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

Stop Splitting Multi-Role units in Two

Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
Let me preface this thread by saying that I love this game and the way that it's kept WHFB alive ever since GW decided they'd rather not make a fun hobby. I played Dwarfs on the tabletop as a kid and loved everything about it from the lore to the strategies and tactics, so for keeping the IP going I have to sincerely thank CA for what they are doing. That's not to say that I don't have suggestions.

With the recent release of the new HE roster, we learned that Ellyrian Reavers will be split into a melee variant and a missile variant. CA has done this in the first game with a few other units as well, taking units that clearly fill two or more roles on TT and then splitting them into single role variants. This primarily affects light cavalry but extends to a few others as well. Notably the missile and melee Mounted Yeoman along with the Grail Reliquae and battle pilgrims for Bretonnia, Rangers and Irondrakes for Dwarfs, Outriders to a certain extent for Empire, and now the Reavers and chariots for the High Elves.

Now I'm not saying that units shouldn't have variants, they should and this has generally been based on the upgrades you could add to units in TT. But when units came with certain equipment that was standard in these few cases, CA has decided to dilute the TT units and create new variants with very niche and specific roles.

Dwarfs

In tabletop, the Dwarf Rangers were equipped with great weapons, crossbows, and throwing axes. They could perform a number of functions from skirmishers, to flankers, to close quarters infantry and they could hold their own in combat. In their current form, there really is no advantage to taking them over quarrelers. In the tabletop the Drake-gun was a high strength, armor piercing missile weapon, and with the stats of elite infantry, Irondrakes could hold down a flank as part of the line. In TW, Irondrakes have been shrunk to 24 man units and exist in either fire or armor piercing variants. So now, if you want Irondrakes you have to choose between the two or take up another slot in your army for both but then you lose out on manpower.

It's not worth it to take these units as their role is just too niche and specific to justify their cost. Rangers should exist as they did on TT; as far as how to represent both their missile weapons, well we already know that the HE bolt throw has two firing modes so I doubt it would be too difficult to translate over. Similarly, I suggest that the trollhammer variant of the Irondrakes get thrown out, increase the unit count (while keeping overall damage output the same) so that they can actually hold their own and give armor piercing damage to the standard drakes (I'd imagine a flamethrower would cook a man alive in armor, not a stretch of the imagination). You could implement the trollhammer torpedo as a charged ability with maybe 2-4 uses (it's not like the current version can get many more shots off before they're shut down anyway).

Bretonnia

It's similar for Bretonnia. In the last Bretonnia army book (6th ed), Mounted Yeoman came with spear, shield, and bow as standard. In TW the missile variant of the mounted Yeoman is garbage in melee and can't even be trusted to take on enemy chaff, and the melee variant is decent as cheap cavalry but Knights Errant fill the role better. If these units were to be put back together, you'd have a valuable unit that could perform a number of functions such as kiting missile troops out of position and then running them down once they're beyond the protection of their friends.

In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).

High Elves

From what I gather on how Ellyrian Reavers worked in TT, they are a little different. They could actually exist in three variants, one with spears, one with bows, and one with spears and bows. So why only implement the first two? It would be a much more versatile unit with both spears and bows like the Mounted Yeoman mentioned above. As far as the two chariot variants announced are concerned I'm not too sure. I feel like the Ithilmar chariot was invented to fill the gap of the white lion chariot. It remains to be seen whether or not the Tiranoc chariot will pan out and be decent in melee as well.

Overall, we know that CA is fine with having multi-role units; they've announced the Lothern Sea Guard, Skink cohorts with javelins, and there are plenty of units in the current game which can both shoot and fight and perform multiple roles. Please CA, stop diluting units until they're no longer useful for the sake of having more units.

@Seldkam and I are having a lively discussion about this issue over on the High Elf Roster thread so I thought I'd bring it up here. If you have any thoughts on this, let me know what they are and if you can think of any other units that this trend applies to, post it.
Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

«1

Comments

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,089
    I have question... Weren't archers with different ammos had been split as well?
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,882
    I would prefer variants like shields, different melee weapons, different ammo etc to be a retrain / upgrade option for the base unit, as opposed to new recruitment. It will avoid a lot of redundancies.

    And yes, for melee / range variations, if the lore supports it (eg Ellyrian Reavers), it should definitely be one hybrid unit instead of two variants. Otherwise it defeats the point of the unit.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
    jamreal18 said:

    I have question... Weren't archers with different ammos had been split as well?

    They are, but it's not so much an issue because in the original TT, those were upgrades you could spend points on. My whole shtick is that CA is taking units that are built as hybrid units like Yeomen and Rangers and diluting them into separate roles.

    I would prefer variants like shields, different melee weapons, different ammo etc to be a retrain / upgrade option for the base unit, as opposed to new recruitment. It will avoid a lot of redundancies.

    And yes, for melee / range variations, if the lore supports it (eg Ellyrian Reavers), it should definitely be one hybrid unit instead of two variants. Otherwise it defeats the point of the unit.

    It definitely hurts when you have a decently ranked up basic unit and you need to trade it in for the newer model. I agree, retraining seems to be the way to go for some of the upgrades
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,089
    edited June 2017
    Based from this thread...
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/193038/high-elves-army-list-8th-edition/p1

    There were really 2 variants of Ellyrian Reavers....

    I like it that CA decided to make variants as long they really had...

    As long as they follow TT, it's ok but if they have hybrid unit, it's nice to see it game also...
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,413
    edited June 2017
    If units have multi roles then they're going to make for a very small unit roster and at the same time double the fighting capability of any single army.
    Dwarf missile infantry are at least only a bit sturdier against melee attacks, but hardly replacement for regular melee troops. And this is also partially to make up for lack of cavalry.

    As for "in the TT..." argument, that's moot thanks to this being a video game that works very differently, for better or worse.

    I don't mind some races having an emphasis on dual-role units, but everyone? Give everyone good stances in many roles and you actually dilute unit diversity.

    Personally I'd just make certain factions of the same race have different unit types and specializations, ie Clan Angrund has more versatile Rangers but the other units are more specialized in specific roles with less multi-role units, whereas Dwarfs are the opposite, more versatile vanilla units and Rangers with better attack but poorer armour.

    By mixing the specialties and versatility of certain units in certain factions you'd actually get best of both worlds where some factions have versatile versions of X unit but other versions don't, because theirs is Y unit. Another simple example is Dwarfs can get Longbeards with Great Weapons, but Clan Angrund cannot.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
    daelin4 said:

    If units have multi roles then they're going to make for a very small unit roster and at the same time double the fighting capability of any single army.
    Dwarf missile infantry are at least only a bit sturdier against melee attacks, but hardly replacement for regular melee troops. And this is also partially to make up for lack of cavalry.

    As for "in the TT..." argument, that's moot thanks to this being a video game that works very differently, for better or worse.

    I don't mind some races having an emphasis on dual-role units, but everyone? Give everyone good stances in many roles and you actually dilute unit diversity.

    Personally I'd just make certain factions of the same race have different unit types and specializations, ie Clan Angrund has more versatile Rangers but the other units are more specialized in specific roles with less multi-role units, whereas Dwarfs are the opposite, more versatile vanilla units and Rangers with better attack but poorer armour.

    By mixing the specialties and versatility of certain units in certain factions you'd actually get best of both worlds where some factions have versatile versions of X unit but other versions don't, because theirs is Y unit. Another simple example is Dwarfs can get Longbeards with Great Weapons, but Clan Angrund cannot.

    Let me first preface my response by saying that I only play SP campaign and so that's the context from which I'm providing my argument. I know there is a vast difference between SP and MP and that units either gain or lose value depending on what mode you're playing.

    As for roster diversity, we're talking about 1-2 units amongst select factions here, hardly making for a "small" unit roster. Plus, these units are being diluted into essentially less powerful versions of others so I ask you, what's more diverse; two units which are essentially weaker clones of others in their roster, or one unit that builds a unique bridge between two roles and is actually worth taking in a fight? I'd argue that these hybrid units add roster diversity and that splitting them up decreases it.

    And I'm not sure I completely understand CA's obsession with large rosters especially considering it's resulted in the trivial separation between shielded and unshielded variants amongst the newer factions, but I'll leave that alone since that is technically faithful to the TT.

    It's when they do it to a hybrid unit, where the whole point of their existence in the roster to begin with is that they fill a hybrid role. They used to be able to perform both functions well but not as well as their counterparts in their respective roles, but that's what made them unique. As it stands now, basic rangers are essentially "Quarrelers Lite" since they have the same missile stats except now they can't defend themselves which limits their vanguard abilities and the only safe way to implement them in your army is to throw them in with the rest of the missile troops.

    If they were to exist in their more loreful appearance, it might free up Dwarf players to play with more versatile tactics as opposed to the single gimmick army they are now (gunline defense).

    Now I understand the TT vs video game argument as there needs to be balance and that some TT mechanics just don't translate well. But I also think there is a fundamental difference between tweaking a unit by translating their mechanics a bit and completely altering a unit to the point where they're almost unrecognizable from their original incarnation.

    Irondrakes are a great example of this. In TT they were a powerhouse; they held a line as well as longbeards and they could take down high armor, high toughness threats like cavalry, chariots, and monsters, units which are giving Dwarfs the most problems in the game. Now, they function like small warmachines as they can't hold a line due to being reduced to 24 model units, except warmachines do their job better. And now you have to choose whether you want strong AP damage to take on armor, or flame damage to take on hordes (which was never their intended purpose). So now it's a huge gamble taking them because you're taking up a slot that could go to a line holding unit on the chance that the variant you chose will be useful in the coming fight.

    I think you make an interesting point about having subfactions have different specializations and it's not something I'd be unhappy to see. In fact it's already partially in the game with the Wood Elves/Argwylon and the Crooked Moon. It'd be a great opportunity if they ever introduced Karak Kadrin as playable and would open the door to introduce a Giant Slayer unit. In fact, it could be argued that slayers are also a hybrid unit since in TT they could switch between great weapons and dual hand weapons between combats (although that would be rather problematic to implement in game with the clear advantage of AP damage). This idea could be applied to a number of other factions as well, for example limiting some of the better Savage Orc units to Bloody Hands only and so on.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,413
    ben8vtedu said:



    As for roster diversity, we're talking about 1-2 units amongst select factions here, hardly making for a "small" unit roster. Plus, these units are being diluted into essentially less powerful versions of others so I ask you, what's more diverse; two units which are essentially weaker clones of others in their roster, or one unit that builds a unique bridge between two roles and is actually worth taking in a fight? I'd argue that these hybrid units add roster diversity and that splitting them up decreases it.

    Diversity in Total War means managing what goes into your army. This means there needs to be a lot of units to choose from. You actually talk about a lot of units so I doubt your 1-2 units only perspective will be a reality if taken seriously.
    Diversity also means that one unit can do this while another can do something else. Let's take your Ranger example: it would mean you displace Quarrellers, Thunderers, and even regular melee infantry because all you need is to spam Rangers. If you mean that to say you just want bloated and redundant rosters, no thanks.
    ben8vtedu said:


    It's when they do it to a hybrid unit, where the whole point of their existence in the roster to begin with is that they fill a hybrid role. They used to be able to perform both functions well but not as well as their counterparts in their respective roles, but that's what made them unique. As it stands now, basic rangers are essentially "Quarrelers Lite" since they have the same missile stats except now they can't defend themselves which limits their vanguard abilities and the only safe way to implement them in your army is to throw them in with the rest of the missile troops.

    Here is where Total War is more important than Warhammer. TW operates very differently than how the TT is played, the most important ones being real-time and tactical dispositions. If melee warriors are good at melee and missiles are good at missiles, a hybrid units that risks making both redundant means reduced diversity. And it is not like Rangers cost much more than either unit.
    That's not to say I like the arragnement as-is, I prefer if factions featured elite units that compete with regular units and boasted things like hybrid roles at the expense of greater cost and requirements. Bugman's Rangers come close to that but they come so late and take too long to train that they're more useless than unsustainable. IMO that's the best way to incorporate hybrid role units, they need to compete with cheaper specialized ones, and with the way things are designed, they either do or don't.
    ben8vtedu said:



    Now I understand the TT vs video game argument as there needs to be balance and that some TT mechanics just don't translate well. But I also think there is a fundamental difference between tweaking a unit by translating their mechanics a bit and completely altering a unit to the point where they're almost unrecognizable from their original incarnation.

    Again this is Total War, and unless TW itself is changed (re improved) significantly, and it hasn't been in the longest time, then anything you tack onto it will have to be changed to suit the style. Wanting Irondrakes to be more effective against anything means it would compete with earlier missile units.
    The problem isn't that they shouldn't compete, but rather they should, but can't. But then it just comes back to accessibility, because by the time you've unlocked Irondrakes for training you've probably won the game or have enough max levelled Thunderers to take on Archaeon.
    So part of the problem isn't so much lack of multi-role units, but rather lack of competition with earlier mainline troops. Hybrid units like Rangers ought to be between Quarrellers and Dwarf Warriors, not paper versions of the former with vnaguard and better missile attack, especially when they come only after you've trained a whole stack of the former. Thus I never cared for Rangers.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
    edited June 2017
    @daelin4
    "You actually talk about a lot of units so I doubt your 1-2 units only perspective will be a reality if taken seriously."

    Sorry, what I meant to say was 1-2 units per faction. Which, if they were to implement the proposal (not saying they will or even that the idea is even the best solution) would result in a net loss of 4 units, which hardly puts a dent in their 800 units.

    "Let's take your Ranger example: it would mean you displace Quarrellers, Thunderers, and even regular melee infantry because all you need is to spam Rangers. If you mean that to say you just want bloated and redundant rosters, no thanks." "And it is not like Rangers cost much more than either unit. That's not to say I like the arrangement as-is, I prefer if factions featured elite units that compete with regular units and boasted things like hybrid roles at the expense of greater cost and requirements."

    If they took a more source-faithful approach, then Rangers should absolutely have a greater cost. So should Irondrakes for that matter. They were Rare units in TT and cost as much per model as Hammerers or Ironbreakers (Irondrakes actually cost 1 point more). This is because the versatility they provide with their weapons suite and special rules is worth more than the sum of their parts. And at that kind of cost there is no way you could spam them and replace your missile troops and line infantry. Plus, by the time you're getting rangers (as main Dwarf faction at least) at Tier 3, you should theoretically also be replacing your main line with Longbeards, who are better fighters than Rangers.

    "Wanting Irondrakes to be more effective against anything means it would compete with earlier missile units.
    The problem isn't that they shouldn't compete, but rather they should, but can't. But then it just comes back to accessibility, because by the time you've unlocked Irondrakes for training you've probably won the game or have enough max levelled Thunderers to take on Archaeon."

    I think we're almost in agreement here in that it currently doesn't make sense to field Irondrakes as the roles that they are filling are currently done much better by other troops and war machines. And this is because CA has diluted these hybrid units into garbage variants that nobody wants so we're stuck fighting the same battle over and over with the same tried and true compositions and no room for versatility.

    In my view, the Rangers should sort of be like the SpecOps for the Dwarfs, with the ability to scout for the army, harass the enemy, and when push comes to shove hold their own long enough for the main force to arrive. Irondrakes represent the pinnacle of Dwarfen armor craft and engineering and they should be a feared presence on the battlefield, not a laughable one. They are quite literally walking Juggernauts with steampunk flamethrowers. If I had to ballpark a price for each, which admittedly I should have included in my original post, I'd say Rangers in the proposed configuration should be around 800-900. Irondrakes (as 80 man units and combined AP/Flame damage) should be somewhere between 1400-1600, which is expensive I know but comparable to the elites of Chaos who are really the only other faction who give Dwarfs a run for their money when it comes to elite infantry.

    And I'm not sure I entirely buy the whole balance argument, not as a sole explanation anyway. During the High Elves roster live stream, they were extremely keen to mention that they had created more than 800 units. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself, but if a greater number of units is their metric for success, then that goes a long way towards explaining why there's so many units being separated into separate niche variants and shielded/unshielded versions of the same unit.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,413
    ben8vtedu said:


    I think we're almost in agreement here in that it currently doesn't make sense to field Irondrakes as the roles that they are filling are currently done much better by other troops and war machines. And this is because CA has diluted these hybrid units into garbage variants that nobody wants so we're stuck fighting the same battle over and over with the same tried and true compositions and no room for versatility.

    I believe it's more down to units like Irondrakes coming so late that you'd never contemplate using them over Thunderers, especially given the former's poorer range; even if their unit size is identical to Thunderers, the range difference alone is something to balk at since not every enemy army will try to close into melee (ie horse archer units). IMO the biggest problem is simply they come so late so a dilemma between choosing a very effective but expensive anti-infantry ranged unit and a cheap but less effective one never actually occurs- you upgrade barracks, the only missile unit is Quarrellers, there is no choice except to wait for Thunderers. Irondrakes at the VERY LEAST needs to come early to have the same level of competition. The same goes for late-tier units in general; they have no presence because the earlygame units provide enough of it, and players won't stand around waiting for very expensive and lengthy upgrade time.

    Rangers are a bit of a different issue but they just suffer the opposite problem: they come earlier but they're also not distinguishable from Quarrelers. Belegar allows his entire army to be vanguard, so their primary advantage is kind of moot. Their needing a second building to allow recruitment hardly helps, you'd think a unit that requires two buildings to unlock would at least offer more powerful options, not simply a different one.
    ben8vtedu said:


    And I'm not sure I entirely buy the whole balance argument, not as a sole explanation anyway. During the High Elves roster live stream, they were extremely keen to mention that they had created more than 800 units. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself, but if a greater number of units is their metric for success, then that goes a long way towards explaining why there's so many units being separated into separate niche variants and shielded/unshielded versions of the same unit.

    If what you say is true then that is absolutely terrible. The last thing this game needs is a massive roster of units but a tenth of it, all early game troops, easily make the rest redundant.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
    edited June 2017
    Sorry, double posted
    Post edited by Ol_Nessie on
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
    edited June 2017
    daelin4 said:

    ben8vtedu said:


    I think we're almost in agreement here in that it currently doesn't make sense to field Irondrakes as the roles that they are filling are currently done much better by other troops and war machines. And this is because CA has diluted these hybrid units into garbage variants that nobody wants so we're stuck fighting the same battle over and over with the same tried and true compositions and no room for versatility.

    I believe it's more down to units like Irondrakes coming so late that you'd never contemplate using them over Thunderers, especially given the former's poorer range; even if their unit size is identical to Thunderers, the range difference alone is something to balk at since not every enemy army will try to close into melee (ie horse archer units). IMO the biggest problem is simply they come so late so a dilemma between choosing a very effective but expensive anti-infantry ranged unit and a cheap but less effective one never actually occurs- you upgrade barracks, the only missile unit is Quarrellers, there is no choice except to wait for Thunderers. Irondrakes at the VERY LEAST needs to come early to have the same level of competition. The same goes for late-tier units in general; they have no presence because the early game units provide enough of it, and players won't stand around waiting for very expensive and lengthy upgrade time.
    I'll buy that as a partial explanation, but I think there's definitely enough exceptions that it's not the whole explanation. Late game units like Ironbreakers, Organ Guns, Blood Knights, Black Orcs, and Demigryphs all add a ton of punch to the army and are worthwhile additions when you can get them. I don't think, however that Irondrakes should be in direct competition with Thunderers. Their range isn't as good, they can't attack air, and I agree they won't hurt missile cavalry too much plus their cost and upkeep should price them out of doing so. I see them as filling a hole on the front line, replacing a unit of Longbeards or Warriors if anything. They should be able to stare down a charge of Chaos Knights, Chaos Warriors/Chosen, and Chariots and, after roasting them twice, make good show in the fight (they are upgraded Ironbreakers after all). The reason I use Chaos in this example is, as it stands right now by the time you get Irondrakes, the only real threat are the heavily armored Chaos doom-stacks as part of the chaos invasion.
    daelin4 said:


    Rangers are a bit of a different issue but they just suffer the opposite problem: they come earlier but they're also not distinguishable from Quarrelers. Belegar allows his entire army to be vanguard, so their primary advantage is kind of moot. Their needing a second building to allow recruitment hardly helps, you'd think a unit that requires two buildings to unlock would at least offer more powerful options, not simply a different one.

    I think you're thinking of Vlad with the vanguard thing. Dwarfs do get vanguard in underway intercept battles, but none of their lords enable vanguard for everyone all the time. And as far as being indistinguishable from Quarrelers despite needing the two buildings to recruit, I couldn't agree more. Giving them their whole weapons complement plus enough fight to hold their own would actually make those requirements worth it and would make them distinguishable from Quarrelers as now their Vanguard is useful and they can be moved away from the gunline and fill their original intended purpose.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Registered Users Posts: 4,382
    I like this thread, well said. I think the reason behind this issue is CA being lazy to proper fix units.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    I don't have too much of an opinion on CA splitting multi-role units, but I do think it would be absolutely necessary for naval combat if they actually implemented it. You have 3 base ships: Heavy, Medium, and Light. Each of those bases could have their own level of units from the roster tiers. The split multi-role units would add to the variety of ship recruits.

    Random thought, I know.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,544
    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...


  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
    edited June 2017

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    @Ephraim_Dalton Ok, so you pick out one flaw in my argument and think you've completely invalidated every other point? In looking for other examples of split hybrid units, I'll admit I chose a weak case and didn't defend it very well, but that doesn't mean that everything else I've said is untrue.

    Did you read the rest of it or just decide that I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about" because I didn't support that particular point very well? No need to get snippy, we were all having an interesting and civil discussion here.
    Post edited by Ol_Nessie on
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Registered Users Posts: 4,382

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    who is OP?
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    who is OP?
    He meant "the OP"
    Which means original post.

    The only thing I don't like about this is the spit units of range attack types such as poison and fire. Why not have them be a selection of abilities like in previous games? It's more convenient that way instead of having to choose between two entire units that are exactly the same.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102
    KGpoopy said:

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    who is OP?
    He meant "the OP"
    Which means original post.

    The only thing I don't like about this is the spit units of range attack types such as poison and fire. Why not have them be a selection of abilities like in previous games? It's more convenient that way instead of having to choose between two entire units that are exactly the same.
    This plays into my conspiracy theory that CA are more interested in making more and more units rather than units that are actually unique and interesting.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    ben8vtedu said:

    KGpoopy said:

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    who is OP?
    He meant "the OP"
    Which means original post.

    The only thing I don't like about this is the spit units of range attack types such as poison and fire. Why not have them be a selection of abilities like in previous games? It's more convenient that way instead of having to choose between two entire units that are exactly the same.
    This plays into my conspiracy theory that CA are more interested in making more and more units rather than units that are actually unique and interesting.
    That's definitely applicable to Bretonnia...
    Men at arms units with and without shields? They could have put the shields on their back and had a simple activate button for a short animation of them pulling it from their back in battle for both shields and spear units. Quick and easy for shield and no shield. This, and the seemingly arbitrary way they made ranged units separate instead of giving them switch and cooldown abilities for attack types is a problem to me.

    You might say the feral units are filler, but as it turns out they are actually interesting.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    edited June 2017
    Sometimes depth and quality of units is better than quantity for the sake of quantity.

    But keep in mind, the TT translation to total war might not allow for these multi-role units to so easily be applied in battle in a balanced way. Not to mention in a way that looks good.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102

    Sometimes depth and quality of units is better than quantity for the sake of quantity.

    But keep in mind, the TT translation to total war might not allow for these multi-role units to so easily be applied in battle in a balanced way. Not to mention in a way that looks good.

    *Always. I'd argue depth and quality is always better than quantity for the sake of quantity. But as far as TT translation, what are your thoughts on the above proposed changes? (Not that they'll change anything now) Do you think they'd work, or no?
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Registered Users Posts: 1,487
    ben8vtedu said:

    Sometimes depth and quality of units is better than quantity for the sake of quantity.

    But keep in mind, the TT translation to total war might not allow for these multi-role units to so easily be applied in battle in a balanced way. Not to mention in a way that looks good.

    *Always. I'd argue depth and quality is always better than quantity for the sake of quantity. But as far as TT translation, what are your thoughts on the above proposed changes? (Not that they'll change anything now) Do you think they'd work, or no?
    Sorry for the delay, I'm modding Skyrim and looking at the forum at the same time like a crazy person.

    I agree with the overall idea of more depth to units, but you are wrong about Dwarf Rangers I think. They are more for units not highly armored while quarrelers are for highly armored enemies. It's not that rangers are less effective, becasue quarrelers are less effective than rangers sometimes. Rangers have their advantages. ( CA gave them shields and they are faster,) I actually don't see putting torpedo and flamethowers together as making sense. These are two very different big weapons for different roles and it's represented as two units correctly I think.

    Mounted yeoman being a viable option for melee? No I disagree. I think they should be a hit and run unit and barely too effective at that. It makes the knights more important and you'll have to make the decision of bringing them based on tactics and resources. But....as you say putting them back together in which they have bow, shield and spear will make them way more of an effective unit.

    So yeah, I'm fine with your ideas. But balance is very important around these parts. :smile:





  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102

    ben8vtedu said:

    Sometimes depth and quality of units is better than quantity for the sake of quantity.

    But keep in mind, the TT translation to total war might not allow for these multi-role units to so easily be applied in battle in a balanced way. Not to mention in a way that looks good.

    *Always. I'd argue depth and quality is always better than quantity for the sake of quantity. But as far as TT translation, what are your thoughts on the above proposed changes? (Not that they'll change anything now) Do you think they'd work, or no?
    Sorry for the delay, I'm modding Skyrim and looking at the forum at the same time like a crazy person.

    I agree with the overall idea of more depth to units, but you are wrong about Dwarf Rangers I think. They are more for units not highly armored while quarrelers are for highly armored enemies. It's not that rangers are less effective, becasue quarrelers are less effective than rangers sometimes. Rangers have their advantages. ( CA gave them shields and they are faster,) I actually don't see putting torpedo and flamethowers together as making sense. These are two very different big weapons for different roles and it's represented as two units correctly I think.

    Mounted yeoman being a viable option for melee? No I disagree. I think they should be a hit and run unit and barely too effective at that. It makes the knights more important and you'll have to make the decision of bringing them based on tactics and resources. But....as you say putting them back together in which they have bow, shield and spear will make them way more of an effective unit.

    So yeah, I'm fine with your ideas. But balance is very important around these parts. :smile:
    Quarrelers and and crossbow Rangers have the same damage output and neither have high AP values. The GW Rangers do have a high AP missile. My argument for Rangers is that their Vanguard needs to actually be useful, but in their current incarnation they get run down the moment they are revealed. The only real reason to take them in a campaign at all right now is if you're pinching pennies. By going back to one Ranger type (barring Bugman's) and giving them crossbows, throwing axes, and great weapons they'd open up a host of new tactics, strategems, and tricks that the Dwarfs can use. And of course with all these abilities they should absolutely be more expensive because, one; all that firepower has a cost and two; they need to priced such that they can't necessarily replace your primary combat and missile troops.

    As far as Irondrakes go, you're right; they are very different weapons which can be effective in the right circumstances. The only problem is that the regular Irondrakes are garbage and the torpedo Irondrakes are hot garbage. Their respective target sets are so niche that it would only make sense to bring them in either form if they could hold their own in a fight; which they can't. With the relatively short range, long reload, and line of sight of the torpedoes they will only get off one maybe two shots before what they're shooting at (preferably big armored targets like the Arachnarok, monstrous infantry, knights, or chariots) closes with them or forces them to reposition. The regular Irondrakes are only worth a damn if you position them perfectly to the flank, which by the way exposes them to enemy flankers. By giving the regular drakes higher AP damage, a limited use torpedo ability on a cooldown, and increasing their unit size such that they can be part of the battle line, their value will increase tremendously and it might actually make them a worthwhile purchase in campaign.

    Melee Mounted Yeomen should not share a role with Knights, I agree, but because the Brets have a decent cheap knight in the Knights Errant, there's almost no reason to bring the Yeomen, except if you're pinching pennies. And with Missile Yeomen being quite terrible as well, I don't see any reason right now to take either past late tier 1. But should they combine them, now you have a cheap(ish) versatile unit that can skirmish, run down chaff, and chase off routing units so your knights can focus on bigger problems, which means they have a role in your army much later in the game.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,544
    ben8vtedu said:

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    @Ephraim_Dalton Ok, so you pick out one flaw in my argument and think you've completely invalidated every other point? In looking for other examples of split hybrid units, I'll admit I chose a weak case and didn't defend it very well, but that doesn't mean that everything else I've said is untrue.

    Did you read the rest of it or just decide that I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about" because I didn't support that particular point very well? No need to get snippy, we were all having an interesting and civil discussion here.
    If someone totally screws up like that (seriously, it's like saying the moon is made of green cheese) it's a surefire sign that the rest of the argument is as poorly supported.

  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Registered Users Posts: 4,382
    KGpoopy said:

    ben8vtedu said:

    KGpoopy said:

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    who is OP?
    He meant "the OP"
    Which means original post.

    The only thing I don't like about this is the spit units of range attack types such as poison and fire. Why not have them be a selection of abilities like in previous games? It's more convenient that way instead of having to choose between two entire units that are exactly the same.
    This plays into my conspiracy theory that CA are more interested in making more and more units rather than units that are actually unique and interesting.
    That's definitely applicable to Bretonnia...
    Men at arms units with and without shields? They could have put the shields on their back and had a simple activate button for a short animation of them pulling it from their back in battle for both shields and spear units. Quick and easy for shield and no shield. This, and the seemingly arbitrary way they made ranged units separate instead of giving them switch and cooldown abilities for attack types is a problem to me.

    You might say the feral units are filler, but as it turns out they are actually interesting.
    While i liked your post cause this is a good idea, i disagree cause your example is irrelevant. Men at arms with or without shields are not a split multirole unit but both perform the same role with one variant being more resistant to missile. On the other hand mounted yeomen with bows and mounted yeomen with melee perform different roles.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102

    ben8vtedu said:

    In the same army book, the Grail Reliquae existed as part of a unit of battle pilgrims, but in its current form as a single entity unit it can be easily focused down and destroyed. As far as how to remedy this, I'd suggest having two variants of battle pilgrims, one with the Reliquae and one without (as it wouldn't be practical or economical to have it purely in its TT form).


    ...and this is why I think OP doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

    GR easy to focus down and destroyed, yeah right...

    @Ephraim_Dalton Ok, so you pick out one flaw in my argument and think you've completely invalidated every other point? In looking for other examples of split hybrid units, I'll admit I chose a weak case and didn't defend it very well, but that doesn't mean that everything else I've said is untrue.

    Did you read the rest of it or just decide that I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about" because I didn't support that particular point very well? No need to get snippy, we were all having an interesting and civil discussion here.
    If someone totally screws up like that (seriously, it's like saying the moon is made of green cheese) it's a surefire sign that the rest of the argument is as poorly supported.
    Prove it
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,544
    edited June 2017
    I think it's clear you just want multi-purpose units to make army building easier and to allow for simpler tactics.

    As for the GR issue, there's thread in the balance forum which, rarely for this board, has everyone agreeing it's too good. So there's your proof.
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/195353/grail-reliqua-giving-vampires-archers#latest

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 19,648
    Be nice folks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,102

    I think it's clear you just want multi-purpose units to make army building easier and to allow for simpler tactics.

    As for the GR issue, there's thread in the balance forum which, rarely for this board, has everyone agreeing it's too good. So there's your proof.
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/195353/grail-reliqua-giving-vampires-archers#latest

    Listen, I'll happily concede the GR issue 100%. The whole point of my argument was that split units were so heavily diluted that they are left almost entirely unused for their intended purpose. This is the problem I found, specifically for the Rangers and Irondrakes; Rangers are too fragile to place anywhere except behind your main line and Irondrakes are too much of a liability and don't earn back their cost, in terms of both money and army slot. The GR does not have this problem, in fact it is an absolute staple in peasant heavy armies.

    Now if these changes I proposed allow a player to get more bang for their army slot, it would lead to more diverse armies and specifically lets Dwarf players to get a little more squirrelly in their tactics, as opposed to the same gunline defense used in every campaign battle. I find it odd that you come on here being needlessly abrasive, trying to invalidate an entire argument by pointing out one flaw. Try constructive criticism next time and maybe we can have a discussion.

    And for the record, I know these changes will assuredly never take place; it would take a huge amount of effort on CA's part to re-balance and wouldn't provide any return on investment. I point out this trend because I'd hate to see it happen to other hybrid units down the road.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    edited June 2017
    Mounted yeoman being put back together is a fine idea.
    The Ellyrian Reavers being put back together sounds good.

    Why have a regiment of men with just a sword or spear and then right next to them have a regiment with sword and shield. It's makes no sense as far as battle plan and army make up.

    Why is there any reason to take shieldless units other than a slightly smaller cost and to be filler? There is no strategic reason I can think of that makes up for the separation.

    It just brings in theories as to why they do that, and it's not looking good on them. I mean peasant mob is already shieldless canon fodder. I love peasant mob, but what's the point of separating the ability of units to make a so called new unit?

    That example can be made for the high elves and dwarves too as the OP said.

Leave a Comment

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