|
Josef bugman posted:Agreed on this, several billion tonnes of ork (and the freaking distances between everything) are a pain in the arse. It shouldn't tale me three turns on full running to get across as little of the badlands as I do. It should take you three turns to get across badlands. But the ai shouldn't be able to escape you at all times and it should desire to engage in the field. I hope future expansions space out the map. It feels fairly small and while the regions are visually distinct by far too near each other.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:Is there a mod that doesn't let the computer ignore zones of control on the campaign map? I have an army standing next to an allied town, literally cannot be any closer to it. The computer runs in with one army and sieges the town, and then attacks my army with their second army, and thus I'm forced to fight 2 AI armies while the allied army and its town garrison are all under siege. You can always enter a zone of control to perform a hostile action, and garrisons under siege can't reinforce outside battles except by sallying out. How exactly should it work? Should two armies next to each other mean that neither can be attacked?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fnUgCu74Q4 Stir River Battlefield Briefing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Fangz posted:
There are a lot of ways that this should work that make more sense and aren't as frustrating as is. 1. The Zone of Control of the army outside the settlement forces enemy armies to attack that outside army first, which will be reinforced by the garrison 2. The enemy army can still circumvent the outside-the-settlement army but when the 2nd enemy army comes to attack the OTS army, it is a 1v1 battle as the enemy sieging the province is occupied and can't reinforce in the battle vs the OTS 3. All armies participate in the battle As is, the OTS army is abandoned and easily run down helplessly and although both the AI and the player can do this it's wildly frustrating when it happens to you, and is gamey and unintuitive when you do it
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
To be honest, that kind of divide and conquer element to dealing with a garrison is pretty much a real strategy. The only difference is that the sieging force should only be about a fifth of the army and only about 4/5ths of the army should be allowed to reinforce but that's pretty much how military investments would have worked, a very small detachment would remain behind to keep forces locked in the siege while most of the army could have gone to engage a force that was being attacked by a second army. The real reason it feels so janky is that we sometimes see very large armies locked up in garrisons whereas realistically fortifications shouldn't be able to hold that many troops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
God forbid strategic decisions have consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:God forbid strategic decisions have consequences. Its just a noob trap, anyone who has had this happen knows that you just dont keep stacks inside settlements(unless you really need the replenishment or public order I guess) when enemy armies are nearby. Instead you put them just inside the reinforce radius of the city and you get the #3 outcome I posted where all armies fight (except for the non-army garrison force itself) Its not really a 'strategic decision' if there is a correct way and an incorrect way
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
I don't really see why this is a big issue here. In the original scenario... so what? You click retreat on the attacked army, then on your turn you send your guys back, sally out the defenders and have the 3 vs 2 battle you wanted, assuming that a single one of their stacks can't take out your outside-town stack themselves. If you had two armies outside a town, then they can send a stack to cut off your garrison army and then fight you in a 2v2 battle, so I don't think that's always the better solution. If they have Lightning Strike you'd also be utterly hosed. Really the best solution in this situation is to put both armies in ambush stance outside the town you are defending. That stack comes in to siege? Bam, 3v1 battle that they can't retreat from. The AI actually pulled this off against me a couple of times and that was pretty impressive. Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:Its just a noob trap, anyone who has had this happen knows that you just dont keep stacks inside settlements(unless you really need the replenishment or public order I guess) when enemy armies are nearby. To be fair, like 90% of divide and conquer is trapping noobs since only noobs ever fell for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I don't really see why this is a big issue here. In the original scenario... so what? You click retreat on the attacked army, then on your turn you send your guys back, sally out the defenders and have the 3 vs 2 battle you wanted, assuming that a single one of their stacks can't take out your outside-town stack themselves. In this circumstance, when I clicked retreat, my army ran a feeble distance away, and then they used the second army to attack again, and I ended up having to fight a 2v1, which still somehow the garrisoned army could not intervene (which is really quite silly, all armies should fight). It's most likely a bug because they can't figure out how to prioritize overlapping zones of control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Being under siege means people cannot leave a town, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Buschmaki posted:Being under siege means people cannot leave a town, dude. there were 2 enemy armies all up. both armies are fighting his field army. Schrodinger's siege army cannot be both attacking his field army as reinforcements and keeping the garrison inside town at the same time once it commits to a battle edit: this might be how the mechanics work, but that doesn't mean it's not silly pnutz fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
pnutz posted:there were 2 enemy armies all up. both armies are fighting his field army. Schrodinger's siege army cannot be both attacking his field army as reinforcements and keeping the garrison inside town at the same time once it commits to a battle So the sieging army was reinforcing in the battle? Which technically would mean they aren't at the siege. But like some dude said above. Leaving behind a small force to hold the siege and going to fight was a thing, and garrisons were not a whole army anyway. I doubt they planned that and its just an oversight, so mod it if you want to change it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
I've given the game a bit of a rest and came back to hard. Greenskins with Azhag. Thorgrim just hands me my rear end by turn 3-7. Every time. He even seiged my main town and I couldn't touch any of his units. Granted I had lovely t1 gobbos and Orcs with my one unit of big uns but jesus. I know I should go Grimgor but really want to do it with Azhag. Is there any hope I have of taking on Thorgrims stack with my unbuffed t1 Azhag stack? Without cheats of course. I'm normally a persistant bastard and can find a way but this time he's just slapping me around like I owe him money. Any advice other than take Grimgor?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I don't really see why this is a big issue here. In the original scenario... so what? You click retreat on the attacked army, then on your turn you send your guys back, sally out the defenders and have the 3 vs 2 battle you wanted, assuming that a single one of their stacks can't take out your outside-town stack themselves. It's not a big issue because its an edge case but what can happen is the aggressor will send one stack to block the garrison and garrisonned army in the settlement, and then their second stack will attack the army trapped outside the city in a 2v1 battle. Even though all those units are right next to each other within the space of each other's zone of control, the aggressor will get to use both of their armies against 1 of the 3 armies of the defender.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
If you want another silly situation in the game: if you are coming to the aid of an allied town under siege, and your army shows up so that it's in range to aid the besieged garrison, and the computer attacks at the end of the turn your army is magically behind the walls with the besieged garrison. I think in previous games what happened was you and the enemy army would fight outside the gates and the besieged garrison could sally forth or stay behind the walls.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
I believe in previous games the reinforcing army to a siege would appear at the edge of the map and have to sprint through the back gate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Correct, and it added a lot of urgency when helping a buddy in COOP and was a great mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:I believe in previous games the reinforcing army to a siege would appear at the edge of the map and have to sprint through the back gate. in Medieval 2 sometimes there was no back gate, I remember at one point stopping the mongol tides at a fortress by throwing the reinforcing armies away softening up the mongols so that the defenders could lose less dudes, so next turn I could do the same thing all over again to the next mongol stack, and the next, and the next... 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Correct, and it added a lot of urgency when helping a buddy in COOP and was a great mechanic. doesn't really work with the current seige setup, unfortunatly
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:doesn't really work with the current seige setup, unfortunatly Do explain. Never played Total Warhammer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Do explain. Never played Total Warhammer.   crude but i hope it is clear. they reduced the scope of the map to just one wall, pretty much. the latter can also include just a straight wall instead of the corner so there's no "back door" for the allies to come into. it plays a bit better than the older games, at least in terms of not having the AI poo poo itself. the map itself isn't really "smaller"; you can array your entire army in front of one half of the wall, generally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Has anyone played a defensive siege battle in campaign mode yet? The AI never attacks a garrison with more than ~10 units in it and just sits outside letting attrition do all the work until my cleanup squads arrive and fight a field battle outside the settlement
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
I've had a few, and yeah the AI is less keen on suicide by siege than it used to be. as a dwarf player you tend to have grimgor show up to die early on at your capital, and during my first vampire campaign I had a bunch of chaos stacks overrun a level 3 settlement with a full stack and level 2 garrison and even though I lost the AI armies were really badly crippled trying to take the place. its one of those issues that's kind of tricky, since on one hand, its a smart play by the AI to not attack a force behind a wall when there's a good chance they'd eat poo poo for it, but otoh it results in them behaving overly cautious sometimes and really, slaughtering AI forces at your walls was generally fun no matter how stupid the AI was for doing that. that'd actually be a fun mini campaign. you only control a single city, and you have to hold out as long as you can against waves of forces that always assault on the turn they besiege you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:
That's really odd, but I'd forgive it if the siege AI is not horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
420 Gank Mid posted:Has anyone played a defensive siege battle in campaign mode yet? The AI never attacks a garrison with more than ~10 units in it and just sits outside letting attrition do all the work until my cleanup squads arrive and fight a field battle outside the settlement One or two. Generally it's when the AI has an autoresolve advantage (usually if it's like a decent Chaos half stack attacking a minor's garrison). Sometimes it's an inevitable loss, sometimes because the AI is terrible at sieges you end up winning anyway. I don't think I've had a single siege with a stack inside the city though. Just finished Hard Dwarfs on short (couldn't be bothered to get long - my remaining two grudges were to beat a Varg stack hidden way over in west Norsca and assassinate a Skaeling agent, i.e. burn down the entire Skaeling faction since that's still easier than getting a Thane to do anything). There's probably easier ways to do it but I decided to march up and settle Kraka Drak and fight Chaos off from there, which took a couple of false starts before I got it right. The final battle had two full Chaos stacks attack two of mine and a garrison. I cornered up over one set of reinforcements and sent the rest on the long walk to get in formation. Chaos had about six giants between the two stacks as well as Kholek, which was scary until my mass of Quarrellers absolutely erased them one at a time, literally in like seconds per monster. Corner deployments with Dwarfs are the path to victory imo. I loved playing Greenskins, but I think Quarrellers have to be my favourite unit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
I fought a defensive siege as orcs in their capital against some other orc faction a few weeks ago. The attacking army was mostly spider riders for some reason. The whole battle was just watching the towers murder idle cavalry while a few units of goblins climbed ladders directly into the black orcs I had on the wall. The only other siege I remember was as empire, because my reinforcing army appeared behind the walls somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I've had a few, and yeah the AI is less keen on suicide by siege than it used to be. as a dwarf player you tend to have grimgor show up to die early on at your capital, and during my first vampire campaign I had a bunch of chaos stacks overrun a level 3 settlement with a full stack and level 2 garrison and even though I lost the AI armies were really badly crippled trying to take the place. It would be nice if attacking an army besieging a walled settlement caused a siege battle anyways, but with the way the siege maps are (towers having range to the edge of the map in most cases) this would be way too heavily in the player's favor. Overall I like the new map scope as the attacker, forcing you to rush for the walls instead of sitting back until your artillery runs out of ammo with all your units safely out of reach. But there are some things I miss about the way older games did sieges. It feels like sallying out to defend outside the walls isnt really a thing that happens anymore either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Mannfred is a punk rear end bitch. He was at strength rank 1 and ran a full stack against a level 2 garrison in Grunberg. He lost the auto resolve and I had like 80% remaining. Then he was at strength rank 20. I don't even know what dumb mathematics were used but VCs are always inexplicably high af in the rankings and also the weakest dudes by far. Once I disabled the aggressive agents mod, they went from most annoying to the cutest "evil" faction. 420 Gank Mid posted:Overall I like the new map scope as the attacker, forcing you to rush for the walls instead of sitting back until your artillery runs out of ammo with all your units safely out of reach. But there are some things I miss about the way older games did sieges. It feels like sallying out to defend outside the walls isnt really a thing that happens anymore either. Siege walls own bones, but sallying out is a really really good tactic generally. If the unit count is in your enemy's favor a little bit, you can put a unit or two of your hardiest troops (or heroes/lords) in front of your towers and put your ranged units on the walls behind them and have them fight to the death. They'll take out a sizable chunk of dudes with them, and then they have to contend with the rest of your troops the normal way. Mix in cavalry tactics and you're good to go. The thing is, the towers in siege battles are just SO good that the whole "rush the walls" tactic is crucial, but when defending you can really gently caress with the AI into letting the towers do all the heavy lifting for you. jokes fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Jul 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
The AI vampire counts really loves filling their armies with garbage units. I guess it's because of them tending to raise dead (which is mostly skeletons and zombies) instead of training new units. I don't really mind though since it's a lot of fun fighting hordes of garbage melee units.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Mannfred is a punk rear end bitch. He was at strength rank 1 and ran a full stack against a level 2 garrison in Grunberg. He lost the auto resolve and I had like 80% remaining. Undead AI will spam skeletons bats and zombies and thus will have 3-4 stacks filled with garbage but outnumber the next largest military 5 to 1 until it is wiped out as autoresolve does not value a composition without ranged, cavalry, or monstrous infantry
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Kainser posted:The AI vampire counts really loves filling their armies with garbage units. I guess it's because of them tending to raise dead (which is mostly skeletons and zombies) instead of training new units. I love fighting garbage tier skellingtons and zombies as Empire because they're slightly worse than my basic infantry and have huge numbers. I love big battles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
I have not had to fight a province capital siege in my entire time playing the game. The AI prioritises them too low to risk losing anything, so I rarely get to see what dwarf walls are like from the inside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
I get to fight the occasional defensive siege when Chaos starts rolling in with three stacks at once but I pretty much have to intentionally let them do it because they take forever before they want to attack (apparently because they want a lot of siege towers before wanting to attack).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Von_Doom posted:I've given the game a bit of a rest and came back to hard. Greenskins with Azhag. Thorgrim just hands me my rear end by turn 3-7. Every time. He even seiged my main town and I couldn't touch any of his units. Granted I had lovely t1 gobbos and Orcs with my one unit of big uns but jesus. I know I should go Grimgor but really want to do it with Azhag. Is there any hope I have of taking on Thorgrims stack with my unbuffed t1 Azhag stack? Without cheats of course. I'm normally a persistant bastard and can find a way but this time he's just slapping me around like I owe him money. Any advice other than take Grimgor? Loot, don't conquer and try to make peace with the secondary dwarf factions. You'll need tons of money, you'll need bigguns and you'll need wolf riders to survive Thorgrim. Azhag is a cool LL, specially with a Magic Mod, but his early game is super anemic and you've got to pick your fights. Remember that two or three units of goblin spearmen leading the charge to soak up all the dwarven ranged fire is almost mandatory if you want success versus the stunties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
I really liked spider riders and/or night gobbo archers against Dwarfs. Not for the damage (it's rubbish), but for the poison. Both units have their drawbacks, spider riders melt under counter-fire and night gobbos have the unfortunate tendency to hit your units with poison too. Micro'd right, however, they're good additions to a lineup and can help even regular boyz punch above their weight against the tougher dwarf warriors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
How well does this run when compared to Attila? I was able to run Rome 2 with pretty much everything on ultra but I had to knock everything but the essentials down to performance for Attila to manage 30fps when zooming in on a battle. Should I expect another big loss in performance? I don't mind lowering settings and I'm generally happy to hit 30fps but if I have to drop the settings to the point where battles look like something drawn with a crayon I may hold off buying until I build a new desktop. I'm running an 860m/i7-4700, please don't judge me for having a gaming laptop, I work in the middle of the ocean for months at a time so I have no choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
It runs way better than Attila, CA did a great job in optimizing this release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Von_Doom posted:I've given the game a bit of a rest and came back to hard. Greenskins with Azhag. Thorgrim just hands me my rear end by turn 3-7. Every time. He even seiged my main town and I couldn't touch any of his units. Granted I had lovely t1 gobbos and Orcs with my one unit of big uns but jesus. I know I should go Grimgor but really want to do it with Azhag. Is there any hope I have of taking on Thorgrims stack with my unbuffed t1 Azhag stack? Without cheats of course. I'm normally a persistant bastard and can find a way but this time he's just slapping me around like I owe him money. Any advice other than take Grimgor? Yeah dont fight a full dwarf stack until lile turn 30, even on normal battle difficulty the tier 1 & 2 units will lose. That or have overwhelming number superiority. Use the fact that ai wont really siege and attack black crag and hit and run other settlements to build a waaargh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Yeah, rushing a Waaagh is definitely the key to early game superiority with Orcs. Pick on the Red Fangs for a while until you get one and curbstomp the Dwarfs with sheer numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 18:42
|
|
