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

Warriors of Chaos Campaign Redone (Devs are very welcome to express thoughts)

245

Comments

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users
    The horde infighting in Attila was better.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    KGpoopy said:

    The horde infighting in Attila was better.

    Yup, I believe it's a food consumption and something to do with money type close proximity infighting.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 22,172Registered Users
    KGpoopy said:

    The horde infighting in Attila was better.

    Heh, no it wasn't. It was both more annoying and abusable to no end, so the worst of two worlds at the same time actually.

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users
    edited April 2017

    KGpoopy said:

    The horde infighting in Attila was better.

    Heh, no it wasn't. It was both more annoying and abusable to no end, so the worst of two worlds at the same time actually.
    What? I didn't even notice it was a penalty until two turns after I was done razing a highly defended settlement with two half armies. It made more sense for them to feud over control of resources. But this chaos thing makes no sense. Is it a feud? Well why doesn't the orcs and beastmen feud, they are more fitting for stupid features like that. Is it rivalry? Well it shouldn't be because they literally all work together and there is nothing in the lore that even hints to infighting other than one incident of Sigvald getting clocked by Throgg. I believe Archaon even kills people who are disobedient to him or if they fail him. Soooo, that would actually go against the very thought of his armies infighting let alone implementing it.

    Give Chaos other handle caps.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    Don't justify it. Just remove it. Infighting adds no value whatsoever to the campaign.
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users

    Don't justify it. Just remove it. Infighting adds no value whatsoever to the campaign.

    If they don't get rid of it, they mind as well add a skill or a tech tree to get rid of it.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    KGpoopy said:

    Don't justify it. Just remove it. Infighting adds no value whatsoever to the campaign.

    If they don't get rid of it, they mind as well add a skill or a tech tree to get rid of it.
    No. God no! That is the laziest way to get around a problem THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Posts: 471Registered Users
    The corruption suggestions are interesting, but probably game-breaking.

    The one idea that I'm very interested in is the Chaos Citadels...that would be AWESOME! And not game-breaking. In fact, it would actually make the game extremely interesting even if you are not playing Chaos. And it is true that Chaos gameplay is relatively boring as is. The awakening mechanic is cool, but not terribly practical (especially since if you awaken more than one tribe, they will always fight each other).

    Also, I'm definitely in favor of doing something other than the stupid horde infighting mechanic. Always drove me crazy that WoC has this, but Beastmen don't...if anybody is going to fight with their other armies, it would be the damn Beastmen. If there was a better way to direct the awakened tribes to help your hordes, that would be cool. Maybe make them player-controlled? But obviously keep all the restrictions, like only marauder units and such. And that way, you could totally keep the infighting mechanic.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    Thanks man.

    I'll explain the technical side of the corruption suggestions soon because I think people see new campaign options and think it automatically OP or game breaking. I'm familiar with data stuff available to us so I might be able to make sense of it.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited April 2017

    KGpoopy said:

    Don't justify it. Just remove it. Infighting adds no value whatsoever to the campaign.

    If they don't get rid of it, they mind as well add a skill or a tech tree to get rid of it.
    No. God no! That is the laziest way to get around a problem THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    I suddenly feel obligated to convince you of a better way of infighting. I'm certain they are not going to remove their own feature entirely so we mind as well give suggestions on how to re-implement it.
    Post edited by ChaosDragonBorn on
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,261Registered Users
    edited April 2017
    Penalty in the form of reduced replenishment rate, as opposed to attrition damage? Same purpose, different method and result.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited April 2017
    daelin4 said:

    Penalty in the form of reduced replenishment rate, as opposed to attrition damage? Same purpose, different method and result.

    Yeah that's better, certainly less punishing and limiting. It's something the AI can feature too. I have a thought on no replenishment as well. So it still comes across as 'infighting" or rivalry, but does not damage your entire army.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Posts: 471Registered Users

    daelin4 said:

    Penalty in the form of reduced replenishment rate, as opposed to attrition damage? Same purpose, different method and result.

    Yeah that's better, certainly less punishing and limiting. It's something the AI can feature too. I have a thought on no replenishment as well. So it still comes across as 'infighting" or rivalry, but does not damage your entire army.
    The more I think about it, the more I think they should keep the system and just make the unique awakening mechanic more useful. That would simultaneously fix the problem by allowing your armies to have support that doesn't cause attrition, allow CA to keep the infighting mechanic that honestly does make sense to include, AND it would make the WoC campaign very unique and interesting by giving them control over sort of minion sub-armies that are heavily restricted in their unit composition but cheap or even free if you keep them under a different vassal faction.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited April 2017

    daelin4 said:

    Penalty in the form of reduced replenishment rate, as opposed to attrition damage? Same purpose, different method and result.

    Yeah that's better, certainly less punishing and limiting. It's something the AI can feature too. I have a thought on no replenishment as well. So it still comes across as 'infighting" or rivalry, but does not damage your entire army.
    The more I think about it, the more I think they should keep the system and just make the unique awakening mechanic more useful. That would simultaneously fix the problem by allowing your armies to have support that doesn't cause attrition, allow CA to keep the infighting mechanic that honestly does make sense to include, AND it would make the WoC campaign very unique and interesting by giving them control over sort of minion sub-armies that are heavily restricted in their unit composition but cheap or even free if you keep them under a different vassal faction.
    Absolutely no. Having vassals does not fix close proximity infighting. Trust me I've tested it. Most of the time the Norsca factions are fighting eachother, doing nothing, or fighting elsewhere. Also I don't think people would want to spend time trying to coordinate with Norsca. I do think that the Awakening feature should be vassalizing instead of a military alliance.

    If you mean making the Awakening mech. more useful by having the vasselized armies follow you around like waagh armies, ok, I can see that.

    Reduced replenishment or no replenishment is a better solution. Or a skill tree, or tech upgrade that gets rid of infighting entirely. Maybe even having Archaon having that exclusive trait.

    But there is no good reason to continue to feature close proximity infighting as if chaos are orcs or wild animals like the beastmen instead of Archaon's undivided theme.

    The daemons fight, not Archaon's army.

    If by system, including the citadel stuff and all that, hell no, I and other chaos nuts wanted that forever now.
  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Posts: 471Registered Users

    daelin4 said:

    Penalty in the form of reduced replenishment rate, as opposed to attrition damage? Same purpose, different method and result.

    Yeah that's better, certainly less punishing and limiting. It's something the AI can feature too. I have a thought on no replenishment as well. So it still comes across as 'infighting" or rivalry, but does not damage your entire army.
    The more I think about it, the more I think they should keep the system and just make the unique awakening mechanic more useful. That would simultaneously fix the problem by allowing your armies to have support that doesn't cause attrition, allow CA to keep the infighting mechanic that honestly does make sense to include, AND it would make the WoC campaign very unique and interesting by giving them control over sort of minion sub-armies that are heavily restricted in their unit composition but cheap or even free if you keep them under a different vassal faction.


    If you mean making the Awakening mech. more useful by having the vasselized armies follow you around like waagh armies, ok, I can see that.

    That's exactly what I mean. I would go so far as to say that it might be a good idea to even make the awakened armies player-controlled. Certainly prevent them from fighting each other. If that was done, the infighting mechanic could (and probably should) stay.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited April 2017

    daelin4 said:

    Penalty in the form of reduced replenishment rate, as opposed to attrition damage? Same purpose, different method and result.

    Yeah that's better, certainly less punishing and limiting. It's something the AI can feature too. I have a thought on no replenishment as well. So it still comes across as 'infighting" or rivalry, but does not damage your entire army.
    The more I think about it, the more I think they should keep the system and just make the unique awakening mechanic more useful. That would simultaneously fix the problem by allowing your armies to have support that doesn't cause attrition, allow CA to keep the infighting mechanic that honestly does make sense to include, AND it would make the WoC campaign very unique and interesting by giving them control over sort of minion sub-armies that are heavily restricted in their unit composition but cheap or even free if you keep them under a different vassal faction.


    If you mean making the Awakening mech. more useful by having the vasselized armies follow you around like waagh armies, ok, I can see that.

    That's exactly what I mean. I would go so far as to say that it might be a good idea to even make the awakened armies player-controlled. Certainly prevent them from fighting each other. If that was done, the infighting mechanic could (and probably should) stay.
    Seems cool. I still can't bend on attrition damage though. I'll take no replenishing as a consequence instead. Even when encamped no replenishment.

    I would approve of an action you take, or a skill trait you pick that result in the lord's individual army getting the infighting attrition. Much like when a brettonian lord raids for a while he will get a bad trait. Or selecting a certain skill that gives you something powerful, but as a downside gives that chaos lord infighting with other chaos lords. I think selecting a powerful upgrade that comes with a price is more fitting though. That's really my only compromise for CA's infighting attrition re-implementation.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    edited April 2017
    The fact you can't replenish with horde infighting is what makes it such a problem in the first place. Not only is it offensively unlore-friendly, it accomplishes nothing other than to make the player stupidly vulnerable. I will not accept any compromise on this. No skill trees, no techs trees, no reduced replenishment, ABSOLUTELY no killing replenishment. There is no balancing issue that justifies it. Itserves no purpose whatsoever other than to **** off the player. It adds no value at all to the campaign. Get rid of that **** mechanic once and for all before it plagues the game any further.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited April 2017
    Ok ok, moving on from Chaos infighting I'm going to attempt to explain the tech side of the overhaul.

    Starting with the new Corruption ideas. Manipulating other agents to join your cause is the most basic one, something that could be easily implemented. It's from other total war games as well, and fitting for a unique chaos agent ability. So there's not much to say there preaching to the choir.
    Next, and way more complicated, is the the suggestion of using your chaos agent to take control or manipulate the opposing lord. Resulting in you commanding his army. This would be done the same way you do other agent actions. This was in shogun2 I believe where you could have a chunk of an army double cross to your side. But this can be done more simply, by either having that lord die and replaced with a chaos lord, replaced by that agent, or have that lord be under your command. Essentially either embedding your agent as general, or converting the army to your control. I know an army cannot be without a general. Of course these would need a new event thing saying "This Hero/Lord succumbs to the power of Chaos".
    Lastly, the ability to have an agent infiltrate a settlement. Very new to the franchise. New ability simply called Infiltrate. Done the same way you would assault the garrison of a settlement. I'm thinking two things here, either this action be done by click fail or succeed like normally, or this be a case where the infiltrate action has a wait time of X amount of turns, disabling the use of that agent until X turns are done. The success or fail is at the mercy of the normal conditions of agent actions like skill and level which I'll get into briefly. This feature would be very much like the run spy network, but against an enemy settlement that results in your agents death, wounded state, or a vandalization building that replaces one of the buildings in the settlement spreading corruption, bad public order, and having a huge building cost like -1200 or something. This in my head simulates the hero establishing cults.
    All these new corruption options can be tied to one skill node. Every chaos agent, or just sorcerers, can have a new skill node named Manipulation with 3 upgrades. Possibly unlocked at level 5.

    Now to the Citadel idea. Ok this will definitely require new conditions. The idea of the chaos citadel is that you can only build it on a certain amount of corruption in the region. So the condition or coding would be to add that option on a percentage of corruption of your choosing as a post siege option. Or a settlement occupation option. Another condition is that they are exclusive to main settlement regions, or the capital settlement.
    I don't know if this would be a new condition, but it's more a limit, which is Citadels are limited to three. Limited to 3 because of their purpose which I'm going to get into. These citadels are not technically Altdorf or Black Crag, these citadels are Oak of ages. One building chain with maybe 2 or 3 upgrades. You can add whatever traits to these buildings you like, but the main point is to save your campaign. Every chaos player knows that loseing your armies is the end of the game unlike non horde factions. Well these citadels would have a campaign saving trait. Only can you build three, anywhere you want. The accompanying traits I would suggests are to blast the area with corruption, helping with replenishment much like Norsca. As you might know, corruption goes down over time, but these wicked citadels will fix that right up :naughty: in the areas you choose to erect a citadel. To note, these citadels being destroyed should not kill the campaign, but it allows for you to lose the campaign once your armies are lost again, just like normal.
    Post edited by ChaosDragonBorn on
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,261Registered Users


    I do think that the Awakening feature should be vassalizing instead of a military alliance.

    According to this mod
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=892299563&searchtext=awaken
    there is no "easy" workaround Awaken mechanic; revived factions (even using other mods) always make it miltiary alliance; this particular mod changes the diplomatic relations to extremely high that vassalizing right after accomplishes the task.



    If you mean making the Awakening mech. more useful by having the vasselized armies follow you around like waagh armies, ok, I can see that.

    Not familiar with how the mechanic works; if you can add somehow design it so Chaos has a Waagh! metre, and the spawned army is a Norsca army, then that might work; technically the Waagh! armies count as separate factions, just using same banner and colour, but if you watch End Turn Phase, you'll see separate faction icons for them.
    We've already a clone of Waagh! armies in the form of Beastmen Brayherds, though.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 22,172Registered Users
    -Manipulating heroes and lords to join Chaos

    Either all factions get this or none, because if Chaos can just steal powerful heroes and lords together with their armies on a lucky roll of the dice it'll be just beyond overpowered.

    That's why my Chaos Corruption idea is that corrupted armies and agents become an independent third party that is hostile to all other factions.

    -Infiltrating settlements

    Again, either all other factions get this too or it'll be just an unfair advantage, especially since you didn't even mention a way to remove the infiltrators.

    -citadels

    I hate this idea since that would mean that not only would WoC have reliable havens to fall back to, which should not be how they play (their playstyle should reward hyper-aggressiveness), it would also mean defeating Chaos would require a dozen of additional siege battles and I consider it a goal to reduce the amount of siege battles in the game

  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    Nope it should work out well. It would result in a tougher chaos invasion and a fun and unique campaign.
    All factions having those abilities would exacerbate your assumed problem of being overpowered.

    -
    I hate this idea since that would mean that not only would WoC have reliable havens to fall back to

    This is not an actual problem. Unless it scares you, which is my goal lol. Plus it's lore friendly. Archaon fell back to the chaos citadel of Brass keep. It should make them tougher, if they are tough enough to build one in the first place.

    - which should not be how they play (their playstyle should reward hyper-aggressiveness)

    Never suggested otherwise. I also don't mind the defining of how chaos should play. But I'll take a stab at it. I think they should play like a creeping power that corrupts the map and razes everything, but the most twisted capitals will see a citadel to the Dark Gods be raised. This will be a safe haven for all of WoC and a rift for corruption around the area for replenishment. The WoC should crush their way through, twisting and warping things as they go. They sow chaos, they sow descent among mortals, and they slay them as they march on their world. There is wide stretch of unpredictability when it comes to this. But this should not slow them down or deflate their aggressiveness. It should heighten their boldness and power, and therefore increasing aggressiveness. But they have to corrupt the map and be a major threat before all that too. Which the ai is good at corrupting the map it seems. Probably cheating though.

    - it would also mean defeating Chaos would require a dozen of additional siege battles and I consider it a goal to reduce the amount of siege battles in the game

    This shouldn't be problem. Even if it was, it's not a problem in and of itself. It's what autoresolve is for.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    daelin4 said:


    I do think that the Awakening feature should be vassalizing instead of a military alliance.

    According to this mod
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=892299563&searchtext=awaken
    there is no "easy" workaround Awaken mechanic; revived factions (even using other mods) always make it miltiary alliance; this particular mod changes the diplomatic relations to extremely high that vassalizing right after accomplishes the task.



    If you mean making the Awakening mech. more useful by having the vasselized armies follow you around like waagh armies, ok, I can see that.

    Not familiar with how the mechanic works; if you can add somehow design it so Chaos has a Waagh! metre, and the spawned army is a Norsca army, then that might work; technically the Waagh! armies count as separate factions, just using same banner and colour, but if you watch End Turn Phase, you'll see separate faction icons for them.
    We've already a clone of Waagh! armies in the form of Beastmen Brayherds, though.
    Yes I'm familiar with the mod. I will use it if CA doesn't make awakening vassalizing when they get around to re painting chaos.

    Hey I'm not going to be the one to suggest CA do another Waagh mech for another race :lol: I can see the backlash now.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 22,172Registered Users
    edited April 2017
    Nope it should work out well. It would result in a tougher chaos invasion and a fun and unique campaign.
    All factions having those abilities would exacerbate your assumed problem of being overpowered.


    How would you fight Chaos with those mechanics in play? You can't send armies against them because they can steal them. You can't send heroes to attack theirs because they can steal them too. You can't fortify your settlements because they can...steal them as well. So all that would actually add to the game would be Chaos not even needing to fight their own battles since they could just use swarms of converted heroes, lords and armies for it.

    Not even in their own armybook are WoC as powerful and overwhelming as that, especially not on the subterfuge front which should be Daemons of Chaos territory anyway. They also lust for fighting their own battles so mechanics encouraging them to avoid that run completely counter to the very nature of the faction.

    Why haven't you introduced any counter-mechanics to that? Is it just that you want WoC to be OP to feel like some god when playing them? Then mod that stuff in instead of forcing everyone else to suffer your unbalanced ideas which would just ruin the game.

    Also, your ideas for Citadels to encourage a turtling, passive and defensive playstyle for WoC, it's the nature of giving them havens in the first place.

    Please stop making such half-baked ideas.

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users
    The chaos citadels don't have to have a traditional siege map. It could be a battle map with the citadel in the backround. Just like the Oak of ages in fact.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 22,172Registered Users
    Except that them giving your stacks bonuses when fighting in or near them still makes them havens to fall back to and so still encourage defensiveness and passivity.

    That is unless you make it so that any Citadel can only persist if you keep fighting battles and sacrificing prisoners and failing to do so makes it go "poof".

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users

    Except that them giving your stacks bonuses when fighting in or near them still makes them havens to fall back to and so still encourage defensiveness and passivity.

    No it doesn't. It's just a siege map. Have you ever sieged the oak? or defended it? It's a land battle with the huge Oak in the backround.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users

    Nope it should work out well. It would result in a tougher chaos invasion and a fun and unique campaign.
    All factions having those abilities would exacerbate your assumed problem of being overpowered.


    How would you fight Chaos with those mechanics in play? You can't send armies against them because they can steal them. You can't send heroes to attack theirs because they can steal them too. You can't fortify your settlements because they can...steal them as well. So all that would actually add to the game would be Chaos not even needing to fight their own battles since they could just use swarms of converted heroes, lords and armies for it.

    Not even in their own armybook are WoC as powerful and overwhelming as that, especially not on the subterfuge front which should be Daemons of Chaos territory anyway. They also lust for fighting their own battles so mechanics encouraging them to avoid that run completely counter to the very nature of the faction.

    Why haven't you introduced any counter-mechanics to that? Is it just that you want WoC to be OP to feel like some god when playing them? Then mod that stuff in instead of forcing everyone else to suffer your unbalanced ideas which would just ruin the game.

    Also, your ideas for Citadels to encourage a turtling, passive and defensive playstyle for WoC, it's the nature of giving them havens in the first place.

    Please stop making such half-baked ideas.

  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users

    Nope it should work out well. It would result in a tougher chaos invasion and a fun and unique campaign.
    All factions having those abilities would exacerbate your assumed problem of being overpowered.


    How would you fight Chaos with those mechanics in play? You can't send armies against them because they can steal them. You can't send heroes to attack theirs because they can steal them too. You can't fortify your settlements because they can...steal them as well. So all that would actually add to the game would be Chaos not even needing to fight their own battles since they could just use swarms of converted heroes, lords and armies for it.

    Not even in their own armybook are WoC as powerful and overwhelming as that, especially not on the subterfuge front which should be Daemons of Chaos territory anyway. They also lust for fighting their own battles so mechanics encouraging them to avoid that run completely counter to the very nature of the faction.

    Why haven't you introduced any counter-mechanics to that? Is it just that you want WoC to be OP to feel like some god when playing them? Then mod that stuff in instead of forcing everyone else to suffer your unbalanced ideas which would just ruin the game.

    Also, your ideas for Citadels to encourage a turtling, passive and defensive playstyle for WoC, it's the nature of giving them havens in the first place.

    Please stop making such half-baked ideas.

    Nope it should work out well. It would result in a tougher chaos invasion and a fun and unique campaign.
    All factions having those abilities would exacerbate your assumed problem of being overpowered.

    -
    I hate this idea since that would mean that not only would WoC have reliable havens to fall back to

    This is not an actual problem. Unless it scares you, which is my goal lol. Plus it's lore friendly. Archaon fell back to the chaos citadel of Brass keep. It should make them tougher, if they are tough enough to build one in the first place.

    - which should not be how they play (their playstyle should reward hyper-aggressiveness)

    Never suggested otherwise. I also don't mind the defining of how chaos should play. But I'll take a stab at it. I think they should play like a creeping power that corrupts the map and razes everything, but the most twisted capitals will see a citadel to the Dark Gods be raised. This will be a safe haven for all of WoC and a rift for corruption around the area for replenishment. The WoC should crush their way through, twisting and warping things as they go. They sow chaos, they sow descent among mortals, and they slay them as they march on their world. There is wide stretch of unpredictability when it comes to this. But this should not slow them down or deflate their aggressiveness. It should heighten their boldness and power, and therefore increasing aggressiveness. But they have to corrupt the map and be a major threat before all that too. Which the ai is good at corrupting the map it seems. Probably cheating though.

    - it would also mean defeating Chaos would require a dozen of additional siege battles and I consider it a goal to reduce the amount of siege battles in the game

    This shouldn't be problem. Even if it was, it's not a problem in and of itself. It's what autoresolve is for.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited April 2017
    KGpoopy said:

    The chaos citadels don't have to have a traditional siege map. It could be a battle map with the citadel in the backround. Just like the Oak of ages in fact.

    I prefer a real siege of the citadel if possible, but I wouldn't complain if the map was really creepy and cool to play on.











  • Pinkerton00Pinkerton00 Senior Member Posts: 471Registered Users
    daelin4 said:


    I do think that the Awakening feature should be vassalizing instead of a military alliance.

    According to this mod
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=892299563&searchtext=awaken
    there is no "easy" workaround Awaken mechanic; revived factions (even using other mods) always make it miltiary alliance; this particular mod changes the diplomatic relations to extremely high that vassalizing right after accomplishes the task.



    If you mean making the Awakening mech. more useful by having the vasselized armies follow you around like waagh armies, ok, I can see that.

    Not familiar with how the mechanic works; if you can add somehow design it so Chaos has a Waagh! metre, and the spawned army is a Norsca army, then that might work; technically the Waagh! armies count as separate factions, just using same banner and colour, but if you watch End Turn Phase, you'll see separate faction icons for them.
    We've already a clone of Waagh! armies in the form of Beastmen Brayherds, though.
    I don't think we're talking about ways to mod the game. I think we're talking about ways that CA could make the campaign better.

Leave a Comment

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