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

Differentiate Replenishment Rates, CA!

ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 28,231
Why do Swordmasters replenish just as fast as Spearmen? Why do I regain Stormvermin as fast as Skavenslaves?

One of the (many) reasons why elites replace all low tier troops in mid- to lategame is that low tier troops lose units faster than higher tier ones, but replenish just as slow (or fast), so going with the elites is more efficient and beneficial. This needs to change because it makes no sense. There's exactly one source of Swordmasters for HE and Stormvermin are way rarer than the more common Skaven, they should not be able to reinforce at the same speed. That's just two examples, but it applies on all factions, be it Greatswords, Chosen, Black Orks or Temple Guards.

So here's a suggestion: apply a modifier to the net replenishment rate (after every other bonus or malus has been applied) of T3-5 troops, something like x0.75 for T3 to x0.25 for T5. When your rares and elites are caught in an attritious battle, not being able to have them at full strength immediately afterwards should be something to consider, so a line of only Swordmasters would have an actual downside (I would go even further and just make replenishment bonuses through research, skills and items simply not apply to higher tiered troops at all).

Please consider it, @CA!

«1

Comments

  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,020
    Lorewise every elves has an equal regeneration than other elves, every human the same as other humans and so on.
    Whats the logic behind "better trained troopes need to have lower treatment from healers"?
    Under normal circumstances elite troopes get better care and supply than standard troopes just because they are more valueable.

    So no, your arbitrary nonsense to weaken elite troops makes no sense. Low tier troops are fillers resembling a trainee lord and empire while high tier troops resemble the strength an professionality of that lord and empire.
    If you want to use your low tier units for the sake of having them just do it and get more armies but there is absolutly no logical point why a full grown empire shouldn't have lots of elite troopes.

    Look at the USA they have more eltie troops than some other countries have army size and they take better care of them than other countries do with their armies.
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 7,653
    Maybe you should post your suggestions everyday instead of every week to be listened by CA /s
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,141
    well I suppose you could have, be it through technology, skills or by default, have different rates for different unit tiers.

    Tier I replenish 12%
    Tier II has 10% and so on...
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231
    edited September 2019

    Lorewise every elves has an equal regeneration than other elves, every human the same as other humans and so on.
    Whats the logic behind "better trained troopes need to have lower treatment from healers"?
    Under normal circumstances elite troopes get better care and supply than standard troopes just because they are more valueable.

    So no, your arbitrary nonsense to weaken elite troops makes no sense. Low tier troops are fillers resembling a trainee lord and empire while high tier troops resemble the strength an professionality of that lord and empire.
    If you want to use your low tier units for the sake of having them just do it and get more armies but there is absolutly no logical point why a full grown empire shouldn't have lots of elite troopes.

    Look at the USA they have more eltie troops than some other countries have army size and they take better care of them than other countries do with their armies.

    You are aware this is about actual KIAs, right?

    Elites have lower replenishment than regulars because, get this, they take a lot longer to train. How long does it take for an army grunt to go through basic training? About 3-4 months. How long does it take to train a Navy Seal? About 2.5 years and there's plenty of people who don't make it through that ordeal in the first place and fewer people who qualify to start it at all.

    Which means the pool to draw grunt reinforcements from is way bigger than the one for Navy Seals. So if the US were to suffer catastrophic wipes to their Navy Seals, it would be way harder to bring those units back up to strength. That's, BTW, why the US have not replaced all their grunts with just elites, it's not cost-effective to have them do grunt work, figure that.

    Why should it be different for WH races? The only ones with resurrection are the undead ones and even they need to find special corpses and apply special rituals for their higher-tiered troops so they have smaller pools to draw those form as well.

  • arjan_heartofironarjan_heartofiron Registered Users Posts: 49

    Lorewise every elves has an equal regeneration than other elves, every human the same as other humans and so on.
    Whats the logic behind "better trained troopes need to have lower treatment from healers"?
    Under normal circumstances elite troopes get better care and supply than standard troopes just because they are more valueable.

    So no, your arbitrary nonsense to weaken elite troops makes no sense. Low tier troops are fillers resembling a trainee lord and empire while high tier troops resemble the strength an professionality of that lord and empire.
    If you want to use your low tier units for the sake of having them just do it and get more armies but there is absolutly no logical point why a full grown empire shouldn't have lots of elite troopes.

    Look at the USA they have more eltie troops than some other countries have army size and they take better care of them than other countries do with their armies.

    How can you assume replenishment just represents healing? It represents healing to some small degree but mostly it represents replacing the ones that have actually died with new recruits.
    Low tier units in the world do not represent trainee's, in the lore they are clearly the mainstay of these empires.
    Also elites by their nature are rare. If a country raises the standard across their forces than that becomes the new standard and a new small exceptional elite will be formed.
    I can get why you would like to have full elite armies but this real world analogy makes no sense. And IMO this game suffers from a serious lack of variation in the late game armies. I'm not sure I agree with OP about punishing elites but units known to be numerous like low tier skaven, goblins and orcs should have greatly increased replenishment.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 4,221

    Lorewise every elves has an equal regeneration than other elves, every human the same as other humans and so on.
    Whats the logic behind "better trained troopes need to have lower treatment from healers"?
    Under normal circumstances elite troopes get better care and supply than standard troopes just because they are more valueable.

    So no, your arbitrary nonsense to weaken elite troops makes no sense. Low tier troops are fillers resembling a trainee lord and empire while high tier troops resemble the strength an professionality of that lord and empire.
    If you want to use your low tier units for the sake of having them just do it and get more armies but there is absolutly no logical point why a full grown empire shouldn't have lots of elite troopes.

    Look at the USA they have more eltie troops than some other countries have army size and they take better care of them than other countries do with their armies.

    It's not arbitrary, it's not all about healing rates. First, the races don't heal the same, trolls regenerate, some have good healing magic, and some just eat their wounded.

    Second, it's far more about it's easy to have an untrained Bretonnian peasant, it's not easy to have a full trained and equipped grail knight.

    Cause you seem to miss the big part that replenishment is often replacing dead troops.

    Or gameplay wise it would create incentives to keep a lower tier army about if it replenishes faster
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231
    edited September 2019
    Thanks for bringing those up! Grail Knights have to go through a pretty lengthy quest to obtain their status, which can easily take years and involves a duel with the Green Knight who's not above killing the unworhty. You can grab a peasant off the field, give him some rusty armor and sword, show him to stick people with it and have another Man-at-Arms at the ready in a tiny fraction of that time.

    They should not recover at the same rate.

  • Aram_theheadAram_thehead Registered Users Posts: 1,005
    edited September 2019
    Maybe a 0.25% would be too harsh for tier 5 elites, but the idea to rework replenishment doesn't sound bad.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,020


    You are aware this is about actual KIAs, right?

    Thats how you interprete it, it can also mean WIA. Simply knocked out by an artillery explosion nearby and no longer be able to fight in battle -1 unit in the fighting stack.
    HE have one of the lowestes birthrates in Warhammer yet they have a lot of replenishment to resemble their potenten magical healing powers, so replenishment is more related to healing than to rerecruiting in the game.
    Show me an army that always field all manpower they have in one battle. Units are deployed for some time and than exchanged for freshmen even the elite. Most of the menpower is reserved and not used. You can lose half a SEAL Team and if need within a few hours you will have a full operating team at the same place.

    It's not called training or recruiting, its called replenishemt because it is just getting units back to fighting strenght and that simply include healing and switching whole units.
    Replenishment shows how fast you can get a unit to be battle ready again not how fast your empire can recruit units because that is resembled through recruiting times.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231
    The exact numbers can be tweaked, but they should be noticeable lower than those of regulars and especially chaff.

  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 3,603
    Hard to disagree, it must be sure as hell harder to find new troops for something like Black Orcs compared to Goblins. For example, it always feels weird to fully replenish a ravaged Dark Elf army consisting of high tier infantry in single turn after a pyrhic victory meanwhile Greenskins struggle to replenish even their Gobbos & Orc boys who literally grow up from the ground.
  • DaGangsterDaGangster Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,375
    edited September 2019
    I couldn't agree more with the OP, replenishment could use a rework overall.

    Team Vampire Counts

    "Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

    - Soren Johnson
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231

    Hard to disagree, it must be sure as hell harder to find new troops for something like Black Orcs compared to Goblins. For example, it always feels weird to fully replenish a ravaged Dark Elf army consisting of high tier infantry in single turn after a pyrhic victory meanwhile Greenskins struggle to replenish even their Gobbos & Orc boys who literally grow up from the ground.

    Well, that's down to HE and DE having a nasty, overpowered after-battle recovery option that makes not a lick of sense.

  • GoAwayNowGoAwayNow Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 225
    Replenishment is certainly an abstraction and represents different things for different races. However, regardless of the details the OP is correct that bringing elite units back to fighting strength should be more difficult than bringing chaff back to fighting strength.

    Replenishment should function similarly to recruitment. Getting a spearman back on his feet is a simpler matter than getting a knight combat ready again. The pool of replacements for spearmen is larger than for knights, and the equipment for spearmen is more readily available than for knights.

    Having your elite units decimated should be a bigger problem than having your low tier units slaughtered. Elite soldiers should not be sacrificed without consequence.
  • ArizonaBlack1ArizonaBlack1 Registered Users Posts: 274
    Yeah makes sense to me, if I see a Carnosaur tear off the head of my swordmasters then they are well and gone dead. Using healing magic to fix that is nothing short of necromancy and I do believe in the Lore that is frowned apon by the HEs.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231
    edited September 2019


    "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him"



    "Better than he was before"



  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,020
    NateSMZ said:

    Replenishment should function similarly to recruitment.

    No it shouldn't because if its similar it becomes interchangeable and than a lot of stuff that matters now will become ignoreable as well.
    If a high tier unit need 4 turn to replenish while global recruitment would be the same why would you wait. The experience doesn't matter that much when you have to take care of the unit and pull them out in time on the field compared to recklessly throw them into the meat grinder because than they will have more battle value until they die than their exp buffs would grant them.
    You could simply field supplylords who prererecruit units like in Heroes of Might and Magic while factions with global recruitment would have a large advantage over those who can't do it.
    Another thing that would also be thrown off when you make recruitment and replenishment interchangeable is upkeep costs and recruitment costs. Using long time recruiting units for a battle where they are supposed to die would be incentivised because depending on how often you do it you can save money if you have some disposal elite units every now and than for thougher battles.
    Recruitment time and replenishment should be distinguishable from what they do to the game, a player who choose to get the blue tree for more replenishment should be able to keep his troops going because he invested in his troops to be combat ready all the time and have to think about wasting units on purpose for efficency reasons.
  • GoAwayNowGoAwayNow Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 225
    Experience matters a great deal. Not only do experienced troops have superior stats, but an army who tried to use global recruitment instead of replenishment would find itself very vulnerable to attack. There's no such thing as halfway recruitment, if the army is attacked before recruitment finishes then those units just aren't on the battlefield.

    Elite units shouldn't be thrown into the meat grinder. That's usually a horrible tactical and strategic choice. In the real world the only way you ever put an elite unit in that position is if no other unit can accomplish the mission, ie holding a position so the whole rest of the army can escape or serving as a critical anvil because other soldiers are too chickshit to perform.

    It's a choice to make carefully, not simply charging your best men straight into the enemy line battle after battle because hell there's always more where those came from.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231
    edited September 2019
    See, this is going at the whole elite spam issue from the other side. Instead of restricting them, give them a sizable downside so they aren't always the most obvious pick for any army slot and I think this downside is fairly appropriate since that's how armies across time and the whole world have been affected.

    If you attack a Skaven settlement and your Swordmasters-exclusive frontline gets blown up by suicide bomber rats and Warp Lightning then you should have one heck of a time to bring those tattered units back to full strength, just because Swordmasters take a whole lot longer to train and use rarer equipment than some Spearman does.

    As for healing, you'd actually let elite troops heal for longer simply because a total loss means a heck of a lot of time, resources and effort flushed down the drain, so roughly patching them up to throw them back into the fray just isn't cost-effective.

    An example, at the beginning of WW2 the Japanese had a highly elite core of fighter and bomber plane pilots. Unlike the US who rotated their top pilots back into flight school to share their acquired experience with new pilots, the Japanese insisted on keeping their elites on the active duty roster with the result that by 1943 they had largely squandered them in costly battles and one year later there was the infamous Marianas Turkey Shoot were US pilots shot down inexperienced Japanese planes at a frankly absurd ratio.

    Elites are not made to bear the brunt of attritious warfare, that's what you have the grunts for.

  • RattusXIIIRattusXIII Registered Users Posts: 205
    I think the best way to do it would be to have units of a faction globally be replenished at 0% by default (i.e: They will not replenish at all), and then add a % bonus to replenishment for each building that allows recruitment for this kind of troop in your empire.

    Similarly, single entity units could instead just have a recruitment cap based on how many buildings you have that can recruit them (I.e, On giant's recruitment building adds 3 giants to the empire-wide recruitment pool cap).

    Its interesting that so many players feel so strongly against "limiting" recruitment, when other games have shown time and time again that controlling what players can use is the best way to bring out new and more interesting and varied meta.

    Just look at Overwatch's new role lock update.
  • NyaxxyNyaxxy Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 222
    I was under the impression that there are different replenishment rates for units based on their tiers.
    though that may just be that I am so used to playing modded that I have accepted that as the norm
  • RandirRandir Registered Users Posts: 155
    For those races that are supposed to be on the decline and have troops that are above average (dwarves and elves), would they get an additional replenishment penalty?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231
    Randir said:

    For those races that are supposed to be on the decline and have troops that are above average (dwarves and elves), would they get an additional replenishment penalty?

    I think there need to be differentiated base replenishment rates on top of that as well.

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,982

    Lorewise every elves has an equal regeneration than other elves, every human the same as other humans and so on.
    Whats the logic behind "better trained troopes need to have lower treatment from healers"?
    Under normal circumstances elite troopes get better care and supply than standard troopes just because they are more valueable.

    I'm quite sure that the guys who get eaten by a carnosaur are beyond the skill of any healer...

    It's not that difficult to understand
    Skaven slave dies: there are a million others waiting in line
    Swordmaster of Hoeth dies: finding suitable candidates to train and take his place will take a lot of time.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,982

    NateSMZ said:

    Replenishment should function similarly to recruitment.

    No it shouldn't because if its similar it becomes interchangeable and than a lot of stuff that matters now will become ignoreable as well.
    If a high tier unit need 4 turn to replenish while global recruitment would be the same why would you wait.
    Because replenishment is free. Indeed, the fact that you just don't care about money in vanilla is another huge balance problem.

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 28,231
    Also, the army has to stand still while recruiting, but can move around while replenishing in friendly territory. Even the AI can take advantage of an army being disabled for that long.

  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 3,446
    How are you going to make waiting 5 plus turns to replenish fun?
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,020
    Xenos7 said:

    NateSMZ said:

    Replenishment should function similarly to recruitment.

    No it shouldn't because if its similar it becomes interchangeable and than a lot of stuff that matters now will become ignoreable as well.
    If a high tier unit need 4 turn to replenish while global recruitment would be the same why would you wait.
    Because replenishment is free. Indeed, the fact that you just don't care about money in vanilla is another huge balance problem.

    Thats not true money matters in the sense of additional armies and increased upkeep. Before they did this there was a massive T1 spam in game one because running 4 armies with empire spearmen and crossbowmen was superior to a high end army and while on the battlefield you can only use 40 units at the same time you could instead use AR where all 4 armies count.
    Right now you can simply use multiple low tier armies for the price of one or two high tier armies and do fine during the campaign, its not that low tier units are bad its just that the player has to coordinate more when playing this way and most tww players don't like zerg macro gameplay.
    I can't see how the low tier unit spam from early game one would improve the current gameplay with in any way, because most low tier units do fine in mid game and some are even usable in late game on legendary like dark shards, elven archers, mortar or rock lobber.
    Most people don't like to play with multiple amies and playing on higher difficulties so what would the average player get from a situation were the choice is between playing a playstyle that demand to much from them or watching the end turn time screen several times in a row because they can no longer fokus on one or two strong armies because each battle comes with enforced resting time?
    Nothing that slows down the campaign progression will be an improvement to the overall gameplay, it is neighter challenging nor intriguing to choose between waiting or spamming.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,982

    Xenos7 said:

    NateSMZ said:

    Replenishment should function similarly to recruitment.

    No it shouldn't because if its similar it becomes interchangeable and than a lot of stuff that matters now will become ignoreable as well.
    If a high tier unit need 4 turn to replenish while global recruitment would be the same why would you wait.
    Because replenishment is free. Indeed, the fact that you just don't care about money in vanilla is another huge balance problem.

    Thats not true money matters in the sense of additional armies and increased upkeep. Before they did this there was a massive T1 spam in game one because running 4 armies with empire spearmen and crossbowmen was superior to a high end army and while on the battlefield you can only use 40 units at the same time you could instead use AR where all 4 armies count.
    Right now you can simply use multiple low tier armies for the price of one or two high tier armies and do fine during the campaign, its not that low tier units are bad its just that the player has to coordinate more when playing this way and most tww players don't like zerg macro gameplay.
    I can't see how the low tier unit spam from early game one would improve the current gameplay with in any way, because most low tier units do fine in mid game and some are even usable in late game on legendary like dark shards, elven archers, mortar or rock lobber.
    Most people don't like to play with multiple amies and playing on higher difficulties so what would the average player get from a situation were the choice is between playing a playstyle that demand to much from them or watching the end turn time screen several times in a row because they can no longer fokus on one or two strong armies because each battle comes with enforced resting time?
    Nothing that slows down the campaign progression will be an improvement to the overall gameplay, it is neighter challenging nor intriguing to choose between waiting or spamming.
    That's because elites in vanilla aren't true WH elites. They are kinda strong, but in the sense elites were in historical titles. Here, Grail Knights should be literal living saints, capable of standing up to hundreds of enemy. But you can't have that because elites are spammable, so obviously they need to be toned down. I mean, it's not like I'm talking out of my ass: try Grimhammer and you'll see how the game flows with lore-accurate elites, but capped and extremely costly. It's way better than vanilla.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 8,524
    It's hard to say how many troops in a typical Warhammer battle are killed versus simply wounded too much to fight.

    However, it may not be relevant - having a lower recruitment pool still means it's harder to replace someone even if they're just wounded. Consider the spearmen versus swordmaster example: if a spearman gets wounded, you can ship him home and call up some other reservist a month or two early, and once the first spearman has recovered, you can swap him back in to complete his term of service. Rotations of this nature are a lot harder to pull off when you've got a smaller pool to begin with, and where a much higher proportion of that pool is on active service at any time (when roughly 75% of your levy is off duty at any one time, it's easy to find a replacement, but when you're looking at someone like a Swordmaster who's probably busy hunting Pleasure Cults or training the next generation when not on the battlefield, it's a lot harder to find a replacement who isn't being taken away from something equally important).

    It's a pretty broad problem that units that are supposed to be units that you can afford to take heavy casualties with tend to be the hardest to get back up due to how replenishment interacts with model count. Granted, for some of these units you can get around it by merging and re-recruiting, but I think the general principle holds: replenishment rates should be different between units.
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    NateSMZ said:

    Replenishment should function similarly to recruitment.

    No it shouldn't because if its similar it becomes interchangeable and than a lot of stuff that matters now will become ignoreable as well.
    If a high tier unit need 4 turn to replenish while global recruitment would be the same why would you wait.
    Because replenishment is free. Indeed, the fact that you just don't care about money in vanilla is another huge balance problem.

    Thats not true money matters in the sense of additional armies and increased upkeep. Before they did this there was a massive T1 spam in game one because running 4 armies with empire spearmen and crossbowmen was superior to a high end army and while on the battlefield you can only use 40 units at the same time you could instead use AR where all 4 armies count.
    Right now you can simply use multiple low tier armies for the price of one or two high tier armies and do fine during the campaign, its not that low tier units are bad its just that the player has to coordinate more when playing this way and most tww players don't like zerg macro gameplay.
    I can't see how the low tier unit spam from early game one would improve the current gameplay with in any way, because most low tier units do fine in mid game and some are even usable in late game on legendary like dark shards, elven archers, mortar or rock lobber.
    Most people don't like to play with multiple amies and playing on higher difficulties so what would the average player get from a situation were the choice is between playing a playstyle that demand to much from them or watching the end turn time screen several times in a row because they can no longer fokus on one or two strong armies because each battle comes with enforced resting time?
    Nothing that slows down the campaign progression will be an improvement to the overall gameplay, it is neighter challenging nor intriguing to choose between waiting or spamming.
    That's because elites in vanilla aren't true WH elites. They are kinda strong, but in the sense elites were in historical titles. Here, Grail Knights should be literal living saints, capable of standing up to hundreds of enemy. But you can't have that because elites are spammable, so obviously they need to be toned down. I mean, it's not like I'm talking out of my ass: try Grimhammer and you'll see how the game flows with lore-accurate elites, but capped and extremely costly. It's way better than vanilla.
    Eh. Fluff tends to exaggerate - I've generally felt that the stats give a reasonable approximation of the actual power of a unit compared to other units, as long as you compare within the same edition. Grail Knights are essentially an Order equivalent of Chosen, and had almost the same profile in 6E.
Sign In or Register to comment.