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

multiplayer balance - Berserkers/chevrons/low tier spears/missiles

SnipingAchillesSnipingAchilles Senior MemberBelgiumRegistered Users Posts: 301
edited May 2018 in Multiplayer
Hello CA,

As with every other Total War release, there's a unit that is a thorn in the eye. We've had Oathsworn for Rome II, Tagmata cavalry for Atilla, Demygryph knights with halberds for Warhammer. But for Thrones of Britannia, it is the berserker.

These guys are really, really strong. They don't have a lot of men in a unit, but every man in a berserker unit fights for 3 in another! They literally beat every single other infantry unit in the game with ease. And it shows, as berserker spam is still common in quick match and in tournaments. Usually, the player with the most berserkers wins.

I've hosted the very first tournament for Thrones of Britannia with a ruleset of no artillery and a maximum of 4 of the same unit. And yes, even with a unit restriction of 4 of the same it came down to whomever could do a better job at using and protecting his berserkers.

So with this in mind I sat down with Panda_Warrior to discuss the current balance issues of the game. We came up with some suggestions that really should improve the current state of the game.

Berserkers

For berserkers we suggest the following changes:
  • A price increase to 1200
  • Bringing melee skill back to 50 (-10 decrease)
Our reasoning behind these changes:

Berserkers should rightfully be a scary unit, but should also be priced as such. Having strong stats and abilities like fear and immune to fear certainly is reason enough to drive up the price. Also, increasing their price means you cannot bring as many of them anymore. With that being said, we do think that they could use a nerf in melee skill to bring them more in-line vs elite swords and elite axes.

To even add more prove that these changes would do the game good. We simulated a game with a berserker spam against a balanced build. We acted as if the berserkers costed 1200 instead of 900 and the 100 gold spearmen were trash. (so before going into battle, I had #berserkers x 300 gold left, in our case 7 berserkes so 2100 gold)

Replay is in attachments.

Spears that cost 100

Some low tier spears provide too much presence and blocking power on the field. We feel that spears that only cost 100 gold should be "bad" in every aspect.

We feel that spears costing 100 should have a shieldvalue of max 15 or less.

This way it should give people more incentive to consider picking the more expensive and better spears.

Chevron upgrades on units

Right now, these are linear. It costs 30 gold to add experience to a unit in custom games and multiplayer battles. This should be scaled according to unit price. The more expensive a unit is, the more expensive it should be to give it extra experience.

Our reasoning behind these changes:

Right now it is really easy to rank up elite swords for a cheap price and surround them with a lot of low tier units. Scaling the price experience/chevrons with the unit price should get rid of this problem and make the game feel better overall.

Missiles

We firmly believe that right now it would be a bad idea to touch missiles.

Wrapping things up ...


These are not a lot of changes, but they are needed. As we have yet to unravel the game balance after the berserkers are brought back in line.

For anyone reading this, let us know what you think. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best regards,
Achilles
Panda_Warrior

EDIT: typo
AggonyAchilles on Steam.

YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/snipingachilles
Post edited by SnipingAchilles on

Comments

  • TezcatlipocaTezcatlipoca Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 154
    I just want to express my support to this petition. Berserker Spam has really made the game flat. Also the chevron upgrades are too cheap for what you get, if I recall, you only need 370 to fully upgrade a unit which will be almost invincible. Consider a fully upgraded Berserker... Scalating chevron prices seems as the solution. Perhaps a 100 increase to 100 Spears would be a solution to the cheap spear problem. I think is the cheapest unit ever in any Total War. But because there are 200 spears already, something has to be done: either eliminate cheap spears or increase price for the rest of the spears.
    a.k.a. Quetzalcoatl; Aeneas; Vlixes.
    Playing TW since 2000.
  • MASK_NOONEMASK_NOONE Registered Users Posts: 7
    edited May 2018
    My thoughts exactly!
    Yeah could you image that your opponent use 9 berserkers, 10 100-gold spears and one gereral?
    9 berserkers could be a doom power to crush any line, and 100-gold spears could effectively block the cavalry to flank or assault the rear of berserker.
    I really wish to know if CA really tested the effect of 100-gold spears vs 900-gold or 1000-gold cavalrys?

    I have tried crossbows, longbows, two-had axes which 100 golds expensive than berserker, but I can promise my chance is still so little.
    I really don't wish to use berserkers fighting each other again and again... but that is really what is happening in ranking.
    Very boring.
    Post edited by MASK_NOONE on
  • MASK_NOONEMASK_NOONE Registered Users Posts: 7

    I just want to express my support to this petition. Berserker Spam has really made the game flat. Also the chevron upgrades are too cheap for what you get, if I recall, you only need 370 to fully upgrade a unit which will be almost invincible. Consider a fully upgraded Berserker... Scalating chevron prices seems as the solution. Perhaps a 100 increase to 100 Spears would be a solution to the cheap spear problem. I think is the cheapest unit ever in any Total War. But because there are 200 spears already, something has to be done: either eliminate cheap spears or increase price for the rest of the spears.

    what a horrible idea...fully upgraded Berserker... :(:(:(
  • MASK_NOONEMASK_NOONE Registered Users Posts: 7
    edited May 2018

    I just want to express my support to this petition. Berserker Spam has really made the game flat. Also the chevron upgrades are too cheap for what you get, if I recall, you only need 370 to fully upgrade a unit which will be almost invincible. Consider a fully upgraded Berserker... Scalating chevron prices seems as the solution. Perhaps a 100 increase to 100 Spears would be a solution to the cheap spear problem. I think is the cheapest unit ever in any Total War. But because there are 200 spears already, something has to be done: either eliminate cheap spears or increase price for the rest of the spears.

    My suggestion is to limit berserker to up to 3 units and forbid upgrading it.
    Post edited by MASK_NOONE on
  • HugothesterHugothester Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 566
    I agree with not touching the missiles, I disagree with all the rest.

    I don´t want berserkers to be nerfed, it would be enough to limit them to 2 per army as a special unit. The whole thing about berserkers is that they are insanely strong, and you want to reduce their melee and increase their cost so they can become another generic unit... Well, no, I do no agree with that.

    In what regards 100 lancers, I find that they are at least somewhat useful, those 100 units from rome 2 were useless in any kind of sittuation, now at least they can hold a flank for a few minutes before they fall, even if they do not kill almost anything. It is fun, gives more tactical options and you have more untis in the battlefield, which always help to give inmersion.

    Let´s stop trying to make everything balanced as if this was an e-sport, part of the fun of these historical games is that you cannot balance certain things, it would be as balancing 1940´s Germany with Poland, it would not make any sense. They did it in Rome 2 and now all units are so generic I do not feel like playing it anymore.
    Biggest Spanish total war youtube Channel
    https://www.youtube.com/user/hugothester
  • SnipingAchillesSnipingAchilles Senior Member BelgiumRegistered Users Posts: 301
    edited May 2018

    I agree with not touching the missiles, I disagree with all the rest.

    I don´t want berserkers to be nerfed, it would be enough to limit them to 2 per army as a special unit. The whole thing about berserkers is that they are insanely strong, and you want to reduce their melee and increase their cost so they can become another generic unit... Well, no, I do no agree with that.

    In what regards 100 lancers, I find that they are at least somewhat useful, those 100 units from rome 2 were useless in any kind of sittuation, now at least they can hold a flank for a few minutes before they fall, even if they do not kill almost anything. It is fun, gives more tactical options and you have more untis in the battlefield, which always help to give inmersion.

    Let´s stop trying to make everything balanced as if this was an e-sport, part of the fun of these historical games is that you cannot balance certain things, it would be as balancing 1940´s Germany with Poland, it would not make any sense. They did it in Rome 2 and now all units are so generic I do not feel like playing it anymore.

    Hey Hugothester

    Berserkers are a special unit and will still be a special unit after these changes. Nerfing their melee skill a little bit will simply bring them more in-line vs elite swords/axes. They will still destroy every unit in a 1v1 nonetheless.

    The 1940's argument does not make any sense here. A game needs to be fun in all aspects. How can it be fun if there is one unit to rule them all? Have you tried playing some quick matches on ladder or a tournament event?

    You're saying you want to limit berserkers to a maximum of 2? That is in fact way more radical in terms of balancing than what we are suggesting here... We are simply asking to increase their price and nerf their melee skill a little bit. Something that will have no influence when fighting anything other than elite troops. And it pushes them in the special unit catagory. They will still be as powerfull as they are now.

    I say we certainly shouldn't stop trying to balance everything. I do agree that we should not try to make it balanced as if this was an e-sport because that is an ideal that we will never, ever reach due to a lack of players at the moment and CA's patching policy.

    These changes don't change anything in campaign, and don't change anything in your siege/custom/multiplayer games. Only that you have to think a bit more about what you want to bring to the table.

    I don't really know what you mean by units becoming generic trough balancing?




    Post edited by SnipingAchilles on
    AggonyAchilles on Steam.

    YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/snipingachilles
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Registered Users Posts: 374
    how about over time increasingly penalize stamina if the berserk go berserk?
    keep unique and distinct unit but still put in line with the rest
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!! [moddable + ui-scale]

    CA pls, where is Three Kings start date?

    Gavespawn Fan Club________dont forget about the beastmen! beastmen content is long overdue!!1!
    Fan Club Cao Wei__________.*(Cao 190-start lacks sentinel assignment)
    Lobby Group Black Achilleez __Troy Saga in a nutshell

    dear CA,
    - pls allow the player to freely sort the order of occupied building cards/slots! especially since the buildings r colour-coded.
    - as an old fan i hope the troy 1/2y exclusivity deal was a one-off marketing push and not an ill omen of what to expect for the future (borderlands route)
    - kudos for supporting mod-ability still but it could be better like how it was in older games

    feature requests / suggestions / wishlist

    this sub-spoiler claims, why player opinions can matter where hard numbers might be unable to tell


    judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process;
    beside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them);
    judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. sp perhaps even moreso.
    all those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket
    (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature)
    which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition
    so even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately!

    anyways,
    i do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake; as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
    in case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well
    that might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.

    but i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either
    (as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)
    but their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
    with exactly this kind of justification, three kings skirmish (talking of records) progressed for the much worse and if you look up the biggest mods, none of them leave the weak skirmish untouched
    [update] 3k-records unit morale as in 1.7.0 is excellent though (on par with shogun 2 and napoleon)

    the meta nature of the game, regarding vision and direction, which r subjective matters may be steered through data impartially
    (for instance in accordance to mean sentiments and thus overall preference)
    but i have some serious doubt that data can be extracted truly in workable format to reliably assess balancing matters unless as said above the top sample gets considered discriminatorily

    obviously, theres a host of realities that im simply not aware of (and im less even in a position to conceive the feasability / difficulties that come with troubleshooting and implementing new features)
    i dont claim to no better than the developers themselves but as a true enthusiast i do have an opinion and i think albeit stale but solid, tw has way more potential in the 3d skirmish to be a challenging and interesting game then CA is making use of - prob due to some higher-ups deeming it more prospectable to cater towards and nurture the utter lowest casual spectrum of the gaming demographic (theres those who just wanna kill time and relax and those who play rts/rtt for a challenge). other than some pathological forum lap-dogs would have me believe i think as an enthusiast who merely wants to see the franchise successively improve as a game experience (which is subjective of c) - and i know many steam friends that would argue its been regressing ever since shogun 2 (which i dont necessarily agree with in full but i do see the point), it is fine to critizise the franchise for not developing its full potential (in a constructive manner as far as my language permits which might still come across different). after all it is one opinion of a fan nothing more nothing less.

    someday in the future ill need to cut this section down to a considerably less-roamy, and more digestible format but i think some ideas/thoughts might sound interesting



    campaign

    * replace the dreadful supply mechanic as in warhammer, if necessary erase it
    * attila unit progression was nice
    * keep troy's multi-ressource where appropriate
    * limit elite/doom-stacking to keep them special akin to how troy managed to address it tied with ressources/conditions
    * keep/re-use/develop retinue system as in three kings (whereever appropriate to the period), but without unit-type exclusions (not as restrictive as 3k if any at all);
    .........rome ii's armiy system was much too restrictive - three kings retinue system is a clear improvement but unit type lock is bad
    ......* organic centralized army group/corps (instead of forcing separate reinforcment stacks)
    .........* similarly to 3k but N not hard capped to 3: N*(1+6)*units (which traditionally 21 units constituting out of 3 corps)
    ............but sized organically analogous to mount-and-blade style marshal system
    * further develop armies local ressources like war supply in three kings and horde mechanics in warhammer,
    ......* perhaps link it to 'army-traditions' or baggage trains proprietary to leading reatinue commander's traits/attributs/skills
    ......* ai may have cheat but keep it strict for the player - not like in three kings
    * keep improved diplomacy for future titles (like in 3 kings, troy saga)
    * tone down traditionally rediculous artillery and make it a constructable (bar dedicated field artillery pieces)
    ............perhaps linked to some engineers camp via the baggage-train/army-traditions
    * further expand event/dilemma system; three kings does a pretty good job on that!



    tactical/3d skirmish

    * imo single-entities go against the prior established authenticity of historically leaning tw;
    ......* i find historic tw should develop/have its own signature content/challenges/allure to the player
    .........rather than imitate warhammer only to turn out warhammer-lite with a historic twist
    .........(heroines like "Jeanne dArc" obviously deserve highlight but not as single entities if possible)

    * tactical PRINCIPLE over RPS alignment - a larger chapter that i mayhaps expand upon in the future and/or restructure the entire segment after ((
    ......* tactical principle means unit-formations, behaviour, abilities and maneuvre - but also intel, prospection and prediction vs reactive measure
    .........abilities can force behaviour in the opposition
    .........(similarly to thrones slow down debuff upon missile harrassment [which sadly didnt make it into release], or horses rearing up when charing braced units)
    .........as an example; loose formation might be enforced through a dual-condition of
    .........low discipline or morale and (field artillery bombardment, or when threatened by a high grade unit in wedge formation [be it cav or inf])
    .........unit might refuse charge order when low morale and/or low stamina
    .........the following r probably too bold but have interesting tactical considerations/ramifications to formation doctrines;
    .........marching order as a stance (turn+, speed+, brace-),
    .........band/regiment rotation distinction (difference linear vs deep block)
    .........cavalry cant rotate on the spot but must wheel about
    .........charging (cav and inf) may apply friendly damage
    .........fleeing cav can cause mild friendly damage
    .........heavy cavalry has wind-up phase when accelerating/decelerating
    .........fleeing units can disrupt order of friendly units (force shield-/spear-wall disband)
    .........missile combat - distinction or seperate modi between direct and indirect fire/aim (medieval 2 did that distinction somewhat)
    .........missile combat - greater distinction between distance shooting and point blank
    ............* shooting at maximum distance should be less effective;
    ............* perhaps add orders for units to open-fire/begin-shooting at 2 or 3 preset target ranges (max, medium, point-blank)

    ......* scouting imo should be a dedicated unit-role; expanded upon in the LoS section below
    .........shogun had justifiable unit abilities (exchange 'second-wind' could be rebranded "rotation of ranks" et c. - whereas rome 2 had some nonsensical ones),
    .........there r a number of unit ability examples i have in mind (other than unit formations) and most focus on the morale aspect (expand upon later due to bloat)
    .........to use morale as main mechanic/resource over unit health has the advantage that morale is dynamic (in lieu with troy/warhammer healing effects)
    .........as such morale as the main driver allows for more dynamic gameplay, premonition (as opposed to strictly decrementive health states) and come-back moments
    .........prospect and prediction vs reactionary action r no empty platitudes either and go hand in hand with LoS
    .........but are more directly related to the proportion of movement (maneuvre) vs combat speed (kill-rate/attack-cycle/interval) as well as the tactical merits
    .........of increased unit cap (as practically proven by similar skirmish/3d-battle simulators that r not exactly tw)
    .........IMPROVED GROUP/cluster controls
    ...........im about to lose track and sadly the section is bloated enough already (ref: LoS chapter) will elaborate about unit-cap and control in full order when i rework this mess

    * keep pronounced environment effects (like saga troy and arena tw did - and expand on it) -> but communicate it more clearly to the player
    ......* some difficult environment require that the unit disband battle formation
    .........(which amplify tactical robustness of sword infantry (particularly light/medium) that dont rely on dense formations for effectiveness)
    .........* cavalry cant charge or dont receive charge bonus on difficult terrain

    * make more use of unit stances/formations (i.e. yari-wall, [shieldwall+buff, phalanx+buff])
    ......* various quality distinctions - for instance depict how much emphasis the supervising corps general puts into his drills (or various kinds thereof)
    .........respectively assigned units inherit from general emphasis
    .........ie. shield wall - drill tier1, shield wall - drill tier2 et c.
    .........whereas another corps general emphasises more strongly on ambush tactics
    .........war cry, suebian charge et c.
    .........whereas certain grade units have drills built-in due to standardization, or due being mercenaries or whatnot
    .........long-spear units rely on spear-wall to become combat effective but should be able to compete in infantry battles as long as order is maintained
    .........sword units merely need to be braced to stay combat effective during frontal clash
    .........sword units can stay combat effective in disorderly fashion unless flanked or rear-charged or cav-charged
    .........units march and turn faster whilst in loose formation
    .........2-handed shock units (like axe-men, polearms, other 2h-hewing-wpns) gain melee bonus in loose order
    .........(in turn, as is the case with current iterations, loose order should still decrement bracing/charge resistance)
    .........animated models should still face towards enemy force in closest proximity, even if not directly engaged and moving (ie whilst disengaging)
    .........and/or perhaps a fighting-retreat order as a dedicated command

    * re-introduce napoleon style skirmisher positions - akin to company of heroes' cover system;
    ..obviously elements need to accommodate in scale to include ultra unit-size
    ......* (deploying adaptively behind fences, barricades,
    ......* dug-ins,
    ......* bamboo-walls
    ........and other deployables,
    ......* inside buildings (like infantry were able to in napoleon),
    ......* inside/behind dense vegetation
    ......* along river banks) et c

    * restore morale shock or emphasize morale (like in 3kings records mode)
    .........morale in recent historical titles (except 3kings) is mere flavour but largely irrelevant. morale as in napoleon and shogun 2 was on point,
    .........decisive and rewarding
    .........later titles since rome ii noticeably lossed some edge by being grindey on the wrong places.
    .........even ****-poor militia units will occasionally fight to the last man whether be it ai with bonus cheats or even mp! this is dull!

    * pls keep saga troy's task/usage oriented unit categories over that r/p/s for future titles and rather expand on attributes that emphasise
    ..usage and principles rather than r/p/s alignment

    ......* for the purpose of variety i rly see no need or justification that mid-tier sword can punch upwards against comparative or more expensive spear units
    .........and heres why

    .........first off - there IS A REASON why with proper challenge (mp)
    .........with the exception of throw-away / low tier, spears mid tier but particularly high tier have no place to be useful
    .........and they even still struggle to beat nomad-style cavalry set-ups!
    .........in an environment of soft-anti-cav, and under current r/p/s paradigm mid-tier and elite spear are a failed investment and
    .........simply put not competitive outside anti-nomad roles
    .........shogun 2 was in both regards different in that r/p/s against cav was hard and anything upper-tier spears were still viable as front-line infantry duty
    .........with the proper vet upgrades even yari-sams were viable. despite the limited roster, shogun 2 was the most tactically diverse mp experience
    .........(bar wh which is so much different to traditional formula and due its generous setting i dont count for obvious reasons)
    .........ppl complained rightfully about kiting armies but kiters were traditionally low skill and any semi-experienced player with balanced setup
    .........would beat kiters regularly and rushers/spammers alike with the same army. even as r/p/s was even more pronounced - all infantry were viable
    .........and in the end usage dictated the flow of the match and who is victor whereas in most successive titles army selection dictated the flow of battle

    .........for the sake of tactical variety im convinced
    .........the best place for low- and lower-mid-tier swords is not as regular battle line (straight outclassing non-sword infantry)
    .........(and which i do not mean to exclude them as line infantry either) but for ideal role AS IRREGULARS in AMBUSH and difficult terrain
    .........long spears on the other hand need ideal ground and are only strong in ordered formation,
    .........veteran spears should be able to push offensively
    .........but regardless of tier quality, spears rely on spearwall to be combat effective
    .........whilst long spears/pikes are compromised in combat effectiveness outside of it
    .........short spears (halberds, royal guards et c.) should behave like hybrid and draw swords/side-arms wherever appropriate anyway
    .........different period as well require distinction obviously
    .........for instance spear formation works differently inthe form of a saxon shield wall
    .........compared to greek classical phalanges who interlocked shields / or successor sarissas who stacked sarissas of different length
    .........but as a principle / as a general idea it is applicable upon spearmen
    .........whilst being less combat effective outside formation, in phalanx, shield-wall, spears r restricted in movement
    .........putting them at tactically disadvantaged place verse ARMOURED sword units - even applicable if sword units do not outmass spear units
    .........together with the trend of soft r/p/s against cav that settled with rome ii,
    .........(in recent titles, nomad/horde cavalry can defeat dedicated anti-cav spear cores solely by maneuvre / micro)
    .........i see the idea of spear cheese dominating the skirmish or locking cav out of the engagement seriously jeopardized
    .........for these reasons i neither see it necessary nor warranted to have even cheaper sword units outright frontally beat spear units in an intact formation)
    .........grizzled veteran legionaries had trouble dealing with some greek fricken citizen boys
    .........until disorder tend to erode the greek formations (due of poor drill) and gaps formed which the legionaries promptly exploited by FLANKING the sarissas
    .........force the player to activate their brains and use sword units TACTICALLY instead of have em try win at the unit selection screen
    .........having swords should just as much require brain activity as any other unit category
    .........weak players complain about corner camping pike spam but even remotely experienced players will not lose to pike/spear cheese
    .........imo its a cardinal mistake that CA ever listened/tended to such complaints trivializing the skirmish to the most base denominator
    .........im just a mediocre player and i never lost to a corner camper ever since about a decade ago back then in shogun 2 when i was new to mp
    .........for the sake of tactical variety, mid-tier+ spears need to be viable as a standard frontline infantry formation like they were in shogun 2
    .........they already have tactical disadvantages in exchange for soft anti-cav
    .........only ARMOURED swordsmen should be able to stand frontally against a spear formation and perhaps outgrind them
    .........not as is the case in 3kings some lightly armourd saber infantry with diddly small shields head-on beat heavily armoured ji infantry by quite some margin
    .........- and its even poor to watch how some almost fully clad ji halberd gets dismantled by mini-shield and sabre

    ......* alternatively putting charge-reflection-against-all on spear formations would as well improve tactical variety to the skirmish
    .........if two-handed infantry r plenty and spear infantry a soft counter since 2-handed rely much on initial charge (and their armour-break)
    .........this would also require more attention from the player to use charge purposefully instead spam charge mindlessly against the next formation
    .........two-handed (shock-troopers) beat >standard shield & swords beat >spear formations beat >two-handed (shock-troopers)

    * add proper emphasized LoS (like arena tw, [wargaming or any other game titles with tactical elements in it] did)
    ......* more strict and developed
    .........skirmishers, light units, light/medium horse, general's bodyguard count as scouting units
    .........front units screen other units to the back/behind from an opposite observer
    ............* this alone enables a lot of tactical games that is simply not possible with forced intel
    .........landmarks such as hills and sentry towers grant sight bonus and thus naturally pose contesting areas - because why not ^^
    .........unit details dont get revealed unless upon closer inspection or within sufficient range of scout-trait units
    .........restricting LoS might seem gamey but a majority of tactical maneuvres r not applicable with near perfect sight/intel
    .........games with over-generous LoS tw skirmished play out like simplified chess in r/p/s format - thats how fundamental LoS is
    .........no deception, no diversionist maneuvres (which responsible for a great number of decisive outcomes where a straight cannae reenactment not feasable)
    .........example of deception is hiding elite units behind skirmishers/low-tiers to the consequence of appearing weaker on that segment due to LoS obstruction
    .........or leading attacking units over a ridge, only to trap them into ready positions et c.;
    .........or even something as simple as faking some cavalry presence at a certain place and moving it to the opposite flank or reserve
    .........with strict LoS more room for exciting tactical things would be possible but currently is realistically unavailable due to current LoS
    .........example of diversionist maneuvre
    .........is leaving a glimpse/trace of a small force moving to a visually obstructed flanking position in hopes of inducing the impression in the observer
    .........that some major flanking maneuvre is in order thus if wrong countermeasures were taken,
    .........the reactionist overstretches thus opens themself up to a frontal assault out of a false sense of necessity
    .........another example
    .........leaving a curtain of frontliners preferably at a defensively strong position (hille, bottleneck, bridge) to leave the impression of a strong presence there
    .........(the English way of sitting out her enemies like at hastings, crecy, agincourt, waterloo) while a large portion secretly moves out for a pincer/flank
    .........(one english pendant of that would be the battle of naseby i guess)
    .........once some enemy movement has been spotted the player should get paranoid about trying to get some better intel about the movement
    .........determine a path to walk them spotters (skirmishers, light horse) to a decent scouting spot without them getting intercepted or worse, ambushed
    .........all while the enemy player tries to annoy his sparring mate with light horse and skirmishers

    ......* instead:
    .........* tactical foreplay (positioning/skirmish) is most of the time degraded to r/p/s alignment followed by micro scale hammer-anvil rear charges
    .........* no care whilst moving across the terrain, no need for scouting parties or tactically sound battle formations or positioning
    .........* if skirmishing is not skipped entirely, rather resembles a material war with little surprises unless massive micro error
    .........* flanking is trivial and if contested seldomly has potential for surprise interception

    ......* paradoxically, with default unit cap (20) the player still is at a decent position to guesstimate her/his current disposition with imperfect intel
    .........which begs the question, what keeps CA wary to apply consequent and effectual LoS rules?
    ......* pls reconsider LoS as of current formats. feature is largely irrelevant but has such great potential; other tactical/strategy games use it for a reason!
    .........at least, CA finally seems to acknowledge the tactical freedom and hence importance of shrouded spaces
    .........by emphasizing more terrain features and hiding skills like in saga troy
    .........which i think is only a small step in the right direction but imo THE RIGHT DIRECTION nonetheless (faction as well as unit balance in troy is wonky though)
    .........what i would find exciting to see is if all units were able to hide
    .........but skirmisher / light units have different sight radius and detectability rating/range than medium as do heavy relative to medium;
    .........hiding either requires loose formation or disband shield formation + poor bracing
    .........(which puts spear infantry at a poor place since they rely on formation fighting to be effective and otherwise have poor charge anyway)

    - i think these are all fun elements/progressions that dont over-burden the player or go against the flow of core tw authenticity
  • PandaTheWarriorPandaTheWarrior Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 958
    the bad thing with the berserk current state is that they are auto include, and basically, you don't want auto include d units in a game. It's bad for diversity. If you limit to 2, then they will always be 2 berserk etc.

    If you prefer historical comparaison, the plan is to offer choice, like civil war in spain when it could have go either side.
    "because you know nothing of multi-player and know nothing of tactics." Hero of Freedom (Too much GoT)

    I'm Panda_Warrior on steam.
  • TezcatlipocaTezcatlipoca Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 154

    I agree with not touching the missiles, I disagree with all the rest.

    I don´t want berserkers to be nerfed, it would be enough to limit them to 2 per army as a special unit. The whole thing about berserkers is that they are insanely strong, and you want to reduce their melee and increase their cost so they can become another generic unit... Well, no, I do no agree with that.

    In what regards 100 lancers, I find that they are at least somewhat useful, those 100 units from rome 2 were useless in any kind of sittuation, now at least they can hold a flank for a few minutes before they fall, even if they do not kill almost anything. It is fun, gives more tactical options and you have more untis in the battlefield, which always help to give inmersion.

    Let´s stop trying to make everything balanced as if this was an e-sport, part of the fun of these historical games is that you cannot balance certain things, it would be as balancing 1940´s Germany with Poland, it would not make any sense. They did it in Rome 2 and now all units are so generic I do not feel like playing it anymore.

    Hey Hugothester

    Berserkers are a special unit and will still be a special unit after these changes. Nerfing their melee skill a little bit will simply bring them more in-line vs elite swords/axes. They will still destroy every unit in a 1v1 nonetheless.

    The 1940's argument does not make any sense here. A game needs to be fun in all aspects. How can it be fun if there is one unit to rule them all? Have you tried playing some quick matches on ladder or a tournament event?

    You're saying you want to limit berserkers to a maximum of 2? That is in fact way more radical in terms of balancing than what we are suggesting here... We are simply asking to increase their price and nerf their melee skill a little bit. Something that will have no influence when fighting anything other than elite troops. And it pushes them in the special unit catagory. They will still be as powerfull as they are now.

    I say we certainly shouldn't stop trying to balance everything. I do agree that we should not try to make it balanced as if this was an e-sport because that is an ideal that we will never, ever reach due to a lack of players at the moment and CA's patching policy.

    These changes don't change anything in campaign, and don't change anything in your siege/custom/multiplayer games. Only that you have to think a bit more about what you want to bring to the table.

    I don't really know what you mean by units becoming generic trough balancing?




    I completely agree with you, Achilles. Limiting units is radical compared to a price increase. Also, the idea that balancing is making all units the same is a non-sense. Balancing is making diversity in gameplay, contrary to having an OP unit which dominates the battlefield and makes it flat and one-sided. Thester's historical argument is also failed, comparing Germany in 1940 to Poland is not the same to comparing West Seaxe to Est Engle... Berserkers must not be a must, as Panda says, but a different choice within other different choices, which contributes to game variety and fun. It is a shame that CA has never taken the policy to make TW an e-sport. The first step would be to hear competent players and apply changes that solve their complains.
    a.k.a. Quetzalcoatl; Aeneas; Vlixes.
    Playing TW since 2000.
  • TezcatlipocaTezcatlipoca Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 154
    Three days and no Word from CA. I wonder why you, we, guys, trouble ourselves into advising a company that disregards so flagrantly the people that make it possible.
    a.k.a. Quetzalcoatl; Aeneas; Vlixes.
    Playing TW since 2000.
  • MASK_NOONEMASK_NOONE Registered Users Posts: 7

    :s Completely invincible
  • HelpTWHelpTW Registered Users Posts: 21
    edited May 2018
    Even in Warhammer you cant see those abusing roster)))
    Post edited by HelpTW on
  • landrangerlandranger Registered Users Posts: 5





    Counters exist. but berserker still strong.
  • HelpTWHelpTW Registered Users Posts: 21
    Ncr ranger why u not in the Way to Valhalla? https://challonge.com/ru/AWtoV
  • FabiPwnsFabiPwns Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 16
    edited May 2018
    @landranger

    We already had the pleasure to play against each other in MP. Did you use your army as a kite army?
    Never surrender. Never give up.
  • MASK_NOONEMASK_NOONE Registered Users Posts: 7
    edited May 2018






    Counters exist. but berserker still strong.

    WoW, cool. Would you mind sharing the replay to us so we could learn your tactic? ;);)
  • landrangerlandranger Registered Users Posts: 5
    HelpTW said:

    Ncr ranger why u not in the Way to Valhalla? https://challonge.com/ru/AWtoV

    I just saw.....
  • landrangerlandranger Registered Users Posts: 5
    edited May 2018






    Counters exist. but berserker still strong.

    WoW, cool. Would you mind sharing the replay to us so we could learn your tactic? ;);)
    me vs xing replay?
  • MASK_NOONEMASK_NOONE Registered Users Posts: 7






    Counters exist. but berserker still strong.

    WoW, cool. Would you mind sharing the replay to us so we could learn your tactic? ;);)
    me vs xing replay?
    yes, please
  • landrangerlandranger Registered Users Posts: 5






    Counters exist. but berserker still strong.

    WoW, cool. Would you mind sharing the replay to us so we could learn your tactic? ;);)
    me vs xing replay?
    yes, please
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/m4wad1mofa1oo6k/ncr vs xing.replay?dl=0
  • MASK_NOONEMASK_NOONE Registered Users Posts: 7






    Counters exist. but berserker still strong.

    WoW, cool. Would you mind sharing the replay to us so we could learn your tactic? ;);)
    me vs xing replay?
    yes, please
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/m4wad1mofa1oo6k/ncr vs xing.replay?dl=0
    <3 Thank you!
Sign In or Register to comment.