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

Dark Elves Battle Let's Play

1468910

Comments

  • cat59cat59 Registered Users Posts: 472
    Just going to say this as well. The Witch Elves in that battle used animations that the Wardancers have. The charging in animation, the attack from the charge, and the twirling attack animation, in addition to the regular, jump into the air and strike with the right arm, while tilted to the side slightly that most factions seem to have.

    I was really hoping for them to be given unique animations, since their entire style of combat is vastly different than anything other than perhaps Wardancers.

    Wardancers did get unique animations though, while it looks like Witch Elves will just get a lot of copy/pasted ones from them instead.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    HoneyBun said:

    Fredrin said:

    Loads to like in this vid... the map is looking lush - full of character and detail. Unit design is amazing. Some of the model animations are incredible - particularly that giant eagle swooping and barrel rolling all over the place; it captures the movements of a bird of prey beautifully.

    I'm just never going to be able to get behind battle gameplay in this game. Regardless of all protestations about high damage, low HP glass cannons etc, there's just way too much going on in the measly time allotted. I still don't see much challenge beyond reacting quickly, finding the right counter for enemy units and timing your spells/abilities well. But really it's just about doing all these things as quickly as is humanly possible.

    Full marks for visuals, though. Quite a spectacle.

    When TW first started, its real innovation in RTS (and the reason I play it when I avoid all other RTS like the plague) was *pause*.

    What has developed in the last 20 years is a community who flat out refuse to use this unique and strategically essential feature.

    You really can't blame CA for fast and arcade gameplay with ever diminishing strategy. Like voters who get the governments they deserve, consumers get the products they deserve.

    The fact is that the human brain needs time to plan and develop strategy. You'll notice how Chess never went simultaneous. Until TW players stop this childish obsession with not using pause (which as far as I can tell is only a sot to the tiny tiny -5% - MP community) the games will have ever decreasing levels of strategic depth.

    If you require instantaneous strategic and tactical decisions, then you have to streamline and simplify game play - or no one will buy your game.
    The series had the design to support that before: group formation presets, toggle abilities and unit formations. Now there is just the drag and drop line ranking. If you're doing strategy on the fly, then you are not doing strategy at all- strategy is what you do before you start fighting, it's the plan you chose and you know all the tactical options that strategy allows in advance so you're not simply improvising reactively.

    Pausing to execute a strategy is really just buying breathing room to deal with the AI being able to execute multiple orders instantaneously, something which should not be a problem in a strategic game because the counter is anticipatory rather than reactionary.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025


    just because the pace seems faster, doesnt mean the engine is simpler. It isnt at all.

    It doesn't feel a great deal more complex either, which a few of us here feel is a bit of a shame after almost 2 decades.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    edited August 2017

    it seems to me like in regards to flanking, rear charging, swords beating spears, cav being good against swords in general but weaker against spears, etc. that these games use the same system as the original shogun, with some added mechanics (magic in this one for instance)

    just because the pace seems faster, doesnt mean the engine is simpler. It isnt at all.

    No there is a difference. In the beginning the battle design principle was based on the simple 'rock-paper-scissor'. Complexity emerges out of this from the bottom-up, meaning you could make sensible inferences about what would work without having to read 'X beats Y' because reality itself works from the bottom-up. If cavalry beats missile infantry and missile infantry beats melee infantry which beats cavalry, it is because of the relationship between their differing speeds with the buck stopping at melee infantry because they can't actually chase after cavalry; the reason they beat them is their formation strength. This lets the player infer that it is the tactics rather than the units which win: protecting missiles behind melee is how both can offensively rather than defensively engage cavalry. There was no top-down 'this unit is strong against that unit because we say so', as is the case in Warhammer where units are simply given stats which make them 'anti-large' or 'armour-piercing' or 'anti-infantry' and 'melee expert' or 'duellist'.

    'X beats Y' design means that rather than the army fighting another army, with units being defined by their role within that army, they are instead defined by what units they are good against and what units are good against them. This means a battle is simple matching as many of your Xs against their Ys as possible; there is almost never a coherent battle-line but multiple battles happening simultaneously all over. That would be fine as that is often the case in reality, but that's the case because a separate engagement happens for a purpose in support of another: a masking tactic for example. But that isn't what happens in Warhammer; three different engagements happening left, right and centre are not happening because of masking, they're happening because X units are being sent to attack the Y units which they counter.

    Units should not counter units, tactics should counter tactics.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    ^ Extremely well put
  • LordCommanderLordCommander Registered Users Posts: 2,223
    HoneyBun said:



    When TW first started, its real innovation in RTS (and the reason I play it when I avoid all other RTS like the plague) was *pause*.

    What has developed in the last 20 years is a community who flat out refuse to use this unique and strategically essential feature.

    Why would you need to use pause in a TW battle? The battles are fought over a pretty small, contained area. The turn-based gameplay is surely pause enough.
    Just as a warning against making predictions- https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/290416/time-to-admit-there-will-be-no-new-dlc-for-twwh-2#latest

    Anyone using the term 'iconic' incorrectly to pad out their dumb argument will be subject to immediate Bloodthirster summoning.
  • bronhomsbronhoms Registered Users Posts: 1,330

    It seems like the armor of basic dark elves infantry (darkshards and bleakswords) has been changed from 40 to 30 since the quests battles that were released last week.

    This means that bleakswords now have stats that makes them more or less the same as empire swordmens with murderous prowess. Not sure if armor was the right way to differentiate them from the empire soldiers, but it does feel a bit wrong now to have these units so close to each other in terms of stats.

    Did anyone spot other changes?

    Armour was the right choice. Elves have to be squishy

  • cat59cat59 Registered Users Posts: 472
    bronhoms said:

    It seems like the armor of basic dark elves infantry (darkshards and bleakswords) has been changed from 40 to 30 since the quests battles that were released last week.

    This means that bleakswords now have stats that makes them more or less the same as empire swordmens with murderous prowess. Not sure if armor was the right way to differentiate them from the empire soldiers, but it does feel a bit wrong now to have these units so close to each other in terms of stats.

    Did anyone spot other changes?

    Armour was the right choice. Elves have to be squishy
    I'd have preferred lower HP, if anything. This just makes it seem like they send their basic troops with regular clothing/minor reinforced outfits, than the breastplates and other metal armors they wear.

    Besides, wouldn't having a lower HP pool reflect a more frail constitution, than having low armor? I'd expect the Elves to have good armor on most of their troops, since they are fewer in numbers, but possibly have lower health to compensate/keep with the obsessive idea of 'Elves are squishy and weak.'
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455
    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    I don't think there is anything wrong with using the pause button; my issue is with it having to be mandatory because the AI has near-infinite APM and the design of the battles favours high APM over tactics which would include means of anticipation.

    I haven't seen any of the supposed bullying towards anyone for pausing being claimed here, but the accusation of being 'childish' is clearly visible.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    edited August 2017
    HoneyBun said:


    There are only two serious RTS strategy games on the market (most serious strategy is turn based for a reason) but of those two - you would never see the Paradox community trying to bully people in to not pressing pause.

    Yet that behaviour, which is a wholly non-hyperbolic obsession that i consider childish, is extremely common in this community.

    It is impossible to continue to decry the use of pause yet also complain about a lack of strategic depth - they go hand in hand.

    There are many more than two serious strategy games on the market. Turn-based historical, then yes - TW and Paradox games are the main contenders. The difference between these is that Total War has a turn-based campaign and real time battles. Real time. Let that sink in. Is it wrong to not want to pause during the real time phase of the game?

    Also, I see no bullying from anyone to get people to not press pause. And I've been part of this general discussion for a loooong time now. Sure, people have different viewpoints, but more often than not the bullying comes in when people chime in with helpful comments such as "just stop whining and use the slow-mo button ffs".

    You can call it childish to have a different opinion to your own, but in actuality there are just a lot of people who love Total War games in general but strongly disagree with how battle gameplay is designed and how fast the one default setting is currently set at.

    And there is no correlation between strategic depth and using the pause button. It's a gameplay feature that is used in many genres depending on the game design and the person playing it.
  • ProtagonisteProtagoniste Registered Users Posts: 156
    bronhoms said:

    It seems like the armor of basic dark elves infantry (darkshards and bleakswords) has been changed from 40 to 30 since the quests battles that were released last week.

    This means that bleakswords now have stats that makes them more or less the same as empire swordmens with murderous prowess. Not sure if armor was the right way to differentiate them from the empire soldiers, but it does feel a bit wrong now to have these units so close to each other in terms of stats.

    Did anyone spot other changes?

    Armour was the right choice. Elves have to be squishy
    Re-read what I wrote again. I said that the previous choice of giving elves higher armor (40) was maybe not the right way to differentiate them. Now that this armor has been changed to 30 (same as empire swordman), my issue is simply the overall lack of major difference between them. You are right that elves having better armor should probably not be the main way to make them different from empire soldiers, but at least when it was 40 they had something that made them stand apart.

    In other words, I am ok with them having 30 armor, it's just that I would like them to have higher melee attack, melee defense or maybe even weapon strength to reflect their TT stats and abilities such as always strike first. If the reasons why these stats are so low is that this units needs to be kept weak to fit a "low cost" slot in the army roster, then giving them lower HP would seem reasonable.

    Overall, it's nitpicking. It just annoys the TT player that I used to be when I see that units that used to be significantly different are translated to TW as almost identical versions of the same template.
  • bbeslybbesly Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 269
    @HoneyBun , @ArecBalrin
    Thank you both for the civil diskussion about this old controversy...
    I appreciate both of your arguments, but am myself a pause player...
    So +2 for HoneyBun
    And only +1 for ArecBalrin ;-)
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • hendo1592hendo1592 Registered Users Posts: 2,475

    I don't think there is anything wrong with using the pause button; my issue is with it having to be mandatory because the AI has near-infinite APM and the design of the battles favours high APM over tactics which would include means of anticipation.

    I haven't seen any of the supposed bullying towards anyone for pausing being claimed here, but the accusation of being 'childish' is clearly visible.

    Agreed. I don't care who pauses, it's the only way I can catch a glimpse of my units out of birds eye. Only problem I have with pause, is when it's used as an argument for pace is "fine." As arecbarlin noted, it shouldn't be mandatory-sure you don't "have to" but then you lose out on any appreciation for graphics.
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    There's only so much the player can do in 5min, particular when the dominating (if not only strategy) is rushing.

    Can't believe I'm saying this, but I guess I want a more "laid back experience" when battle conclusion is reached passed 5min. It's crazy that some will take this as "I want to lay down and have a snack while I play." :neutral:
  • MemnonSBMemnonSB Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 595
    Simple answer for all who say-"use pause"-if battle too slow for You -use triple speed!Dont like watch for battle -have amazing chellange to fast click battle.Triple speed=fast click as You like and have zero time to watch for anything as You like!
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    hendo1592 said:


    Can't believe I'm saying this, but I guess I want a more "laid back experience" when battle conclusion is reached passed 5min. It's crazy that some will take this as "I want to lay down and have a snack while I play." :neutral:

    Lol, so true. That straw man is wheeled out so often, sometimes I feel like a failure for not injecting adrenaline before a 4 stack battle :grimace:
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455
    hendo1592 said:

    I don't think there is anything wrong with using the pause button; my issue is with it having to be mandatory because the AI has near-infinite APM and the design of the battles favours high APM over tactics which would include means of anticipation.

    I haven't seen any of the supposed bullying towards anyone for pausing being claimed here, but the accusation of being 'childish' is clearly visible.

    Agreed. I don't care who pauses, it's the only way I can catch a glimpse of my units out of birds eye. Only problem I have with pause, is when it's used as an argument for pace is "fine." As arecbarlin noted, it shouldn't be mandatory-sure you don't "have to" but then you lose out on any appreciation for graphics.
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    There's only so much the player can do in 5min, particular when the dominating (if not only strategy) is rushing.

    Can't believe I'm saying this, but I guess I want a more "laid back experience" when battle conclusion is reached passed 5min. It's crazy that some will take this as "I want to lay down and have a snack while I play." :neutral:
    Why is the best strategy to rush?
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    Seldkam said:

    Why is the best strategy to rush?

    a) Because units not committed to combat are more vulnerable to missile fire
    b) because you're more likely to inflict morale shock on your opponent by committing all at once
    c) because there is no incentive to keep units in reserve
    d) because you need super-human reflexes to manage more than a handful of units at a time in the average 3 minutes of combat you're allotted each battle
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    I've made many long and tedious posts on it, but I'll try and reiterate my points in a more condensed way. Here are two examples of conservative tactics, with explanations for how Warhammer makes them unviable with just the way shooting mechanics work now, which did not used to be the case in TW.

    1. Reducing the front rank. This tactic makes the front line of battle narrower, forcing the opponent to do the same to match it because if they were to instead flank or try to surround the front line, their own flanking troops would be exposing their flanks to counter-attack. An attacker is forced into a defensive position against any new hidden fronts because this is a masking tactic.

    It is unviable in Warhammer because there are no units whos role is to hold ground against anything. They are all designed on the principle of 'X counters Y', they are designed to engage specific units which they are a counter to and avoid units which they are vulnerable to. Those which are durable relative to the enemy front line of melee units will still be shot to pieces by missile infantry, whos role is narrowed down to 'sniping' as they fire rapidly, individually rather than volleying and target individual troops rather than the whole unit or area. All Warhammer units are designed to kill, none are designed to protect themselves or others.

    2. Reserve-holding. Battles realistically happen in stages. Skirmishers skirmish, but once that stage is over they need to fall back to a safe place and be reserved. When a line breaks and a unit flees, those skirmishers will be needed to suppress anyone coming through the gap in the lines, applying a focused zone of control by shooting at anyone that moves into it until the gap gets filled again either by another reserve or a unit that has become free.

    In Warhammer there are almost no effective skirmishers among missile infantry, excepting those who can fire while moving. This is because missile ranges in Warhammer are absurdly short, accuracy isn't even a displayed stat any more because at these distances it's impossible to miss. Because all missile infantry behave like how specialised snipers did in previous TW games, reserves kept behind the front line are often shot to pieces. You often see missile units firing at enemy missile units over the melee until there are only a handful left of them on the winning side. The point of them doesn't seem to make any sense other than to stop enemy missile units decimating melee ones. Because of the absurdly high importance the battle design places on flanking(by having absurdly high charge bonuses for almost every unit), the enemy will have what would have been their reserves moving round to charge a unit in the side, so if you aren't doing the same then you are wasting a unit. Ordinarily units making that move would be vulnerable to zone-control missile fire and units standing their ground in reserve would be fine because they would be facing any incoming missiles. Warhammer though has this completely reversed: the safest place from missiles is to be in melee because Obstruction means missile units won't fire if there is a high enough chance they will hit some of their own. The design forces you to engage as much of your units all at once.

    The one form of reserve-holding the game gives any benefit for are for units which are intended mainly to run down fleeing units in order to prevent them returning, not engage a fighting force. This form of reserve-holding is not a conservative tactic though, the game has no time for force-conservation: every battle is designed as if it were self-contained and not part of a wider campaign. It's almost as if CA designed this for multiplayer foremost.
  • GeldorGeldor Registered Users Posts: 1,115

    bronhoms said:

    It seems like the armor of basic dark elves infantry (darkshards and bleakswords) has been changed from 40 to 30 since the quests battles that were released last week.

    This means that bleakswords now have stats that makes them more or less the same as empire swordmens with murderous prowess. Not sure if armor was the right way to differentiate them from the empire soldiers, but it does feel a bit wrong now to have these units so close to each other in terms of stats.

    Did anyone spot other changes?

    Armour was the right choice. Elves have to be squishy
    Re-read what I wrote again. I said that the previous choice of giving elves higher armor (40) was maybe not the right way to differentiate them. Now that this armor has been changed to 30 (same as empire swordman), my issue is simply the overall lack of major difference between them. You are right that elves having better armor should probably not be the main way to make them different from empire soldiers, but at least when it was 40 they had something that made them stand apart.

    In other words, I am ok with them having 30 armor, it's just that I would like them to have higher melee attack, melee defense or maybe even weapon strength to reflect their TT stats and abilities such as always strike first. If the reasons why these stats are so low is that this units needs to be kept weak to fit a "low cost" slot in the army roster, then giving them lower HP would seem reasonable.

    Overall, it's nitpicking. It just annoys the TT player that I used to be when I see that units that used to be significantly different are translated to TW as almost identical versions of the same template.
    I think that has to do with Murderous Prowess. As this is such a strong buff at the moment, they can't make the basic stats that much different. If you took away all the special rules from both HE and DE on the TT, they often weren't THAT much better than your average Empire guy. I think their their TT stats superiority is mostly shown in Murderous Prowess in this game.

    If you look at the vid, the HE were pretty strong until Murderous Prowess kicked in - then they got hammered by the DE (likely also because many HE lost their buff around that time). As of this iteration MP just a pretty powerful buff, and if they keep it that way, I guess most of the DE troops won't look that much better than their peers when you look at their basic stats (besides nifty stuff like poison etc.).
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455
    edited August 2017

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    Snip.
    Ok... Only thing I can say here is there's a lot of stuff you expect to work from a realistic perspective. Sadly I don't think it makes sense for Warhammer necessarily. But I do understand why you like the idea of it. I like Rome 2 a lot but the speed is bad, flat out. Cav doesn't get punished except by javelins because it takes too long to kill them in melee since they will just run away. Edit: Rome 2 now is actually faster than the first one, so the idea that total war has gotten faster and faster is blatantly false.

    As for not keeping reserves @Fredrin this really is only true in campaign bud. Most competent players in quick battle have whole spear lines dedicated to flank protection, the only armies that wouldn't do this are factions like Chaos... Which imo makes sense.

    I can't respond to all that stuff atm sorry >.<
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • cat59cat59 Registered Users Posts: 472

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    This is because missile ranges in Warhammer are absurdly short, accuracy isn't even a displayed stat any more because at these distances it's impossible to miss. Because all missile infantry behave like how specialised snipers did in previous TW games, reserves kept behind the front line are often shot to pieces.
    I don't have much to add to this, I just wanted to say....the WE would like a word with you, if you think all archers are highly accurate snipers in this game. (Seen tons and tons of shots from all of the different archers they have miss. Even the Waystalker, with his homing missiles have missed a lot as well.)
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    edited August 2017
    HoneyBun said:

    Fredrin said:



    And there is no correlation between strategic depth and using the pause button. It's a gameplay feature that is used in many genres depending on the game design and the person playing it.

    Well, before the community started to believe that using pause was wrong, there was more strategic depth to battles.

    Now when no one pauses, it seems to me there is less strategic depth.

    I'm afraid I do think the paradox analogy stands. If you try to play CK2 without the pause button then I'm pretty sure you'd need to streamline gameplay and remove strategic depth.

    So in my mind the two are clearly linked. Even if you reject my thinking, it's not clear how doing so helps you:

    - I say there is less strategic depth in battles nowadays because of the culture of not using pause
    - you say there is less strategic depth in battles nowadays because ... ?

    If you want to convince me that I'm wrong, when to my mind I have a fully worked hypothesis with supporting evidence, then you're going to have to come up with an alternative theory.
    Hehe, OK. I'll give it a crack.

    First things first, you're making a wildly inappropriate comparison by likening the use of pause in a CK2 campaign to the battle phase of Total War. As I tried to point out in my previous post, the two operate very differently, most of all in the fact that CK2 has a real time campaign, whereas Total War's is turn-based (so effectively always paused).

    A more accurate description of Total War is an RTS/RTT hybrid, where the RTT stands for Real Time Tactics, because the battle phase deals only with the management of troops on the battlefield rather than of an entire empire (as in CK2).

    So really, there's no comparison between micromanaging the strategy of an entire empire and deploying tactics for a single battlefield engagement. The first absolutely needs a pause feature to maintain strategic depth, the second can be designed in such a way that it can live up to its name and be played in Real Time, without the need for constant pausing.

    What we are actually discussing then we talk about battle pace and all its related problems is tactical depth. And in this instance you have put the chicken before the egg. People's reluctance to use pause is not the cause of battles becoming stripped of tactical depth, it's very much a response the way they are currently designed.

    As has been observed at some length by people on both sides of the argument, the tactics of current TW battles primarily revolve around matching off your troops to counter whichever ones your opponent is fielding. Flanking, counter-flanking and using spells/abilities make up the majority of the rest.

    In order to make this a "fun challenge" rather than what is essentially quite a tedious and repetitive task, the developers have sped up battles. Hence, the reason why battle pace and the use of pause has become such an issue, particularly in recent games.

    It's worth noting that battle design has not always been this way (though by no means a great improvement, there were distinguishable phases, such as skirmishing and masking was more effective). So in games prior to Shogun II there was simply no need to pause as much.

    By and large people who aren't happy are rejecting having to play the Real Time element as though it was turn-based (with frequent pauses) and are not satisfied with the lack of variety of tactics that can be used to win a battle.

    In short, the design decisions to strip tactical depth and quicken the pace came way before there was any supposed "culture of not using pause". And no one's arguing that it's "wrong", so please stop asserting that ;)
    Post edited by Fredrin on
  • HarconnHarconn Registered Users Posts: 943
    Only thing for sure was: Battle was way too fast (as always). And HE seemed to be underperforming (as always).
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    My German Youtube-Channel - Let's Plays (Strategy, RPG, Indie,...): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChwblqvwr8XxKP0GzCcUb8Q
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    Snip.
    Ok... Only thing I can say here is there's a lot of stuff you expect to work from a realistic perspective. Sadly I don't think it makes sense for Warhammer necessarily. But I do understand why you like the idea of it. I like Rome 2 a lot but the speed is bad, flat out. Cav doesn't get punished except by javelins because it takes too long to kill them in melee since they will just run away. Edit: Rome 2 now is actually faster than the first one, so the idea that total war has gotten faster and faster is blatantly false.

    As for not keeping reserves @Fredrin this really is only true in campaign bud. Most competent players in quick battle have whole spear lines dedicated to flank protection, the only armies that wouldn't do this are factions like Chaos... Which imo makes sense.

    I can't respond to all that stuff atm sorry >.<</p>
    Not entirely sure what you meant to say in that edit: if Rome 2 is faster than the first, then it is faster?

    The issue with the current battle pacing in Warhammer and recent TW games all started in Shogun 2, but it fit the setting because the Japanese didn't use shields and there was still a wide variety of tactical options granted by the unit design and terrain. It did not make sense for the follow-up Rome 2 to be just as fast or even faster, but it happened, then again with Attila and it has peaked with Warhammer. So much so, CA found it hard to show-case battles when they first started doing Let's Plays of them; they struggled to both zoom in to see what was happening and actually play the game. Like the battle time limit option, the changes have made the cinematic camera toggle added in Rome 2 redundant.

    Prior to Shogun 2 though, only the first Rome had super-short battles and CA quickly saw their mistake and corrected it in Medieval 2. The speed at which units die didn't seem to change, but the design of them and how they work as part of an army did and this is what caused all units to have to engage at once and everything finishes quickly. This was always an option in TW, but you would take horrendous losses and even risk losing completely because if the AI held fresh elite troops back they would utterly annihilate a superior number of any kind of unit who were near exhausted. Now stamina does not matter that much in a fight, it doesn't affect movement speed at all and running hardly drains stamina which replenishes to full in about two minutes standing still.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    cat59 said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If your plan works flawlessly, your opponent was incompetent. Simple as that.

    Almost no plan survives contact with the enemy. In actual fact, when a plan works flawlessly it means you've done what your opponent wanted you to. Sometimes you want to lose because winning would mean almost your entire army being wiped out, so you leave the field; both you and your opponent wants that.

    It has seemed to me that battles are now designed to be self-contained battles and not part of the wider context of a campaign; CA have designed and balanced battles as if they are one-offs. That's almost as if they've been thinking about multiplayer and show-casing over campaign battles. For a campaign, you want to always preserve as much of your force as possible because you might have to use that army again soon after.

    Warhammer as designed does not allow any of this.
    How does it not allow for it? Is it too fast for your preferences? That's what the "it's too fast" boils down to.
    This is because missile ranges in Warhammer are absurdly short, accuracy isn't even a displayed stat any more because at these distances it's impossible to miss. Because all missile infantry behave like how specialised snipers did in previous TW games, reserves kept behind the front line are often shot to pieces.
    I don't have much to add to this, I just wanted to say....the WE would like a word with you, if you think all archers are highly accurate snipers in this game. (Seen tons and tons of shots from all of the different archers they have miss. Even the Waystalker, with his homing missiles have missed a lot as well.)
    Other than the unresolved issue with them shooting into trees, thus negating the supposed 'in forest' buff, Wood Elves are absurdly accurate. They currently have the longest range of any missile infantry so you would expect some drop-off, but it's still a range put to shame by the standards of English longbows(which pretty sure were made from non-enchanted Yew and lop-armed human conscripts). If the Wood Elves have a problem it's because the shooting mechanics are not suited to medium to long-range: you need to fire in volleys so that you hit something based on the sheer amount of missiles in the air. Because all of Warhammer's shooting is all individually-fired at specific targets, the chances of missing are higher than they need to be at longer range. It's why if loose formation were to be brought back it would make no difference because the individual troops are being targeted rather than the whole unit or the ground they are moving to.
  • AbesutAbesut Registered Users Posts: 133
    To sum up this thread;

    HE players whining about HE being rekt by DE, in a DE promo video.

    the vocal minority still think the battle pace is too fast.

    paint job on moon dragon being ugly

    and so much salt that reading this thread made me thirsty

Sign In or Register to comment.