Should this game have been a DLC/Expansion for Attila: Total War?

[Argronok0]

Or does it truly feel like it has enough to be its own standalone game?

I am not being facetious here though, I am being genuine.

I have been still eyeing this game for the mere fact that its the closet thing I will get as a Medieval 3 Total War.

[Moose_knuckle]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by Coldhands:

Come on, man. Don't be dense.
In M2 you don't have to worry about governors, or estates, or loyalty. There are no skill points to invest, or political actions to take against other characters. You don't have to choose which upgrades to build in a province; you can just build everything. There's no supply mechanic, or war weariness. You don't have to care about how many generals you have available, or manage recruitment pool or deal with units building over time. You don't need to defend minor settlements, and you can't run around sacking them as an offensive tactic. There are no faction specific bonuses or penalties, or stances for your armies. I'm sure I could keep going if had the two running side by side.

I get that you love Medieval 2, so do I, but it's a 12 year old game at this point; the series has evolved well beyond where it was at in 2006.

Not sure what diffculty you were playing on in MTW2 but lets be honest here most people dont play vanilla.

Defending trade routes , Naval transports , Crusades , Jihads , Losing a game due to lack of heirs , Generals revolting , Civil wars , Assasains , Merchants , Priests , Losing at city due to Relegion , Huge siege battles than can last an hour , Resources , Naval battles.

I agree MTW2 looks dated but is still popular in fact 2 weeks after ToB released their were more people playing MTW2 than ToB.

We could split hairs all day but MTW2 is just as complex as ToB .

A lot of what you listed there is in Thones and has more depth, I think you seriously need to look into how the game is at the moment. Whats the point in coming here and debating the details of the game if you dont know them? I'm all for a discussion but you've mostly proved that you dont know much about Thones so it nullifies most points you have.

[Simonson [29th Ret.]]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by Samtemdo8:

Or does it truly feel like it has enough to be its own standalone game?

I am not being facetious here though, I am being genuine.

I have been still eyeing this game for the mere fact that its the closet thing I will get as a Medieval 3 Total War.

CA added a few new mechanics slapped a hefty price tag and called it a new game.

Its basicly how you describe it a bloated Atiila DLC with a few gimmicks , On the + side its bug free and is very well optimized.

I personally decided not to buy it i would check out some Vids and reviews on the net before you part with your hard earned cash it has a 58% rating for a reason.

If you didn't buy it then why tf are you here? You just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't even played the game.

Dude, get a life before it's too late.

[J. P. Armistead]

Originally posted by No Limit Soldier:

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

CA added a few new mechanics slapped a hefty price tag and called it a new game.

Its basicly how you describe it a bloated Atiila DLC with a few gimmicks , On the + side its bug free and is very well optimized.

I personally decided not to buy it i would check out some Vids and reviews on the net before you part with your hard earned cash it has a 58% rating for a reason.

If you didn't buy it then why tf are you here? You just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't even played the game.

Dude, get a life before it's too late.

Hugh,
I never take notice of reviews.
You have to actually play the game and explore the mechanics before you can give an opinion. It is too intensive in faction management for players who like simple games like Med2 hence the poor reviews.
However there are a lot of players - like me - out there, who never give reviews ,who love the game.
I loved Med2 once but got fed up with AI doom stacks (from factions with one city?) and impossible sieges that required the player to have multiple doomstacks to beat - totally unrealistic.
Do not be swayed by statistics or other peoples opinions ( you don't know their motivations to start with) - try it and then you have a genuine opinion of your own worth considering.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by No Limit Soldier:

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

CA added a few new mechanics slapped a hefty price tag and called it a new game.

Its basicly how you describe it a bloated Atiila DLC with a few gimmicks , On the + side its bug free and is very well optimized.

I personally decided not to buy it i would check out some Vids and reviews on the net before you part with your hard earned cash it has a 58% rating for a reason.

If you didn't buy it then why tf are you here? You just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't even played the game.

Dude, get a life before it's too late.

Wow hes me thinkin its a free world and forum didnt know you cant comment on games unless you own them.

Tell you what nextime ill buy a game i dont want ill leave a crappy review and refund would you prefer that?.

Internet is wonderful nowadays you can actaully watch games being played and make an infomed choice.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by J. P. Armistead:

Originally posted by No Limit Soldier:

If you didn't buy it then why tf are you here? You just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't even played the game.

Dude, get a life before it's too late.

Hugh,
I never take notice of reviews.
You have to actually play the game and explore the mechanics before you can give an opinion. It is too intensive in faction management for players who like simple games like Med2 hence the poor reviews.
However there are a lot of players - like me - out there, who never give reviews ,who love the game.
I loved Med2 once but got fed up with AI doom stacks (from factions with one city?) and impossible sieges that required the player to have multiple doomstacks to beat - totally unrealistic.
Do not be swayed by statistics or other peoples opinions ( you don't know their motivations to start with) - try it and then you have a genuine opinion of your own worth considering.

Ive been playing TW games since MTW only one i missed was Shogun due to me playing Everquest at the time.

I also Modded all the total Wars from Rome to WH2 ive posted mods on the workshop and in the TW Center so im fully experianced in Total War games and i understand the mechanics.

Lets look at ToB so whats my Beef with it , Im not going to go into the mechanics as i understand how they work , CA always stated it was a Saga game so not a DLC , It dosent play like Attila i agree its different.

Now heres my Beef CA, They have added some new mechanics and stripped away a lot more , The campaign map looks empty and boring the crux of the game is to deny the enemy food and supply to stop them raising armys by raiding undefended settlements.

Diplomacy is poor like in all CA games and Trade is automatic , CA claim its A historical but leave out River Transport a crucial factor in viking times , Religion isnt even in the game.

Another reason why this game got slated was that Attila is still unoptimized and yet they produce ToB without bugs and greatly optimized this is just poor by CA.

The £30 price tag is disgusting for what essentially is a DLC with a few new added mechanics and this isnt just me thats saying this 1000s of people have commented.

They have reused all the old models and animations , same engine , added a few mechanics like in other DLCs and stripped away a lot more and slapped a £30 price-tag this is about principle and the reason i wont buy it.

People have paid for games like Atilla and WH2 and yet those game are unoptimized virtually unplayable to some people and CA release ToB while ingnoring those issues a blatent cash grab.

[MANWHATADONGA]

Originally posted by Moose_knuckle:

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

In what way?

In many ways, I think you should do a little more research on the game as it's obviously quite different to the one you have in mind. It only has a 58 rating becouse of the pointless drama that occured when it came out. If this wasnt a CA game people would be totally praising it.

As you might remember i really bagged game now back in and enjoying it.TOB is like chess Rome2 is draughts.

[Suburban Killbot]

Originally posted by Samtemdo8:

Or does it truly feel like it has enough to be its own standalone game?

I am not being facetious here though, I am being genuine.

I have been still eyeing this game for the mere fact that its the closet thing I will get as a Medieval 3 Total War.

In my opinion: yes, Thrones should have been marketed and sold as an Attila expansion. It does introduce new mechanics to the campaign, but so did the excellent Fall of the Samurai, which was still considered and sold as an expansion to Shogun 2.

I actually like the idea of the 'Saga' series, but I think CA need to better define what they are. I don't have a problem with them building a new title on an existing engine, but when you're recycling so many assets from the base game it ends up feeling like it has one foot in and one foot out.

I'm a big fan of Attila and I enjoyed playing Thrones, but I still think it should have been sold as an expansion and I wouldn't recommend it over Attila or the very good Age of Charlemagne DLC. If you're interested in the period then I'd still say it's worth a spin, but I'd wait for a better sale and I'm sure a proper Medieval 3 will be released sooner or later.

[Moose_knuckle]

Originally posted by Suburban Killbot:

Originally posted by Samtemdo8:

Or does it truly feel like it has enough to be its own standalone game?

I am not being facetious here though, I am being genuine.

I have been still eyeing this game for the mere fact that its the closet thing I will get as a Medieval 3 Total War.

In my opinion: yes, Thrones should have been marketed and sold as an Attila expansion. It does introduce new mechanics to the campaign, but so did the excellent Fall of the Samurai, which was still considered and sold as an expansion to Shogun 2.

I actually like the idea of the 'Saga' series, but I think CA need to better define what they are. I don't have a problem with them building a new title on an existing engine, but when you're recycling so many assets from the base game it ends up feeling like it has one foot in and one foot out.

I'm a big fan of Attila and I enjoyed playing Thrones, but I still think it should have been sold as an expansion and I wouldn't recommend it over Attila or the very good Age of Charlemagne DLC. If you're interested in the period then I'd still say it's worth a spin, but I'd wait for a better sale and I'm sure a proper Medieval 3 will be released sooner or later.

Honestly I dont know why it matters at all, i'm not sure about other places but in the UK it was basically the price of the average expansion anyway. IMO it feels different to Attila in a lot of ways so i'm fine with it. Either way it's an interesting TW game.

[BoNeZ]

YES ofcourse it should have been.

[Simonson [29th Ret.]]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by No Limit Soldier:

If you didn't buy it then why tf are you here? You just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't even played the game.

Dude, get a life before it's too late.

Wow hes me thinkin its a free world and forum didnt know you cant comment on games unless you own them.

Tell you what nextime ill buy a game i dont want ill leave a crappy review and refund would you prefer that?.

Internet is wonderful nowadays you can actaully watch games being played and make an infomed choice.

You can comment all you want, but why would anyone take you seriously if you haven't played the game?

Watching a game =/= playing it. Dude, you're hilarious. Get a life.

[Gaturro]

The only thing in common with Attila is the engine, IMO this game feels more similar to Shogun 2 than Attila.. but for the most part ToB has its own mechanics, there is no total war that you can play similar to ToB.

You may like or hate this game and its OK, but it has plenty of new ideas, IMO ToB is fine as a standalone game.

[J. P. Armistead]

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Originally posted by J. P. Armistead:

Hugh,
I never take notice of reviews.
You have to actually play the game and explore the mechanics before you can give an opinion. It is too intensive in faction management for players who like simple games like Med2 hence the poor reviews.
However there are a lot of players - like me - out there, who never give reviews ,who love the game.
I loved Med2 once but got fed up with AI doom stacks (from factions with one city?) and impossible sieges that required the player to have multiple doomstacks to beat - totally unrealistic.
Do not be swayed by statistics or other peoples opinions ( you don't know their motivations to start with) - try it and then you have a genuine opinion of your own worth considering.

Ive been playing TW games since MTW only one i missed was Shogun due to me playing Everquest at the time.

I also Modded all the total Wars from Rome to WH2 ive posted mods on the workshop and in the TW Center so im fully experianced in Total War games and i understand the mechanics.

Lets look at ToB so whats my Beef with it , Im not going to go into the mechanics as i understand how they work , CA always stated it was a Saga game so not a DLC , It dosent play like Attila i agree its different.

Now heres my Beef CA, They have added some new mechanics and stripped away a lot more , The campaign map looks empty and boring the crux of the game is to deny the enemy food and supply to stop them raising armys by raiding undefended settlements.

Diplomacy is poor like in all CA games and Trade is automatic , CA claim its A historical but leave out River Transport a crucial factor in viking times , Religion isnt even in the game.

Another reason why this game got slated was that Attila is still unoptimized and yet they produce ToB without bugs and greatly optimized this is just poor by CA.

The £30 price tag is disgusting for what essentially is a DLC with a few new added mechanics and this isnt just me thats saying this 1000s of people have commented.

They have reused all the old models and animations , same engine , added a few mechanics like in other DLCs and stripped away a lot more and slapped a £30 price-tag this is about principle and the reason i wont buy it.

People have paid for games like Atilla and WH2 and yet those game are unoptimized virtually unplayable to some people and CA release ToB while ingnoring those issues a blatent cash grab.

I think that CA are using this game to try out new ideas and mechanics by using an existing engine etc. to keep costs down. But costs do occur because there must have been a fair bit of development time writing and testing the new mechanics.
I'm not a big CA or Steam fan, but i used to be a programmer and am aware how time consuming and costly development is.
Unfortunately testing is a huge part of this cost and no amount of in-house testing will uncover all the flaws unless the product is delayed again and again with mounting costs that threaten the viabilty of the game as a product that will sell enough to offset those costs, so i sort of understand why CA partly relies on feedback to uncover some of the faults and bugs.

To some extent this has worked - there has been a lot of discussion and patching to fix the new ideas. This can only be to the good of future games.
Imagine a Med3 witth the new mechanics added alongside better trade and diplomacy and, yes, religion (though i'm not to keen on too much micromanagement ).
CA can only do this with experimentation and a lot of effort.
I am frequently dismayed by the whingers (who need to get a life) who seem to think game development is easy and cheap - it bloody well isn't.

And of course the crux of any military campaign is to deny the enemy food and supplies to stop them raising armies. TW has failed in this up to now because of AI "cheating".
I for one hope that CA can eventually optimises an AI that plays with the same restrictions as the human player - they have made a good start with AoB.

One issue though is micromanagement. I love ACW games, but Civil War 2 defeated me because play was so slow that it became a tedious grind.
There is a risk that too much content could make a TW game too intensive - a criticism that has been raised against ToB, whereby you can't win the game without micromanaging your faction. Add in religion etc. and there will be more complaints from gamers wanting a quick fix.

[Hugh de Salle]

Originally posted by J. P. Armistead:

Originally posted by Hugh de Salle:

Ive been playing TW games since MTW only one i missed was Shogun due to me playing Everquest at the time.

I also Modded all the total Wars from Rome to WH2 ive posted mods on the workshop and in the TW Center so im fully experianced in Total War games and i understand the mechanics.

Lets look at ToB so whats my Beef with it , Im not going to go into the mechanics as i understand how they work , CA always stated it was a Saga game so not a DLC , It dosent play like Attila i agree its different.

Now heres my Beef CA, They have added some new mechanics and stripped away a lot more , The campaign map looks empty and boring the crux of the game is to deny the enemy food and supply to stop them raising armys by raiding undefended settlements.

Diplomacy is poor like in all CA games and Trade is automatic , CA claim its A historical but leave out River Transport a crucial factor in viking times , Religion isnt even in the game.

Another reason why this game got slated was that Attila is still unoptimized and yet they produce ToB without bugs and greatly optimized this is just poor by CA.

The £30 price tag is disgusting for what essentially is a DLC with a few new added mechanics and this isnt just me thats saying this 1000s of people have commented.

They have reused all the old models and animations , same engine , added a few mechanics like in other DLCs and stripped away a lot more and slapped a £30 price-tag this is about principle and the reason i wont buy it.

People have paid for games like Atilla and WH2 and yet those game are unoptimized virtually unplayable to some people and CA release ToB while ingnoring those issues a blatent cash grab.

I think that CA are using this game to try out new ideas and mechanics by using an existing engine etc. to keep costs down. But costs do occur because there must have been a fair bit of development time writing and testing the new mechanics.
I'm not a big CA or Steam fan, but i used to be a programmer and am aware how time consuming and costly development is.
Unfortunately testing is a huge part of this cost and no amount of in-house testing will uncover all the flaws unless the product is delayed again and again with mounting costs that threaten the viabilty of the game as a product that will sell enough to offset those costs, so i sort of understand why CA partly relies on feedback to uncover some of the faults and bugs.

To some extent this has worked - there has been a lot of discussion and patching to fix the new ideas. This can only be to the good of future games.
Imagine a Med3 witth the new mechanics added alongside better trade and diplomacy and, yes, religion (though i'm not to keen on too much micromanagement ).
CA can only do this with experimentation and a lot of effort.
I am frequently dismayed by the whingers (who need to get a life) who seem to think game development is easy and cheap - it bloody well isn't.

And of course the crux of any military campaign is to deny the enemy food and supplies to stop them raising armies. TW has failed in this up to now because of AI "cheating".
I for one hope that CA can eventually optimises an AI that plays with the same restrictions as the human player - they have made a good start with AoB.

One issue though is micromanagement. I love ACW games, but Civil War 2 defeated me because play was so slow that it became a tedious grind.
There is a risk that too much content could make a TW game too intensive - a criticism that has been raised against ToB, whereby you can't win the game without micromanaging your faction. Add in religion etc. and there will be more complaints from gamers wanting a quick fix.

You make some intresting points i dont Deny ToB plays differently but then again a lot of DLCs also do the same like some of the Rome2 DLCs , I also agree that games cost money to make but to be fair all that is included in a budget which sets the price.

What we are seeing here is CA spreading themselves to thin on the one hand they release ToB while WH2/ME is still a work in progress while juggling Three Kingdoms.

CA have a track record of taking the money and doing a runner , Atilla is still virtually unplayable unless you have a space age rig 2015?.

WH2/ME is also a mess with various bugs and unoptimized Graphics and now CA have the gaul pre sell their Three Kingdoms pre release.

Seriously they just need to fix what they have already sold and in light of that get the team who worked on the optimisation of ToB to work on Atilla and WH2/ME.

[Pink]

Originally posted by Suburban Killbot:

Originally posted by Samtemdo8:

Or does it truly feel like it has enough to be its own standalone game?

I am not being facetious here though, I am being genuine.

I have been still eyeing this game for the mere fact that its the closet thing I will get as a Medieval 3 Total War.

In my opinion: yes, Thrones should have been marketed and sold as an Attila expansion. It does introduce new mechanics to the campaign, but so did the excellent Fall of the Samurai, which was still considered and sold as an expansion to Shogun 2.

I actually like the idea of the 'Saga' series, but I think CA need to better define what they are. I don't have a problem with them building a new title on an existing engine, but when you're recycling so many assets from the base game it ends up feeling like it has one foot in and one foot out.

I'm a big fan of Attila and I enjoyed playing Thrones, but I still think it should have been sold as an expansion and I wouldn't recommend it over Attila or the very good Age of Charlemagne DLC. If you're interested in the period then I'd still say it's worth a spin, but I'd wait for a better sale and I'm sure a proper Medieval 3 will be released sooner or later.

Just to remind you, Fall of the Samurai was a standalone expansion meaning that you don't need Shogun 2 to play. So in a way, that game was the percursor to Saga games, before the designation existed.

Brittania not being sold as a DLC is mostly to the benefit of new players since at least this way anyone without Attila can still enjoy the game without requiring to incur on extra charge.