recruitment restrictions so it would field more balanced armies, was more aggressive and proactive with those armies, and actually resettled razed territories, Attila would be near perfect.
>>
>>799823
I don't know about the ToB fix but I just changed a line that turned enabled cores from 1 to the number of cores in my CPU, which fixed the stuttering I got when I switched to Ryzen
>>
File: 1596245831973.jpg (1 MB, 2560x1440)
1 MB
1 MB JPG
>>792992
The WRE ironically actually counter the Huns pretty hard if you actually get their late game units
>>
>>793426
>I wouldn't say "easiest" they still have the issue that their roster is terrible
They get insane crossbowmen and heavy infantry, probably the best in the game. Some pretty good skirmishers as well.
>>
>>819298
>heavy infantry, probably the best in the game.
Which one do you mean? Elite Palatina is good but they're medium, not heavy
>>
>>819359
>>
>>819372
Are they that good? Never really bothered with them because two turn recruitment and cavalry reigning so supreme in Attila
>>
>>819298
>crossbows
All of europe gets crossbowmen. Theirs are slightly better because they get more armour and morale, but for like double the cost. Crossbows are good but niche, their low range means they get screwed over by archers and they aren't as effective against cavalry.

>heavy infantry
WRE's heavy infantry actually suck, funnily enough. All variants of basic legionaries are garbage. At the very start of the game they have a slight advantage over starting german units, because the germans start with peasants in rags, but as soon as the germanic cultures start unlocking units their spearmen immediately surpass Comitatensis Spears, and their go-to heavy infantry easy surpass the legio variants and end up as more cost-effective equivalents to Protectres Domestici.
The Herculiani Seniores seem strong because they're the best-statted infantry that the WRE gets, but in reality they have almost identical stats to the ERE's Eastern Armoured Legio, which is an upgrade to basic cohors, doesn't take 2 turns to recruit and is a fraction of the cost. They don't even have Shield Wall, which actually makes them worse at being elite defensive infantry than a lot of cheaper options. They exist for the Inspire aura, not for their combat ability. The ERE gets a dedicated aura unit much earlier in their unit progression (Numeroi, available fairly early) and lategame all of their spearmen basic spearmen gain the aura.

WRE's skirmishers ARE good and they have some of the best skirmish infantry in the game as well as a lot of infantry with anti-cavalry precursors in general. This is one of their explicit strengths, but it's worth noting that using skirmishers effectively is itself pretty challenging, and an army with a weak frontline and strong skirmishers demands a pretty micro-intensive playstyle from the player, compared to a faction with dominant heavy cavalry like the Alans or infantry that can just right click and win like the Jutes.
>>
File: BALLISTARII.png (2.23 MB, 1194x2614)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB PNG
>>819373
They aren't insane or anything, as you said cavalry is really powerful in Attila.
But for heavy testudo action with throwing weapons they are the best there is, and their incredible ability to hold the line pairs well with their Elite Crossbows.
>>819375
>All of europe gets crossbowmen.
The rest of Europe doesn't get Elite Ravenna Ballistarii
>Theirs are slightly better because they get more armour and morale
Seems like quite a bit more than "slightly" better
>WRE's heavy infantry actually suck
I was only referring to Herculiani Seniores
>The Herculiani Seniores seem strong because they're the best-statted infantry that the WRE gets, but in reality they have almost identical stats to the ERE's Eastern Armoured Legio
Eastern Armored Legio is good, and arguably more cost-effective, but they have WAY less AP damage and substantially less morale, not to mention the aura.
It has to be kept in mind that Attila has an overall army cap, so you aren't going to be pumping out twice as many of the cheaper units.
>>
>>819396
I forgot to add, I was surprised to find that ERE ballistarii were so near to the elite ravenna ballistarii, I thought there was more of a disparity there.
>>
>>819396
>Elite Ravenna Ballistarii
They cost almost double the standard armoured crossbow, which is itself only a slight upgrade over sasquatch in a green shirt. Once again, this unit only exists for the Aura, and for the non-stacking Aura you pay nearly double. The ERE has plentiful and cheap sources of inspire, which is why they have no need for something like this; it's a handicap that the WRE has to overpay for understatted "elite" units that only really offer this aura for their cost.

And Herculiani Seniores can't make good use for their AP because their melee attack is comically low for a t3 elite unit, but they aren't good as defensive troops (their apparent role) because they lack Shield Wall. Charge bonus is added as AP damage, so between offensive infantry with a relevant charge bonus, cavalry, AP crossbows and artillery, it's redundant for your defensive infantry to have it, and even with it they lose to most equivalent lategame infantry--almost all of which is substantially cheaper.

I know, I know. Top-tier elite unit of the Great Roman Empire. You want them to be good because they feel like they're supposed to be payoff for making it that far, but they are genuinely not good. They will actually tie in melee to a unit of Gothic Warband charging them, and that's a basic earlygame unit.

When you're lategame as WRE, you're better off recruiting Elite Palatina, which have the same AP but a far more useful stat spread (and will win 1v1 vs a unit of Herculiani on the charge). Armour isn't as valuable in Attila as it appears from a glance and paying a lot for just a little more armour is rarely worth it. Melee attack and charge tend to matter a whole lot more for a unit's ability in combat, and Elite Palatina are legitimately one of the best shielded offensive infantry in the game for their cost. But they also have Shield Wall on top of that, so they actually fight well on defense.
>>
>>819442
>They cost almost double
Once again, you have a finite number of armies. Half the cost does not equate to twice as many armies.
>but they aren't good as defensive troops (their apparent role) because they lack Shield Wall
I haven't found stationary testudo to be ineffective, they hold the line very well while anything in front of them is eviscerated by ballistarii.
>They will actually tie in melee to a unit of Gothic Warband charging them
That's just not true
>and will win 1v1 vs a unit of Herculiani on the charge
I'll just test this myself when I'm able to
>>
>>819449
>I haven't found stationary testudo to be ineffective
Testudo provides missile block and mass (reduces impact damage from cavalry charges) and a small bonus vs large (but not enough to make them effective against charging cavalry). There isn't really a reason to be in testudo vs infantry as it doesn't actually give you any stats that help you. It almost completely negates missile fire (from the front) and helps to mitigate frontal cavalry damage, that's it.

Shield wall provides missile block chance, mass, melee defense, flanking immunity (this is a bug, but it was just never fixed) and a large bonus vs infantry.

The defense bonus alone is a serious advantage for Shield Wall, but the bonus vs infantry is the actually important part. Bonus vs X is treated the same was as charge bonus, it's added both to Melee Attack and to Armor Piercing Damage. But unlike charge bonus, it doesn't expire after 10 seconds. This means even a simple sword unit in shield wall suddenly has more AP damage than Heculiani, but it also means that infantry with significantly lower stats will fight better that Heculiani, because the bonuses for being in Shield Wall make up the difference and then some. And yes, this means Protectores Domestici are pretty much better in any situation where you can use Shield Wall.

And I'd also just like to point out:
>while anything in front of them is eviscerated by ballistarii.
Ranged units shooting over your own troops to target enemies in melee will actually deal friendly fire damage more than they hit the enemy. This is especially true of crossbows, which don't have a parabolic trajectory and require direct LoS to fire
>>
>>819465
>shield wall
I haven't played in a while so I'll take your word for it
>Ranged units shooting over your own troops to target enemies in melee will actually deal friendly fire damage more than they hit the enemy
Well obviously I'm not trying to fire upon them when they actually close in, just on approach and then they focus on distant targets, cavalry, or move to the flanks
>This is especially true of crossbows, which don't have a parabolic trajectory and require direct LoS to fire
Surprisingly not true. Put them behind some buildings in a siege and they will actually arc their shots over them.
>>
how the hell does the WRE upkeep bonus for foreign units work? does it only apply to mercenaries and levied troops from hordes or do the "foederati" units in your regular roster also count?
also is the minus upkeep applied to the entire force or just the unit? i would assume that if you have 10 non-roman units the entire army gets -20% upkeep right?

it's times like these where i wish there was an actually decent wiki or some youtuber like Spirit of the Law for aoe2 that explains how mechanics work in depth. some shit is extremely obscure like how armor is divided between armor and shield values. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. WHAT DOES SHIELD DO?
>>
>>820131
No idea about your first question (should be easy enough to figure out by shifting units between two armies though), but regarding shield armor
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=570444181
>Shield armor is always half as effective against missiles, to counterbalance missile block chance. This can be changed with the variable "Missile_Shield_Piercing_Coefficient."
>>
>>820131
Shields do a couple thing:
They increase armour and melee defense, but only for melee enemies engaging them frontally, and only again missiles firing from the front or left (eg. the shield-arm side).

Most heavily armoured units have like half their armour value loaded onto their shield and combined with the bonuses from flanking, bypassing that armour entirely lets even lightly armed units deal heavy damage.
>>
>>820139
oh cool that link explains almost all my doubts ab the game thanks
>>
how do you guys fight defensive garrison battles? fighting beneath the towers or turtling up in the victory point area chokepoints?
so far the second tactic seems to have the most success out of them all.
>>
>>821303
Look for the most likely chokepoint, wait for the enemy to funnel all his troops into said chokepoint, cycle charge his blob into the rear, win
>>
>>821303
it's usually the central victory point for me. i usually run my cavalry out of the settlement, hide them away somewhere, camp on the city square chokepoint(s) and then when the enemy bunch up, i rush the cavalry in and charge at the enemy backs
some settlements unfortunately have three choke points while you have only two infantry units available. in that case you'll just have to suck it up and accept your defeat (unless the ai decides to only attack two of the chokepoints) and try to inflict as many casualties as possible. does inflicting casualties matter in these tw games with auto replenishment? hard to say. ideally, you're delaying the enemy stack while it replenishes, or you're getting a weakened enemy stack next turn. my personal strat was to just try to destroy whole units if the battle was hopeless (meaning the ai decided to be smart enough to flank me and use the one undefended chokepoint). that way at least you'll hopefully be fighting one less archer unit (or whatever you managed to pick off) in the next battle
>>
>>821303
Minor settlements? Usually hold the control point since it's a defensible elevated spot and often gives you walls to mount your archers. Holding the entrance to the map is a trap because your towers will deal more friendly fire damage than anything else and are an active liability to fight under.

For major settlements, defend the walls at all cost. The chokepoints are much more defensible, even when the enemy blows a bunch of holes in them, and towers are less of a liability since they'll mostly shoot at enemies outside of the wall rather than into your own troops.
>>
>>800023
save some pussy for the rest of us
>>
>>792641
No one would complain if we could garison towns without using a general.
>>
Swift as the angels? More like swift on the way to page 10 lmoa
>>
Is Ancients Empires any good? Also, which mod should I use to tone down the fertility drop?
>>
>>826230
>Is Ancients Empires any good?
Not a big fan, honestly. I wish someone would just make a less expansive overhaul that changes the setting to Republican times without tacking a ton of other changes and shit on top.
>Also, which mod should I use to tone down the fertility drop?
I like https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1750173962&searchtext=climate+ which has fertility drop in 400 and 420 but then recover again somewhat later on so the map doesn't become a barren wasteland. Alternatively https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=635990190&searchtext=climate+ adds a fertility increase to sanitation buildings, which is cool later on but a bit OP during early-midgame
>>
Should I get atilla ? I like rome 2 alot but never played atilla.
>>
>>826251
Attila is sort of like Rome 2, but with many modifications to try to address many of the Rome 2 release criticism.
For example, family trees were introduced in Attila(before they were retroactively ported back to R2), food matters far more, internal stability actually matters(kind of) etc.
Basically of you like Rome 2 you will like Attila 95% of the time.
>>
>>826251
It's better in just about every way but it's horribly optimized so unless your PC is up to date expect terrible performance.
>>
>>826297
alright. i hope the next sale puts the total wars back on sale. they were all on sale sometime in the middle of october and i literally missed it by like five minutes lmao
>>
>>826303
Just buy a key somewhere, it's like 6 bucks
>>
>>826302
>>826297
is it true that alot of the buildings have heavy penalty ratings and some of the settlements have to be built in a specific way?
i watched some of legend of total war's campaign and he was talking about it. he said something like and i'm paraphrasing
>they never updated atilla so theres still tons of penalties they took out of rome
>you have to build your settlements the same way every time
he said something like that
>>
>>826307
Na, it's generally pretty easy to build your settlements. Most buildings do have a cost - be it squalor and public order for econ buildings or food and money for happiness and sanitation buildings - but the bonuses they give are generally good enough to outweigh the maluses. I'd say you have to go out of your way to actually build your settlements so badly that a province becomes ungovernable.
>>
>>826318
ahh okay that makes sense. thats just like his opinion or whatever.
i know some people don't like it but i really like the provincial system over the old individual city state system. Its cool how all the buildings build at the same time instead
>yeah i gotta wait 30 turns to build x cause i need abc buildings first
>and these buildings are all 8 turns ETC
what would be a good noob faction? i remember in barbarian invasion good noob faction was the franks.
>can horde
>infantry better than roman
>Good start area to sweep through Gaul
>>
>>826329
>what would be a good noob faction?
The Sassanids.
They start:
>Surrounded by loyal satrapies
>Have free sanitation
>Great cavalry
Eazy mode, basically.
>>
>>826329
As the other guy said, Sassanids are super easy mode. ERE is also super strong if you want to play Romans instead. As far as hordes go, basically any of the Germanic tribes are good, just migrate early and pick a nice spot somewhere in the WRE to settle down. I think my first game was as Langobards and I migrated to the Balearic Islands and went on conquering Spain and Africa from there
>>
The air was filled with smoke and blood
>>
>>826686
Fuck off, Attila, this is a Roman board
>>
>>826688
But those who followed neglected Rome, fighting over scraps of past glory.
>>
>>826307
>penalties
Yes. It's one of the best things about Attila's building system. Each structure has benefits and penalties. You have to balance these to make the most out of your limited building slots. It creates some interesting paradigms. For example, german settlements have poor options for sanitation and their economy buildings all cost a lot of squalor, so generally how much money a settlement can make is limited by your sanitation. But if you capture a roman settlement with an aqueduct, your sanitation is now nearly limitless and you can develop that settlement's economy much further. It also means settlements will be built very differently if they're purely economic backline settlements or if they're dedicated to army recruitment or if they're frontline defensive settlements with improved garrisons; all of these things have different penalties to build around, and each culture group's buildings excel at certain things at the expense of others.
>>
>>826550
Just get ready to chase those pesky White Huns
>>
>>826329
>what would be a good noob faction?
If you're up to try a horde, ostrogoths are a good beginner's choice. They start on the edge of roman territory so you can just march west and start your own empire. Plus they can recruit roman units in settlements with roman buildings and get better earlygame garrisons as a result--it's the best way to play around with the roman army without playing as rome and dealing with the challenge campaign. Otherwise Franks are a good choice, and as the other posts mentioned Sassanids as well.
>>
>>788327
What do I need to do to make it less laggy?
>>
>>827845
pray to Tengri
>>
>>827845
Fixes have already been posted and discussed ITT. Alternatively, >>827892 this
>>
File: 1628338718358.jpg (181 KB, 1173x1777)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
>playing as the WRE
>finally get my shit together enough to start sending punitive expiditions over the Rhine
>mfw
>>
>>800081
>>800087
based Rome myth dispeller
>>
>>811384
>since it was CA's first try at horde campaigns.
I get what you mean but they literally did horde campaigns like 2 decades ago with Rome:BI
>>
File: highlanders_info.png (113 KB, 191x280)
113 KB
113 KB PNG
>>800927
Celts have to stay barbarous because they're going to evolve into the blue painted Braveheart guys in Medieval 2.
>>
Any mod that lets me trade regions? I am tired of babysitting the WRE as the ERE.
>>
>>828554
Apples and Oranges. In Barbarian Invasion, hordes all started as settled races and were forced to resettle quickly due to the mechanics at play and to complete their victory objectives. The Huns are the first campaign in the series where you play entirely as a horde and cannot settle.
>>
what are the best history books about the time period of total war attila?

t. historylet
>>
>>829635
I really liked The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather, even read it twice.
>>
>>829635
Plutarch
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
>>
My biggest issue with the game is how poor the balance is. The Romans are the only challenging factions and even then their challenge is entirely frontloaded. Even as the WRE, once you survived the first ~5 years you're usually good to go on the offensive again and after that the rape train has no brakes. The Barbarians and Sassanids on the other hands are so easy that any type of challenge has to come from self-imposed handicaps because the AI just cannot handle playing Rome. A shame that the major overhaul mods like Europa Perdita and Fall of the Eagles pretty much got abandoned completely, this game has so much potential
>>
File: pestilence.png (3.9 MB, 1920x1080)
3.9 MB
3.9 MB PNG
Nice my campaign is now ruined because just as I started my invasion of the Balkans with 4 full hordes they all get pestilence and I cannot rid them of it. Separate them -> AI wanders through with armies and spread it back. Merge them together to raze settlements and keep it empty -> AI settles in the empty province and spreads it to them anyway.
80 turns wasted thx Attila
>>
>>832008
Based, get dabbed on steppe nigger
>>
> attila invades
> has 10 stacks sitting outside of cities with one stack in them, AI too scared to attack
It's literally been like 12 years. I'm fairly sure Attila is going to die of old age without attacking a single city or army because he refuses to be aggressive. CA are fucking mongoloids.
>>
>>834673
Attila's bitchass passive AI is one of its worst features. There are AI mods to make them more aggressive but they're a mixed bag.

CA over-compensated after Shogun 2's AI was suicidally aggressive and Rome 2's was so fucking retarded it'd relentlessly Force March through your entire empire to sack a minor settlement at the very back.
>>
File: Himyar bois.jpg (116 KB, 1280x720)
116 KB
116 KB JPG
>>804932
Excellent run down, anon. What are your thoughts on Himyar?
>inb4 jew
I personally found siding with ERE was a unique and scary early-midgame challenge. Siding with the Sassanids until you were built up felt more like easy mode.
>>
>>834737
Himyar roster is ass and their gimmick is lame because it just forces you to pick between two equally shitty endgame unit sets. It took me until chapter 3 to even hit the 75% religious conversion necessary and there's nothing fun about that. You just build churches, plant priests and spam end turn. The payoff is also bugged. Upgrading your recruitment building to its t5 version makes it unable to recruit a seemingly random assortment of units from the previous tiers. The jewish side gives you a bunch of mediocre defensive infantry (that are actually just worse than Shotelai) and an ambush unit that's a weaker version of the Tanukhid Ambusher. The pagan side gives you bugged camel cataphracts that have half the hp of normal cavalry, generic bow cavs and Athar's Chosen, which were the most broken unit in the game until they got nerfed.

Overall the only worthwhile thing about them is their starting position but you can just play Aksum for basically the same starting position instead. Aksum have similar mechanics but a much more interesting roster and you can just take the Himyar capital within the first 10 turn to basically get everything a Himyar campaign would offer.
>>
>>834837
I mostly agree. It's a shame their unique units are either bugged to shit or low tier. There were a couple units I did enjoy and find a use for (like their zodiac archers and the Balthas which surprisingly had ok synergy). I enjoy the challenge of using a gimped faction and try to make something work from it, even if it takes a while. I also felt like CA didn't really know what direction to have Himyar's campaign go in and Himyar ended up suffering because of it. Like the Tanukhids have a legit good story line/progression if you follow the missions and you get rewarded with amazing units.
>It took me until chapter 3 to even hit the 75% religious conversion necessary and there's nothing fun about that.
Yeah, the conversion can definitely be abysmal which is why I modded it. Makes things a bit smoother
>Athar's Chosen
My miss those guys like you wouldn't believe
>>
>>798895

Are the files safe?
>>
File: 1619718790329.jpg (53 KB, 512x368)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>834716
>and Rome 2's was so fucking retarded it'd relentlessly Force March through your entire empire to sack a minor settlement at the very back.
And then they went right back to that for Warhammer, fucking hacks.
>>
>>834716
Installing an AI mod has seemingly helped a bit. I don't know what the fuck the Huns are doing but at least they're not standing still and everyone else has started to at least try to mobilize their armies.

This company is literally cancer. How can you make the same fucking game for 20 years and you still can't get basic AI right?
>>
>>835127
Small family company, please think of the Charlemagnes
>>
the performance is so bad bros...

I already applied the ToB fix in this thread + the threads thing in your preferences.scripts. I have a 1060 + ryzen 2600 but the game really just performs like shite

is there anything else i can do for a smoother experience?
>>
Will the madlads making Rise of Mordor actually deliver? Being able to mod the map would be a huge breakthrough for warscape modding.
>>
>>835662
Shogun 2 already has map modding so here's to hoping they push through and release a full-blown campaign. The models and everything they've done so far are extremely promising
>>
>>835662
I don't know but I don't see it ever being as good as Reforged simply because Warscape is a bad engine, I'm so tired of weightless charges bros...

Plus from the (small) amount of videos I've seen, it's another LOTR mod that forgets that it's meant to be a videogame and makes all the good factions ridiculously overpowered and unfun to fight, making multiplayer completely unplayable. Reforged had the same problem where factions started losing all their weaknesses as development went along like Elves getting insane top tier cavalry to go along with ridiculously good archers and infantry along with the dwarves while the Evil factions got slightly improved shit tier infantry.
>>
What do you guys think of Ancient Empires?
>>
>AI turn takes 3 min
God...
>>
>>835960
Use one of those mods that disables AI agents.
Turns don't take long because the AI is processing or anything like that. It takes long because the game forces every single agent action on the map to play out their animation, whether you can see them or not. As the game progresses, AI factions will accumulate stacks of agents that they have repeatedly target an army or settlement every single turn, leading to obnoxiously long trains of agent actions playing out their animations silently while you stare at into the fog of war during the end turn screen. Mods that prevent the AI from using agents will cut your lategame end turn times down to a fraction.
>>
>>835566
Turning shadows down to Quality instead of Max Quality fixed campaign performance for me at least.
>>
>>788327
>Play Barbarian Kingdom
>Build industry buildings for $$$
>These increase immigration
>Public order goes down the shitter
>Demolish immigration increasing buildings
>Now no $$$ for army
What am I supposed to do? I just want to make a comfy Post-Roman Latin Christian State.
>>
Climate change in Attila is so ridiculous that I am legitimately wondering if I should just install a mod to make it more bearable. It's not even a difficulty issue, it's just really fucking stupid and annoying that apparently Iberia was a fucking wasteland in the 500s where nothing would grow. I can understand the north of europe getting colder and more inhospitable but come on. I don't want every food building in my empire to be sheep barns because they're the only viable way to not starve.
>>
>>837339
>Not letting rebels form up and repeatedly beating them up, creating an exodus of immigrants who flees regions in conflict

You shouldn't be worrying that much unless it's under-developed and/or you can't win garrison fights.
>>
>>837362
Sadly there is no mod to realy fine-tune it and make it realistic (ie Northern/Central Europe gets hit by climate change and becomes more and more inhospitable, Med area not affected and as such becomes an ever mor enticing target for migration) so lately I just use the zero climate change mod.
>>
>>835937
I like it, I like it more than DEI just because is in Attila and not in Rome 2.
>>
File: unknown.png (912 KB, 702x791)
912 KB
912 KB PNG
Anyone know a mod team that needs modellers?
>>
>>835937
>>837685
I hate that as Rome you start with your armies already on Carthage's doorstep. I hate railroading.
>>
>>837362
Honestly the best mod to change it is one that eliminates it entirely. Climate change is a neat pressure to put on the player, but the AI can't handle it and that leads to them all dying off by the endgame instead of getting stronger and more interesting to fight.

Just bear in mind that no climate change does sort of break the player's economy. Farms are balanced around the fact that they're only good eco buildings earlygame. With Climate change gone, they become the most cost-effective income structure by far and as a result you end up getting way richer through the midgame and having basically infinite dosh lategame.
>>
>>837658
>>837974
Fucking hell. I will never forgive CA for abandoning Attila in the state it is today, where we don't even have a fucking guard button. It boggles my mind that there are still people that will defend this company.
>>
>>837689
I haven't played the campaign yet but yeah, that's a pretty good point, the game already starts sort of after a lot of the turning points in the Mediterranean world, so by the time you start, a lot of stuff like the direction things are going has already happened. Are you excited for the Alexander campaign the devs are working on? The unit roster is probably my favorite in the game and I really wish they'd use some of the textures from it to make the Seleucids and Ptolemies look a little more ornate for certain units, I feel a lot of their units are a little bland looking for what at the time were such wealthy powers in the mediterranean.
>>
>>802976
>implying Byzantium was ever really Rome
but it was you fat pagan faggot
kyrie eleison
>>
>>837362
There is a mod that makes sanitation buildings increase your fertility
>>
>>838571
Just use the zero climate change mod, it has the same end result without making early game agriculture bullshit broken and also helps the AI more
>>
>thread made 1 month ago
>has 300 replies
>fantasy general thread made every day, usually multiple times a day
>750 replies each thread
hmmm
>>
>>837689
Same. Also same reason I didn't like very much Castile's campaign in Attila's Medieval Mod, you start in a pitched battle with the moors right at your first turn.

Btw the mod's fine and all but total conversions don't fit very well in Attila's campaign map
>>
>>841183
Attila was abandoned essentially at release and didn't even sell particularly well when it came out because of how shit Rome 2 was and how poorly optimized Attila itself was. It's essentially a half-finished game, the fact that it gets any posts at all really speaks to what CA accidentally got right with this game.
>>
>>842471
I maintain that somebody at CA had a genuine passion for making good Total War games and Attila was his passionproject. It just has so many good ideas and correct decisions put into it. If it had a proper cycle of post-release support it would be the uncontested peak of the series.
>>
>>806294
Conquestus Britanniae for M2?
>>
>>841183
Attila still requires a modicum of taste and brainpower
>>
For the love of God, give us an optimization patch with a 4k UI fix.

I love this game so much, but it is so hard to see the text on my TV and there are still bugs and AI quirks to work out.
>>
>never played a Total War game but kinda interested
>eyeing some of them on Steam
>check shogun 2
>"this game is already in your library"
>wot
Guess I must've gotten it during one of Sega's giveaways and forgotten about it. Nice. Guess Shogun 2 will be my first ever Total War game.
>>
File: d97.jpg (103 KB, 828x888)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>finally won as visigoths
Wew, that was retarded. For some reason all the factions from british isles were settled in Hispania and allied eachother, so when I attacked anyone it would start the d-day.

Smh.
>>
File: 1635777559429.png (99 KB, 1360x312)
99 KB
99 KB PNG
>>847266
>For some reason all the factions from british isles were settled in Hispania
The quintessential Attila experience
>>
What are the best mods?
Any good Fantasy mods?
>>
>>788327
Last total war game worth playing imo
>>
>>841183
One day I will play Ashilla, once I get better PC.
I kind of wish there was a mod that expanded a map a bit and made the game be set around 600 AD or so.
>>
File: 1624767262660.jpg (165 KB, 929x960)
165 KB
165 KB JPG
>>848641
>What are the best mods?
If you are willing to put up with the fact that it's blatantly unfinished and abandoned, Fall of the Eagles and Europa Perdita reloaded are quite cool. If you aren't, a hodgepodge of minor mods will do the job well enough. Most important ones for me are the three Unofficial Community Patch ones, Fixed Missing Building Slots, MAGA Region Trading, Zero Climate Change (there are other climate mods that also do the trick), No Legacy Tech Disabling and more AI colonization mods.
>Any good Fantasy mods?
Rise of Mordor looks fantastic so far but it's still a very early build without a campaign.
Also, while not fantasy, Ancient Empires is a pretty cool overhaul.
>>
bros god I just fucking hate Warscape, I HATE IT!! and I just want a good Rome game. Imperator is Par*dox, Rome Total War I is showing its age. What other good Rome games are there? Field of Glory Empires?
>>
>>847266
They always do this. Attila has a bunch of weird AI behaviours from its hodgepodge development and minimal post-release support.
Factions among the same culture are too friendly with each other, and almost always all ally and then stay allies all game with this weird intermixed territory where no one of them holds a completed province and they all suffer for it.
The celts have really shitty rosters and suck in field battles, but they're a DLC faction so CA made them overpowered in autoresolve, and also made them expand really aggressively. This always results in them racing into gaul and spain and beating out most other AI contenders to monopolize huge parts of it, but leave it split between the 3 allied territories
>>
>>848928
>. This always results in them racing into gaul and spain and beating out most other AI contenders to monopolize huge parts of it
It's usually either them or Jutes in my experience
>>
>>838370
It was nothing more than a rump state you filthy greekoid. Neither the orthodogs in Byzantium nor the catholic fags in the """Holy Roman empire"""" were ever rome's successors. In art, culture, religion, military or spirit. Keep seething
>>
Vst bros I got atilla today. It was 11 dollars. Didnt get any of the dlcs. Playing as the franks pretty good
>>
>>849344
t. Osman
>>
>>849344
Seething Italoid/Turkroach detected.
>>
>>849715
Just use CreamAPI to get the DLC, Charlymeme is the only one that's really worth the price
>>
>>849715
Use creamapi.
>>
>sack
>only 2k gold
>occupy & dismantle all the buildings
>20k gold

Wow, I feel like I'm cheating.
>>
>>850124
age of charlemagne has the best campaign map in any total war, fighting over every region (england, spain, france, etc.) feels like its own mini-campaign. its the perfect scale.
>>
>>852125
This. I still remember playing the Lombards and fighting the Franks tooth and nail over control of the alps, with all the forest ambush spots and narrow mountain passes that caused attrition. It was so different from fighting anywhere else on the map
>>
I can’t peace out the Sassanids. Dude the White Huns are burning down your settlements get your priorities straight.
>>
>>852657
Finish them off then, peacing out in TW always means they'll just resent you, don't do it unless there's some other benefit
>>
Doing Caesar Reborn with the Sassanids right now. Holy shit these motherfuckers are easy mode. I've practically achieved divine victory and I'm still like 15 years off from Attila coming of age. I'm just going to be mashing "end turn" 150 times soon enough while trying to make sure my puppet states don't rebel because you need 20.
>>
>>845263
You have good luck, anon. Shogun 2 is best Total War game unmodded.
>>
>>852657
The diplomacy AI isn't very smart in Attila and is pretty terrible at managing multi-front conflicts despite that being like the whole essence of Attila's gameplay.
>>
Epic defense of Nisibis. Love the island city with bridges.
>>
File: 20211128215114_1.jpg (591 KB, 1920x1080)
591 KB
591 KB JPG
>>856368
Forgot pic. 4 armies vs one with a small garrison
>>
This game still runs like fucking shit.
>>
File: steam.jpg (288 KB, 1920x1080)
288 KB
288 KB JPG
>>856368
>>856372
Nothing sweeter than a good town defense, just had this one a few hours ago on legendary.
>>
Right-clicking agent portrats crashes the game. Any ideas? I haven't been able to find a fix for this.
>>
>>856421
Don't rightclick them? Not like you really need the encyclopedia anyway. It's probably one of your mods though, just fired up the game to test it and right clicking an agent portrait opens the encyclopedia just fine for me
>>
Legio are fucking useless compared to the basic spearmen. Always have to baby the swords so they don't get wrecked by cavalry.
>>
>>856430
They have the benefit of being stronger in a fight against other infantry and having a powerful ranged precursor. Precursors in general are really, really powerful in Attila and using them properly makes a big difference. Disable fire at will so they don't waste them preemptively into a wall of shields and enable it to hurl a volley at oncoming cavalry, or into the backs of infantry they've outflanked before charging.

Yes, they do suck in melee vs cavalry, but that's the tradeoff. You should try to zone out enemy cavalry with your own spears, cavs and archers, or just straight up mow them down with javelins and fire arrows before they can get into melee.
>>
>>856433
> zone out enemy cavalry with your own spears
don't do this on legendary, seriously, it just ends with you getting charged and losing 50% of your spears and probably breaking

the best way to deal with cav in attila is your own cavalry or praying they charge into a shieldwall (and it better be an actual shieldwall, not just a stationary spearman unit). Otherwise maybe you can get lucky enough to charge into a cav unit that's standing still, the AI is retarded enough that it happens often
>>
>>856440
Not even just on legendary. Even on normal a charge will leave quite the dent in an unbraced unit. Cavalry is fucking brutal in Attila
>>
>>856440
Very Hard has almost no impact on actual battle difficulty in Attila, anon. It mostly affects enemy moral. Even the shittiest basic spearmen crush elite cavalry on the charge if they're braced or in spear wall. Expert Charge Defense literally makes the cavs kill themselves.
>>
>>856458
I'm sorry but that's just not what I'm seeing. Both I and the AI will easily crush anything that isn't in shield wall with a frontal charge of lancers, and even shield wall units will take a couple of casualties.

Bracing has basically 0 effect, trust me, I'm playing the Sassanids and their silver-tier spears don't get shield wall, they're fucking useless against everything but cavalry especially. Even melee cav will shit on them occasionally.
>>
>>856462
Units have to stand still for a bit before they fully brace. They have an animation for it. They also need to be facing the target. If your spears are taking more than like a dozen casualties to shatter a unit of cavalry then you're doing one of those 2 things wrong.
>>
>>856465
What happens if you use square formation? Is it effective against Cavalry?
>>
File: spears.jpg (437 KB, 1920x1080)
437 KB
437 KB JPG
>>856578
From my experience, not very.

>>856465
I was going to prove you wrong but it's impossible to even get the AI to charge a braced unit in custom battles. You'll have to settle for being charged from the side when braced by mediocre general cavalry. From what I was able to gather, they obviously fare better when braced (charged from front) but it still isn't a fight you want to get in, especially with lancers. Just use cavalry unless you want to get shit on.
>>
>>856578
I like the square formation with the Foederati Spears, since they can throw their javs in that stance
>>
>>856584
Shieldwall/Stationary Testudo will absolutely murder most cavalry but outside of sieges you'll hardly ever get the chance to really use it, sadly.
>>
>>856584
>You'll have to settle for being charged from the side when braced
Anon, they don't get their bracing bonus or Expert Charge Defense when charged from the side. How is this difficult to understand?
Go look up some videos if you can't figure out the game's basic mechanics yourself.
>>
>>856628
I know, dude. I was just saying that there simply was no way I could get them to charge me from the front because Attila's AI isn't that retarded most of the time and won't do it unless they're forced to, which basically makes bracing spearmen useless against cavalry anyway.
>>
>>850124
>>850144
Wont that get me banned from steam?
>>
>>788327
I remember a year ago some modders were trying to mod and change the campaign map. Any progress on that?
>>
>>788327
How do you fix the horrible fps?
>>
How can you tell when a WRE campaign is fucked up beyond all repair?
>>
>>857959
No.
>>
>>858301
>a WRE campaign is fucked up beyond all repair
This literally never happens. Unless you're reduced to a single minor settlement or something you can pretty much always bounce back in Attila. Hell, the popular WRE strat is to give up most of your lands in the beginning to make it less tedious
>>
>>858301
You're pretty safe unless you go bankrupt.
Ironically, because you have so much territory that you don't actually need, you have a huge margin of error. Even if you lost half your empire to rebellions, you'd now have a giant buffer of rebel states keeping actual enemies from your remaining territories. Attila's mechanics make it very difficult to truly lose a campaign and very possible to make comebacks from virtually any situation. Even if you're too slow and Attila's pounding on your door with a dozen hun stacks, you can easily just feed him another faction to go raze and he'll be sidetracked for 50 turns. Hell, if you get him to declare war on the Sassanids, there's a good chance he'll just spend the rest of the game in the middle east and die of old age before he makes his way back to europe.

I wouldn't abandon a campaign as WRE unless you're plain just not having fun with it. Every major setback is recoverable, and they actually make the campaign unique and interesting since there's so many different possible positions to claw back from.
>>
>>858293
Uninstall and play a better game.
>>
>>858514
This plus all your truly juicy territories - Italy, Spain, Africa (the province), Southern Gaul and Insulae Occidentalis - are easy to defend anyway and will take the barbarian hordes some time to reach. The territories you're most likely to lose like Britain, Tripolitania or Belgica aren't very good anyway
>>
>>858520
Yeah this is also true. Italy itself starts of relatively stable and the terrain of the map makes it an absolute fortress so at very least, losing that is nearly impossible. Even if you do, Spain is set up such that the only threats are an overly passive AI in africa and the celts crossing the sea with practically nowhere to land. And even if you lose everything else, you have a complete province of islands in the west Mediterranean that are virtually impossible for the AIs to assail and literally untouchable to the huns (they can't build navies). Because the roman building set is so good, you can develop the economy of individual provinces (especially port provinces) to an absurd degree and support several expensive armies off a single province.

WRE is only a grueling challenge if you do everything in your power to avoid losing any ground at all, but it's arguably more fun of you just play loose, autoresolve those minor settlements and just try to make do with what's left after the territorial collapse.
>>
Playing as the ERE and there are 4 Hun stacks raiding me in front of Constantinople even though we are not at war. Being able to levy Hunnic horse archers is nice though.
>>
>>858641
Never peace out horde factions, they'll always use it as a free pass to raid your lands
>>
File: eastern rome.jpg (812 KB, 1920x1080)
812 KB
812 KB JPG
Behold... the power of CA's AI cheats. This is the ERE's one and only settlement. They are fielding TEN full stacks of silver ERE troops.
>>
>>859095
Imagine paying for CA trash
>>
>>859095
Any overhaul mods that fix AI cheating?
>>
>>859095
Rome will never fall
>>
>>859095
This is much more than AI cheating. ERE has a bonus where they receive 5% of their treasury as income. It's that, COMBINED with AI cheats that make it so powerful. Hell, in theory you could achieve this as a player.
>>
>>859270
if anything most overhaul mods just make the ai cheat more.
>>
>>859095
ROMA INVICTA
>>
>>859095
kino
>>
>>859338
Yeah this.
Even with insane cheats, the AI's usually end up bankrupting themselves lategame because of how climate change impacts economy. But the ERE's AI is so passive that if it loses territory (and thus loses things to waste money on) their savings will just steadily accrue until they have infinite money just from interest. The player can easily reach this point as well, though it's pretty easy to achieve near-infinite money as a player no matter the faction, the ERE just let you have that income without needing any territory.

The funny thing is that the AI has a strict cap on the number of armies it can commit to a single battle, so if you actually just come in with a pair of 20 stacks reinforcing each other, most of that swarm will scatter rather than zerg you.
>>
>>859910
>>859338
The ERE was wiped out early-game and only recently came back, I immediately made them a puppet state rather than bother fighting them, so while your explanations are correct, they basically spawned with like a couple of armies anyway and steadily recruited more, never raiding, never conquering and never really doing anything other than sitting in their one province and funnily enough, attacking Attila, content to be my puppet state.

There has to be a lot more fuckery going on here than their treasury being reverted back to them as income because I'm fairly sure I didn't even have to pay them to be my puppet state and if I did it couldn't have possibly been more than 30k.
>>
>>859920
Every faction (including the player's) gets a flat base income per turn, so that you can afford an army to conquer with even if you only have 1 settlement. The difficulty modifier increases this for the AI but not significantly.
Eliminated factions still make money per turn by this flat rate, and the ERE continues to get its 5% bonus on top of that.
The AI is set up to never allow itself to drop into negative income from upkeep, which means hypothetically its savings don't really matter, except as the ERE. That's probably why they never bothered to include a flag to shut off this passive income.

The AI tends to waste a lot of money upgrading and then dismantling buildings. It's set up to always build structures/upgrades if it can afford it, but then if it drops into squalor/negative food it dismantles to balance things out in an infinite loop. So for an AI like the ERE, that benefits from saving, being eliminated and thus prevented from spending its savings while they continuously accrue is like a best-case scenario because it means when they resurface their saving interest will be high enough to pay for any upkeep.
>>
>>859948
> Eliminated factions still make money per turn by this flat rate
Bravo CA.
>>
File: 1619832101985.jpg (159 KB, 1000x579)
159 KB
159 KB JPG
>>859948
>So for an AI like the ERE, that benefits from saving, being eliminated and thus prevented from spending its savings while they continuously accrue is like a best-case scenario
I fucking told you guys!
>>
>>859948
so wait in rome 2 and attila, if a faction gets resurrected they just have a bunch of money saved up? lmao





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.