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

Next patch the Vampire factions need a SERIOUS debuff.

ReprotoxicReprotoxic Posts: 17Registered Users
Mortal Empires has become a hellscape of evil factions. Endless Vampiric and Chaotic corruption. Dark Elves consistently win vs AI High Elves now. Norsca consistently become OP. The Vampire Coast update really turned the tide in the favor of evil factions. And to top it all off Chaos doesn't start at war with Vampires so when they spawn they beeline straight for you. Army comps for Dwarfs that should win when you see them consistently lose to stacks of skeletons from Vampire counts. By late game you are almost always alone against stack after stack of vampires. Playing a "good" faction has become an endless nightmare of fighting Vampires and Vampiric corruption.

«1

Comments

  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 108Registered Users
    I just hate dealing with corruption mechanics and the current factions that end up on top have loads of it.
  • BetoBotBetoBot Posts: 174Registered Users
    Just play in normal or easy mode, bro...
  • ReprotoxicReprotoxic Posts: 17Registered Users
    BetoBot said:

    Just play in normal or easy mode, bro...

    U see the thing is I'm going to win, but it is just infuriating as all hell to only fight Vampires so endlessly. I'm not bad at the game.
  • endurendur Posts: 2,611Registered Users
    I haven't really had a problem with the vampire factions. But the AI has issues dealing with vampires and vampiric corruption.

  • KronusXKronusX Posts: 1,204Registered Users
    I'd prefer they would just use a time machine to go back in time and not redo Vampire coast and smack the head of the guy that came out with the idea of Vcoast with no naval combat.
  • blaatblaat Junior Member Posts: 2,754Registered Users
    I prefer the order factions getting a buff in how to handle corruption

    I mean lizardmen have twice the untained buildings of the empire and HE have an untainted building that spreads their untainted to neighbouring regions


    so that needs buffing here IMHO rather than vampire nerfing

    snip

    It's much easier and more fun to get engrossed in lore that takes itself seriously and tries to make sense within its own frame of reference.

    the reason I prefer LOTR over warhammer fantasy and 40k

    I am dutch so if you like to have a talk in dutch shoot me a PM :)
  • BetoBotBetoBot Posts: 174Registered Users

    BetoBot said:

    Just play in normal or easy mode, bro...

    U see the thing is I'm going to win, but it is just infuriating as all hell to only fight Vampires so endlessly. I'm not bad at the game.
    Just remember that at the end... Chaos wins... This is Warhammer...
  • FungusHoundFungusHound Posts: 1,178Registered Users
    As a huge Coast fan, they need to be restricted like Norsca is and reduced corruption rate.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Posts: 5,190Registered Users

    I just hate dealing with corruption mechanics and the current factions that end up on top have loads of it.

    This is a big problem.

    People say "Ai doesnt suffer from corruption!" but they actually do. Their armies get bled dry from it just as fast as player ones do -- except more so, because the AI is too stupid to use raiding stance, avoid corruption areas as long as possible, or take a turn or two to heal. They also very much DO suffer from corruption-induced rebellions, I see it quite often.

    As a player the corruption is a huge pain in the ass.

    Untainted pressure very much needs to be readily and more cheaply available for *all* non-corrupting factions. As a corrupting faction - your corruption is NOT the natural state of the world, and you should actually have to WORK to spread it.

    Corruption v Untainted should not be balanced in favor of corruption, it should be balanced to stalemate when equal resources are pitted against one another. Corruptive forces *should* have a disadvantage when attacking into a non-corrupting faction, and vice versa. Corruption should really only work offensively when more resources are poured into it than are poured against it. Ie: if you've got a temple and they've got a temple, it should be stalemate. If they then toss in an agent or two, you should start to lose until you reciprocate. Then you call in the assassins and draw knives to see who can get the advantage back.
  • XxXScorpionXxXXxXScorpionXxX Posts: 265Registered Users
    hey man CA did nerf the vampire coasts by an unbelievable degree by allowing us to actually destroy them with out our game crashing.
  • CaffynatedCaffynated Member Posts: 1,029Registered Users

    I just hate dealing with corruption mechanics and the current factions that end up on top have loads of it.

    Every faction spreads corruption. Untainted functions as a mirror image of vampiric corruption, and is spread by far more factions.

    If you play a campaign as a vampire faction then the entire world is covered in your opponent's corruption and you have to slog through it as if you were an order faction living in a vampire infested world with all of the drawbacks from public order and attrition.

  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 108Registered Users

    I just hate dealing with corruption mechanics and the current factions that end up on top have loads of it.

    Every faction spreads corruption. Untainted functions as a mirror image of vampiric corruption, and is spread by far more factions.

    If you play a campaign as a vampire faction then the entire world is covered in your opponent's corruption and you have to slog through it as if you were an order faction living in a vampire infested world with all of the drawbacks from public order and attrition.

    That only affects Vampire counts
    WoC, Beastmen, Norsca, Vampire Coast and Skaven do not get negative effects in uncorrupted lands, but they do get small bonuses in corrupted lands.
    It's pretty clear that it majorly affects "good" factions that don't have corruption benefits and have debuffs when they are corrupted.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Posts: 5,190Registered Users
    The difference here is that vampires spread corruption like the clap in a **** house, while untainted spreads like good will towards men in a taliban training camp.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 8,489Registered Users
    blaat said:

    I prefer the order factions getting a buff in how to handle corruption

    I mean lizardmen have twice the untained buildings of the empire and HE have an untainted building that spreads their untainted to neighbouring regions


    so that needs buffing here IMHO rather than vampire nerfing

    And surprise surprise, both of them are new factions, so it's quite likely a case of power creep.
    4 Fully Independent Monogods Armies would be great for a Storyline about the Great Game in Total War: Warhammer 3.
  • ZerglesZergles Member Posts: 2,967Registered Users
    This is a weird complaint. Fighting corruption is supposed to suck. Spending time spreading it sucks to. I find it fun, to an extent. I enjoy slowly killing off the VC by destroying buildings and having heroes untaint their lands. It's fun. It is just tedious. To me at least.

    It's literally the only other strategic planning (in regards to building and resources) that actually matters.
  • makar55makar55 Posts: 1,344Registered Users
    What difficulty are you playing on? I had a run on Very Hard with Empire and had no troubles at all.
  • FifthOfSpaghettiFifthOfSpaghetti Posts: 1,555Registered Users
    edited January 12
    I find their corruption is the hardest thing to deal with. I play very hard because the campaign and battle challenges suit my play level, but the Vampires are just such a slog unless you can somehow get rid off attrition some how. It’s not out of my league but it’s certainly not fun having to fight them on the campaign map.
  • dreagondreagon Senior Member Posts: 1,401Registered Users
    makar55 said:

    What difficulty are you playing on? I had a run on Very Hard with Empire and had no troubles at all.

    It might not apply as much to the Empire. As the Empire you basically keep the Vampire Counts in check.
    My Total War wishlist:

    1: Reformation: Total War
    2: Victoria: Total War
    3: Dark Age: Total War
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 2,156Registered Users
    I'm far more okay with the destruction factions winning than the order factions winning. And not because of bias, just because it makes for a more compelling Warhammer experience. The player can not be the only moving factor in the world, and the destructive factions tend to stir the pot the most effectively since they've no qualms about killing each other.

    The Dwarfs should be in the game on a timer. Given the distribution of land and diplomacy, either the Greenskins or the Dwarfs have to win. One side will kill the other. And if we're comparing which one should win, Greenskins take the cake. Greenskins need to become the world rampaging threat to literally all other factions they are in the lore. When greenskins win, no faction is safe. They'll fight anyone where Dwarfs fight only a select few, allowing more map interaction overall. If a player wants the Dwarfs to survive it should occur due to direct player intervention. It creates a more compelling world overall that way.

    And the idea that a destructive faction should inevitably triumph eventually does apply to any of the destruction factions. When the High Elves eventually lose to the Dark Elves, suddenly everyone on the map is in danger. Destruction or not, where the High Elves just tend to bunker and do nothing. Norsca is the prelude to the Chaos fueled end of the world. When they unite up North, it should herald a problem for everyone South of them, requiring player intervention. All the so called "evil" factions you see winning make the game better by winning. If they didn't, where's the threat? Order factions rarely fight among each other, again, without player intervention.

    The two I have a problem with right now are the Vampire Counts, so in that we agree, and Skaven. Though I'll bet Skaven come to the fore when they get a larger presence on the map. As it stands they should eventually run over the Southern Realms and Lustria, yet only manage Estalia. The Vampire Counts are too aggressive. They are not a force of destruction. The treatment Welfs got, where the Welfs outright will not sally out of the forest until Chaos arrives, is the same treatment the Vampires should get. Clustered Enclaves of Vampires across the Map that wait until ruins pop up to start recolonizing the world and raising armies from the aftermath of Archaons rampage.
  • AryndelinAryndelin Junior Member Posts: 843Registered Users

    I'm far more okay with the destruction factions winning than the order factions winning. And not because of bias, just because it makes for a more compelling Warhammer experience. The player can not be the only moving factor in the world, and the destructive factions tend to stir the pot the most effectively since they've no qualms about killing each other.

    The Dwarfs should be in the game on a timer. Given the distribution of land and diplomacy, either the Greenskins or the Dwarfs have to win. One side will kill the other. And if we're comparing which one should win, Greenskins take the cake. Greenskins need to become the world rampaging threat to literally all other factions they are in the lore. When greenskins win, no faction is safe. They'll fight anyone where Dwarfs fight only a select few, allowing more map interaction overall. If a player wants the Dwarfs to survive it should occur due to direct player intervention. It creates a more compelling world overall that way.

    And the idea that a destructive faction should inevitably triumph eventually does apply to any of the destruction factions. When the High Elves eventually lose to the Dark Elves, suddenly everyone on the map is in danger. Destruction or not, where the High Elves just tend to bunker and do nothing. Norsca is the prelude to the Chaos fueled end of the world. When they unite up North, it should herald a problem for everyone South of them, requiring player intervention. All the so called "evil" factions you see winning make the game better by winning. If they didn't, where's the threat? Order factions rarely fight among each other, again, without player intervention.

    The two I have a problem with right now are the Vampire Counts, so in that we agree, and Skaven. Though I'll bet Skaven come to the fore when they get a larger presence on the map. As it stands they should eventually run over the Southern Realms and Lustria, yet only manage Estalia. The Vampire Counts are too aggressive. They are not a force of destruction. The treatment Welfs got, where the Welfs outright will not sally out of the forest until Chaos arrives, is the same treatment the Vampires should get. Clustered Enclaves of Vampires across the Map that wait until ruins pop up to start recolonizing the world and raising armies from the aftermath of Archaons rampage.

    All i want is campaigns with variety. I want different behaviours from the AI factions every campaign i play, regardless of who and what they are.

    It's so bloody boring when you can predict every campaign and how they flow. I love being suprised.
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Posts: 1,605Registered Users
    Really they never needed their update badly in the first place while those that did still do singularly the reason why giving us another drought now is outrageous.

  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 2,156Registered Users
    Aryndelin said:

    I'm far more okay with the destruction factions winning than the order factions winning. And not because of bias, just because it makes for a more compelling Warhammer experience. The player can not be the only moving factor in the world, and the destructive factions tend to stir the pot the most effectively since they've no qualms about killing each other.

    The Dwarfs should be in the game on a timer. Given the distribution of land and diplomacy, either the Greenskins or the Dwarfs have to win. One side will kill the other. And if we're comparing which one should win, Greenskins take the cake. Greenskins need to become the world rampaging threat to literally all other factions they are in the lore. When greenskins win, no faction is safe. They'll fight anyone where Dwarfs fight only a select few, allowing more map interaction overall. If a player wants the Dwarfs to survive it should occur due to direct player intervention. It creates a more compelling world overall that way.

    And the idea that a destructive faction should inevitably triumph eventually does apply to any of the destruction factions. When the High Elves eventually lose to the Dark Elves, suddenly everyone on the map is in danger. Destruction or not, where the High Elves just tend to bunker and do nothing. Norsca is the prelude to the Chaos fueled end of the world. When they unite up North, it should herald a problem for everyone South of them, requiring player intervention. All the so called "evil" factions you see winning make the game better by winning. If they didn't, where's the threat? Order factions rarely fight among each other, again, without player intervention.

    The two I have a problem with right now are the Vampire Counts, so in that we agree, and Skaven. Though I'll bet Skaven come to the fore when they get a larger presence on the map. As it stands they should eventually run over the Southern Realms and Lustria, yet only manage Estalia. The Vampire Counts are too aggressive. They are not a force of destruction. The treatment Welfs got, where the Welfs outright will not sally out of the forest until Chaos arrives, is the same treatment the Vampires should get. Clustered Enclaves of Vampires across the Map that wait until ruins pop up to start recolonizing the world and raising armies from the aftermath of Archaons rampage.

    All i want is campaigns with variety. I want different behaviours from the AI factions every campaign i play, regardless of who and what they are.

    It's so bloody boring when you can predict every campaign and how they flow. I love being suprised.
    I get that, I do....but Warhammer is going to be a bit more predictable than that by its very nature.

    We aren't playing a snapshot of history, where people and factions are bound to exist in the centuries to follow. Warhammers fate and the predictable factions attitudes are already set in stone. And key to the overall theme, is that good guys lose. We are playing the moment in time where you get to actually break that and win it back. Or when you get to pitch in and bring it down.

    Variety is fantastic to a games longevity. But Skaven will always be Skaven. Chaos won't ever be peaceful. Greenskins will always rampage across the world. Dark Elves will always hate High Elves. Vampires are only ever on their own side. To get that variety and surprise you crave in a campaign, you'll need to make that change yourself. Play Empire to stop Vampires and save the Dwarfs, see how much they reclaim. Play Welfs and go wipe out the Dark Elves to form a reunion of High Elves and Dark Elves. You can effect that variety you crave, but the AI won't on their own. Not without mods.

    You also can't create your own variety if you simply sit and wait it out. Total War Warhammer is by far the least passive Total War in existence, even the AI isn't waiting for you to figure that much out.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 9,617Registered Users

    Aryndelin said:

    I'm far more okay with the destruction factions winning than the order factions winning. And not because of bias, just because it makes for a more compelling Warhammer experience. The player can not be the only moving factor in the world, and the destructive factions tend to stir the pot the most effectively since they've no qualms about killing each other.

    The Dwarfs should be in the game on a timer. Given the distribution of land and diplomacy, either the Greenskins or the Dwarfs have to win. One side will kill the other. And if we're comparing which one should win, Greenskins take the cake. Greenskins need to become the world rampaging threat to literally all other factions they are in the lore. When greenskins win, no faction is safe. They'll fight anyone where Dwarfs fight only a select few, allowing more map interaction overall. If a player wants the Dwarfs to survive it should occur due to direct player intervention. It creates a more compelling world overall that way.

    And the idea that a destructive faction should inevitably triumph eventually does apply to any of the destruction factions. When the High Elves eventually lose to the Dark Elves, suddenly everyone on the map is in danger. Destruction or not, where the High Elves just tend to bunker and do nothing. Norsca is the prelude to the Chaos fueled end of the world. When they unite up North, it should herald a problem for everyone South of them, requiring player intervention. All the so called "evil" factions you see winning make the game better by winning. If they didn't, where's the threat? Order factions rarely fight among each other, again, without player intervention.

    The two I have a problem with right now are the Vampire Counts, so in that we agree, and Skaven. Though I'll bet Skaven come to the fore when they get a larger presence on the map. As it stands they should eventually run over the Southern Realms and Lustria, yet only manage Estalia. The Vampire Counts are too aggressive. They are not a force of destruction. The treatment Welfs got, where the Welfs outright will not sally out of the forest until Chaos arrives, is the same treatment the Vampires should get. Clustered Enclaves of Vampires across the Map that wait until ruins pop up to start recolonizing the world and raising armies from the aftermath of Archaons rampage.

    All i want is campaigns with variety. I want different behaviours from the AI factions every campaign i play, regardless of who and what they are.

    It's so bloody boring when you can predict every campaign and how they flow. I love being suprised.
    I get that, I do....but Warhammer is going to be a bit more predictable than that by its very nature.

    We aren't playing a snapshot of history, where people and factions are bound to exist in the centuries to follow. Warhammers fate and the predictable factions attitudes are already set in stone. And key to the overall theme, is that good guys lose. We are playing the moment in time where you get to actually break that and win it back. Or when you get to pitch in and bring it down.

    Variety is fantastic to a games longevity. But Skaven will always be Skaven. Chaos won't ever be peaceful. Greenskins will always rampage across the world. Dark Elves will always hate High Elves. Vampires are only ever on their own side. To get that variety and surprise you crave in a campaign, you'll need to make that change yourself. Play Empire to stop Vampires and save the Dwarfs, see how much they reclaim. Play Welfs and go wipe out the Dark Elves to form a reunion of High Elves and Dark Elves. You can effect that variety you crave, but the AI won't on their own. Not without mods.

    You also can't create your own variety if you simply sit and wait it out. Total War Warhammer is by far the least passive Total War in existence, even the AI isn't waiting for you to figure that much out.
    Another wordy post which uses irrelevant lore arguments to justify poor game design and balance.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 2,156Registered Users

    Aryndelin said:

    I'm far more okay with the destruction factions winning than the order factions winning. And not because of bias, just because it makes for a more compelling Warhammer experience. The player can not be the only moving factor in the world, and the destructive factions tend to stir the pot the most effectively since they've no qualms about killing each other.

    The Dwarfs should be in the game on a timer. Given the distribution of land and diplomacy, either the Greenskins or the Dwarfs have to win. One side will kill the other. And if we're comparing which one should win, Greenskins take the cake. Greenskins need to become the world rampaging threat to literally all other factions they are in the lore. When greenskins win, no faction is safe. They'll fight anyone where Dwarfs fight only a select few, allowing more map interaction overall. If a player wants the Dwarfs to survive it should occur due to direct player intervention. It creates a more compelling world overall that way.

    And the idea that a destructive faction should inevitably triumph eventually does apply to any of the destruction factions. When the High Elves eventually lose to the Dark Elves, suddenly everyone on the map is in danger. Destruction or not, where the High Elves just tend to bunker and do nothing. Norsca is the prelude to the Chaos fueled end of the world. When they unite up North, it should herald a problem for everyone South of them, requiring player intervention. All the so called "evil" factions you see winning make the game better by winning. If they didn't, where's the threat? Order factions rarely fight among each other, again, without player intervention.

    The two I have a problem with right now are the Vampire Counts, so in that we agree, and Skaven. Though I'll bet Skaven come to the fore when they get a larger presence on the map. As it stands they should eventually run over the Southern Realms and Lustria, yet only manage Estalia. The Vampire Counts are too aggressive. They are not a force of destruction. The treatment Welfs got, where the Welfs outright will not sally out of the forest until Chaos arrives, is the same treatment the Vampires should get. Clustered Enclaves of Vampires across the Map that wait until ruins pop up to start recolonizing the world and raising armies from the aftermath of Archaons rampage.

    All i want is campaigns with variety. I want different behaviours from the AI factions every campaign i play, regardless of who and what they are.

    It's so bloody boring when you can predict every campaign and how they flow. I love being suprised.
    I get that, I do....but Warhammer is going to be a bit more predictable than that by its very nature.

    We aren't playing a snapshot of history, where people and factions are bound to exist in the centuries to follow. Warhammers fate and the predictable factions attitudes are already set in stone. And key to the overall theme, is that good guys lose. We are playing the moment in time where you get to actually break that and win it back. Or when you get to pitch in and bring it down.

    Variety is fantastic to a games longevity. But Skaven will always be Skaven. Chaos won't ever be peaceful. Greenskins will always rampage across the world. Dark Elves will always hate High Elves. Vampires are only ever on their own side. To get that variety and surprise you crave in a campaign, you'll need to make that change yourself. Play Empire to stop Vampires and save the Dwarfs, see how much they reclaim. Play Welfs and go wipe out the Dark Elves to form a reunion of High Elves and Dark Elves. You can effect that variety you crave, but the AI won't on their own. Not without mods.

    You also can't create your own variety if you simply sit and wait it out. Total War Warhammer is by far the least passive Total War in existence, even the AI isn't waiting for you to figure that much out.
    Another wordy post which uses irrelevant lore arguments to justify poor game design and balance.
    Break it down barny style then.

    Three possibilities exist for faction states. They win, they lose, they sit and stare at each other. If the good guys win, they sit and stare at the other good guys. If the bad guys win, they try to kill the other bad guys. If neither accomplishes anything, than the only faction accomplishing anything at all is the player.

    I don't want the "good" factions to win because if they do, they won't continue to fight each other or me, and I've no incentive to do so either. I sure as hell don't want neither side to win. Lest we have Greenskins attempting to and failing to siege Karak-a-Kadrin for 200 turns. Accomplishing and changing nothing on the map. So logically I want the "bad" factions to eventually win. That way I have something to fight against, and if playing the "bad" factions can reliably expect to just have more enemies when the "good" factions are gone.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 8,489Registered Users

    Aryndelin said:

    I'm far more okay with the destruction factions winning than the order factions winning. And not because of bias, just because it makes for a more compelling Warhammer experience. The player can not be the only moving factor in the world, and the destructive factions tend to stir the pot the most effectively since they've no qualms about killing each other.

    The Dwarfs should be in the game on a timer. Given the distribution of land and diplomacy, either the Greenskins or the Dwarfs have to win. One side will kill the other. And if we're comparing which one should win, Greenskins take the cake. Greenskins need to become the world rampaging threat to literally all other factions they are in the lore. When greenskins win, no faction is safe. They'll fight anyone where Dwarfs fight only a select few, allowing more map interaction overall. If a player wants the Dwarfs to survive it should occur due to direct player intervention. It creates a more compelling world overall that way.

    And the idea that a destructive faction should inevitably triumph eventually does apply to any of the destruction factions. When the High Elves eventually lose to the Dark Elves, suddenly everyone on the map is in danger. Destruction or not, where the High Elves just tend to bunker and do nothing. Norsca is the prelude to the Chaos fueled end of the world. When they unite up North, it should herald a problem for everyone South of them, requiring player intervention. All the so called "evil" factions you see winning make the game better by winning. If they didn't, where's the threat? Order factions rarely fight among each other, again, without player intervention.

    The two I have a problem with right now are the Vampire Counts, so in that we agree, and Skaven. Though I'll bet Skaven come to the fore when they get a larger presence on the map. As it stands they should eventually run over the Southern Realms and Lustria, yet only manage Estalia. The Vampire Counts are too aggressive. They are not a force of destruction. The treatment Welfs got, where the Welfs outright will not sally out of the forest until Chaos arrives, is the same treatment the Vampires should get. Clustered Enclaves of Vampires across the Map that wait until ruins pop up to start recolonizing the world and raising armies from the aftermath of Archaons rampage.

    All i want is campaigns with variety. I want different behaviours from the AI factions every campaign i play, regardless of who and what they are.

    It's so bloody boring when you can predict every campaign and how they flow. I love being suprised.
    I get that, I do....but Warhammer is going to be a bit more predictable than that by its very nature.

    We aren't playing a snapshot of history, where people and factions are bound to exist in the centuries to follow. Warhammers fate and the predictable factions attitudes are already set in stone. And key to the overall theme, is that good guys lose. We are playing the moment in time where you get to actually break that and win it back. Or when you get to pitch in and bring it down.

    Variety is fantastic to a games longevity. But Skaven will always be Skaven. Chaos won't ever be peaceful. Greenskins will always rampage across the world. Dark Elves will always hate High Elves. Vampires are only ever on their own side. To get that variety and surprise you crave in a campaign, you'll need to make that change yourself. Play Empire to stop Vampires and save the Dwarfs, see how much they reclaim. Play Welfs and go wipe out the Dark Elves to form a reunion of High Elves and Dark Elves. You can effect that variety you crave, but the AI won't on their own. Not without mods.

    You also can't create your own variety if you simply sit and wait it out. Total War Warhammer is by far the least passive Total War in existence, even the AI isn't waiting for you to figure that much out.
    Yes and that's why the diplomacy aversions are set in stone, greentide make more sense than dawitide.

    https://totalwarwarhammer.gamepedia.com/Diplomacy
    4 Fully Independent Monogods Armies would be great for a Storyline about the Great Game in Total War: Warhammer 3.
  • bellyboybellyboy Posts: 132Registered Users

    I'm far more okay with the destruction factions winning than the order factions winning. And not because of bias, just because it makes for a more compelling Warhammer experience. The player can not be the only moving factor in the world, and the destructive factions tend to stir the pot the most effectively since they've no qualms about killing each other.

    The Dwarfs should be in the game on a timer. Given the distribution of land and diplomacy, either the Greenskins or the Dwarfs have to win. One side will kill the other. And if we're comparing which one should win, Greenskins take the cake. Greenskins need to become the world rampaging threat to literally all other factions they are in the lore. When greenskins win, no faction is safe. They'll fight anyone where Dwarfs fight only a select few, allowing more map interaction overall. If a player wants the Dwarfs to survive it should occur due to direct player intervention. It creates a more compelling world overall that way.

    And the idea that a destructive faction should inevitably triumph eventually does apply to any of the destruction factions. When the High Elves eventually lose to the Dark Elves, suddenly everyone on the map is in danger. Destruction or not, where the High Elves just tend to bunker and do nothing. Norsca is the prelude to the Chaos fueled end of the world. When they unite up North, it should herald a problem for everyone South of them, requiring player intervention. All the so called "evil" factions you see winning make the game better by winning. If they didn't, where's the threat? Order factions rarely fight among each other, again, without player intervention.

    The two I have a problem with right now are the Vampire Counts, so in that we agree, and Skaven. Though I'll bet Skaven come to the fore when they get a larger presence on the map. As it stands they should eventually run over the Southern Realms and Lustria, yet only manage Estalia. The Vampire Counts are too aggressive. They are not a force of destruction. The treatment Welfs got, where the Welfs outright will not sally out of the forest until Chaos arrives, is the same treatment the Vampires should get. Clustered Enclaves of Vampires across the Map that wait until ruins pop up to start recolonizing the world and raising armies from the aftermath of Archaons rampage.

    I agree with the first idea here: the fantasy of playing a "good" faction in this universe is fighting against the endless tide.

    That being said, I also agree with the OP, but for a different reason. The visuals of corruption just get really boring. I enjoy the campaign map and wish corruption would both not interfere as much with our experiencing the campaign map and not as much with our gameplay. I think the bonuses for correct corruption, but no penalties, for all factions is the best way to do it.
  • LuciferLucifer Member England U.KPosts: 1,260Registered Users
    Hell no.

    There's plenty of ways of dealing with corruption and to be honest, I'd be bored to death without the taints of undeath or chaos corruption that keeps me on my toes and helps me use my agents and buildings to keep it at bay, while my armies mete out justice. I also enjoy when I do play vamps and chaos or dark elves and can taint the lands before invading them.

    Be careful of turning the game into a bland, equal garbage mess, that will present little to no challenge, and visit the mods for things you'd like to change without imposing it on the rest of us that do enjoy the mechanics and challenges that we may face, even if they are enormously un-equal.


    "Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death." - Vlad von Carstein

    My steam workshop Warhammer II mods
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 15,000Registered Users
    Lucifer said:

    Hell no.

    There's plenty of ways of dealing with corruption and to be honest, I'd be bored to death without the taints of undeath or chaos corruption that keeps me on my toes and helps me use my agents and buildings to keep it at bay, while my armies mete out justice. I also enjoy when I do play vamps and chaos or dark elves and can taint the lands before invading them.

    Be careful of turning the game into a bland, equal garbage mess, that will present little to no challenge, and visit the mods for things you'd like to change without imposing it on the rest of us that do enjoy the mechanics and challenges that we may face, even if they are enormously un-equal.

    The AI is incapable of dealing with corruption, period. Enough reason to nerf the hell out of it. No interest in seeing maps constantly being turned into wastelands of one kind or another just because CA changed the corruption mechanics but forgot to tell the AI.

  • LuciferLucifer Member England U.KPosts: 1,260Registered Users
    edited January 13

    Lucifer said:

    Hell no.

    There's plenty of ways of dealing with corruption and to be honest, I'd be bored to death without the taints of undeath or chaos corruption that keeps me on my toes and helps me use my agents and buildings to keep it at bay, while my armies mete out justice. I also enjoy when I do play vamps and chaos or dark elves and can taint the lands before invading them.

    Be careful of turning the game into a bland, equal garbage mess, that will present little to no challenge, and visit the mods for things you'd like to change without imposing it on the rest of us that do enjoy the mechanics and challenges that we may face, even if they are enormously un-equal.

    The AI is incapable of dealing with corruption, period. Enough reason to nerf the hell out of it. No interest in seeing maps constantly being turned into wastelands of one kind or another just because CA changed the corruption mechanics but forgot to tell the AI.
    While that might be somewhat true, isn't it also true that you should be more pro-active in helping them defeat the corruption and making you feel like a protector of them nations. I know when I play, I do try confederate or vassel lesser nations. Then again, you are known for your anti-vampire stuff, so I am not surprised you want your cake and eat it.

    By the way, there are mods that impose changes to certain buildings that help normalize fighting corruption of different kinds by adding the mechanic to various buildings.


    "Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death." - Vlad von Carstein

    My steam workshop Warhammer II mods
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 15,000Registered Users
    edited January 13
    Lucifer said:

    Lucifer said:

    Hell no.

    There's plenty of ways of dealing with corruption and to be honest, I'd be bored to death without the taints of undeath or chaos corruption that keeps me on my toes and helps me use my agents and buildings to keep it at bay, while my armies mete out justice. I also enjoy when I do play vamps and chaos or dark elves and can taint the lands before invading them.

    Be careful of turning the game into a bland, equal garbage mess, that will present little to no challenge, and visit the mods for things you'd like to change without imposing it on the rest of us that do enjoy the mechanics and challenges that we may face, even if they are enormously un-equal.

    The AI is incapable of dealing with corruption, period. Enough reason to nerf the hell out of it. No interest in seeing maps constantly being turned into wastelands of one kind or another just because CA changed the corruption mechanics but forgot to tell the AI.
    While that might be somewhat true, isn't it also true that you should be more pro-active in helping them defeat the corruption and making you feel like a protector of them nations. I know when I play, I do try confederate or vassel lesser nations. Then again, you are known for your anti-vampire stuff, so I am not surprised you want your cake and eat it.
    No.

    It's not on the player to babysit the AI just because CA forgot to properly program it. Also, since that happens so quickly, there's no point when you play out of the way factions like Hexoatl or the Loremasters. You already have enough corruption to fight where you start.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.