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

The Problem of Chaff Units

Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 25,087
Everyone knows the supply lines mechanic heavily punishes balanced stacks and encourages doomstacks. The way the game treats chaff units however is another huge factor in this.

If you recruit even a single chaff unit into your armies, Skavenslaves, Zombies, Peasants or the like, your AR values are lowered considerably. To the point that BS like this comes out:



If I had no Skavenslaves in that army, the AR would not be that heavily in favor of the tiny garrison (and no, the AI has no chance of winning that fight even if I don't do anything but give an AI attack order). This is yet another poorly thought out mechanic CA implemented. They idea was that people might create mule stacks full of cheap chaff and then AR-abuse through the whole campaign. Well, on one hand that's a legitimate concern, but the method they used to counteract it was just bad since it's yet another reason to doomstack and abandon low tier units completely and remove flavor from factions that are meant to build stacks that contain a few hard hitters surrounded by expendable troops. I mean, if you have to fight every battle against a five unit garrison just because CA doesn't like your army build that becomes annoying really quickly.

(O and do you know that VCoast does not have this and can AR abuse with chaff as much as they want?)

So here's a solution: simply don't allow AR for battles where both sides have 15+ units. Then you can remove the AR penalty from all chaff units. Also rework supply lines, but that's another issue.

«1

Comments

  • RazmirthRazmirth Registered Users Posts: 2,233
    edited March 2019
    I’m not sure what the solution is, but I agree whole heartedly that the AR punishment for chaff is insane.

    I got some pictures on steam of some ludicrous AR values playing as skaven. I took some before and after Pic of the battles which were “unwinable” for AR, but like your picture, was a obvious win for me. And humorously, when I bring a second stack of all slaves along for the ride, my AR value lowers instead of increases.

    I mean I don’t like auto resolving everything in game. But I also can’t stand having to fight the most inconsequential battles so the AR doesn’t have 5 units of enemy saurus warriors killing 300-400 clanrats and slaves each and wiping my entire army.
  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Registered Users Posts: 1,031
    Skaven at least should not have their weak expendable units even be a deciding factor in negative AR values.
    Even in manual battles, it's hard to justify bringing in a cheap unit when the supply lines punish you for it by also increasing those unit's upkeep.
    Skavenslaves should not take up army slots at least. Supply lines are a factor for not enjoying Skaven campaigns at all. I haven't been able to really get one going down to the fact that it takes so long to start fielding the fun units and there's never a point in the game that enforces the numbers over quality they should have.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,103
    I don't get it. It isn't a chaff army is it?

    The 5 Skaven missile units should counter the 3 Skinks

    6 Clan rats and a Rat Ogre counters the Saurus

    When I use Stormvermin they're usually very tough so I assume they could counter the Cold Ones

    Then you just add the Slaves as a small value
  • shadowblade159shadowblade159 Registered Users Posts: 1
    I wonder if they're not counting things like Expendable properly, so figuring that a unit that gets wiped out immediately would cause significant leadership penalties, to the point that they're such a hindrance to your army.
  • FrostPawFrostPaw Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    I wonder if they're not counting things like Expendable properly, so figuring that a unit that gets wiped out immediately would cause significant leadership penalties, to the point that they're such a hindrance to your army.

    There was a trait 'Expendable' which meant even when these units break, they do not frighten allies. I don't remember which units got it though.
  • slicks87slicks87 Registered Users Posts: 8
    Bretonnian infantry has expendable.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,883
    AR is broken.

    My guess is the amount of work taken to actually analyze the thing and bring into line would require too many charlemagnes so they just pass it off to an intern and a sloppily written algorithm that tracks user data.

    Suppy Lines needs to go for armies such as Greenskins and Skaven who require chaff units, and doomstacks are annoying AF.

    Honestly I'm very grumpy about this game lately. I feel like instead of fixing it they just have been slapping on band aids while they develop 3K.

    I'm starting to think that this is due to what's effectively monopoly. No other game really quite does the Total War formula (I would LOVE to see some TW clones pop up!) and on top of that no other game offers WHFB. This series is guaranteed to print money with little to no effort put into it. And I think that's been showing in TWWH2 since launch.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,758
    edited March 2019
    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 25,087
    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,758

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
  • SephlockSephlock Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    Razmirth said:

    I’m not sure what the solution is


    #JusticeForUshoran #RuneGolems #RuneGuardians #ShardDragons #Thunderbarges #Stormfiends #BigMonsters #MoreDakka
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Registered Users Posts: 3,785
    I am convinced the chaff unit autoresolve penalty is a direct answer to Rome 2's autoresolve problem. In Rome 2, if you take the cheapest levy unit you can buy for any faction and just swarm the map with a million of them, all the way up to the general command limit, you can autoresolve amy fight. It could be a 20 stack of Praetorians and if you got 60 levy spears on them you can autoresolve that for minimal loses. If you actually fought it, you'd be **** massacred.

    The autoresolve system itself is a tedious mixup of inevitable problems. It, like any extremely simple mathmatical system, can be gamed extremely easily. There's no skill, just statistics. Beat their statistic. And in TWW, that statistic discourages chaff units. Which, as you pointed out, is **** and adds additional negative consequence to the supply lines feature.

    To fix any of it though, we gotta start with the recruitment system. An antiquated mechanic that it is. Attaching recruitment to tech or buildings mean that you might go entire campaigns without even bothering to use certai units. When was the last time you actually built the White Lion building in campaign, when skipping it for swordmasters is far more efficient. When was the last time you recruited stacks built to support one another? I do it with Vlad and Isabella because the mechanics encourage it and the game is better for it. So why do we have supply lines to discourage it under normal circumstances? Thats an easy strategic layer gutted in favor of doomstacking. When was the last time you took any care and consideration into the expense and rarity of the unit you field. After all, who cares of I lost that unit of Chosen, they're more common than marauders apparently.

    The end of most the complaints I have with TWW starts with their recruitment system. Its the source of nearly every problematic tick. Autoresolve not-balanced evenly? That's because its balanced around the only 4 units each faction will use past turn 30. Building system encouraging the same old "one military province, 99 economy provinces" for every faction? Thats because recruitment is building based rather than a product of the faction. Useless early tech that empowers low tier units you wont ever use past turn 10. Recruitment system problem. Red tier buffs players will outright skip. Recruitment system problem. Factions becoming a chore past midgame due to their inability to play to faction advantage (Skaven). Recruitment system problem. Factions becoming an autoresolve slog past midgame (Chaos). Recruitment system problem. Lack of diversity in army setuos leading to predicatable and repetitive battle outcomes. Recruitment systen problem. I can keep going.

    1) Adopt a unit pooling system. Like TeB. No actual unit caps, but rather unit replenishment. For example, 1 star dragon populates the pool every 15 turns. A clanrar populates every turn. Maybe even twice a turn with enough bonuses to clanrat unit pooling.

    2) Make recruitment of the entire roster available from jump street. Military buildings and tech increase max unit pooling and speeds up availability, with diminishing returns the more of any one unit or particular mil building you have, based on a percentage. So a 20% unit pooling penalty for clanrats wont change anything really but a 20% unit pooling penalty will tack on 2 more turns to Star Dragon recruitment. The first barracks you build may increase state troop pooling by 30%, but the next one will increase it only by 26%. So on and so forth

    This means not having any of a particular unit means they'll pool up at max rate. So lose an army, the units in that army will repopulate quickly to prevent steamrolling.

    3) Remove supply lines. If the changes above go through, a faction will have armies based upon their specific faction pooling and how much they've invested in their military infrastructure. Making the balance between economy and military much more nuanced, especially as you get bigger and need to recruit fast enough to protect yourself.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 1,686
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.

    Like most strategy games, Total War already had a means of balancing the number of units that was intuitive and easy to grasp because it had a basis in reality: it's called 'money'. That wasn't enough though, so they always have to keep piling on the anti-fun ideas that slow everything down and dragging stuff out, whilst at the same time turning doing the opposite to battles. The result being to create a load of uninteresting busywork in both.
  • GrandChamp89GrandChamp89 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,557

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.

    Like most strategy games, Total War already had a means of balancing the number of units that was intuitive and easy to grasp because it had a basis in reality: it's called 'money'. That wasn't enough though, so they always have to keep piling on the anti-fun ideas that slow everything down and dragging stuff out, whilst at the same time turning doing the opposite to battles. The result being to create a load of uninteresting busywork in both.
    That's the main problem I have.
    The Total War franchise have become so, so grindy.

    Constantly pilling penalties on the player while at the same time bombarding your with doomstacks, civil war, infinite armies to deal with. You can do it, but the game seems centered around penalties at it is just not fun to have your progress suddenly got to a hold.
    "It's the hottest fire that forge the strongest steel"
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,758

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.
    Ehehe, looks like we are in total disagreement of this one. I think it was one of the best design idea they ever had. It literally made the series playable again for me.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,981
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    That said, there are potentially other ways to do it.

    Skaven, for instance, have an existing mechanic that can be used to limit army spam: food. It'd probably be perfectly reasonable for the skaven to drop supply lines altogether and have food be the limiting factor.

    Greenskins are a little more difficult to come up with a suitable substitute, but part of it might be to introduce rules in campaign that encourage greenskins to make large stacks which can generate lots of Waaaagh! energy. The composition of the stacks doesn't matter, so if you're short on funds you can happily fill out your stacks with cheap goblins, but a greenskin stack with twenty units is better than four stacks with five units each.
  • RubzyRubzy Registered Users Posts: 205
    Itharus said:

    AR is broken.

    My guess is the amount of work taken to actually analyze the thing and bring into line would require too many charlemagnes so they just pass it off to an intern and a sloppily written algorithm that tracks user data.

    Suppy Lines needs to go for armies such as Greenskins and Skaven who require chaff units, and doomstacks are annoying AF.

    Honestly I'm very grumpy about this game lately. I feel like instead of fixing it they just have been slapping on band aids while they develop 3K.

    I'm starting to think that this is due to what's effectively monopoly. No other game really quite does the Total War formula (I would LOVE to see some TW clones pop up!) and on top of that no other game offers WHFB. This series is guaranteed to print money with little to no effort put into it. And I think that's been showing in TWWH2 since launch.

    Would it be possible to create a game with similar battle mechanics to TWW? There aren't any legal barriers that would prevent anyone from creating a similar game?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 25,087
    Supply lines needs to be reworked to function on a per-unit basis rather than a per-army basis, that's the core of the problem with it. Strongly increase the upkeep of high tier units the more you have of them.

    And Skaven armies should not cost food, that's just enforces more doomstacking. Instead recruiting individual high tier units should cost food upfront.

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 1,686
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.
    Ehehe, looks like we are in total disagreement of this one. I think it was one of the best design idea they ever had. It literally made the series playable again for me.
    Reducing the options available for a player is almost always a bad thing. The problem with multiple small armies was that they gave you multiple small problems to deal with which were neither interesting or challenging: my hated 'busywork' basically. This was without any sign that the AI was even following some clever scheme to disrupt you which could be beaten with an even cleverer scheme to beat it.

    CA had many hypothetical solutions they could have chosen. They went with the very worst. Weirdly enough, they also stacked on other solutions but in a very dilute way such as attrition in hostile territory and some armies requiring food.

    Tomb Kings already showed they could do it better: if they're going to require leaders for armies, then cap the leaders and get rid of the upkeep and supply-lines completely. Or they could get rid of the requirement for leaders but only apply the upkeep penalty to armies without any and make it more severe.

    The options for a designer are endless, but seeing any creative design from CA these days is RNG.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,024



    1) Adopt a unit pooling system. Like TeB. No actual unit caps, but rather unit replenishment. For example, 1 star dragon populates the pool every 15 turns. A clanrar populates every turn. Maybe even twice a turn with enough bonuses to clanrat unit pooling.

    2) Make recruitment of the entire roster available from jump street. Military buildings and tech increase max unit pooling and speeds up availability, with diminishing returns the more of any one unit or particular mil building you have, based on a percentage. So a 20% unit pooling penalty for clanrats wont change anything really but a 20% unit pooling penalty will tack on 2 more turns to Star Dragon recruitment. The first barracks you build may increase state troop pooling by 30%, but the next one will increase it only by 26%. So on and so forth

    This means not having any of a particular unit means they'll pool up at max rate. So lose an army, the units in that army will repopulate quickly to prevent steamrolling.

    3) Remove supply lines. If the changes above go through, a faction will have armies based upon their specific faction pooling and how much they've invested in their military infrastructure. Making the balance between economy and military much more nuanced, especially as you get bigger and need to recruit fast enough to protect yourself.

    This, what an excellent idea.

    @Fear_The_Wolf, you should start a new thread with this idea to see if it gets traction, because not many will see it here
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,758

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.
    Ehehe, looks like we are in total disagreement of this one. I think it was one of the best design idea they ever had. It literally made the series playable again for me.
    Reducing the options available for a player is almost always a bad thing. The problem with multiple small armies was that they gave you multiple small problems to deal with which were neither interesting or challenging: my hated 'busywork' basically. This was without any sign that the AI was even following some clever scheme to disrupt you which could be beaten with an even cleverer scheme to beat it.

    CA had many hypothetical solutions they could have chosen. They went with the very worst. Weirdly enough, they also stacked on other solutions but in a very dilute way such as attrition in hostile territory and some armies requiring food.

    Tomb Kings already showed they could do it better: if they're going to require leaders for armies, then cap the leaders and get rid of the upkeep and supply-lines completely. Or they could get rid of the requirement for leaders but only apply the upkeep penalty to armies without any and make it more severe.

    The options for a designer are endless, but seeing any creative design from CA these days is RNG.
    Yeah, I guess it can be tweaked a lot. But something had to be done, it was basically unplayable before.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,883
    Rubzy said:

    Itharus said:

    AR is broken.

    My guess is the amount of work taken to actually analyze the thing and bring into line would require too many charlemagnes so they just pass it off to an intern and a sloppily written algorithm that tracks user data.

    Suppy Lines needs to go for armies such as Greenskins and Skaven who require chaff units, and doomstacks are annoying AF.

    Honestly I'm very grumpy about this game lately. I feel like instead of fixing it they just have been slapping on band aids while they develop 3K.

    I'm starting to think that this is due to what's effectively monopoly. No other game really quite does the Total War formula (I would LOVE to see some TW clones pop up!) and on top of that no other game offers WHFB. This series is guaranteed to print money with little to no effort put into it. And I think that's been showing in TWWH2 since launch.

    Would it be possible to create a game with similar battle mechanics to TWW? There aren't any legal barriers that would prevent anyone from creating a similar game?
    Absolutely.

    Sword of the Stars was very similar to TW's formula - granted it was a space based 4x. Like TW, however, it had a decent strategic layer and a badass real time combat layer.

    Honestly, Total War is just a clone of Centurion: Defender of Rome anyway.

    Technical proficiency and budget are what's stopping people I think. Plus they might also just not want to be considered clones. Some games are worth cloning though. TW and Mount and Blade come to mind as prime examples of games that need more clones :-P
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Registered Users Posts: 3,785



    1) Adopt a unit pooling system. Like TeB. No actual unit caps, but rather unit replenishment. For example, 1 star dragon populates the pool every 15 turns. A clanrar populates every turn. Maybe even twice a turn with enough bonuses to clanrat unit pooling.

    2) Make recruitment of the entire roster available from jump street. Military buildings and tech increase max unit pooling and speeds up availability, with diminishing returns the more of any one unit or particular mil building you have, based on a percentage. So a 20% unit pooling penalty for clanrats wont change anything really but a 20% unit pooling penalty will tack on 2 more turns to Star Dragon recruitment. The first barracks you build may increase state troop pooling by 30%, but the next one will increase it only by 26%. So on and so forth

    This means not having any of a particular unit means they'll pool up at max rate. So lose an army, the units in that army will repopulate quickly to prevent steamrolling.

    3) Remove supply lines. If the changes above go through, a faction will have armies based upon their specific faction pooling and how much they've invested in their military infrastructure. Making the balance between economy and military much more nuanced, especially as you get bigger and need to recruit fast enough to protect yourself.

    This, what an excellent idea.

    @Fear_The_Wolf, you should start a new thread with this idea to see if it gets traction, because not many will see it here
    I've reiterated this same idea, to some degree, far more than once. Ever since TeB's release actually. I'm not so naive as to believe its anything more than a talking point however.

    CA does not come to the forums to get suggestions to fill their backlog. Especially from people who arent typically game developers, and especially when it comes to a core system like recruitment.

    So I'll wait till someone complains about doomstacks again. Repeat myself. When TWW3 releases I will still be repeating myself. Round and round we go.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 1,686
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.
    Ehehe, looks like we are in total disagreement of this one. I think it was one of the best design idea they ever had. It literally made the series playable again for me.
    Reducing the options available for a player is almost always a bad thing. The problem with multiple small armies was that they gave you multiple small problems to deal with which were neither interesting or challenging: my hated 'busywork' basically. This was without any sign that the AI was even following some clever scheme to disrupt you which could be beaten with an even cleverer scheme to beat it.

    CA had many hypothetical solutions they could have chosen. They went with the very worst. Weirdly enough, they also stacked on other solutions but in a very dilute way such as attrition in hostile territory and some armies requiring food.

    Tomb Kings already showed they could do it better: if they're going to require leaders for armies, then cap the leaders and get rid of the upkeep and supply-lines completely. Or they could get rid of the requirement for leaders but only apply the upkeep penalty to armies without any and make it more severe.

    The options for a designer are endless, but seeing any creative design from CA these days is RNG.
    Yeah, I guess it can be tweaked a lot. But something had to be done, it was basically unplayable before.
    It was unplayable in Warhammer 1, with the AI juking on the campaign map and nothing you could do about it because you were punished for creating more armies to restrict the space the AI could move.

    When they shackled armies to leaders, they had a another brilliant idea to make-up for the missing choices and that was army stances, which made the AI's abuse of campaign movement even worse.

    They took something that was fixable and replaced it with something as bad but unfixable. For game 2, the solution has been simply to make the AI do randomly dumb stuff where they can't get away. The underlying design problem remains.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,758

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.
    Ehehe, looks like we are in total disagreement of this one. I think it was one of the best design idea they ever had. It literally made the series playable again for me.
    Reducing the options available for a player is almost always a bad thing. The problem with multiple small armies was that they gave you multiple small problems to deal with which were neither interesting or challenging: my hated 'busywork' basically. This was without any sign that the AI was even following some clever scheme to disrupt you which could be beaten with an even cleverer scheme to beat it.

    CA had many hypothetical solutions they could have chosen. They went with the very worst. Weirdly enough, they also stacked on other solutions but in a very dilute way such as attrition in hostile territory and some armies requiring food.

    Tomb Kings already showed they could do it better: if they're going to require leaders for armies, then cap the leaders and get rid of the upkeep and supply-lines completely. Or they could get rid of the requirement for leaders but only apply the upkeep penalty to armies without any and make it more severe.

    The options for a designer are endless, but seeing any creative design from CA these days is RNG.
    Yeah, I guess it can be tweaked a lot. But something had to be done, it was basically unplayable before.
    It was unplayable in Warhammer 1, with the AI juking on the campaign map and nothing you could do about it because you were punished for creating more armies to restrict the space the AI could move.

    When they shackled armies to leaders, they had a another brilliant idea to make-up for the missing choices and that was army stances, which made the AI's abuse of campaign movement even worse.

    They took something that was fixable and replaced it with something as bad but unfixable. For game 2, the solution has been simply to make the AI do randomly dumb stuff where they can't get away. The underlying design problem remains.
    I think mandatory leaders were introduced for the first time in Rome 2. It was really a chore before that.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,883
    I loved being able to promote "heroes of the hour" into my family.
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Registered Users Posts: 3,785
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    On one hand, you're right. On the other, I still have post traumatic stress disorder from the microstacks of Medieval II. It could be toned down, but honestly if I have to choose between unbalanced armies and perpetual whack-a-mole, I choose the first any day. I think it's probably a matter of AI more than rules.

    What does that have to do with anything?
    That's the main gameplay reason behind the supply lines penalty. Reducing the army spam.
    Possibly one of the worst ideas CA have ever had and it was caused by another one of the worst ideas they ever had: requiring every army to have a general. Most of the game design now seems to be a series of compromises to fix the previous mistakes.
    Ehehe, looks like we are in total disagreement of this one. I think it was one of the best design idea they ever had. It literally made the series playable again for me.
    Reducing the options available for a player is almost always a bad thing. The problem with multiple small armies was that they gave you multiple small problems to deal with which were neither interesting or challenging: my hated 'busywork' basically. This was without any sign that the AI was even following some clever scheme to disrupt you which could be beaten with an even cleverer scheme to beat it.

    CA had many hypothetical solutions they could have chosen. They went with the very worst. Weirdly enough, they also stacked on other solutions but in a very dilute way such as attrition in hostile territory and some armies requiring food.

    Tomb Kings already showed they could do it better: if they're going to require leaders for armies, then cap the leaders and get rid of the upkeep and supply-lines completely. Or they could get rid of the requirement for leaders but only apply the upkeep penalty to armies without any and make it more severe.

    The options for a designer are endless, but seeing any creative design from CA these days is RNG.
    Yeah, I guess it can be tweaked a lot. But something had to be done, it was basically unplayable before.
    It was unplayable in Warhammer 1, with the AI juking on the campaign map and nothing you could do about it because you were punished for creating more armies to restrict the space the AI could move.

    When they shackled armies to leaders, they had a another brilliant idea to make-up for the missing choices and that was army stances, which made the AI's abuse of campaign movement even worse.

    They took something that was fixable and replaced it with something as bad but unfixable. For game 2, the solution has been simply to make the AI do randomly dumb stuff where they can't get away. The underlying design problem remains.
    I think mandatory leaders were introduced for the first time in Rome 2. It was really a chore before that.
    Mandatory generals exist as a response to a problem with free form armies that popped up in Empire.

    It's not really a bug, so much as a victim of design. An exploit. No two armies can occupy the exact same spot on the map. By having one army with movement remaining, and one army with no movement remaining, you could circumnavigate the movement loss for combining armies and detach/attach an army to give it infinite movement. To curtail this, general leadership was introduced as mandatory to create an army. Can no longer leap frog the length of a map.

    Obviously this had other effects, and I'm sure beating one exploit wasnt the only thought behind it. But it is food for thought....
  • BoombastekBoombastek Registered Users Posts: 2,121

    Everyone knows the supply lines mechanic heavily punishes balanced stacks and encourages doomstacks. The way the game treats chaff units however is another huge factor in this.

    If you recruit even a single chaff unit into your armies, Skavenslaves, Zombies, Peasants or the like, your AR values are lowered considerably. To the point that BS like this comes out:



    If I had no Skavenslaves in that army, the AR would not be that heavily in favor of the tiny garrison (and no, the AI has no chance of winning that fight even if I don't do anything but give an AI attack order). This is yet another poorly thought out mechanic CA implemented. They idea was that people might create mule stacks full of cheap chaff and then AR-abuse through the whole campaign. Well, on one hand that's a legitimate concern, but the method they used to counteract it was just bad since it's yet another reason to doomstack and abandon low tier units completely and remove flavor from factions that are meant to build stacks that contain a few hard hitters surrounded by expendable troops. I mean, if you have to fight every battle against a five unit garrison just because CA doesn't like your army build that becomes annoying really quickly.

    (O and do you know that VCoast does not have this and can AR abuse with chaff as much as they want?)

    So here's a solution: simply don't allow AR for battles where both sides have 15+ units. Then you can remove the AR penalty from all chaff units. Also rework supply lines, but that's another issue.

    No you had that AR cos you attack setlement that only
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,981
    Rubzy said:

    Itharus said:

    AR is broken.

    My guess is the amount of work taken to actually analyze the thing and bring into line would require too many charlemagnes so they just pass it off to an intern and a sloppily written algorithm that tracks user data.

    Suppy Lines needs to go for armies such as Greenskins and Skaven who require chaff units, and doomstacks are annoying AF.

    Honestly I'm very grumpy about this game lately. I feel like instead of fixing it they just have been slapping on band aids while they develop 3K.

    I'm starting to think that this is due to what's effectively monopoly. No other game really quite does the Total War formula (I would LOVE to see some TW clones pop up!) and on top of that no other game offers WHFB. This series is guaranteed to print money with little to no effort put into it. And I think that's been showing in TWWH2 since launch.

    Would it be possible to create a game with similar battle mechanics to TWW? There aren't any legal barriers that would prevent anyone from creating a similar game?
    Shouldn't be. I've worked in IP, and there's not really anything to protect in the historical games apart from the trademarks and the specific code they've used. Plus, I have seen games with similar mechanics - I suspect it's just that most companies prefer not to tackle something so complex.
  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Registered Users Posts: 1,175
    I'd recommend using the mod "TT Unit Caps" by DrunkFlamingo. It limits special and rare units per army, so forces more balanced armies that have to contain a certain number of core (cheap) units. While that does not fix the problem here, it also applies to AI armies so they'll have more chaff units too which should address the problem at least partially.

    I found some point costs a bit off and the limits in general a bit too restrictive, so I tweaked it a bit for myself, but it's really a great mod.
Sign In or Register to comment.