|
The OP suggests that you move 25% slower with siege gear in your army but I'm just not seeing that in the databases and haven't really noticed it in-game either. I know some of the mods have been changing it so siege lowers your campaign movement but by default this time around CA set the action points for every unit to the same value so nothing should either speed you up (cavalry armies in previous games) or slow you down (siege in previous games) on the campaign map. If I had to guess, this was to encourage actually using siege in normal stacks for the factions that are built around having good siege to force confrontations (dwarves with their low speed, chaos with its lack of foot ranged). At the faction level they likely gave more movement bonus opportunities via heroes in stacks and technologies/time to reach technologies to the ones they felt should be buffed there, leaving everything at the faction level rather than at the stack level. This also encourages more playing around with units than what could have been if they gave each monster its own movement costs on the map. Guess I'll also take the opportunity to super suggest that you don't use radious because it sucks, with the above being just one of the myriad of reasons for why.
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
From several pages back by now, but when that CA dev was mentioning that autoresolve is a fine balance between being actually good and turn times he wasn't exactly kidding. I modded the autoresolve tables to take quite a number of more things into account and end turn times increased what I would consider drastically, though still in line with previous titles. That said, there were some simple changes I was able to make in order to keep 1-unit squads and 6-12 unit squads at least no lower than 50% from simple autoresolves as well as fix the usual CA problem of too many ranged units in enemy stacks due to them not dying in autoresolve. Or even taking damage so they'd get merged like the other troops. Currently, there are three issues with their implementation: 1) Autoresolve operates entirely off of unit "class" and they failed to increase the number of unit classes to match the changes in unit sizes/general gameplay from rome2/attila. You can fix this by adding new classes to the monster/small squad units so that they aren't just autoresolved like any other sword infantry class 2) once again, and like always since shogun 2, they gave ranged units way too much fire time, lethality and protection from damage in the autoresolve but luckily all of those numbers are easily tweaked, especially by giving cavalry damage modifiers against missile infantry in the calculations and giving them penalties against inf_mel since most of it has shields other than monsters that you probably gave a new class to anyway 3) they put a rather strict limit on how much work strong units with AoE can actually do in autoresolve, such that if you would have gotten 200-300 kills with certain units manually they might only hit 40 or so in autoresolve. Also, and this ties in with point 2, at the moment their autoresolve implementation takes like nothing into account, as far as class vs. class matchups go. They c/p'd some of the usual ones from attila but didn't actually add modifier values for them so they're doing nothing at the moment. This is one part of the reason why turn times are so speedy with the other being they've actually kneecapped the AI such that each faction can only consider a maximum of 10 things per turn and in total every faction alive can only consider 300, which is to say that if there are more than 30 factions on the map some don't even get 10 things to consider. edit: also, I found a table that seemed to suggest the AI of some factions revolved entirely around either avoiding or antagonizing whoever the player faction was. I altered all of them to act as per normal (aggressive, raider, defender, opportunist, etc.) and it definitely makes some faction starts way harder, especially VC. I am guessing all of the dwarves have avoid_player_defender by default so removing the avoid_player part just makes them declare on VC really, really quickly even if you warred the greenskin tribes, got non-aggression and trades. Decus fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:The autoresolve definitely takes at least one class factor into account, and that is "if your class is 'single model monster' GET hosed AND DIE rear end in a top hat". They're inf_mel only instead of having their HP divided among lots of mens they're just one man. Rakthar posted:Is it possible to raise this limit somehow, or is it hard set? I wouldn't mind increasing turn times by about 30 seconds (although there sure is a lot of turn flipping) if it meant the AI did more stuff. Yeah, it's super easy to alter those values. I set it to 15 and 450 and turn times increased pretty greatly by end-game, probably at least 30 seconds. There are several variables across quite a few tables all about making decisions to conquer/sack/raze/occupy. Guessing you could just cross-check the values with Attila or Rome 2? It's very possible that they made the AI more aggressive with heading out to sack/raze but once the mod also let them occupy they took the chance to do so. I don't think I'd use Conquer Anywhere for single player but it's great for co-op. Gammymajams posted:This is really interesting. When you say the AI can look at 10 things to consider, do you mean e.g. 1. There's an enemy army within movement range of my city, defend the city. 2. Take an agent action against that enemy. 3. Build units in the nearby army? And if that goes beyond 10 it just ends turn? I'd also be really interested in a better auto resolve if you were to post the mod to the workshop. Taxes, doing diplomacy things and merging/recruiting troops also fall under "things to consider" as well and are done before moving armies. Yep, turn just ends if they hit their cap. I'm still tweaking numbers with mine but I think there is actually a mod on the workshop that had a similar idea only instead of adding a new unit class it just changed all of the monsters into the unused "elephant" class and added appropriate "everything does less damage to this thing" modifiers. edit: vvv harder difficulties do give you leadership penalties, very hard is -5 and I forget what legendary was since it's not in the database and I forgot what I hovered. It's really dumb--I prefer just giving the AI more leadership instead of also nerfing your player units. Decus fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Here's a basic version of the autoresolve/AI goals mod. Just put that in your steamapps/common/warhammer/data folder and check the "use outdated mods" box--any mod not submitted to the workshop is considered outdated. I say it's basic because I haven't really gotten the numbers exactly right yet so some battles still feel way off, though more than player vs. AI autoresolve I was kind of targeting AI vs. AI so that the stuff that's fun to fight (big monsters) wouldn't die offscreen before they reach me. This means you should probably ignore the autoresolve bar and try fights manually if you think you can win them since more likely than not that AI stack with 5 heroes in it is getting massive boosts to auto. Similarly, you could probably auto-cheese with all hero stacks. If anybody is interested in checking this stuff out on their own just download Packfilemanager 4.1. As an aside, I also slightly increased the zone of control for land units. This is a double-edged sword since it brings back the "getting stuck inside town/other army zone of controls" situations that were more common in previous games but it also allows you to more effectively catch/block other units. What I really wanted was the old shogun 2 system of modifying the zone of control of settlements based on the presence of a garrison, but couldn't' see any variables for it here so don't think it's a system at all anymore. What that would do is let me set the default settlement zone of control--another value I didn't see anywhere--really low but set the modifier for having a garrison really high. shalcar posted:On another note, does anyone know what the differences between Very Hard and Legendary are? Historically the only difference between the two has been that Legendary enforces Ironman, doesn't let you use the minimap or issue orders while not on normal speed but all the actual modifiers have been the same as VH. Is that still the case? This hasn't actually been the case as far as I know--legendary has always had separate entries with different values that make the game harder than very hard. For warhammer they've actually not put some of the legendary values in the database so it could be using the very hard values or it could be using other values we don't have access to. Just as a more general note, they've also really taken to specifying more things as _hidden this time around which means it won't show in the unit stats even on hover which is incredibly annoying. Most of the lord/agent skills increase resistance or increase success of certain agent actions in that way and things like splash damage on weapons are also hidden. For a short list of the differences between very hard and legendary: AI gets a further 5% reduction to all construction costs, resists an additional 10% of public order due to occupation, taxes are increased by an additional 20%, replenishment increased by 2%, upkeep reduced by 5%, all attrition reduced by 10%, horde growth increased by 2, province growth increased by 5, and base public order increased by 2. Oh yeah and the AI is more likely to steal your items post-battle--I remember seeing that but can't remember which table--while you're less likely to steal theirs. All in all this is less extreme than they've been in the past and I'd fully recommend chaos legendary for the added tension and the fact that their later units are just way too good for anything below very hard to begin with, similar to dwarves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Autoresolve in this game doesn't take difficulty mode into consideration so if you're playing on legendary or even very hard the fights are almost guaranteed to be harder than the autoresolve odds. In previous games there would be a modifier for difficulty--tens of percentage points odds and an artificial increase to numbers--but for whatever reason they left it out this time around. If you manually fight the battles all enemy units on very hard get a 12% buff to all stats and a straight increase to leadership while the player's leadership is lowered. On legendary we don't have the numbers but they'd almost certainly be higher. This is especially, especially the case for greenskins and some of the VC units, sometimes even on normal since autoresolve is very kind to low leadership units as something like 45 rounds of simulated combat occur before it even allows simulated routing. Dwarves and Chaos are in general absurdly strong on legendary since % increases do a lot to their already high stats. And even in the hands of the player I'd say they're the easier legendary campaigns due to their already high stat units. Greenskins is likely the hardest legendary followed by Empire if you're actually fighting the battles. Kholek being able to hit the 90% ward save cap makes for hilarious gameplay too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
The dwarf short victory condition is currently bugged anyway or maybe the text description is wrong--if your grudges are at 0 you can't clear the first condition. I got the long victory faster than I got another grudge.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Halberd demigryphs lose the shield but gain anti-large while retaining armor piercing and good weapon damage stat. I think what must be pushing them so far over the edge compared to, say, chaos knights, is the combination of bonuses and not the strict stat numbers. Demigryph halberds have x32 vs. large damage. Any other anti-large is at most x18 (chaos halbs) and usually x12-16, excepting the terrorgheist with its x40 on splash attacks twice as splashy as the halberds with higher base power and poison. But VC units are meant to be crazy, I think. Like, Varghulf has an attack interval that says it's attacking nearly twice for normal unit's once. Instead, their weakness is leadership being around half of normal unit's. If they balance anything there it'd probably be upkeep cost, recruit cost and maybe armor rating. 130 is a lot. To put it into perspective, it's the highest armor rating available to base units outside of the steam tank (160) in a system where +3 is a good increase and +9 is an amazing increase. The best dwarven armor is 120. Decus fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Vargs posted:Demigryphs vs Cairn Wraiths: Demigryphs lose about 1/3 hp before killing all of the wraiths without any cycle charging at all. The damage on their weapon looks to be 6 normal damage and 32 AP. They have medium sized splash that can hit up to 3 targets at once and the usual 3.8 attack interval. The 6 part of that is absolutely terrible, the lowest other than dwarf miners with 5 on their pickaxe. 32 isn't that impressive for AP either. Were you spreading them wide in those fights, so they could maybe wrap around and flank the units/take the most advantage of their splash? Otherwise I think wraiths really do suck since 75% ward save, while really good on heroes/lords, is kind of bad on something with their defensive stats. Chaos Spawn annihilate them because they have a splash value that can hit 5 targets at once for 1.5x damage with their 110, 40AP weapons. I don't know if there's any weapon modifier shenanigans this time around, but their claws are swords and the scythes are axes. edit: wait, what, if I'm reading this right apparently the black coach can only collide with 3 targets max? It's the same value as any other chariot though the steamtank has a 4 there. Not sure what that number actually, actually means since it can't mean 3 mens I don't think. Unless it's 3 on the lowest unit size? Though every other value that means number of men traditionally is based off of ultra sizes. Decus fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm guessing Cairn Wraiths really are better in multiplayer where you'd actually have to worry about cost and where terror isn't competing against the AI having +10 base leadership + veterancy bonuses. Do you keep them bunched up for movement and then spread their file out before a charge? McGavin posted:It means they can punch through 3 rows of infantry. If a unit has 4 rows it will stop when it hits the 4th row, get surrounded, and die. Aha, that makes much more sense. The issue with the black coach getting stuck must be from another value I found elsewhere--they have a timer for how long a unit ignores collisions after a charge in order to get out and re-charge and currently it seems to be zero.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Yeah, CA is still doing faction DLC outside of the expansions. They'll also be doing Lord, item, lore of magic and unit DLC packs. The main expansions they've announced are different from the faction DLC in that they also add entirely new campaigns whereas the faction DLC just adds playables to the grand campaign (the only campaign currently present). I don't know why people wouldn't expect this when Chaos is already that and not even minor in that they're sort of the final boss and owning or not owning the DLC effects their lords and units/unit weapons. Both CA and GW will greatly enjoy releasing as many $9 factions as they are able to over the space between the new campaigns. If I had to guess, $60 in DLC spread between the various types between each $60 campaign sounds about right! We're currently 9/60.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:This is what I'm excited for although I'm a little worried it'll focus on like-factions fighting each other. I.e. empires attempt to unify as a solitary campaign meaning you're fighting other humans plus maybe VC. The game shines when you realize to maximize your success you need different builds to beat different factions I'm sure there would also be events involving other factions popping into your map even if they don't start with settlements. Like the nasty surprise for greenskin/dwarf campaigns on turn 100 in the normal campaign. They could even be based on event choices.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:Welp, this things happens, you just gotta roll with the punches, in my current dwarf campaign Thorgrim has harsh and Likes Orcs, the later being stupid and funny as hell at the same time. You get Likes Orcs for sparing them for replenishment instead of killing them after battles. If you get it, you deserve it! So far I haven't found any trait/trigger combos that I don't like such as shogun 2 or rome 2's random "you left this guy in a town for 2 turns and now he sucks" traits. Might just be that I haven't left anybody in towns very often.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah I was going to keep the individuals running but in the long run there wasn't much of a point. All they do is give the AI more possibilities to recruit the units that are actually interesting to fight, and even then it relies on the AI actually building the right buildings in those provinces. The garrison advancements are pretty minor (like an extra unit or 2, or swapping 3 skeletons for 2 grave guard for the VC). There's a table that helps the AI build buildings in pairs, specifically for recruitment. If you want to be sure any AI faction is recruiting certain types of units you can point most of their stuff to "please build this recruitment building" and then point that building to whatever else unlocks recruits from it. Haven't actually looked at your mod to see if you're using that table yet but it's worth checking out if you're not, provided one of your major goals is the AI recruiting more. On the money and public order end of things they don't really want for anything, in my opinion, except maybe on lower difficulties though I can't see anybody playing on an easier difficulty complaining too much in that case--it'd still be easier and such. Somewhat related, but the cdir_unit_qualities table probably also needs some work since some units are valued way too low which results in them spamming them while others are valued way too high which results in the AI being too satisfied with just one or two. The table for telling them what ratio of each type of unit to recruit is mostly fine from a quick skim--aside from some of the 50% missile cavs I think I saw-- but the quality ratings being out of whack means that either too many or two few of certain units will make up the ratio given it goes off of total quality rating rather than strict number of units.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Yeah, I think making the leadership boosts/penalties straight increases and making the other stats %s was a bad decision. If anything, the leadership boosts/penalties should be %-based and they should never have given %-based increases to AI stats over just using their old system of giving them veterancy cheats. Veterancy cheats were fine and served the purpose much better whereas units with 90 or 500 in stats getting 12% boosts upon recruitment just feels absolutely terrible. To be honest, while I do enjoy very hard/legendary battle difficulty I have been kind of degenerate about it--moreso than usual--due to those changes. In order to not guaranteed lose lord vs. lord fights early on I sack-cycle to level up and I've been abusing the bug with champions giving all your lords/heroes veterancy. If I'm playing vampires or chaos I just lore of death snipe. On the other hand, I still feel like at least dwarves and chaos require the enemy getting those stat boosts in order to not just be boring since their units are really, really good and as a player your ability to create decent compositions and use them in battle still probably hits far above what the AI is getting in bonuses on their units. Similarly, I feel like VC need very hard or higher more and more as you progress. I've not played much empire/greenskins but I feel like empire is probably similar to VC in that respect and greenskins...well, I haven't tried them but going by numbers I'd say that the most impressive thing anybody could tell me would be "I won a greenskin legendary campaign without using autoresolve".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Global Recruitment ideally would've had its own table with turn times instead of just a straight multiplier. 6 turns for anything is just not happening to the point that you can pretty much just pretend that those units aren't in the pool and even though it's just a one turn difference some of the 2->4 turn units would've felt better as 2->3 under global. Similarly, some of the 1 turn probably should've remained 1 turn. When the default recruitment time is 1-4 turns it's inevitable that the quality per turn ratio is going to be wide such that strictly multiplying the turn time is going to be uneven.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
drat Dirty Ape posted:I've noticed the AI has some tendencies to ignore NPCs at times and bee-line for your armies and cities. That's an AI pattern factions spawn in with. There are avoid_player and anti_player behaviour modifiers designed to make certain factions go easy on the player at their starting position and others more likely to war them. If you turn off all of the avoid_player ones by changing their behavior profile to be the same as normal the game becomes harder and I imagine if you changed everything to have anti_player it'd be harder still.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Mazz posted:They are in the ancillaries table. Probably not that hard, although I don't know the spawn mechanics yet. This is where I'm at. I think I've sort of figured it out? I was messing around with new armors, like ones that have auras of poison or a master of the dead in reverse, and added them in just fine to test as quest rewards but could never get them to drop as actual drops. The columns I thought were determining the drop rates were copied from common drop items so I should've been swimming in them. Then I remembered that I failed to associate them with rebels and minor factions in the "can drop for" table--had only given them to greenskins, VC and chaos which either don't fight each other or do way later than I cared to test drop rates--since my suspicion is that who you fight might matter for what drops you can get. Haven't spent much time testing yet to be sure but I highly suspect that this is the case. My steps for adding items (ancillaries) was: 1) ancillary_info_tables - add an entry 2) ancillaries_tables - add details to your entry by c/ping something similar. Drop rate should be column 22 with lower numbers being higher rates I think, though just c/ping from a similar item should be fine. 3) ancillary_included_subcultures_tables - add your entry here probably making sure to add it to as many rebel/minor factions associated with the main factions you're targeting as you can otherwise it probably won't drop 4) effects_tables - if you want your item to have a special ability attached then add an effect_enable entry here 5) ancillary_to_effects_tables - specify armor stats and your effect_enable here 6) unit_abilities_tables - add an entry for the ability you will effect_enable here 7) unit_special_abilities_tables - detail the ability here 8) effect_bonus_value_unit_ability_junctions_tables - link the effect_enable to the ability 9) special_ability_phases_tables - add a phase (or phases) to your ability 10) special_ability_phase_stat_effects_junctions_tables - detail the phase 11) special_ability_to_special_ability_phases_junctions_tables - link the phases to your ability 12) Import from the *your language here* pack and, uh, too lazy to type out all of the things you need right now but it's a lot--just check the files related to any of the tables I mentioned above. If you want to easy-test by adding the item as a quest reward that's the cdir_events_mission_payloads_tables. It might also help to increase the numbers in column 22 for all other items that are low. If your item shows up but its display/box looks funny then step 12 is the issue and you probably forgot an entry somewhere. Also, if you don't want to add a special ability then it would just be steps 1-3 and then 5 and 12. You can treat the other steps as "how to add a special ability" I guess since if you wanted to add one to a lord's skill screen it'd be the same steps just with "and then add it to the skill node tables" Decus fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
1stGear posted:Some people recommend getting Mount Gunbad for the economic building but I'm not so sure. It's miles away from everything else and committing heavily to the north means having to tangle with the VCs early and leaving the south open to the Top Knotz or Red Fangs. From what limited greenskins I've tried I'm not so sure on them caring about its money given all of those negatives, unless it's been razed and you can spare the upkeep cost of a weak stack re-colonizing. Greenskin stacks seem really cheap, you're constantly raiding and sacking and their buildings are both strong and simple economically. Not sure that they'd really care about any money province beyond maybe keeping it around to sack for 40-50k every now and again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
For Very Hard campaigns as greenskins or empire I recommend taking the +leadership from general aura ASAP in order to negate the penalty from difficulty. +5 is a lot more than you'd think and even moreso when the game is default hitting you with -5. Shaken begins at 32 leadership and on very hard you're more likely to eat penalties like "losing combat" or even "losing combat significantly" and thus all of the casualty related penalties as well. The unit you have eating those penalties will hold out that much longer while your other guys flank if you have the +5. For reference, in the same table the penalty is listed at -5 the penalty for being flanked is listed at -6. Without taking the +5 leadership to negate the penalty you can basically pretend that all of your units are being flanked at all times and occasionally super-flanked when the AI actually flanks them. Similarly, don't underestimate the +5 leadership to certain unit techs. Seemingly small increases or decreases in numbers are actually a big deal here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
On my chaos legendary the dwarves turned into a 38 settlement monster. On my very hard VC playthrough after that they were starting to do the same so I warred them when they hit 18 and as much of a slog as it was burning down all of their poo poo it was worth it if only to never have to deal with a 38 settlement monstrosity again. Greenskins are weird in that they're probably the main faction most likely to just get wiped by a minor faction and then the dwarves will have all sorts of autoresolve bonuses on that minor and stomp. The issue is that the main dwarf faction is one of the best positioned dwarves for expanding so their power rating will surely be higher than their minors and they can confederate, especially on the higher difficulties. On the other hand, there are multiple greenskin tribes that can basically match the main faction in power rating for a lot of the game so the AI has trouble confederating and they war each other. For me the greenskins have only lived if their minors did work razing dwarf minors before they could confederate and usually that only happened if I was "part of the problem" and razed stuff myself. Artillery is very highly valued in autoresolve, especially in siege defense where it really shouldn't be, and the dwarves tend to be packing a ton of it. It's also worth noting that from what I can tell a waaagh vs. main faction autoresolve produces the super dumb results you'd expect from a minor faction vs. main faction autoresolve, where the main is getting hidden +probability of victory modifiers. This is true even of main greenskin ones. An injured main dwarf 6 stack of nothing special can wipe a full health 20 stack waaagh in AI vs. AI auto.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure armor and melee defense only ever deal in chance to hit rather than damage reduction. Armor works for both missiles and melee attacks in some ratio while melee defense only works for melee attacks. You always have at least a 10% chance of getting hit and on the other end a 10% chance of missing. AP damage is damage that is more likely to hit and thus actually do its damage because it ignores the armor stat entirely in its hit calculations. edit: huh, guess armor is actual damage reduction rather than hit chance, though in the end it's basically the same until you're already at 10% chance to get hit which shouldn't happen naturally in-game for most match-ups. Also, I'm pretty sure he's wrong on armor not working against impacts. If the tables are to be believed--and they may not be since a lot of the kv_ series of tables is full of deprecated values--30% of armor works against impacts. Decus fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Blacktoll posted:Kholek is fantastic no doubt but take a generic chaos lord and gear him towards combat on a manticore and lol You don't need a generic chaos lord for this--just fill kholek's stack with champions which also get manticores. And then due to the veterancy bug your Kholek will be maxed out too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
For VC at least I can get all of their stuff by turn 60 at the latest on very hard (turn 40-50 is more likely). Not sure on empire, but if they have any +growth agents or buildings you probably want to focus those before a tear-down in order to hit max city levels. Not sure where they fall on the growth spectrum between VC and dwarves, with dwarves being super slow if you don't focus it and VC being fast even if you don't. But, if you focus dwarves you can get your growth to be around VC un-focused level so turn 60 for a maxed town is still very possible. Just don't be afraid to build and even upgrade growth buildings and then tear them down later. Same for agent recruitment--build the building and then tear-down since money should never be an issue unless you aren't sacking enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Just move the chaos invasion to later and increase the number of stacks they spawn with to compensate. Even if you don't know any lua scripting the stuff you actually have to change in the chaos_invasion.lua or whatever it was called should be in super obvious english.Ravenfood posted:Both of those factions confederating the ally of each race that I'd systematically tried to build up to use as weapons against their parent faction sucked. This is definitely a complaint I have about the game at this point. Confederation in general isn't quite where I'd want it to be and system-wise it's more obnoxious than fun because there's no way to prevent it on your end. You can work against AI factions military alliance blobbing against you via careful diplomacy, getting them to cancel trade and other minor agreements before they turn into something greater. But confederation? Your 200+ friendly military ally and trade partner can just get instantly eaten up by the guy you're at war with even if you made sure not to bring him in with you, as that would increase the chance of confederation. The change for this sort of obnoxious behavior is simple--they need to add a check for the power of military allies into the "will confederation work" equation so that a power 4 faction can't instant-grab a power 14 faction allied with the power 1 faction. The power 14 faction--who has 0 settlements currently threatened by the power 4 for real--should never feel the need to give up on and actually end up at war with its power 1 ally just because a power 4 guy might hurt be able to hurt them in theory. Decus fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:This is impossible by the way. The Empire cannot confederate Brettonian territories any more than Brettonia could confederate something like Wissenland. Any faction can only confederate with other factions that make up their "natural" domain. Nope, it's totally possible. If Marienburg or any of the other factions the empire can confederate with settled in brettonian territories then they get all of those lands upon confederation all the same. Same for brettonia taking wissenland if something they can confederate with already took it. I also think the AI totally cheats the system in that they absolutely ignore the power equation that you as a player are required to obey when confederating--I've never been able to confederate a faction with a power rating higher (lower) than mine and yet I see the AI do it all the time. edit: v If he's talking about post-chaos I've seen it happen when bretonnia has been razed. Usually Moussilin, with his ruin-dweller trait, gobbles up all of that land but if dwarves or something else warred him out (rare) then one of the empire minors will settle there. Never seen it happen pre-chaos though, yeah. Decus fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Varg and Skaeling not taking attrition isn't a bug. Too lazy to check the tables again for sure but I swear I saw that their faction trait was taking no attrition. Not that it really matters on the higher difficulties anyway since 20% of the usual attrition would be like 2 men dead a turn in most cases, maybe 1. And they'd probably actually raiding stance if they were taking the attrition. Varg and Skaeling suck for multiple other reasons chief among them being "they are boring to fight". Kind of hope they're somewhere in the first faction DLC or maybe CA will actually patch something that will be a big portion of every grand campaign for free. Chaos technically being paid DLC says no. Until then might just look into giving them larger unit rosters or see if anybody else already did it because I don't mind the volume of their attacks so much as the consistency of their stacks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Mannfred and Varghulf can't solo on very hard, at least not by mid-game. The difference is in the enemy not routing--they essentially halve your fear effect--so instead of coming out of scrapes with 600/2000 enemies dead because the other 1400 ran away it's more like you died at around 600/2000 enemies dead because the other 1400 still were trying to kill you and blobbed you and made it harder to retreat and regen*. You can still solo early game stacks because they can't really touch mannfred too effectively after he's sniped the other lord and then the varghulf can just stay on the fringe and get rear charges, but by mid-game that just isn't true of mannfred anymore since things like savage orcs or halbs or greatswords or most dwarf units can definitely start hurting him--+12% melee attack and +12% weapon damage is actually enough to make that difference. Dwarf lords also tend to take more like 4 casts to go down and if you don't down them they can definitely murderize mannfred with those stat buffs. You'll run out of magic and thus heals before you get the kills you'd need to win. Unit sizes probably make a difference here since at the moment not everything scales with them so nicely or at all, but I've been playing on large most recently. On my laptop I was on medium and probably have to re-inspect even something like Kholek on large/legendary. I think 90% ward save with an item heal and massive AoE attacks are still really good? *unless the AI decided to go back to launch Rome 2 and do that weird thing where they all dance around in circles without actually attacking your units. If they're doing that then you've basically won since no more than 1-2 units will be attacking you at a time giving everybody room to maneuver and retreat to heal. They really need to fix this since it kind of does happen a lot, especially if you were the one to initiate the attack.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Yeah, wolves are really good for chasing routing enemies especially once you tech to reduce their upkeep since otherwise they're kind of expensive for something that should be an expendable. I don't have too much of a problem with units routing and reforming, though I do kind of wish that routing units got exhausted faster if they aren't going to have their speed debuffed right out. Also, just checked and I'd been using one of my mods so not actually sure if he still cant' solo vanilla very hard! Forgot I even had that ticked since it's on page 2 of the mod select screen but I'd made the fatigue effects harsher and decreased defense a bit further when flanked/attacked in the rear so all of that would definitely have made any one-man army strategy far less effective.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Wallet posted:I don't know if the same people decided on the rules as decide on that sort of thing, but if so, this does seem to be an indication that CA has a much better understanding of the game's balance than most people give them credit for. They have an entire board for balance on their official forums and they read all of it. The issue isn't that CA doesn't have an understanding of balance so much as the games are kind of complicated so balancing one thing has side-effects elsewhere that creates new imbalances. Luckily, they tend to give preference to patching in the balance forum posts that actually did a lot of tests with mods before posting what they think the balance should be. That would be called a unit test. Convergence testing on the other hand is where they tend to be lacking since a bunch of things that test out well on their own create really weird new balances when all put together. Sometimes they have beta patches but those are less for balance changes--I've never seen them change anything there--and more for crash fixes and making sure they didn't cause any new ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:EDIT: something's gone funky in my VC game. Empire's putting out armies with like 10% melee inf, majority Outrider/skirmisher cav, and then literally 50%~ish Artillery. loving sucks to fight against, Good lord It's because the better unit recruitment mod probably doesn't touch AI vs. AI autoresolve, which has always, always been the problem with AI army composition. Artillery and ranged units basically don't get damaged in AI vs. AI autoresolve while all of the infantry, monsters and cav does, so while the AI is merging injured infantry together all of the artillery/ranged they recruit are still at full health and thus remain as they recruit new stuff which includes even more ranged/artillery. The same is true of the missile cavalry, even moreso since there's a special table that gives them 10x effectiveness in autoresolve if their speed is that much higher than what they're fighting. Another issue is buildings. Any mod that's serious about keeping high quality infantry in AI stacks needs to adjust the building priority tables so the melee infantry recruit buildings are guaranteed the first thing they rebuild after getting sacked/razed. Another trick is to use the "if you build this then consider building this" table such that everything they could possibly build points to "please build those infantry recruitment buildings". In my opinion nothing is actually wrong with the recruitment tables themselves other than the quality values on some things being too high--larger units, their values are too high so the AI is satisfied with only building a couple. The "make sure x% of your stack value is of this unit type" stuff is fine and lowering it leads to not enough ranged near the beginning but then since you're not fixing the autoresolve or the buildings you still end up with too much all the same by the end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Finding out that you as the player can't pool your hordes (at end of turn anyway) without big, unavoidable attrition was some bullshit tell you what. Yeah, to me it's more of an annoyance factor than something that actually hurts. The attrition isn't that huge and I tend to merge->rebuild after most battles anyway but just seeing the attrition marker on-screen is annoying on some level. I saw a value for the horde infighting attrition radius and will probably try setting it to 0 next time I play chaos. I'd have preferred something more like a waaaagh meter that was negatively impacted by hordes being nearby rather than attrition since that's basically what Attila had and it wasn't as obnoxious. edit: v I'd argue that having less than the full set is better if it means with a single agent you can do more things. That said, I haven't looked too far into the agent mechanics yet in terms of how everything is calculated. From pure gameplay observation I think there's some sort of class match-up system for agent vs. agent actions? Like some things are better at assassinating certain classes and worse at others? Not sure how the greenskin/chaos agents play into that. Beyond that, most of the "increase chance of ____" or "decrease chance of ____" are specified as _hidden in the agent skill node tables which is pure garbage in my opinion. Decus fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:This makes me want to do a gimmick campaign. Only allowed to recruit heroes, no troops. Garrisons are fair game. Change every unit to a 1 model unit and alter their stats accordingly, sometime upping their health other times lowering it. Balance spells around that as well. I think I definitely want to try/play this. edit: I think there was even a way to easily change the size of the models on the map but I'd have to look it up to remember.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Is raise dead actually bugged or is it just implemented in a weird way? I've had some battles that don't add to the casualty counter on it but from what somebody posted earlier that's because only certain spots on the map actually count. Usually anywhere near/on a settlement should count/generate the raise dead symbol next to it though I'm not actually sure if anywhere in VC territory has one there? Instead, some of the areas within the VC regions have raise dead symbols that will only appear/add to the counter if the fight actually occurred near there. Assuming there is a more complicated bug on top of the system needing more points that can generate symbols--or just a clearer indication so you can direct your battles towards the ones that exist--a good place to test would be the plains in-between templehof and the starting region minor settlements, sort of north and south of a straight line course. I've had symbols appear in those sorts of spots within VC territory. Maybe those are the boggier looking spots on the map? I'd have to load up an early save to check.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Why would it give Empire players a bigger breather. The AI can support 3-4 full stacks from one province, as per usual, so dividing 2 factions into 7 just means more stacks of the same units. It's why subjugating the norscans is a really good strategy on chaos legendary--you are leveraging the AI's difficulty modifiers and what they mean for their ability to support stacks against your victory conditions. Most of what the norscans need is a more varied unit roster and maybe less of an economy or higher costs per unit to chill their number of stacks a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
I don't think AI is or has ever been about smart vs. dumb when it comes to video games. It's about fun. And if you consider fighting siege defense battles fun then the current AI is bad. I've finished 6 campaigns across various difficulty levels with and without mods and I have fought all of 1 siege defense battle. Were siege defense battles really easy in previous titles? Yes. Are fights on walls less interesting than shogun 2? Yeah. But I still enjoy them from time to time instead of once over the course of 800 battles or so. When the AI factions have been given massive reductions to troop cost and buffs to money they can afford to throw them at you to weaken your stacks/garrisons rather than ganging up in front of your towns and saying "please lightning strike us to death while we wait 10 turns to starve you out".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:Noo why can't Zhufbar and Karak Kadrin be friends, you guys are supposed to be my buffer states. Neither, just torch them all. It's not worth making friends with dwarves ever because they will randomly be dicks and betray you. This is because as VC you can never completely wipe the red part of the diplo screen with them, with aversion, so they'll randomly generate grudges against you until you're at like +100 friendly. Anywhere in yellow or barely green can see them instant-wiping all treaties for no reason other than the -40 aversion existing. The only way to keep that from happening is basically to keep shoveling gold into them but then you have to ask yourself if it's worth doing that over just razing them. Even as empire the dwarves are likely to dick you over eventually if you don't gold gift them though at least there you can have so many modifiers on the trade you can get with them that gifting them gold is still a net gain after killing them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Wallet posted:Yeah, I know about the extant cap system with X of such-and-such unit per player or army, but I was sort of hoping he figured out a way to make it more flexible than that. Would they have maybe kept a way to increase the cap on specific units in as an effect or something you could easily add as an effect so long as you named it correctly (probably with the unit id at the end)? So you could assign it to skills or buildings. Probably worth downloading his mod and opening up tables to see if he did figure out something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Vassals seem like a bad idea most of the time unless you want to forego having any military allies. Ever since Shogun 2 the AI has been smart enough to just declare war on your vassals to get to you if you have a lot of military/defense allies. You can use the same tactic against them but from what I've noticed the AI is also smart enough to just not make vassals this time around. In terms of money they don't give much. In terms of a buffer razing works just as well most of the time. The only time I've made vassals is "for the fun of it" when I was already at war with almost everybody anyway (VC, greenskins) or as chaos which I guess is also "already at war, who cares". I bring this up because if you were to have a mercenary faction operate off of being a vassal to AI the AI would just abuse it to declare on the other AI. Somewhat related, I see that they now have a system for gifting settlements--it's what the waaagh uses to "gift" the settlements they capture to their parent faction. Would be nice if I could figure out how to add that to vassals or somehow extend it so you can actually gift any settlement rather than a trigger on capture that only goes to a specific faction. Also glad the unit cap thing works like I thought it might. That opens up a lot of cool possibilities.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
If you're the AI, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:There any good guides for this? I'm still a bit confused on what kinds of buildings I should go for first. Growth and income is almost always the answer early on. If you rush for better troops by building recruitment buildings you usually wouldn't have the money to really pay for them in upkeep whereas aiming for growth and income means you can have larger/more armies of your basic units early on and then disband/merge them away once you have the money to actually support better recruits. terrorist ambulance posted:What are you supposed to do about 60+ units just spawning out of nowhere and heading straight for you at that point in the game. Restart, pretty much. Skaeling/Varg don't always war you after the turn 22 warning but if they do you may as well just restart. You can help prevent it somewhat by tossing gold at them so if you have an earlier save that could be worth a try. More generally, that's the secret to empire not getting clusterfucked outside of just praying to RNG--toss gold at anybody who might even be thinking about warring you and then they might not. This would be dwarves and skaeling, mostly, since if other humans war you it's whatever. You want their stuff anyway. Decus fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 23:35
|
|