Attila: Total War

[Gusington]

Don't hate. And don't lie.

[GDS_Starfury]

I like the unit pictures waaaaay more then the ones in RTW2.

[Sir Slash]

I'll second that one Star. With the voice in my head adding a third.

[Martok]

Video preview over at...  http://twcenter.net/  Don't tell them it's Barbarian Invasion 2 or else they'll screw it up to try to make it different.

Hmm.  Darren says the battles in Attila seem to be more quicker-paced than in Rome II; if so, that's definitely not a point in its favor.  I'm also with him in that I prefer the flags over the floating icons. 

I like the unit pictures waaaaay more then the ones in RTW2.

I think I'm the only one who likes the unit cards in Rome II.  There's something about that art style that just appeals to me. 

[MengJiao]

The game starts in 395 so...OMG THE CATHOLIC MEROVINGIANS ARE COMING

  Not until 495 and I think the game ends in 465.  I'm not sure why it would end then, but you get your 70 years or 280 turns and that's the end of the world.

[Martok]

  Not until 495 and I think the game ends in 465.  I'm not sure why it would end then

Without googling it, I want to say that's around the time the last emperor of the Western Empire abdicated his throne.  (Even if I'm right, that seems like a pretty silly/lame reason to end the game in that year.) 

[Gusington]

70 years/280 turns seems awfully short...like me

[Martok]

Yeah, anything less than 300 turns is usually a deal-breaker for me (and 400-500 turns is preferable), especially for a game's main campaign. 

[MengJiao]

  Not until 495 and I think the game ends in 465.  I'm not sure why it would end then

Without googling it, I want to say that's around the time the last emperor of the Western Empire abdicated his throne.  (Even if I'm right, that seems like a pretty silly/lame reason to end the game in that year.)

  I think 478 or so is the traditional date of the end of the Western Empire as a political entity, but the real crisis could be seen as happening much sooner -- maybe 455 when the Vandals sacked Rome?

  Anyway -- maybe the point underlying the 70 years is that in game terms that is the critical period during which the Western Empire could have adapted to whatever one wants to take as the major changes in that time frame (the onset of colder weather?  better horse tack?  Smarter barbarians? incipient Catholic Merovingians? Prudentius? Allegory? the Ambrosian Plain chant? Sangiban?)

[Sir Slash]

I bet there will be mods extending the game to the Kennedy administration.

[Gusington]

With a Chappaquiddick dlc?

[MengJiao]

With a Chappaquiddick dlc?

  Well, hmmm...Cassidorus seems to have gotten fed up (in retrospect) with the mess in 465, which would make Chappaquiddick look a lot like Camelot in comparison.

  Of course if "King Arthur" was an Alan working for the mysterious Riothamus (Brittainic Great King?), then somebody (Arthyious the Alan with his Dragon Banner and Sarmation/Alan sword-stuck-in-the-ground religion) would have been at home in Camelot -- where ever that might have been.

  So maybe that's why things stop in 465.
 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libius_Severus

[Gusington]

I'll preorder whatever it is you described above if it will include elephants and camels and Ted Kennedy.

[Sir Slash]

I often don't know what Ming's saying but, damn I like the way he says it.

[Gusington]

You should see him sober!