Should I get Attila, Britannia or Rome II?

[Heoro]

I play Shogun 2 a lot for its historical setting, gameplay and visuals. Warhammer has gotten too WoWish for my taste.
I love Europe's setting for Attila, Britannia and Rome II, but idk which offer the best experience.

[Salty Slothy]

Attila is just Rome 2 but expanded according to a few people I’ve talked to.

Britannia is Rome 2 but gutted.

And Rome 2 is pretty solid with fun mechanics and a good mod scene.

[Mile pro Libertate]

They are all very different from one another.

Rome 2 has the least fleshed out mechanics and the least depth of the three: CA just patched it a few months ago, 5+ years after release, trying yet another approach to family/faction mechanics, for example, trying to breathe some kife into it. Rome 2's team obviously had huge ambitions and interesting ideas back in 2011-2012; the problem was it never came together into a coherent package. Rome 2 overall feels disjointed, clunky, and unintuitive in its mechanics. This is to say nothing of the social engineering bs they've been engaging in with Rome 2 for the last six months.

Some of the dlc campaigns are pretty nice, namely Caesar in Gaul amd Empire Divided, but the GC is lackluster af and increasingly more aimless and weird because of politically motivated changes to the game.

Attila and Thrones of Britannia are both much better.

Don't listen to people saying Thtones is trash, or "gutted" like the poster above stated. This is just hyperbolic bs.

Just check my profile: ~2,100 in Shogun 2, ~760 in Attila, ~760 in Rome 2, and now 209 in Thrones. That's way more then enough for comparative analysis. I've been with the series since STW came out. Thrones is very good.

[Salty Slothy]

If you like fantasy I have to recommend the warhammer entries as well. They’re not perfect but they’re the best warhammer strategy games since dawn of war 2

[Scrotum Scratcher]

While I can see how people enjoy Rome 2, i highly recommend Attila. Rome II feels so clunky and the AI is very bad, especially in battles. The graphics are also very painful to look at compared to shogun 2 and Attila. Attila is much smoother and the DLCs are great additions. There is also more challenge in Attila.

I have never played Britannia but I heard bad things about it.

The only problem with Attila is that it is a little more focused on maintaining an empire rather than creating one unless you play the Germanic factions. It is also unoptimized but I have no problems running it. Another problem is that it is currently unsupported so there will be no updates.

[sudokek]

Rome II or Warhammer tbh

[Ronin]

Get atilla and then the 1220 campaign mod from workshop - It's basically Medieval 3 .. minus a few aspects e.g crusades etc.. but it's medieval total war europe and the middle east anyway :P

[Heoro]

Originally posted by The original slothy bastard:

If you like fantasy I have to recommend the warhammer entries as well. They’re not perfect but they’re the best warhammer strategy games since dawn of war 2

I played Warhammer but I kinda missed my Chaos Marines, Space Marines, Sisters of Battle and Tau Empire.

Ended up buying Rome 2 with some campaign DLCs in the end, feels great so far!

[Crimson]

I wouldn't bother with any of the three. Britannia has the lowest player base despite being newest of the three and for good reason...because it's a fraction of total war, it's incomplete and just rubbish. No amount of fixes and updates will repair the damage they've done and the playercount is evidence of that.

Rome 2 or Attila mainly depends on what historical period you enjoy more. It's basically the same game despite people harping on which is better (I'll list the cons for each, as they're what will ultimately lead to your final decision), people like to argue Attila is more depth (ie. more buttons and options to click) but when it boils down to it, it's the same ... with Attila forcing you towards a non sandbox play style and restrict you decision making because you have to play by the hunnic hordes and spam.

Rome 2 is rather shallow after a couple play throughs and is rather easy, especially if you're used to Shogun 2. If you don't enjoy hero units in S2, Rome 2 is definitely more of that.

The AI in either games cheats like crazy but Attila definitely takes it up a notch too much. Attila seems hard because of the scripted in game events that restrict your options but it's really no less different than Rome 2. Horde factions in Attila are the only novel addition but tbqh, even though it's marketed as a moving kingdom/empire, horde features are so limiting and restrictive you'll ultimately find yourself abusing campaign mechanics to ease the difficulty so to speak.


If you're like me and want a genuine, down-to-earth, true total war essence, I wouldn't look at any of the three but look back to when the series skyrocketed to legendary status in the 2000s. AKA Rome TW and Med 2, sure they may seem old and clunky but the sandbox and unrestrictive nature of these titles makes for lots of enjoyment, especially when coupled with the limitless total overhaul conversions that change the games into new games. (PS I think the Romance three kingdoms in Med 2 is LEGIT better than the new TK total war CA is marketing to release this year).