Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dennislp3]

Where is the quiver located? (I believe it was common for mounted archers to have the quiver around waist height rather than on their backs.

What bow are they using? (Long bows can't be used as they're too big to swap from one side of the horse to the other.)

that's why they use recurve bows...shorter length with similar power making them much easier to use on horeback

Also back quickers were not the norm unless you are talking about American Indians

[Hetairos]

In most depictions of horse archers I can dig up the quiver is situated either on the right side of the rider's waist or the saddle, and more rarely on the back.

[umiman]

The importance of proper grammar.

[dennislp3]

That I am afraid...was me typing these posts out on my shitty work computer and not taking the care to proof read it before sending because I am just too frustrated with these keyboards to not care...

[Mech#4]

In most depictions of horse archers I can dig up the quiver is situated either on the right side of the rider's waist or the saddle, and more rarely on the back.

Well, I was saying more like how foot soldiers would have it but, and thanks to dennislp3, it turns out that archers having the quiver on their back is a movie/TV thing and most European soldiers used a quiver on their belt.

[Teneb]

In most depictions of horse archers I can dig up the quiver is situated either on the right side of the rider's waist or the saddle, and more rarely on the back.

Well, I was saying more like how foot soldiers would have it but, and thanks to dennislp3, it turns out that archers having the quiver on their back is a movie/TV thing and most European soldiers used a quiver on their belt.

I think most didn't even have a proper quiver, using just a bag filled with arrows (though you could call that a quiver, I guess). [citation needed] though, so don't trust me on that.

[Vendayn]

Well, I'm not sure about anyone else. But...I actually like Rome 2 (current state) a lot more than Attila, without mods. Rome 2 factions seem to have a lot more variety, better choice of factions (not including unlocking all of them with mods) and is generally is more fun to me.

Attila horde thing is kinda cool. Except, if you are attacked, its a normal battlefield. Kinda lame whether its accurate or not. Kinda defeats the purpose for me, might as well take cities and enjoy epic sieges.

Campaign map AI seems worse though...as Huns, I went from my start location all the way to the UK to free the britons (cause why the hell not) and literally EVERY faction followed me...none of the factions had any armies...all went toward my main army as my 1 horde left behind went on to pillage everything for free. Literally eastern romans had EVERY army in briton as I pillaged their entire empire.

On legendary difficulty.

Completely bugged.

Attila has few faction variety, though you can liberate factions...but...like britons, when you unlock them or liberate them...its just normal roman troops. I'm guessing they are gonna heavy DLC this with unit dlcs. From what I can see, because of how MANY factions are copied from another (Armenia, Britons etc) there is gonna be TONS of DLC compared to any other total war. Either that, or this will have the worst unit variety I've personally seen in a total war (never played shogun 2, dunno how that is).

I don't like it at all. Rome 2 EE is way more fun (without mods). And I don't think I'm going to like Attila with mods nearly as much as Rome 2 EE with mods. Its gonna take a HUGE overhaul for me to enjoy it. Something like, TONS more units for every faction and put more factions on the map or something because its pretty limiting and make the horde thing a lot better. And rome 2 (without mods) seems to have way more content than attila offers...

Maybe after a bunch of DLC and mods come out Attila will be better. But...I pretty much will be playing Rome 2 EE. I find battles in Attila to be much easier (normal battle difficulty, same as I play on Rome 2) and the campaign AI needs to be fixed. Rome 2 I find battles to be a lot more challenging and slower paced. Attila I pretty much go in and pwn everything.

[Vendayn]

For those curious. I actually liked Rome 2 at release a LOT more than Attila at release. As a slight comparison between releases. Most shrieked and screamed about Rome 2's release, but I actually enjoyed it *shrug*. Guess I'm probably a minority there.

I also got over 60 hours in the first few days of Rome 2 at release.

Attila I have barely touched because I PERSONALLY can't get into it.

Which is strange, as I love the setting a lot more than Rome 1/2...but...just can't bring myself to even launch the game anymore. And it only released not that long ago. Never had that issue with any other Total War at release, and pretty much pre-ordered all of them (except the Shogun ones). So dunno why Attila is any different.

[Journier]

I would say the total war series have become extremely stagnant. ESPECIALLY THE AI. How can you NOT improve an Ai in 10 years time to actually put up some resistance, RTW 2's ai was actually worse than the first RTW.

Well, the current Rome 2 seems a lot better than Rome 1 (comparing vanilla vs vanilla)...or at least more challenging/balanced. Or maybe the units are better balanced.

I could literally beat rome 1 AI with one heavy cavalry general. On hardest difficulty.

One general, 50 or whatever men...low amount.
Over 10k enemy troops attacking my city...
I leave the gate with the general and go on to route over 10k enemy troops
He goes to route ANOTHER heavy cavalry general about mid-battle...further helping route others (but he already killed/routed 5k troops at this point)

And...I haven't played since lol. But that was AFTER all the patches and stuff were done with. Leave on a high note

(edit: Granted, having said that...elephants seem pretty OP in vanilla. I can pretty much do the same with elephants. At least thats fixed with mods.)

I think what I'm looking most to Attila is mods.

If this is what I remember, This is when in Rome 1 the cavalry could repeatedly charge as many times as you double clicked... lol I remember those days before it was patched out

[Vendayn]

I would say the total war series have become extremely stagnant. ESPECIALLY THE AI. How can you NOT improve an Ai in 10 years time to actually put up some resistance, RTW 2's ai was actually worse than the first RTW.

Well, the current Rome 2 seems a lot better than Rome 1 (comparing vanilla vs vanilla)...or at least more challenging/balanced. Or maybe the units are better balanced.

I could literally beat rome 1 AI with one heavy cavalry general. On hardest difficulty.

One general, 50 or whatever men...low amount.
Over 10k enemy troops attacking my city...
I leave the gate with the general and go on to route over 10k enemy troops
He goes to route ANOTHER heavy cavalry general about mid-battle...further helping route others (but he already killed/routed 5k troops at this point)

And...I haven't played since lol. But that was AFTER all the patches and stuff were done with. Leave on a high note

(edit: Granted, having said that...elephants seem pretty OP in vanilla. I can pretty much do the same with elephants. At least thats fixed with mods.)

I think what I'm looking most to Attila is mods.

If this is what I remember, This is when in Rome 1 the cavalry could repeatedly charge as many times as you double clicked... lol I remember those days before it was patched out

It was actually pretty late in the release, I think the patches were done and all the expansions were out. Because it happened in one of my first battles, after buying it all on one of steam's big sales. So yeah, game was fully finished.

What I did, was charge, pull back, charge again. Lost literally 0 heavy cavalry, killed over 1,000 troops and it was actually a 10k army I faced...so the remaining 9k routed lol. But, I tried that again before I moved onto Rome 2, with the EB mod and it didn't work out like that. Never tried it again with vanilla or other mods.

(but with that said, elephants in Rome 2 are pretty much the same and even more powerful. Charge into a bunch of troops, rack up 1000s of kills, tons of high rank elephants and pwn the battle. The only time elephants are a bit weaker, seems to be if I move with seleucids to the british isles...they tend to lose more up there)

[sebcool]

At least elephants have a counter. Just pepper them with javelins or shoot them with fire arrows.

[dennislp3]

Elephants are super easy to take down...usually 1-2 volleys from javs is enough to start killing them in mass...arrows is more along the lines of 5-8 but the range makes up for that.

The hardest thing about them is the wonky HP system...so they last forever but when they start falling over they do it pretty much all at the same time

[Urist McScoopbeard]

You know. There is something about Rome II and probably also Attila that has really just killed TW for me. The campaigns are just not what I expect from a TW game I guess, and the battles... well they just feel awkwardly paced. It's not because of the technology level, as much as I fuckin' love NTW and ETW I also played a lot of M2TW. It just feels like there's a whole lot of superfluous content and super units I suppose.

EDIT: I think it's also because positioning no longer feels as important as it once did. (Just my opinion on that one)

[Malus]

The family tree in Attila seems pretty well done, and a lot of the new game mechanics are interesting, but I don't think I'm really having fun. I've only played maybe 5 hours, but I can't get into any of the campaigns I've tried. I tend to prefer starting small and slowly building an enormous empire, inch by inch, but none of the factions are very well suited for that, except the barbarian kingdoms, which have boring units. Maybe if they release a Briton/Wales DLC then I can conquer Europe in the name of King Arthur, but eh. I fear I may just not particularly enjoy the TW games anymore. If Rome/Medieval 2 had modern interfaces and the quality-of-life features introduced in the later games, I'd probably be playing them instead.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The family tree in Attila seems pretty well done, and a lot of the new game mechanics are interesting, but I don't think I'm really having fun. I've only played maybe 5 hours, but I can't get into any of the campaigns I've tried. I tend to prefer starting small and slowly building an enormous empire, inch by inch, but none of the factions are very well suited for that, except the barbarian kingdoms, which have boring units. Maybe if they release a Briton/Wales DLC then I can conquer Europe in the name of King Arthur, but eh. I fear I may just not particularly enjoy the TW games anymore. If Rome/Medieval 2 had modern interfaces and the quality-of-life features introduced in the later games, I'd probably be playing them instead.

Quite honestly, I think a lot of TW fans wouldn't mind just a facelift on older games and a few new good features here and there.