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

Great Power Penalty needs to go

FossowayFossoway Registered Users Posts: 3,554
I used to play with the "no great power penalty" for a while, and since the last update I've tried playing without mods. And oh boy, I've forgotten how infuriating this penalty is.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, when your empire grows you get a malus in diplomatic relations, which forces your neighbors to declare war on you. Worse, it destroys all hope of diplomacy - no one will be willing to trade with you, for example.

Why is this even here again? No one likes it, as far as I know. It's just adding a "fake" difficulty to the game...

Comments

  • ExarchExarch Registered Users Posts: 588
    I don't mind it too much, it at least means you have to go to some effort to win friends early, or else fight their enemies in the mid game. Saying that, I rarely play om past the point of large empires as it's too grindy for me, so it might be more of an issue then.

    I would be hugely in favour of tailored difficulty check boxes, and this would be an obvious thing to make optional without mods. It would be nice to play on vh, but with the ability for corruption attrition to be useful at VC for example, or to turn off the MA/MD buffs on hard battles, but still have fair friendly fire and stronger enemy leadership.

    Or to take away the PO malus on VH for a wood elf campaign, so you don't need to waste time babysitting the capitol or playing repeated garrison battles for example, but maintaining the strong, more aggressive AI.

    Even if there are disclaimers that say this could upset the inter-race balance, I would still like the option.

    TLDR; I personally don't mind Great Power but the ability to customise your own campaign settings within game would make a lot of people happy!
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 7,317
    edited November 2018
    it takes camapign from autowin to fairly easy/acceptable challenge depending on difficulty. What fun is it if the AI is no threat to you? Because that’s what happens without Great Power.
    mightygloin_fan_1
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,099
    Fossoway said:

    I used to play with the "no great power penalty" for a while, and since the last update I've tried playing without mods. And oh boy, I've forgotten how infuriating this penalty is.

    For those who don't know what I'm talking about, when your empire grows you get a malus in diplomatic relations, which forces your neighbors to declare war on you. Worse, it destroys all hope of diplomacy - no one will be willing to trade with you, for example.

    Why is this even here again? No one likes it, as far as I know. It's just adding a "fake" difficulty to the game...

    I disagree. I actually think there should be more downsides to spreading out and capturing a lot of territory. Right now it makes you only more powerful and at an exponential rate to boot, that's lame, bad and boring.

  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799
    I also think that Great Power penalty, while sometimes being annoying is quite fair.

    Imo, in ideal situation of course, it should depend from few factors:
    a) are you and other faction from same race or from same friendly faction/races group or not
    b) could you confederate with this faction and are you competitors inside own race
    c) do you have stabile friendship with this race in actual game

    Based on this game could give even double/triple Great Power penalties to races/factions, which are not friendly to your race, not friendly faction, had bad relationships history during game and as opposite even double/triple bonuses to relationships in other cases.

    Also, different characteristics may affect that as well: as Underdog would make friendly to every stronger race/faction, isolationists more aggressive towards expanding races/factions (especially, if they are 1 settlement close), distrust certain race aggressive towards those races as they grow bigger, etc.

    But that's too hard and complex, I guess. So maybe better leave it as it is.

    Btw, wonder why Mr. "Do not serve, only rule" likes Great Powers. I mean, don't they sabotage his Status of the Greatest Guy?
    This also could be a good thing to hate someone's Great Power.

    Also, I understand, that it's question of consistency, but should both races/factions have equal aversion towards each other every time?
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,899
    edited November 2018
    There's nothing "fake" about the difficulty.

    As you get bigger the AI needs to provide a bigger challenge or the game gets boring.

    In fact I'd like more to stop the player steamroller not less. Bring back corruption.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 3,305
    Except that being a great power shouldn't encourage every minor enemy to attack you. It should normally make them think twice before attacking a "great power". So maybe they should find a more logical way to keep the campaign challenging.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,099

    Except that being a great power shouldn't encourage every minor enemy to attack you. It should normally make them think twice before attacking a "great power". So maybe they should find a more logical way to keep the campaign challenging.

    We already see what happens when you have that in R2. Once you are powerful, you can pick any war you want because the AI is paralyzed with fear and that's ultra-boring.

  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799

    Except that being a great power shouldn't encourage every minor enemy to attack you. It should normally make them think twice before attacking a "great power". So maybe they should find a more logical way to keep the campaign challenging.

    Or minor enemies could leave their minor grudges against each other and colaborate in trying to put down Big One to their level or even lower, which is even more logical.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • FossowayFossoway Registered Users Posts: 3,554
    edited November 2018
    At the very least, they need to tone it down a little. I'm currently sitting at a - 60 diplomatic penalty. No one wants to engage in politics anymore. That's not what I call a challenge, it's just frustrating.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,099
    Fossoway said:

    At the very least, they need to tone it down a little. I'm currently sitting at a - 60 diplomatic penalty. No one wants to engage in politics anymore. That's not what I call a challenge, it's just frustrating.

    No, it's way too lenient. Effortless steamrolling is still the name of the (late) game.

  • ExarchExarch Registered Users Posts: 588
    edited November 2018

    Except that being a great power shouldn't encourage every minor enemy to attack you. It should normally make them think twice before attacking a "great power". So maybe they should find a more logical way to keep the campaign challenging.

    Or minor enemies could leave their minor grudges against each other and colaborate in trying to put down Big One to their level or even lower, which is even more logical.
    Aye, a coalition mechanic vs the player would be greatl!
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034

    Fossoway said:

    I used to play with the "no great power penalty" for a while, and since the last update I've tried playing without mods. And oh boy, I've forgotten how infuriating this penalty is.

    For those who don't know what I'm talking about, when your empire grows you get a malus in diplomatic relations, which forces your neighbors to declare war on you. Worse, it destroys all hope of diplomacy - no one will be willing to trade with you, for example.

    Why is this even here again? No one likes it, as far as I know. It's just adding a "fake" difficulty to the game...

    I disagree. I actually think there should be more downsides to spreading out and capturing a lot of territory. Right now it makes you only more powerful and at an exponential rate to boot, that's lame, bad and boring.
    Of course you would think the game should be even more full of grindy grief. But that begs the question, why even have trade in the game in the first place if we're not supposed to be able to use it into the midgame and beyond?

    That you personally don't bother with it is hardly an argument for why the rest of us should not even get the choice.

    Fossoway said:

    At the very least, they need to tone it down a little. I'm currently sitting at a - 60 diplomatic penalty. No one wants to engage in politics anymore. That's not what I call a challenge, it's just frustrating.

    No, it's way too lenient. Effortless steamrolling is still the name of the (late) game.
    So now diplomacy has to be removed as well, just because you can't be bothered with it? And the AI has to be intentionally made suicidal, just to amuse you? Jesus effing Christ on a baby bastilladon.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034

    Except that being a great power shouldn't encourage every minor enemy to attack you. It should normally make them think twice before attacking a "great power". So maybe they should find a more logical way to keep the campaign challenging.

    Or minor enemies could leave their minor grudges against each other and colaborate in trying to put down Big One to their level or even lower, which is even more logical.
    That's why China is currently fighting a brutal war against Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, and Mongolia, is it?

    If you're going to make up some fantasy explanation that is the exact opposite of how it would work if choices were made by characters that actually would prefer to not get brutally exterminated then please do not call it "logical".

    The equivalent of Canada and IS joining forces against the US is not "logical". Quite the opposite, really.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,099
    edited November 2018
    We have seen what happens when the AI is cowed by the player in R2.


    BORING BORING BORING and MORE BORING.

    If you want a boring game, then mod it boring. I want a challenging game that never lets up. Everyone can beat up a blind death and paraplegic cripple but not everyone can beat up Mike Tyson at his prime.

  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,899
    edited November 2018
    Agreed, the late game needs to be harder not easier.

    It's logical that once you get huge the AI should band together and try to take you out.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034

    We have seen what happens when the AI is cowed by the player in R2.


    BORING BORING BORING and MORE BORING.

    If you want a boring game, then mod it boring. I want a challenging game that never lets up. Everyone can beat up a blind death and paraplegic cripple but not everyone can beat up Mike Tyson at his prime.

    There are much better ways to achieve challenge than by having obviously senseless mechanics that mostly just serve to force grief upon a player.

    And if the various factions were more focused on surviving than on griefing the player then they could build their strength
    and actually grow into being more impressive adversaries. What GPP should do is give the various remaining scattered factions a greater incentive to confederate with others of their kind, as opposed to actively seeking out a faction suicide. These confederated superstates should then further create alliances with their friends to try and craete parity.

    That would be sensible, logical, and actually result in something remotely challenging. Having a whole bunch of four-town "empires" declare state suicide is just silly.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 8,129
    Ure virtually godmode already with just around 10 territories more or less, those penalties r far too lenient as CA takes account for campaign carebears.

    Its not fun, its downright stale. I wish they have harsher penalties as I personally just lost interest when I got around 10-15 settlements. I know by that time Im beyond invincible already, would need serious multiple chaos event doomstack to make a dent.

    By that time ure really just performing genocides, u can pick a race and totally wiped them out the map. And keep the prefered farming race intact, like orks for example so u can farm em at will.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034
    The god mode comes from the other factions being silly. At 10 territories, you can probably crush every other individual faction but united dark elves or united high elves or a human-dwarf alliance could still be a fairly big mouthful.

    GPP should not make small factions hate the player, it should make small factions like their kin more and try to confederate. That would both make them safer and stronger and reduce the number of tiny factions that are easily swallowed up, thus making player expansion harder.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 7,317
    edited November 2018
    yst is right for once, 10+ settlements you’re already on autopilot, by turn 100+ bar a strong Chaos invasion that punishes you for expanding too much, 80% of the game is just waiting for the end of turn AI movement. There’s little decision making at that point, it’s just vomit doomstacks and annihilate 1 faction at a time and ally with those whose settlements you need for victory condition. Movement on the map is predictable, every battle is either a siege that for some reason you can’t autoresolve and have to fight out for the 50th time or chasing off fleeing armies with ambush stance and mages. Archaon the Everchosen conveniently sits at 1 corner of the map with 8 tattered units AFKing to prevent the player an easy end of Chaos invasion.

    It’s a shame because by the turn you unlock cool units like the Steam Tank or Dragon Princes, the game is only sieges too.

    There would be so much that needs to be changed with campaign but Great Power penalty overall is one of the things that I find positive.
    mightygloin_fan_1
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,899
    Green0 said:

    yst is right for once, 10+ settlements you’re already on autopilot, by turn 100+ bar a strong Chaos invasion that punishes you for expanding too much, 80% of the game is just waiting for the end of turn AI movement. There’s little decision making at that point, it’s just vomit doomstacks and annihilate 1 faction at a time and ally with those whose settlements you need for victory condition. Movement on the map is predictable, every battle is either a siege that for some reason you can’t autoresolve and have to fight out for the 50th time or chasing off fleeing armies with ambush stance and mages. Archaon the Everchosen conveniently sits at 1 corner of the map with 8 tattered units AFKing to prevent the player an easy end of Chaos invasion.

    It’s a shame because by the turn you unlock cool units like the Steam Tank or Dragon Princes, the game is only sieges too.

    There would be so much that needs to be changed with campaign but Great Power penalty overall is one of the things that I find positive.

    You're onto something. The AI needs to be more aggressive. Right now the game goes on autopilot too fast.

    I might say garrisons need to be weaker too.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034
    Green0 said:

    yst is right for once, 10+ settlements you’re already on autopilot, by turn 100+ bar a strong Chaos invasion that punishes you for expanding too much, 80% of the game is just waiting for the end of turn AI movement. There’s little decision making at that point, it’s just vomit doomstacks and annihilate 1 faction at a time and ally with those whose settlements you need for victory condition. Movement on the map is predictable, every battle is either a siege that for some reason you can’t autoresolve and have to fight out for the 50th time or chasing off fleeing armies with ambush stance and mages. Archaon the Everchosen conveniently sits at 1 corner of the map with 8 tattered units AFKing to prevent the player an easy end of Chaos invasion.

    It’s a shame because by the turn you unlock cool units like the Steam Tank or Dragon Princes, the game is only sieges too.

    There would be so much that needs to be changed with campaign but Great Power penalty overall is one of the things that I find positive.

    I don't really disagree that the game devolves late game, I just think your solution is exactly the wrong way to go about it. We don't need the AI to be even more mindlessly dimwitted and single-minded and having all factions go into kamikaze mode surely isn't going to be more fun either. Might be more grindy, but not really more fun.

    What would be more fun, at least to me, is if the player did not have all those tiny factions to munch on. With 10+ settlements, you can walk over any AI faction that still only has 2-4 settlements and there's a fair few of those.

    If they instead unified into their parent factions, then not only would expansion be harder for the player but there would also be more convincing enemies that the player would have to fight in order to expand.
  • HolySaintKnightHolySaintKnight Registered Users Posts: 4,419

    Except that being a great power shouldn't encourage every minor enemy to attack you. It should normally make them think twice before attacking a "great power". So maybe they should find a more logical way to keep the campaign challenging.

    Or minor enemies could leave their minor grudges against each other and colaborate in trying to put down Big One to their level or even lower, which is even more logical.
    That's why China is currently fighting a brutal war against Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, and Mongolia, is it?

    If you're going to make up some fantasy explanation that is the exact opposite of how it would work if choices were made by characters that actually would prefer to not get brutally exterminated then please do not call it "logical".

    The equivalent of Canada and IS joining forces against the US is not "logical". Quite the opposite, really.
    LOL! Well said!
Sign In or Register to comment.