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

Changing the hyper-mobile meta of Warhammer

13»

Comments

  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    Because we need one more thread where you present your opinion as the conclusion?

    Going to include everyone's opinion + reasons and cite them alongside. the thread is meant to be a sort of summary of the discussion in this thread that present's everyone's responses and ideas in a collated manner.

    Pretty standard practice for discussions where I come from.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,776Registered Users
    Up to you, where I come from this is just a way of getting attention and reinforce you own ideas by hijacking the discussion and making it your own. :)

    No offense, I just think everything has been said and if one dude takes it upon himself to summarize it and write up the concluding post there is bound to be new disagreements. Have fun! :wink:
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    Up to you, where I come from this is just a way of getting attention and reinforce you own ideas by hijacking the discussion and making it your own. :)

    No offense, I just think everything has been said and if one dude takes it upon himself to summarize it and write up the concluding post there is bound to be new disagreements. Have fun! :wink:

    Hence the request for descriptions from the sources themselves. No real chance of disagreements if I post exactly what they have written.

    As for me; I realised that some of my suggestions weren't as useful and some could be changed; so I felt that to would be useful to create a new thread with only those ideas (from amongst my own) that I felt would be relevant. Since I was posting my own conclusions, I thought that it would be best to add those of others (in their own words) as well along with reasons in order to present a concise list of what all may be changed and why.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,776Registered Users
    Just a few friendly suggestions when reviewing other people's work, opinions, debates etc.

    1. Be an authority in the field, otherwise people will wonder in what position are you to make these calls.
    2. Do your homework. Read up on all that has been written on the topic, and related topics. Dismissing related work will **** people off and might bias the writeup. There has been at least 20 pages written on this topic lately, and people are in strong disagreement. Posters are biased to varying degrees and noone would admit to it. Some of it is rather strongly mu specific.
    3. Be objective. Preferably don't have an opinion yourself. If you have, be open with it.

    Glhf! :wink:
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 441Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    I'm thinking of making a thread with my own conclusions and collated suggestions from this thread.

    @Sarmatians, @Busa1227 and @ThibixMagnus could you please write down your suggestions as you'd like to be presented in the new thread along with reasons for the suggestions; I'll add them as you've written them.

    I'm sorry if I'm missing anyone's suggestions, but if you'd write them down, I'll add them to the new thread.

    well thank you for the invitation :smile: however I won't make any diagnosis as I don't feel legitimate for that (won't be able to play for a while I'm afraid), all I do nowadays is pick up on others' analysis and propose stuff out of TT for brainstorm... so I propose magic missiles vs skirmish cav as an alternative to nerfing them, but I have no idea about he whole issue in the first place. All this to say I can't be placed on the same "analysis" level as others, I just give food for thought.

    There can be a specific suggestion thread for that though, with all the caveats.

    More generally, I think you opened a very legitimate and ambitious question, but it's sooo systemic it's maybe hard to make a careful game-wide change instead of looking at specific units and match-up first. I don't know, I really get your premise but maybe there is no consensus yet about a combined measure pack that could affect too many things at the same time.

    BTW I also mentioned the counter-initiation issue as an alternative to your self-sustaining formations but no one picked up yet :)

  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 441Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    and just to continue the discussion.

    I wouldn't like shock cav to be as bad as before (bret tt player here). I can understand a rework of cycle charging, afetr all it wasn't in TT and doesn't feel chivalrous or evil badass (depends on point of view). Kholek would stay and kill everything instead of fancy maneuvering.

    Any nerf should be compensated to keep the general usefulness somehow equal. And I don't think "HONEST" charges per se should be nerfed either.

    So, is it possible to increase the damage that large entities take ONLY when disengaging ? Maybe reducing acceleration, and/or increase the MD penalty for the rear ? Maybe rotation speed for the likes of Kholek?

    But at the same time increase charge bonuses or some other stat, so it's a rework instead of a nerf ?

    (that's the exact systemic change I was afraid of though ^^)
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    and just to continue the discussion.

    I wouldn't like shock cav to be as bad as before (bret tt player here). I can understand a rework of cycle charging, afetr all it wasn't in TT and doesn't feel chivalrous or evil badass (depends on point of view). Kholek would stay and kill everything instead of fancy maneuvering.

    Any nerf should be compensated to keep the general usefulness somehow equal. And I don't think "HONEST" charges per se should be nerfed either.

    So, is it possible to increase the damage that large entities take ONLY when disengaging ? Maybe reducing acceleration, and/or increase the MD penalty for the rear ? Maybe rotation speed for the likes of Kholek?

    But at the same time increase charge bonuses or some other stat, so it's a rework instead of a nerf ?

    (that's the exact systemic change I was afraid of though ^^)

    Referring to the suggestion about counter initiation, I think you're referring to counter charging. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Counter charging as a counter cavalry tactic seems like a counterintuitive idea. A simple example of the expected result for this would be crassus at carrhae; what really did him in was a failed attempt to charge the Parthaian cavalry, which lost him a lot of men and pretty much lost him the battle. Later generals on the other hand, used a farce of singers to force the Parthaian to come to them instead, where the heavy cataphracts were cut down by the roman infantry.

    That said, perhaps counter charging should be a thing for less defensive anti large units such as chosen or sepulchural stalkers, that can really output a greater amount of damage and survive the hit.

    This is why I mentioned the use of squares and ranged buffs as a starting point. It's the classic counter to fast units and you see this in the game as well, with factions like the Empire built around 16th century tactics and formations (the divisions rule did represent the use of synchronised formations like Spanish tericoes, but it's not present here, so I thought that simple formations may go towards addressing this big nerf to their infantry) . I also suggested increasing unit stickiness with formation depth, but that didn't go down too well apparently.

    The expected result from that change (addding in squares and more numerous ranged) is that the actual differences between units don't really change all that much. There's no stat changes to infantry except for ranged, so the balance within different branches between the factions is kept intact. What it dies do is that it punishes spamming elites without any screening troops and discourages full frontal charges while also encouraging the use of the underused basic melee infantry line to counter the infantry squares and better ranged. Everyone has a counter to them, but they also act as counters to the excessive dominance of speed.

    The only factions that would really suffer I think would be (to an extent) VC and Lizardmen. But I think that their weakness has more to do with their reliance of regeneration and general slowness. Regeneration seems to have been nerfed excessively, which means that these factions can't tank damage the way that they need to in order to get their slow units to the battle; so buffing these factions would be a better option.

    As I realised over the course of the thread, not all the changes I suggested need to be made; less fundamental changes may solve the issue. Hence the change from requesting a number of alterations, to just requesting that inclusion of squares and better ranged.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Posts: 441Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    Counter-initiation is more a term that you see in RTS, not really something historical or adapted to previous total war. Maybe warhammer total war precisely mixes different gaming cultures, between historical total war and classic star-craft like RTS.

    I'm not an expert myself but basically counter-initiation is an action that allows you to punish an initiation move, like a charge, in order to make the initiation costlier for your opponent. Because the initiator can disengage, what makes good counter-initiation is burst damage, not sustained damage.

    Shock cavalry is usually rather an initiator than counter initiator, as it usually lacks armor piercing to really punish other cav. Spearmen and even phoenix guard are not counter-initiators, as defensive units they win over time, they can't deal burst damage to punish an initiation before the initiator gets out. Excellent counter-initiators are giant slayers or dragon ogres, they are not meant to take the charge but can retaliate fast enough to make the charge a net loss once the opponent disengages.

    That's why I think some factions seem to struggle against cycle charging, either they really lack counter-initiation or they don't think this way. This is why all the "PG can't counter shock cav" doesn't make sense to me, it's a highly defensive squad that can defeat anything over time, so atm it's not its role to deal damage fast enough to discourage cycle charging.

    Now, I don't mind square formations but it should probably be case-by-case, for example chaos doesn't need it because it has ample counter-initiation. However a static square formation can simply be ignored, so it would only help the last surviving squad in a very close end game, not really in the main battle.

    Something else could be helpful though: if a squad with charge defense is given an attack order while in guard mode, it will only pivot to face the target :) the main problem of this type of squad is that it's a pain to issue a reposition order fast enough.

    Finally, about stickyness, I think it's maybe not intuitive, there is no reason something would have a harder time disengaging a dense formation. However, maybe by reducing acceleration and rotation speed here and there (*coughlek*) you could achieve similar results?
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    Counter-initiation is more a term that you see in RTS, not really something historical or adapted to previous total war. Maybe warhammer total war precisely mixes different gaming cultures, between historical total war and classic star-craft like RTS.

    I'm not an expert myself but basically counter-initiation is an action that allows you to punish an initiation move, like a charge, in order to make the initiation costlier for your opponent. Because the initiator can disengage, what makes good counter-initiation is burst damage, not sustained damage.

    Shock cavalry is usually rather an initiator than counter initiator, as it usually lacks armor piercing to really punish other cav. Spearmen and even phoenix guard are not counter-initiators, as defensive units they win over time, they can't deal burst damage to punish an initiation before the initiator gets out. Excellent counter-initiators are giant slayers or dragon ogres, they are not meant to take the charge but can retaliate fast enough to make the charge a net loss once the opponent disengages.

    That's why I think some factions seem to struggle against cycle charging, either they really lack counter-initiation or they don't think this way. This is why all the "PG can't counter shock cav" doesn't make sense to me, it's a highly defensive squad that can defeat anything over time, so atm it's not its role to deal damage fast enough to discourage cycle charging.

    Now, I don't mind square formations but it should probably be case-by-case, for example chaos doesn't need it because it has ample counter-initiation. However a static square formation can simply be ignored, so it would only help the last surviving squad in a very close end game, not really in the main battle.

    Something else could be helpful though: if a squad with charge defense is given an attack order while in guard mode, it will only pivot to face the target :) the main problem of this type of squad is that it's a pain to issue a reposition order fast enough.

    Finally, about stickyness, I think it's maybe not intuitive, there is no reason something would have a harder time disengaging a dense formation. However, maybe by reducing acceleration and rotation speed here and there (*coughlek*) you could achieve similar results?

    I'm quite skeptical of bringing in concepts related to micro intensive games like Starcraft into a game like Total War Warhammer. The game is a Total War adaptation of a tabletop, turn based game; if anything the addition of extra micro is detrimental to the overall game as a whole. We already have the misguided notion that micro should be a significant factor in balancing a game about tactics (so for example the argument that squares or skirmish mode are bad because they reduce the micro that someone has to do)

    I think I understand what you're referring to, but counter initiation like tactics seem sketchy at best; the closest I can think of would be counter charges and firing into advancing enemies, however, implementing this on an army wide level may make the game even more micro dependent and arcadey.

    What the problem boils down to, as I see it, is extreme speed and power on the part of monsters and cavalry, coupled with a lack of response tools for infantry and inadequate ranged. The end result is a meta that rewards highly mobile units, while punishing infantry and artillery, who are left to play catch up with the mobile units, who can force everyone else to engage on their terms. They can run circles around infantry, casually sidestep any bracing bonus and straight up demolish ranged infantry while charging; which again makes ranged cavalry seem like the best option since it can at least avoid the monsters and stay alive long enough to do some damage.

    Take the case of bracing for example; an infantry unit need to form up, face the enemy and remain stationary to actually get any benefit from its bracing, not to mention the charge defense. Mobile units can simply sidestep this by running circles around the infantry; by the time the infantry unit has turned around to even begin to face the enemy, the monsters/cavalry have already charged. The same problem applies for ranged units whose firepower can pretty much be ignored by units that simply charge straight into them; a unit of AP ranged like handgunners or glade guard can do somewhat adequate damage to a unit of charging chaos warriors (a pretty slow unit) but still fails to cause substantial enough damage; now think of how much worse such a unit is against a unit of charging monsters that can close the gap that much quicker while also running circles around them.

    Infantry, so long as it is not coupled with adequately powerful ranged and given the tools to engage on it's own terms (such as specialised formations) will always find itself playing second fiddle to mobile units; even more so in a game where you find monsters being thrown into the mix that are both powerful and highly mobile.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    Square formations allow for units like Halberdiers and spearmen to guard the flanks of an army better than by:-
    1. Preventing easy flanks or rear charges into themselves
    2. Discouraging units from charging past them since they can react faster in any direction, since they don't have to turn all the way to face the enemy.

    This allows squares of anti large infantry to create a deterrent to charges around them, since charges into them will have to handle their charge defense and bracing, while charges around them risk being caught and forced to fight an anti large unit without the charge bonus.

    One part of this would be increasing the numbers of at least basic ranged units such as elven archers, handgunners, glade guard and thunderers in order to allow infantry to use the combined arms tactics so essential to countering mobile units and rushes.

    Ranged units when made more powerful/numerous and given square formation will allow the infantry to use combined arms, whereby the infantry protect the ranged while the ranged can lay down heavy fire down on any mobile units that stray too close to the formation without wasting time repositioning to get themselves into a firing position.

    These are also things that all factions have counters to, so I don't see either change causing much of a problem, since each faction can counter this tactic in their own ways. If anything, I see an additional benefit in that the elite spam in the game is reduced since basic units become more reliably effective, elites' low numbers become an actual concern (due to powerful ranged) and rushing elite monsters and cavalry has proper counter tactics (instead of just rock-paper-scissors like matchups using other elites).

  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,915Registered Users
    another thread about why my 400 $ spearman can't deal with 1500 $ cav?
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Posts: 1,083Registered Users

    another thread about why my 400 $ spearman can't deal with 1500 $ cav?

    It is more about some people wanting infantry grind/pew-pew skirmish dominating. I think that they dont understand that mobility is what makes this game so interesting and challenging. Right position, clever army build and right usage of your tools - components of victory. If you will cut off this elemnt, this game will degenerate in sloppy show. And it is lie that meta unfavors unmobile factions. In fact, it was Bretonia ( dedicate cav faction ! ) who was in dirt after reliase, and Dawi/Scaven hold their own pretty well. It clearly shows that meta more or less stable, it is more about individual problems of individual mechanics/units. Also, do you remeber newly reliased TK ? They were very problematic opponent in some MUs, especially this "kiss your lord goodbye" bowshabti and " it is rape time, baby " constructs. And it was dwarfs who was amongst their most specific counters with their range countering dust robots and infantry that poops on TKs skeletons. You are trying to repair wall by burning house to the ground.
    And special remark about idiots that want buff range EVEN MORE. Of course, we all know that range in this game SOOO WEAK that half of the time range component is 30-50 % of competitive armies. We defenetly need total pew-pew warhammer with 100 % range in every army.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,915Registered Users
    yes all i hear is cry of melee inf centric factions. Why people are not bringing inf against us, so we can roll them over for an easy win?

    Why should everyone be forced to play on terms dictated by some of the factions?
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    another thread about why my 400 $ spearman can't deal with 1500 $ cav?

    It is more about some people wanting infantry grind/pew-pew skirmish dominating. I think that they dont understand that mobility is what makes this game so interesting and challenging. Right position, clever army build and right usage of your tools - components of victory. If you will cut off this elemnt, this game will degenerate in sloppy show. And it is lie that meta unfavors unmobile factions. In fact, it was Bretonia ( dedicate cav faction ! ) who was in dirt after reliase, and Dawi/Scaven hold their own pretty well. It clearly shows that meta more or less stable, it is more about individual problems of individual mechanics/units. Also, do you remeber newly reliased TK ? They were very problematic opponent in some MUs, especially this "kiss your lord goodbye" bowshabti and " it is rape time, baby " constructs. And it was dwarfs who was amongst their most specific counters with their range countering dust robots and infantry that poops on TKs skeletons. You are trying to repair wall by burning house to the ground.
    And special remark about idiots that want buff range EVEN MORE. Of course, we all know that range in this game SOOO WEAK that half of the time range component is 30-50 % of competitive armies. We defenetly need total pew-pew warhammer with 100 % range in every army.
    Mobility has little to do with making the game any more or less interesting. Simply put, mobility is just one aspect of an army, and currently it is an aspect that is disproportionately powerful. This can be seen in the dominance of fast monsters and skirmishers in the meta, the absolutely ludicrous dodge meta (which has no place in a game about tactics) and the elite spam amongst infantry (since basic infantry become pushovers due to the easy negation of bracing and charge defense) .

    The current situation is such that everything revolves around mobile units; every faction is forced to engage on the terms of mobile units instead of playing to their own strengths. And while you do see factions like the Dwarves being somewhat decent, the top is dominated by factions that either do mobility really well or specialise in mobility (which is why a faction like Beastmen shows up in the very top, in spite of being one sided and limited in their tactics; their speed based tactics have been made artificially dominant by making the other branches such as infantry and ranged weaker and unable properly fight on their own terms).

    The solution to this, in my opinion is not to nerf factions that rely on mobility or mobility as a whole, but to make mobility require more thought and support; so that depending entirely on mobile and elite units becomes a gamble instead of a certain victory. Victory would require more thought and be less dependent on fast micro.

    Hance the demand for infantry squares and more powerful ranged. This doesn't nerf fast units, but it does make them somewhat less dominant; mobility dependent factions would still be powerful, but so would other factions that will now be able to engage on their own terms instead of simply reacting to fast units. Every single faction has powerful counters to these infantry tactics, either through AoE spells, artillery or a combination of their own infantry and fast units.

    What changes is that there is a greater diversity of tactics as other branches such as infantry and artillery come into equal prominence; elite spam is no longer necessary or encouraged since basic infantry are no longer pushovers and can actually use their charge defense and bracing, the underused basic melee infantry become more useful due to their numbers, while ranged units can actually be used proactively instead of only acting as support (making the low numbers of elites actually matter).

    Fast units would still be quite powerful; but using them would require a more thought and the use of support (combined arms) instead of a simple rush and smash. This would make the game more tactically diverse (as each branch of the army becomes important, instead of just playing second fiddle to fast monsters and heavy cavalry) and less of an AoE style click fest.

    The dominance of fast units might even be somewhat acceptable if all factions fought like medieval armies (though even there, the dominance of speed was never as pronounced as it is here), but that is clearly not the case; you also have factions like the Empire and Dwarves, whose army is based around the very tactics and weapons that made heavy cavalry and heavy armour extinct. And even these factions, who are based around tactics that actually defeated mobility, find themselves playing second fiddle to mobility based factions.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,915Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    another thread about why my 400 $ spearman can't deal with 1500 $ cav?

    It is more about some people wanting infantry grind/pew-pew skirmish dominating. I think that they dont understand that mobility is what makes this game so interesting and challenging. Right position, clever army build and right usage of your tools - components of victory. If you will cut off this elemnt, this game will degenerate in sloppy show. And it is lie that meta unfavors unmobile factions. In fact, it was Bretonia ( dedicate cav faction ! ) who was in dirt after reliase, and Dawi/Scaven hold their own pretty well. It clearly shows that meta more or less stable, it is more about individual problems of individual mechanics/units. Also, do you remeber newly reliased TK ? They were very problematic opponent in some MUs, especially this "kiss your lord goodbye" bowshabti and " it is rape time, baby " constructs. And it was dwarfs who was amongst their most specific counters with their range countering dust robots and infantry that poops on TKs skeletons. You are trying to repair wall by burning house to the ground.
    And special remark about idiots that want buff range EVEN MORE. Of course, we all know that range in this game SOOO WEAK that half of the time range component is 30-50 % of competitive armies. We defenetly need total pew-pew warhammer with 100 % range in every army.
    Mobility has little to do with making the game any more or less interesting. Simply put, mobility is just one aspect of an army, and currently it is an aspect that is disproportionately powerful. This can be seen in the dominance of fast monsters and skirmishers in the meta, the absolutely ludicrous dodge meta (which has no place in a game about tactics) and the elite spam amongst infantry (since basic infantry become pushovers due to the easy negation of bracing and charge defense) .

    The current situation is such that everything revolves around mobile units; every faction is forced to engage on the terms of mobile units instead of playing to their own strengths. And while you do see factions like the Dwarves being somewhat decent, the top is dominated by factions that either do mobility really well or specialise in mobility (which is why a faction like Beastmen shows up in the very top, in spite of being one sided and limited in their tactics; their speed based tactics have been made artificially dominant by making the other branches such as infantry and ranged weaker and unable properly fight on their own terms).

    The solution to this, in my opinion is not to nerf factions that rely on mobility or mobility as a whole, but to make mobility require more thought and support; so that depending entirely on mobile and elite units becomes a gamble instead of a certain victory. Victory would require more thought and be less dependent on fast micro.

    Hance the demand for infantry squares and more powerful ranged. This doesn't nerf fast units, but it does make them somewhat less dominant; mobility dependent factions would still be powerful, but so would other factions that will now be able to engage on their own terms instead of simply reacting to fast units. Every single faction has powerful counters to these infantry tactics, either through AoE spells, artillery or a combination of their own infantry and fast units.

    What changes is that there is a greater diversity of tactics as other branches such as infantry and artillery come into equal prominence; elite spam is no longer necessary or encouraged since basic infantry are no longer pushovers and can actually use their charge defense and bracing, the underused basic melee infantry become more useful due to their numbers, while ranged units can actually be used proactively instead of only acting as support (making the low numbers of elites actually matter).

    Fast units would still be quite powerful; but using them would require a more thought and the use of support (combined arms) instead of a simple rush and smash. This would make the game more tactically diverse (as each branch of the army becomes important, instead of just playing second fiddle to fast monsters and heavy cavalry) and less of an AoE style click fest.

    The dominance of fast units might even be somewhat acceptable if all factions fought like medieval armies (though even there, the dominance of speed was never as pronounced as it is here), but that is clearly not the case; you also have factions like the Empire and Dwarves, whose army is based around the very tactics and weapons that made heavy cavalry and heavy armour extinct. And even these factions, who are based around tactics that actually defeated mobility, find themselves playing second fiddle to mobility based factions.
    i think you just want ezmode ofr spearmen.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    cool_lad said:

    another thread about why my 400 $ spearman can't deal with 1500 $ cav?

    It is more about some people wanting infantry grind/pew-pew skirmish dominating. I think that they dont understand that mobility is what makes this game so interesting and challenging. Right position, clever army build and right usage of your tools - components of victory. If you will cut off this elemnt, this game will degenerate in sloppy show. And it is lie that meta unfavors unmobile factions. In fact, it was Bretonia ( dedicate cav faction ! ) who was in dirt after reliase, and Dawi/Scaven hold their own pretty well. It clearly shows that meta more or less stable, it is more about individual problems of individual mechanics/units. Also, do you remeber newly reliased TK ? They were very problematic opponent in some MUs, especially this "kiss your lord goodbye" bowshabti and " it is rape time, baby " constructs. And it was dwarfs who was amongst their most specific counters with their range countering dust robots and infantry that poops on TKs skeletons. You are trying to repair wall by burning house to the ground.
    And special remark about idiots that want buff range EVEN MORE. Of course, we all know that range in this game SOOO WEAK that half of the time range component is 30-50 % of competitive armies. We defenetly need total pew-pew warhammer with 100 % range in every army.
    Mobility has little to do with making the game any more or less interesting. Simply put, mobility is just one aspect of an army, and currently it is an aspect that is disproportionately powerful. This can be seen in the dominance of fast monsters and skirmishers in the meta, the absolutely ludicrous dodge meta (which has no place in a game about tactics) and the elite spam amongst infantry (since basic infantry become pushovers due to the easy negation of bracing and charge defense) .

    The current situation is such that everything revolves around mobile units; every faction is forced to engage on the terms of mobile units instead of playing to their own strengths. And while you do see factions like the Dwarves being somewhat decent, the top is dominated by factions that either do mobility really well or specialise in mobility (which is why a faction like Beastmen shows up in the very top, in spite of being one sided and limited in their tactics; their speed based tactics have been made artificially dominant by making the other branches such as infantry and ranged weaker and unable properly fight on their own terms).

    The solution to this, in my opinion is not to nerf factions that rely on mobility or mobility as a whole, but to make mobility require more thought and support; so that depending entirely on mobile and elite units becomes a gamble instead of a certain victory. Victory would require more thought and be less dependent on fast micro.

    Hance the demand for infantry squares and more powerful ranged. This doesn't nerf fast units, but it does make them somewhat less dominant; mobility dependent factions would still be powerful, but so would other factions that will now be able to engage on their own terms instead of simply reacting to fast units. Every single faction has powerful counters to these infantry tactics, either through AoE spells, artillery or a combination of their own infantry and fast units.

    What changes is that there is a greater diversity of tactics as other branches such as infantry and artillery come into equal prominence; elite spam is no longer necessary or encouraged since basic infantry are no longer pushovers and can actually use their charge defense and bracing, the underused basic melee infantry become more useful due to their numbers, while ranged units can actually be used proactively instead of only acting as support (making the low numbers of elites actually matter).

    Fast units would still be quite powerful; but using them would require a more thought and the use of support (combined arms) instead of a simple rush and smash. This would make the game more tactically diverse (as each branch of the army becomes important, instead of just playing second fiddle to fast monsters and heavy cavalry) and less of an AoE style click fest.

    The dominance of fast units might even be somewhat acceptable if all factions fought like medieval armies (though even there, the dominance of speed was never as pronounced as it is here), but that is clearly not the case; you also have factions like the Empire and Dwarves, whose army is based around the very tactics and weapons that made heavy cavalry and heavy armour extinct. And even these factions, who are based around tactics that actually defeated mobility, find themselves playing second fiddle to mobility based factions.
    i think you just want ezmode ofr spearmen.
    Considering how a the simple square formation has been a staple of TW since the days of Rome 1 and how it's a pretty well knows formation used throughout history and especially by armies such as those used by the Empire, Dwarves and High Elves. And also factoring in that factions have more counters than ever to squares in Warhammer. While also considering how the meta is currently ridiculously shaped by just micro intensive use of mobile units.

    I think you're making the mistaken assumption that micro should be a basis for deciding balance within a game about tactics. Just because something reduces micro, doesn't mean that its affecting balance negatively in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, it frees up the player to actually concentrate on tactics instead of just moving their units around.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,915Registered Users
    How yes tactics, lol, making spearman even more no brainer will just improve tactical variety. Give me, a break dude, jsut say you wnat cheap spears to be no brainer ezmode for every situation.

    Show me where big bad bretonnian Knight has touched you.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    How yes tactics, lol, making spearman even more no brainer will just improve tactical variety. Give me, a break dude, jsut say you wnat cheap spears to be no brainer ezmode for every situation.

    Show me where big bad bretonnian Knight has touched you.

    Yes, tactics; not every army is based around cavalry or fast units.

    Take the Empire for example; it's based around 16th century European armies which didn't rely significantly on heavy cavalry (having effectively rendered it extinct). The Dwarves don't even use cavalry in any capacity.

    Spearmen have plenty of counters; charges by large units like cavalry shouldn't be one of them, especially where such charges are done without any form of support.

Sign In or Register to comment.