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.

Some suggestions to Improve/change TW:WH

GaataGaata Posts: 7Registered Users
edited March 25 in Feedback & Suggestions
Wall of text inc.
1. Replace Charge bonus with Initiative and add a new stat, Impact Damage Bonus

Charge bonus has always been slightly off for me, Seeing units with huge charge bonus send enemy unit formations flying only for them to get back up in a few seconds has always irked me. Additionally seeing units with lances doing the same impact damage as sword variants has always thrown me for a loop.
Charge bonus as a standalone stat does make some sense as units getting an advantage upon their foes due to momentum or weapon typing is a great addition to strategy. However this phenomenon should also apply to units that are braced and ready for incoming enemy attacks. Hence Initiative, similar to charge bonus, but applying a melee defense bonus as well and activating for braced units upon starting a melee. Impact Damage Bonus can do what it says on the tin, increasing the damage a charging unit does upon contact. Impact damage bonus would allow lance units to do their proper charge damage.

Here's some generalizations of unit statistics and explanations for their changes;

Ini = initiaive
IDB= Impact damage bonus
BsVL= Bonus Vs. Large
AP= Armour Piercing

Swordsmen: high MA/MD Medium Ini medium IDB
Similar to how they are currently.

Greatswords: High MA Low MD Medium Ini high IDB (slow attack rate) AP
A high impact damage bonus and Medium initiative will give greatswords a good initial charge, but wear off quickly as their attack rate and low MD kick in.

Spearmen: BsVL Medium MA High MD High Ini low IDB
High initiative and melee defense will allow them to heavily counter charge reliant foes, but they will lose to slower, steadier units.

Dual weilding infantry: High MA Low MD High Initiative medium IDB (fast attack rate)
Fast attack rate and initiative to give these units an edge against slow attacking foes.

Halberdiers BsVL Medium MA High MD High Ini low IDB (slow attack rate) AP
These units function similar to spearmen, but have a slow attack rate due to their heavy, armour-piercing halberds

Sword Cavalry High MA/MD High Ini medium IDB
These units are great anti-light infantry due to their high MA/MD, but lack heavy impact damage

Greatsword Cavalry High MA Low MD medium ini High IDB(slow attack rate) AP
A high impact damage bonus and Medium initiative will give greatsword cavalry a good initial charge, but wear off quickly as their attack rate and low MD kick in.

Lance Cavalry BsVL Low-Medium MA Medium MD Medium Ini High IDB (slow attack rate) AP
These units can punch through heavy armour, and will damage enemy cavalry on the charge. However they will lose out against normal cavalry if put in a prolonged engagement

Chariots High MA Low MD Very High Ini Medium IDB
These unit's mass and initiative allow them to quickly tear through enemy formations, but will lose out heavily if surrounded in prolonged engagements

2. Armour-Piercing damage needs to be toned down
Armour-Piercing proliferation has always been a terrible thorn for heavily armoured elite infantry in TW:WH, nearly all units with armour-piercing have it in excessive ratios. Very few of the heavily armoured units in the game are cost-effective due to the abundance of penetration. Units can still be effective against armour, but it needs to be toned down. Just because a musket can penetrate conventional armour, doesn't mean it can go through heavy plate blessed by the chaos gods or Dawi Masterwork. Greatswords, Halberds, Polearms, and Handgunners all need for their ratios to be toned down across the board. I am in favor of having artillery and specialized units like Trollhammer Torpedoes, Hammerer's, and units with monstrous strength(Ie. Giants/dragons) keeping high ratios however. Some units like Dwarf Warriors and Chaos Warriors may need to have their armour reduced for balance.

3. Remove or change Foot Squires
There are no peasant knights.

4.Increase the unit size of Bretonnian infantry and buff normal Trebuchets.
Bretonnian's need an edge, and I believe they are in a good spot with their cavalry(questing knights need ratios nerfed). Unit size may be a performance Issue, but I still believe it will be a good balancer for bretonnia's weaker infantry. Currently, there is very little reason to take non-blessed trebuchets. They do less damage than pitiful goblin rock lobba's and have a very small area of effect. Trebuchets should be larger and more powerful(and possibly slower), so they can deal better with enemy lines. Giving them larger rocks or rocks that bounce would also be a nice addition. This is even more important since heavily armoured dawi resist the magic damage of the blessed Trebuchets. Bretonnian's could also use a nasty skulker-esque peasant for wall capture vs heavily armoured factions.

5. Chaos could use a better campaign
There are some ways the chaos campaign could be improved, this is my suggestion. Keep the horde mechanics, but allow Chaos to set up powerful citadels with 2 building slots in provincial capitols. Sort of similar to how Wood Elves function, but with some key differences. Only the main settlement can be taken, other small settlements would remain runious altars that spread corruption. The main settlement would gain growth at a fixed rate based on chaos corruption in the area, maxing out at Tier 3. Normal chaos chosen would be removed.

Each main settlement has a few choices;
Limit 1 t3 shrine to Khorne/Nurgle/Tzeentch/Slannesh, allowing for recruitment of that Chaos God's chosen for local army
2 tier Walls w/garrison
Chaos Corruption spreading building w/repleneshment Bonus
Favor generating shrine.

New Chosen
All-Immune to psychology
Chosen of Khorne Dual-Weild Frenzy and Bloodgreed
Chosen of Nurgle Sword&board Very High MD and poison attacks
Chosen of Tzeentch Halberd 15% ward save
Chosen of Slaanesh Great Weapon High Ini Terror





Post edited by Gaata on
«1

Comments

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 7,701Registered Users
    Weeeell, since that would require completely rebalancing the game which would be incredibly expensive in terms of both time and money the odds of your suggestions making it are somewhere between "never" and "nope".
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,317Registered Users
    1. I don't know about all that, but I would like to see two handed weapon units get a boost in melee attack and chosen with halberds should get expert charge defense and even something that would drop cavalry on the charge alone.

    2. No comment on this. I'm not sure about the problem with armor piecing.

    3. Aw come on man, foot squires are cool. To me, they should get rid of the peasant mark on them instead.

    4. Bretonnia having weak infantry makes up for their power in Calvary. Whether it be in the air or on the ground. To me though, their infantry is not that bad, because I use them as meat shields and not so much valid combatants.

    5. :blush: yes. Better campaign and their full roster. Including the warshrine.

    Yeah chosen should be the most feared infantry in the game. But I guess CA is scared to make them powerful because they are DLC.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 2,746Registered Users
    Did this guy just copy the chaos overhaul thread in #5?

    Can't agree with anything in #4. If anyone should have their unit sizes increased, it's Chaos. Possibly a few choice beastmen units

    #3 can be done by nerfing them and getting them off the peasantry limit.

    #2 is suggesting a major and sudden shift and that's going to really hurt balance. Armor piercing is also the counter to armor so in trying to make AP less effective you may as well give armored units a resistance to AP for all the good it'll do and all the sense it'll make. Can we get some examples of this AP proliferation really impacting play negatively? (don't include Chosen. We know. We know...)
    I also take great offense to your suggestion we nerf Chaos warriors. They are borderline cost effective units and nerfs are uncalled for.
  • GaataGaata Posts: 7Registered Users
    edited March 19
    Retyped since it dissappeared :V

    I didn't read the Chaos Overhaul prior to making my post, which is funny since they are very similar.

    Foot squires don't belong in game in my opinion, they don't make much sense lore-wise and I'd much prefer for factions to be unique/have clear weaknesses and virtues. Their anti-armour role could be performed by a light Men-at-arms/peasant unit similar to a nasty skulker.

    I would agree that beastmen could also use a unit size increase for their lower tier units, but I would disagree with that for chaos(besides possibly Mauraders). Chaos Units suffer from a unit survivability issue and their heavy armour underperforms. If you were to raise HP to fix the issue, opposing magic and artillery would be adversely effected.

    AP proliferation is impacting gameplay negatively by causing very highly armoured units like Ironbreakers, Beastigors, Knights, Hammerers, Armoured Chaos trolls and the like to be cost-ineffective due to underperforming defensively in combat. A ratio reduction would still allow for armour-peircing units to deal damage to these types of units, however their armour would still function, not being worth as little as it is now. Artillery would still be an effective counter to these units as I believe they should keep their high ratios and many of them move slowly. My proposed nerfs to Chaos warriors and dwarfs would only be in a situation where my armour piercing changes were implemented, as right now chaos warriors aren't in a great spot.

    While I realize these changes are unlikely for the current total war title, I'd hate to see under-performing heavy armour and strange charge mechanics persist into the next games in the trilogy.
    Post edited by Gaata on
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    edited March 19
    Well I'm kind of invested into the overhaul, and got my hopes up, but do you mind if I mention your idea of keeping the horde mechanics but still be able to build citadels ? Because that is exactly what CA might do if they consider the overhaul. The citadels play an Oak of ages role and a chaos portal role at the same time.
    Post edited by KGpoopy on
  • GaataGaata Posts: 7Registered Users
    Feel free, I'd love the addition of Citadels w/horde mechanics even if my other ideas don't get implemented.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    edited March 19
    Gaata said:

    Feel free, I'd love the addition of Citadels w/horde mechanics even if my other ideas don't get implemented.

    Well the chosen idea is basically mark of chaos, which will probably be done anyway. I'd say your charge idea makes sense from the stand point of lances doing more damage on the charge rather than prolonged combat. Yeah the first idea just makes sense realistically but from a total war perspective it's probably not going to change unless there is a way of doing that without fundamental under the hood changes.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 1,544Registered Users
    fyi Chaos still plays good, just make small groups of axe+gw+halberd.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 2,746Registered Users
    edited March 20
    KGpoopy said:

    Well I'm kind of invested into the overhaul, and got my hopes up, but do you mind if I mention your idea of keeping the horde mechanics but still be able to build citadels ? Because that is exactly what CA might do if they consider the overhaul. The citadels play an Oak of ages role and a chaos portal role at the same time.

    Was anybody actually suggesting those citadels take for the Chaos campaign and replace hordes? I was under the impression they would stay as a horde faction with these citadels acting as defensive positions with bonuses and higher replenishment.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,317Registered Users
    edited March 19
    KGpoopy said:

    Well I'm kind of invested into the overhaul, and got my hopes up, but do you mind if I mention your idea of keeping the horde mechanics but still be able to build citadels ? Because that is exactly what CA might do if they consider the overhaul. The citadels play an Oak of ages role and a chaos portal role at the same time.

    That's the idea for citadels anyway. And you described it perfectly, an Oak of ages/chaos portal role. No settling and no economy buildings. Just military and technical boost like replenishment, +5 melee defense, faster research, upkeep reduction, recruitment cost reduction etc etc. That's why you will probably see a couple armies spawning out of citadel regions because of the benefits. Also that's why we don't want these things to be built everywhere and anywhere. They are supposed to be special and rare. Which is why I put a requirement of 60+ corruption to be able to build them, and is why they are capital region exclusive.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,317Registered Users
    This guy's reaction is exactly what I was going for.
    Malcolm said:

    Dude this is a fantastic idea! This would really make chaos more interesting to play if they can build dread citadels in provincial capitals. Maybe to build them after you conquered the place should cost a large amount of favor to build them, it should make you pick carefully where to build them so you don't spam them. I find it annoying when playing chaos that when you go south away from the Norsca there is no safe place to rebuild your numbers and it takes ages rebuild your army.

    Also as a defender of the old world, it would encourage you to help your allies more or you may see their capitals became dread citadels that will create more chaos nasties to terrorize you. So it is in your best interest to help your allies and make sure they don't fall.

    I really really hope CA use some of your ideas. You should have been on the chaos development team. :smile:

    Yeah I'm glad you realize how terrifying that would be as a defender. That's what we were going for. And as for playing as them yeah it would be quite interesting. Especially with the freedom that chaos has in how they can affect the map. It would make corrupting it and turning it into a realm for the dark gods more meaningful gameplay wise. Also that's a good idea of yours to make building these citadels cost a bit, but keep in mind that to be able to build them you need to corrupt the province to certain percentage. Which is difficult in itself. At least for me. But razing minor settlements can accelerate the corruption of the capitals. As these razed former settlements now have that floating ring that corrupts the region and bordering regions. Which I think is brilliant.

    Just like this. -->

    ...and hopefully CA makes these citadels siegeable becasue it's the reason I posted these walls.






  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    :flushed:
    Oh, I assumed the horde mechanic would be obsolete. But this sounds great.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    People taking some things from the chaos overhaul thread like ....


  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 7,701Registered Users
    edited March 20
    I'm still absolutely against the addition of Chaos Citadels in this way, for me it just sounds like people want to have the benefits of horde and settled factions without any of the downsides. A fixed safe haven to fall back on but which you don't have to actually administer and take care of. That's just lazy and makes it way too easy to play it safe. Dwarfs are the race that should have rock-solid fortresses to fall back on, not WoC.

    WoC should be rewarded for aggressiveness and pushing forward. Maybe give a replenishment bonuses for sacrificing X amount of captives?


  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    edited March 20

    I'm still absolutely against the addition of Chaos Citadels in this way, for me it just sounds like people want to have the benefits of horde and settled factions without any of the downsides. A fixed safe haven to fall back on but which you don't have to actually administer and take care of. That's just lazy and makes it way too easy to play it safe. Dwarfs are the race that should have rock-solid fortresses to fall back on, not WoC.

    WoC should be rewarded for aggressiveness and pushing forward. Maybe give a replenishment bonuses for sacrificing X amount of captives?


    The only management of the citadel would be to upgrade it, and even that would be difficult because it cost dark favor to build the citadel and upgrade, which requires the warriors to pillage. Also since they can only be built after 60+ corruption or whatever the number would be, it requires the warriors to corrupt and do more pillaging. On top of that, the citadels can only be built in capitals, which means minor settlements are to be sacked or razed completely. And according to ChaosDragon, those chaos portals would help accelerate the corruption of adjacent regions. So it seems you really have to work for it, but the pay off is building a baddass dark god citadel.

    Sounds legit to me. The campaign could also use more ways of corrupting too.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 1,544Registered Users

    I'm still absolutely against the addition of Chaos Citadels in this way, for me it just sounds like people want to have the benefits of horde and settled factions without any of the downsides. A fixed safe haven to fall back on but which you don't have to actually administer and take care of. That's just lazy and makes it way too easy to play it safe. Dwarfs are the race that should have rock-solid fortresses to fall back on, not WoC.

    WoC should be rewarded for aggressiveness and pushing forward. Maybe give a replenishment bonuses for sacrificing X amount of captives?


    Well said but a Chaos fortress isn't a safe heaven, it serves a purpose in war. In addition the enemies can siege it and so no replenishment.
  • GaataGaata Posts: 7Registered Users
    Ephraim_Dalton I do see where you are coming from, and I should have thought through the chaos mechanics before I made any post about suggestions to fix them. There are several issues that a citadel mechanic would fix, namely repleneshment, Chaos god specific shrines(since a shrine to Khorne wouldn't belong in Sigvalds horde), and recolonization. Repleneshment could be fixed in other ways, like higher corruption bonuses, sacrificing captives wouldn't be my first choice. Chaos god shrines could be tied individually to a horde, but that would severely limit chosen variety for each army. You would need 4 tier 4 armies to recruit each type, which is slightly unrealistic. On recolonization, I don't like ruins sitting on the map for a long time without the AI taking them, but for Chaos it becomes whack-a-mole very quickly. I can't think of a good way to fix it without some form of base-building off of the top of my head either.

    Overall I do want large imposing fortresses for Chaos, but they perhaps should be limited to the massive warp portal fortresses in the chaos wastes like the Inevitable City and the Bastion Stair. Since those places don't exist in the current title, I'm slightly favoring citadels. I don't really see chaos as a defensive race and having to pull back hordes to defend settlements may kill some of the campaign's flexibility. Regardless there are some things you could do to mitigate that, perhaps requiring adjacent provinces to be chaos controlled and/or having AI factions require vision of your citadels before they move to attack them.

    After reading the Chaos overhaul thread I do agree that they shouldn't have any income buildings, and I've removed the favor shrines from my suggestions.

    The main reason I even brought up overhauling chaos was to provide a path to getting Chaos god specific Chosen, since having generic chosen seemed kind of silly.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    edited March 20
    Gaata said:



    The main reason I even brought up overhauling chaos was to provide a path to getting Chaos god specific Chosen, since having generic chosen seemed kind of silly.

    ...could open the gateway to recruiting daemons too since Archaon had daemons in his army as well. One of the nurgle lords recruits out of the Brass keep.

    By the way, you wouldn't be able to afford to stick around and defend the citadel. And why would you stick around anyway? I mean you can if you want to. But there is more pillaging and conquering to do in the mean while lol

    and the dark favor you get from pillaging you could use for upgrading the defenses of the citadel. Building and upgrading chaos citadels promotes offence not defense.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,317Registered Users
    edited March 20
    We bringing the party over here? ok :smile:

    Well because these citadels are not settlements and WoC would still freely march the map, I wouldn't be too concerned with the absolute defense of the citadel. The WoC are not tied down by the citadel. There is a huge incentive to accomplish the construction of one, as I said it benefits greatly your research, armies, and units. If you find yourself fighting bretonia and your first and only citadel way in Pragg(kislev) is being attacked, so what? Dark god citadels don't have the economy you need to sustain your army, but they will help sustain and strengthen the WoC. But your economy is reliant on pillaging always.

    Hopefully CA creates more amusing ways to corrupting regions.

    -Give chaos the option of giving "money' to any faction in exchange for +3 to +10 corruption depending on the amount of money given. 500= +2 corruption 1200= +4 corruption

    -Give chaos heroes the ability to infiltrate a settlement for X amount of turns. After X amount of turns there will be a new building that replaces a current building in that settlement. This new building will be one that sucks money out of the faction and cause chaos corruption. -1200 gold and +5 corruption. These buildings can cost a chunk of money to get rid of. And your agent might get wounded and fail the mission in the process depending on level and skill.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 2,746Registered Users
    Giving money to cause corruption should be more expensive. Considering how much Chaos can easily get, the cost should be at least 1000 "gold" for every one corruption.
    That hero infiltration idea shouldnt completely remove buildings(Incase that's what you were suggesting). Just have the building's name change to "Corrupted (name)" and put a big Chaos stamp on it. The building in question should give none of its bonuses or unlocks. Spending money to remove it seems fine but the AI cheats, as we all know, so unless CA writes something in to stop them from just instantly remove it... it'll be a pointless thing to do. What I suggest is the use of an agent action instead of throwing money at it, % chance to remove the building and wound the Chaos agent with your own action that would cost money anyway. Putting an agent in a city should be an action with a % chance to fail. At this point the corrupted building would be active and the agent would need to stay to keep the building out of the picture. Then we can have the agent wait "X turns" until the building will stay on its own. Removing the building now would mean your agent goes against the skill of the Chaos agent at the time that agent was no longer needed. I don't think we should have any turn by turn rolls for failure this.
    I like the idea but I just wanted to polish it a little...
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 7,701Registered Users
    KGpoopy said:

    I'm still absolutely against the addition of Chaos Citadels in this way, for me it just sounds like people want to have the benefits of horde and settled factions without any of the downsides. A fixed safe haven to fall back on but which you don't have to actually administer and take care of. That's just lazy and makes it way too easy to play it safe. Dwarfs are the race that should have rock-solid fortresses to fall back on, not WoC.

    WoC should be rewarded for aggressiveness and pushing forward. Maybe give a replenishment bonuses for sacrificing X amount of captives?


    The only management of the citadel would be to upgrade it, and even that would be difficult because it cost dark favor to build the citadel and upgrade, which requires the warriors to pillage. Also since they can only be built after 60+ corruption or whatever the number would be, it requires the warriors to corrupt and do more pillaging. On top of that, the citadels can only be built in capitals, which means minor settlements are to be sacked or razed completely. And according to ChaosDragon, those chaos portals would help accelerate the corruption of adjacent regions. So it seems you really have to work for it, but the pay off is building a baddass dark god citadel.

    Sounds legit to me. The campaign could also use more ways of corrupting too.
    So it also requires you to linger in regions to fully corrupt them first? Great, a pace-breaker par execellance. Another reason to oppose the idea.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users

    KGpoopy said:

    I'm still absolutely against the addition of Chaos Citadels in this way, for me it just sounds like people want to have the benefits of horde and settled factions without any of the downsides. A fixed safe haven to fall back on but which you don't have to actually administer and take care of. That's just lazy and makes it way too easy to play it safe. Dwarfs are the race that should have rock-solid fortresses to fall back on, not WoC.

    WoC should be rewarded for aggressiveness and pushing forward. Maybe give a replenishment bonuses for sacrificing X amount of captives?


    The only management of the citadel would be to upgrade it, and even that would be difficult because it cost dark favor to build the citadel and upgrade, which requires the warriors to pillage. Also since they can only be built after 60+ corruption or whatever the number would be, it requires the warriors to corrupt and do more pillaging. On top of that, the citadels can only be built in capitals, which means minor settlements are to be sacked or razed completely. And according to ChaosDragon, those chaos portals would help accelerate the corruption of adjacent regions. So it seems you really have to work for it, but the pay off is building a baddass dark god citadel.

    Sounds legit to me. The campaign could also use more ways of corrupting too.
    So it also requires you to linger in regions to fully corrupt them first? Great, a pace-breaker par execellance. Another reason to oppose the idea.
    You can choose to linger if you want to.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 7,701Registered Users
    Anything that encourages hanging back and using a slow, methodical approach for the Warriors of Chaos (unless you're Nurgle-aligned) does not have my consent.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    edited March 20

    Anything that encourages hanging back and using a slow, methodical approach for the Warriors of Chaos (unless you're Nurgle-aligned) does not have my consent.

    "Playing methodical" and "lingering" is a choice you make. I think it's been demonstrated that this gives flexibility. You pillage the map and build the citadel by doing more pillaging and corrupting which encourages you being active as the WoC.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 1,013Registered Users
    Mods put my comments back please. Thank you
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 589Registered Users
    edited March 20

    Anything that encourages hanging back and using a slow, methodical approach for the Warriors of Chaos (unless you're Nurgle-aligned) does not have my consent.

    Isn't the fact that if you lose an army, you lose a huge amount of momentum, one of the biggest things that encourages a slow, methodical approach (unless you want to safe and load to prevent that from happening at all or do some immersion breaking shenenigans like keeping one army which you build up and keep out of reach to spawn armies you actually attack with)? I assume that wasn't changed since I last played WoC.

    If I was to characterize how WoC should play as a faction, I would say that their campaign mechanics should encourage a style of play that has invasions like the AI WoC events as a result. That means you should be encouraged to invade in big waves and try to overpower the other Old World factions (as opposed to the Beastmen that are always kind of there to wreak havoc).
    So ideally, I would like to see something like this: You start off as a Norscan tribe, conquer the north while devoting yourself to the Chaos Gods to unlock units and LLs etc. Once you have enough power, you can call an invasion (like the crusade mechanic in past TWs for example) where it is encouraged to have many armies but also to push forward at all costs (for example the upkeep of your units would increase with time not spent killing and sacking/razing). If you fail the invasion, you build up again (maybe some provinces in Norsca secede from you that you have to reconquer) and try again.
    So I think a place you can fall back on in case you fail in your aggression is something that can encourage reckless aggression because the consequences of failure are not overwhelmingly bad (something that prevents you from losing a big amount of progress for losing just one army). The thing pushing WoC forward is the negative income (reliance on sacking) which I don't think would be different if structures for them are introduced.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,317Registered Users
    edited March 20
    I really want the WoC to distance their playstyle from the beastmen. The WoC are not a horde in the sense of a cowardly army of fanatic animals. They are a different kind of destruction to me. It's a religious barbaric fanaticism that wants the old world to be the realm of the dark gods. Their playstyle should be a horde like no other. The overhaul does not force you to do anything, and it encourages many forms of playstyles and options. What I mean is you are not tied down to a settlement, but you can erect a citadel for every reason except economy. Becasue to please the dark gods or to get dark favor, you have to wreck things. Everything cost dark favor so that encourages exploration and more destruction. These citadels are ideally like the Oak of ages/chaos rifts where they are mighty fortified temples of refuge and military strength effecting both region and faction. You don't even have to build them, but there is a huge incentive to do so. Coming with the citadel idea is more ways to corrupt other than sitting around in a region. How about that irony? So like others have said this gives more flexibility and more options....and sieging a chaos citadel.

    @HorseWithNoName
    That's not bad. Could be a thing for a playable Norsca campaign.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 7,701Registered Users
    All I'm seeing is introducing options that remove quite a lot of difficulty from the campaign when WoC already have the easiest campaign in the game. Why are people so adamant to remove all challenge from the faction?

    Playing a slow game as WoC should get you overwhelmed and defeated, not be a game winner. As I said, Dwarfs are the ones who should have this playstyle.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,317Registered Users
    edited March 20

    All I'm seeing is introducing options that remove quite a lot of difficulty from the campaign when WoC already have the easiest campaign in the game. Why are people so adamant to remove all challenge from the faction?

    Playing a slow game as WoC should get you overwhelmed and defeated, not be a game winner. As I said, Dwarfs are the ones who should have this playstyle.

    It would be no more slow or fast as it is now. But it would be more fun. The dwarves are to have a slower paced campaign, but chaos are to have something in between. The dwarves can not adopt this playstyle because they are not a pillaging and corrupting race trying to ascend and build the dark realm for the gods.

    It's not that they have the easiest campaign (WoC) but they have no interesting gameplay elements. They are just a plain horde faction. People are adamant on making chaos fun to play not unnecessarily hard. To make this about being hard is compromising fun. I know fun is a bad word in the forum though.

    I'll probably have to repeat myself so I'll just post some key things I and others have said over and over. (If you understand the overhaul, you do not need to read this!)
    Yeah I'm glad you realize how terrifying that would be as a defender. That's what we were going for. And as for playing as them yeah it would be quite interesting. Especially with the freedom that chaos has in how they can affect the map. It would make corrupting it and turning it into a realm for the dark gods more meaningful gameplay wise. Also that's a good idea of yours to make building these citadels cost a bit, but keep in mind that to be able to build them you need to corrupt the province to certain percentage. Which is difficult in itself. At least for me. But razing minor settlements can accelerate the corruption of the capitals. As these razed former settlements now have that floating ring that corrupts the region and bordering regions.

    By the way, you wouldn't be able to afford to stick around and defend the citadel. And why would you stick around anyway? I mean you can if you want to. But there is more pillaging and conquering to do in the mean while lol

    and the dark favor you get from pillaging you could use for upgrading the defenses of the citadel. Building and upgrading chaos citadels promotes offence not defense.


    Well because these citadels are not settlements and WoC would still freely march the map, I wouldn't be too concerned with the absolute defense of the citadel. The WoC are not tied down by the citadel. There is a huge incentive to accomplish the construction of one, as I said it benefits greatly your research, armies, and units. If you find yourself fighting bretonia and your first and only citadel way in Pragg(kislev) is being attacked, so what? Dark god citadels don't have the economy you need to sustain your army, but they will help sustain and strengthen the WoC. But your economy is reliant on pillaging always.


    -Chaos citadels can only be built in provinces of high corruption (75 or higher). This would emphasize the corrupting warping nature of chaos. It would destabilize the enemy province, and highlight the dynamic changes CA implemented with the chaos corruption on the map. In addition to that reasoning, these fortresses are ideally not built by the warriors, but by cultists, slaves, and daemons, hints why the high corruption is needed. Also the reason why the high corruption makes sense is because the armies of chaos need to be raiding, sacking, and pillaging instead of erecting cites or fortresses all over the place like a normal human race would. So there needs to be a corruption check before we get the options to sack, raze, or take over.

    -The chaos citadels are exclusive to province capitals. The minor settlements are left to being razed or sacked. Razing the minor settlement would boost the corruption rate of the provincial capital . Sacking would of course bring in loads of money or dark favor.

    -The buildings themselves would be only military and technology beneficial. Unlock new units, buildings and technologies, that boost unit strength, replenishment, growth, decrease upkeep etc. These places would not provide any income because the income is reliant on sacking and raiding.

    Bargrimm said:

    Chaos settlements in the old world make no sense. period. They are about plunder and pillaga and bring mayhem and destruction. They are a horde faction when they invade. When the chaos wastes will be introduced they will have their settlements. Thats the way its in the lore and so it should be. Comparing attila or rome or whatever with warhammer is comparing apples and microwaves.

    When the old world is a chaos realm it will be a different story. But there are different perspectives on what is destruction for chaos. There is the dark realm perspective and there is the burnt world perspective. I prefer the dark realm. They can remain a horde in the same sense as the orcs are a "horde". But horde gameplay is boring and the stats show many people don't even bother playing chaos despite them being more or less popular as skaven. That's why I said none of their buildings should be economically beneficial because they have to raid and pillage for their source of income. And all of their citadels are exclusive to main capitals. And to even build citadels you need to corrupt the region at least 60 to 70 %. So you will still get your head bashing battles every turn but you will have more objectives and options.

    Urgat said:

    Personally, I don't play Chaos for now because the roster is ridiculous to me (so many units missing, a Nurgle unit lost in there with Sigvald...). I'm waiting for them to be fleshed out, nothing to do with horde (that being said, as I haven't tried, who knows, maybe I'll hate it).

    It's like playing a beastmen campaign without the exciting units yet (except for my dragon ogres). You run around, pick weak spots, retreat and replenish, sack- raid bore fest.
    The only management of the citadel would be to upgrade it, and even that would be difficult because it cost dark favor to build the citadel and upgrade, which requires the warriors to pillage. Also since they can only be built after 60+ corruption or whatever the number would be, it requires the warriors to corrupt and do more pillaging. On top of that, the citadels can only be built in capitals, which means minor settlements are to be sacked or razed completely. And according to ChaosDragon, those chaos portals would help accelerate the corruption of adjacent regions. So it seems you really have to work for it, but the pay off is building a baddass dark god citadel.

    Sounds legit to me. The campaign could also use more ways of corrupting too.
    Post edited by ChaosDragonBorn on
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 589Registered Users
    edited March 20
    Where do you see people wanting to have easier campaigns? As far as I can tell, people are talking about changes to the WoC-campaign mechanics (that are not enjoyable enough to them). How these changes affect difficulty is not subject of this discussion, only so far as to aknowledge that adjustments to campaign balance would have to be made because as you have repeatedly said, just adding more options and leaving everything else the same would indeed make the campaign easier which is not something that has been suggested in this discussion afaik.
«1