Which do you think is better: Rome 2 or Attila? Join the Termi Discord! - discord.gg/ZvbywUzQZB Support the channel by becoming a Termi Member! - ua-cam.com/channels/das0FWs2fLiMqjqWC8JBlg.htmljoin
What really sets Attilla ahead for me is that it's campaign "tells a story" in a way almost no other total war game does. This happens both from starting location, as well as faction mechanics. Playing as the Goths, you rampage around picking off weak enemies, but always with an eye over you shoulder watching the Huns for when they will jump on you. As the Roman's you're besieged on all sides, trying to hang on for dear life. Play as the Picts, Ebdani, Caledonians, you end up in tit for tat raiding against each other and the anglosaxon types for a long time, without any worries about the Huns at all. Play as a desert faction, you'll spend the start of your campaign in religious spats, trying to keep public order in check, and keeping rival faiths out of your territories, rather than worrying about the Huns. The mechanics and locations each tell a different story, and it genuinely feels good, in a punishing kind of way. Play a desert faction like the Goths, and you'll just have never ending rebellions. Expand too quickly in to a static kingdom as the Goths and you've just signed yourself up to be the buffer between the west and the Huns. It just felt appropriate, rather than Rome 2's generic growing blog gameplay.
I got Attila recently and I love it except for the graphics. When I get a better computer it will be my go to. I’ve followed UA-cam optimization videos as much as possible.
@@Craftworld_patriotExactly Bro I literally said this yesterday to someone 😭 The tone of Attila is what Total War Warhammer was supposed to have. The dark aesthetic, gameplay being a fight for survival but obviously that wouldn't cater to CA's current market
Ive been playing TW since Rome 1. And the WRE campaign is the most frustrating, gratifying, hopeless and funnest total war experience ive ever had. I have to go with Atiila because of that alone.
Yeah, it's both great and awful, as t's almost impossible to hold it all together. Most challenge I've had in a game in a long time. I was never a fan of Rome II; however, the latest DEI Mod makes it a LOT better.
Same for me, i would go for Attila, even though sometimes I feel the lack of content from Rome 2, my dream would be a DEI for Attila, Ancient empires was a good start, shame we don't have one with so much development for an Attila mod, the most worked seems to be 1212, but i would want one for ancient period
Have a look at some of terminators other Attila mod videos, there are a number of other good mods that give a lot of new gamplay/campaigns/factions/units etc than just the two you mentioned. (like Medieval Warfare, Age of Justinian AD555, Age of Vikings, FotE + EP Revised etc etc). FotE + EP is one of my fav Attila base campaign improvement mods for vanilla, more polished than mk1212 imo in terms of gameplay balance. but mk1212 is still a wip too . Has the DEI feel ,as its made but some of the same modders as DEI (I personally think mk1212 still needs more polish, but its getting there) Also mods can make some of the DLC that's mediocre in base attila very interesting , (new/improved factions/units/campaigns etc), that gives Attila alot of replay value and more depth.
Attila has better graphics, better family management with aging and dynamic looking generals. It has better siege battles. Batter mechanics, better naval gameplay. But you just cannot beat the time period of the Rome games. I have purchased every single total war with every single dlc and I love them all in their own way but man there is something about antiquity. It’s not even that I am a huge fan of Rome (the historic culture) I mean I am and when I first started I only knew about the Roman’s and the Greeks but since then I’ve expanded my knowledge and have learned to love antiquity as a whole. Right now carthage is my favorite. So I just love antiquity, and I hope the next total war is Rome 3. Maybe not even call it Rome. It will still you know be the successor but just to emphasize that every other culture gets the same amount of love and detail as Rome. With Rome 1 style settlement management. Building every individual building and roads and ports and walls in whatever city you want. And if you take over say Rome as carthage or barbarians the settlement should still look like Rome perhaps mixed with whatever occupying culture. Instead of a full blown barbaric village as Rome has always irked me. Or how beauty the major cities like Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, Athens, Macedon are but if you occupy as any other culture it deletes it and replaces it with your cultures generic settlement. So definitely change that.
We have had enough of the Roman setting for now. Rome, Rome 2, Attila, Rome Remastered, what we really need is a Medieval 3 or another setting in a historic Total War.
Rome 2 was the point when suddenly CA changed their own original formula that we've grown to love upto Shogun 2. I've played Rome 2 and Attila both, enjoyed them both even without mods, but could never actually forgive the devs for what they'd done to perhaps the best real-time strategy game, which today has turned into a real-time fantasy game. Anyway, let's hope for the franchise's redemption🤞🏽.
@@Spider-Too-Too having random units of cav run around without a general is far more ridiculous than the superior general system. If you're a true history fan you'd laugh at the old system, especially in Rome
@@rockstar450 I think in med2 units without a general typically get a commander unit with a golden star in the icon. If the fight is won decisively, you'd get the chance to promote them to a general which makes sense.
@@iridescent3812 still doesn't explain why you would have control over them. In Rome generals were carefully handled armies with restrictions. Medieval times was more about land. People just got mad they can't cheese this like they could. The "man of the hour" is fun but ludicrously inaccurate cheese. The move toward realism was good in the long run. Not saying anything wrong with the old titles, I love them. But some arguments against the new system are ludicrous
WH3 is the last fantasy one and tbh they developped some great mechanics and QoL stuff that will benefit a new historical title. The best thing they could do is a Medieval 3 with all the good stuff from the 2 and take inspiration from some mechanics from other games, especially the family system in Attila which is arguably the best of the franchise
Played both base Rome 2 & Attila without any mods but I prefer Attila more than Rome 2, I just wish Attila runs better even modern hardware cause the game to have fps dips
If you don't want to be frustrated and exhausted as often, rome 2 is for you. Also the battles are a little slower in rome 2 over Attila, which for me is a plus
Personally rome 2 is also WAY more stable with Total war Attila being hit or miss if it chooses to start up or not. It also forces me to crash when I want to leave the game as it WILL NOT close. With or without mods Rome 2 is just much more stable and smooth for me.
I love attila because of the whole concept "you either tear the known world, build your own land, or save an empire from imminent death" and the lots of mechanics it offers like an actual horde and migration system instead of already settled "nomads" the ancient empires mod in my opinion starts out a bit too late, I'd like to see a starting date like in rome 2 oh and the unit upgrade system was really well done
In Attila the lighting is to dark. I play Rome 2 DEI most of the time. I think it is hard to come up with a top tier army in Attila. The Huns will throw armies at you and not care if they lose. As long as their general escapes they will rebuild their defeated armies in a couple of turns. Hard to engage them and get to follow up with the total destruction of their army. I like playing Attila but it is time consuming to create momentum.
I'm a big fan of Attila and the book-of-revelations-meets-Mongolian-throat-singing aesthetic. It's also the only total war game that really emphasizes the total war part. But I've never played a more crash-prone game either. Also, the WRE and ERE collapse a bit too quickly
For me the best is Rome 2 since I tried many times get into Attila and still go back to Rome 2. One thing that I cannot agree with you is when you say that campaign graphics on Attila are better. I play both of the games maxed out graphics and for me, the Rome 2 graphics are much better speaking on the campaign. Thank you for another amazing video.
I don't like Artila's campaign map. It looks nor good at al. I play both games maxed out on graphics too and Rome 2 campaign map looks better.@@bdleo300
@@ivvan497 They definitely don't look the same. Attila's cities look better, the map looks better, the lighting is better, and the small details like facial features looks better, reflection is better, and more. The 2 year difference doesn't matter, there are games still coming out that look worse than GTA 4.
Considering the proliferation of modding for both the titles, 90% of the choice can come down to engine differences. Rome 2 is more sluggish and slowpaced, but helps provide time for things like formation manoeuvring mid battle and an ongoing tug of war, whereas Attila is fast paced, deadly and slicker, with more emphasis on capitalising on initiating engagements and initial positioning. I play a lot of total war titles and mods depending on what kind of faction i want to play, and so Rome 2 is a lot better suited for playing factions with emphasis on what it's engine is good at, like Rome for example, whereas Attila is, likewise, good for the factions that capitalise on its engine, largely speedy and aggressive factions, like the Huns for example. If I wanted to play legions, Rome 2, if I want to play horse archers, Attila. If I want to play phalanxes, Rome 2 (although granted Attila pike formations taking cav charges are v. satisfying), whereas if I want to play barbarian hordes, Attila. Just due to the engine changes, I feel out of place playing Parthians or Sassanids in Rome 2, and I feel like i'm missing out on the engine if I play Eastern/Western Rome in Attila.
your absolutely right, the engine of rome2 really feels the time period same with attila what sucks is attila engine is not fucking optimize fps sucks if wasnt for the video from Terminator on how to optimize attila i would have abandoned it along time ago.
For me there is a time for both games. The only sad thing is that these games need more DLCs and support from CA. There could be so more and Attila needs a lot more work from the developers to get the game running better. I hope CA adds them to the game pass and optimes them with an update.
Atilla for me is hard to get used to, but the battles do feel amazing. They flow very well, the movements are fluid and you can feel the impact of the clashes. The biggest problem in Atilla for me is the color palete. It's too sepia/washed down for me and everything kinda blends together. Also about the units preview, I think no other game did them as good as Rome 2. The style on most of those is great, only with units like the Desert Cohorts does the color not fit so well.
Hey Terminator, great video and I totally agree with it. I've modded R2 quite extensively and am very aware of the benefits that its sister game Attila brings. Some stuff you've listed is potentially fixable via modding (e.g. character/army variantmeshdefinitions + 3D artwork clipping), but these are the major things I can list that I know Rome 2 lacks: 1. *Battle map modding* - Rome 2 wasn't given a map editor (Ted editor), so making new maps is impossible. I've heard that it could be possible to make a converter from Attila->Rome II, but no one has yet taken up that challenge. But... even if they did, Rome 2 still lacks the fundamental features that would allow you to easily replace battle map tiles on campaign maps that Attila has. 2. *More campaign mechanics* - As you mentioned already. Hordes, Razing/Colonizing, Political System (specifically governorships and offices; Attila lacks multi-party functionality which is a shame), Siege Mechanics (e.g. escalation, attrition after a few turns of sieging rather than immediate, fairer siege equipment construction (i.e. no first turn ladders)). 3. *Some visuals are improved* - Graphics can be subjective, but I know for a fact that there are a few things that Attila handles better. Example 1, Rome 2 doesn't have "faction_leader" variations for characters, so they always look generic despite becoming Emperor/Consul/King/Pharaoh etc. In Attila, they made it so that when a character gains the "faction_leader" trait, they get a special appearance to coincide with that trait. The weirdest thing is that Shogun 2 already had this feature before Rome 2, so I don't get why Rome 2 doesn't have it. Example 2, portholes (the portrait windows on campaign) are rendered properly in Attila with correct gloss_map reflectivity and shadows. Rome II doesn't have them which makes the characters look like plastic. I remember this really annoyed me when I was working on AAA: Generals as the full detail of the characters I'd been working on wasn't being shown off. Here's a comparison image: i.imgur.com/j4IIRhC.png (NOTE: I think there is one thing Rome II does better; water reflections. The water reflections in Attila look rather awful as the old reflection system was replaced entirely with Screen Space Reflection, and sometimes the water can reflect upon itself which causes a weird effect). 4. *More scripting features* - The amount of times I've had to ask someone when it comes to LUA "can we do X in Rome 2 like in Attila?" and had them say "no" is so annoying. Attila was given way more scripting capabilities allowing for more potential when it comes to creating new mechanics or niftly little events that can occur in your game. MK1212 unique campaign mechanics and events demonstrate some of the capabilities that Rome 2 cannot do. I remember I typed up a something on one of HappyCompy's videos ages ago titled "The #1 Reason Total War: Attila FAILED", where I posted that I wished Attila weren't a separate game and was a part of Rome II, or vice versa where Rome II was officially migrated to Attila if you owned it (like how you can access WH1 features in WH2, and soon in WH3). This was the comment I posted there: "Attila, IMO, should never have been its own game entirely - it should have been a standalone expansion to Rome 2, like how Fall of the Samurai was to Shogun 2. Doing that would have helped add more depth to the original game that it was based off of (why wait for the Rise of the Republic update for the family tree in 2018 when it could have been added as early as 2015?) and it would have also kept the community more united so that these sorts of topics wouldn't need to exist. Right now, as a modder that focuses on this era of TW, I know that it's rather disheartening for modders in both communities atm. Basically, people who mod Rome 2 want to have the same tools as modders in Attila have (e.g. battlefield / siege map editing, more scripting possibilities, more core mechanics / depth etc), while people who mod Attila want the game they're modding for to be more popular (i.e. have the same number of players as Rome 2 has; R2 usually has around 60% more players) and also have a more optimised experience for the core game. This could have all been resolved if both games were united in the first place and it's still such a shame that it happened - you'd have thought that CA would remember what happened with Napoleon and not repeat the same mistake? I'm not gonna be too harsh though. Perhaps there was a technical reason at the time as to why they didn't which we're not fully aware of (e.g. memory limit / file sizes)? Whatever the reason was... well, how about now, what with many technical improvements since then (e.g. the move from 32-bit to 64-bit)? Warhammer 2 (and soon Warhammer 3) proves that such scale / diversity can be achieved and still be technically viable. I would love it if CA remastered both games into one big 64-bit package some day along with many extra improvements to bring them both up to more of a modern standard which would help unite the community for this era of TW again and I guess make them a tonne of cash in the mean time if they play their cards right, but I doubt they'll want to do that."
Thanks for the comment mate! And 100% agreed on all your points I really really wish either CA optimises Attila and releases better modding tools for the game or I wish CA made Attila as a big expansion campaign to bring them each others strengths essentially.
For me, I have to give it to Attila for the battles alone. But the game itself has many, many core problems that keep it from ever being as successful as Rome II eventually became. Luckily the battles are so good that an entire community of modders are still dedicated to breathing new life into it.
>Attila >Optimized Choose one. Attila is known to drop to 18 fps on very powerful machines as soon as two large armies meet UNLESS you drop graphical settings like unit detail to potato as they never bothered to optimize it and abondoned it early on... Rome 2 on the other hand will run on just about anything after they fixed it with many patches.
Attila definitely wins out on campaign gameplay if for nothing else but the fact you can actually assign governors, work people up the cursus honorum, or other governmental offices, those two features alone make it leagues above the campaign in Rome 2, even if Rome 2 does win out with the most mods, and best mods, although Ancient Empires used to be my fav Rome era mod, but fell off lately, so it's amazing to see development back up and running. Great Video as always, keep this great content coming, onwards and upwards my friend!
Personally, I love both Rome 2 and Attila equally, and I just can’t seem to choose between the two of them. I guess when it comes to the rise and height of the Roman Empire, then I like Rome 2 more, but when it comes to the decline and fall of Rome, then I like Attila better.
For me it's Attila with the mk1212 mod (ancient empires is good, too, but needs work). In mk1212 it's really good that they turned every region into its own province so there's no more 'minor' settlements with no walls...I mean really, why would you not have walls? It makes no sense! Any army can just walk up and take it without any trouble at all, it's such a dumb idea on CA's part. Also the expanded paradox-lite faction mechanics are more fun than the 'press this button to get more loyalty guaranteed every 5 turns' that Rome 2 has. It must be noted I have played far too much Rome 2, and when you play a game that much it's hard to see past all the flaws, maybe after another 500 hrs in Attila I'll change my mind lol.
I had always loved the apocalyptic theme of Attila. I felt that it was just awesome to try and survive rather than set out and conquer. I mean, you conquer in both but in Attila, where Rome already occupies a lot of land and you have barbarian tribes literally searching for any opening to expand, it’s all about kill or be killed. The politics make a lot more sense too compared to Rome 2. Rome 2 is still a good game of course but Attila keeps me on my toes.
Dude, in Attila I have to take notes to plan 25 turns ahead. I need to remember what my goals are and what each army is doing. I’m playing on legendary and it’s taken me over a year to recreate the Persian Empire with the Sassanids. I play other games as well.
One thing that you should add is the multiplayer scene, rome 2 has a much bigger and more active multiplayer scene, there are alot of discord servers were you can play in houses but you can also easily find games with random people all times of the day
you summed it well at the end my friend. Playing Atilla feels like playing a smaller campaign or portion of the map of Rome 2, but at the same time you get so immersed into battles. Units definitely feel more different and specialized than in Rome. As White Huns for one you know you cannot let persian cataphracts charge into your cav when they are still fresh, but after some chasing and a few volleys of heavy arrows they are not so invincible anymore.
I actually am following many history podcasts and learnt how difficult it is for a emperor to manage their empire. How expensive it is to raise and maintain an army, how strong neighboring factions can be, how hard it is to fill your empire's coffer, how annoying court intrigue is, etc. And I'm absolutely happy that I get to experience these historically accurate difficult stuff with Attila's WRE campaign (with Total Realism mod).
Attila, hands down my personal favourite total war title. Modding makes the game great, the graphics and artwork looks better than Rome 2 and there is an actual endgoal in sight
I feel like Rome II is the more complete, polished game. Attila had amazing potential but sadly CA basically abandoned it. It's a shame the battle performance is so poor, even a 3090 will chug in Attila 40v40 battles.
Attila/rome 2 are CPU bound on recent GPU's. I have a gtx 1070 and it's the CPU that limits FPS.Because its only a 32bit program and depends on single core/thread speed to get better fps, esp when you use large unit sizes. Later games use the 64bit game engine. And you are right Attila never got any updates like R2 , and was abandoned only about 1 year after release by CA. But with some small cpu tweaks to settings it performs ok. games like this don't need super fps compared to say you would want in a FPS game.(Also its best not to use 40 unit mods unless you have a beast CPU.)
@@fungunsun1 I'm using rtx 2070 maxp and i7-10750h was getting slow downs in big battles. I unchecked vsync and loaded up age of Justinian and had all the water,sky ,etc up to max and for some reason I saw smooth play for 1 hour. I'm gonna do more testing tomorrow. I found the setting file where you change threads from 0 to 8 and gpu vram to -4000. I think the slowdowns with vsync may be the cause. I have everything else checked except vsync and vigennette....
Thank you Sir! :-) I tried Rome II yesterday and today I am going to try Atilla. But I totally forgot the mods available, so maybe I will try some of them with Rome II first ;)
Only got into total war games very recently. Rome 2 was the first I played. I got Atilla for the 1212AD mod. Unfortunately regardless of whatever optimisation I do, the laggy frame drops make it unplayable. Rome 2 DEI plays like a dream and never skips a beat so it wins. The Atilla Ui is less clunky, but the rest of the game makes up for that positive 10 fold sadly
The fact that siege escalation was supposed to be in Rome 2... i will never forget the "Pre alpha" demo of the Siege of Carthage which promised so much, yet delivered so little... Can't seem to find the demo these days though?
I prefer Rome II since the time campaign/time period, especially with the DEI mod feels more diverse in every aspect. The game is also brighter and colorful, which some people don't like, but to me is a plus in making the game aesthetically pleasing to look at. Attila definitely has its plusses over Rome 2 such as siege escalation, but by mid-late game half the map is burned down, and it truly feels like you're playing in the apocalypse. Of course, that's sorta the point, but by then it's just defeat the huns, and recolonize half the map.
Honestly, I love what they did to Rome 2 and the mod scene is incredible with DeI - but - Attila gave me my greatest base game campaign experience as the Eastern Roman Empire, and the mod scene there, 1212 AD and Dawnless Days, had me more pumped for those mods than for DeI on R2 or anything else being supported by the modding community for R2. Attila is a wild experience and the biggest thing holding it back is its performance/stability.
Actualmente acabo de comprar Attila y me parece interesante. Seguiré el juego a ver qué tal. Por otro lado he jugado muchas horas el Rome 2 y es mi juego favorito, especialmente jugando con DeI. Gracias por este aporte.
Units die too fast in Attila, although I play Rome 2 only with DEI, which slows fights down. The improved graphics of Attila also meant unit/squad sizes are smaller, battles are over so fast so you have to pause the game to give orders, or you won't be able to micro all your units before half of them are already dead... Unless you streamline your stack for easy micro, but that is boring, it's more fun and realistic to recruit a wide variety of units, often with specific niche uses for them. Also Rome 2 reinforcements will almost always appear from the direction where they are situated on the campaign map... Rome 1 and Medieval 2 also worked like this but in Shogun 2 the reinforcements are terrible, you will have your 3 stacks filter in from 3 different sides (same with the enemy), it's chaos, and Rome 2 they actually fixed it, and then Attila went and screwed it up again.
We need a Rome 3 with more in depth campaign mechanics. Politics, family, dynamic events,etc. My favourite play through was on “Rise of the Republic “ as Syracuse. I was using an overhaul mod, maybe DEI but can’t remember. Literally every turn counted, I simply couldn’t afford to concede territory or lose armies, it would be crippling if i did. Such a challenging way to play the game. Unlike with Rome factions where you can blitzkreig everything
i will say that playing the western roman empire and keeping all my territory made me feel pretty accomplished but expanding in rome 2 as the roman empire was fun but easy
Ah the eternal debate - my two most favourite Total War games. Funnily enough Attila was my most favourite title until they come out with the late updates we didn't expect with the politics and family tree - that was the only thing missing from Rome 2 for me. I still wish you could raze settlements and there was horde mechanics - but yeah they are both incredible titles that still hold up today. Last 2 games where battles were incredibly satisfying with matched combat and solid fighting otherwise instead of mindlessly swinging. Even ranged combat looks so good - hails of arrows or javelins flying into troops looks so good and I actually play with projectile trails off.
Great video my friend! Personally, I'd pick Rome 2. Unmodded it is REALLY close...Rome 2 has a TON of issues... however, Attila's performance issues and lack of variety relative to R2 push it just below 👇. R2 is the king👑 of replay value in this matchup imo. Congratulations on 21k subs btw ❤️✊
Ive been playing Warhammer Total War for a couple of years now, 1.3k hours in it, its been the best for me and I have played them since Shogun 1. But since Immortal Empires map is dragging out i dipped back into historical Total Wars and I must say Attila is amazing, I wish they worked more on naval combat then it would be perfest with some of the mods. I hope they do Medieval 3 for their next game.
Just Letting you know - there is a Medieaval Kingdoms 1212ad update added today for Attila. Now you can play with Wales, Victory Conditions, unit and campaign balancing ect.
I'll admit, my preference to Attila is partially out of bitterness at CA for Rome II's release. And I've never liked the building or unit icons, artwork, etc. Besides that, Attila's campaign is the GOAT. It's not just a Total War campaign. You are trying to survive, with the slow build up to when Attila finally arrives. Looking nervously at a Hunnic Horde which has walked into your lands, even if you're not at war, because they just don't like you much. The climate is against you. The World is ending. Balancing food, with sanitation, while also ensuring you have enough military buildings to pump out your best units, ready for the inevitable. And still, I believe that (AI issues...aside), Attila has the best settlement and city sieges. The civilians running out to help or hinder you. The burning city around you as the fighting goes on, the wonderfully build cities to defend. Now, if the AI would stop just T posing outside on occasion, that would help.
Attila all the way. I loved its emphasis on cavalry power and the apocalyptic atmosphere. It was also more balanced, with no particularly OP units or factions. Rome 2 had too many issues, such as unrealistic morale, naval glitches, faction imbalances, etc. However, divide et impera is amazing and beats Attila.
When he said players are very welcoming...all I could think of is the 1000's of players on rome 2 who have left the match or basically sworn out any newish players
Not going to lie. I’d love a new kind of total war themed from the Bronze Age to the crusades historically focused of course but with a optional romanticized mode ( legends and potential histories, the accounts of the people of those times actually being taken at their word as well as what if options like if the celts or Germans industrialized instead of Rome
DEI is what wins Rome 2 over attila for me. Attila doesn't have any major mod that has that level of polish. The faction and unit variety is sooo much better in Rome 2. I was actually very dissapointed by base game attila with how little unit variety it had. I do feel the battle mechanics are better in attila and the sieges are much better too
I personally prefer Rome 2 but only because I really enjoy playing as the Hellenistic factions, especially the Successor Kingdoms (Macedon till I die).
I like Attila more but stick to Rome 2 longer. Why? Because Attila just doesn’t have a lot of replay value. Every game is a struggle to survive not only against the Huns but against the scripted lacking of food and negative public order. While in Rome 2 I can be more lenient in my way of playing allow me to craft my own story as I did with previous total war title and not a fight for survival.
I never could like Attlia total war felt either raider barbarians or super Roman empires which suck or the Huns and some desert guys I just never. Liked it, can you tell me how do you even like get into it?
Talking about visual bugs, they never bothered to fix clipping and missing bits of armor and clothing on most roman units. Just look at legio line and palatina guards in Attila
I finally got Attila at the end of last year and completed 7 campaigns so far. But i gotta admit the Huns destroying half the map and being unkillable until Attila becomes their leader is tiresome. in Rome, every faction has a chance but in Attila it's always the same few who end up making it to the late game which is a steamroll if you make it that far like every other TW title. Maybe I just need to finally start using mods to freshen it up lol I've been playing vanilla this whole time.
I‘ve played Rome 2 probably the most of all TW games. Between Medieval 2 and R2 I haven't played any TW game. After a while I bought Atilla and I must admit .. I don’t want to play R2 (only with DEI) again. The battles .. graphics and some Campaign tweaks do it for me.
To me, both are like this If you play Total war games in Nomrla or easy, Rome 2 without DEI is for you If you played the Western Roman Empire in Rome 1 in Very Hard, then probably you are experienced enough to like Attila Total War And also if you have a good enough computer
Shame TTW Attila isn't getting as much post launch support as Rome 2, I've gone back and forth between the 2 over the last few years, but the bleak atmosphere of Attila, the graphics, the dark color scheme, the terrain makes it a winner for me. Attila is ancient warfare depicted as gruesomely as it can be so far imo, makes the battlefield actually feel like a battlefield and not a strategy game. Boy i love this game. If only it were better optimized.
Personally all the stuff that the AI can afford itself to do in Attila (infinite armies is no fun) just frustrates me too much and stops allowing me have fun, so Rome 2 for me since most of the battle problems can be fixed with mods
The Last Roman and Age of Charlemagne are the only reason I play vanilla Attila. Where as I enjoy all of Rome 2. Though both games equally suffer from bad design decisions. CA really dropped the ball after Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai
i love both, i really love Rome 2 content and Eras, Atilla slightly better gameplay, Age of Charlemage is really good campaighn dlc and Atilla have more mod.
I think Attila is better for the mechanics but sadly it's so poorly optimized that even with a good pc like mine i can't play it properly. Rome 2 feels older but got one of the best mod if not the best mod of all time for total war: Dei. Plus it runs really smoothly. Currently i am playing 1100 on Rome 2 and that's another amazing mod. Attila could have been so much better if only the devs didn't broke everything with the engine.
Attila is better for me for several reasons: 1. Attila is pretty much combination of everything I played before. Medieval 2 setting and events, Empire sandbox, Napoleon story focus and Rome 2 battles. Rome 2 is its own thing and this is great, but Attila somehow combines almost everything I liked previously and adds its own feathers. 2. Attila focuses on Late Antiquity, while Rome 2 focuses on Roman Republic. Had Rome 2 focused on Hellenistic Age, with Diadochi and Syrian Wars, I would prefer Rome 2, but the game is called Rome 2, not Seleucia 2. Still Attila made one blunder with settings and that is ending everything with Charlemagne, instead of Byzantine-Persian war and rise of Islam. 3. Attila has better DLCs. Rome 2 had more of them and naturally some of them will be blunder (I blame myself for Wrath of Sparta as I got exactly what I asked and it wasn't good), but fact remains that Attila has more impactful and distinct DLCs. Also, Empire Divided should really be part of Attila. Still Rome 2 is an excellent game. The color palate, diversity (probably the more diverse factions, excluding Warhammer) and sense of triumph and progress are the main thing I love about Rome and frankly, Attila is awesome because of Rome 2 as it took elements it worked and polished it.
I've bought both and my favorite is Attila. I've done several campaigns on both and the Attila ones have been the most memorable. With the Ancient Empires mod for Attila I get my Classical Age fix as well, and do I even need to mention Medieval Kingdoms 1212?
I like Atilla,s Gameplay over Rome 2. In Atilla things is much easier to managest. And if you want to play the same time period In Atilla ther is a weary good mod out ther.
It's not that i don't underestimating mods - i just stopped play with mods in any game - and i would like to play more and getting better in Attila just because it looks better
I always choose Rome II because of more antique feel to it and better estetics. In Atilla everything is just grim, sad, and depressing. To be honest i didn't enjoy playing Atilla at all.
Attila ,because the few hours I got in it are actual gameplay compared to Rome 2 where 460 out of the 480 hours I have in it is switching between mods trying to make it enjoyable or work.
Text Wall Ahead! For me Attila is in every way (every way important to me) better than Rome 2, except one, the setting, I much prefer the classical antiquity over late antiquity. I've played R2 for 600H and I'd literally burn down the computer rather than playing it, every mechanic is frustrating to deal with. Which is a shame since I'd really like to try the Campaign DLCs (Caesar in Gaul, Wrath of Sparta, Hannibal at the Gates, Rise of the Republic, Empire Devide, all very interesting settings I'll never get to play) I have, actually had a long list of complaints but I haven't played it in awhile and I prefer to keep those memories far suppressed. One minor thing that doesn't stop to annoy and amuse me is "Roman Legionnaires Cohort - no f***ing testudo". And no don't tell me "You should try DIE", I have, it doesn't make the game better (for me), doesn't fix my problems with the basic game and it a adds a dozen more things that don't work or fit the R2 framework, thus making the experience frustrating tenfold. In Attila the only frustrating thing is the setting, because of the challenge, but I like the challenge some times, couse I'm a masochist, I play Total War after all. I'm not saying Attila is a better game (although it is in certain aspects) than Rome 2 and I have nothing against those who enjoy R2 better, I can understand it, more power to you. But I HATE Rome 2 with a passion, almost as much the AI hates the player.
Thank you for that showcase, do you know if there is any mod that brings life colors back to Attila, as by default it's a game with very dark colors and 'dirty' vibe. Would really appreciate such mod
I’d go with Attila by a slight margin on this one, once you get to a good point in Rome 2, It’s a repetitive session of butchering your enemies over and over. In Attila, you have to worry about family politics, the fucking hordes, balancing sanitation and squalor and the WRE or ERE campaign is always there to test your skill once you have a good grasp of the game. Even without mods, the base game itself is plentifully enjoyable as a more complicated Rome 2 TW.
For a while, I stupidly thought that Attila is the expansion of Rome 2, given OG Rome and Rome:Barbarian Invasion. Took a long time for me to find out they are two separate games 🙃🤦♂️
Wish CA could combine all the awesome mechanics on the Champaign map from Rome 1 and Medieval 2 with the battles/faction mechanics from Rome 2, Atilla, WH 2/3. Combine all of those things from those games and drop it into the WH 40k or better yet the WH Horus Heresy 30k universe and I'd never buy another game again and die a happy man.
Which do you think is better: Rome 2 or Attila?
Join the Termi Discord! - discord.gg/ZvbywUzQZB
Support the channel by becoming a Termi Member! - ua-cam.com/channels/das0FWs2fLiMqjqWC8JBlg.htmljoin
Attila
What really sets Attilla ahead for me is that it's campaign "tells a story" in a way almost no other total war game does. This happens both from starting location, as well as faction mechanics. Playing as the Goths, you rampage around picking off weak enemies, but always with an eye over you shoulder watching the Huns for when they will jump on you. As the Roman's you're besieged on all sides, trying to hang on for dear life. Play as the Picts, Ebdani, Caledonians, you end up in tit for tat raiding against each other and the anglosaxon types for a long time, without any worries about the Huns at all. Play as a desert faction, you'll spend the start of your campaign in religious spats, trying to keep public order in check, and keeping rival faiths out of your territories, rather than worrying about the Huns.
The mechanics and locations each tell a different story, and it genuinely feels good, in a punishing kind of way. Play a desert faction like the Goths, and you'll just have never ending rebellions. Expand too quickly in to a static kingdom as the Goths and you've just signed yourself up to be the buffer between the west and the Huns. It just felt appropriate, rather than Rome 2's generic growing blog gameplay.
This is true diversity between factions which warhammer never achieved!
I got Attila recently and I love it except for the graphics. When I get a better computer it will be my go to. I’ve followed UA-cam optimization videos as much as possible.
@@Craftworld_patriotExactly Bro I literally said this yesterday to someone 😭 The tone of Attila is what Total War Warhammer was supposed to have. The dark aesthetic, gameplay being a fight for survival but obviously that wouldn't cater to CA's current market
Ive been playing TW since Rome 1. And the WRE campaign is the most frustrating, gratifying, hopeless and funnest total war experience ive ever had.
I have to go with Atiila because of that alone.
Yeah, it's both great and awful, as t's almost impossible to hold it all together. Most challenge I've had in a game in a long time. I was never a fan of Rome II; however, the latest DEI Mod makes it a LOT better.
By far the most challenging, engaging and gratifying (if you srurvivre) campaign in any TW series.
Same here, I played Rome Total Realism back in the day lol!
Meh, too much bullshit. Christianity is pure garbage and Attila is immortal with nigh-invincible horse archers.
@@die1mayer get good.😏😎
Same for me, i would go for Attila, even though sometimes I feel the lack of content from Rome 2, my dream would be a DEI for Attila, Ancient empires was a good start, shame we don't have one with so much development for an Attila mod, the most worked seems to be 1212, but i would want one for ancient period
Have a look at some of terminators other Attila mod videos, there are a number of other good mods that give a lot of new gamplay/campaigns/factions/units etc than just the two you mentioned. (like Medieval Warfare, Age of Justinian AD555, Age of Vikings, FotE + EP Revised etc etc).
FotE + EP is one of my fav Attila base campaign improvement mods for vanilla, more polished than mk1212 imo in terms of gameplay balance. but mk1212 is still a wip too . Has the DEI feel ,as its made but some of the same modders as DEI (I personally think mk1212 still needs more polish, but its getting there)
Also mods can make some of the DLC that's mediocre in base attila very interesting , (new/improved factions/units/campaigns etc), that gives Attila alot of replay value and more depth.
Rome 2 with dei, but base attila is better imo
Attila for mods is sex
Attila has better graphics, better family management with aging and dynamic looking generals. It has better siege battles. Batter mechanics, better naval gameplay. But you just cannot beat the time period of the Rome games. I have purchased every single total war with every single dlc and I love them all in their own way but man there is something about antiquity. It’s not even that I am a huge fan of Rome (the historic culture) I mean I am and when I first started I only knew about the Roman’s and the Greeks but since then I’ve expanded my knowledge and have learned to love antiquity as a whole. Right now carthage is my favorite. So I just love antiquity, and I hope the next total war is Rome 3. Maybe not even call it Rome. It will still you know be the successor but just to emphasize that every other culture gets the same amount of love and detail as Rome. With Rome 1 style settlement management. Building every individual building and roads and ports and walls in whatever city you want. And if you take over say Rome as carthage or barbarians the settlement should still look like Rome perhaps mixed with whatever occupying culture. Instead of a full blown barbaric village as Rome has always irked me. Or how beauty the major cities like Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, Athens, Macedon are but if you occupy as any other culture it deletes it and replaces it with your cultures generic settlement. So definitely change that.
Attila was great in so many ways but hard to get over the ai obsession with killing you while leaving themselves wide open to attack by other AIs.
We have had enough of the Roman setting for now. Rome, Rome 2, Attila, Rome Remastered, what we really need is a Medieval 3 or another setting in a historic Total War.
Rome 2 was the point when suddenly CA changed their own original formula that we've grown to love upto Shogun 2. I've played Rome 2 and Attila both, enjoyed them both even without mods, but could never actually forgive the devs for what they'd done to perhaps the best real-time strategy game, which today has turned into a real-time fantasy game. Anyway, let's hope for the franchise's redemption🤞🏽.
Needing a general to lead an army just leads to power creep and rarely can you get into a skirmish with less than 10 units on each side
@@Spider-Too-Too having random units of cav run around without a general is far more ridiculous than the superior general system. If you're a true history fan you'd laugh at the old system, especially in Rome
@@rockstar450 I think in med2 units without a general typically get a commander unit with a golden star in the icon. If the fight is won decisively, you'd get the chance to promote them to a general which makes sense.
@@iridescent3812 still doesn't explain why you would have control over them. In Rome generals were carefully handled armies with restrictions. Medieval times was more about land. People just got mad they can't cheese this like they could. The "man of the hour" is fun but ludicrously inaccurate cheese. The move toward realism was good in the long run. Not saying anything wrong with the old titles, I love them. But some arguments against the new system are ludicrous
WH3 is the last fantasy one and tbh they developped some great mechanics and QoL stuff that will benefit a new historical title. The best thing they could do is a Medieval 3 with all the good stuff from the 2 and take inspiration from some mechanics from other games, especially the family system in Attila which is arguably the best of the franchise
Played both base Rome 2 & Attila without any mods but I prefer Attila more than Rome 2, I just wish Attila runs better even modern hardware cause the game to have fps dips
If you don't want to be frustrated and exhausted as often, rome 2 is for you. Also the battles are a little slower in rome 2 over Attila, which for me is a plus
Play rome 2 to LARP as scipio or trajan
Play Attila AS aurelian or stilicho
Personally rome 2 is also WAY more stable with Total war Attila being hit or miss if it chooses to start up or not. It also forces me to crash when I want to leave the game as it WILL NOT close. With or without mods Rome 2 is just much more stable and smooth for me.
I love attila because of the whole concept
"you either tear the known world, build your own land, or save an empire from imminent death"
and the lots of mechanics it offers like an actual horde and migration system instead of already settled "nomads"
the ancient empires mod in my opinion starts out a bit too late, I'd like to see a starting date like in rome 2
oh
and the unit upgrade system was really well done
In Attila the lighting is to dark. I play Rome 2 DEI most of the time. I think it is hard to come up with a top tier army in Attila. The Huns will throw armies at you and not care if they lose. As long as their general escapes they will rebuild their defeated armies in a couple of turns. Hard to engage them and get to follow up with the total destruction of their army. I like playing Attila but it is time consuming to create momentum.
huns in campaign dont recruit.. they just spam hordes. but its good that they are challenging opponents, although frustrating sometimes.
If Attila had its own DEI I'd rate it higher but DEI is the GOAT mod.
I'm a big fan of Attila and the book-of-revelations-meets-Mongolian-throat-singing aesthetic. It's also the only total war game that really emphasizes the total war part. But I've never played a more crash-prone game either. Also, the WRE and ERE collapse a bit too quickly
For me the best is Rome 2 since I tried many times get into Attila and still go back to Rome 2. One thing that I cannot agree with you is when you say that campaign graphics on Attila are better. I play both of the games maxed out graphics and for me, the Rome 2 graphics are much better speaking on the campaign. Thank you for another amazing video.
Are you serious? Attila looks 1000x better than Rome2.
@@bdleo300 They literally look the same wtf xD? There's 2 year difference between games
I don't like Artila's campaign map. It looks nor good at al. I play both games maxed out on graphics too and Rome 2 campaign map looks better.@@bdleo300
@@ivvan497 They definitely don't look the same. Attila's cities look better, the map looks better, the lighting is better, and the small details like facial features looks better, reflection is better, and more. The 2 year difference doesn't matter, there are games still coming out that look worse than GTA 4.
@@Kvs-vf9nt That's called a baised point of view, it's the same as a mother of a baby saying they have the cutest, most adorable baby in the world.
Personally I think Rome 2 is better, you raised some good points but there is one thing Rome has over Atilia. The time period / aesthetic is so iconic
Considering the proliferation of modding for both the titles, 90% of the choice can come down to engine differences. Rome 2 is more sluggish and slowpaced, but helps provide time for things like formation manoeuvring mid battle and an ongoing tug of war, whereas Attila is fast paced, deadly and slicker, with more emphasis on capitalising on initiating engagements and initial positioning.
I play a lot of total war titles and mods depending on what kind of faction i want to play, and so Rome 2 is a lot better suited for playing factions with emphasis on what it's engine is good at, like Rome for example, whereas Attila is, likewise, good for the factions that capitalise on its engine, largely speedy and aggressive factions, like the Huns for example. If I wanted to play legions, Rome 2, if I want to play horse archers, Attila. If I want to play phalanxes, Rome 2 (although granted Attila pike formations taking cav charges are v. satisfying), whereas if I want to play barbarian hordes, Attila.
Just due to the engine changes, I feel out of place playing Parthians or Sassanids in Rome 2, and I feel like i'm missing out on the engine if I play Eastern/Western Rome in Attila.
your absolutely right, the engine of rome2 really feels the time period same with attila what sucks is attila engine is not fucking optimize fps sucks if wasnt for the video from Terminator on how to optimize attila i would have abandoned it along time ago.
And you are absolutely correct, as someone who loves to takes is time and make a lot of maneuvering I personally prefer R2 to Atilla
For me there is a time for both games.
The only sad thing is that these games need more DLCs and support from CA.
There could be so more and Attila needs a lot more work from the developers to get the game running better.
I hope CA adds them to the game pass and optimes them with an update.
It's shameful how they stopped caring about Attila and never optimized it well, like they made sure to do with Rome 2.
Optimizing Attilla would be soo good😢
Atilla for me is hard to get used to, but the battles do feel amazing. They flow very well, the movements are fluid and you can feel the impact of the clashes. The biggest problem in Atilla for me is the color palete. It's too sepia/washed down for me and everything kinda blends together. Also about the units preview, I think no other game did them as good as Rome 2. The style on most of those is great, only with units like the Desert Cohorts does the color not fit so well.
That’s my only gripe about Atilla, the palette . It feels hard to focus and see whats going on, the map looks weird as hell.
Hey Terminator, great video and I totally agree with it. I've modded R2 quite extensively and am very aware of the benefits that its sister game Attila brings. Some stuff you've listed is potentially fixable via modding (e.g. character/army variantmeshdefinitions + 3D artwork clipping), but these are the major things I can list that I know Rome 2 lacks:
1. *Battle map modding* - Rome 2 wasn't given a map editor (Ted editor), so making new maps is impossible. I've heard that it could be possible to make a converter from Attila->Rome II, but no one has yet taken up that challenge. But... even if they did, Rome 2 still lacks the fundamental features that would allow you to easily replace battle map tiles on campaign maps that Attila has.
2. *More campaign mechanics* - As you mentioned already. Hordes, Razing/Colonizing, Political System (specifically governorships and offices; Attila lacks multi-party functionality which is a shame), Siege Mechanics (e.g. escalation, attrition after a few turns of sieging rather than immediate, fairer siege equipment construction (i.e. no first turn ladders)).
3. *Some visuals are improved* - Graphics can be subjective, but I know for a fact that there are a few things that Attila handles better. Example 1, Rome 2 doesn't have "faction_leader" variations for characters, so they always look generic despite becoming Emperor/Consul/King/Pharaoh etc. In Attila, they made it so that when a character gains the "faction_leader" trait, they get a special appearance to coincide with that trait. The weirdest thing is that Shogun 2 already had this feature before Rome 2, so I don't get why Rome 2 doesn't have it. Example 2, portholes (the portrait windows on campaign) are rendered properly in Attila with correct gloss_map reflectivity and shadows. Rome II doesn't have them which makes the characters look like plastic. I remember this really annoyed me when I was working on AAA: Generals as the full detail of the characters I'd been working on wasn't being shown off. Here's a comparison image: i.imgur.com/j4IIRhC.png (NOTE: I think there is one thing Rome II does better; water reflections. The water reflections in Attila look rather awful as the old reflection system was replaced entirely with Screen Space Reflection, and sometimes the water can reflect upon itself which causes a weird effect).
4. *More scripting features* - The amount of times I've had to ask someone when it comes to LUA "can we do X in Rome 2 like in Attila?" and had them say "no" is so annoying. Attila was given way more scripting capabilities allowing for more potential when it comes to creating new mechanics or niftly little events that can occur in your game. MK1212 unique campaign mechanics and events demonstrate some of the capabilities that Rome 2 cannot do.
I remember I typed up a something on one of HappyCompy's videos ages ago titled "The #1 Reason Total War: Attila FAILED", where I posted that I wished Attila weren't a separate game and was a part of Rome II, or vice versa where Rome II was officially migrated to Attila if you owned it (like how you can access WH1 features in WH2, and soon in WH3). This was the comment I posted there:
"Attila, IMO, should never have been its own game entirely - it should have been a standalone expansion to Rome 2, like how Fall of the Samurai was to Shogun 2. Doing that would have helped add more depth to the original game that it was based off of (why wait for the Rise of the Republic update for the family tree in 2018 when it could have been added as early as 2015?) and it would have also kept the community more united so that these sorts of topics wouldn't need to exist.
Right now, as a modder that focuses on this era of TW, I know that it's rather disheartening for modders in both communities atm. Basically, people who mod Rome 2 want to have the same tools as modders in Attila have (e.g. battlefield / siege map editing, more scripting possibilities, more core mechanics / depth etc), while people who mod Attila want the game they're modding for to be more popular (i.e. have the same number of players as Rome 2 has; R2 usually has around 60% more players) and also have a more optimised experience for the core game. This could have all been resolved if both games were united in the first place and it's still such a shame that it happened - you'd have thought that CA would remember what happened with Napoleon and not repeat the same mistake?
I'm not gonna be too harsh though. Perhaps there was a technical reason at the time as to why they didn't which we're not fully aware of (e.g. memory limit / file sizes)? Whatever the reason was... well, how about now, what with many technical improvements since then (e.g. the move from 32-bit to 64-bit)? Warhammer 2 (and soon Warhammer 3) proves that such scale / diversity can be achieved and still be technically viable. I would love it if CA remastered both games into one big 64-bit package some day along with many extra improvements to bring them both up to more of a modern standard which would help unite the community for this era of TW again and I guess make them a tonne of cash in the mean time if they play their cards right, but I doubt they'll want to do that."
Thanks for the comment mate! And 100% agreed on all your points I really really wish either CA optimises Attila and releases better modding tools for the game or I wish CA made Attila as a big expansion campaign to bring them each others strengths essentially.
For me, I have to give it to Attila for the battles alone. But the game itself has many, many core problems that keep it from ever being as successful as Rome II eventually became. Luckily the battles are so good that an entire community of modders are still dedicated to breathing new life into it.
>Attila
>Optimized
Choose one.
Attila is known to drop to 18 fps on very powerful machines as soon as two large armies meet UNLESS you drop graphical settings like unit detail to potato as they never bothered to optimize it and abondoned it early on... Rome 2 on the other hand will run on just about anything after they fixed it with many patches.
I would like to also mention that Atilla had a huge advantage since there is custom battle maps ect and more modding capabilities
Attila definitely wins out on campaign gameplay if for nothing else but the fact you can actually assign governors, work people up the cursus honorum, or other governmental offices, those two features alone make it leagues above the campaign in Rome 2, even if Rome 2 does win out with the most mods, and best mods, although Ancient Empires used to be my fav Rome era mod, but fell off lately, so it's amazing to see development back up and running.
Great Video as always, keep this great content coming, onwards and upwards my friend!
Personally, I love both Rome 2 and Attila equally, and I just can’t seem to choose between the two of them. I guess when it comes to the rise and height of the Roman Empire, then I like Rome 2 more, but when it comes to the decline and fall of Rome, then I like Attila better.
For me it's Attila with the mk1212 mod (ancient empires is good, too, but needs work). In mk1212 it's really good that they turned every region into its own province so there's no more 'minor' settlements with no walls...I mean really, why would you not have walls? It makes no sense! Any army can just walk up and take it without any trouble at all, it's such a dumb idea on CA's part. Also the expanded paradox-lite faction mechanics are more fun than the 'press this button to get more loyalty guaranteed every 5 turns' that Rome 2 has.
It must be noted I have played far too much Rome 2, and when you play a game that much it's hard to see past all the flaws, maybe after another 500 hrs in Attila I'll change my mind lol.
I had always loved the apocalyptic theme of Attila. I felt that it was just awesome to try and survive rather than set out and conquer. I mean, you conquer in both but in Attila, where Rome already occupies a lot of land and you have barbarian tribes literally searching for any opening to expand, it’s all about kill or be killed. The politics make a lot more sense too compared to Rome 2. Rome 2 is still a good game of course but Attila keeps me on my toes.
Honestly the modding scene in RTWII is a bit more various and still active (DEI and Parabellum on all), this is a plus on the first one.
Dude, in Attila I have to take notes to plan 25 turns ahead. I need to remember what my goals are and what each army is doing. I’m playing on legendary and it’s taken me over a year to recreate the Persian Empire with the Sassanids. I play other games as well.
One thing that you should add is the multiplayer scene, rome 2 has a much bigger and more active multiplayer scene, there are alot of discord servers were you can play in houses but you can also easily find games with random people all times of the day
you summed it well at the end my friend. Playing Atilla feels like playing a smaller campaign or portion of the map of Rome 2, but at the same time you get so immersed into battles. Units definitely feel more different and specialized than in Rome. As White Huns for one you know you cannot let persian cataphracts charge into your cav when they are still fresh, but after some chasing and a few volleys of heavy arrows they are not so invincible anymore.
I actually am following many history podcasts and learnt how difficult it is for a emperor to manage their empire. How expensive it is to raise and maintain an army, how strong neighboring factions can be, how hard it is to fill your empire's coffer, how annoying court intrigue is, etc. And I'm absolutely happy that I get to experience these historically accurate difficult stuff with Attila's WRE campaign (with Total Realism mod).
I have been looking for some good history podcasts, what podcasts do you listen to?
Attila, hands down my personal favourite total war title. Modding makes the game great, the graphics and artwork looks better than Rome 2 and there is an actual endgoal in sight
I feel like Rome II is the more complete, polished game. Attila had amazing potential but sadly CA basically abandoned it. It's a shame the battle performance is so poor, even a 3090 will chug in Attila 40v40 battles.
Attila/rome 2 are CPU bound on recent GPU's. I have a gtx 1070 and it's the CPU that limits FPS.Because its only a 32bit program and depends on single core/thread speed to get better fps, esp when you use large unit sizes. Later games use the 64bit game engine.
And you are right Attila never got any updates like R2 , and was abandoned only about 1 year after release by CA.
But with some small cpu tweaks to settings it performs ok. games like this don't need super fps compared to say you would want in a FPS game.(Also its best not to use 40 unit mods unless you have a beast CPU.)
yeah,no kidding the performance and the engine itself is horrible...it needs optimizations..
Yep I get constant freezes with attila at 3080 with normal battle sizes but smooth af performance for rome 2 with some massive ass battles
@@fungunsun1 I'm using rtx 2070 maxp and i7-10750h was getting slow downs in big battles.
I unchecked vsync and loaded up age of Justinian and had all the water,sky ,etc up to max and for some reason I saw smooth play for 1 hour.
I'm gonna do more testing tomorrow.
I found the setting file where you change threads from 0 to 8 and gpu vram to -4000.
I think the slowdowns with vsync may be the cause.
I have everything else checked except vsync and vigennette....
@@agenthunk5070 vsync also chugs your fps
Thank you Sir! :-) I tried Rome II yesterday and today I am going to try Atilla. But I totally forgot the mods available, so maybe I will try some of them with Rome II first ;)
Total War: Attila, with Viking Forefathers DLC is my favorite. Was so excited to finally get to play Geats as a faction for once.
Only got into total war games very recently. Rome 2 was the first I played. I got Atilla for the 1212AD mod. Unfortunately regardless of whatever optimisation I do, the laggy frame drops make it unplayable. Rome 2 DEI plays like a dream and never skips a beat so it wins. The Atilla Ui is less clunky, but the rest of the game makes up for that positive 10 fold sadly
Rome 2 is more fun, Attila is better
That makes no sense the point of a game is to have fun and to keep you interested Attila does not do that
No chance. Rome 2 is boring as hell. Attila is more fun, and a better game.
@@PayythakiddAttila is way more interesting and enjoyable than Rome 2.
The fact that siege escalation was supposed to be in Rome 2... i will never forget the "Pre alpha" demo of the Siege of Carthage which promised so much, yet delivered so little...
Can't seem to find the demo these days though?
I prefer Rome II since the time campaign/time period, especially with the DEI mod feels more diverse in every aspect. The game is also brighter and colorful, which some people don't like, but to me is a plus in making the game aesthetically pleasing to look at. Attila definitely has its plusses over Rome 2 such as siege escalation, but by mid-late game half the map is burned down, and it truly feels like you're playing in the apocalypse. Of course, that's sorta the point, but by then it's just defeat the huns, and recolonize half the map.
Honestly, I love what they did to Rome 2 and the mod scene is incredible with DeI - but - Attila gave me my greatest base game campaign experience as the Eastern Roman Empire, and the mod scene there, 1212 AD and Dawnless Days, had me more pumped for those mods than for DeI on R2 or anything else being supported by the modding community for R2. Attila is a wild experience and the biggest thing holding it back is its performance/stability.
rome 2, 100%. it feels so much better to me and it's much more replayable than attila is.
Actualmente acabo de comprar Attila y me parece interesante. Seguiré el juego a ver qué tal. Por otro lado he jugado muchas horas el Rome 2 y es mi juego favorito, especialmente jugando con DeI. Gracias por este aporte.
thanks for this!! i just finished rome 2 and im about to try attila this was really helpful! :D
please givve me roome 2 game id
Units die too fast in Attila, although I play Rome 2 only with DEI, which slows fights down. The improved graphics of Attila also meant unit/squad sizes are smaller, battles are over so fast so you have to pause the game to give orders, or you won't be able to micro all your units before half of them are already dead... Unless you streamline your stack for easy micro, but that is boring, it's more fun and realistic to recruit a wide variety of units, often with specific niche uses for them. Also Rome 2 reinforcements will almost always appear from the direction where they are situated on the campaign map... Rome 1 and Medieval 2 also worked like this but in Shogun 2 the reinforcements are terrible, you will have your 3 stacks filter in from 3 different sides (same with the enemy), it's chaos, and Rome 2 they actually fixed it, and then Attila went and screwed it up again.
I like the fast paced battles,it reflect the times of the era of the 5th century.
chaos
Hey Oliver try Fall of the Eagles battle mod it makes battles a grind in which I love the pace of a slow battle.
@@davec1294 I like the pace of fast battles
We need a Rome 3 with more in depth campaign mechanics. Politics, family, dynamic events,etc. My favourite play through was on “Rise of the Republic “ as Syracuse. I was using an overhaul mod, maybe DEI but can’t remember. Literally every turn counted, I simply couldn’t afford to concede territory or lose armies, it would be crippling if i did. Such a challenging way to play the game. Unlike with Rome factions where you can blitzkreig everything
i will say that playing the western roman empire and keeping all my territory made me feel pretty accomplished but expanding in rome 2 as the roman empire was fun but easy
Hey! I dont believe this is an appropriate video as they are both really good!
Ah the eternal debate - my two most favourite Total War games. Funnily enough Attila was my most favourite title until they come out with the late updates we didn't expect with the politics and family tree - that was the only thing missing from Rome 2 for me. I still wish you could raze settlements and there was horde mechanics - but yeah they are both incredible titles that still hold up today. Last 2 games where battles were incredibly satisfying with matched combat and solid fighting otherwise instead of mindlessly swinging. Even ranged combat looks so good - hails of arrows or javelins flying into troops looks so good and I actually play with projectile trails off.
Rome II has DeI mod, Attila has Medieval 1212 mod
both are great, but DeI edges it a bit as their updates regularly and often
Great video my friend! Personally, I'd pick Rome 2. Unmodded it is REALLY close...Rome 2 has a TON of issues... however, Attila's performance issues and lack of variety relative to R2 push it just below 👇. R2 is the king👑 of replay value in this matchup imo.
Congratulations on 21k subs btw ❤️✊
Thanks buddy! And I get you ❤️
Ive been playing Warhammer Total War for a couple of years now, 1.3k hours in it, its been the best for me and I have played them since Shogun 1. But since Immortal Empires map is dragging out i dipped back into historical Total Wars and I must say Attila is amazing, I wish they worked more on naval combat then it would be perfest with some of the mods. I hope they do Medieval 3 for their next game.
This makes me want to buy Attila I'm just finishing a Carthage campaign in Rome 2 rn
Just Letting you know - there is a Medieaval Kingdoms 1212ad update added today for Attila. Now you can play with Wales, Victory Conditions, unit and campaign balancing ect.
I played attila first. I bought rome 2 but palyed it for like 2hours :D It just didnt catch me, bcs it felt like trial version of attila.
Rome 2 or Attila? Well the music says it all... It's Total War: Rome (2004)
I'll admit, my preference to Attila is partially out of bitterness at CA for Rome II's release. And I've never liked the building or unit icons, artwork, etc.
Besides that, Attila's campaign is the GOAT. It's not just a Total War campaign. You are trying to survive, with the slow build up to when Attila finally arrives. Looking nervously at a Hunnic Horde which has walked into your lands, even if you're not at war, because they just don't like you much.
The climate is against you. The World is ending. Balancing food, with sanitation, while also ensuring you have enough military buildings to pump out your best units, ready for the inevitable.
And still, I believe that (AI issues...aside), Attila has the best settlement and city sieges. The civilians running out to help or hinder you. The burning city around you as the fighting goes on, the wonderfully build cities to defend. Now, if the AI would stop just T posing outside on occasion, that would help.
Attila all the way. I loved its emphasis on cavalry power and the apocalyptic atmosphere. It was also more balanced, with no particularly OP units or factions. Rome 2 had too many issues, such as unrealistic morale, naval glitches, faction imbalances, etc. However, divide et impera is amazing and beats Attila.
When he said players are very welcoming...all I could think of is the 1000's of players on rome 2 who have left the match or basically sworn out any newish players
Not going to lie. I’d love a new kind of total war themed from the Bronze Age to the crusades historically focused of course but with a optional romanticized mode ( legends and potential histories, the accounts of the people of those times actually being taken at their word as well as what if options like if the celts or Germans industrialized instead of Rome
DEI is what wins Rome 2 over attila for me. Attila doesn't have any major mod that has that level of polish. The faction and unit variety is sooo much better in Rome 2. I was actually very dissapointed by base game attila with how little unit variety it had. I do feel the battle mechanics are better in attila and the sieges are much better too
Attila is awesome. I have been playing Total War games for many years now, and Attila is my favorite. However, I haven't played Rome II yet.
The only bad thing about Attila is the optimization, otherwise it's a perfect game.
Hey Terminator, great mod coverage as usual.I know it's too late but a Caesar vs Pompey dlc would've been awesome.
I personally prefer Rome 2 but only because I really enjoy playing as the Hellenistic factions, especially the Successor Kingdoms (Macedon till I die).
I like Attila more but stick to Rome 2 longer. Why? Because Attila just doesn’t have a lot of replay value. Every game is a struggle to survive not only against the Huns but against the scripted lacking of food and negative public order. While in Rome 2 I can be more lenient in my way of playing allow me to craft my own story as I did with previous total war title and not a fight for survival.
Great points, splendid
I never could like Attlia total war felt either raider barbarians or super Roman empires which suck or the Huns and some desert guys I just never. Liked it, can you tell me how do you even like get into it?
Talking about visual bugs, they never bothered to fix clipping and missing bits of armor and clothing on most roman units. Just look at legio line and palatina guards in Attila
I finally got Attila at the end of last year and completed 7 campaigns so far. But i gotta admit the Huns destroying half the map and being unkillable until Attila becomes their leader is tiresome. in Rome, every faction has a chance but in Attila it's always the same few who end up making it to the late game which is a steamroll if you make it that far like every other TW title.
Maybe I just need to finally start using mods to freshen it up lol I've been playing vanilla this whole time.
I‘ve played Rome 2 probably the most of all TW games. Between Medieval 2 and R2 I haven't played any TW game. After a while I bought Atilla and I must admit .. I don’t want to play R2 (only with DEI) again. The battles .. graphics and some Campaign tweaks do it for me.
To me, both are like this
If you play Total war games in Nomrla or easy, Rome 2 without DEI is for you
If you played the Western Roman Empire in Rome 1 in Very Hard, then probably you are experienced enough to like Attila Total War
And also if you have a good enough computer
Shame TTW Attila isn't getting as much post launch support as Rome 2, I've gone back and forth between the 2 over the last few years, but the bleak atmosphere of Attila, the graphics, the dark color scheme, the terrain makes it a winner for me. Attila is ancient warfare depicted as gruesomely as it can be so far imo, makes the battlefield actually feel like a battlefield and not a strategy game. Boy i love this game. If only it were better optimized.
Thanks to you my Attila now runs better, but i still prefer the much higher FPS of rome2 thats why i play more rome 2 than attila.
Personally all the stuff that the AI can afford itself to do in Attila (infinite armies is no fun) just frustrates me too much and stops allowing me have fun, so Rome 2 for me since most of the battle problems can be fixed with mods
You should do a video like this but between Rome 2 and Rome Remastered
The Last Roman and Age of Charlemagne are the only reason I play vanilla Attila. Where as I enjoy all of Rome 2. Though both games equally suffer from bad design decisions. CA really dropped the ball after Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai
Both? Both.
I want both.
i love both, i really love Rome 2 content and Eras, Atilla slightly better gameplay, Age of Charlemage is really good campaighn dlc and Atilla have more mod.
I think Attila is better for the mechanics but sadly it's so poorly optimized that even with a good pc like mine i can't play it properly. Rome 2 feels older but got one of the best mod if not the best mod of all time for total war: Dei. Plus it runs really smoothly. Currently i am playing 1100 on Rome 2 and that's another amazing mod. Attila could have been so much better if only the devs didn't broke everything with the engine.
Attila is super challenging and with mods like Fall of the Eagles it's a great experience. Rome 2 might offer more content, but quality over quantity.
Attila is better for me for several reasons:
1. Attila is pretty much combination of everything I played before. Medieval 2 setting and events, Empire sandbox, Napoleon story focus and Rome 2 battles. Rome 2 is its own thing and this is great, but Attila somehow combines almost everything I liked previously and adds its own feathers.
2. Attila focuses on Late Antiquity, while Rome 2 focuses on Roman Republic. Had Rome 2 focused on Hellenistic Age, with Diadochi and Syrian Wars, I would prefer Rome 2, but the game is called Rome 2, not Seleucia 2. Still Attila made one blunder with settings and that is ending everything with Charlemagne, instead of Byzantine-Persian war and rise of Islam.
3. Attila has better DLCs. Rome 2 had more of them and naturally some of them will be blunder (I blame myself for Wrath of Sparta as I got exactly what I asked and it wasn't good), but fact remains that Attila has more impactful and distinct DLCs. Also, Empire Divided should really be part of Attila.
Still Rome 2 is an excellent game. The color palate, diversity (probably the more diverse factions, excluding Warhammer) and sense of triumph and progress are the main thing I love about Rome and frankly, Attila is awesome because of Rome 2 as it took elements it worked and polished it.
I've bought both and my favorite is Attila. I've done several campaigns on both and the Attila ones have been the most memorable. With the Ancient Empires mod for Attila I get my Classical Age fix as well, and do I even need to mention Medieval Kingdoms 1212?
Nice video. Attila is more quality and Rome II is more about quantity. Which is the mod you use in 5:01 for Attila? Thanks
Rome 2 all the way. Attila runs poorly, looks too dark/muddy and was abandoned by CA for a reason.
I play Rome 2 for Rome, and of course its more FPS friendly. Attila I play for 1212AD and dont bother with FPS because detail>FPS
It just now hit me that Rome 2 came out almost 10 years ago
I like Atilla,s Gameplay over Rome 2. In Atilla things is much easier to managest. And if you want to play the same time period In Atilla ther is a weary good mod out ther.
Rome 2 has DEI so it's automatically better.
Seriously i can't recommend that mod enough, if you haven't tried it yet you're missing out.
Rome 2 if you want to see the rise of Rome, Attila if you want to see it's fall.
It's not that i don't underestimating mods - i just stopped play with mods in any game - and i would like to play more and getting better in Attila just because it looks better
I always choose Rome II because of more antique feel to it and better estetics. In Atilla everything is just grim, sad, and depressing. To be honest i didn't enjoy playing Atilla at all.
Attila ,because the few hours I got in it are actual gameplay compared to Rome 2 where 460 out of the 480 hours I have in it is switching between mods trying to make it enjoyable or work.
I enjoy playing both games
Attila is definitely superior
Text Wall Ahead!
For me Attila is in every way (every way important to me) better than Rome 2, except one, the setting, I much prefer the classical antiquity over late antiquity.
I've played R2 for 600H and I'd literally burn down the computer rather than playing it, every mechanic is frustrating to deal with. Which is a shame since I'd really like to try the Campaign DLCs (Caesar in Gaul, Wrath of Sparta, Hannibal at the Gates, Rise of the Republic, Empire Devide, all very interesting settings I'll never get to play)
I have, actually had a long list of complaints but I haven't played it in awhile and I prefer to keep those memories far suppressed. One minor thing that doesn't stop to annoy and amuse me is "Roman Legionnaires Cohort - no f***ing testudo".
And no don't tell me "You should try DIE", I have, it doesn't make the game better (for me), doesn't fix my problems with the basic game and it a adds a dozen more things that don't work or fit the R2 framework, thus making the experience frustrating tenfold.
In Attila the only frustrating thing is the setting, because of the challenge, but I like the challenge some times, couse I'm a masochist, I play Total War after all.
I'm not saying Attila is a better game (although it is in certain aspects) than Rome 2 and I have nothing against those who enjoy R2 better, I can understand it, more power to you. But I HATE Rome 2 with a passion, almost as much the AI hates the player.
Thank you for that showcase, do you know if there is any mod that brings life colors back to Attila, as by default it's a game with very dark colors and 'dirty' vibe.
Would really appreciate such mod
Give my graphics guide a try and you can use my reshade to tweak the colours as well :)
I’d go with Attila by a slight margin on this one, once you get to a good point in Rome 2, It’s a repetitive session of butchering your enemies over and over. In Attila, you have to worry about family politics, the fucking hordes, balancing sanitation and squalor and the WRE or ERE campaign is always there to test your skill once you have a good grasp of the game. Even without mods, the base game itself is plentifully enjoyable as a more complicated Rome 2 TW.
For a while, I stupidly thought that Attila is the expansion of Rome 2, given OG Rome and Rome:Barbarian Invasion. Took a long time for me to find out they are two separate games 🙃🤦♂️
When they enable campaign map modding TW Attila goes crazy with dawnless days
Wish CA could combine all the awesome mechanics on the Champaign map from Rome 1 and Medieval 2 with the battles/faction mechanics from Rome 2, Atilla, WH 2/3. Combine all of those things from those games and drop it into the WH 40k or better yet the WH Horus Heresy 30k universe and I'd never buy another game again and die a happy man.