|
Kaza42 posted:Wouldn't fighting Norscans be SUPER frustrating as dwarfs? Especially early game before you get nice artillery? I tried that mod and it's actually really easy because marauders have no basically armor and get torn to shreds by quarrelers. The only thing you really need to be cognizant of is protecting your flanks from dogs and horsemen which is as simple as turning a unit or two of quarrelers to face those directions.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:50 |
|
|
What are some good formations for use in multiplayer? Singleplayer is fun, but it breeds bad habits with regards to formations, since it is as easy as "make frontline longer than opponent, envelop, then smash with cavalry." I'm looking at stuff with Orcs, and I'm wondering how well a deep formation would work. Since the Orcs heavy hitters have little missile resistance, I'm thinking about putting a Goblin squad or two in front to soak up enemy fire, while keeping the front narrow to mitigate damage to the heavy hitters. Punch a hole through the main line and exploit gaps to isolate enemy forces, and then harass enemy flankers with spider cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:So random question: is it ever really worth it to take shield infantry over GW infantry? Like given two units of equal tier (say, Chaos Warriors or Grave Knights), it seems like the only thing shields do is provide a chance to deflect ranged attacks from the front - they don't seem to get extra armour or melee defense or anything and it just seems like the damage/AP provided by great weapons has more utility. Depends on the race you're playing. Empire Greatswords are killer infantry but take two turns to build and a tier 4 non-military building to produce in campaign. They pretty much require you to get that charge bonus for them to be "worth it" compared to swordsmen, and you're also paying a lot (almost 2x the cost) for armor-piercing which often isn't necessary and added vulnerability to ranged fire. Generally speaking, swordsmen are better in campaign because you can just throw so many of their brave, capable, and cheap bodies at enemies faster and without specialized provinces. Of course, most higher-ranked units are armored, so great weapons are better used against higher tier armies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
jokes posted:Depends on the race you're playing. Empire Greatswords are killer infantry but take two turns to build and a tier 4 non-military building to produce in campaign. They pretty much require you to get that charge bonus for them to be "worth it" compared to swordsmen, and you're also paying a lot (almost 2x the cost) for armor-piercing which often isn't necessary and added vulnerability to ranged fire. Generally speaking, swordsmen are better in campaign because you can just throw so many of their brave, capable, and cheap bodies at enemies faster and without specialized provinces. If we're talking Empire or Dwarfs campaign, you also have easy access to cheaper and faster to build Handgunners/Thunderers. I would definitely recommend guns over great weapons vs. Chaos b/c you'll retain more killing power as your infantry get munched by theirs. Versus VC I think great weapons are a more reasonable choice since their flyers make shooting a risky proposition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:What are some good formations for use in multiplayer? Singleplayer is fun, but it breeds bad habits with regards to formations, since it is as easy as "make frontline longer than opponent, envelop, then smash with cavalry." It's pretty flexible. I use multiple lines of infantry with rear guard cavalry as a generic composition. You can use very wide formations that are meant to envelope the enemy, you can have flank guards with units that can either flank or go rear charge the enemy. Really depends on what you're up against and what you're using.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
I was thinking GW vs shields in terms of the campaign - I know cost effectiveness is a big deal in MP but I find in campaign cost is less of a factor than the 20 unit per army cap. On a related note, do you specialize your armies in campaign for specific roles or just have a single general setup you prefer? I'm never really sure what to do with artillery which is great in theory and super helpful during sieges, but in open field battles the AI likes to just charge its whole army at once into a big melee blob so art barely gets any shots off before it runs into "shot obstructed" issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Yukitsu posted:What I've noticed is that most players don't custom make their army for each match, they simply have a bunch of pre-made saved armies that they use come hell or high water, so a lot of people on quick match can be beaten by dwarves due to a lack of dedicated anti-dwarf builds. It's really, really hard to beat anyone that makes their army from scratch before each match and keeps in mind that they are against dwarves however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
jokes posted:Depends on the race you're playing. Empire Greatswords are killer infantry but take two turns to build and a tier 4 non-military building to produce in campaign. They pretty much require you to get that charge bonus for them to be "worth it" compared to swordsmen, and you're also paying a lot (almost 2x the cost) for armor-piercing which often isn't necessary and added vulnerability to ranged fire. Generally speaking, swordsmen are better in campaign because you can just throw so many of their brave, capable, and cheap bodies at enemies faster and without specialized provinces. Greatswords are generally more elite troops and significantly heavier armored, better attack, and higher damage than swordsmen. Same goes for black orcs compared to regular boys. They are good at crumping pretty much all comers in melee due to their high stat lines and extreme armor penetration. If you can swing it, having 2-3 in an army as an auxiliary/linebreaker is considered a good idea. Great weapons on dwarves on the other hand are kind of questionable, especially great weapon warriors/longbeards. By and large they don't do any more damage than their standard weapon breatheren (and in some cases less, depending on how much tech tree development you have) but do it all in AP. They have nearly identical statlines (hand weapons have a bit more defense, great weapons have more offense) but the great weapons generally cost a fair spot more. Unless you are expecting to fight a lot of heavy armor (chaos, other dwarves) you generally want to take a pass on great weapons as shielded units are a bit more durable to ranged fire and chop up unarmored infantry just as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:I'd think Quarrellers would make short work of Marauder Horsemen most of the time. Yeah, Quarrelers destroy all ranged cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Great weapons on dwarfs are for when you're fighting chaos/vc, since they don't have any ranged and will take armored AP units against you. So you take warriors/longbeards with great weapons as your line, but maybe take them with shields against empire/greenskins/beastmen, because they have worthwhile ranged and inferior infantry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Olive Branch posted:How would a Dwarven army win over a VC army, lots of Irondrakes or something? The only magical attack I had to ward off your Wraiths were the Runesmith's damage rune, and if I had taken him, Thorgrim Grudgebearer's magic weapon. Runesmiths are pretty key, having a small number of missile units but not focusing on artillery is a good idea and just having troops that can effectively tank through anything the undead can hit you with until you've taken apart their fast or incorporeal units with the runesmiths and crossbows. Pretty mandatory that you have a defended backline and use the runes to negate damage to your frontline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I was thinking GW vs shields in terms of the campaign - I know cost effectiveness is a big deal in MP but I find in campaign cost is less of a factor than the 20 unit per army cap. What you need to learn to make use of is the infamous checkerboard formation - leave gaps in your melee line for artillery and gunners to fire through, placed slightly back from the front line but not too far. Enemies will tend to attack the infantry and not charge through the gaps unless you make the gaps too big, and even once engaged your ranged units can fire into the enveloping flanks of enemy melee troops. Heroes or lords may attempt to charge through the gaps solo so I've got in the habit of positioning my own heroes in front of artillery batteries or gunner - the ranged units can shoot past them, and the heroes draw the attention of the enemy in the gaps. Ideally my ranged troops and artillery never once suffer being 'obstructed' in a battle and they're almost always my biggest killers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:What you need to learn to make use of is the infamous checkerboard formation - leave gaps in your melee line for artillery and gunners to fire through, placed slightly back from the front line but not too far. Enemies will tend to attack the infantry and not charge through the gaps unless you make the gaps too big, and even once engaged your ranged units can fire into the enveloping flanks of enemy melee troops. Heroes or lords may attempt to charge through the gaps solo so I've got in the habit of positioning my own heroes in front of artillery batteries or gunner - the ranged units can shoot past them, and the heroes draw the attention of the enemy in the gaps. I've turned against checkerboard. It's functional yeah, I used it all through a VH campaign, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's totally unnecessary for querrellers with their arcs. Cannons can shoot over lines for most of the fight as well, and single out units that break through once the lines meet. That leaves thunderers as the main beneficiaries, but I don't think that they're great. Very low rate of fire. For AP I prefer cannons and hammerers, or GW longbeards. On the negative side, I find that checkerboard ing leads to much heavier casualties among the front line as they get flanked through the gaps. Additionally, the AI will charge heroes, chariots, and monsters right through the gaps into your squishies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:08
|
|
Smiling Knight posted:I've turned against checkerboard. It's functional yeah, I used it all through a VH campaign, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's totally unnecessary for querrellers with their arcs. Cannons can shoot over lines for most of the fight as well, and single out units that break through once the lines meet. That leaves thunderers as the main beneficiaries, but I don't think that they're great. Very low rate of fire. For AP I prefer cannons and hammerers, or GW longbeards. On the negative side, I find that checkerboard ing leads to much heavier casualties among the front line as they get flanked through the gaps. Additionally, the AI will charge heroes, chariots, and monsters right through the gaps into your squishies. It's still very simple, will help you easily gain lots of chevrons on your range, and as you stated, will let you win on very hard. Additionally, early on when you only have poo poo warriors, it's not a big deal if they take a little extra damage. Also thunderers are great.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I don't like dwarf but I had a lot of success doing something like this:code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
You aren't playing Dwarfs right if you don't use ridiculously elaborate formations imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
I can recommend kitting your Lord out in as much defensive gear as possible and tossing them out front, then broken arrow the poo poo out of him with artillery and all the ranged fire. But seriously, this works very well if your Lord is heavily armored and you're using non-AP ranged fire like Irondrakes or Mortars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
This works less well when an errant cannon ball clips your lord and eats a fifth of his health.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Carcer posted:This works less well when an errant cannon ball clips your lord and eats a fifth of his health. Hence, I assume, the "non AP ranged fire" part. I can have moments of... eccentricity and sometimes be quite curious about things. Please forgive me if I do something foolish or rude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Kainser posted:You aren't playing Dwarfs right if you don't use ridiculously elaborate formations imo. Each clan has it's own ridiculously elaborate formations, which are meticulously recorded in the Book of War. Wars have been fought between dwarf clans when the ownership of particularly elaborate and properly dwarven formations has become disputed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
A dwarven lawyer should descend (in a gyrocopter, obviously) upon you demanding restitution for infringing on the copyright of his clan's favourite battle formation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Ahahaha, I just had an early-game siege situation as the Dwarfs escalate in the best possible way: three Greenskin clans sent armies after Karaz-a-Karak on top of a rebellion in the province. However, rebels are always hostile to everything, and if it can't siege the settlement, it'll attack a nearby army. Unfortunately for the Greenskins, they go first in turn order, so when they went to siege my capital, the rebels attacked them. This happened to all three armies, leading the entire assault force and rebellion battered and bruised enough that the garrison and the returning army of Thorgrim could rout them easily despite being outnumbered. That was so perfectly in character for Greenskins. Orcs are the best, even as enemies!
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:What are some good formations for use in multiplayer? Singleplayer is fun, but it breeds bad habits with regards to formations, since it is as easy as "make frontline longer than opponent, envelop, then smash with cavalry." I use all sorts of formations for greenskins in multiplayer. If you're using a big infantry rush, go wide to envelop but concentrate some heavy infantry (black orcs usually) in the middle so you can snag a good waaugh. Put your big uns on the flanks to fight cavalry and lead with goblins. If you include a substantial ranged element, you can also use some pretty boxy builds, almost like a dwarf player. Goblin archers are great value for their price and will easily down monstrous units while predictably pulling in enemy cavalry/heroes--make sure you have free big uns nearby. You can do a half-bunker around doom divers if you'd like. They're the best artillery unit in the game for the price. Just make sure you still charge when the enemy gets close. Another thing I commonly use is a small, heavy force concentrated around a couple giants. You can clump it up against chaos or VC and take advantage of their lack of missile troops and get incredible damage off of waaugh and ere we go. If you bring cav, you'll want to keep your boar big uns together so they can beat the superior enemy cav and can benefit from a well-placed ere we go. I almost always overload a single flank with them rather than split. I always split wolf riders, though. Both wolves and boars benefit tremendously from waaugh/ere we go. You may notice a common theme here: extracting value out of ere we go and waaugh is a core element of a proper greenskins build. Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I use all sorts of formations for greenskins in multiplayer. If you're using a big infantry rush, go wide to envelop but concentrate some heavy infantry (black orcs usually) in the middle so you can snag a good waaugh. Put your big uns on the flanks to fight cavalry and lead with goblins. (I love Greenskins in MP, they're so much fun)
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Olive Branch posted:Lookit this humie tryin' ta use fancy "tak-tiks" and "form-ateions". Really green boyz charge in! I never got why this thread was so hard on goblins, night goblins are a riot. Yeah the arrows do poo poo damage, but the poison hits anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Goblin spears do surprisingly well when buffed with sneaky stabbing and itchy nuisance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
What quality of life / basic mods are people playing with on the great campaign right now? Playing v hard / legendary on no aggressive agents, no great power penalty, improved loading screens, better camera mod, prometheus' better traits. May try extra skill points / level unlocker and all settlements having walls next run through. Any other mods that people recommend? terrorist ambulance fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
This Kraka Drak mod is one of my favorite I've ever played. Playing viking dwarves constantly fighting against Chaos will probably never get old.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:What quality of life / basic mods are people playing with on the great campaign right now? I don't think I'd play without the 2 bonus movement for home terrain mods. I really, really dislike the Benny Hill gameplay you get without it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
I turn off active agent activities all the time. I don't care if it's unbalanced or unfair; hell is playing the Dwarfs and having an entirely Greenskin Badlands send their goblin assassins at your entire kingdom forever. It's even worse when there are multiple factions of Greenskins, since they can send even more agents at you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
I was playing Empire yesterday and rolled my way through Brettonia so I could have a solid economic base. But then after annexing Estilea I looked back at the Elector Counts and every single one of the motherfuckers had acquired the 'Imperial Distrust' modifier. What gives? Do they just do that if the Emperor gets too big, or what? It's exceptionally painful because I need to confederate someone to get Franz out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
I'm playing a vanilla Empire campaign on legendary and it's fine. If armies run away I just downsize to forces which they'll actually fight. It's also worth noting that decimated Norscan armies aren't such a bad thing; there's a limit to how many stacks they'll create so it's best to just let them raid for a while sometimes. Empire doesn't seem to be too badly affected by agents and I've put out a ton of agents myself. Managing the great power penalty is part of the game imo; makes it interesting to choose between a more diplomatic run (as I've done) or ignoring trade and diplo for a more aggressive strategy. I've not been too badly affected by great power (at -40) because I'm getting positive ratings from existing agreements, thrashing Chaos and the odd bribe. But I carefully stayed at -20 for a long while while teching up and creating relationships before going on a confederation spree. That said, it doesn't seem to suit Dwarfs as much, I can imagine elector counts being irate at Karl Franz for being uppity but the Dwarfs don't seem suited for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
it may be part of the game but it's a stupid non sensical chore. I get bigger by expanding north and fighting chaos and my established trading partners and long time allies that I have never and will never be aggressive against on the literal other side of the map stop liking me altogether? all at once for no reason just based on how many towns I take, while razing the entire world to the ground is fine ? great mechanic having your walls destroyed and characters killed by a never ending swarm of level 20+ goblin big bosses is part of the game too but gently caress if it's not basically the first thing that was modded out and will continue to be until they figure out a way to make it an enjoyable and challenging part of the game and not a kick to the balls
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Dwarfs having such a lovely agent game is also a big culprit in that problem. You need T4-5 settlement buildings to even go above your initial hero cap of one; in comparison, the Empire gets +hero capacity for most of theirs with the same buildings you use to recruit them at T3. I hope they can get Daemon Slayers as Heroes one day; they can fulfill the assassin archetype while being the more offense-oriented counterpart to Thanes in battle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Those of you who have such a horrible time with the agent game or armies always being out of reach really need to play the map better. It's never been an issue, even as dwarfs, you should be able to keep up with thanes and the freebee runesmith alone. When they nerfed the agents it's even a bigger of a non issue with how often they'll critically fail. If there wasn't the great power penalty as soon as you were more powerful than your immediate neighbor you'd win.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:What quality of life / basic mods are people playing with on the great campaign right now? Here is what I have done on my latest play-through. Steel Faith Overhaul (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=704361604) - The changes he made to dwarfs are awesome. No march stance (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695510712) - You're gonna come at me, and then run away like a bitch? Ain't happening pussy. Player army movement boost 25% (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=706354637) - see above Stupid Campaign Agents - Aggressive AI Begone! (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=694189900) - gently caress that subversive poo poo. Come at me like man. Big Ol' Cheat Mod (only effects the player) (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=694207868) - So I can ramp up to elite units faster, and support them with a smaller amount of territories. Its definitely a cheat, but not as game breaking as the name implies. Basically doubles income, and lowers upkeep. Unstoppable Chaos (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=726694736) - So the game is still a challenge with all the above. I kind of hate that once you beat Chaos in a regular campaign there isn't any challenge left even in very hard. With the above setup I can ramp up fast, and fight against increasingly powerful and endless waves of chaos attacks. I just had to fend off a siege were the AI had basically nothing but two full stacks of chosen and hell cannons. Thank god for Organ guns. headspace fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Those of you who have such a horrible time with the agent game or armies always being out of reach really need to play the map better. It's never been an issue, even as dwarfs, you should be able to keep up with thanes and the freebee runesmith alone. When they nerfed the agents it's even a bigger of a non issue with how often they'll critically fail. The "lol l2p scrubs" post is made every time someone complains about agents. Yes, if you protect yourself properly from agents it's bearable. No, it's still not a fun game mechanic. At best it's just a hassle that adds nothing interesting, at worst it ruins a playthrough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Agents are completely fine but it's such a horribly unfun mechanic that you shouldn't be surprised that people disable it. It's like a really lovely minigame that's very loosely attached to the rest of the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
The minigame, if you play it, will land you some very powerful heroes by mid-game. It's not something that should be skipped. Coincidentally it'll also allow you to managed the ever running AIs without modding in a free win mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:50 |
|
|
Playing the agents game to build up a powerful agents of your own while impeding your opponents is pretty fun. Scouting with agents is quite effective and important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:21
|
|