😂 I clearly must be in the minority because I really enjoy playing as the nomads in Rome 2, but I am a big fan of using stacks of noble or royal horse archers with a few units of heavy lancers mixed in to mop up the remains. Even when I play as other better factions with far better rosters like the selucids, I still like to subjugate the nomadic factions so I can levy some of their noble horse archers. Although I can definitely see why people don’t like them, unlike eastern factions like Parthia and Armenia, horse archers and cavalry are literally the only thing they have going for them, they have no good naval units and absolutely terrible infantry, so assaulting cities can be a nightmare.
I've played Age of Charlemagne more than I have the main game. The kingdom mechanic makes you feel like you're working towards something and it just works really well.
But it's sad that Charlemange, great Byzanze and Umayyad dynasty don't get enough recognition really deserved a own game. Could have the potentail to beat Medeival 2
Even if i love Total War Three Kingdoms, my second favourite would be Attila because as someone said before me, Attila feels like the Dark Souls of Total War.
I loved attila, I always felt that the rosters in the base game seemed to be evenly matched. I still love rome 2 but if we are talking strictly vanilla Ill always choose attila.
@@happycompy Thrones runs fine for me. I'd recommend you use some mods for thrones. You can install a bunch on a vanilla playthrough and still have a good time. It also has some overhaul mods people worked on like clash of kings and shield wall. I think shield wall is still being worked on too. Thrones might not be for everyone tho it has alot rough edges.
@@happycompy that's funny you say that. I've just started playing Atilla on my laptop (1060 max) and it seems to run fine besides the FPS while the AI has their turns on the grand campaign map
Attila can be frustrating both in game and in performance but it is by far the best when it comes to forming your own narrative and trying to survive. The whole migration system was great. The Irish could migrate to Persia if they wanted to.
Actually the game mechanics are the best in TW series and it is one of the more difficult ones. Everything went downhill afterwards... Boy I was excited for 3K, but it just was shit. Replaying R2TW yesterday during one of the river battles I have noticed that arrows actually produce pretty realistic visual and sound emulation of splashes when they hit water.
@@KnaRRaN1989 Danes can hire mercenary horses. There are historical reasons why these Vikings can't recruit their own cavalry, and I think it makes for interesting gameplay.
I need to admit that I bought the game with every DLC and I cant regret it. Currently playing an Ebdanian campaign, but planning on a 1212 AD one aswell.
Am I the only one who wants a Victorian Era or WW1 Total War game? It would be very different, with different mechanics, but it could be incredible. I also keep dreaming about a Thirty Years War Total War game, the mix of black powder, pikes, cavalry is also something I want to see.
Thirty Years War is an absolute must. It's a defining period, offers plenty of different factions and units, eg with the Swedes' introduction of light, mobile artillery. It also suggests some intriguing mechanisms - e.g. feedback cycles between plague and war leading to depopulation, leading to reduced productivity, including for food, which leads to famine and even worse depopulation. This would only suggest the necessity of logistics to ensure troops are well-fed. And if you can't feed or can't pay your troops, it might mean that come the next siege, the choice to peacefully occupy is taken from you, as your army insists on looting.
I feel like most Attila fans desired a Rise of Islam campaign. Not only that but other interesting conflicts of the period like the Tetrarchy, Majorian or the Fall of the Guptas were left unexplored.
Agreed. In a better universe, Attila is an Expansion for Rome 2 like Fall of the Samurai, and we can launch all campaigns from one game. You'd have thought CA would have learned from their Empire Total War/Napoleon Total War mistake.
Empires of the Sand is the absolute best culture pack. I know people have a lot of mixed feelings on it but Himyar will always be my favorite faction in the entire game. It has such a good underdog story of being a small faction stuck between ERE and the Sassanids. There's so much replayability for me based on who you side with (or even going it alone). And while their higher tier units may lag behind a little, they're very unique and have a cool as hell aesthetic.
I thank modders for creating amazing content which makes people try out Attila. In spite of being my favorite TW I don't consider it "underrated" but more like overlooked because of its design flaws and particularities of the era in which it takes place. It's an understandably divisive game which nonetheless can be very appealing to way more people.
Very well said. I actually love Attila's atmosphere and difficulty. I don't play it nearly as much as Rome 2 because of the terrible performance and long end-turn times.
I love this and have rewatched the rome 2 tier list multiple times please keep doing these there addictive and so interesting just to hear from someone else love it keep it up
10:29 I think he got tricked by Rise of the Republic and mixed up Rise of the Samurai for Fall of the Samurai. Either that or man has special tastes and forgot FoTs.
I wanted to make a suggestion actually been beings watching through your videos but an idea I’d love to see is a faction hardest to easiest for grand campaign of Rome 2 though just a suggestion keep it up man
I finally got a good pc after wanting one for almost a decade. The last game I couple play was shogun 2. This guide was very helpful each game has a billion dlc and its overwhelming
I mainly play Radious which gives all the factions with bad unit rosters just better rosters. Plus they actually have good archer units for most factions now
Langobards and Picts are my favorite factions btw. Langobards for their infantry, and the Picts because Radious gives them some of the best archers in the game
Well, i mean the immunity against seasickness is kind of great, water is like land for a danish army. I bought the whole game and all dlc's, except the gore one, last autumsale, and now Rome 2 and ToB. It's been said a lot, but your content is top there btw, a normal, no time wasting presentation. If i was forced to complain about something, i would say don't show me the dlcs trailers 3 times in a row, but hey.
Thank you for the valuable feedback! I really appreciate it. Brevity and no-bullshit presentation is important to me. Yeah I agree, the trailer looping kind of sucks, gameplay footage would have been better.
Thanks for this. I'm currently deciding which dlcs to buy for attila and rome 2 while the steam sale is on. All that being said, I'm a completionist, and will probably end up buying all of them.
Attila stans are fucking die hards and I love it. The game has the best atmosphere of any total war game since medieval 1 imo. The game made me fall in love with late antiquity. Shame CA abandoned it. Should have been a Rome 2 dlc. I'll be making another Attila video soon ;).
i wonder if you will make a Total War Warhammer 2 DLC and FLC tier list? Expecting a 1 hour video considering the insane amount of DLC and FLC that game has.
speaking of Medieval 3 and 1212 mode. have you thought about doing medieval 3 "wishlist?" video? Expectation, what CA could learnd (or avoid) from their post Attila tw, factions and historic events you want see etc
I play games like Attila with a historical role-play kind of enthusiasm, nerdy as it sounds lol. So i buy whichever DLC that interests me regardless of stats.
In my opinion, Attila will remain one of the best Total war games ever made... Unfortunately abandoned by CA, this game deserves much more love... some bug fixes, rebalancing and optimization and it would be perfect. I agree with this tierlist ^^
Hey, Total Ware Attila may not be a memorable game but i really enjoy it even though i also believe that it should have been a dlc for Rome 2. The hardships when starting a Western/Eastern Roman campaign is something i loved right away! In fact, my first campaign was with western rome and it was amazing but a bit hard. Those damn huns always attacked me and only me! Aquilea was destroyed 7 times from 400AD to 420AD but around 430AD i had reconquered much of western rome. This campaign will always be in my head and makes me return to total war attila and fight for rome one more time!
I'm gonna disagree about the Viking Forefathers pack. While it's true two of the three aren't necessarily great, the Geats easily make the whole pack a B-tier DLC simply *because* of the immunity to snow attrition, effectively making it close to a god-like faction in the face of everyone else. It's incredibly fun to play, especially if you start off the campaign by abandoning your capitol and immediately migrating to Britain, changing your religion to Celtic, and starting off in a very defensible position early-game.
Bejeweled nobles aren't trash. You're conflicting old Maximus Decimus Meridius video with the reality, which is - they have been patched to have a shield wall. This means that you can recruit elite heavy shield wall infantry early on.
Age of Charlemagne is indeed the best of these packs, but as vanilla it's rather lacking. There are some mods that greatly expand the rosters for all these factions, making it much better. Worth noting is that units in this DLC have very different mechanics than in base Attila. All infantry has 100 health; all cavalry has 150 health, whether they are early game levies or elite units. Compare this to some of the top tier units in base Attila (especially from the DLCs) that have 200+ health. It's ridiculous. As a result, units in Charlemagne are more fragile but also more fairly balanced. Armor and unit formations/position are more important. You have to be more careful with your expensive units, especially cavalry.
Not any time soon ☹️. I haven't put the time into 3k to really get a feel for the DLC and the value it adds. You can bet your ass I'll do a tier list when i can, though.
I know this review was aimed at Single Player, and I'm a week late, but if anyone here is interested in DLC for multiplayer (what's left of it), here's my take on the DLC: Faction packs in general are rather low value because they tend to have the same problem: the unit rosters are essentially the same between the factions, and one faction usually has one or two unique units that renders the other two completely pointless. Unfortunately, the factions that are good tend to be really good... Viking Forefathers: Like HappyCompy said, this one is really poor value, even for multiplayer. Only the Jutes have unique units worth bringing, in the form of the Huscarls/Royal Huscarls. These are the best two-handed axe units in the game, and in most circumstances will utterly wreck any infantry unit (and a lot of cavalry) units that they charge into. However, all of the factions suffer from a lack of shock cavalry, a weakness that the Saxons make up for. Still, if you know how to deal with cavalry, the Jutes can be real beasts in multiplayer. B Tier because of the Jutes Longbeards: Better value because two out of the three have unique rosters. Unfortunately, the Burgundians ruin that value by rendering the other two nearly pointless. The Burgundians compete as one of the most overpowered factions in multiplayer, due to their excellent combo of underpriced but extremely powerful shock cavalry and very affordable two-handed axes. For a player who is familiar with the bonus vs. stats, the Langobards are a fun faction because they have the one of the strongest tank units in the game via their Scaled Clubmen. The Alamans are not the worst faction in multiplayer, but they're still only really useful if you want to impose a challenge on yourself. The Langobards and Alamans both lack in cavalry and shock infantry, making them weak against most factions. A Tier because of the Burgundians. Celts: Better value than the Longbeard faction pack because the rosters are more diverse, but it gets evened out by the fact that all of the Celtic factions are terrible in the cavalry department. The Ebdanians, having the best tools for dealing with enemy cavalry, are the best faction, followed by the Picts. You might think that the Caledonians would be better at handling cavalry because of their unique spears, but that just makes them a trash faction. If you hate dealing with the Slavs, the Celts are probably the best factions for taking them down without much fuss. C Tier Slavic: This one shares its place with the Viking Forefathers as one of the worst value packs. Outside of the poison archers, they do not have much going for them, even in single player. Poison archers fire slowly, and Slavic units in general have poor missile block chance and low armor. In Multiplayer, many (cowardly/stupid) players outright ban the use of poison arrows, despite them being rather easy to fight against. The Venedians are the worst, as their unique units are all one-handed axe units, and all three factions have the Slavic Axe Warriors, which are the only axe unit worth bringing with one exception. The Sclavenians get the exception in the form of anti-cavalry axes, which are unique in getting bonuses against both cavalry and infantry. And the Anteans get the best poison archers, but that doesn't mean much except in fighting other Slavs. In summary, three paper tiger factions whose power comes from the perception of their power. D Tier Desert: Like Happy said, the best faction pack because all three factions have unique rosters and play styles. Axum may be the weakest of them, but its infantry and spear roster combined with potent melee cavalry make it a far more viable faction than in other faction packs. The Tanukhids are the true glass cannons of the game, able to dish out large damage while having trouble taking it. Himyar is the other OP faction of the game, as the combo of Athar's Chosen and Almaqah's Lancers is incredibly hard to beat conventionally. S Tier The Last Roman: While the Ostrogothic Kingdom is not the weakest faction, it sure tries hard to be there. The Roman Expedition is basically a weaker version of the Eastern Roman Empire, however they do get the only single-handed axe units in the game that are actually good, and being more affordable makes them a worthy and potent alternative. B Tier Age of Charlemagne: Between Rome II being infantry focused and Attila being dominated by cavalry, Age of Charlemagne has the best balance in among them. Cavalry and shock infantry are powerful, but only when used at the right time and place in a battle. Each faction has its strengths and weaknesses to beware of and exploit. Unfortunately, the small faction and roster sizes, combined with the popularity of the (free) 1212 mod means that it's almost impossible to get regular games in this DLC. In quality, this one should be S-Tier. The lack of players really makes it D-Tier. So I'll take the average and put it at C-Tier
Why is green bad and red good? 😁 Should be the other way round! I don't agree with the viking forefathers, I liked that DLC! 😊 But good video though, I've liked and subscribed
Great video! I was thinking that I really remember buying like 6 years ago a "Blood & Gore" DLC pack for total war Rome II, but I haven't seen it on the Rome 2 DLC tier video, am I wrong ?
10:38 Yeah, really. It would be great to have new dlcs, I fantasied with the idea of CA making new "surprise" campaigns just like with Rome 2 and the Rise of the Republic. Either an Attila post-Empire Divided campaign (playing with Diocletian/the Tetrarchy or even with Julian the Apostate, who's history was really censured and demonized) or a post Last Roman/Charlemagne. I would love a campaign with the Khazars (also a well known yet obscure culture), the Turquic tribes, the Avars and Magyars or the Rise of Islam, tho knowing about the European ethnocentrism (and islamophobia) I doubt they would have many sales on that, but one can dream (? I really don't like Islamic religion too much, but their culture and history are awesome and they contributed a lot to humanity (in sciences, medicine, architecture, maths, etc.), is a shame that there aren't many games about them and their origins. Like yeah we have games about Saladdin and Mehmed (both who fighted against Europeans) but we lack games about the firsts caliphates, good old Saladdin and their conquests aren't sh*t against the mighty of Umayyad caliphate in their golden era
I meant RoTS, because FoTS is a standalone game that doesn't require Shogun 2, unlike RoTS which is definitely DLC. I agree with you that FoTS is much better than RoTS.
@@happycompy I see. I should go back and play Rise. I played a few turns and thought it was too similar to the base game so I jusr bought Fall and played that.
@@happycompy Was it always like that though? Because CA rebranded FoTS as a Saga game a few years after its release and I feel like that they made it standalone only then. I mean, I don't remember ever launching FoTS outside Shogun 2 but a lot of time has passed since then.
@@reporterid They've always been standalone, but they both are integrated into the same main menu. Honestly CA's handling of Shogun 2 & FoTS is the best they've ever done in terms of integration. WAY WAY better than Empire & Napoleon and Rome 2 & Attila.
@@happycompy Sorry if I'm asking again but I don't understand what you mean (might be my fault). Is it possible to just download and play Fots? Because in my library I only have Shogun 2 (listed) but I do own Fots and I can play it if I download Shogun 2. Like, you know, the difference between Rise of the republic and Thrones of britannia.
Literally just watched your Rome 2 tier list and this popped up. Neat. Subbed. P.S. Fuck the Nomad DLC. P.P.S If they were gonna put so little effort into TROY TW, why didn't they just use Rome 2/ Attila as the base to build on? Would have looked just as ugly and at least the animations wouldn't be complete ass.
Great work! We should all thank you... I've never played Rome 2 or Attila. Wich one would you recommend to play first or it doesn't matter cause they are 2 different games... My issue is about the era that each of them takes place, I mean, attila should be played after cause its kind of sequence of Rome 2? Anyway, thank you in advance.
Rome 1 TW was my First Total War game and it was increible for me in those years, but i didn´t like to much the barbariam invasion; curiously, i preffer the Attila over the Rome II.
Played Attila first before Rome 2 and man it's fun but I have to agree with the culture traits and rosters, they're trash. Well, I slapped and spammed Attila with mods so its much better now. 😅
So I kinda forgot, do you need culture packs to play against the new factions as AIs? Or the new factions come with updates in the grand campaign, and the culture packs just unlock them for the players?
I'm a sack of shit who hasn't given 3k the love it deserves, so I can't rank the DLC yet. But bet your ass that when I play through them all, I'll rank them just like I did in this video.
probably because i'm such a fanboy, Viking forefathers was my first DLC and campaign I played on this game despite reading the negative reviews, I actually enjoyed anyway.
I love attila but there are many things i didn't like about the game, the most important one is : unbalence. Sassanid units are too expansive for what they give+their mounted crossbows don't have parthian shot. White huns have very strong yet cheap spear and horse archer. Huns have too many useless cav. Tagmata is a meme. Elephants suck overall. The germanic factions are too similar in my opinion, the only good factions are the alans, romans,celts and maybe the slavs but to an extent. I wish CA could balance that game a second time
Rising of islam would be fucking epic, imagine a hun like faction which can fight Eastern Rome and the sassanids at the same time, would be fun trying to stop them and play as them
I love these tier rankings but they're so boring visually. I watch cuz I love the audio content and opinions. But like instead of just looping the same boring 5 second clips can you just show the stuff you're taking about in B roll footage? Even just pictures/clips of the unique units, settlements on maps, unit icons, fights, etc.
i think attila would have gotten more love if Rome 2 was not such a flop, not to say that Attila does not have it's glaring issues and poor mechanics. In the end thou i always felt that asking a full price a a reskin of a bad game and not really fixing many of the issues rome 2 had was just a slap in the face from CA
So between you and I, I'm working on a video about why Attila failed, and everything you just said is essentially 80% of my thesis. I think you nailed it on the head.
@@happycompy i was very disappointed how the avars were made as an example. i rarely saw any avar cav with saddles and what was even worse for me is that they still used straight swords even though at that time they already used sabres.. also CA was lazy af to change anything rly on the models.
@@DiocletianLarius you try to find one campaign of rise of the samurai that was completed on RU-vid. None of the RU-vid players wanted to finish their campaigns, thats how barebones and boring that campaign was
Both the last Roman and Age of Charlemagne are garbage level of DLCs. Great ideas, utterly bad execution. Most of the campaigns are unplayable and by that I mean that the player is faced with so many problems since turn 1 and not given any tools to deal with them. The only reasonable way to play the last Roman DLC is by playing Belisarius. Recently I wanted to try something different and decided to play as the Franks in TLR. In turn 4 I was already at war with the Basques, Brettany, Burgundy and my own subjects because my provinces started revolting due to constant raiding of enemy armies. The AI is omnipotent, enemy stacks always position themselves in a way that you can't reach them, enemy agents have nearly 100% success ratio, enemy stacks dont want to fight your armies, they just want to snipe your undefended cities playing cat and mouse with you. Age of Charlemagne takes all of it I just mentioned to the extreme with constant public order issues, war weariness mechanic which on paper is good but is as always poorly executed leading to more revolts and those revolts lead to another series of revolts so in the end you basically fight your own people, you don't expand because you cant, you just sit in your own provice and you are being raied. What is more, the AI doesnt obey the same rules. They dont have revolts, earthquakes, fires, floods plaguing their settlements. Moreover, everything is so expensive and takes forever to build. It's basically Western Roman Experience in almost every campaign you choose. Another thing is a general laziness by CA. Both in TLR and AoC barbarian units use the same quotes from the base game so despite being Christians you will always hear "for the tribe", etc. It's 2024 and CA hasnt decided to patch these terrible DLC packs. My theory is they never playested them in the first place. All in all, if you value your sanity, stay away from those DLCs.
I disagree but I do share your frustration with the cheating AI in Attila and with the horrible barbarian voice acting. All of the barbarian dialogue is copy/pasted from Rome 2, and it sucked back then too. "Gods of the afterlife, SPARE MY ARSE! Well why do you trouble my digestion today?"
@@happycompy I have thousands of hours in previous total wars, played all historical total wars on very hard/legendary difficulties. I know these games in and out but I still fail to finish a single campaign in these two big DLCs for attila. Public order problems, low income, cheating AI, random events like fire/earthquakes draining money, anti player bias taken to the extreme. Playing it is like a chore.
