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

We need to stop this "total war" to tabletop mutation forcing on us, while we still have it right!

Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
As an excellent example of statements used by some game minority, that are ganged in very loud forum lobby.
Itharus said:

Games where you can just spam a high tier deathball and faceroll to victory SUCK.

Wow! What stupidly embittered statement.
This is direct insult to fans of all the great and, really, close to sacred strategy games, by now.
That kind of concept depreciates gaming experience and impressions on millions and millions strategy gamers for the last decades and more.

Let's see.
So. Which were the good strategy games? (Few, just some personal preference, we all can name much more of these.)
"Warcraft" 2 and 3 + expansions, "starcraft" + "broodwar", "age of empires" 1 and 2, "stronghold" + "crusader", "civilization 3", "settlers 3", "heroes of might and magic" 3 and 4, "Rome: total war" and "medieval 2", "disciples 2", "red alert 2", "majesty", "spellforce" 1 and 2 + expansions, "king's bounty: the legend", "king Arthur".

All of these following are vs A.I. examples in the games.
"Warcraft 2" - can go mass dragons, or mass bloodlusted ogres and destroy everything.
"Warcraft 3" - go for mass knights and griffons and stomp everything.
"Starcraft: brood war" and "starcraft 2" - can make mass battlecruisers and obliterate everything.
"Age of empires 2" - can go mass paladins of elephants and squelch everything.
"Stronghold" and "stronghold: crusader" - can build mass crossbowmen and swordsmen troops and overwhelm everything.
"Civilization 3" - can go for mass modern armour and run over everything.
"Heroes of might and magic" 3 and 4 (and others) - can take mass dragons and angels and incinerate everything.
"Rome: total war" - can build mass armoured elephants and conquer everything!
"Medieval 2: total war" - can build mass knights and charge down everything!
"Disciples 2" - where the whole point is to get paladins and prophetesses and annihilate everything.
"Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2" - go for mass apocalypses, and we will bury them!
"Majesty" - go for mass paladins and overcome everything.
"Spellforce 2" - Go for mass axewielders and berserks and chop down everything.

In "heroes of might and magic 3" no one, like no one in their right mind will go for peasants or even halberdiers when they have archangels, black dragons and titans. The whole point of gameplay is to get to these "cool stuff" and dominate the A.I. To win with the best, the most powerful instruments.
Other strategies with more role-play and abusing A.I. with mages or death knights in "warcraft 2", for example, can have place. This is what freedom is about. To choose your personal fun and powerful instruments to win.

No one dares to oppress this sacred strategy games concept.

And, to you, sane people, - why are you using agenda terms? Like: "doomstacks are bad". To shame something that was and is the way to play strategy games the whole history?
And why some of you excuse yourself before toxic agenda spreaders? Really? "We do not do this".
Are you ashamed of your free choice? Are you guys totally lost self-respect in this western "postmodernism" forced paradigm?
This whole discussions ideologically are shadowy but still related to "gamers are bad people, especially men are bad in general".
Is this absurd shaming works on you? Now you self-police yourself?

Girls and boys be proud of your freedom, of your choice to play the great game the way you want it! The way you like it!
«1

Comments

  • Theo91Theo91 Posts: 976Registered Users
    I feel like this thread is not long for this world.

    Even if you have valid points, phrasing them that way probably isn’t the smartest decision
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users
    edited August 28
    Medieval 2 actually had a cap on elite units: they were slowly spawned into the recruitment pool by military building. It would be great to see that mechanics in Warhammer. Rome 2 had a manpower cap. Starcraft and Warcraft had a supply cap (elite units cost more supply so you can field less of them). The last two Civs cap some units with strategic resources. I don't understand why those are ok for you freedom folks, while a dynamic cap on some units is not.
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,507Registered Users
    Rome 2 never had any kind of unit cap except heroes of Sparta.
    In late game Most Celtic armies were oathsworn only...
    ToB did a pretty good job in my opinion, with units beeing just available in limited numbers and refreshing after some turns.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    Rome 2 never had any kind of unit cap except heroes of Sparta.
    I

    You're right, I meant Rome 1. It had a limited manpower pool in cities.
  • UagrimUagrim Posts: 666Registered Users
    Warcraft, Starcraft, AoE 2, C&C, Spellforce, Stronghold

    Are all match based where you need to tech up and even then in some cases low tech units wont just go away. Best example the marine/zergling/zealot units in starcraft they are still used lategame. You can't compare these games to TWs campaign mode you can compare them to MP skirmish where you can see low tier units are used often.

    Unlike in capmaign where most of the roster is invalid after 50 turns, if you have BO why waste your time with big uns and savage orks.

    Heroes of Might and Magic

    Has a growth system you need to grow the stock of available units to recruit and elite units grow slower then high tier units.

    I don't see many of these comparisons as well thought out.

    But why are you so bad against the OPTION for players to have unitcaps and not one shoo horned in by mods.
  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Medieval 2 actually had a cap on elite units: they were slowly spawned into the recruitment pool by military building. It would be great to see that mechanics in Warhammer. Rome 2 had a manpower cap. Starcraft and Warcraft had a supply cap (elite units cost more supply so you can field less of them). The last two Civs cap some units with strategic resources. I don't understand why those are ok for you freedom folks, while a dynamic cap on some units is not.

    To all of these points. Like: "factories need to support, not only produce" and "starcraft" total unit limit.
    One word. Upkeep.
    Upkeep cost or supply cost are present in many games. And player can make elite armies only. This is absolutely unrelated things. "All elites" in army and "supply cost".
    This is comparing warm and soft. Or sour and square. Totally misleading.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,432Registered Users
    I often disagree with @Itharus but they're a very much welcome member of this community and the community is all the better for their presence. You invalidate your own argument by attacking this user.

    I'm not even sure what the point of the thread is. If you're arguing against caps it's probably best to argue against them in the threads where they're proposed. While I too am against putting caps in place this is not the way to go about making that argument.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • crazycakemancrazycakeman Posts: 173Registered Users
    edited August 28
    With historical TW games unit caps werent necessary because (for the most part) you start off with units from a certain era and as you move through the years you upgrade those units (think Hastati to legionaries).

    It's a little different with Warhammer because having an entire army of Star Dragons or Dragon Ogres, animals that are supposed to be rare and forever dorment, doesn't make any lore sense.

    This is more of an issue for people who play the game for the battles then the campaign.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Medieval 2 actually had a cap on elite units: they were slowly spawned into the recruitment pool by military building. It would be great to see that mechanics in Warhammer. Rome 2 had a manpower cap. Starcraft and Warcraft had a supply cap (elite units cost more supply so you can field less of them). The last two Civs cap some units with strategic resources. I don't understand why those are ok for you freedom folks, while a dynamic cap on some units is not.

    To all of these points. Like: "factories need to support, not only produce" and "starcraft" total unit limit.
    One word. Upkeep.
    Upkeep cost or supply cost are present in many games. And player can make elite armies only. This is absolutely unrelated things. "All elites" in army and "supply cost".
    This is comparing warm and soft. Or sour and square. Totally misleading.
    Well, let's go with Starcraft. You have three "resources".

    1) Actual resources, minerals and gas
    2) Supply, represented by warehouses/pylons/overlords
    3) Production speed, represented by military buildings

    You have to balance those three. If you build resource gatherers you aren't building up supplies, if you spam warehouses you'll have a high supply limit but you'll replace losses slowly. It's a good system. Now, in Warhammer there is just one resource: money. You don't have a supply limit, and your production capacity isn't limited by military infrastructure. So Starcraft mechanics are actually *more* limiting.
  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
    Uagrim said:

    Warcraft, Starcraft, AoE 2, C&C, Spellforce, Stronghold

    Are all match based where you need to tech up and even then in some cases low tech units wont just go away. Best example the marine/zergling/zealot units in starcraft they are still used lategame. You can't compare these games to TWs campaign mode you can compare them to MP skirmish where you can see low tier units are used often.

    Unlike in capmaign where most of the roster is invalid after 50 turns, if you have BO why waste your time with big uns and savage orks.

    Heroes of Might and Magic

    Has a growth system you need to grow the stock of available units to recruit and elite units grow slower then high tier units.

    I don't see many of these comparisons as well thought out.

    But why are you so bad against the OPTION for players to have unitcaps and not one shoo horned in by mods.

    Like in "warhammer" you can use darkshards in the late game too. And to good effect.
    But mass cruisers are stronger than mass marines the way shades are stronger than darkshards.
    And this whole discussion is about single player campaigns. Vs A.I. it is always better to tech up and use strong units.

    Right. For those who want all units to be relevant - we have a great multiplayer mode in "warhammer".

    What we compare is stack vs stack. Or card vs card in "total war". Weakly grows of archangels are many times stronger than peasant's.

    And I am pro-choice here. I am for option for players. But minor loud lobby want to force all of us to follow their totalitarian rules. This is unacceptable.
  • SetrusSetrus Senior Member SwedenPosts: 18,420Registered Users
    I got OPs point until the end...wth was that all about?
    Don't worry.
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Posts: 980Registered Users
    I'm not sure why you have heroes of might and magic 3 on your list, as it is a perfect example of the opposite. You never stop using halberdiers, even after you unlock archangels. A typical lategame haven army in HoMM3 would have hundreds of halberdiers, and only a small group of archangels. That is how it should be for warhammer aswell, IMO. The cool stuff should be in addition to the basic troops, not replace it completely.

    For me, some of the cool things about dragons and such are putting them against the more normal troops to show off their strength. If every faction goes from low tier to mid tier to high tier at the same time, then epic elite units like swordmasters and dragons lose some of their coolness, at least for me.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Posts: 3,102Registered Users
    Well, this is rather silly. Spamming elites isn't some noble and beautiful legacy of strategy games, it is an issue that has dogged the genre for years. It trivialises the game when all you need to do to win is pump out super units.

    That said I don't think an arbtrary cap being forced on everyone is a good solution, instead CA could take a page out of 3K's book, which had "Historical" and "Dynasty" modes, and give the option to players to have caps on "special" and "rare" units in their armies. I for one would rarely play the mode without caps, and also it adds the opportunity for further differentiation of Lords and LL, for example Throgg could take trolls in his army as a core (maybe a marauder unit such as Champions get bumped up to rare in exchange).
  • UagrimUagrim Posts: 666Registered Users

    Uagrim said:

    Warcraft, Starcraft, AoE 2, C&C, Spellforce, Stronghold

    Are all match based where you need to tech up and even then in some cases low tech units wont just go away. Best example the marine/zergling/zealot units in starcraft they are still used lategame. You can't compare these games to TWs campaign mode you can compare them to MP skirmish where you can see low tier units are used often.

    Unlike in capmaign where most of the roster is invalid after 50 turns, if you have BO why waste your time with big uns and savage orks.

    Heroes of Might and Magic

    Has a growth system you need to grow the stock of available units to recruit and elite units grow slower then high tier units.

    I don't see many of these comparisons as well thought out.

    But why are you so bad against the OPTION for players to have unitcaps and not one shoo horned in by mods.

    Like in "warhammer" you can use darkshards in the late game too. And to good effect.
    But mass cruisers are stronger than mass marines the way shades are stronger than darkshards.
    And this whole discussion is about single player campaigns. Vs A.I. it is always better to tech up and use strong units.

    Right. For those who want all units to be relevant - we have a great multiplayer mode in "warhammer".

    What we compare is stack vs stack. Or card vs card in "total war". Weakly grows of archangels are many times stronger than peasant's.

    And I am pro-choice here. I am for option for players. But minor loud lobby want to force all of us to follow their totalitarian rules. This is unacceptable.
    You can but its not gonna do much when you get like 8 dragons thrown at you.

    Mass cruiser also doesn't beat everything unlike mass star dragons.

    And you know why its better because their is no downside to it, infact you get punished for having two weaker stacks instead of a single strong one due to supply lines.

    Not everyone has a the internet connection for multiplayer besides a hole bunch of other things that you can't do in multiplayer.

    But you still cant recruit a full stack of angels instantly.

    You did not read my last sentence did you?

    For being pro choice you seem extremely against the choice to add unit caps as an OPTION to select.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users

    Uagrim said:

    Warcraft, Starcraft, AoE 2, C&C, Spellforce, Stronghold

    Are all match based where you need to tech up and even then in some cases low tech units wont just go away. Best example the marine/zergling/zealot units in starcraft they are still used lategame. You can't compare these games to TWs campaign mode you can compare them to MP skirmish where you can see low tier units are used often.

    Unlike in capmaign where most of the roster is invalid after 50 turns, if you have BO why waste your time with big uns and savage orks.

    Heroes of Might and Magic

    Has a growth system you need to grow the stock of available units to recruit and elite units grow slower then high tier units.

    I don't see many of these comparisons as well thought out.

    But why are you so bad against the OPTION for players to have unitcaps and not one shoo horned in by mods.

    Like in "warhammer" you can use darkshards in the late game too. And to good effect.
    But mass cruisers are stronger than mass marines the way shades are stronger than darkshards.
    And this whole discussion is about single player campaigns. Vs A.I. it is always better to tech up and use strong units.

    Right. For those who want all units to be relevant - we have a great multiplayer mode in "warhammer".

    What we compare is stack vs stack. Or card vs card in "total war". Weakly grows of archangels are many times stronger than peasant's.

    And I am pro-choice here. I am for option for players. But minor loud lobby want to force all of us to follow their totalitarian rules. This is unacceptable.
    Calm down, mate. Balancing games has nothing to do with totalitarianism. Games are sets of limitations, at their core. You can't play Windows solitaire by putting your cards wherever you want.
  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
    edited August 28

    I often disagree with @Itharus but they're a very much welcome member of this community and the community is all the better for their presence. You invalidate your own argument by attacking this user.

    I'm not even sure what the point of the thread is. If you're arguing against caps it's probably best to argue against them in the threads where they're proposed. While I too am against putting caps in place this is not the way to go about making that argument.

    First. There were no "personal attacks".
    Or we can take that statement like personal too?
    "Games where you can just spam a high tier deathball and faceroll to victory SUCK."
    And should we take personal this one?
    "Me neither, they are frustrated people in real life so they take their frustrations online... their life is this game. i just ignore them since they don't provide any realistic useful output. but listen to you and him."
    Looks like dishonestly double standards.

    Second. Argument is never validated by a person. Only by truth. What you did is "argumentum ad hominem". Falseness propaganda method.
    I critique only statements not persons.
  • KobayashimaruKobayashimaru Member Posts: 222Registered Users
    What is this thread?! What are you talking about?!
    Total war is nothing like those strategy games that you gave as an example. It is not in the same cathegory as them, not even by far.
    Yes, doomstacks are bad in total war game. Always were, always will be. I don't care about ******* warcraft, lol.
    Total war, on one hand, always strived to make gameplay feel authentic, to make you feel you are actually leading an empire, commanding real armies. It always made efforts to implement "realistic", immersive and believable gameplay mechanics. On the other hand, it had problems with doomstacks, which are completely opposite and contrary to all those efforts. Doomstacks are counter-immersive, counter-authentic and just bad from the gameplay perspective.
    Total war was always a historical game and yes, warhammer is fantasy, but it's still total war and in my opinionnit can't and should not break those tenets.

    Ps. What's with that last "men are all bad" statement?! What does that have to do with anything here?! Leave that femminist/counter femminist rethoric out of here!
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Posts: 980Registered Users

    Uagrim said:

    Warcraft, Starcraft, AoE 2, C&C, Spellforce, Stronghold

    Are all match based where you need to tech up and even then in some cases low tech units wont just go away. Best example the marine/zergling/zealot units in starcraft they are still used lategame. You can't compare these games to TWs campaign mode you can compare them to MP skirmish where you can see low tier units are used often.

    Unlike in capmaign where most of the roster is invalid after 50 turns, if you have BO why waste your time with big uns and savage orks.

    Heroes of Might and Magic

    Has a growth system you need to grow the stock of available units to recruit and elite units grow slower then high tier units.

    I don't see many of these comparisons as well thought out.

    But why are you so bad against the OPTION for players to have unitcaps and not one shoo horned in by mods.

    Like in "warhammer" you can use darkshards in the late game too. And to good effect.
    But mass cruisers are stronger than mass marines the way shades are stronger than darkshards.
    And this whole discussion is about single player campaigns. Vs A.I. it is always better to tech up and use strong units.

    Right. For those who want all units to be relevant - we have a great multiplayer mode in "warhammer".

    What we compare is stack vs stack. Or card vs card in "total war". Weakly grows of archangels are many times stronger than peasant's.

    And I am pro-choice here. I am for option for players. But minor loud lobby want to force all of us to follow their totalitarian rules. This is unacceptable.

    I often disagree with @Itharus but they're a very much welcome member of this community and the community is all the better for their presence. You invalidate your own argument by attacking this user.

    I'm not even sure what the point of the thread is. If you're arguing against caps it's probably best to argue against them in the threads where they're proposed. While I too am against putting caps in place this is not the way to go about making that argument.

    First. There were no "personal attacks".
    Or we can take that statement like personal too?
    "Games where you can just spam a high tier deathball and faceroll to victory SUCK."
    And should we take personal this one?
    "Me neither, they are frustrated people in real life so they take their frustrations online... their life is this game. i just ignore them since they don't provide any realistic useful output. but listen to you and him."
    Looks like dishonestly double standards.

    Second. Argument is never validated by a person. Only by truth. What you did is "argumentum ad hominem". Falseness propaganda method.
    I critique only statements not persons.
    I bolded out a couple of statements, the first which is quite clearly an attack on people, not statements, and then you claiming the opposite in the same thread.
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Posts: 1,997Registered Users
    I'm not a fan of caps on units at all... but at the same time, I believe units should have started at the bottom and as they gain levels, you could train them into superior units... so that if you did have "doom stacks" you've pretty much earned those doom stacks through countless battles and victories.

    I want a system like Mount & Blade (for all Total War games) where you are forced to recruit Peasants for cheap pennies... and then blood them in battle or raiding... those who survive, gain experience and can be upgraded into higher tier units... those who die... well... more meat for the crows?

    That way you cannot just take a level 1 general and fart out a billion elite units, but rather you have to level them all up, through raiding, training or fighting and then if you lose them, you lose a significant power block that cannot be replaced by another stack of equally "elite" units out of thin air.
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • steph74steph74 Junior Member Posts: 1,037Registered Users
    Can you upgrade a peasant up to a knight? Not very Bretonnia uptight lore friendly.

    More importantly... what is the upgrade path to go from a HE spearmen militia to a dragon?

  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
    Some people just can't read...

    And.

    What is this thread?! What are you talking about?!
    Total war is nothing like those strategy games that you gave as an example. It is not in the same cathegory as them, not even by far.
    Yes, doomstacks are bad in total war game. Always were, always will be. I don't care about ******* warcraft, lol.
    Total war, on one hand, always strived to make gameplay feel authentic, to make you feel you are actually leading an empire, commanding real armies. It always made efforts to implement "realistic", immersive and believable gameplay mechanics. On the other hand, it had problems with doomstacks, which are completely opposite and contrary to all those efforts. Doomstacks are counter-immersive, counter-authentic and just bad from the gameplay perspective.
    Total war was always a historical game and yes, warhammer is fantasy, but it's still total war and in my opinionnit can't and should not break those tenets.

    Ps. What's with that last "men are all bad" statement?! What does that have to do with anything here?! Leave that femminist/counter femminist rethoric out of here!

    Such a great statement! But for many other gamers there was nothing wrong with all of these games.
    Lobby cursing on sacred classic? Well, this is so good of you!

    And following are for the people who appreciate the beauty. To know that: "we do not need to discuss it here" is a wrong way of thinking, that will lead to destroying all good in our games.
    People can ignore outer world, but world do not ignore the games. Like forcing agenda on them. We now have many ugly women. And men too! Sadly, included with "warhammer".
    I know that even C.A. members called names to some youtubers. That perfectly shows that now "outer world" bans even "total war" games mods with beautiful women. And not only them.
    Alith Anar must be beautiful guy, but what happened with his face? His nose? Why can't a man have a beautiful model looks?
    Why damsel looks like she is 50+ years old? Not young enchantress type? And Alarielle too? Old 50+ lady, not forever young everqueen?
    Why dark elves women, while good on clothing, have these kinds of looks? Witch elves and sorceresses who have ugly bodies and faces? No sex appeal in the dark elves' cult of pleasure?
    All this stupid thing that heads and limbs can be cut of with dekaliters of blood but no sexiness?
    Free-will players (respectable part of them) want their rightfully owned and constantly supported games to be as good and beautiful as possible.
    That is why forced unit caps and purposely ugly models (any models) are bad for impressions and feelings. Forcing and censoring is very bad in general.
  • AkiAmazAkiAmaz Posts: 210Registered Users
    I don't agree with the OP in that I don't think TWW has it right. That being said it is a great game so even things that are subjectively 'wrong' are eminently workable and enjoyable.

    I'd like CA to do an option on unit caps that players can choose to use, or not. I know there are mods but CA would be more polished than mods I have seen and which don't wholly cut the mustard.

    But, if they don't, well, fair enough, as this game is still great as it is.

    Worth a debate. Not worth an argument in my book.
  • Firkraag888Firkraag888 Posts: 1,428Registered Users
    @ moderators

    I think this thread belings in the raves and rants section
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Posts: 1,457Registered Users
    Oh so many threads about this with both sides right and wrong in their own ways. Roll on Sep and some real news to redirect us.
    Live your life and try to do no harm.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • IokkoIokko Junior Member Posts: 387Registered Users
    I can't wait for this garbage thread to get nuked.
    Stating opinions as if they're facts in your signature and adding "Change my mind" doesn't make them facts, change my mind.
  • UagrimUagrim Posts: 666Registered Users

    Some people just can't read...

    That is why forced unit caps and purposely ugly models (any models) are bad for impressions and feelings. Forcing and censoring is very bad in general.

    And you try and force us to remain silent about our issue with this game, or so it appears to me at least

    But who spoke about forced unit caps?
  • SakuraHeinzSakuraHeinz Junior Member Posts: 2,169Registered Users
    When you play on Very hard/legendary at least the player cant build doomstacks, but the AI can so I would also be pro limitation and why have all these games anything to do with total war:warhammer?

    Total war: Warhammer could just be the first strategy game that brings true army balance.
  • blaatblaat Junior Member Posts: 3,058Registered Users
    @dge1

    please consider whether this needs closing or not

    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 :)
  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
    Uagrim said:

    Some people just can't read...

    That is why forced unit caps and purposely ugly models (any models) are bad for impressions and feelings. Forcing and censoring is very bad in general.

    And you try and force us to remain silent about our issue with this game, or so it appears to me at least

    But who spoke about forced unit caps?
    We have a whole 2 dedicated modes for tabletop emulating. Custom battles and multiplayer.
    And I will repeat myself once again, I am not again optional choice at the start of the campaigns. But considering the risk that C.A. will not want to spread resources thin, they can just force 1, one, read it please as it is, one mode with forced limits for all gamers.
    If C.A. will make 2 modes - good. I am not arguing against people's choices. And today's balance gives everyone opportunity to take what they want. Of those 2 modes no caps is far better.
    Just remove the supply lanes like for Bretonnia now and it is all good.
    Iokko said:

    I can't wait for this garbage thread to get nuked.

    This is what dialog here looks like?
    Right. Together with "no personal attacks".

    Well. I see that, really, on this forum like close to 0 actual vocal strategy fans. Who a really like strategy games and proud of their legacy.
    And thanks for mass flagging. Exceptional, just excellent example of openness and reason.
  • Firkraag888Firkraag888 Posts: 1,428Registered Users
    edited August 28

    When you play on Very hard/legendary at least the player cant build doomstacks, but the AI can so I would also be pro limitation and why have all these games anything to do with total war:warhammer?

    Total war: Warhammer could just be the first strategy game that brings true army balance.

    Did you just say that if you play on VH or legendary you cant build doom stacks?

    Man, we all play on atleast VH here on these forums. I usually have a doom stack easily with no effort all by turn 40-50.

    Im not very good at the game either. I get absolutely wrecked when i play online multi-player battles.

    I think you are either very, very new at playing tww or are just making this up.

    Pro-tip:

    Keep sacking the closest settlement near you ( never raise) and let public order go off for rebellions. Keep doing this until your LL is a decent level. Most turns you will be able to gain a level, some turns two levels.



This discussion has been closed.