Aside from Rome Total War, what's the best strategy game for feel like this?
>>2201631The upcoming sequel to Life of a Legionary
>>2201631Bannerlord
https://www.mobygames.com/game/35333/great-invasions-the-darkages-350-1066-ad/
Europa BarbarorumImperator: Rome
>>2202813Is that Russian knock-off of Europa Universalis? The map looks uncanny familiar to EU2.
>>2201631Bannerlord.
>>2201631What am I looking at? What kind of boats are that?
>>2201713Not quite unless you can play as legionary recruited from allied barbarian people.>>2203918>Vandal and Alan warriors in North Africa, 5th century CE. © Angus McBride
>>2201631Battle Brothers
>>2202441>>2203577>Load mod>Start game>Get to main menu>Crash to desktopcool
>>2201631Attila Warband
>>2206905Battle brothers really needs a good sequel.Especially with the legends mod.
>>2201631Attila
>>2201631BannerlordAttilaBattle BrothersAge of Decadence (yeah its a RPG but there are kino strat fights in a blood and sand background)CK2 early start dates and some kino mods too
>>2202840Actually the creator of the original EU board game designed it
>>2201631WarbandFUCK Bannerlord
>>2201631Attila is a better game for that feel than the original Rome, and it captured the feel of the migration period almost perfectly. Just thinking about it now is a painful reminder of how we'll never get another good TW game
>>2201631Unironically picrel, same time period as well, and im pretty sure they're a kingdom there.
>>2212235>Attila is a better game for that feel than the original RomeBarbarian Invasion is still better imo, especially for that feel. Atilla was the right path after the fiasco of Rome 2 but imo, Attila was the hurrah of CA's creative minds in gameplay mechanics.Im biased, but Barbarian Invasion is the best content they ever released.
>>2214721>Barbarian Invasion is still better imo, especially for that feel.base game, no. the IB series of mods improved it massively though. but base Attila is like modded BI so in my view it's better. it also has the faction politics system which I found really neat.
Too many neglected periods.
>>2232037Such as?
>>2201631Imperator: Rome
>>2232037There are too many interesting but niche periods in history to make TW games about, it's best to make games that cover a time period in broader strokes than zooming in and making borderline Saga shit.It's why a game like Medieval 2 works so well, because it covers a ton of things at once, while ToB and Pharaoh failed, because they cover a span of like 20 years where the early and late game are basically the same.
>>2203961>t. clueless historylet
>>2203961>legionary recruited from allied barbarian people.retard
>>2202813amazing
>>2201631Divide et Impera
>>2214603I looked it up and saw it was by the same guy that did Aut Caesar Aut Nihil so I tried it.I can confirm it has Vandal-Alan kingdom in North Africa. This guy only has 2 mods and they're both extremely high quality. It's like he uses Warband modding as an art medium
>>2237922> ToB and Pharaoh failed, because they cover a span of like 20 years where the early and late game are basically the same.The timescale is a factor, but the bigger issue is the spatial scope. Maps constrained to just the middle east or the British isles were both included in a single DLC for M2TW, which also had two others. So one half of a M2TW DLC provided what these two separate nuTW titles tried to. M2TW would still be fun if it only covered a few decades since there's a lot of variety to the map and they'd still implement progression despite the shorter timeframe. But you can't make ToB or Pharaoh fun just by extending their timeframe.
>>2245757I haven't played ToB but Pharaoh is a pretty cool Bronze Age simulator for what it is. The problem with Pharaoh is nobody asked for it and also I think it only appeals to people who are specifically into the Bronze Age because there's little unit diversity and no cavalry. I don't know who at Sega or CA greenlights these obscure settings when people have been asking for Medieval 3 for literal decades at this point. Even Rome 2 is older now than Rome 1 was when Rome 2 released.
>>2237922You're right.I always argue that CA should start big and then zoom in, rather than zoom in and then pull out. 3k and Pharaoh did the zoom in start and they suffered for it while R2 did the big then zoom in and it prospered for it. It's why I want to strangle someone saying they should do the 30 years war - if you mean the pike and shot era then yes! It'd do great. If you mean the 30 years war in Germany then that's a Saga disaster even with vgh greater gross germany players. The truth behind the myth thing too. I just do not understand it. That and 3k was this weird moment where they were pussyfooting about sticking the landing of going full fantasy or not. People would have eaten up a mythos total war, it's a real shame they didn't do that.>>2246233If I was being credible I'd bet that warhammer took their eye off the ball. I enjoyed warhammer a lot, but it has dominated their attention from 2016 to 2024 with only 3k being a meaningful deviation. Troy and Pharaoh were by the Bulgarians. So nearly 10 years of just 'one game' (3 in truth). If that hadn't happened then medieval would have probably dropped after the 3 kingdoms interim, so around 2023 or so.I buy the leaks, I sure hope they are correct because if they do not do Medieval 3 at this point it's pathological. People'll say people just want rome and medieval on repeat but when these games are 10 (and now 20!!) years apart it is nowhere near the same as Madden or COD every other year. For god's sake, someone who was 10 years old when Medieval 2 came out is now 30.
>>2245757>The timescale is a factor, but the bigger issue is the spatial scopeYou're right, but let's be honest extending one implies extending the other, because you just can't make a game with the centuries long scope of M2 but confine it to like, the iberian peninsula.>M2TW would still be fun if it only covered a few decadesYeah, because it's fundamentally a better designed game, but I'm not going to take the scale for granted. I wouldn't have spent as much time with that game if all it had was sergeantmanii and mailed knightmanii and you couldn't move beyond central europe. Including things like late era pikemen and gunpowder and a map that covers most of the Medieval world are what elevate that game into a classic. Total War really needs that scope.>>2246233>Pharaoh is a pretty cool Bronze Age simulator for what it isNah, it's terrible on all levels except graphical fidelity, and even then the art direction is ass. I say this as one of the few who have been hoping for a proper Bronze Age TW (with Iron Age late game) for years.
>>2259986>let's be honest extending one implies extending the other, because you just can't make a game with the centuries long scope of M2 but confine it to like, the iberian peninsula.I agree. The small map is what constrains the timescale though. But we're on the same page > because it's fundamentally a better designed gameAgree too. I didn't like R2TW or Atilla despite the scope/scale, yet liked the Kingdoms campaigns which had both small maps and short timescale. The games getting progressively worse is yet another factor. And I even partly agree with the other guy (>>2246233), he's just not seeing why the setting is obscure. It would be successful if it was just a general bronze age game covering a large map and several distinct periods. Even if they fucked up the gameplay, that would carry it. But it's set over a few decades in a small part of the world, which is niche (AKA no one cares).
>>2201631field of glory
>>2206950Just play Warband. Bannerlord is a shit failed game
>>2265240Bannerlord has problems and it's not really released since they keep messing with it with updates, but visually and in some other ways it is better. Warband also doesn't have the look anons wants, Bannerlord is a bit closer.
>>2201631attila obv
wait, Atilla is good?
>>2284335As good as a warscape game can be. To put it this way, it is the least bad total war between fots and 3k
>>2284466I can't even remember how i got into the mindset but it feels like i've always been told Rome 2 and Atilla are buggy and unfair so never tried them, truth be told only starting thinking about Atilla again because of the mods
>>2285368they are buggy and the battles just suck as with all warscape games
>>2238676he is not wrong, imperial legions were often consisted from drafted provincials, freed slavesthere were of course allied troops from rome clients and other foreign formations but roman legions started becoming non roman with Julius Caesar
>>2237922>ToB failedfor good reason, settings were meh and it still used rome 2 systems even if modifiedbiggest problems were only general armies and province systems with non defendable locations which lead to your army chasing some faggots around like in benny hill video
>>2284335It's fine. The battles are good, its main problem was its shit optimization.A lot of the building design also contain noob traps where some aren't even worth upgrading, which also makes some people dislike it.It's an okay game overall, but it has the best campaign of any TW with the WRE.
>>2284335No, it's slightly better than Rome II, but that's the worst TW game after Empire, not a high bar.
>>2286142>>2286859>>2286982Well i appreciate the replies even if they are all a bit different. I guess it's cheap enough to try and it'll either be shit, fine or good.
>>2284335dunno, there are anons that swear to it but I tried dozen times to like it and just couldn'tits still have all the rome 2 problems with some extras
Total War: ATTILA :^)
