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

Did CA make a pain in the ass to pain dwarfs?

kondenadokondenado Posts: 188Registered Users
I dont know if it just me but i am really hating my gameplay with dwarfs.

a) If i play with karak-kadrim, i have slayers, too bad becuase oon i will fight vampire counts and teh ghouls will beat the **** out of my slayers.

b) If i play starting from karaz-a-karak, the nasty skulkers will screw the **** out of my heavily armored units.

c) turn 30. I just got my tier 3, infantry. Well tier 2, because despite the quarrelers being tier 2, they really suck. I have just infantry, few quarrelers and a **** war machines. It is really boring to play with them

d) if you play on karaz-a-karak be aware of the multiple spam of armies, essentially you will play over and over and over the same battle


the most annoying faction i have ever played.

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 10,906Registered Users
    When I read "despite the quarrelers being tier 2, they really suck" it became evident that it is just you. Quarrelers are awesome. They're one of the best early units in the game. They push out the pain and they're good enough in melee to beat early cav no problem and any early melee infantry unit that's been weakened. Dwarfs are uber strong early, the combination of being heavily armoured while enemy units lack AP makes them tanks.

    That said the playstyle of "set up an anvil and make your opponent break themselves on it" doesn't suit everyone.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwards, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • MakoTheMakoMakoTheMako Posts: 1,244Registered Users
    Slayers arent supposed to fight light infantry, theyre supposed to fight monsters. Ghouls are specifically meant for fighting light infantry and counter Slayers.

    Quarrelers are great, theyre heavy armored, shielded, have good melee stats, and great range and missile damage...

    die about it

  • mightygloinmightygloin Posts: 240Registered Users
    kondenado said:

    I dont know if it just me but i am really hating my gameplay with dwarfs.

    a) If i play with karak-kadrim, i have slayers, too bad becuase oon i will fight vampire counts and teh ghouls will beat the **** out of my slayers.

    Karak Kadrin was the easiest dwarf campaign for me. Ungrim's army with them heavily buffed up naked boys were wrecking anything. Sure it is not perfect but maybe just the dwarf playstyle does not suit you.
  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 1,384Registered Users
    Yeah, it just seems to me that you're not a very good dwarf player. Slayers dominate the battlefield, especially early game, even more against vampires. Quarrellers are your main source of damage and can plough through units easily if you focus fire. Nasty Skulkers are still goblins, focus them and they melt easily - and of course they'll wreck your troops if you let them.

    Dwarfs are not for everyone, but they are far from being bad or annoying to play as. You just don't get how they play (yet).
  • kondenadokondenado Posts: 188Registered Users
    I played dwarfs in tha tabletop and they were fun ...
  • OldblackeyesOldblackeyes Posts: 96Registered Users
    Weird, I generally dislike dwarfs, I find their play style unappealing but I had a blast with with my Thorgrimm campaign. Which other campaigns have you enjoyed? I play a lot of vampires and if I'm going up against dwarfs I usually kick all the ghouls out of my armies, their attacks bounce off armor so badly that they are practically hard countered by everything except slayers.
  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,569Registered Users
    The Dwarfs would be a much more enjoyable faction if they were a Wh2 faction or better yet, a WH2 DLC faction.
    Advocate for Friendly Fire buffs
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 10,906Registered Users

    The Dwarfs would be a much more enjoyable faction if they were a Wh2 faction or better yet, a WH2 DLC faction.

    Not really. They got most of their army book, and their mechanics are plain but solid, especially after their update.

    I'm hopeful for a Chaos Dwarf / Dwarf crossover LP to give them a couple tidbits, but right now they're pretty good. Easily my favourite race to play.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwards, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • FenristhegreatFenristhegreat Member Posts: 349Registered Users
    kondenado said:

    despite the quarrelers being tier 2, they really suck.

    I use quarrellers throughout my Dwarf campaigns. I rarely find a need to replace them with thunderers unless you are expecting to take on a heavily armoured enemy army.

    I use 6 to 8 units of them in most armies...
  • AryndelinAryndelin Junior Member Posts: 839Registered Users
    kondenado said:

    I dont know if it just me but i am really hating my gameplay with dwarfs.

    a) If i play with karak-kadrim, i have slayers, too bad becuase oon i will fight vampire counts and teh ghouls will beat the **** out of my slayers.

    b) If i play starting from karaz-a-karak, the nasty skulkers will screw the **** out of my heavily armored units.

    c) turn 30. I just got my tier 3, infantry. Well tier 2, because despite the quarrelers being tier 2, they really suck. I have just infantry, few quarrelers and a **** war machines. It is really boring to play with them

    d) if you play on karaz-a-karak be aware of the multiple spam of armies, essentially you will play over and over and over the same battle


    the most annoying faction i have ever played.

    A: Slayers are an anti large unit, infantry chews them up. Use slayers to counter cavalry, vargheist and crypt horrors.

    B: As karaz-a-karak, rush to conquer the silver road, quickly take mount gunbad then rush south to defend incoming GS stacks. Use warriors with quarrelers for army early on. swap in longbeards and artillery later. Use slayers for anti large hunters. As karaz a karak you can easily recruit on-the-move as you speed through the silver road. Dont mind if you loose the minor settlements in the silver road again either, you want gunbad as a priority.

    Skulkers: Bombard them with quarreler fire when you spot em.

    C: Quarrelers is one of the best early game units in the game. You'll rely heavily on them and warriors until mid game.
    Grudge throwers is useful to soften up dangerous enemy infantry.
    Dwarfs is a race that shines mid to late game. Organ guns, ironbreakers, irondrakes, flame cannon etc are all very satesfying units to use.

    D : As i said in B, you'll need to rush mount gunbad, then back south. The gold mine and landmark in mount gunbad should pay for 1-2 armies on their own. Combine that with the diamond mine in karaz and you got a strong economy early game. Settle the south, get an army going to conquer north and there's 2 more gold mines to get (one in Drakenhoff and one in the mountains further north of gunbad.)

    And finally, practise playing the dawi and using formations\tactics in battle. I know people leave small gaps in the front line to let their ranged units to fire through them f.ex.



  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,569Registered Users

    The Dwarfs would be a much more enjoyable faction if they were a Wh2 faction or better yet, a WH2 DLC faction.

    Not really. They got most of their army book, and their mechanics are plain but solid, especially after their update.

    I'm hopeful for a Chaos Dwarf / Dwarf crossover LP to give them a couple tidbits, but right now they're pretty good. Easily my favourite race to play.
    Yes really. Just because they got their army book doesn't mean CA interpretation of it is enjoyable or even acceptable in a post TW:Wh2 environment. They are my favorite factions as well but if you think they are fine, you are deluding your self.
    Advocate for Friendly Fire buffs
  • AryndelinAryndelin Junior Member Posts: 839Registered Users
    Oh and before i forget again: Dwarfs need those growth buildings.....badly. Otherwise it'll take forever to upgrade your settlements.
  • AryndelinAryndelin Junior Member Posts: 839Registered Users

    The Dwarfs would be a much more enjoyable faction if they were a Wh2 faction or better yet, a WH2 DLC faction.

    Personal opinion. I very much enjoy the dwarves for what they bring.

    CA has their own take on them, and if i want something different there's Steel Faith and if i want something closer to tabletop there's Boyz will be Boyz. 2 mods that changes things up quite a lot.
  • Boombastek91Boombastek91 Posts: 787Registered Users
    Aryndelin said:

    Oh and before i forget again: Dwarfs need those growth buildings.....badly. Otherwise it'll take forever to upgrade your settlements.

    Edict 30 growth gaving. Plus tech 10 more.
    All time in early game just build walls in major setlement and not caring about rebels. Dwarfs very easy win goblin rebels.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 9,616Registered Users
    Anybody that says Quarrelers suck fighting Greenskins cannot be taken seriously.
    "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~
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 10,906Registered Users

    The Dwarfs would be a much more enjoyable faction if they were a Wh2 faction or better yet, a WH2 DLC faction.

    Not really. They got most of their army book, and their mechanics are plain but solid, especially after their update.

    I'm hopeful for a Chaos Dwarf / Dwarf crossover LP to give them a couple tidbits, but right now they're pretty good. Easily my favourite race to play.
    Yes really. Just because they got their army book doesn't mean CA interpretation of it is enjoyable or even acceptable in a post TW:Wh2 environment. They are my favorite factions as well but if you think they are fine, you are deluding your self.
    I don't think they're fine, I think they're great.

    Dwarfs are the best race in the game. Not everyone shares that opinion but that's okay.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwards, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • ben8vteduben8vtedu Posts: 2,308Registered Users

    The Dwarfs would be a much more enjoyable faction if they were a Wh2 faction or better yet, a WH2 DLC faction.

    Not really. They got most of their army book, and their mechanics are plain but solid, especially after their update.

    I'm hopeful for a Chaos Dwarf / Dwarf crossover LP to give them a couple tidbits, but right now they're pretty good. Easily my favourite race to play.
    Yes really. Just because they got their army book doesn't mean CA interpretation of it is enjoyable or even acceptable in a post TW:Wh2 environment. They are my favorite factions as well but if you think they are fine, you are deluding your self.
    I don't think they're fine, I think they're great.

    Dwarfs are the best race in the game. Not everyone shares that opinion but that's okay.
    Didn't you once say that mountless lords are boring and require no tactical thought?

    I'm inclined to agree with Elector here, mainly because just about every race would be better if they came later. Game 2 races have so much more going for them.

    For one thing, the Dwarfs might have gotten faithful, or at least better, adaptations of things like Ancestral Grudge, Runes, Resolute, Shieldwall, the Anvil of Doom, and other things.

    Also I doubt Miners and Rangers would have been nerfed as hard as they were compared to the Army Book if Dwarfs came now as opposed to at the start. In reality Miners and Rangers should be more like specialized Warriors and Quarrelers, not lite versions of either. Instead, Miners are a bad unit that you don't really recruit beyond turn 5 and Rangers are just squishy Quarrelers with less ammo. Bugman's Rangers are now what regular Rangers should have been, and we shouldn't have gotten split variants either; they should be one unit with crossbows, throwing axes, and great weapons. Bugman's Rangers should have been the RoR.

    In regards to the OP, it sounds like you're playing them wrong. Even in Karak Kadrin, Slayers should not be your front line. Use them as anti-large or as flankers, don't let them take a charge if you can help it. I've never thought of Nasty Skulkers as anything more than a nuisance since they have bad leadership and low armor; use those Quarrelers who you say suck so bad and pincushion them as soon as they're spotted. If they make it to your line with full HP, you only have yourself to blame.

    On the campaign map, build tall not wide. Starting in Karaz-a-Karak, you will be filthy rich even if you just conquer the provinces surrounding the Silver Road; you should make enough cash from just those provinces to see you into the late game. Karak Kadrin can do something similar by taking Rib Peaks, Karak Ungor, and confederating Zhufbar.
    Keep Grombrindal in KaK, K8P should be 10 slots, Dogs of War should be a horde, DoC should be one race- Change my mind

    Give us a Slayer Hero!
  • Gunga_dinGunga_din Member Posts: 317Registered Users
    It's simply your playstyle. Dwarfs are all about using your sturdy infantry to defend your artillery and ranged troops while they wreak havoc. If you think quarrelers suck, you must be doing something wrong. In harder difficulties you gotta focus fire, spread some gaps in the melee infantry to expose enemy flanks, retreat your melee sometimes, keep units ready to plug in the gaps and other more complicated maneuvers, but in easier ones mass them up early on and watch as they melt everything.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 10,906Registered Users
    ben8vtedu said:

    The Dwarfs would be a much more enjoyable faction if they were a Wh2 faction or better yet, a WH2 DLC faction.

    Not really. They got most of their army book, and their mechanics are plain but solid, especially after their update.

    I'm hopeful for a Chaos Dwarf / Dwarf crossover LP to give them a couple tidbits, but right now they're pretty good. Easily my favourite race to play.
    Yes really. Just because they got their army book doesn't mean CA interpretation of it is enjoyable or even acceptable in a post TW:Wh2 environment. They are my favorite factions as well but if you think they are fine, you are deluding your self.
    I don't think they're fine, I think they're great.

    Dwarfs are the best race in the game. Not everyone shares that opinion but that's okay.
    Didn't you once say that mountless lords are boring and require no tactical thought?

    I'm inclined to agree with Elector here, mainly because just about every race would be better if they came later. Game 2 races have so much more going for them.

    For one thing, the Dwarfs might have gotten faithful, or at least better, adaptations of things like Ancestral Grudge, Runes, Resolute, Shieldwall, the Anvil of Doom, and other things.

    Also I doubt Miners and Rangers would have been nerfed as hard as they were compared to the Army Book if Dwarfs came now as opposed to at the start. In reality Miners and Rangers should be more like specialized Warriors and Quarrelers, not lite versions of either. Instead, Miners are a bad unit that you don't really recruit beyond turn 5 and Rangers are just squishy Quarrelers with less ammo. Bugman's Rangers are now what regular Rangers should have been, and we shouldn't have gotten split variants either; they should be one unit with crossbows, throwing axes, and great weapons. Bugman's Rangers should have been the RoR.

    In regards to the OP, it sounds like you're playing them wrong. Even in Karak Kadrin, Slayers should not be your front line. Use them as anti-large or as flankers, don't let them take a charge if you can help it. I've never thought of Nasty Skulkers as anything more than a nuisance since they have bad leadership and low armor; use those Quarrelers who you say suck so bad and pincushion them as soon as they're spotted. If they make it to your line with full HP, you only have yourself to blame.

    On the campaign map, build tall not wide. Starting in Karaz-a-Karak, you will be filthy rich even if you just conquer the provinces surrounding the Silver Road; you should make enough cash from just those provinces to see you into the late game. Karak Kadrin can do something similar by taking Rib Peaks, Karak Ungor, and confederating Zhufbar.
    I've got over 10,000 comments here, I've said a lot of stuff.

    Anyway, the generic lords are boring, but the race is my favourite. If it were in TWW2 it'd be even better, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hold up. Dwarfs are like triangles; strong, they can hold up a lot.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwards, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • SakuraHeinzSakuraHeinz Junior Member Posts: 1,621Registered Users
    edited January 13


    https://imgur.com/a/hY1foyh

    I dont know if I play Karak Kadrin it seems to do fine.
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 2,156Registered Users
    Broken record here but the Dwarfs have one of the most solid Campaigns of any faction, even in comparison to game 2 factions. If it seems like you're constantly outnumbered, constantly grinding through the crowds, it's because that actually helps balance out their fantastic campaign.

    - They confederate quickly and easily. Do your best to drive back the Greenskins and the rest of the Dwarfs rally behind you.

    - Their economy, garrisons, starting units, etc. are beyond incredible. The Quarrelers you have a problem with can break the backs of near anything the Greenskins field for well past turn 30. And they excel against Vampires. Their basic infantry do not break, and do not die easily. And while expensive early, their fantastic economy quickly tilts that back into managable.

    - Their Lords are incredible, especially the White Dwarf on campaign.

    The foundation of any argument against them could originate in runes I suppose. Right now they're simply in battle abilities, and you get only a few. But they aren't missing anything they had on TT and then some.

    Seen it mentioned above that rangers and miners aren't implemented properly. Miners are one of the cheapest forms of reliable AP in the game and their blasting charges make up their cost rapidly. Miners are one of the most consistent units I've seen in MP, where they aren't just eclipsed by Ironbreakers. And rangers are never out of the running. Able to surprise enemies who expect your to simply turtle up, kick ass in melee, and are actually the strongest range vs range duelist in the game due to their equipment if your opponent is foolish enough to trade shots with Dwarfs.

    The faction is simple and straight forward. But that also helps add to their charm. I can safely recommend these guys to newcomers to the series, and have done so. In battle their ease of play leads to consistent wins. And on campaign their ease of diplomacy and mechanics leads to reliability. Not perfect. But probably the best game 1 faction right now for people new jumping into the series.
  • ben8vteduben8vtedu Posts: 2,308Registered Users

    Seen it mentioned above that rangers and miners aren't implemented properly. Miners are one of the cheapest forms of reliable AP in the game and their blasting charges make up their cost rapidly. Miners are one of the most consistent units I've seen in MP, where they aren't just eclipsed by Ironbreakers. And rangers are never out of the running. Able to surprise enemies who expect your to simply turtle up, kick ass in melee, and are actually the strongest range vs range duelist in the game due to their equipment if your opponent is foolish enough to trade shots with Dwarfs.

    This is about campaign though, not MP. In MP, cost plays a much higher role for obvious reasons but that point shouldn't be all that relevant since only a relative handful of players participate in MP.

    Your point about blasting charges might make sense if they didn't require the gunsmith's forge to unlock, effectively making them a de facto tier 3 unit. At that same time you should be getting great weapon warriors, thunderers, cannons, and both types of longbeards, any one of which adds more to your army than a sub-par melee unit with blasting charges. Miners might be decent compared to some other races' tier 1 troops but compared to the rest of the Dwarf roster, they're a weak link in the chain.

    How can Rangers be the strongest range duelists when Quarrelers have more armor, more ammo, more HP, and more leadership? They've even got less melee defense so they don't do all that well in close combat either. Vanguard and Stalk might help them sneak up on the enemy, but once they open fire they reveal themselves and even an AI with half a brain will immediately send mobile units to tear them up. They also suffer from the same problem as blasting charge Miners, being that they're recruited from a tier 3 building so you should already have access to both types of Quarrelers by the time you get access to Rangers.

    For the record here, I'm talking about bog standard Rangers, not Bugman's Rangers, who are a pretty good unit, or great weapon Rangers who have their uses but are nonetheless a very niche pick. In my opinion, Rangers should be one unit with both types of missiles and combat stats equivalent to Quarrelers while still trading some armor for speed with a commensurate hike in cost. Miners should have Great Weapon Warrior stats and should come with blasting charges as standard and again a commensurate increase in price. They shouldn't be some kind of citizen levy unit; rather they should be more like specialized Warriors.
    Keep Grombrindal in KaK, K8P should be 10 slots, Dogs of War should be a horde, DoC should be one race- Change my mind

    Give us a Slayer Hero!
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Posts: 2,785Registered Users
    edited January 13
    I stopped reading after "quarrelers suck". You don't know what you're doing.
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 2,156Registered Users
    ben8vtedu said:

    Seen it mentioned above that rangers and miners aren't implemented properly. Miners are one of the cheapest forms of reliable AP in the game and their blasting charges make up their cost rapidly. Miners are one of the most consistent units I've seen in MP, where they aren't just eclipsed by Ironbreakers. And rangers are never out of the running. Able to surprise enemies who expect your to simply turtle up, kick ass in melee, and are actually the strongest range vs range duelist in the game due to their equipment if your opponent is foolish enough to trade shots with Dwarfs.

    This is about campaign though, not MP. In MP, cost plays a much higher role for obvious reasons but that point shouldn't be all that relevant since only a relative handful of players participate in MP.
    Look I am not one of those MP purist, I don't typically like to argue from that standpoint. I myself outright won't do MP quickplay anymore do to the outright ludicrous measures people go to to avoid a loss. I can only play find the hiding LL so many times before I can't take it anymore.

    But the argument for miners being effective from a MP standpoint is relevant. If only because MP actually makes use of the full rosters, and SP has a pervading problem of Elitism. So when I argue whether or not a unit is effective its not in relevance to its "tier" in SP, so much as how it fits into the battle set up for the faction overall. Miners with blasting charges are worth it. Just significantly less so when you can just replace them with superior Ironbreakers. Rangers are worth it due to their ability to surprise opponents with unconventional Dwarf tactics. But since the AI just runs headlong into your shieldwall why would you care in the first place.

    The reality of it is, under the current recruitment system some units are relevant predominately to the QB/MP scene. Dwarfs are not the only faction to run into this. Skaven Slaves were the most common infantry unit to the Skaven on TT, yet are never fielded at all in Campaign. Lizardmen Cav all become pointless when you unlock Horned Ones. Taking your cav options from 3 to 1. I could cite units from factions for an hour that have it far worse than miners or rangers when it comes to campaign relevance. Here's a now legendary one, when was the last time anyone recruited High Elf White Lions, when Swordmasters come up just as quick.

    So yea, Miners pale in comparison to other options the Dwarfs field. The tactical advantage of Rangers is useless against a clueless AI. But we can't just take each and every unit and level out their stats to match each other for relevancy sake. No other roster does that. Total War Warhammer, does not do that. It would make it pointless to even field other options. Argue for a recruitment system that demands you use the whole roster, because as it stands we are all playing the same elite forcused Warhammer. I hate the current limitless recruitment system. Where quick battles are the only way to truly take stock of roster options.
  • SultschiemSultschiem Posts: 1,355Registered Users
    I agree with Karak Kadrin being a pretty bad start....challenging, but it feels bad... especially on legendary it becomes horrible to play...


    But the others? If you play Dwarf Warriors, Catapults/Bolt Thorwers and quarrelers armies and you think quarrelers suck, you do it wrong...

    the entire point of early dwarven armies is: make your frontline hoid, your quarrelers kill all skirmishers, then they flank around and destroy the enemy lines.....

    as you improve your armie with satchel charges and different artillery, your tactics will vary. Especially organ guns and flame cannons are fun.


    Dwarves are all about formations and navigating your units right and much more tactical than just sending your units in.
  • Boombastek91Boombastek91 Posts: 787Registered Users



    https://imgur.com/a/hY1foyh

    I dont know if I play Karak Kadrin it seems to do fine.

    Hm i not try but i think 19 giant slayers for Ungrim would be more effective.
    +20 attack for them it outstanding. And ofc +60%repleshment. And dont forget with Festag they got +24% dmg with all red skills
  • ben8vteduben8vtedu Posts: 2,308Registered Users

    ben8vtedu said:

    Seen it mentioned above that rangers and miners aren't implemented properly. Miners are one of the cheapest forms of reliable AP in the game and their blasting charges make up their cost rapidly. Miners are one of the most consistent units I've seen in MP, where they aren't just eclipsed by Ironbreakers. And rangers are never out of the running. Able to surprise enemies who expect your to simply turtle up, kick ass in melee, and are actually the strongest range vs range duelist in the game due to their equipment if your opponent is foolish enough to trade shots with Dwarfs.

    This is about campaign though, not MP. In MP, cost plays a much higher role for obvious reasons but that point shouldn't be all that relevant since only a relative handful of players participate in MP.
    Look I am not one of those MP purist, I don't typically like to argue from that standpoint. I myself outright won't do MP quickplay anymore do to the outright ludicrous measures people go to to avoid a loss. I can only play find the hiding LL so many times before I can't take it anymore.

    But the argument...
    I'm not arguing from the standpoint that SP nullifies early tier units; it does and that's bad game design and a whole other conversation entirely, but that's not where I'm coming from. I'm arguing that Miners and Rangers were artificially nerfed into tier 1 units or at least tier-1-quality units when they shouldn't even be there. Miners were a Special choice on TT while Rangers were Rare; that's not reflected at all in TW. If you had to guess the role Miners played on TT based purely on their TW incarnation you'd have to conclude that they filled some sort of "militia levy" role not unlike Skaven Slaves or the Peasant Mob when that is absolutely not the case.

    Both units should be lateral offshoots of Warriors or Quarrelers, not downgraded versions of them. They should open up tactical options for you but they should also make you pay for it. For example, Miners should cost about the same as shielded Longbeards; it's enough of a price hike so that Warriors are still relevant but not so much that you don't get your money's worth. Similar units in other rosters, especially WH2 rosters, do this. Rangers should be to Quarrelers what Shades are to Darkshards or what Shadow Warriors are to HE Archers, more or less.

    I'm glad you brought up White Lions since they're kind of in the same boat in that they also got knocked down a tier in the transition to TT. But even then, they don't have it quite so bad since they're a tier 3 unit and you don't get Swordmasters until tier 4. Compare this to Blasting Charge Miners (since they're the only quasi-useful vairant) and Rangers who get unlocked at tier 3 while the better Warriors and Quarrelers get unlocked at tier 1 and 2 respectively. Meanwhile, the other units which get unlocked at tier 3, those being Thunderers, cannons, and Longbeards, are just better investments overall.
    Keep Grombrindal in KaK, K8P should be 10 slots, Dogs of War should be a horde, DoC should be one race- Change my mind

    Give us a Slayer Hero!
  • mightygloinmightygloin Posts: 240Registered Users
    ben8vtedu said:

    For one thing, the Dwarfs might have gotten faithful, or at least better, adaptations of things like Ancestral Grudge, Runes, Resolute, Shieldwall, the Anvil of Doom, and other things.

    Also I doubt Miners and Rangers would have been nerfed as hard as they were compared to the Army Book if Dwarfs came now as opposed to at the start. In reality Miners and Rangers should be more like specialized Warriors and Quarrelers, not lite versions of either. Instead, Miners are a bad unit that you don't really recruit beyond turn 5 and Rangers are just squishy Quarrelers with less ammo. Bugman's Rangers are now what regular Rangers should have been, and we shouldn't have gotten split variants either; they should be one unit with crossbows, throwing axes, and great weapons. Bugman's Rangers should have been the RoR.

    Well said, fully agree with this. This seems like one of those instances where CA twisted the source a bit to fit this race better into their balancing scheme. E.g. in TT miners had 4 WS and goblins have 2, but in the game miners have far worse melee stats just to make them dwarf chaff. By lore dwarf warriors are levied citizens just like miners yet they have far better status.

  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 3,605Registered Users
    How different ones experiences are!

    Any one of the three starting positions with the Dwarfs is an enjoyable experience for me each one for different reasons and the Dwarf units are tough as nuts, especially in the early game.

    Karak Kadrin has you juggling a terribad economy and trying to expand and keep your holdings whilst not getting too many factions to declare war on you. At the same time your one single stack rocks one of the best early game units gold can buy. Tons of Slayers wipe out anything the early game throws at you and they can even chase down other infantry. Madness!

    Karaz-a-Karak positions you in a super rich and easily defendable part of the map. By holding just the provinces of Karaz-a-Karak, Barak Varr, Black Crag and Mount Gunbad you get access to one Gem Mine, two Gold Mines, a Harbour, two Special Mines and more trade goods in the form of Lumber, Golden Idols, Gemstones, Furs, Dyes, Obsidian and Iron than you can shake your fist at. Start at Karaz-a-Karak and claim those four provinces and watch the resurgence of the Everlasting Realm.

    Karak Izor. You juggle a relatively bad economy, your one army (which because of the Ancestor Heroes is quite awesome) and then the slew of enemies coming at you trying to keep you from going to Karak Eight Peaks. This is my favourite campaign in game preciseoy because at the start it is quite relentless.


    Also Dwarf Warriors backed up by Quarrellers and Grudge Throwers is awesome for a long while. Let the Warriors hold, the Quarrellers circle around shoot in the sides or rear and then the Grudge Throwers just soften the enemy up and keep them fleeing.
    Lord of the Undermountain
Sign In or Register to comment.