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

Allegiance Update Beta 2

24

Comments

  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,398Registered Users
    Are you going to update the achievements then? Some of them are related to the war fervour mechanic. No point in keeping them if war fervour is removed.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    I would like to make 3 points:-
    1. The Pagan Kings event chain seems to only really have any sort of rewards for converting. I would like to suggest that at least the final and permanent effect bundle be a net benefit; perhaps remove the usurper allegiance effect while giving lower bonuses to show acceptance of the king/faction staying pagan.
    2. The boiling oil on gatehouses makes use of the ram pointless, since you'll almost always take more casualties when going through the gate than you ever do by using the siege towers. Perhaps the boiling oil could be changed to just give a temporary debuff instead of outright kill units so that there's an actual choice between using the ram or the siege tower.
    3. The single general/small army issue has been a problem for me as well. Additionally, after defeating an enemy army, their territory just rolls over till you encounter their new army and small raids become unstoppable due to the longer times taken to send reinforcing field srmies. I would like to suggest allowing the city garrison to march out and defend their surrounding villages. This would both, take care of the single troll general issue and also add in more field battles between facing different armies. This would also make the somewhat underused garrison chain a much more valuable investment.
  • riadachriadach Posts: 161Registered Users
    The gate is only for cavalry. The thinking, I imagine, is that you take the gatehouse through towers with your infantry then allowing the cavalry to pass through the gates unimpeded.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    Taking large chunks of territory after winning a decisive battle doesn't bother me; that's just how things worked. It is, however, perhaps more of an issue in TW because battles tend to be all-or-nothing.

    Boiling oil needs out of the game, though. At a minimum, it needs to be something that gets researched somewhere in the second half of the siege tree; and even then it should probably be nerfed (maybe limit it to 1x/5 min.)
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    riadach said:

    The gate is only for cavalry. The thinking, I imagine, is that you take the gatehouse through towers with your infantry then allowing the cavalry to pass through the gates unimpeded.

    Then why even bother giving rams in the first place; if a gameplay option is clearly the inferior one, why bother including it at all?

    @tak22 it not just about the taking of large chunks of territory; its more about:-
    1. Better defense against attacks by small armies (garrisoned troops shouldn't just sit inside their city, refusing to move, while the rest of the province was taken over or burned by a clearly inferior force)
    2. Breaking up the monotony of the post victory claiming of territory as some garrisons would also meet your army on the field; which would mean more field battles between the occasional fights between main armies and the sieges.
    3. Making the province less beholden to every small raid or revolt, as the city's garrison becomes better able to defend its surrounding territory, which also makes the garrison building chain a more worthwhile investment rather than an afterthought.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    I'd also like to point out the problem with sieges whereby everything is decided on the walls and it's pretty much nothing but a fight there and then a slog to the centre (and sometimes not even that).

    I'd like to suggest that troops fleeing in such fights retreat to the nearest victory point instead of breaking, only breaking completely when the final victory point in the city is taken (as happened in older titles). This would actually allow us the fight across the gorgeous siege maps, which right now may as well be so much window dressing seeing as how we never actually fight inside them.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    riadach said:

    The gate is only for cavalry. The thinking, I imagine, is that you take the gatehouse through towers with your infantry then allowing the cavalry to pass through the gates unimpeded.

    Then why even bother giving rams in the first place; if a gameplay option is clearly the inferior one, why bother including it at all?

    @tak22 it not just about the taking of large chunks of territory; its more about:-
    1. Better defense against attacks by small armies (garrisoned troops shouldn't just sit inside their city, refusing to move, while the rest of the province was taken over or burned by a clearly inferior force)
    2. Breaking up the monotony of the post victory claiming of territory as some garrisons would also meet your army on the field; which would mean more field battles between the occasional fights between main armies and the sieges.
    3. Making the province less beholden to every small raid or revolt, as the city's garrison becomes better able to defend its surrounding territory, which also makes the garrison building chain a more worthwhile investment rather than an afterthought.
    1. In theory yes, but
    2. By midgame every army you have going on offense would be a 20 stack, probably with a hefty mix of retinue and elite units. If the AI is good, they won't take their garrisons out to meet you anyway; if it's bad, they're just moving out to a position where they're more likely to lose, and leaving their best defensive positions undefended, which will make the game easier, not more challenging.
  • riadachriadach Posts: 161Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    riadach said:

    The gate is only for cavalry. The thinking, I imagine, is that you take the gatehouse through towers with your infantry then allowing the cavalry to pass through the gates unimpeded.

    Then why even bother giving rams in the first place; if a gameplay option is clearly the inferior one, why bother including it at all?

    Because your cavalry can't climb over walls.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    @JackLustedCA PFA saves showing the issue with unsustainably small armies attacking the player's undefended settlements and then recruiting an entire army in that settlement the next turn; it pretty much makes garrisons pointless since even the smallest armies can easily attack cities by simply taking a village and recruiting from there.

    Undefended villages need at least some sort of minimal defenses, especially in light of fewer armies running about and longer times taken to get from place to place.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,177Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    @JackLustedCA PFA saves showing the issue with unsustainably small armies attacking the player's undefended settlements and then recruiting an entire army in that settlement the next turn; it pretty much makes garrisons pointless since even the smallest armies can easily attack cities by simply taking a village and recruiting from there.

    Undefended villages need at least some sort of minimal defenses, especially in light of fewer armies running about and longer times taken to get from place to place.

    No, they don't.

    Stop trying to spread the cancer.
  • billybob1billybob1 Posts: 44Registered Users
    Regarding oil at the gates - they could have it as a limited use option that you use like Mettle - as it would have been in real life, a limited supply, and (alot of) time needed between newly heated loads, not endlessly gushing away at anything that comes through every time. Also it should be possible to kill the units that man the oil vats.
    Also have rams and their roofs be a somewhat of a protection against it, e.g. half damage when going through under a ram.
    Maybe you could research more oil or different types of stuff to throw, with boiling oil being the top, e.g. starting with rocks, or scrap metal, which there could be more of.

    At very least have the ability to turn it off when you capture the gate so when a single stray routing enemy soldier goes through it doesn't teamkill all of your fresh cavalry rushing through the just captured gate.

    I do think that before when it was no oil it was too easy to get in, somewhat negating the walled settlement, I actually think it's a good balance of power between what you need to take a walled settlement, but it does make the rams totally useless. Hence make them half useful if you really want to rush through, with some degree of protection against oil if you have a ram at the gate.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,177Registered Users
    How about making oil less damaging but making it apply a debuff of some kind?
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    How about making oil less damaging but making it apply a debuff of some kind?

    Or just have it apply a heavy but temporary debuff; there should be a legitimate choice between siege towers and rams when assaulting a settlement; because right now taking just the siege towers is a no brainer.

    Siege towers allow units to reach the walls relatively unharmed and in good order, while using rams pretty much guarantees that you're going to lose a good chunk of your units before the fight even begins (not to mention hemming you into a choke point).
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    billybob1 said:


    I do think that before when it was no oil it was too easy to get in, somewhat negating the walled settlement, I actually think it's a good balance of power between what you need to take a walled settlement, but it does make the rams totally useless. Hence make them half useful if you really want to rush through, with some degree of protection against oil if you have a ram at the gate.

    It is, I think, generally an effect of putting a door in a wall that it's easier to get in. This is the reason that in medieval fortifications (especially) the gatehouse was the most massively defended part of the structure - because the gate was the weakest point in the defenses. For a game set in a period where sieges (and therefore developed siege defenses) weren't really a thing, it would be more realistic, I think, to have the gate be a point that the attackers try to make use of, and which the defenders try to keep them away from, rather than the current setup where attackers avoid the gate if they're smart, and defenders try to funnel the enemy through there.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    tak22 said:

    billybob1 said:


    I do think that before when it was no oil it was too easy to get in, somewhat negating the walled settlement, I actually think it's a good balance of power between what you need to take a walled settlement, but it does make the rams totally useless. Hence make them half useful if you really want to rush through, with some degree of protection against oil if you have a ram at the gate.

    It is, I think, generally an effect of putting a door in a wall that it's easier to get in. This is the reason that in medieval fortifications (especially) the gatehouse was the most massively defended part of the structure - because the gate was the weakest point in the defenses. For a game set in a period where sieges (and therefore developed siege defenses) weren't really a thing, it would be more realistic, I think, to have the gate be a point that the attackers try to make use of, and which the defenders try to keep them away from, rather than the current setup where attackers avoid the gate if they're smart, and defenders try to funnel the enemy through there.
    Not to mention the fact that siege maps are legitimately great and fun to fight through with winding streets and choke points.

    Which just makes the fact that the whole battle seem to be decided at the walls and that we never actually get to fight within these cities all that much more tragic. Just imagine it; soldiers fighting across the streets of the burning city; defenders pulling back to defensive positions and barricades even as the attackers push forwards, engaging in brutal melees where they meet, all the while navigating h the streets and alleys in order to get the drop on the enemy. ToB sieges have the potential to be truly epic with a few changes.
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Posts: 446Registered Users
    Maybe too early to ask but I have to. Will any more features planned after the full release of allegiance update ?
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Posts: 1,162Registered Users

    Maybe too early to ask but I have to. Will any more features planned after the full release of allegiance update ?

    Yeah also very curious. Hope they do something new and expand the campaign map towards France instead of a new faction.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,346Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    cool_lad said:

    I would like to make 3 points:-
    1. The Pagan Kings event chain seems to only really have any sort of rewards for converting. I would like to suggest that at least the final and permanent effect bundle be a net benefit; perhaps remove the usurper allegiance effect while giving lower bonuses to show acceptance of the king/faction staying pagan.
    2. The boiling oil on gatehouses makes use of the ram pointless, since you'll almost always take more casualties when going through the gate than you ever do by using the siege towers. Perhaps the boiling oil could be changed to just give a temporary debuff instead of outright kill units so that there's an actual choice between using the ram or the siege tower.
    3. The single general/small army issue has been a problem for me as well. Additionally, after defeating an enemy army, their territory just rolls over till you encounter their new army and small raids become unstoppable due to the longer times taken to send reinforcing field srmies. I would like to suggest allowing the city garrison to march out and defend their surrounding villages. This would both, take care of the single troll general issue and also add in more field battles between facing different armies. This would also make the somewhat underused garrison chain a much more valuable investment.

    1. That's the entire point, you are a pagan king ruling over a massively Christian population. Deciding not to convert should come with penalties.

    2. We're looking at the balancing of boiling oil but won't be removing it. We're also going to slow down siege towers and the rate at which soldiers climb them.

    3. I've replied in the other thread about small armies/garrisons. We're not adding garrisons to minor settlements, and changing major settlement garrisons to roaming armies is a massive change to how garrisons work and won't happen for Thrones.

    Maybe too early to ask but I have to. Will any more features planned after the full release of allegiance update ?

    We're focused on the Allegiance update for now.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    I would like to put forward 3 requests:-
    1. Please do something about the Sieges; they have the potential to be epic, but aren't any fun because the AI sacrifices everything at the main gates and never defends the inside of cities. The whole battle is decided at the gates and the remainder of the settlement becomes pointless (even though defending in the streets or pulling back to inner defences would actually be a better tactic than losing all units fighting for the main walls and gates.
    2. Perhaps then you could link replenishment to alleigance or some other such mechanic to slow down the rate at which territory is expanded after any victory. This would add some much needed longevity to factions and prevent them from being almost entirely swallowed up after a single defeat. Right now, field battles are a bit of a rarity in campaign as factions seem to just roll over after they have been defeated once, and one can easily replenish their armies after these victories by just capturing villages.
    3. Also, please do something about the troll generals as they're more an annoyance than anything else. I've already attached save files showing such generals in action and their effects are frustrating to say the least.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,346Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    edited August 2018
    1. Walls and gates are by far the most defensible positions in a settlement, them being the best points to defend is very unlikely to change as they provide bottlenecks for defenders to take advantage of.

    2. There will not be any links like that, the recruitment pool is not linked to regions in any way so allegiance can't impact it, and the recruitment of armies and replenishment of units after taking minor settlements applies to all sides. Replenishment will already be lower if only the minor settlement in a province is owned.

    3. We're taking a look at that, however there may still be some unavoidable situations where it happens but it should be much rarer now.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    1. Walls and gates are by far the most defensible positions in a settlement, them being the best points to defend is very unlikely to change as they provide bottlenecks for defenders to take advantage of.

    While it is true that walls are quite defensible, the AI seems to stick to them come hell or high water. I've had sieges where the AI kept a bulk of it's units defending a single section of the wall (that I hadn't even attacked) while it's units were slaughtered at another section and part of my army took the central plaza and won the battle (units just stayed at their sections of wall, even after the loss of the main point).

    The AI seems to defend only the walls where it stationed it's units, regardless of what is happening elsewhere.

    This also makes for boring sieges as everything gets decided in a single easily won scrum at the primary walls themselves and the rest of the settlement, with it's secondary lines of defenses and streets and alleys, remains unused. While walls are defensible, it's also true that its often better to fall back and defend inside the city where the ranged units can once again provide continued support.

    You've given us these amazing city maps that we never actually get to fight across.

    Maybe make units flee and regroup at their nearest CP instead of just breaking and running so that we can have this experience of defenders desperately falling back and fighting across the city instead of just a single melee at the walls and gates that decides everything.
  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,346Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    Capture points don't serve as rally points, nor would I imagine having a few already severely damaged units rally at them provide much of an interesting fight once the fight at the walls is done. Plus, having units fight to the death tends to drag out fights, not make them more interesting as by that point its already clear who will win.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    All I'm attempting to point out is that the current format of sieges restricts all the fighting to just the walls and the rest of the settlement is never fought over. This becomes a quite repetitive after a while as you're effectively forced to fight over the same scenery (ie the walls) in every single siege.

    There's also an issue whereby the AI doesn't move its units from the section of the walls to which they are deployed, even when the entire attack is concentrated in another area and the main capture point is threatened.

    One unrelated issue that I've noticed with the patch is that tribute seems impossibly hard to collect even after a long string of victories (battles seem to give virtually no tribute, while capturing cities actually gives no tribute even though captures is listed as a source when hovering over the tribute bar). Could you perhaps clarify how tribute is calculated and whether this is intentional.
  • MrMecHMrMecH Posts: 2,135Registered Users
    edited August 2018
    @Jack_Lusted_CA

    I agree with cool_lad at many points.

    1. I understand that AI would has advantage when fight on the wall or bottleneck situation. However That wasting your elegant siege maps. There have tons of terrains that AI could use benefits such as mountain pass or cliff side. Also retreat out of the city by putting through all enemy force is unreasonable.

    2. You might be forgot about [Raider] and [Damaging Building] mechanic. What point of adding these mechanic to the game then? Players can't even use its benefit because the war is already over at the front line.



    SHUT UP GIVE US GHORGON!!!!!

  • Jack_Lusted_CAJack_Lusted_CA Creative Assembly Brighton, UKPosts: 1,346Registered Users, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff
    cool_lad said:

    All I'm attempting to point out is that the current format of sieges restricts all the fighting to just the walls and the rest of the settlement is never fought over. This becomes a quite repetitive after a while as you're effectively forced to fight over the same scenery (ie the walls) in every single siege.

    There's also an issue whereby the AI doesn't move its units from the section of the walls to which they are deployed, even when the entire attack is concentrated in another area and the main capture point is threatened.

    One unrelated issue that I've noticed with the patch is that tribute seems impossibly hard to collect even after a long string of victories (battles seem to give virtually no tribute, while capturing cities actually gives no tribute even though captures is listed as a source when hovering over the tribute bar). Could you perhaps clarify how tribute is calculated and whether this is intentional.

    Completely changing how the AI defends settlements is not a small change, and also having the AI not defend the walls would be changing it to actively make it worse at defending sieges.

    More sources for gaining Tribute are going to be added, capturing settlements reduces Tribute, that's why its a factor on the tooltip.
    MrMecH said:

    @Jack_Lusted_CA

    I agree with cool_lad at many points.

    1. I understand that AI would has advantage when fight on the wall or bottleneck situation. However That wasting your elegant siege maps. There have tons of terrains that AI could use benefits such as mountain pass or cliff side. Also retreat out of the city by putting through all enemy force is unreasonable.

    2. You might be forgot about [Raider] and [Damaging Building] mechanic. What point of adding these mechanic to the game then? Players can't even use its benefit because the war is already over at the front line.



    Units will always try and take the shortest route out of the map, that is unlikely to change. Raiding and damaging buildings is still useful, especially as the player can attack from multiple fronts, get units with those traits inside the settlement and cause damage whilst other units keep the main AI force busy until the harmful penalties are being inflicted on them.
    Game Director - Thrones of Britannia

    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    That explains my massive empire with all of 19 tribute.

    While I understand all of the points being made; i'm attempting to point out is that:-
    1. Fighting for just the walls all the time does get monotonous after a while; doubly so since the AI never seems to attack my cities or declare war for that matter (so we never actually end up defending cities, just attacking). We never actually get to do anything inside the settlement, even where the settlement itself features secondary defences and walls that would have been a better place for the AI to retreat to instead of committing all it's troops and breaking completely once the walls have fallen.
    2. There are maps and situations such where commiting everything to defending the first walls is actually a bad idea. There are maps for example where the chokepoints within the settlement are much better than the walls since due to their narrowness and elevated positions for ranged units to fire from.
    3. Having everything decided on the walls puts the AI at a disadvantage a s it commits all it's units to a single scrum right at the gates; this also makes it much harder for it's ranged units to get their shots in since a few units are enough to hold the AI's entire army while the remaining units flank or go grab the main control point
    4. Once the gates are lost and the attacker can pour into the settlement, it makes much more sense for the defenders to retreat to the barricades, choke points and internal defences in order to try and hold the enemy and get flanks in.
    5. The reason that having defenders retreat is suggested by so many of us is that we remember Medieval 2 and Rome 1 and how sieges did in fact go from the walls to the streets and finally to the main city square, making the siege assaults feel more organic and the defence that much more desperate.

    And while I understand and appreciate that perhaps sieges are something that you may not be planning to look at in this update, I would ask that you please at least keep it in mind since quite a few of us see just how much more epic sieges could be and want to see them improved and include street fighting and more defenders retreating and making stands within the city and control points.

    Also, what happened to the civilians? I know they weren't a big factor in the battles themselves, but having them about made the cities (and towns) feel really alive and inhabited.
  • Octavius_5Octavius_5 Senior Member Posts: 271Registered Users
    For siege defense I wouldn't mind if the AI did do a layered defense for cases where it made sense. There have been some improvements to the AI defense behavior in Rome 2 with the recent updates that have gone some of the way to implementing this with some interior choke point defense after the walls are breached and then a second layer of defense in the inner city. Something similar would be a nice to have some day for the fantastic siege maps in Thrones. The primary situation I could see this making sense would be when the city garrison is supplemented by a large defending army. I fought one such battle before the allegiance betas and the full army was deployed at or just behind the walls. The units deployed behind the walls were not as effective as they could be since they functioned as basically a field unit after my units took the walls and moved to the second line. It would have been better if those units had been positioned at choke points further inside the city along with some missile units to force my tired soldiers into a second set of engagements at well defended positions following the advance from the walls.

    For all cases with smaller defending forces though it does make sense to only defend the walls as the most effective defensible point. Obviously this isn't a small change so I would understand if it is too much to add in. As I said it would be a definite nice-to-have though if it is ever possible.
  • jericho86hun@gmail.com[email protected] Posts: 6Registered Users
    edited August 2018
    Hello!
    When release the final Allegiance update and the Blood DLC?
  • InocybeInocybe Posts: 144Registered Users
  • the_real_weedthe_real_weed Member Posts: 238Registered Users
    Inocybe said:

    late august

    how do you know?
Sign In or Register to comment.