Strategist or tactician? Where will you spend most of your time: battlefield or campaign map?

Tempus_fugit#2711

Hi all. I wanted to know where you guys spend most of your game-time and why you do so. And for TWWH, will you change your focus, and will you focus more on the battles or on the campaign?

I love the battles of TW. Always have. I am sure we can all agree on that. But I also spend a lot of time (increasingly these days) on the campaign map.

Battles are time-consuming, difficult, tense and stressful. They are also visually stunning, exciting and awesome.

While there is little you can do to change things like your units prior to a battle (maybe affecting what weather you get, for example), you can use a battle to completely change the balance of forces in the campaign and shift the entire strategy in that region or front.

The campaign is fairly calm and predictable, but also very strategic because this is where you determine what the contexts of battles will be. As Sun Tzu said it: you can remove the ability of the enemy to fight without even engaging in battle (which is the truest acme of a general… apparently).

Usually when I just want a chilled play session, I find that I tend to play the campaign and make saves prior to difficult battles and then continue with other saved campaigns.

Other times, I want nothing more than just having one battle after another and seeing the swords swing. This is when me having to march or manage settlements irritates me as a waste of time.

I am sorta schitzo in this regard. How do you guys balance your strategic play and tactical real-time battles (and why)? and what will you do in TWWH?

Commissar_G#7535

Campaign map strategy.

It's the more important side.

Tiju

I'm usually spending more time on the campaign map. I only play desparate battles and one or the other fun battle myself.

Debauchee

I ended up purchasing a physical copy, despite my plan to wait for reviews.
I am excited about open-field battles in this title, but I find grand campaign somewhat lacking, and sieges look like a bootleg version of what we had in Attila. Therefore, I will stick to multiplayer and avoid grand campaign for a year or so.
Frankly speaking, my experience with Attila has influenced this decision: the vanilla game was fairly interesting, but it became so much more enjoyable after all the DLC/FLC. This is especially true for Warhammer, because there is amazing stuff coming up: new races, regiments of renown, lores of magic, lords, units, etc. In other words, I don't feel like playing vanilla Campaign, because I can just wait for a year and enjoy Campaign 2.0 , which will be superior in every aspect.

az88

Campaign usually, but I will be playing almost every battle due to the auto-resolve feeling like cheating with how kind it is to the player sometimes.

Also, as this is Warhammer, I'll care far more about each battle and each unit.

Tempus_fugit#2711

Greasus Goldtooth said:

I ended up purchasing a physical copy, despite my plan to wait for reviews.
I am excited about open-field battles in this title... avoid grand campaign for a year or so.... I don't feel like playing vanilla Campaign, because I can just wait for a year and enjoy Campaign 2.0 , which will be superior in every aspect.

I am in the same boat. I promised I would not buy it before at least 6 months have passed, yet I did buy over the weekend. I quipped to my friend that this would be the first ever TW I play from the start rather than waited for the massive improvements down the line.

But, as this is TWWH, I think that I will play the grand campaign just to see how hectic it is, and how hard and fast the battles are. Too tame and I will be disappointed. Too difficult can also be frustrating, but at least that is my fault for playing badly, not a design flaw.

Thread summary:
Hmmm, seems most of us are indeed more strategic fellows, but the MP guys are almost completely battle-oriented. Interesting and there may be ways for CA to make MP more strategic and campaigns more fighty. - (my own opinion, obviously)

bronhoms

Campaign map, skills, items

definitelyHuman

campaign map has always been the best for me.

i enjoy building an empire and then managing it for a while rather than just an endless conquest.

trying to play neighbors off against one another, always increasing trade etc and fighting when needed. the battles to me are a nice break from the hard work on the campaign map.

the sooner we get a whole new diplomacy system and CAI, the better. if only paradox could get involved for some ideas.

Tempus_fugit#2711

definitelyHuman said:

...trying to play neighbors off against one another, always increasing trade etc and fighting when needed. the battles to me are a nice break from the hard work on the campaign map.

the sooner we get a whole new diplomacy system and CAI, the better. if only paradox could get involved for some ideas.

I tend to agree, though sometimes the campaign AI can be a bugger (though not too often admittedly).

Defects in campaign AI are usually papered over through shear stack-spam by AI factions (aided by bonuses), but a more intelligent CAI would be welcome to change the feeling of battling overwhelming odds into a feeling of battling a clever opponent. I am all up for overwhelming odds, but some of my best campaign moments were where the CAI did something dastardly strategic that messed up my grand plan completely. So better CAI will be very welcome.

Do you think the more fantastic and individual feel of TWWH will change your focus? (We can't know until we play, so this is just postulating.)

I think diplomacy got much better with Attila, though including some of the things we could do in the older games could still prove useful (threatening war for tribute or exchanging settlements would be two examples of things from RTW that might be useful to have in diplomacy.)

bronhoms said:

Campaign map, skills, items

Cool. Tx for the feedback. Do you think that the more RP feel to this TW will prod you to fight more battles?

definitelyHuman

Do you think the more fantastic and individual feel of TWWH will change your focus? (We can't know until we play, so this is just postulating.)

I think diplomacy got much better with Attila, though including some of the things we could do in the older games could still prove useful (threatening war for tribute or exchanging settlements would be two examples of things from RTW that might be useful to have in diplomacy.)

i think at first sure, new units and the movie like nature of the fights in this fantasy setting will make me more enthusiastic to fight myself but over time the hunt for ideal auto resolve stacks will begin im sure. i simply get far more personally at looking over my territory and pushing it borders and the so called big picture. Particularly true for empire, a faction that in the universe is big and diverse and needs a damn good ceo asap. i just hope we get a little of that from this game. Call of war hammer is ace for this sort of thing, many cities to take and positions to defend etc.

diplomacy did get better with newer releases, but the loss of region trading is incredibly annoying and prevents way more than i think they realized when they removed it. sure it was open to abuse and often led to having the Cherokees owning goa but at the same time it let us build buffer states and help allies. i miss it badly. but the interaction got better, if not for the over the top penalties for imperium rank etc.

the whole thing needs a massive overhaul still.

seienchin

To be honest campaign map strategy was very important in some TW games like Attila or Shogun 2 but I doubt it will be as important here...

Besides that if you can defeat the enemy in battles even if you are outnumbered you mostly do alright in TW games.

Tempus_fugit#2711

definitelyHuman said:

... and needs a damn good ceo asap. ...

Wahahaha. Love that.

Seienchin said:

To be honest campaign map strategy was very important in some TW games like Attila or Shogun 2 but I doubt it will be as important here... ...

My thoughts as well. I think part of the focus in TWWH was to get ppl into the action asap.

Norsa

Would love to spend alot of time figthting battles, however since ca has made the games faster then starcraft i guess campaign map?

Atleast untill i can get my hands on radious mod to slow things down

Commissar_G#7535

Norsa said:

Would love to spend alot of time figthting battles, however since ca has made the games faster then starcraft i guess campaign map?

Atleast untill i can get my hands on radious mod to slow things down

Lol spoken like someone truly never been cannon rushed by Protoss.

Debauchee

Tempus fugit said:

I think diplomacy got much better with Attila, though including some of the things we could do in the older games could still prove useful (threatening war for tribute or exchanging settlements would be two examples of things from RTW that might be useful to have in diplomacy.)

If you count family politics as diplomacy, then, yes, it indeed got better. I personally distinguish internal and external politics, and, sadly, external politics is pretty much the same as Rome 2. In my opinion, there are too many negative modifiers (with imperium being the worst of them) and postive modifiers have small value, while disappearing at a fast pace. My other concern, is that campaign map is overcrowded with warmonger AI: there is a freaking Genghis Khan in every backwater village. Every military underdog will declare a war on you, becuase "Gosh, I hate rival empires so much - they drive me into suicidal conflicts". Why even bother with diplomacy in a scenario like this? It just turns grand campaign into free-for-all deathmatch.
My personal favourite, is Shogun 2 diplomacy. Family politics were lackluster, compared to Attila, but we had an interesting option for foreign plotics - trading hostages. It is noteworthy, that we had diplomacy tech in that game. Long-term partnership provided significantly stronger positive modifiers. Following code of honour also improved foreign relationships. In short campaign you could survive realm divide, while having a reliable ally.

Commissar_G said:

Lol spoken like someone truly never been cannon rushed by Protoss.

How can you surprise anyone with cannon rush? There is even an optional tutorial mission for that.

Tennisgolfboll#5877

Battle map

But its close to 50-50

Commissar_G#7535

Greasus Goldtooth said:

Tempus fugit said:

I think diplomacy got much better with Attila, though including some of the things we could do in the older games could still prove useful (threatening war for tribute or exchanging settlements would be two examples of things from RTW that might be useful to have in diplomacy.)

If you count family politics as diplomacy, then, yes, it indeed got better. I personally distinguish internal and external politics, and, sadly, external politics is pretty much the same as Rome 2. In my opinion, there are too many negative modifiers (with imperium being the worst of them) and postive modifiers have small value, while disappearing at a fast pace. My other concern, is that campaign map is overcrowded with warmonger AI: there is a freaking Genghis Khan in every backwater village. Every military underdog will declare a war on you, becuase "Gosh, I hate rival empires so much - they drive me into suicidal conflicts". Why even bother with diplomacy in a scenario like this? It just turns grand campaign into free-for-all deathmatch.
My personal favourite, is Shogun 2 diplomacy. Family politics were lackluster, compared to Attila, but we had an interesting option for foreign plotics - trading hostages. It is noteworthy, that we had diplomacy tech in that game. Long-term partnership provided significantly stronger positive modifiers. Following code of honour also improved foreign relationships. In short campaign you could survive realm divide, while having a reliable ally.

Commissar_G said:

Lol spoken like someone truly never been cannon rushed by Protoss.

How can you surprise anyone with cannon rush? There is even an optional tutorial mission for that.

They're not surprising, but the battles are over in approx 2 minutes when someone pulls it.

EvaJobse

I've always been a campaign person and autoresolved almost all of my battles in previous games, but I must say that with TW:Warhammer this has changed that. There's so much more to do with lords/heroes, items, skills and so on that I find it increadibly rewarding to create create powerful characters and then use them to smash up stuff in battles.

I've got this level 19 Vampire Lord in my current campaign and put all of my most powerful items on him: Armour of Fortune, Giant Blade, Tralisman of Preservation, Terrifying Mask of Eee! and Book of Ashur and put almost all his skillpoints in combat skills to increase his armor, damage and melee skills, so he's now a crazily powerful tank, with regeneration and and damage output that is nothing to sneeze at. He also got a skill that buffs the zombies, skeletons and ghouls around him so he can just raise expendable stuff before a battle that is actually quite decent. He also has a hellsteed so I can fly him everywhere. Mannfred just dinged level 21, his items are slightly less good though but he has specialized in the Lore of Death so he can throw some nasty spells from a distance and doesn't need to be in the thick of it all the time. He's still on a Barded Nightmare, so in sieges Mannfred typically leads the assault on the gate while my Vampire Lord helps out clearing the walls or takes out ranged stuff hiding behind the walls. With the two of them I'm now carving a bloody path through Border Prince territory and having a lot of fun playing the battles manually there.

kekbert

sounds nice

I am more of a campaign player myself too, but due to the abundance of new possibilities i looked forward to fighting a lot more battles, without getting weary of it too soon. Since it works for you, I'm optimistic to have a lot of fun on the battlefield - I imagine there is always that new unit/skill/spell/tactic that you want to try out.

Jo_Proulx#5293

50/50.

I plan to MP a lot in this one though once I'm done with the campaign(s).

Tempus_fugit#2711

Eva Jobse CA said:

I've always been a campaign person and autoresolved almost all of my battles in previous games, but I must say that with TW:Warhammer this has changed that. There's so much more to do with lords/heroes, items, skills and so on that I find it increadibly rewarding to create create powerful characters and then use them to smash up stuff in battles.....

Firstly: You bastard for thrusting your early access in our faces!

Secondly: Cool. That is exactly what I was thinking about (and why I asked in this thread).

I also tend to autoresolve the easy/walkover battles in my campaigns (sometimes even the not-so-walkover-and-taking-a-risk type of battles), but with the stronger role play elements and more individual focused TWWH, I might play even the smaller battles to see how my lord/hero fares against e.g. trolls or that one elite unit in the tiny army opposing me.
I think that with a good grasp of the TW campaign challenges, you could devise a strategy to prevent having to fight the desperate battles (though this equation tends to fall apart at legendary difficulty), which is why I autoresolved so many battles after punching through the learning curve apex.

Grimloq said:

sounds nice

I am more of a campaign player myself too, but due to the abundance of new possibilities i looked forward to fighting a lot more battles, without getting weary of it too soon. Since it works for you, I'm optimistic to have a lot of fun on the battlefield - I imagine there is always that new unit/skill/spell/tactic that you want to try out.

joproulx99 said:

50/50.

I plan to MP a lot in this one though once I'm done with the campaign(s).

Tx for the replies.

Interesting that campaigners (like myself, mostly) cite the "coolness" factor when saying may increasingly focus on battles, while MP guys just seem tense and amped for the game to launch.
I guess they are also excited about the new units and strategies, but I guess that they are tense because they are unsure about the effects of the massive strategic changes compared to the other TW titles.

falconlord5

Campaign.

Patrikseve#8733

Im always been a bith of both but from my experience making everything function and synergeize on the campaign map is where I have the most fun to set up these battles and get this extra layer of story with each battle I fight. I have a difficult time sitting in skirmish tbh and mp isnt my thing. But overall scenarious that are not also baked into the game in quests and the whole layer of customizing heroes and fighting great wars with all these various units and monsters will be fantastic. I still think much of my time will be on the campaign map. But I look forward to play the game toworrow... there is a slight risk It might take hours to choose a faction though

Cyron

I'm always been one to put way too much time into the campaign bit. Going over the map and diplomacy options and second guessing myself in what to build this time around to change things up as well as tech etc..

I do play most of the early battles in every campaign but this game I see myself playing more of them in the mid and especially late game.

However I doubt I would spend less time in campaign than before, might even be more than ever ha ha since I might find myself looking up some lore and stuff continuously as I play so that my turns take forever in single player mode.

Good thing though I know which faction and Legendary Lord I will play and have known for some time. Otherwise I might have been caught in the selection screen...

michn

If you're not planning on playing at least a significant number of battles I struggle to see why you would play Total War. There are better grand strategy games out there if you don't care about the tactical layer. Obviously none of them have the glorious Warhammer Fantasy Battles IP though.

Tempus_fugit#2711

michn said:

If you're not planning on playing at least a significant number of battles I struggle to see why you would play Total War. There are better grand strategy games out there if you don't care about the tactical layer. Obviously none of them have the glorious Warhammer Fantasy Battles IP though.

Thanks for the thoroughly unhelpful post.

I guess what you mean to say is something along the lines of: I focus on playing the battles, as the strategy is not as deep as I would like it to be and TWWH will improve the already good tactical real-time battles.