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

Issue with Elector Count Event Battle *RANT*

kriegmannkriegmann Posts: 6Registered Users
So, I just got the defense event for the first time playing as the new Golden Order Empire faction. Talabecland was under attack by Norscans. I chose the option to send an army. Minor spoiler alert for those who want to find out what happens ahead.

I was sent into battle with an arch lector lord, two swordsmen, a handgunner, and two empire knights. My "allies" had two swordsmen, two halberdiers, two crossbowmen, and an empire captain. The enemy forces were: A Norscan lord, a marauder champion, 7 marauders, 3 marauder hunters, and two skinwolf units. I assert that this is a grossly unfair matchup if I were able to control all the forces and deploy them myself. Instead, I was reinforcing the fight from the side. It was on that new map with the forest in the center, so my "allies" deployed hidden in this forest and left me to die. I tried to lead their army to the cowards with my empire knights, but of course, skin wolves are faster than empire knights so they ate them for breakfast.

To add insult to injury, apparently in addition to paying for the cost of recruiting the army, it comes out of your upkeep apparently, tanking my income to 0. I am deeply disappointed by this mechanic after being pretty excited to help defend the empire. Overall, I do like the new changes, but it feels really bad to have your army, generated by RNG, half owned by the idiotic AI, and reinforcing from a weird angle. This needs to be fixed.

Comments

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 19,629Registered Users
    No, they should not neuter these battles. The game's already too easy as it is.

  • kriegmannkriegmann Posts: 6Registered Users
    Looks like losing the army caused the upkeep to go away after I opened a menu, but now I see that I did not get imperial authority because I lost. So I spent 2,000 gold for nothing, really.
  • kriegmannkriegmann Posts: 6Registered Users

    No, they should not neuter these battles. The game's already too easy as it is.

    How would you have played that battle?
  • UdorothUdoroth Posts: 143Registered Users
    I would have played to win
  • kriegmannkriegmann Posts: 6Registered Users
    Udoroth said:

    I would have played to win

    Show me a replay of that in a custom battle. I would legit want to see how that's possible in any way.
  • Cookie35641Cookie35641 Junior Member Posts: 10Registered Users
    "That´s XCOM baby"

    Well, no, obviously. But it still strikes me as a good comparison.

    Honestly, i fail to see your problem. In a rather dynamic sandbox there will always be situations where you just can´t win. Personally i wouldn´t have it any other way, because everything else would mean to streamline the experience to oblivion.

    You make choices - like spending 2000 gold to help you fellow imperials - and sometimes they don´t work out in your favor by no fault of your own. For me, it adds to the immersion and everything else would bore me quickly.
  • KrocodileKrew212KrocodileKrew212 Posts: 74Registered Users

    No, they should not neuter these battles. The game's already too easy as it is.

    Speak for yourself. My experience is the game's campaign can be really frustrating and unforgiving no matter what difficulty you're playing on.
    Team Ogre Kingdoms

    "We threatened to grind their bones up to make bread if they didn't pay. Course that's just a threat - it takes too long to grind 'em and most of this lot are just as 'appy to eat'em raw." -- Olag Skullcracker, Ogre Tyrant
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 5,831Registered Users

    "That´s XCOM baby"

    Well, no, obviously. But it still strikes me as a good comparison.

    Honestly, i fail to see your problem. In a rather dynamic sandbox there will always be situations where you just can´t win. Personally i wouldn´t have it any other way, because everything else would mean to streamline the experience to oblivion.

    You make choices - like spending 2000 gold to help you fellow imperials - and sometimes they don´t work out in your favor by no fault of your own. For me, it adds to the immersion and everything else would bore me quickly.

    As long as this isn't the set thing for the Norsca event. If that's the case you'll learn just to not do the battle. Should it indeed be all but unwinnable.
    Lord of the Undermountain
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • Cookie35641Cookie35641 Junior Member Posts: 10Registered Users
    edited September 12
    RikRiorik said:

    "That´s XCOM baby"

    Well, no, obviously. But it still strikes me as a good comparison.

    Honestly, i fail to see your problem. In a rather dynamic sandbox there will always be situations where you just can´t win. Personally i wouldn´t have it any other way, because everything else would mean to streamline the experience to oblivion.

    You make choices - like spending 2000 gold to help you fellow imperials - and sometimes they don´t work out in your favor by no fault of your own. For me, it adds to the immersion and everything else would bore me quickly.

    As long as this isn't the set thing for the Norsca event. If that's the case you'll learn just to not do the battle. Should it indeed be all but unwinnable.
    Good point, yeah. I assumed those events are also a bit dynamic. It would suck if they were the same everytime.
  • sCorsCor Posts: 151Registered Users
    I had a quick glance through the script in case anyone is wondering how it works.

    SPOILERS if you don't want to know.

    There are 4 possible attacking factions. Beastmen, Norsca, Skaven and Greenskins.

    They have a couple of different army setups that also depend on whether or not the settlement is minor or major.

    It does not take into account how big the garrison force is. Sometimes the AI might have build walls or has another army nearby which can make the fight easier.

    The gist of it is that it is very random.
  • Cookie35641Cookie35641 Junior Member Posts: 10Registered Users
    edited September 12
    sCor said:

    I had a quick glance through the script in case anyone is wondering how it works.

    SPOILERS if you don't want to know.

    There are 4 possible attacking factions. Beastmen, Norsca, Skaven and Greenskins.

    They have a couple of different army setups that also depend on whether or not the settlement is minor or major.

    It does not take into account how big the garrison force is. Sometimes the AI might have build walls or has another army nearby which can make the fight easier.

    The gist of it is that it is very random.

    I like what you describe, especially that it doesn´t take into account the actual allied forces (because realistically, it shoudln´t).

    My hope would be that a similar dilemma also triggers when an actual enemy faction is besieging/attacking a empire settlement, but that´s probably a different topic altogether.
  • SephlockSephlock Posts: 1,011Registered Users
    kriegmann said:

    No, they should not neuter these battles. The game's already too easy as it is.

    How would you have played that battle?
    Kill the lord at all costs and pray to Sigmar your rear cycle charging bears fruit.

    Then I'd lose.

    But at least I would have bloodied their noses! It's a moral victory!
  • WastedDeerWastedDeer Posts: 2Registered Users
    My issue with the battles is that you get a penalty for trespassing with the lord you are trying to help. Stupid how that wasn’t spotted before the dlc was released.

    I helped someone and now they are annoyed with me for being on their land :neutral:
  • sCorsCor Posts: 151Registered Users

    My issue with the battles is that you get a penalty for trespassing with the lord you are trying to help. Stupid how that wasn’t spotted before the dlc was released.

    I helped someone and now they are annoyed with me for being on their land :neutral:

    You could just ask them for military access
  • WastedDeerWastedDeer Posts: 2Registered Users
    sCor said:

    My issue with the battles is that you get a penalty for trespassing with the lord you are trying to help. Stupid how that wasn’t spotted before the dlc was released.

    I helped someone and now they are annoyed with me for being on their land :neutral:

    You could just ask them for military access
    Yep definitely my fault for thinking they would make a feature work correctly. It honestly never occurred to me they would do something like that. What if they wouldn’t give me military access and I tried to help them to increase relations? Instead it has the opposite effect.
  • sCorsCor Posts: 151Registered Users
    edited September 12

    sCor said:

    My issue with the battles is that you get a penalty for trespassing with the lord you are trying to help. Stupid how that wasn’t spotted before the dlc was released.

    I helped someone and now they are annoyed with me for being on their land :neutral:

    You could just ask them for military access
    Yep definitely my fault for thinking they would make a feature work correctly. It honestly never occurred to me they would do something like that. What if they wouldn’t give me military access and I tried to help them to increase relations? Instead it has the opposite effect.
    But you do increase fealty with them (even if you fail the defence!).

    Relations barely matter anymore in an empire campaign. One time trespassing isn't going to make them hate you.
  • VladimiriVladimiri Posts: 148Registered Users
    edited September 12
    kriegmann said:

    No, they should not neuter these battles. The game's already too easy as it is.

    How would you have played that battle?
    Pull the enemy away from your slower units using empire knights harrass and walk your slower units to your ally. You can even sacrifice some unit if needed.

    In all seriousness the enemy is faster than your ally and closer to you too. It only makes sense to enemy attack your faster force and leave the slower part to join in later. I'd play exactly as the enemy did. The harrasment and type of movement required to combine forces is something you can't expect the AI do for you.
  • AkiAmazAkiAmaz Posts: 181Registered Users
    RP it as Imperial politics. Maybe they asked for your help but they didn't want to lose any forces so let you do the fighting and afterwards claimed your force went through their land, stole food from some poor peasant then went home leaving the settlement to get sacked by the Norscans.

    Realpolitik
  • Fear_The_WolfFear_The_Wolf Posts: 2,865Registered Users
    These are some of my favorite engagements in the current Mortal Empire campaign. And no, you won't win all of them. Did one where I reinforced a siege, but by the time I was able to get somewhere useful the AI had already been killed off and they were storming the city.

    By default these aren't supposed to be simple victories, but rather a last ditch effort to save yourself from taking the Imperial Authority penalty. You can always head over yourself to rebuild/retake the area to get back the Imperial Authority and then some. Just don't get too uptight about losing. It's not a real army you lose anyway.
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 705Registered Users
    I guess the point isn't whether you win or lose intervention battles, it's about building up Authority so you can confederate. Event battles only exist because CA removed provincial alliances (i.e. you can no longer ally with Elector Counts and reinforce their towns using regular armies). CA should just have given Karl Franz Military Access to the entire Empire from turn 1, and let the player decide which AI towns to reinforce. Every time he supports an AI army in battle, he gains an Authority point. Instead we have these meaningless event battles for backwater towns, using up gold that could be spent on building development. And there's nothing to be gained from the event battles, they're a lose/lose proposition.
  • psychoakpsychoak Posts: 2,242Registered Users
    With full control of the units, that is an easy battle to win, very easy.

    Marauders are equivalent to swordsmen, halberds will absolutely destroy skinwolves, crossbowmen are much better archers than hunters with that short range, and with the two characters to the enemy's one, there's zero challenge there.

    The unit of handgunners is gravy, it wouldn't be a hard matchup if the lord was on a mammoth.

    It's only hard because he fought it with half the troops by himself. His far superior forces could easily have countered the superior numbers of basic melee infantry, if he'd had full control. With the tard AI wasting the halberds and crossbows on whatever it happened to attack, he'd have a serious challenge on his hands, but by no means an unbeatable one.

    Basically, it's a tard AI problem.
  • Bob_the_InsaneBob_the_Insane Senior Member Posts: 419Registered Users
    edited September 13
    Having jumped into a Karl Franz campaign I have played a few of these and I don’t think the ally AI army is random. Rather i think it is the garrison army from the settlement that is being attacked. So if the settlement has walls it is a siege defence battle and the Ally AI army depends on the infrastructure of the settlement.

    In one fun instance the settlement in question was a level 4 fort. And in addition to the garrison there was an AI ally reinforcement army in addition to my reinforcement army...

    The bit I am have difficulty with is that this appears to be there in place of the normal diplomatic alliances between the Empire factions.
Sign In or Register to comment.