Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Urgat's reasonable and not so reasonable suggestions - first post update as I go.

UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
edited October 2017 in Feedback & Suggestions
Ok, I'm finally done with one campaign (Empire) [edit: been quite a few campaigns since then :p], so I feel I can do the "suggestion" game w/o looking like an idiot for missing things that may be in already, but I missed. If I do, though, please forgive me. The game is really, really awesome, and I'm mostly pleased with it, but the devil being in the details, I think it could be improved to reach an even greater state. With that said, let's give it a go (edited as it goes):



1) small towns.

The map feels kindda empty. I'd like to see a lot of small settlements added to the map. They would work in conjunction with the closest big city (let's say we add Weissbruck, you have control if you control Altdorf). They appear on the map as a very small settlement, with a smaller font label, to avoid clutter. You can only build one building there (like a mine or whatever). Maybe even (unreasonable!) a battle map with a village to fight in, w/o the siege part. Village in the center, defender deploying in a circle encompassing said village, attacker deploying around.
the pros:
- it'd make the map less empty
- it would make the economy more lively
- it would add objectives to sack, raze, etc
- it'd look cool to have a (chaos, orc, whatever) invasion leave a more impressive smoking trail of ruin and destruction on the map.
- It'd prevent the AI or even you from just zipping through the map w/o a care in the world.
- The cons: it'll probably slow down the game a lot, making it take many more turns to "win" (that's not a con for me, but it'd probably is for many people)
- dunno, tell me.


2) characters join units.

I've seen it suggested before, but whatever. Just make it work like units using siege engines. You click the button, click a unit instead of a siege engine, hero goes in the middle of the front rank of said unit. Add restrictions as necessary (mounted heroes can only join cavalry units, etc).
I explain why a couple posts later, for those who'd wonder "what's the point?".
Edit: there's actually that exact mechanic in Dawn of War. That's 13 years ago...


3) "factionless" factions.

It'd be nice to have stuff running around the map minding their own business, like a dragon in the World Edge mountains, or a pack of giant wolves, even rogue forest goblin tribes why not? etc. If you take them on, you'll get some XP, a magic item, whatever. They can hinder the other factions, or ignore them, you don't need to destroy them to conquer anything, since they're not linked to any place. Just a little side dish.
edit: apparently, there's a savage orc event that does just that, but I haven't witnessed it. So, well, expand that idea :p

Coming in Warhammer 2 with Rogue armies (I think that's the name)


4) Solo heroes...

Obviously I'm not the only one bothered by them. I don't like how they work. In my Empire campaign, I had a super witch hunter who killed Archaon, Mannfred twice, at least a dozen vampire lords, and Gork knows how many other random lords and heroes. He totally put Gotrek to shame.
Lone heroes that own everything shouldn't exist, not like that. BUT! What about hero parties? You can/have to make like a band of heroes. Detached heroes get 4 slots (compared to Lords' 19). To have the same efficiency as they do now (well I'd rather they still were less efficient, but heh), they need to be 5 to maximize efficiency, like in the books, etc, a band of heroes. Makes more sense, less abusive, the AI wouldn't have a dozen of them running around (looks silly), it'd make using heroes more of a challenge.
Following this suggestion...


5) Special locations.

Spread them all around the map. Caves, ruins, lone wizard towers, there's no lack of them in the lore. They work like quests, but only for hero parties. They offer special, smaller maps where you only lead your party of heroes. They allow you to gain special rewards (magic items, unique heroes -like an amber wizard named Allor? :p) , stuff like that.


6) DLC?

I assume we'll get all the official GW armies in the end, with the DLC and the two other "chapters". Apparently, we'll also have unique units (I assume stuff like DoW units like the bearmen, Ruglud's armored orcs, etc)... Also consider looking to Forgeworld, maybe? It'd be cool to see skin wolves, icons of Gork (or possibly Mork?), the Marienburg landship, etc (and obviously the chaos dwarfs :p).

Norsca more than alleviated my worries.


7) Crows circling over the dead bodies.

Like in Shadow of the Horned Rat. That was awesome!


8) There's some pretty baffling skills missing,

like the banshee/terrorgheist screams, that should be added. I name those two in particular because it's skills that are kindda iconic to them. Her scream is actually the point of the banshee in the tabletop game... And, well, her... let dragons breathe fire/noxious fumes/whatever? Come on, dragons?

On the fence, but we do get dragon's breath, so I can hope for the other missing skills, so I'll consider that one fulfiled.


9) Weak trash troops

For the love of Gork and Mork, do something to balance the horde rabble dudes. In the tabletop game, balance is achieved through percents (in TW, it'd be a % between unit tiers. Tier 1 25% minimum, tier 2 50% max, etc), a max point limit, etc. There's none of that in TW obviously, besides the hard 20 units limit per army. It means armies like goblins will just get curbstomped over because they can't capitalise on the fact they are cheap (well, they should be, but it's not really obvious in the game...). Big dumdeedoo that they are cheap, they can still field only 20 units, like, dunno, chaos warriors for instance. I know the point isn't to have balanced armies, the armies are as strong as what you can afford, but at least give them a fighting chance, and the fighting chance of gobs is to be veeeeery numerous.
Make goblin, zombie, and the upcoming other rabble (gnoblar, half the skaven) units bigger. The engine apparently doesn't allow over 200 strong, well, they should at the very minimum be at 200. It won't nearly offset the fact they can't have heroes join them (and therefore still won't stick around if they get stared at, see explanation for point 2 above), but in the odd event that they do, they'd at least achieve something...


10) "Unit banner" icons

I was thinking about the unit banners. Back then when the first Shogun was released, amusingly enough, the first thought that occured to me when I saw the screenshots was "they totally ripped the banner system from Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat" (or was it later, and then it was Dark Omen? Can't be bothered to check the dates). I didn't blame them though, I really liked that system, it's very efficient, I'm actually surprised it wasn't used more.
So yeah, the banners, they're a neat, handy technic. Why doesn't CA go the full way with the copy, though? In the old Warhammer RTS, those banners don't disappear when the unit goes off screen, they shrink and stick to the border of the screen, relative to the actual direction the unit is. So you see, say, a black orc banner on the left edge of your screen, you know there's a black orc unit this way. You can even click on it to attack it, no need to scroll all the way to them.
It's very, very handy, I don't get why it doesn't work like that in the TW games, so I add that as my 10th point.


11) Unit restrictions on army rosters.

Ok, after a couple months of going at it, I can't help but say it's completely out of wack. There's a need for army restrictions, as there was in the TT game. Something based on the unit tiers, probably, as it's the only way I can see that separates units in a somewhat similar way as the units in the TT, w/o needing to implement a whole new system.
Here is how I would go about it:
- first of all, make a difference between generals.
Let's say LL stay the same, 20 units per army.
Make regular lord generals restricted to only 10 units per armies (15 for stuff like goblins maybe).
Allow heroes to lead armies of five units. That'll allow you have have some forces roaming the maps w/o having to destroy your economy after two stacks of 20.
- Second, put limits on the units per tier.
- Let's say a regular lord army, limited to 10 units. Tier1 units would be unlimited, you can fill your whole roster with it if you want. Tier 2 units would be limited to 5 max. Tier 3 units would be only two max. You can only field two heroes max in the army. (I know there's 5 tiers, make two groups of two tiers out of them depending on the faction I guess)
- Double all that for the LL armies (which would be the Grand Armies from the TT game.)
- For small hero armies, no tier 3 units, only one additional hero, only two tier 2 units.

Maybe let some generals have exceptions later, but for now, I think it would greatly improve things.



12) Some sort of Day/night cycle, and seasons cycle.

If a smaller game like Endless Legend can pull that well, I don't see why it couldn't be done in TW:WH.
Obviously, we can't have a one turn day, one turn night cycle (there's no real time scale anyway, it takes as long to build a handful siege towers or a whole city, or train a brand new unit from scratch), so how about half day half night for each season? So many of the events in the lore happen during the night, and/or are closely linked to Moorslieb (one of the two moons), it's crazy it's not taken into account in the game (don't talk to me about the beastmen event, please).


13) The battle maps.

Many people think they're too small, I'm not sure I agree. They need to be way more cramped though, with loads of features, like rivers with bridges and fords, thickets troops can't go through (excepted maybe beastmen, forest gobs and the coming wood elf and their tree spirit friends), buildings, rock formations, little villages, etc etc. The maps in all the previous WFB rts games (SotHR, DO, MoC) were all smaller, yet way more interesting too. They had abandonned wizard towers, haunted cemetaries, pools of lava, etc etc etc. The maps in TW:W are all just big, empty places with various degress of hills and some trees. The environment AROUND them is awesome, but the battleground itself? It's just an empty board.
And really, you can't use the TT to justify that, if anything, (some) people were complaining that in 8th ed, the various scenery pieces took too much importance (shrines that'd buff troops, boiling rivers that scald them, venomous thickets, statues that would fry the nearby troops, etc etc).

Well, with the map editor and the big map packs (don't remember the name, again), that's something I don't need to ask for anymore.


14) a couple other topics reminded me of that one: permadeath.

Not losing a lord for good when he dies, not having a RoR unavailable anymore when wiped out removes all sense of epicness and attachment to them, having your enemies come back a couple turns after they bit the dust crushes all sense of achievement and just leads to boredom, if not of annoyance.
It... honestly it stinks.
This here is one gameplay mechanics that is totally beyond me. It's Warhammer where everybody bloody dies all the time, this one feature is so not-Warhammer, it hurts me. To think GW validated that, when they were so adament for so long about not letting slayers be playable in Warhammer: Age of Reckoning (for the reason that slayers seek death and therefore a player that can revive after death is really contrary to the philosophy of the concept) baffles me.
You want the players who want to to keep their precious lords evenwhen they screw up, fine. But please give us a box to check for permadeath in the options (and don't link it to the difficulty, thank you) for those that hate this... "feature".
Changed my mind on that one. After thinking about it for a while, and reading some comments on the forums, it's obvious that after a number of turns, there would just be no LL left, and that would be kindda sad. Besides... there's no point in wishing for something when CA is clearly going the opposite way (no permadeath skill added to regular lords in the second game...)


15) add Storm of Magic stuff.

SoM is aimed at ubber big battles in the TT, TW is exactly where it's at.
So, add scrolls of binding one way or another. Let the armies get regular feral beasts when it fits. For the others, let them buy/loot scrolls of binding. Dunno, make it a one use item, when you cast it, it summons a monster, a pack or a unit from a random table linked to the area the battle happens in, or linked to the army you'd loot it from (like you beat a LM army, you can loot a Lustria Scroll of Binding) - I prefer the first option though.
There's SoM-like events already. When these happen let fulcrums occasionnaly spawn on the battlefields.
And to complete the pack, add the darned wizard lords. You know it's a DLC that makes sense. Come on CA!


16) Linear Campaign editor (we got the map editor, so why not push our luck?)

What I mean by linear, is you do mission 1, mission 2, mission 3, etc till the last mission and victory and you're done, like the previous RTS (SotHR, Dark Omen, Mark of Chaos).
In terms of "ingame" stuff itself, we already have almost everything needed. A briefing screen (albeit a barebones one), the possibility to have ingame cutscenes, face frames (for dialogues), scenarised missions that are precisely located on the map, restricted recruitment. There's not much missing, really, beyond the editor itself, [irony]which is obviously trivial to make anyway [/irony]. Placing the missions on the map, linking them, adding trigger events both in the campaign map and during missions, a few things here and there, a more "guided" recruitment system.
With such an editor, we'd have the Steam library flooded with campaigns in a few days, mark my word.


17) Landing for flyers (or how to beat a dead horse).

Yeah, yeah, I know, balance. I don't care about that point, balance these units some other way. Flyers should be able to land for the many reasons that have been invoked in just as many topics already; but, more importantly, someone should be able to FORCE enemy units to land. Goblin netters (add them for Mork's sake!) that drag a griffon to the ground? Dragon knocked out of the sky by a well aimed cannonball? Swarm of bats pulled to striking distance by a grabing hand spell, like Thanquol did with the Spirit of Grungni in whatever Slayer book? Talking about Skavens: forcing all the flyers to land with a nasty "eatthatflyer" Storm banner? Let the landcrawlers pull the flyers to a more equitable ground (I'm very funny, I know).


18) the damned new mod manager.

Haven't played for a few weeks, I start the game - of course it crashes.
And now I find myself having to check uncheck recheck restart reload, re re rereRERERE Oh my god this §^¨^$!!! mod manager I hate it I hate it CHANGE IT for the love of Gork, Mork, Slaanesh, Sigmar, the Old Ones, I don't care who but burn the current one with purple flames and make a new, better one where you don't see 3 mods at a time, where you can quickly find the out of date mods, where you can change load order, where you can actually do something beyond cursing it. Please, on my crying soul, please!


19) Right click on skills to autouse on cooldown.

Like in so many other games, you know. I don't want to micromanage skills during a battle, I want to direct my army. Yesterday I lost a battle because I was so focused on bombing with the gyrocopters I completely forgot about the rest. Why aren't the bombs just a targeted skill anyway? I get why it's fun, but this kind of gameplay isn't fit for a game where you managed dozens of units at the same time and certainly have other things to do than try and ligne up flightpaths and time bomb falls.


20) Fanatics should be autoreleased when in range, like in the TT.

It seems fanatics are difficult to get right apparently, they were just as bad in Mark of Chaos. In SotHR and DO, I seem to remember them being fine, mostly doing nothing, but when they hit you, made you go into shock.


21) reserve action points.

Like in X-Com, the original game. Add a few icons along the action bar, to reserve the points for stances. Like, you click on the entranchment reserve button, then move wherever, your army will stop when it has expended all the available points, it won't move further away since the rest of the bar is alloted to the entranchment stance. I'm not sure if I'm being very clear...


22) multiple army selection on campaign map.

Coz why not? It's not exactly thrilling to move stacks one at a time when they go to the same place, and this might avoid some epic fails when you try to gang up on an enemy army and, for some reason, the last stack, the one supposed to attack, decides to go the whole way around, ends up out of range of course, and you're good to reload your save. Apparently the AI never messes up that way, so...


23) a button to always show enemy armies/heroes on the map

Because that would be quite handy, no?



24) Indicator for what is available where

On the diplomacy map, a menu that allows us to show/hide the buildings in a province (with a number on the icon to show how many of said building there is), or the units available for hire in a province, or, even better, both. It's kind of hellish to keep track of where you can buy what troops after a while.


25) Lore-friendly global map

I don't like (heh, being diplomatic here) the ME map. Leave this one for those who are happy with it, and for the others, make a lore friendly map. Keep the size, lower the scale. It'll please the fans because it'll be the right, uncut map. It'll also make the lands smaller, so less crossing continents back and forth. As they're smaller, they'll also be closer (paradoxakky maybe, but still), so you won't be stuck fighting the same factions for 50 turns.
I know it'll never happen, but I'll wishlist that anyway, because that ME map, I just hate it (yeah, well, diplomacy only goes so far. At least I'm keeping it civil). It's not the Warhammer World, it doesn't look remotely like it, it's a random map made up by CA, with Ulthuan somehow ending in the middle of it. W/o Ulthuan, someone who'd know the actual Warhammer map, who would see the ME map w/o knowing it's from this game, would have no idea what it's supposed to be.

Well I think that's all. Come on, I'm not asking for much, just hire a new team or something :pensive:
Post edited by Urgat on
«1

Comments

  • kywar87kywar87 Posts: 80Registered Users
    Most of these are great ideas that could add a lot of immersion to the game. Love the idea of making the regions feel more alive & adding tactical areas to pillage like shogun.

    I think assassination should only work vs heroes. Feels super cheap against lords.

    For #2, I don't really understand this one. What would be different mechanically from just placing your lord in the middle of a unit and grouping the formation?
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited August 2016
    Thanks!
    My explanations for #2, there's a few reasons:

    - First, it's harder to snipe a character,( lords and heroes) in a unit. Take the Empire luminark, it wouldn't be able to pick your character if he's in a unit. It's a trade off for not riding a powerful monster.

    - Also, I don't know how TW games calculates leadership (I think, at least it's the name of the stat in the TT, I don't remember its name in TW if it's different: the one that prevents you from running if a unit takes too many casualties or if something scary charges it), but if it's anything like the tabletop, some kind of bonus is probably granted for troop numbers (tabletop, it would be ranks, but I doubt it's the same there). Having your general (lord) in a unit would make him less prone to running, and for humans and greenskins especially, having your general stick around just that little longer can make a big difference because if his leadership bubble stays, so do the nearby units.

    - Additionally, heroes too have a higher leadership stat. They usually won't have a leadership bubble, though. Having that hero in a unit will at least ensure that particular unit benefits from his boosted leadership. For instance, you can have a unit on a flank, far from your general, less prone to running, making it more reliable. It's especially valuable on a cavalry unit you'll want to use for flanking, for instance.

    - Finally, you can't just throw all your units at a lone character and hope it'll work. You'd target the unit, the hero happens to be in it, but most of your guys will only be able to attack the unit itself, you can't concentrate all the attacks on the hero.
    Post edited by Urgat on
  • kywar87kywar87 Posts: 80Registered Users
    Gotcha, I'm onboard. A simple function allowing your leader to join a unit on the battlefield could probably make that happen. Neat idea.
  • TallamyTallamy Posts: 46Registered Users
    I LOVE the idea of number 3, absolutely LOVE it. That was something I kinda missed from say Medieval 2, the random bands of rebels would form and always give you something to extinguish.


    But I love the idea, and as for the DLC part... I just really want Bretonnia playable campaign lol

  • PanzerKnightPanzerKnight Posts: 162Registered Users
    All of your ideas are Stellar number 1 is a great addition because right now the main areas of the Empire and Bretonnia feel like your fighting in the barren landscape of Arabia.

    2 and 3 are pretty great too.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    Tallamy said:

    But I love the idea, and as for the DLC part... I just really want Bretonnia playable campaign lol

    They're coming before the end of the year, just be patient ;)
    Personally, I'm waiting for the Skarsnik pack (most likely introducing the squig units, a most glaring omission from the game), and holding off playing greenskins till then :)
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited December 2016
    I want to add to point 3, with civilian caravans moving randomly between cities (cities belonging to allied factions). They wouldn't be factionless though, they'd belong to factions, just they'd act on their own. Every time they reach a city, they provide an income bonus for their faction. If you intercept one from an opponent, you get a big income bonus.
    The purpose, again, is to add a bit more life to the map, more varied objectives, and a fun facet to the economic side of things. I know, it's weird, it would never happen, but it costs nothing to me to write this down, so there it is.

    I also want to add:

    8) There's some pretty baffling skills missing, like the banshee/terrorgheist screams, that should be added. I name those two in particular because it's skills that are kindda iconic to them. Her scream is actually the point of the banshee in the tabletop game... And, well, her... let dragons breathe fire/noxious fumes/whatever? Come on, dragons?

    9) for the love of Gork and Mork, do something to balance the horde rabble dudes. In the tabletop game, balance is achieved through percents (in TW, it'd be a % between unit tiers. Tier 1 25% minimum, tier 2 50% max, etc), a max point limit, etc. There's none of that in TW obviously, besides the hard 20 units limit per army. It means armies like goblins will just get curbstomped over because they can't capitalise on the fact they are cheap (well, they should be, but it's not really obvious in the game...). Big dumdeedoo that they are cheap, they can still field only 20 units, like, dunno, chaos warriors for instance. I know the point isn't to have balanced armies, the armies is as strong as what you can afford, but at least give them a fighting chance, and the fighting chance of gobs is to be veeeeery numerous.
    Make goblin, zombie, and the upcoming other rabble (gnoblar, skavens in geenral) units bigger. The engine apparently doesn't allow over 200 strong, well, they should at the very minimum be at 200. It won't nearly offset the fact they can't have heroes join them (and therefore still won't stick around if they get stared at, see excplanation for point 2 above), but in the odd event that they do, they'd at least achieve something...
    Post edited by Urgat on
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    I'm keeping on with this pointless exercise, but heh, I like it :-p

    I was thinking about the unit banners. Back then when the first Shogun was released, amusingly enough, the first thought that occured to me when I saw the screenshots was "they totally ripped the banner system from Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat" (or was it later, and then it was Dark Omen? Can't be bothered to check the dates). I didn't blame them though, I really liked that system, it's very efficient, I'm actually surprised it wasn't used more.
    So yeah, the banners, they're a neat, handy technic. Why doesn't CA go the full way with the copy, though? In the old Warhammer RTS, those banners don't disappear when the unit goes off screen, they shrink and stick to the border of the screen, relative to the actual direction the unit is. So you see, say, a black orc banner on the left edge of your screen, you know there's a black orc unit this way. You can even click on it to attack it, no need to scroll all the way to them.
    It's very, very handy, I don't get why it doesn't work like that in the TW games, so I add that as my 10th point.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    In my opinion CA should completely, and I mean COMPLETELY, overhaul sieges. I like that walls are thicker. That really adds a lot to the fighting. The problem is how small the portion of the city you attack is. The layout inside the cities are limited and actually quite annoying at times. These places should be massive or at the very least much larger. There's no reason. The deployment zone for attackers should be 8x as large as the besieged section of the city. Would be nice if dwarves had something special about their siege battles too. Tunnels, tons of gates, traps, etc. Expected a lot more for them. Walls and towers should actually collapse with an animation and leave rubble. Taking down a wall section with artillery just leaves a box opening with the other sections of wall just flat. THAT is lame and I think everyone can agree with me on that.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    Gotta admit that for all the flak the game took back then, the sieges in Mark of Chaos were way, and I do mean WAY better. I agree with pretty much all your points, excepted the walls thickness, I find them silly, you could have a highway built on top of them.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    A highway you can drop a terrorgheist on and let it rampage across the wall until some support shows up in a siege tower. I like that you can fit an entire battle on the walls now.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited July 2016
    That's my problem with it actually: the entire battle happens on a tiny portion of the walls because you can fit so much there, the rest is completely empty. It doesn't really look like a siege to me.
    As for the terrorgheist comment, it'd be cooler if it could cling to wall and tower edges, you know, like in movies and stuff. Well, at least to me ;)
    I've just watched MoC sieges again on Youtube, they're really much more dynamic. Sure, the castles are like half the size of one of those gigantic walls in TW, but the siege at least happens all around them, and there's more tactics to it, from within, you gotta get to the tower and climb the stairs in there to go on the walls, etc, that creates strategic points to capture, choke points to breach, etc.
    Sadly, I don't expect CA to ever touch the siege mechanic, though, the only hope would be if we ever had tools to create/modify maps ourselves, I believe.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    I don't like the idea of mods being the solution to this game's problems but if CA makes it clear they are prepared to leave sieges in the state they are, I would be more than happy to let modders fix what CA isn't willing to fix themselves. I expect it'll come down to that though.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    11) Unit restrictions on army rosters.
    Ok, after a couple months of going at it, I can't help but say it's compltely out of wack. There's a need for army restrictions, as there was in the TT game. Something basd on the unit tiers, probably, as it's the only way I can see that separates units in a somewhat similar way as the units in the TT.
    Here is how I would go about it:
    - first of all, make a difference between generals.
    Let's say LL stay the same, 20 units per army.
    Make regular lord generals restricted to only 10 units per armies (15 for stuff like goblins maybe).
    Allow heroes to lead armies of five units. That'll allow you have have some forces roaming the maps w/o having to destroy your economy after two stacks of 20.
    - Second, put limits on the units per tier.
    - Let's say a regular lord army, limited to 10 units. Tier1 units would be unlimited, you can fill your whole roster with it if you want. Tier 2 units would be limited to 5 max. Tier 3 units would be only two max. You can only field two heroes max in the army.
    - Double all that for the LL armies (whoch would be the Grand Armies from TT)
    - For small hero armies, no tier 3 units, only one additional hero, only two tier 2 units.

    Maybe let some generals have exceptions later, but for now, I think it would greatly improve things.
  • jayman2017jayman2017 Junior Member Posts: 26Registered Users
    they were saying they'd have solo quest for heroes and lords. It was in the orginial pitch when they pitched the game. I noticed it wasn't in the game at launch, I was dissapointed. I have been making a big fuss about screams for awhile now. It's a big problem with vampires and why they didn't go with it I will never know, but it really needs to be put into the game. I think my biggest problem is the econmay. I never seem to have any money, and more lands general mean less money. One would think that the centers of powers would have at least a strong econmay. Or at least have a bank I can burrow from. some way to manage debt and not make it game braking. If I ruin my own econmany that is my fault. I tend to play with mods that improve my econmay to make the game a little more fun to play.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    Didn't know solo quests were planed. Maybe we'll see them in the future then.

    Can't believe I forgot that one:
    12) Some sort of Day/night cycle, and seasons cycle. If a smaller game like Endless Legend can pull that well, I don't see why it couldn't be done in TW:WH.
    Obviously, we can't have a one turn day, one turn night cycle (there's no real time scale anyway, it takes as long to build a handful siege towers or a whole city, or train a brand new unit from scratch), so how about half day half night for each season? So many of the events in the lore happen during the night, and/or are closely linked to Moorslieb (one of the two moons), it's crazy it's not taken into account in the game (don't talk to me about the beastmen event, please).
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    I absolutely hate that moon. Most of those you wouldn't pick because of the awful downsides. +33% upkeep? I don't care if I'm getting free cygors. That's just painful. Units replenished to full NEXT turn? Oh but your growth has is going backwards and fast. If those options only had the good side affects I would be fine if they did less. I always pick the ones that hurt me plans the least at that moment, usually it still hurts me. I wish CA would've made a mechanic I don't dread when I see it pop up. Huge ass pains and no gains is all I've felt for it.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    Gotta admit it feels like being forced to pick the lesser evil.

    From another topic:
    13) The battle maps.
    Many people think they're too small, I'm not sure I agree. They need to be way more cramped though, with loads of features, like rivers with bridges and fords, thickets troops can't go through (excepted maybe beastmen, forest gobs and the coming wood elf and their tree spirit friends), buildings, rock formations, little villages, etc etc. The maps in all the previous WFB rts games (SotHR, DO, MoC) were all smaller, yet way more interesting too. They had abandonned wizard towers, haunted cemetaries, pools of lava, etc etc etc. The maps in TW:W are all just big, empty places with various degress of hills and some trees. The environment AROUND them is awesome, but the battleground itself? It's just an empty board.
    And really, you can't use the TT to justify that, if anything, (some) people were complaining that in 8th ed, the various scenery pieces took too much importance (shrines that'd buff troops, boiling rivers that scald them, venomous thickets, statues that would fry the nearby troops, etc etc).
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    Yeah that background is epic and then we get to fight in the only space in 500 miles with as few features as possible. All the maps we do get are very repetitive anyway. Wouldn't kill them to turn all those background features into actual maps.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    14) a couple other topics reminded me of that one: permadeath. Not losing a lord for good when he dies, not having a RoR unavailable anymore when wiped out removes all sense of epicness and attachment to them, having your enemies come back a couple turns after they bit the dust crushes all sense of achievement and just leads to boredom, if not of annoyance.
    It... honestly it stinks. There's one gameplay mechanics that is totally beyond me. It's Warhammer where everybody bloody dies all the time, this one feature is so not-Warhammer, it hurts me. To think GW validated that, when they were so **** for so long about slayers being playable in Warhammer: Age of Reckoning (for the reason that slayers seek death and therefore a pkayer that can revive after death is really contrary to the philosophy of the concept) baffles me.
    You ant the players who want to to keep their precious lords, fine? But please give us a box to check for permadeath in the options (and don't link it to the difficulty, thank you) for those that hate this... "feature".
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Posts: 939Registered Users
    I share your views on a lot of these subjects, in particular the army composition (Hero = small warband, lords a good army, legendary lords a massive army).

    Keep up the daydreaming
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Posts: 939Registered Users
    So did I when I had the time...

    I dream of the day I win the lottery and can hire a game studio to make a videogame as I'd like...
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    So... I was right about Skarsnik vs Belegar and squigs DLC :p Not my point though (though I do like some gloating).
    There's an interesting little thing in there that I'm surprised nobody pointed out yet though (to my knowledge, at least):
    the big boss squig mount.
    It's based on a Forgeworld model.

    Yup. A FORGEWORLD model.

    Take a time to fully register that one.

    This opens up interesting possibilities.
    First, obviously, they're not forbidden from using those, obviously, so that means we might have more FW stuff. Granted, for now, it's only a skin for an existing GW unit, But! That's an open door to me.
    Second (warning, biiiiiig stretch), if CA can pick stuff from FW, why not picking stuff from less mainstream GW stuff? I'm looking at the Storm of Magic book there, for instance.
    Picture actual Storms of Magic floating through the map (rather than those annoyingly lazy pop ups).
    Picture battles played under these, with boosted magic, binding scrolls, and spontaneously spawning fulcrums.
    That'd make a kickass DLC.
    I won't add that in my wishlist, it's just a random musing, but at the very least this squig proves FW stuff is not off limits, this at least is a fact.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    Instead of a DLC how about an update... Save DLCs for new factions. This game is going to get expensive soon enough without some extra additions. That would be like adding a bunch of stuff to sieges to make hem properly fun but making people buy it. Would you not RIOT over that? Because I would.

    Now about the forgeworld models, I don't think anyone is convinced at this point that CA is limited to only 8th edition stuff. It seems more likely they are just unwilling to branch out all that much. So we might see a few things here or there but I wouldn't get your hopes up if you're expecting tons of units from all over the place.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited May 2017
    With all the BS spewted around in the forums about feral beasts, I want to add a "15)" (edit: in total disregard with my previous post, that I just reread after posting this :p). So w/o further ado:

    15) add Storm of Magic stuff. SoM is aimed at ubber big battles in the TT, TW is exactly where it's at.
    So, add scrolls of binding one way or another. Let the armies get regular feral beasts when it fits. For the others, let them buy/loot scrolls of binding. Dunno, make it a one use item, when you cast it, it summons a monster, a pack or a unit from a random table linked to the area the battle happens in, or linked to the army you'd loot it from (like you beat a LM army, you can loot a Lustria Scroll of Binding) - I prefer the first option though.
    There's SoM-like events already. When these happen let fulcrums occasionnaly spawn on the battlefields.
    And to complete the pack, add the darned wizard lords. You know it's a DLC that makes sence. Come on CA!
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Posts: 2,699Registered Users
    Seams resonable, I´m onboard :)
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users
    Maybe a non playable faction?
    A perfect non playable short roster faction could be chaos rebels/cultist. They just require some artistic re-skinning. I think it's odd that norsemen rebel EVERYWHERE.
  • UrgatUrgat Posts: 992Registered Users
    edited May 2017
    Thanks for the comments ;)
    KGpoopy said:

    Maybe a non playable faction?
    A perfect non playable short roster faction could be chaos rebels/cultist. They just require some artistic re-skinning. I think it's odd that norsemen rebel EVERYWHERE.

    That would be covered in point 3), the examples I gave were non-comprehensive, chaos cultists could certainly spawn here in there in some Empire cities when there's a chaos army nearby.
    Post edited by Urgat on
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    Urgat said:

    Thanks for the comments ;)

    KGpoopy said:

    Maybe a non playable faction?
    A perfect non playable short roster faction could be chaos rebels/cultist. They just require some artistic re-skinning. I think it's odd that norsemen rebel EVERYWHERE.

    That would be covered in point 3), the examples I gave were non-comprehensive, chaos cultists could certainly spawn here in there in some Empire cities when there's a chaos army nearby.
    Thematic factions are in fact coming it turns out.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file