This vs TW Atilla?

[Kido Virp]

Is there any difference between this game and TW Atilla? Is it worth to buy?

[Ser Pounce]

Depends : do you prefer historical titles or fantasy titles ?

[Kido Virp]

both

[VhagarTheLastOne]

Isnt Atilla like Chaos gameplay? Sadly I didnt play Attila.

[wwolf69]

Totally worth it. Flying units, monsters, magic, heroes, races, graphics, WARHAMMER, everything.

[Pintaar]

Im a great TW fan since first release ages ago,and i love the historical gameplay. But im also a Warhammer fan. So i would say, both are worth it :)

[Ysthrall]

When I heard this game (trilogy) was coming out, I bought and played Attila as a systems check and a refresher, as the last TW I played was Medieval 2.

Dear gods it was a shock.

Short version:
Two very different settings, Attila much more complex on the campaign map and a little more complex on the battle maps.

Long version:
Attila is historical. Lots of small countries, a certain amount of trade routes, and a lot of depressing real-world mechanics, including seasons, fertility, climate change, Imperium, squalor, sanitation, and population growth. Also army skill trees, religeous arguments, internal faction politics and aging leaders. And building trees in the settlements.

Warhammer is a fantasy setting. None of the above mechanics are present. What you get instead is a fantastic map, many different species as opponents, each with very different sytles of play and tactics. Monsters, magic, flying units and monsters, and the occasional map-wide effects. More abilities are moved in the battles on to the generals and heroes.

Similarities include: Settlements grouped by province, ruins and devastation, occasional hordes of barbarians (and these are really barbaric...), skill trees for the generals and agents, and all the usual TW stuff of raising and battling armies while balancing your economy and tech tree.

If you found Attila a little too complex and you were spending too much time trying to balance things on the campaign map (which was my experience), I think you'll prefer this one.

May I suggest that you purchase Total War Warhammer 1 (usually on a hefty discount), play it for an hour or so to see if you like the style, and then either get it refunded or look into picking up other parts of this franchise.

I am happy to give further advice re the three different campaigns, DLC, and so on.

As a long term Warhammer fan, I'm loving these games. As a long-term TW player, I find this one to be the right level of complexity for me (a bit more than Med2, a lot less than Attila).

I would reccomend this game.

[Matayus22]

There's definitely way more depth in the campaign management in Attila than in WH. Family, politics and diplomacy have actually a bit more sense than declaring war, peace and trade.

On the battlefield Attila has more to offer in regards to formations and actual tactics. After long sieges the cities look besieged and destroyed.
Small cities have actual buildings and streets to fight in. Big cities have full walls around them. No wall segments like in WH.

The different factions in Attila have their different units and Campaign boni. But one could say there are many reskins between the factions.

Warhammer brings much variety to the table there. Every race has different models. Ratmen for skaven, dinos and saurus for lizardmen, edgy spike elves for dark elves, armoured dwarven warriors for the dwarfs, filthy gobbos and orks for the greens kind, spooky skeletons constructs for tomb kings and so on so forth.

Every race has some quite unique mechanics. Some are shared between races. There's less empire management on the campaign map.

On the battlefield is where WH TW really takes the prize for me. All these different units and their abilities clashing, dragons, monsters, magic and over the top generals and legendary lords that can carry a battle.

If you prefer more real battles and an historic setting then go for Attila.
If you prefer over the top fantasy battles and a lot of unique races then go for WH

[Wyvern]

Warhammer is head and shoulders better tactically, historical titles are a bit more complex strategically/grand csmpaign wise. Warhammer also has way more variety of factions, units and playstyles too

[Voxrox]

Attila .. well, people say it has more "strategic depth" on the campaign. That is, if you like managing the sewers of your towns, people getting upset because they throw there garbage out of the window and get sick with the plague, and food buildings being needed everywhere instead of cool buildings...

I like Attila, but find it hard to return to it after Warhammer. Tried a couple of times. But its so dull. Only filthy barbarians to play as, or the Romans, but West is work instead of fun, and East is just the above mentioned province management from turn one onwards...

I'd say Warhammer wins aganst the current history titles hands down - if you like both.

[Gamefever]

Wait, what....I have to build tree's in Atilla game? Dont tree's just grow like really these things just grow whenever you let land just sit around...like weeds even. Why would I want to micro manage the trees thats just going to far.

My 2 cents.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Can't tell if sarcastic.

[glythe]

Atilla was absolutely terrible if you ask me...

WH is the much better title.

[BolzenHolz]

Ysthrall explained both games quite good, there is nothing to add.

If you want to buy Attila, i recommend you to visit a local store. SEGA is selling a boxed edition called "Tyrants and Kings" (or vice versa). It includes the main game, the Vikings culture pack AND Age of Charlemagne for 10€ (on Steam costs the base game in a sale alone 10€).

[Uugly]

Attila, long ending turn. Can't exist out into the internet. Really boring waiting.

Warhammer, long ending turn. Can exist out into the internet. Can go do other stuff while waiting for the long turn to end.

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

WH >>>>> Atilla

WH has fun, varied, interesting strategy and magics.

Atilla just has Hunnic horse archer spam.