“You built an empire beyond imagining, the pinnacle of human achievement and the envy of the world,” booms the voice of Attila the Hun in the trailer. The production is very well done, and the trailer is truly movie-like. Built on the polished game engine of Total War: Rome II, the Attila game is set in the same region as the last game but at a very different time of history. The campaign is linear (no freedom like in most TW titles), and the battles are like a hack and slash RPG.The preview of the 2015 title looks very exciting even in its pre-alpha test stage as you fly over the map of Europe, seeing everything from lush vegetation to arid deserts. I have played Warhammer, and every time im bored within 20 minutes bc of how easy it is. What the hell do you expect? Wolf riders and wizards? Also it should be obvious that there are historical limitations, most nations used hoplites, phalanx, etc. Adding magic and invincible lords and other fantasy bs doesn't add complexity. That's why Chess is an incredibly complex, yet simple game. If two players are set with equal rosters then it is definitely more complex and deep. Hell, while I love Shogun 2 you also can't argue that there's really not much there for troop diversity making it so there's really only so many ways to play. While the asymmetry is harder to balance, it makes for a more compelling game because each faction has its own style of play that differentiates them far more than the regionally homogenized, real-world sim that the more grounded TW games based on historical pretext are. As for Warhammer, what makes it so interesting is because every faction is completely unique. Personally, I like Rome II better than Attila because of its setting. Ha! Yeah because copy-pasted units and troop types adds so much depth to the game. To be fair, in some degree Rome 1 is better than Rome 2.
#TOTAL WAR ROME 2 VS ATTILA HOW TO#
(and they're pretty good at it, imo.)ĭue the economical nature and structure of income versus army upkeep, combined with the time needed to start generating income and some factions mechanics like vamp corruption, contributes to a more strategical approach of how to expand in the grand campaign, rather than just rush in, steam roll and laugh about the AI incompetence. WH2 has the best UI to date from any CA title. The spells and unique units traits/skills makes the combat actually more deep than Rome 2, which has 'tactical formations.' The AI is also better in campaign and on battlefield. In Rome 2, I never though I would be more bored and care less about Caesar, but they did managed to achieve this feat on me. The characters feels more compeling and alive as well, mainly in WH2 drawed scenes. Im also one of the few people who really dislike the family tree system too.įor simpletons, yes. I don't like the defensive towers in every town either, they are pretty OP. Noone starts a fight with you, so you basically go around razing tiny settlements for cash. I tried playing the horde side as well (as Huns) and found it to be pointless. I played as Aksum and by the time i had built a couple of strong armies and consolidated a decent home province(s) and looked to expand, the whole map was essentially wiped out by hordes. Ive tried to play Attila, there are some gameplay aspects of attila that are better than Rome II. in Attila, everyone is just surviving its about economic migration, plagues and fertility. Rome II is set in a period when there are lots of strong factions all at their mightiest. In TW:Attila i know very little about any of those factions or that period in general. Of course not everything is historically accurate, but i accept that this is a game and not an academic piece so i don't really care. I also appreciate the little historical intricacies which CA implement. I love early antiquity so i know a fair amount about the different factions and units, therefore the campaigns are meaningful to me in Rome II. First off, and this is the most important factor really is the setting.
0 kommentar(er)
