|
Reik posted:Is there ever a reason to take Longbeards (Great Weapons) or Dwarven Warriors (Great Weapons) over Hammerers if you're not worried about upkeep? Would Longbeards be better on the flanks to help with morale issues caused by charging cavalry? They all do the same thing, flanking, but get better with price so Hammerers are much better at it. I don't think any of them should be dealing with cavalry, that's for missiles and troops that can hold the line.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Reik posted:Is there ever a reason to take Longbeards (Great Weapons) or Dwarven Warriors (Great Weapons) over Hammerers if you're not worried about upkeep? Would Longbeards be better on the flanks to help with morale issues caused by charging cavalry? No, Hammerers are the loving bomb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Hammerers feel kinda weak against Orcs or empire since the AI knows to focus them with ranged, but hey explode in usefulness against VC/Chaos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Some relevant dev comments today from Reddit:quote:Auto resolver We are aware of some of the issues present with the auto resolver. I’ve written about this in the past, but its important to note that the auto resolver is actually a very complicated thing. Under the hood it actually runs a complex simulation round by round of the battle that may take place given the unit match ups. It takes a lot of things in to account, but to prevent it from bloating up massively and becoming too long of a calculation to make (think about end turn times etc), we cant simulate everything. But crucially, we cannot simulate the actions a player might perform. For instance, while the underlying code assumes it’s a great idea to throw your big heavy tank like Giant in to the very front of an engagement so he can soak up lots of damage, a player may think this is not an optimal way to play and would instead protect their giant far more because they are more interested in the outside context of keeping that unit fresh for the next battle rather than focusing on that certain battle. All this proves very difficult to get right. quote:What is the timeframe for the next patch to Warhammer? madmac fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Autoresolve what are you doing
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Hammerers feel kinda weak against Orcs or empire since the AI knows to focus them with ranged, but hey explode in usefulness against VC/Chaos. I keep them back and focus their ranged with Quarrelers, you'll always win that fight and pretty quickly too leaving your Hammerers free to go kick faces in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
There's no way the calculation is as complex as they say. And if it is they've wasted a lot of time making something complicated that spits out simple results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Updated the first post with more dev comments. These are coming in real time so I guess I'll do a second monster post when they are done. About Reinforcements coming in bizarre random directions: quote:This is a bug, and something we are attempting to address in Patch 1, though it is proving to be a difficult one to fix so may miss the deadline. Reinforcement direction on the campaign map should be mirrored within the battle, that is the intention. We are working on a fix, but no ETA. For a request to add "lifetime kills" stat tracking: quote:A cool idea, possibly in the future. Will add this on to the list for design consideration. Thanks! River crossings battles again. quote:See my reply above. No current plans, but if people tell us they want it enough, we can look to add it in the future Warhammer titles if it makes sense. Are there plans to include even more little event popups for every faction? People vanishing because of Skaven, Dwarfs having to choose between revenge and revenge, Gork or Mork and other small flavorful stuff like that makes the game sooo much better! Answered this on the stream already, but i'll repeat! Those little bits of Warhammer flavour that refer to a world larger than the one you currently have are very important to us, and our Lead Writer/Lore wizard Andy Hall did a great job inserting buckets of flavour in them. We absolutely intend to more of that in the future. will musket smoke be improved so it hangs like in previous total wars? Will any non hero units get unique abilitys like shield wall or phalanx? Not sure that adding smoke like in Empire makes sense in Warhammer. That game was all about line infantry gunfire gameplay, so it fit the setting. The muskets are a very small part of Warhammer and the additional VFX might hinder gameplay visibility. This is one of the many immersion vs gameplay arguments we have all the time in the office. Answered about shield wall etc above already. To be resumed after a meeting apparently. madmac fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Is no-one asking about the gently caress-tarded "always juuuuuust out of your movement range" behavior for enemies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
There's an Orc boss with a single unit of trolls doing this to me with Burrowing turn after turn. I can't quite catch him and also can't get Interception to fire for the loving life of me 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Is no-one asking about the gently caress-tarded "always juuuuuust out of your movement range" behavior for enemies? Creative assembly has a tough job, AI dumb and people complain. AI smart, people complain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
quote:Auto resolver We are aware of some of the issues present with the auto resolver. I’ve written about this in the past, but its important to note that the auto resolver is actually a very complicated thing. Under the hood it actually runs a complex simulation round by round of the battle that may take place given the unit match ups. It takes a lot of things in to account, but to prevent it from bloating up massively and becoming too long of a calculation to make (think about end turn times etc), we cant simulate everything. But crucially, we cannot simulate the actions a player might perform. For instance, while the underlying code assumes it’s a great idea to throw your big heavy tank like Giant in to the very front of an engagement so he can soak up lots of damage, a player may think this is not an optimal way to play and would instead protect their giant far more because they are more interested in the outside context of keeping that unit fresh for the next battle rather than focusing on that certain battle. All this proves very difficult to get right. This is probably a pipe dream but it would be interesting and maybe helpful to the auto resolver if we could have a check on each unit to indicate 'protect' or 'keep in reserve'. Would take some of the load off of the auto resolver having to guess, but I don't know that they could implement it well in the ui, or if that makes autoresolve too attractive/easy to use for CA's taste.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Is no-one asking about the gently caress-tarded "always juuuuuust out of your movement range" behavior for enemies? They're marching and you're not - it's unironically working as intended. You can set an ambush between them and an appealing target, slow them down with agents, or download the mod that gives you a movement bonus in owned regions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:They're marching and you're not - it's unironically working as intended. Except the AI can march and attack, which means the AI has a special movement option that players are not allowed access to. Which sucks. "Just use ambush stance" isn't a valid response to "why does the AI get access to a stance that the player can't use?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Except the AI can march and attack, which means the AI has a special movement option that players are not allowed access to. I didn't know that - I usually only see this complaint mentioned when people are trying to catch fleeing forces, where their ability to attack doesn't factor in. Is there a mod that changes this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Except the AI can march and attack, which means the AI has a special movement option that players are not allowed access to. Again, I haven't seen any confirmation of this. Do note that (1) you can set march stance after attacking - indeed at any time - and you will get the bonus 50% move as a proportion of your *maximum* movement points, and (2) on limited moves, the UI simplifies display of enemy moves, IIRC not showing stance changes. If the AI could do this, my experience playing as greenskins would be very different - waaghs accompanying my main armies would ensure that I can attack at a 50% bonus range to normally, by having the waagh use march stance to attack and pull in my army as reinforcement. I've never seen this happen. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Except the AI can march and attack, which means the AI has a special movement option that players are not allowed access to. I have never seen this happen. What the AI does sometime do is activate march stance after attacking in order to gain a bit of extra movement, which the player can also do. I do it all the time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
madmac posted:Some relevant dev comments today from Reddit: Well that was a disappointing bundle of rear end-covering non-answers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
What's weird is that using Giants to tank damage is not only misusing them, it's misusing them in the exact way a new player would.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Reik posted:Is there ever a reason to take Longbeards (Great Weapons) or Dwarven Warriors (Great Weapons) over Hammerers if you're not worried about upkeep? Would Longbeards be better on the flanks to help with morale issues caused by charging cavalry? Wariors and Longbeards with Great Weapons are kinda underwhelming. I'd rather just get some Miners with blasting charges if it comes to building cheap&cheerful stacks. Longbeards can be useful on the flanks. IIRC my late-game low-cost stack was Lord, optional Runesmith, 4*Warriors, 2*Longbeards, 4*Miners with blasting charges, 4*Quarrellers, 2*Thunderers and 2*Cannons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Re: The AI having crazy movement. I've seen the AI move in from just about offscreen, attack + sack a town and then move off screen again. The other way the AI "cheats" is that is knows exactly the distance it needs to be not to get counter attacked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:I've seen the AI move in from just about offscreen, attack + sack a town and then move off screen again. The other way the AI "cheats" is that is knows exactly the distance it needs to be not to get counter attacked. If you hover your mouse over an enemy army you too will have access to this cheat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Again, I haven't seen any confirmation of this. Do note that (1) you can set march stance after attacking - indeed at any time - and you will get the bonus 50% move as a proportion of your *maximum* movement points, and (2) on limited moves, the UI simplifies display of enemy moves, IIRC not showing stance changes. Well then it's poor design instead of "The AI can do something I can't." Being able to swap between No Stance and March feels much the same as "Can Attack during Forced March", which true or not is an apparent advantage the AI has over the player.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Well then it's poor design instead of "The AI can do something I can't." Being able to swap between No Stance and March feels much the same as "Can Attack during Forced March", which true or not is an apparent advantage the AI has over the player. How?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
GCValentine posted:Creative assembly has a tough job, AI dumb and people complain. AI smart, people complain. Is "ai annoying" not a possibility in this world being described here? Because that's what they accomplished, and that's why people complain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Well then it's poor design instead of "The AI can do something I can't." Being able to swap between No Stance and March feels much the same as "Can Attack during Forced March", which true or not is an apparent advantage the AI has over the player. I very very much like the fact that I can move, spot an enemy doomstack, and make a swift retreat, thank you very much. If you can't toggle march stance, then it means that any enemy army you see after moving about half your movement points is an enemy you can't escape a battle with, making the right way to play to inch your armies around bit by bit, hoping not to see - and thus be seen by - anything you can't outfight. Really, the other way is way worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Lots of people are really butt hurt about misunderstanding the stance system. Total War players  The AI gets bonuses I don't get? Bad design! The AI intelligently uses the same system I do? Bad design!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I believe the big change is that you can go into Force March even if you've moved that turn. I'm pretty sure in Rome 2 you couldn't. The other thing I don't get is that Sacking seems to use few movement points. I don't understand that design decision. Ways to fix the player chases AI bullshit: 1. Can't do force march if you've moved that turn, its a toggle you set at the start 2. If you sack, that ends your turn, much like occupy Finally, force march in general is real awful and I mentioned it as being a huge culprit for crappy fights in Rome 2. It's real neat they brought it back but I guess with underground and all that other stuff they would have felt bad wasting that code.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:If you hover your mouse over an enemy army you too will have access to this cheat. Except you don't know where all the enemy units are, or where unguarded cities are, etc. The AI certainly does have access to some of this information. Rygar201 posted:Lots of people are really butt hurt about misunderstanding the stance system. So what you're tell me is I should be able to March stance up to a city, swap stances, attack city, swap stances again and warp out? Because that is certainly what I see the AI do somewhat frequently. I routinely swap stances once, say when I'm in normal stance, was close to a city or enemy stack attacked it and then swapped to march stance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
what they really loving need is an undo movement button before you end turn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Again, I haven't seen any confirmation of this. Do note that (1) you can set march stance after attacking - indeed at any time - and you will get the bonus 50% move as a proportion of your *maximum* movement points, and (2) on limited moves, the UI simplifies display of enemy moves, IIRC not showing stance changes. They can take a city or raze and move away after. It is absolutely something that the ai can do that the player cannot
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Except you don't know where all the enemy units are, or where unguarded cities are, etc. The AI certainly does have access to some of this information. Like I said, this would be straightforward to demonstrate with a Waargh army. I have never seen it, and so I think you've misinterpreted what you've seen. terrorist ambulance posted:They can take a city or raze and move away after. It is absolutely something that the ai can do that the player cannot I'm pretty sure that I have actually razed and then moved on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:They can take a city or raze and move away after. It is absolutely something that the ai can do that the player cannot You can do this, just start your turn next to the city you wanna pillage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
For shits and giggles I tried an army of Thorgrim, 5 Ironbreakers and 14 Organ Guns against a generic Chaos horde in a Custom underway battle. It did surprisingly well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:Except you don't know where all the enemy units are, or where unguarded cities are, etc. The AI certainly does have access to some of this information. It is an entirely unproven assumption at this point that the AI is capable of attacking out of force march and directly in conflict with my own experience of watching the AI shuffling their units around specifically because they can't do this, eg Moving up an army next to you in forced march and then attacking with a closer army so that the force march army will join as reinforcements, which the player can also do and I personally use often to good effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Like I said, this would be straightforward to demonstrate with a Waargh army. I have never seen it, and so I think you've misinterpreted what you've seen. The reason that people bitch so much is that the AI can be outside of your army range, hit your town, and still end their turn outside of your army range. And if you force march or underground, you can't initiate a fight with them. Sacking seems to take like no movement points, because the AI keeps going afterward. Pay attention how far the stack moves the next time a city is sacked. When you combine that with the fact that they can toggle into force march after sacking, it's completely idiotic. Why do they let the AI force march out after sacking your city? Because that's what happens. In Rome 2 you had to enable force march at the start of your turn - and that was still dogshit, but better than this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Grognan posted:You can do this, just start your turn next to the city you wanna pillage. Razing consumes an army's movement
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Being able to move (and encamp) after sacking is basically necessary for horde gameplay to even function, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about it.quote:Razing consumes an army's movement It consumes most of your movement, and disallows attacking afterward, but if you raze a city you started your turn directly next to you will in fact have a little movement left, more if you switch to march stance afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Razing consumes an army's movement And toggling force march restores 50% of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
madmac posted:Being able to move (and encamp) after sacking is basically necessary for horde gameplay to even function, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about it. Because it loving sucks to chase AI armies around your territory and not catch them AND have them sack your cities in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:37
|
|