This VS Attila

[BruceFlea]

I already own Attila but haven't played it much. I have played lots of previous Total War games including Warhammer so I'm not new to the series. I was thinking of getting this but I thought perhaps I should play Attila first as I have heard it's the same engine. Thoughts?

[Berserk Belta]

It's not possible to say which one you will enjoy the most obviously, so I will just say that Attila is more of your full Era Game feature set, whereas this has feature changes appropriate both to the smaller game and the historical setting, and a shorter campaign. So I would get some value for money out of Attila first personally.

That said, this game does not play like Attila. Although it's stripped down in places enough has been changed/added in the campaign features and the way the campaign map works that it is its own, different TW. Also a lot of work has been done on the battles - sounds, maps etc. If you find (like many if us did) that Attila just isn't as addictive and enjoyable as other TW games you like, you might, might find some merit in this.

It all comes down to personal taste, of course, but whatever your taste go in expecting a smaller game with different features/gameplay.

[UTSpawn]

Does Attila use the building barracks system like the old games or the recruit pool like TOB?

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by UTSpawn:

Does Attila use the building barracks system like the old games or the recruit pool like TOB?

It uses the barracks system, like the old games, but with a twist.

The twist is for barbarian factions and hordes (barbarians living nomad style, with no permanent settlements): they don't have dedicated military buildings, but instead their recruitment options depend on what their economic and cultural buildings are.

The Roman and other, "civilized" factions use the old, standby TW system: dedicated military buildings for recruitment.

PS: And there is no unit pool, or manpower pool in Attila.

Armies don't use a supply mechanic as in Thrones either, although there is an army "Integrity" system which fulfills a similar role.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by BruceFlea:

I already own Attila but haven't played it much. I have played lots of previous Total War games including Warhammer so I'm not new to the series. I was thinking of getting this but I thought perhaps I should play Attila first as I have heard it's the same engine. Thoughts?

I'd say Uhtred laid it all out very nicely.

I also think Attila would be the better value at this point, being like $12 during the Summer Sale.

For the same price as Thrones, you could get Attila + Age of Charlemagne campaign DLC + Last Roman campaign + Blood DLC.

That is a lot of hours worth of gameplay, and also, the Attila blood DLC will translate over to Thrones if you decide to get Thrones later on :)

[BruceFlea]

Thanks guys. I'll give Attila a go first.

That's a great show you're in, 'The Last Kingdom' btw Uhtred :D

I already have the blood DLC and Last Roman (which was free for some reason) but I will also buy the Age of Charlemagne campaign DLC as it's only a few quid.

Next question, Age of Charlemagne or base game first?

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by BruceFlea:

Thanks guys. I'll give Attila a go first.

That's a great show you're in, 'The Last Kingdom' btw Uhtred :D

I already have the blood DLC and Last Roman (which was free for some reason) but I will also buy the Age of Charlemagne campaign DLC as it's only a few quid.

Next question, Age of Charlemagne or base game first?

Either one would be fine imo. Depending on which faction you pick, they are both about the same difficulty, and the mechanics are basically identical.

There isn't a narrative or historical tie either, because AoC takes places so long after Attila.

[BruceFlea]

Ok, thanks, I'll play them both.

[Moose_knuckle]

There is a lot more game to Attila so I would say that but I do still enjoy Thrones and think that it has its place.