Welcome to!A subreddit for all of those who love the Total War series. Total War Attila Vs Rome 2 Emperor Edition That feeling of doing what Hannibal could not is what is missing from MTW2. There was no feeling of changing up history such as having the Carthaginians beat Rome. There was no feeling of being an underdog with any of the fractions. MTW2 just feels unrealistic with each fraction being so well balanced. Troops are rarely even with technology in history. In Rome if you took a faction like Germany it was a challenge to break the Romans especially after they get their advance troops. The problem with MTW2 is there was no faction that felt like it was a challenge to win with.
Not to mention, the AI breaks alliances every other turn. So they can walk right through all your territory (you have to leave theirs or risk failing the mission), and attack your least guarded post, but you can't attack to remove them. I ESPECIALLY hate, in medieval 2, that Christian nations can attack you during a forced cease fire by the pope, but you can't attack them. You still have missions, but failing one doesn't mean you're excommunicated. I also love that in Rome you aren't being controlled by the church. Units will rarely rout when they have large numbers (unless you have gunpowder and are fighting units with little training). Rome 2 is a good game now, but isn't that 'GOOD' as it deserved because CA set the bar too high with shogun 2 and tried to do something impressive under an impossible development time-frame, Attila shows this in a very clear way, rome 2 need extra year or two, Attila is 'Rome 2' in the sense this was the vision and concept but at the end Attila. Total War: Attila Total War: Rome II Total War: Arena Total War: Shogun 2 Napoleon: Total War Empire: Total War Medieval II: Total War Rome: Total War Medieval: Total War Shogun: Total War Toolbox What links here Related changes Special pages Printable version Permanent link Tools Log in Search.
Archers seem more effective in Rome also.
0 kommentar(er)
