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

What am I missing about Quick Battles? The budgeting system doesn't seem to work.

FoefirelordFoefirelord Posts: 21Registered Users
edited June 2018 in Multiplayer
Tried out some Quick Battles, and I can't figure out why the mode is designed the way it is.

The budgeting system SEEMS to make sense, but in practical terms, it doesn't work, because quantity always beats quality, and the costs don't reflect that whatsoever.

In other words, because higher cost units only perform a small fraction better than lower cost units while costing upwards of double their price, it doesn't make any sense to get higher tier units and have an army half the size of your enemy's, since they will crush you.

By the same token, ranged units also don't make sense, as the opponent can easily field nothing but melee infantry, and given how tiny even the most elite archers' DPS is, they simply don't accomplish anything before being tied up.

And that brings me back to the army setup lobby: since you can't see your opponent's army and adapt accordingly, every match is decided before both players even press the Start Battle button, because it's entirely possible to end up in a battle that's 18 low tier units versus like five or six high tier units.

Not only is that possible, but it's the only kind of battle that ever happens, because, again, you don't get to see your opponent's army composition beforehand (not that you necessarily should see the exact units, but at least some sense of quantity maybe) and there is no other way to ensure that both armies have sufficient unit quantity to have a balanced matchup.

To put it simply, each Quick Battle is a dice roll without any feedback from the game before the battle starts.

Does anyone know if there are any plans to fix this, or is Quick Battle mode just considered a side mode to screw around in without any serious balance intentions?

Comments

  • psychoakpsychoak Posts: 2,242Registered Users
    You're in nubbleville from the sounds of it.

    Quantity does not beat quality. MP pricing is much debated, but none of it is so hugely far off that elite units aren't used. The same goes for archers. There are plenty of highly regarded players with videos to watch, they use elites, ranged units, magic, etc.

    Elite units are a matter of counters. You'll never get a swordmaster unit to pay itself off by attacking light cavalry, or anti infantry monsters, but they'll chew through three units of spearmen pretty nicely. You need to have a good mix of weak and strong units, so you have enough chaff to tie things down, and keep your high end units on priority targets. Ranged wise, you want to avoid having so much that you can't defend them, but they certainly do plenty of damage.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Posts: 1,745Registered Users
    edited June 2018
    While I disagree with large portions of your premise....your ending conclusion is essentially correct.

    Quick battles are definitely a side mode for CA. The number of exploits, bugs, imbalances, as well as lack of match making makes the whole ladder fairly meaningless. And it has been that way since the beginning. There are no plans to radically change it. There were some changes between game 1 and game 2 (like unit caps)...so game 3 might bring in a slight overhaul or two. But for right now, quick battles are stuck as they are.

  • FoefirelordFoefirelord Posts: 21Registered Users
    psychoak said:

    You're in nubbleville from the sounds of it.

    Quantity does not beat quality. MP pricing is much debated, but none of it is so hugely far off that elite units aren't used. The same goes for archers. There are plenty of highly regarded players with videos to watch, they use elites, ranged units, magic, etc.

    Elite units are a matter of counters. You'll never get a swordmaster unit to pay itself off by attacking light cavalry, or anti infantry monsters, but they'll chew through three units of spearmen pretty nicely. You need to have a good mix of weak and strong units, so you have enough chaff to tie things down, and keep your high end units on priority targets. Ranged wise, you want to avoid having so much that you can't defend them, but they certainly do plenty of damage.

    Regiments of Renown actually have relatively sensible costs compared to their baseline counterparts. It's actual tiers that seem improperly priced.

    But my point is best illustrated at the extremes, i.e. you can literally have an army that consists of just six units, and run out of gold in the budget.

    You enter the game, and your six units encounter eighteen enemy units. There is no way to win 6 vs 18, regardless of unit quality.

    But for an army building system to work, every single possible army that can be created must be 100% equally viable against any other army, especially when the lobby doesn't give you any feedback about your opponent's army composition.

    In other words, the game has to have either performance-based balance (each one of those six expensive units has to have a guarantee of obliterating a proportionate number of the lower tier 18 units) or quantity-based balance (forcing both players during the lobby/army building phase to have similar quantities of units, not allowing them to freely pick and choose based on cost-per-stat).

    Instead, the system seems to work in a weird hybrid way, where the cost-per-stat budget is used to restrict quantity, resulting in impossibly lopsided battles without any way of knowing if the battle will be lopsided before starting it.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Posts: 1,745Registered Users
    ^^It honestly just sounds like you've spent too much time in the unit tester and not enough applying this stuff.

    Psychoak is right in a lot of his comments. There have been cost problems before...like Greatswords being too cost effective for 900 gold, Chosen being too expensive to the point you'd always take regular warriors instead, etc. and so forth.

    But none of the fixes for these wound up with/or needed the unit in question changing their price by more than 5% or 10%.

    As a side note....people absolutely do spam 6-9 single entity units and beat 1,000+ man armies all the time. That's a real thing. Cheap units are not as cost effective as you think.

    Most well balanced armies usually have 2-4 elite units designated as where 'the real damage' is going to come from. The rest of the army is meant to protect/tarpit/cover a composition weakness/skirmish, etc.

    Is the game balanced...not at all. Are all the costs in the game right? Not even close. But you're excessively stuck on this idea that an 'ideal' cost effective army is just 18 regular spearmen....and that's just...wrong. That won't work. Even against a smaller force like you think it will.
  • EnforestEnforest Posts: 1,942Registered Users
    "Quality vs Quantity" actually varies due to current meta.

    TW:W1 had monstrous infantry meta (still have PTSD of facing VC players 90% of the time spamming Crypt Horrors in ranked), TW:W2 meta has shifted to chaff spam supported by monstrous terror bombs. Some factions, namely High Elves or Dwarves are still able to win thanks to good quality units.


    Demand more love for Empire, Greenskins and Beastmen! Playable Middenland with Cult of Ulric! Expanded Beastmen roster with Ghorgon and Jabberslythe! Bring back Black Orcs variants and Orc Big Boss heroes!
  • VikingCatVikingCat Posts: 211Registered Users
    I wouldn't recommend a full elite army, that doesn't make elite units bad though. If you could win battles with only elite units (which I guess you could in some circumstances) then lower quality troops would be irrelevant... neither is the case. I could make a very bad army out of solely good units.

    Generally a high quantity low quality army will suffer vs monsters or other terror causing units. As a rule of thumb you should try to have at least 1 terror unit in each army imo as it will pretty much always be useful (the exception is when you're dwarfs who don't really have any good ones, or when you're facing VC or TK who won't break anyway).

    The challenge is to make a balanced list that can deal with most threats the enemy faction potentially has. While there are certain matchups or setups that can't really be beaten if you go in with the wrong army the game definitely gives you enough possibilities to make different lists that will work most of the time, and of course the way you play it is also important. Build luck will always play a part but it's far more than just a dice roll, in fact it's not a dice roll at all unless you're setting yourself up with a one dimensional army that has very obvious hard counters that you might just have to face.

    Seeing each others' army or parts of it and being able to adapt would just make it an endless back and forth picking game. 'Oh, you have that? Then I will pick this.' 'Oh, now you have that, then I will pick this instead!'

    Quick battle is far from ideal, but for different reasons (mostly the way the leaderboard works and how it can be abused).
  • DaGangsterDaGangster Junior Member Posts: 740Registered Users
    You've must have never played high elfs if you think trance is useless and don't micro enough if elite don't stomp chafe units.

    Team Vampire Counts

    "Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

    - Soren Johnson
  • DracoknightDracoknight Posts: 281Registered Users
    Its all about application, you could toss thousands of models into battle and not do a single thing, you could spam entire armies of chosen and lose in the end, there is no "one way to victory" in this where we poke around the unit tester all day and bring out the "most cost effective unit there is" as the balance of this game is weird.

    The balance could be considered 50% by design, and 50% by accident, especially considering how weird some of the stat distribution is on some models, and the weird maps that doesnt make sense in a multiplayer perspective.

    However, a lot of skill and experience still have a spot in the game. Even if you brought an army that could in theory beat the other army, it matters very little if you cannot apply your strenghts. Sure you want to bring anti-large against someone like Bretonnia, but what if they just completely avoid your spearlines, tar-pitting them in a pile of peasants and then rear charge them with what they were supposed to counter?

    Quantity have weaknesses like any other, even though the "meta" is claimed to be chaff + monsters there is readily armies that deal with both, and then a "counter-meta" is born, and then the "counter-counter-meta" comes around, and the cycle continues.

    On my end i just make my army with a overall goal, if the enemy faction dont allow that goal, i adapt. Often victories come when you know your own army better than your opponent, you know exactly how to play your army against monsters and chaff, and yet you wont lose if they dont bring that particular army.

    Plan, Predict and Execute.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Posts: 2,615Registered Users



    But for an army building system to work, every single possible army that can be created must be 100% equally viable against any other army, especially when the lobby doesn't give you any feedback about your opponent's army composition.

    In other words, the game has to have either performance-based balance (each one of those six expensive units has to have a guarantee of obliterating a proportionate number of the lower tier 18 units) or quantity-based balance (forcing both players during the lobby/army building phase to have similar quantities of units, not allowing them to freely pick and choose based on cost-per-stat).

    Instead, the system seems to work in a weird hybrid way, where the cost-per-stat budget is used to restrict quantity, resulting in impossibly lopsided battles without any way of knowing if the battle will be lopsided before starting it.

    This is where I think your assessment breaks down. Elite units that cost a lot can't always perform to that cost. This game is based on a series of counters and rock/paper/scissors interactions. Cavalry are good if charging. Spearmen are good against cavalry only if braced. Armor piercing is good against armor. Missiles are good against low armor, but not shielded troops, unless from the sides/back, and on and on. Price isn't the only thing to consider but also function. No strategy or amount of unit cost is unbeatable because everything has counters.

    Battles aren't guaranteed to be lopsided. You just have to know what you're doing. The only way to do that is to play hundreds of games and know what works and what doesn't. The price of the units doesn't dictate what works, the strategy of their use dictates what works. The pricing system of quickmatch allows you to make stupid armies that don't work. You are in charge of making something that is functional. It's not the cost system or game's job to teach you that. You learn it by playing the game and solving that puzzle for yourself.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • Elder_BasiliskElder_Basilisk Posts: 361Registered Users
    The key is not whether an army is elite or basic; it is what units are in the army, how they match up against what your opponent brings, and how you use them. For example, a high elf player might well bring an elite like the fireborn RoR dragon princes as well as four spearmen who are the cheapest unit on the high elf roster. If he does that, the spearmen are there to hold the enemy in place and provide an anvil for the fireborn to smash the enemy. Alternately, the high elf player might have brought a bunch of dryads (obviously playing avelorn) and a pair of swordmasters and a Phoenix guard (elite infantry core) along with a pair of ellyrian reavers (cheap light cav). Different army, different strategy.

    Quick battles force you to decide how you want to use your army and think about what you are likely to be up against. If you don't think about how it all works together or what you are likely to be up against, you will lose, but that's part of what makes it fun.
  • haynamshaynams Posts: 267Registered Users
    “But for an army building system to work, every single possible army that can be created must be 100% equally viable against any other army, especially when the lobby doesn't give you any feedback about your opponent's army composition.“

    That does not sound like a game I’d enjoy playing. I’d rather play something that rewards well-planned army composition, selecting units for synergies and coming up with something greater than the sum of its parts. Your game is simply throw stuff on the table and smash. Do not like.

    In tabletop if I showed up with 2,000 points of zombies and played against rulebook legal competitive army list helmed by anyone with a basic understanding of the game, I’d lose 9,999 times out of 10,000

Leave a Comment

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