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

Why are dragons so weak?

24

Comments

  • IxalIxal Posts: 479Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but that's it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in that game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Actually we have one greater daemon in this game already, and he is not very impressive as well.
    Which is a seperate problem and he should be buffed, too.
  • misterZmisterZ Posts: 343Registered Users
    GalenHHH said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Lazyking said:


    It's meant to be used against BIG SINGLE TARGET MODELS... Hydras, Cauldrons of Blood, Hell Pit ABominations, Carnosaurs... and when the whole Breath attack hits, it deals a lot of damage...

    When i used it at single models it still does not impress me with the dmg. And have the "full" blast hitted? Maybe not but then is super easy to doge. Also it still makes no sence that its suddenly useless against multible troops.

    "OH NO a dragon! Oh wait, it is just a Star Dragon oldest of the oldest, a breath that can melt gromril. Its just single target so we be safe..."
    Sun Dragon Breath: VS Large Units
    Moon Dragon breath: VS Units like Crypt Horrors and Rat Ogres
    Star Dragon Breath: VS SIngle Targets
    So Star Dragon's Breath is intended to be useless for Large Units?
    He meant "large units" as in units with 120 or 100 models in the unit.Star dragon breath is still usefull against Large units like carnosaurs,HPE ,CoB etc etc
    with right angle it can melt high tier infantry like black guard with one breath
  • Firkraag888Firkraag888 Posts: 1,428Registered Users
    They are strong enough and fast and mobile enough to fly over the first line units and into the second line units, smash them up for a few minutes to break there morale and make them route, then they fly away for a bit and come back and do it again.

    They can also fly into the front line and do the same.

    They key is you gotta pull them out when the time is right

    This is how there best used..........I think
  • GalenHHHGalenHHH Junior Member Posts: 1,233Registered Users
    misterZ said:

    GalenHHH said:

    jamreal18 said:

    Lazyking said:


    It's meant to be used against BIG SINGLE TARGET MODELS... Hydras, Cauldrons of Blood, Hell Pit ABominations, Carnosaurs... and when the whole Breath attack hits, it deals a lot of damage...

    When i used it at single models it still does not impress me with the dmg. And have the "full" blast hitted? Maybe not but then is super easy to doge. Also it still makes no sence that its suddenly useless against multible troops.

    "OH NO a dragon! Oh wait, it is just a Star Dragon oldest of the oldest, a breath that can melt gromril. Its just single target so we be safe..."
    Sun Dragon Breath: VS Large Units
    Moon Dragon breath: VS Units like Crypt Horrors and Rat Ogres
    Star Dragon Breath: VS SIngle Targets
    So Star Dragon's Breath is intended to be useless for Large Units?
    He meant "large units" as in units with 120 or 100 models in the unit.Star dragon breath is still usefull against Large units like carnosaurs,HPE ,CoB etc etc
    with right angle it can melt high tier infantry like black guard with one breath
    Getting the right angle can be tricky sometimes though (especially with the new maps).And you need 2 breaths to wipe out a BG iirc(granted my aiming could have been faulty when i tried that)
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Posts: 847Registered Users
    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but thats it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in tha game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Are they in TT strong enoug to beat hole armies alone? IIRC someone in this Forum mentioned that they could easily brought down by mere Cannons.

    In my opinion it would not be fun to fight against such overpowered monster, a ritual doesn't solve this issue. The AI could still got it and what have we then? 1 Unit which destroy my 20 stack not to mention 19 other units to deal with. If we go with the lore, how many armies would I need to defeat this? 5 just to take out this one dragon?
    What is the fun in having such overpowerd Units in the game? There would be no need for strategy.
  • ShockmesaneShockmesane Posts: 78Registered Users
    Every time I see one of these threads I think, "That guy clearly never played TT, where a regular Cannon could 1-shot a Star Dragon or Bloodthirster on a lucky roll".
  • SherShahSuriSherShahSuri Junior Member Posts: 1,109Registered Users

    Every time I see one of these threads I think, "That guy clearly never played TT, where a regular Cannon could 1-shot a Star Dragon or Bloodthirster on a lucky roll".

    This isn't TT though... it's TW :D very different...

    They may be using the lore and world of Warhammer... but it should remain loyal to the Total War way... otherwise it's just a waste and not worth the money paid.
  • IxalIxal Posts: 479Registered Users

    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but thats it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in tha game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Are they in TT strong enoug to beat hole armies alone? IIRC someone in this Forum mentioned that they could easily brought down by mere Cannons.

    Yes but that applied to every 1 model monsters including mammoths and carnos.
    So if you want to use this as justification why dragons are weak you have to nerf all other mobsters too.
  • SedlinaSedlina Posts: 193Registered Users
    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.
  • GalenHHHGalenHHH Junior Member Posts: 1,233Registered Users

    Every time I see one of these threads I think, "That guy clearly never played TT, where a regular Cannon could 1-shot a Star Dragon or Bloodthirster on a lucky roll".

    And who ever had just one cannon? ;)
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,588Registered Users

    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but thats it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in tha game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Are they in TT strong enough to beat hole armies alone? IIRC someone in this Forum mentioned that they could easily brought down by mere Cannons.

    In my opinion it would not be fun to fight against such overpowered monster, a ritual doesn't solve this issue. The AI could still got it and what have we then? 1 Unit which destroy my 20 stack not to mention 19 other units to deal with. If we go with the lore, how many armies would I need to defeat this? 5 just to take out this one dragon?
    What is the fun in having such overpowerd Units in the game? There would be no need for strategy.
    The whole idea with cannons, is that you need something very big and/or powerful to take down a dragon. While in Total War almost anything can take down a dragon in no time.
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Posts: 847Registered Users
    Ixal said:

    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but thats it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in tha game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Are they in TT strong enoug to beat hole armies alone? IIRC someone in this Forum mentioned that they could easily brought down by mere Cannons.

    Yes but that applied to every 1 model monsters including mammoths and carnos.
    So if you want to use this as justification why dragons are weak you have to nerf all other mobsters too.
    What makes you think Dragons are weak? Others already mentioned here how they should be played to make the most of it. Since they are flying you can't give them the stats of a Mamuth and Carnosaurs. Or do you just want to give the attack order and sit back to see how 1 Unit is crushing half an army since in the lore they have no counter?
  • IxalIxal Posts: 479Registered Users
    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Posts: 847Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but thats it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in tha game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Are they in TT strong enough to beat hole armies alone? IIRC someone in this Forum mentioned that they could easily brought down by mere Cannons.

    In my opinion it would not be fun to fight against such overpowered monster, a ritual doesn't solve this issue. The AI could still got it and what have we then? 1 Unit which destroy my 20 stack not to mention 19 other units to deal with. If we go with the lore, how many armies would I need to defeat this? 5 just to take out this one dragon?
    What is the fun in having such overpowerd Units in the game? There would be no need for strategy.
    The whole idea with cannons, is that you need something very big and/or powerful to take down a dragon. While in Total War almost anything can take down a dragon in no time.
    Don't you think you are a bit exaggerating with how easy a Dragon goes down? If I send it in whole anti large companies than of course it will take heavy damage, that is the point of anti large. The same goes if we have a mob of units ganging up on the dragon, quantity can beat quality. (the Skaven way).^^

    The Cannon has the same purpose in the game as it has in TT but it can't be made as effective since this is RTS and Total war. If the cannon is our only answer to such large foes we would be screwed if it is shut down even though we win every other engagement.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,588Registered Users

    Every time I see one of these threads I think, "That guy clearly never played TT, where a regular Cannon could 1-shot a Star Dragon or Bloodthirster on a lucky roll".

    Cannons can use some buff as well, but dragons should be able to tank most smaller things.
  • SDMSDM Junior Member Posts: 236Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but thats it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in tha game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Are they in TT strong enough to beat hole armies alone? IIRC someone in this Forum mentioned that they could easily brought down by mere Cannons.

    In my opinion it would not be fun to fight against such overpowered monster, a ritual doesn't solve this issue. The AI could still got it and what have we then? 1 Unit which destroy my 20 stack not to mention 19 other units to deal with. If we go with the lore, how many armies would I need to defeat this? 5 just to take out this one dragon?
    What is the fun in having such overpowerd Units in the game? There would be no need for strategy.
    The whole idea with cannons, is that you need something very big and/or powerful to take down a dragon. While in Total War almost anything can take down a dragon in no time.
    If you put a dragon against 200 infantry in TT, the infantry would win unless it's strength was below the required amount to inflict damage. So in TT, 200 bog standard 3 str infantry would win against any dragon that didn't have 7 toughness (which was only star dragons unless I'm forgetting something).

    Total War dragons are tons tougher then TT.
  • SultschiemSultschiem Posts: 1,640Registered Users
    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    No.

    Mammoths are the biggest Monsters in the warhammer tabletop. A mammoth should not be "breakfast" to a dragon.

    It makes sense that a Stardragon`s breath can melt through mammoths, but a moon-dragon would have more problems with it, especially in melee where the mammoth is much heavier and stronger.

    Compare the stats of dragons in the tabletop with other units and monsters.

    Giants are considered great Dragonkillers for example.
  • cmdrnarraincmdrnarrain Junior Member Posts: 26Registered Users
    There is nothing wrong with dragons. They smash face just fine.
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Posts: 847Registered Users
    Ixal said:

    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.
    The mentioned monsters can easily be countered since they don't have the same mobility as dragons. I don't play multiplayer but like to watch the games from time to time. In them for example it is always a danger to bring Mammoths since they get down fast with focused fire. They are not fast enough to make manoeuvre. If they were flying...
  • GalenHHHGalenHHH Junior Member Posts: 1,233Registered Users
    edited October 2017
    Ixal said:

    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.


    This is prior to their nerf.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,588Registered Users
    SDM said:

    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Harconn said:

    Dragons could be at least a bit better. Moon dragons should eat Mammoths for breakfast and a star dragon should think of carnosaurs as dragon babys. It could be balanced with huge upkeep costs. Atm dragons are very squishy and in most cases useless (except their terror appearance) after using up their breath attacks.

    I don't want unbreakable op-dragons, but they should be superior to other monsters. Same goes for greater demons. In the end it could be balanced by upkeep.

    I fear in Single Player huge Upkeep means nothing, especially for the AI in higher difficulties.
    What makes you think Dragons are superior to all other Monsters? In their lore yes, but if I read about Carnosaurs it is the other way around.
    Not really. Carnos can fight with younger dragons but thats it. All that talk about them hunting dragons to extinction in Lustria was made up by fanboys to justify weak dragons.
    By lore and TT stats a Star Dragon should kill anything currently in tha game except for certain lords. They are only equalled by greater demons which we do not have yet.

    Make Moon and Star dragons as powerful as the lore and TT says, make them expensive in MP and make them only recruitable by a rite in SP.
    Are they in TT strong enough to beat hole armies alone? IIRC someone in this Forum mentioned that they could easily brought down by mere Cannons.

    In my opinion it would not be fun to fight against such overpowered monster, a ritual doesn't solve this issue. The AI could still got it and what have we then? 1 Unit which destroy my 20 stack not to mention 19 other units to deal with. If we go with the lore, how many armies would I need to defeat this? 5 just to take out this one dragon?
    What is the fun in having such overpowerd Units in the game? There would be no need for strategy.
    The whole idea with cannons, is that you need something very big and/or powerful to take down a dragon. While in Total War almost anything can take down a dragon in no time.
    If you put a dragon against 200 infantry in TT, the infantry would win unless it's strength was below the required amount to inflict damage. So in TT, 200 bog standard 3 str infantry would win against any dragon that didn't have 7 toughness (which was only star dragons unless I'm forgetting something).

    Total War dragons are tons tougher then TT.
    The Heroes in Total War had much bigger buff compared to the Tabletop, then Dragons.
  • preben555preben555 Posts: 3Registered Users
    I played high elves in TT and I think CA captured the drgons tactical essence pretty good. TT warhammer only had dragons with riders on them, and they were scary af together. In my campaign experience a level 40 prince on s-dragon will break any other units in the game without breaking a sweat.

    I only have one minor gripe with the dragons. The breath weapon. I really wish that they made it a cone shaped spell like Tyrions awesome looking flaming attack but with zero range so it that could be used in c.c. instead of an unreliable shooting attack. I always used the breath weapon in cc in TT to compensate for the relatively few attacks dragons had vs a 40+horde. If they implemented this it would make it MUCH more unpleasant to get a rear charge when it's followed by a hot flame shower that disrupt the lines. And it'd look cool af too.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Posts: 10,150Registered Users
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!"

    CA hates the Empire confirmed. The FLC LL for the new Lord Pack is Gor-Rok. Meaning the Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. And no, moving Balthasar Gelt from Reikland, where he should be, DOES NOT COUNT. If they wanted a LL in the Southern Empire: Marius Leitdorf of Averland or maybe Elspeth von Draken in Nuln...

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him?

    GHAL MARAZ IS THE WEAPON OF THE SETTING! YET SOME BRETONNIAN SWORD IS MORE POTENT?! BUFF GHAL MARAZ IN SIGMAR'S NAME!
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,588Registered Users

    Ixal said:

    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.
    The mentioned monsters can easily be countered since they don't have the same mobility as dragons. I don't play multiplayer but like to watch the games from time to time. In them for example it is always a danger to bring Mammoths since they get down fast with focused fire. They are not fast enough to make manoeuvre. If they were flying...
    Flying is something extra for dragons, it's not an good reason to make them weaker.
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Posts: 847Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.
    The mentioned monsters can easily be countered since they don't have the same mobility as dragons. I don't play multiplayer but like to watch the games from time to time. In them for example it is always a danger to bring Mammoths since they get down fast with focused fire. They are not fast enough to make manoeuvre. If they were flying...
    Flying is something extra for dragons, it's not an good reason to make them weaker.
    But you have to put the flying into account when you balance them for Total War. Like I said, a flying mammoth with breath attack would be overpowered.
  • nosuchnamenosuchname Senior Member Posts: 1,399Registered Users
    They are so weak against focus fire and melt against archers.
    Auto resolving has been hugely improvement in warhammer 2, its far better compared to the first one, but it still needs some tweaking, especially the dark elves.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,588Registered Users

    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.
    The mentioned monsters can easily be countered since they don't have the same mobility as dragons. I don't play multiplayer but like to watch the games from time to time. In them for example it is always a danger to bring Mammoths since they get down fast with focused fire. They are not fast enough to make manoeuvre. If they were flying...
    Flying is something extra for dragons, it's not an good reason to make them weaker.
    But you have to put the flying into account when you balance them for Total War. Like I said, a flying mammoth with breath attack would be overpowered.
    I prefer units to be balanced with extra cost, and not by making them unreasonable weaker.
  • SchwarzhelmSchwarzhelm Posts: 847Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.
    The mentioned monsters can easily be countered since they don't have the same mobility as dragons. I don't play multiplayer but like to watch the games from time to time. In them for example it is always a danger to bring Mammoths since they get down fast with focused fire. They are not fast enough to make manoeuvre. If they were flying...
    Flying is something extra for dragons, it's not an good reason to make them weaker.
    But you have to put the flying into account when you balance them for Total War. Like I said, a flying mammoth with breath attack would be overpowered.
    I prefer units to be balanced with extra cost, and not by making them unreasonable weaker.
    But extra cost doesn't work in single player. The AI cheats gold in high difficulty and the player has later no problems of getting enough.

    I don't know what you mean with unreasonable weaker, how strong do you want them to be?
  • Lord of CinderLord of Cinder Posts: 303Registered Users
    Make their breath attack work properly and fewer people will find them underwhelming.
  • IxalIxal Posts: 479Registered Users

    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    Ixal said:

    Sedlina said:

    Sorry but I don't get this topic. People who've played the TT longer than just the early editions know that even there the Dragons got cut down and you had to use them with a brain instead of being an unstoppable one dragon army..
    .
    Simply because S4 skirmishers, poison - and most importantly any form of artillery would murder a Dragon in a single turn if it dared to show it's face without 'hiding' itself in melee combat.

    You mean as intelligently as Carnos, Bastiladons or Mammoths are currently used? Why is this explanation always only used why to keep dragons weak? With this justification all other monsters are much too though and need to be nerfed.
    The mentioned monsters can easily be countered since they don't have the same mobility as dragons. I don't play multiplayer but like to watch the games from time to time. In them for example it is always a danger to bring Mammoths since they get down fast with focused fire. They are not fast enough to make manoeuvre. If they were flying...
    Flying is something extra for dragons, it's not an good reason to make them weaker.
    But you have to put the flying into account when you balance them for Total War. Like I said, a flying mammoth with breath attack would be overpowered.
    I prefer units to be balanced with extra cost, and not by making them unreasonable weaker.
    But extra cost doesn't work in single player. The AI cheats gold in high difficulty and the player has later no problems of getting enough.

    I don't know what you mean with unreasonable weaker, how strong do you want them to be?
    Make the stronger dragons only recruitable by rite like the skaven heroes. Then you have a cooldown to recruitment.
Sign In or Register to comment.