|
I think that Dwarves can get into a death spiral if they build up a ton of grudges and can't clear them. I don't think that, say, Empire has that issue. Also I find the Empire gameplay to be most fun, with VC second place. Can't get the hang of Dwarves. I think you main thing you lose as Empire going for spears vs swordsmen is the charge bonus.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Demigryphs are kind of what lets Empire play with the big boy monster factions so I hope they don't get nerfed too much but you could totally see it coming. Although I suppose that at the same time Empire magic should get a buff but how you would make magic effective anti-monster without exacerbating the lord sniping I have no clue. If they are nerfing demigriffs, it would make sense to buff high tier Empire artillery a bit. Luminarchs and Hellblasters are stuff useful currently, but a bit underpowered for how tricky it is to get them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:Just be careful because confederating will clear the garrison (hoping this is a bug that is fixed soon). I don't think clearing the garrison is a bug. It's a (poorly explained) balancing measure that makes military allies valuable, and means that confederating opens up opportunities for you if you see an enemy do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
I don't really get what's supposed to be bad about two-city provinces.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:Fewer building slots to boost each other with. With a three town province you can have: wealth buildings+defense in everything, then a town with +growth, a town with +public order and the main settlement with whatever you want (adjust as needed for special buildings). In two province, you often have to give up either growth or public order boosts or something. Not a huge deal, but it's there. I think that's an odd comparison though. You're comparing owning two cities to three, basically. It seems a more valid comparison to me is to note that four cities divided into 2 city provinces is strictly better in a bunch of ways than 1 big four city province. Firstly you get one set of walls for free so you don't have to build as many garrisons. It's also easier to unify because it's less likely that you have a province divided amongst multiple owners. You get use of the factionwide trade income +5% +20 growth commandment per province, so you earn that bonus twice. You have double the number of provincial capitals for you to build high tier buildings in, should you choose.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:You take a province. You need to establish happy province wide, because its a province wide stat. If you build two +happy buildings, in a two city province that means each city has given up a slot to fix the happiness. If you add a growth building to each, then you have like one slot left on the town and probably the same on the capital. Eventually you'll get another in the capital. You seriously do not need a public order building in *every single settlement*. I strongly doubt you need a +growth in every city either, and the number of +growth you need actually scales entirely linearly with the number of cities you have and so the number of settlement upgrades you need to buy. There's no sense in which two +growth is required for a 2 city province and that's somehow also enough for a four city province that has double the number of settlements to build up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Ok, so ignoring the particulars of the build, you do not see a difference between: I don't see the difference because there aren't a lot of buildings that provide province wide effects. You build one +income building per town. And 2 fully upgrade 2-city provinces *will* have more slots than 1 4-city province. If you're comparing owning 4 cities to owning 2 and saying that's better, then okay. But that's a silly comparison because you don't conquer provinces, you conquer towns, and the question we have about these provinces is that the *towns* near Altdorf are split into smaller provinces and have thus a higher proportion of Provincial Capitals than elsewhere. And I'm saying that being split into smaller provinces in many ways makes things easier for the player, because it makes it easier to obtain complete provinces (without having to declare war on multiple factions, especially), and there's benefits you get that are per-province.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
LGD posted:This is wildly untrue because of the way province capitals and banked growth work. You can get the 1-2 population for rank 2-3 cities/towns very quickly and it will replenish almost instantly, but building up to the 4 and 5 population needed to raise capitals above rank 3 takes much longer even with multiple settlements because of the way scaling on banked growth works. If you've only got a single settlement providing +growth it potentially takes forever (though this is a bigger deal for Dwarfs than Humans due to how much of their roster is locked away at tier 4 and 5). Oh alright. Personally I just don't build up more than two to three provinces beyond rank 3. Heck I even delay the rank 3 settlement upgrade (except on frontiers where I need the garrison) until I have a rank 2 weaver in every single city. I get the sense that's probably the best build in terms of return on investment. Anyway ultimately I don't see a lot of difference. Worth pointing out that the 2-city provinces near the Empire correspond to two-city factions, which enables a number of limited wars for you. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jun 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:This mod also looks like it has promise (found on reddit) Does this mean you can't merge units built in different regions any more, though? Because that would suck.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
lilspooky posted:Two questions... They already said that a rebalance patch is coming, but that they are still investigating what exactly needs to be done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
If you are fighting someone with flyers, you should always base the appropriate melee near your artillery. This includes stuff like going up against Karl Franz on Deathclaw.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Geisladisk posted:Not confederating or conquering your neighbors and being friends with everyone definitely seems to be the best Empire strategy. I'm at like turn 40, Chaos hasn't begun to show up yet, and I've got Reikland fully upgraded, with access to Demigryff Knights, Reiksguard, Cannons, and Greatswords. Yeah, military allies are great when you get a big love-fest going. Don't forget that each faction gets a base background income, so an allied force will always be able to maintain a bigger army than if you owned that province yourself. Allies also count for victory conditions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:How do you get enough cash without conquering at least a few provinces though? You don't even have trade goods to make money that way. Well, the maths works out that you can basically afford one army per 2-4 cities, plus one from base income. You cover short term costs from sacking. It's also not like you *never conquer*, it's more that you should be judicious about it. If two empire factions hate each other a lot, then you might as well pick a side, swoop in, and try and take the loser's cities first. Making friends with all your neighbours also doesn't include VC, naturally. Kill the gently caress out of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:I know vcs are supposed to be the natural empire enemy,but they're a couple provinces away and the anti corruption hero is from a higher tech and expensive building that offers few other immediate benefits. It never seems worth it to go over there to grab provinces that'll constantly be unruly and insecure versus, for example, rolling south and taking everything that's not nailed down in Brettonia. Well, on the other hand, I'd argue that the anti-corruption building is something that is quite straightforward to build, and something you actually want to get and upgrade early for witch-hunters. Being a province away from Altdorf also makes it a safer war - the VC can't do much against you with Stirland as a buffer. Also Sylvania is very rich what with the gold mine, and late game VC is scary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
This seems quite trivial to check. Take an army, disband all the artillery, hit end turn and see if it can move further now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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:Razing consumes an army's movement And toggling force march restores 50% of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Because it loving sucks to chase AI armies around your territory and not catch them AND have them sack your cities in the process. That's why you build garrisons, agents, or use ambush mode? Or pay the price if you take the risk and don't? If there wasn't a risk of an army going on a rampage through your undefended economic cities, wouldn't garrisons, agents, all those mechanics to defend yourself from sackers, just be for suckers?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Isn't that what Armies were used for ,to kill enemy armies? or no? I guess no since they could never catch them, historically? You can kill them if you use ambush mode.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I mean if you want to play the 'historically' card, you can look at all the times the Mongols ran rings around their enemies and where it took many times the force across several armies to corner say, Spartacus' rebel slaves. In the end, yeah, sacking is strong in this game. *That's why you can sack as well*. You should do it and run rings around the enemy, and lure them into traps and leave their economy in flames. It's fun, and a good changeup from previous games. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Well, I'm glad that we've decided that the AI's ability to sack you is great stuff and that people enjoy the CA gameplay as delivered. Hell they've captured the flavor of the mongols and the roman rebels. They're just giving the fans what they want to great critical and financial success. It sucks when you are outplayed by the AI yeah. But I'd rather that than a system where I can't lose. If you want that, then I guess there's mods for that. And yes, I do loving love it when I raid the undefended belly of an enemy empire for 30k, or when I trick the AI with an ambush stack and smash the poo poo out of him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:I don't see how this is a cheat since it is something I do all the time (move to a city, sack it, and then move away). As for your second point, I think there should be a way to hover over an enemy army and 'see' their movement range on the campaign map. It is pretty funny that the AI can manage to stay just out of my range, I will get a +% campaign movement bonus from a magic item or something, and the next turn they will still be juuuust out of range. You can click on any enemy unit or agent in the strategy layer and it overlays a red area showing their movement range. I'm not sure if this includes stances, it might just be normal movement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:It actually does include stances, which makes it nearly useless. If they're in Encamp or Raid stance, their move bubble is drastically reduced even though they can swap out of that stance on their turn and march-murder you. I've tried exactly what you're describing and it doesn't always help Ah okay, yeah I'd consider this an UI bug. It should just always show normal movement range.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Realistically it should show all 3 using different colors in layers, like how the UI can show multiple moves in different colors. I think having multiple colours like that would overcomplicate things. The threat range is the only really useful range. Also undo is something persistently asked for in strategy games but typically not offered because of hidden information - your agent, by going to a location has revealed stuff for you. Not just fog of war, but stuff like the absence of ambushing enemies and stuff like that. Even if you did intelligently disable undo, it might come across as confusing when and when not the feature is available. Edit: I'd say that the biggest relevance for forced-after-attack is that it allows two chaos stacks to participate in the same battle and avoid attrition afterwards. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Vargs posted:This interview stuff didn't end up giving up much interesting info but I did like this part. I hope they end up buffing Mannfred and nerfing Kemmler in the next patch. The argument for Kemmler is mainly about his campaign bonus being awesome for a certain playstyle/Mannfred being easy to get quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Fans posted:They're just not very good right now, bring something else. Yeah, Hellblasters are underpowered at the moment. I think they do decent single target armour piercing DPS, so maybe they are good against giants and stuff? Dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
There's just as many anti-infantry units as there are anti-large ones. I'd much prefer to have the ability to pick and choose my battles (and get a few rear charges off...) than some minor situational bonus.
Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
One problem might be that if you complete a province with towns like this, you get access to commandments.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:They also said that the AI was correct to use high HP units as meat shields, it just wasn't what players wanted. The AI is using those units to get fewer deaths in your army, but men are easier to replace than HP on a giant so people aren't happy with what would be proper play outside a campaign context.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I've kinda liked them as a way of dealing with quarrelers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I'm somewhat suspicious of the fact that my warrior priests' 'preaching' causes a massive increase in childbirths in the province. How do I have them investigated to see if they're actually a Slaaneshi cult? I'm pretty sure sex in warhammerland involves lying back and thinking of the heldenhammer with no enjoyment involved.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:The enemy had two armies moved as close as possible (almost on top of each other). I attacked one of them and used Lightning Strike, preventing the other from reinforcing. Was one of the armies a waargh attached to the other army? Waarghs disband if the host army is destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
If you can teach your baby to say waaagh as his first word, please record it and send it everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
I don't think CA will give much of a poo poo about balance. Brets might be okay as a legit easy-mode, which the game is currently kinda missing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I've been having trouble with higher tier vc units as well. The wraiths arent nearly as effective as I thought they would be. They're getting chumped like the witch King getting stabbed in the face by Eowyn. Some points: It's important to try and manually pull out crumbling units you want to preserve. Take them off the line and park them near your Lord until morale improves. Pick and choose where the wraiths go. I find they generally work as a weird cavalry. Like cavalry, they move quite a lot faster than normal infantry and have decent ability to break units when attacking from behind. Unlike cavalry, though, they have a completely different set of units they should go after. Avoid anti-infantry damage dealers, and go after thickly armoured units with high armour pierce (but low pure damage) and anti-large.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
I think an AI faction that got hosed up enough to only be able to build archers is probably not gonna be much of a threat anyway, so it's not that big an issue. Making it valuable to raze their recruitment settlements might even make the game more interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Verranicus posted:Does Radious increase the general difficulty of the game? Everyone always talks it up so I installed it from the get-go but I'm thinking it might be part of why I'm having such trouble when I did fine in other TW games. Don't play the radious mod.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
About twenty turns into a Hard Chaos campaign. Here's a thought: has anyone considered simply ignoring the Norscans? They might not like you initially but they also hate the Empire. So perhaps a viable strategy would be to, after the initial bearonling stuff, cut across Kislev and go along the northern/western coast of the Empire? Eventually as you continue to attack the Empire, Enemy of My Enemy rules will apply and they will militarily ally. Even if they don't like you, they will still fight, and the Empire is closest. Might be a bit too late for me since I already kinda sacked the Varg, but maybe I'll just turn a blind eye to them from now on. Hellcannons are really good if you are willing to cheese it, it seems like. The main thing is that there's only one projectile, when you manually direct it, you shoot with 100% accuracy. You can imagine how amazing this is during sieges - especially given how knocking units off the walls kills them. Need to figure out how I am gonna develop this horde.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 11:32
|
|