As for Warhammer, what makes it so interesting is because every faction is completely unique. Personally, I like Rome II better than Attila because of its setting. Ha! Yeah because copy-pasted units and troop types adds so much depth to the game. Im also one of the few people who really dislike the family tree system too.įor simpletons, yes. I don't like the defensive towers in every town either, they are pretty OP. Noone starts a fight with you, so you basically go around razing tiny settlements for cash. I tried playing the horde side as well (as Huns) and found it to be pointless. I played as Aksum and by the time i had built a couple of strong armies and consolidated a decent home province(s) and looked to expand, the whole map was essentially wiped out by hordes. Ive tried to play Attila, there are some gameplay aspects of attila that are better than Rome II. in Attila, everyone is just surviving its about economic migration, plagues and fertility. Rome II is set in a period when there are lots of strong factions all at their mightiest.

In TW:Attila i know very little about any of those factions or that period in general. Of course not everything is historically accurate, but i accept that this is a game and not an academic piece so i don't really care.

I also appreciate the little historical intricacies which CA implement. I love early antiquity so i know a fair amount about the different factions and units, therefore the campaigns are meaningful to me in Rome II.

First off, and this is the most important factor really is the setting.

Total war rome remastered g2a