Network Game (Pirate) (Total War: Attila)
Actually such a problem. With a friend, we want to play lan'u, as you understand, the company does not end in a day, and there is not so much time. Therefore, we make a save, and when we try to boot, we get a troubleshooter. Specifically.1. Create a lan game to save.
2. Any of the players loads the game as an administrator
3. The second one connects.
As a result, the administrator changes the faction, the emblem of the faction becomes the same for everyone (Franks, it seems). And at the start of the game, only one person plays, the second can only observe.
I rummaged through the network and did not really find anything. Rather, how. The problem in itself is understandable, we have the same steam user id, obviously, since there is one repack. But how to change them, I have not found something anywhere.
Something like this. Help please ^^
I have the same problem, but I have litsuha because there are no problems with saves, I create a pirate with a friend and play rules at our leisure.
Pirates are usually adapted for single player, there is nothing you can do about it. It was worth to fork out while the New Year's discounts were in the incentive. In general, I can imagine how gorgeous to play on LAN, you can even try to repel the hordes of the Huns.
predator999
But it was much more interesting than against anyone else. But no one can resist the phalanx, not even their Armenian chitters. By the way, their elephants immediately ram the squad, which they will run over, this is a terrible thing in general.
Spoiler 
And about the game on the network on the pirated version I can not say anything.
L | EMEHTATOP That's
not the point, they then get so overwhelmed that they run after one of your army with their 8 20 slot.
predator999
They don't really have any enemies, Hephthalites and other trifles can do little. The empire under the control of the campus generally falls apart quickly. And they have an alliance right away, and at least how, but one army still throws the allies on campaigns. So these Persians are swinging strongly, there is a lot of money at the start, and then little can stop them, this is true. And their starting troops are normal, most factions do not have such, and this is very important.
But when defending cities with the help of a phalanx, you can stop three enemy armies, it is not even necessary to set the battle time for 20 minutes. The phalanx of the tanukhids is what they need, the archers do not pierce, and even in the state of the horde, you can quickly pump their armor to silver. At the highest difficulty, both battles and campaigns. A very cool game.
But without the extremely seasoned Sassanids, it would not be so interesting.
The Sassanids become a problem only if they find themselves in the Asian part of the map :), personally, in my memory, their empire spread to the Balkans only once. Surviving the Huns after the year 432 is another problem, to replace one army caught in ticks, another one resorts to over and over again, even considering that in Europe there are severe frosts and you can only walk 2 out of 4 moves without losses.
WarMachine2
But after all, by that time, it was possible, willy-nilly, after a series of clashes, even with the rebels, to pump armies so that they, albeit not all of them, had the property of "protection from losses in the snow", right? I even did it for campaigns in the Caucasus with the required number of Tanukhid armies, although there you can walk from city to city in one move with onagra, there will be losses during the transition, but once again there is no need to stand in the cold. For other factions, this can be pumped even faster along the skill tree of the army, immediately or in the second stage, it seems, you can already.
And again, playing for the Empire never had any problems with the Huns, because cities with an army inside, they cannot take. And if any body begins to arrange raids, then it immediately flies in the head. I never really chased them across the steppe. This is if you take cities, between which there are large distances, then they become a big problem. In Taurida, for example, it was like that, and they carried out the armies in the garrison, tk. constantly there will not be enough to keep the resource two by two, and it is impossible to be in time for help because of the long distance for both the army and the navy, even commanders had to be removed from office in order to keep them alive.
But I can't really say anything about them, until those years I had never played, maybe then the situation there will be tougher.
But for the German factions, an alliance is immediately made of all in a row, together with the Scandinavians and all kinds of Wends. Moreover, the Antes, Sklavins and Wends should not fight the Huns. And then the Huns simply arrange raids there and get away from the armies of the allies with which the whole steppe is teeming. For the Burgundians, it was so with me. You just need to put a mark for the allies on the enemy armies and that's it. And for cabbage into the war to incite one by one, and not to press the call of all in a row at the beginning of the war.
Where you yourself do not play, of course the computer immediately makes a complete mess on the map, or the Persians press everyone, or the Huns, both empires collapse completely, and all this disgrace happens.
I liked the civil war more, when even the demobilization was swept away by the cities and the armies were halved by their revolts. It was actually interesting, because. All armies were basically completely at the other end of the map near the borders, but here inside the country such chaos began after a massive attempt to increase control over the faction in order to reduce corruption by another 30%.
I repeat once again that the developers turned out to be a very interesting game.
L | EMEHTATOP
I personally have never noticed the use of the mark, but the allies send out a couple of armies and start chasing the target, but they do not give battles, they seem to be retreating, and the AI ​​allies do not even try to strike a decisive blow. I personally spent the last campaign for the Ostrogoths as friends with the Huns, stupidly fulfilling all their requirements, regularly making gifts and allowing them to plunder my lands with impunity, and then occupied the lands that they burned nearby) but to be honest it was boring, the main feature of Attila is the fight against nomads. I didn't really like the Burgundians, other Germanic tribes can immediately hit the ZRI, and they either have to pave the way through the lands of the Germans, breaking all possible alliances, or become a horde. Personally, I prefer 420
Civil wars in Attila are quite modest, usually one commander with half-hearted detachments breaks off, and if he is immediately extinguished from the rest, loyalty will return to normal. In Rome 2, the civil war deprived half of the territories and, accordingly, most of the income, and, accordingly, it was much more difficult.
The game is interesting, I do not argue, my 300 hours in incentive confirm this) I have a stalled campaign for the Saxons so far, like the 425 year achievement for completing the campaign has been received, but I want to conquer at least the entire west of the map, but the damned corruption of 70% does not allow me to accumulate enough funds to act on at least two fronts.