|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Yeah but where is the loud minority? But campaigns becoming too easy / stale / boring once you're past the early game is something that's given very often as feedback to CA in stuff like AMAs. And I would not be surprised at all that CA has playtesting and/or telemetry data that backs that. Speaking for myself, I think that's an issue with pretty much every Total War game I've played. And who here hasn't rolled their eyes at how dumb the Vortex campaign's doomstack spawns are or how laughable easy the final battle is? Nobody has been requesting stuff like the port-nerf or line-of-sight specifically. But people have been saying that game should be harder, in ways that isn't just "give the AI a bunch of dumb bonuses" like the current difficulty modifiers do. And it's very good that CA is trying to improve. It's just that they should really get someone to work on that who actually understands their own gameplay systems.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
I agree that cheating AI is the worst kind of difficulty so as long as we don't start losing quality of life stuff I'm happy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Total War is fundamentally weird in that it's ostensibly a symmetrical PvE multiplayer game. There are basic questions like: is the point of all the AI factions to oppose the player or are they all serious contenders to "win" the game that I'm not sure CA has good answers to. The obvious thing difficulty wise is to have every faction declare war on you as soon as you're clearly a burgeoning hyper-power but I'm not sure that would be especially fun or interesting (or even challenging once you know it's coming).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Raygereio posted:The loud minority stuff is weird nonsense. Raygereio posted:But campaigns becoming too easy / stale / boring once you're past the early game is something that's given very often as feedback to CA in stuff like AMAs. And I would not be surprised at all that CA has playtesting and/or telemetry data that backs that. Speaking for myself, I think that's an issue with pretty much every Total War game I've played. And who here hasn't rolled their eyes at how dumb the Vortex campaign's doomstack spawns are or how laughable easy the final battle is? Raygereio posted:Nobody has been requesting stuff like the port-nerf or line-of-sight specifically. But people have been saying that game should be harder, in ways that isn't just "give the AI a bunch of dumb bonuses" like the current difficulty modifiers do. And it's very good that CA is trying to improve. It's just that they should really get someone to work on that who actually understands their own gameplay systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Raygereio posted:The loud minority stuff is weird nonsense. the norsca campaign was one of my favourite campaigns because of never outstaying its welcome like this. too many end up being either an endless hellwar to get to objective locations or end up like bfg armada and go as fast as it takes to get an army there. doesn't stop me plodding through them anyway though 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Total War is fundamentally weird in that it's ostensibly a symmetrical PvE multiplayer game. There are basic questions like: is the point of all the AI factions to oppose the player or are they all serious contenders to "win" the game that I'm not sure CA has good answers to. The obvious thing difficulty wise is to have every faction declare war on you as soon as you're clearly a burgeoning hyper-power but I'm not sure that would be especially fun or interesting (or even challenging once you know it's coming). pnutz posted:the norsca campaign was one of my favourite campaigns because of never outstaying its welcome like this. too many end up being either an endless hellwar to get to objective locations or end up like bfg armada and go as fast as it takes to get an army there. Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I would definitely not mind if the game was harder after the early game. Even with as bad as I am once I get rolling the game ends up being 95% sieges because the AI hides in walled cities, and I would not mind it if that changed. I'm glad they are trying to improve but making the game "harder" by making it more tedious and annoying is the wrong direction. For example, it's not the patch notes, but I'm pretty sure CA also messed with the point where army losses triggers. Okay, army losses triggering a bit fast and making battles feel too quick could be an issue. But really only in the mid/late game when you have a big advantage in unit quality over the AI. Now all battles feel a bit too "grindy" causes you to suffer more casualties then really necessary. Instead maybe CA could have taken a look at how higher tier units affect the balance of power calculation.  Part of the problem is probably that gamers in general are pretty bad at articulating what their problem with a game is. I honestly think the vast majority who say they would like the campaign to be harder, really mean that they want the campaign to stay interesting. The campaign becoming too easy when you're rolling around with doomstacks is an issue and I still think CA should experiment with core/rare/special unit caps. But I would also like to see them work on their battle AI. Give it multiple patterns / behaviors so it won't become too predictable as it now. And as you said: the majority of the fights in the campaign are sieges and if there's one thing that should be on the top of CAs design document for Warhammer 3 it is "Completely overhaul siege battles".
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 12:35
|
|
|
Raygereio posted:Agreed. Stuff like the port-nerf was definitely the wrong direction. Tedium being mistaken for difficulty is a common problem with game design. But I also think CA has some trouble looking at the feedback and seeing where it comes from. I hope part of the design document for TW:WH3 is that minor settlements will not get walls and instead get bigger garrisons. Maybe a few field fortifications to give them an advantage in a defense battle, but not a full wall. I would love to see more things that add to a garrison. Certain buildings add recruitment of a unit.... make it so they also add that unit to the garrison. Including heroes. Add some drat variety. Build a tier 3 Temple of Sigmar (that enables recruitment of Flagellants and Warrior Priests)? That gives the settlement a Warrior Priest and a unit (or two?) of Flagellants to defend the city if it is attacked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Isn't that how some buildings work in SFO?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
I really like the way 3k lets administrators defend their provinces if attacked, but not the way that I'm primarily incentivized to stick them in my megacities instead of outlying provinces where they'd be useful, nor the fact that they only defend the main city instead of the outlying settlements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
I think an optional realm divide would be the absolute best for Warhammer 2. Especially the mortal empires campaign since it’s more traditional total war style map painting. Picture your faction getting the possibility for some flavorful bonuses and strength gain, but getting massive diplomatic penalties or bad events to fight off, sorta like realm divide. The empire would get some sort of economic gold transmutation and unit quality buffs but anger the HE and dwarfs. Lizardmen would enact some sort of massive “fix” to the world (the slann waking up en masse?) Skaven would try to do a big takeover, TKs would restore Nehekhara (wake up ALL the old armies), vampires would bring back nagash and so on. Other factions would band together to defeat you and get some free armies to do so with Something like that, especially being optional, would greatly reduce the tedium of the lategame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
I think it’s probably best just to use game 3 as a way to totally flesh out the Chaos Invasion/End Times stuff. I liked the three-way Realm Divide type thing in 3K more than just everyone hates you now, and I think the Chaos stuff could be that with more work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
That's basically the post-End Times thing, where everyone becomes aggressive and unreliable, leading to the inevitable collapse of the Grand Alliance against Chaos. If anything, the End Times should be fleshed out more so it's not just Chaos bands from the North and around the map. I'm talking Nagash coming back, the Greenskins going on the Last Waaagh!, Vermintide Total War, Bretonnian Civil War, etc., and I want them all happening at the same time so we can start some real poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:That's basically the post-End Times thing, where everyone becomes aggressive and unreliable, leading to the inevitable collapse of the Grand Alliance against Chaos. If anything, the End Times should be fleshed out more so it's not just Chaos bands from the North and around the map. I'm talking Nagash coming back, the Greenskins going on the Last Waaagh!, Vermintide Total War, Bretonnian Civil War, etc., and I want them all happening at the same time so we can start some real poo poo. This is what I want too. It should be existential threats all over the place, since the Chaos invasion by itself isn't really enough any more. Even the mapwide corruption seems tiny now, +2 at maximum! Can counteract that trivially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Oh right and happy 2 year birthday to Warham 2 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
I don't think there is an answer at the moment on how to make any campaign hard after say the opening 60ish turns or so. Devs, but mostly modders have tried for years with a whole bunch of scripted bs, AI cheats, and events to extend the difficulty of a campaign with little to no success. Until there are breakthroughs with AI, I don't see this ever changing. I do feel for CA, because they get hammered over their AI all the time by streamers/youtubers/redditors. Just get better AI CA, it ain't hard! The decisions we as players make are just better then what the AI can make, and every turn that goes by of us making correct/smart decisions it all just snowballs out of control. At this point for me Legendary/Very Hard is fairly easy, but one way I'm able to extend campaigns is to add some RP elements. Going around and capturing only settlements/provinces with Landmarks as skaven, and under-empiring every other settlement, using unique flavor armies that aren't just filled with only t5 units, limiting the amount of full stacks I use even if I could afford 3 or 4 more elite ones, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
The AI flat out cannot be allowed to do many of the tricks human players use because many of them will be very, very unfun to be on the recieving side of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The AI flat out cannot be allowed to do many of the tricks human players use because many of them will be very, very unfun to be on the recieving side of. plus the ai gets its own tricks. boy that fortress managed to fight off that orc army with massive losses. better hope there's not a second orc army attacks it from the other side, in my territory, which had no orcs in it last turn
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Also its perfect movement and ability to flawlessly micro 40 units at once would make it an absolute nightmare if it fought on the battle map like a human with that level of micro would. Like imagine Surtha Ek stacks but he cycle charges and kites at competitive MP tier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The AI flat out cannot be allowed to do many of the tricks human players use because many of them will be very, very unfun to be on the recieving side of. And yet people play this game in multi where they do get human player tricks done to them. I'd be just fine with a mode where the gloves come off, if were talking in battle. on campaign yeah no endless AI agents. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
One of the few mods that puts in either unit caps for armies solves most of my late game issues, but I understand that most people wouldn't enjoy that. Looking at other map painting games, what else could this game do besides late game faction splits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Raygereio posted:Agreed. Stuff like the port-nerf was definitely the wrong direction. Tedium being mistaken for difficulty is a common problem with game design. But I also think CA has some trouble looking at the feedback and seeing where it comes from. Yeah, sieges are a great example of the entire design being tedious as gently caress. 13 turns or whatever to starve out which is a HUUUUGE amount of game time and even building siege equipment takes stupid long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Yeah, sieges are a great example of the entire design being tedious as gently caress. 13 turns or whatever to starve out which is a HUUUUGE amount of game time and even building siege equipment takes stupid long. If there's a change I want to see that isn't covered by mods, it's that sieging fast enough to cause starvation does so the same turn you initiate the siege. As it stands, the besieged get a mercy turn, always. This way the AI might just be compelled to sally so we can get down to fighting; if not, then I can proceed with a less-grindy conquest immediately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
smaller armies can stay sieged longer than larger armies would be a good change
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:And yet people play this game in multi where they do get human player tricks done to them. Almost every multiplayer battle ends in a pyrrhic victory with multiple high tier units wiped, in a campaign game it would be impossible to have any momentum. hemale in pain posted:Yeah, sieges are a great example of the entire design being tedious as gently caress. 13 turns or whatever to starve out which is a HUUUUGE amount of game time and even building siege equipment takes stupid long. Making it easier to starve out towns means meaningful battles happen *less*, not more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Making it easier to starve out towns means meaningful battles happen *less*, not more. Look, TBF, sieges are both meaningful and unfun slogs. Better siege maps and AI would definitely be a fix, but there's also merit to making siege starvation a legitimately dangerous threat because as it stands the AI would either never assault without an overwhelming numbers advantage (that gets mitigated with proper urban tactics) or just camp for an absurdly long time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:If there's a change I want to see that isn't covered by mods, it's that sieging fast enough to cause starvation does so the same turn you initiate the siege. As it stands, the besieged get a mercy turn, always. This way the AI might just be compelled to sally so we can get down to fighting; if not, then I can proceed with a less-grindy conquest immediately. I honestly think the timer is to allow you, the player, time to summon a relief force and maybe make a play to save the city. It just doesn't work out in practice, and makes conquest annoying. In 3k, for awhile enemies attacking you would cause attrition on the same turn that they initiated the siege and it was annoying as hell. At least they fixed it and you've got at least one turn now I think. I think my fix would be to make all siege equipment take one turn to make, but also that if the province has a commander they'd be able to turn up to defend the settlement with their retinue if they wanted. Basically, make the administrator be able to be everywhere in the province, but only once a turn (maybe with a one turn travel time). Ideally that would play out somewhat like the battles in the new update where you defend your allies' cities. I'm also not sold on the strategy of just leveling the towers and then just unloading on the garrison, but I don't know how to fix it in a way that doesn't make storming the walls even more painful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Look, TBF, sieges are both meaningful and unfun slogs. Better siege maps and AI would definitely be a fix, but there's also merit to making siege starvation a legitimately dangerous threat because as it stands the AI would either never assault without an overwhelming numbers advantage (that gets mitigated with proper urban tactics) or just camp for an absurdly long time. What exactly do you want? The point of the wall-adding garrison buildings are to buy you time to muster reinforcement armies to break a siege. This means that having the buildings reduces the need for defensive armies, allowing the player to be more aggressive in taking territory. If you don't care for enemies sieging you, then don't build defensive buildings, or always sally out when they siege you. If you bring siege attacker units (which are extremely plentiful), there's no need for you to wait at all to attack cities. The only issue with the current system is when you have an ally besieging a city and you can't use your siege attackers to storm the city straightaway. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Sep 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:And yet people play this game in multi where they do get human player tricks done to them. But even the best players can only do so much at once whilst the AI can react instantly to everything going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
A unique sally forth map would be neat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Third World Reagan posted:A unique sally forth map would be neat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
I just want the population mechanic to come back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
If the defenders of a siege sally forth from the gates, why would you fight them right by the walls within range of their defensive towers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Fangz posted:What exactly do you want? The point of the wall-adding garrison buildings are to buy you time to muster reinforcement armies to break a siege. This means that having the buildings reduces the need for defensive armies, allowing the player to be more aggressive in taking territory. If you don't care for enemies sieging you, then don't build defensive buildings, or always sally out when they siege you. Good and fun sieges, mainly, for both offense and defense. This probably requires an extensive siege map and AI rework, so I think it's a decent bandaid to have attrition actually matter in order to get the AI to initiate battles faster. I mean, garrison buildings also give you a solid amount of extra units so that battles against a proper attacker aren't just complete stomps; I would rather those units be used in manual combat, whether in a city battle or sally action, that's spurred by attrition instead of their strength being boosted even more by walls in AR. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This reminds me that I found it odd in Warhammer Total War (having not played since like... Rome 2) that when you sally you do not .... actually sally forth from the gates. You just show up in a field battle. I'm sure it was done for a reason, and not complaining about it since i dont think it makes a functional different, I just find it strange. Infinite range and powerful towers, I'd assume, as well as the bother of having to get all your units out of gates, which is also vulnerable to AoE spells.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
I still think shogun 2 probably had the best siege battles, being able to climb the walls and the terraced courtyard structure made for quite a lot of fun in a siege. The TW2 style of just a big wall with a couple of streets behind it that you can't do any strategic or tactical thinking about is really dumb. Hell even earlier games at least gave you the whole city to encircle and you could have fights at both ends, the distances are so short in TW2 that they're barely relevant. Really TW2 is just a caricature of siege battles, they're dull because the maps are dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
What page was that massive effort post regarding the perception of rats in regards to humanity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
I wonder how hosed it would be to make it so that all the artillery you bring is essentially light field artillery that can't really do poo poo to walls so you have to set up the proper siege artillery to hope to bring down the enemy towers, then remove the "siege attacker" stuff and just make it so you can always storm walls. Or just abstract it to off-map artillery and generalized sapping and make it so that destroying towers/walls were other siege tools you can build like rams and towers are. I still want to see everything be faster though. Or, if like I hope heroes go away and they just become part of the retinue system, you could give them special actions they can take in a siege too, again as part of the "build equipment" phase. I hate how the best way to siege right now is to just shell the enemy instead of actually storming them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:That's basically the post-End Times thing, where everyone becomes aggressive and unreliable, leading to the inevitable collapse of the Grand Alliance against Chaos. If anything, the End Times should be fleshed out more so it's not just Chaos bands from the North and around the map. I'm talking Nagash coming back, the Greenskins going on the Last Waaagh!, Vermintide Total War, Bretonnian Civil War, etc., and I want them all happening at the same time so we can start some real poo poo. It might be too difficult to implement, but I'd like an element of randomness in the late-game challenge, instead of knowing chaos is going to show up in the same spot some time after turn 100. Maybe in some games there is no chaos invasion (or just a small one) but the threat is the vermintide, or nagash returning
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Grumio posted:It might be too difficult to implement, but I'd like an element of randomness in the late-game challenge, instead of knowing chaos is going to show up in the same spot some time after turn 100. Maybe in some games there is no chaos invasion (or just a small one) but the threat is the vermintide, or nagash returning I'm more of a fan of everything happening all at once for maximum Fun Times, but randomness would be neat too because you can get stuff like Greenskins getting wiped entirely through the course of a game, and a player Dwarf not knowing if your homeland is truly safe or if Grimgor reappears for one final epic grudge match as the finale when he re-emerges from the East with the Last Waaagh! or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 19:38
|
|