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 Hunter & The Beast - Beta

CA_JamesCA_James Posts: 280Registered Users, Moderators, Administrators, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff, Community Team


A beta update for The Hunter & The Beast is now live.

The main update is that based on community feedback, we’ve reverted the change to ports to what they were prior to The Hunter & The Beast’s release. We’ll be looking at a wider economy pass later which will involve ports and all other methods of generating income.

Other fixes include:
• Fixed a UI softlock that could occur if one of the new events triggered on the same turn as a piece of advice.
• You no longer receive a negative toward trustworthiness when war is declared via one of the Elector Count events.
• Waystalker will no longer T-pose when using Arrow of Kurnous ability.
• Glade Lords on mounts will now correctly have a cooldown on Arrow of Kurnous.
• Various localisation fixes in multiple languages.

Instructions for opting into and downloading the update are as follows:
• In your Steam games library, right-click Total War: WARHAMMER II and select Properties.
• In the Properties window, select the BETAS tab.
• Select hunter_beta from the list.
• Total War: WARHAMMER II will automatically update to the hunter_beta.
«13

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,477Registered Users
    Thanks for this.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • AsyranAsyran Posts: 472Registered Users
    Are Kroxigor colours fixed? The bug where they are Nakai’s faction colour no matter what Lizardmen faction you choose?
  • englisharcher89englisharcher89 Senior Member Bath, UKPosts: 3,954Registered Users
    edited September 16
    I hope someday you guys ar CA will fix missing sun/moon from game now that I have new PC and sun rays I realised what's missing lol


    Vampire Counts
    Tomb Kings
    The Empire

    "Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death." - Vlad von Carstein
  • neodeinosneodeinos Posts: 1,700Registered Users
    edited September 16
    Well I was expecting more fixes but that's a good start.

    And what about the fact that you don't have the vision on all your land anymore ? I find that really dumb. You should see all the lands that belong to you.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,686Registered Users
    Looking forward to you looking over economy! (Millions in income as HEs per turn isnt cool)
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • andreii707andreii707 Constanta, RomaniaPosts: 624Registered Users
    Any idea if Gor-Rok's mace is obtainable now in ME and Vortex?
    "Don't leave for tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow." - Will find the author of the quote some other time.
  • SchepelSchepel Senior Member Posts: 1,502Registered Users
    I was rather hoping for one or two co-op fixes. Especially co-op as Empire causes some weird bugs to happen.
  • NateSMZNateSMZ Senior Member Posts: 215Registered Users
    neodeinos said:

    Well I was expecting more fixes but that's a good start.

    And what about the fact that you don't have the vision on all your land anymore ? I find that really dumb. You should see all the lands that belong to you.

    Personally, I like the vision changes. They're thematic, realistic and make the campaign more interesting. Thematically, Warhammer lore continually makes the point that dangers lurk everywhere and venturing beyond fortifications is a risk. Realistically, before the modern era borders were usually hypothetical. Claims were made, but in practicality control only extended where soldiers garrisoned or marched.

    Lastly, it makes gameplay much more interesting when you have to actually worry about what might be out there instead of being an all-seeing god.
  • MrBungles21MrBungles21 Posts: 51Registered Users
    Need co-op fix please!
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,536Registered Users
    Good to see that ports are back to normal.

    But please fix Gor-Roks missing mace CA.
  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
    edited September 16
    And high elves has as fair economy as any other factions. Destroying economy like with ports is a bad decision. Better just some small changes. Like 200-250-300 gold on level 1,2 and 3, for example, to 150-200-250 gold per turn. And so on.
    Nothing huge, because it will maim the game.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 6,521Registered Users
    I personally like the reversion of the port choices and looking forward instead to more broad economy changes. Having said that I liked the added difficulty that the port nerf tacked on my Huntsmarshall campaign.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • dacurtdacurt Posts: 99Registered Users
    Asyran said:

    Are Kroxigor colours fixed? The bug where they are Nakai’s faction colour no matter what Lizardmen faction you choose?

    +1
  • BlaeysBlaeys Junior Member Posts: 786Registered Users
    Personally, I had no issues with the port income change and thought it might actually be good for the game. Income bloat is a clear culprit in terms of mid to late game snowballing, something that has plagued TW games for decades.

    I am glad that they are looking at the economy and hope to see real changes that add to the challenge of the game.
  • Jman5Jman5 Posts: 97Registered Users
    Blaeys said:

    Personally, I had no issues with the port income change and thought it might actually be good for the game. Income bloat is a clear culprit in terms of mid to late game snowballing, something that has plagued TW games for decades.

    I am glad that they are looking at the economy and hope to see real changes that add to the challenge of the game.

    I agree with you that income inflation is a problem, but the issue with the port change was that the upgrade costs were not in line with the reward. If they had brought down the cost I would have been perfectly happy with nerfed ports.
  • Firkraag888Firkraag888 Posts: 1,428Registered Users

    And high elves has as fair economy as any other factions. Destroying economy like with ports is a bad decision. Better just some small changes. Like 200-250-300 gold on level 1,2 and 3, for example, to 150-200-250 gold per turn. And so on.
    Nothing huge, because it will maim the game.

    BS

    Nerfing port income was a very good idea. The game allready has unlimited supplies of money. This is a step in the right direction.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,762Registered Users

    And high elves has as fair economy as any other factions. Destroying economy like with ports is a bad decision. Better just some small changes. Like 200-250-300 gold on level 1,2 and 3 on some buildings to 150-200-250. And so on.
    Nothing huge, because it will maim the game.

    Jman5 said:

    Blaeys said:

    Personally, I had no issues with the port income change and thought it might actually be good for the game. Income bloat is a clear culprit in terms of mid to late game snowballing, something that has plagued TW games for decades.

    I am glad that they are looking at the economy and hope to see real changes that add to the challenge of the game.

    I agree with you that income inflation is a problem, but the issue with the port change was that the upgrade costs were not in line with the reward. If they had brought down the cost I would have been perfectly happy with nerfed ports.
    No, they should have added a bonus to trading instead.

  • gekjgekj Junior Member Posts: 160Registered Users
    Could you give the list of tables edited. Would much more easier for modder
  • Herr_ArnulfeHerr_Arnulfe Posts: 743Registered Users
    NateSMZ said:

    Personally, I like the vision changes. They're thematic, realistic and make the campaign more interesting. Thematically, Warhammer lore continually makes the point that dangers lurk everywhere and venturing beyond fortifications is a risk. Realistically, before the modern era borders were usually hypothetical. Claims were made, but in practicality control only extended where soldiers garrisoned or marched.

    Lastly, it makes gameplay much more interesting when you have to actually worry about what might be out there instead of being an all-seeing god.

    Agreed, historical accounts often describe armies marching undetected through enemy territory. Limited territorial vision is just different from the Total War formula, so it takes some getting used to. I do think the roads should always be visible.
  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users

    I hope someday you guys ar CA will fix missing sun/moon from game now that I have new PC and sun rays I realised what's missing lol


    Absolute support on this! As well as graphical bugs on portholes, fog and pixelating with SSAO!
    Graphics bugs and oversights are very important! C.A. please fix this in "happy new year" patch!

    And never forget total knockdown immunity for all foot lords and heroes, please! Finally!
  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Posts: 5,309Registered Users
    What about Gor-Rok's missing mace?
    Drowned in stars, bloated we shine.
    ... .... .... --··-- -. --- - . .- .-. ... ·-·-·- --- -. .-.. -.-- -.. .-. . .- -- ... -. --- .-- ·-·-·-

  • Bogdanov89Bogdanov89 Posts: 594Registered Users
    It seems tomb king still have to pay huge amounts of gold if they want to replace a lord with a new (previously unrecruited) one.
    Check out the Community Bug Fix Mod on the Steam Workshop.
  • NyaxxyNyaxxy Junior Member Posts: 215Registered Users
    Good to see the Port nerf reverted and I am all for it being addressed in the future in an update that will look to adjust and rebalance all economy in a more interesting and thorough way than a standalone port income nerf.

    Economy is a bit awkward to balance but nerfing a buildings income that heavily while retaining the previous price was rather silly. I hope in future, becuase ports are obligatory in some settlements, that even if they are expensive, that they offer a more broad variety to their building bonus' (Extra Trade Income, A Fish trade resource, low tier garrison units etc) It'd be cool if there were build paths for income buildings like in previous games for example:

    Resource
    [Base building]
    [Gathering] [Production]
    [Gathering lvl2] [Production lvl2]

    Gathering chain:
    Income +/-
    Resource ++
    Resource trade value +
    Public order --

    Production chain:
    Income ++
    Resource +/-
    Bonus effect + (current resource effect, unit experience/upkeep/recruitment)
    Public order -

    Perhaps doing this would make things more complicated for the sake of it, but I'm an advocate of more options are nice.
  • SubjectEighteenSubjectEighteen Posts: 402Registered Users
    Nyaxxy said:

    Good to see the Port nerf reverted and I am all for it being addressed in the future in an update that will look to adjust and rebalance all economy in a more interesting and thorough way than a standalone port income nerf.

    Economy is a bit awkward to balance but nerfing a buildings income that heavily while retaining the previous price was rather silly. I hope in future, becuase ports are obligatory in some settlements, that even if they are expensive, that they offer a more broad variety to their building bonus' (Extra Trade Income, A Fish trade resource, low tier garrison units etc) It'd be cool if there were build paths for income buildings like in previous games for example:

    Resource
    [Base building]
    [Gathering] [Production]
    [Gathering lvl2] [Production lvl2]

    Gathering chain:
    Income +/-
    Resource ++
    Resource trade value +
    Public order --

    Production chain:
    Income ++
    Resource +/-
    Bonus effect + (current resource effect, unit experience/upkeep/recruitment)
    Public order -

    Perhaps doing this would make things more complicated for the sake of it, but I'm an advocate of more options are nice.

    I would love to see this come back. I was just thinking how great it would be to have options with ports since you can't get rid of them.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Posts: 9,892Registered Users

    And high elves has as fair economy as any other factions. Destroying economy like with ports is a bad decision. Better just some small changes. Like 200-250-300 gold on level 1,2 and 3, for example, to 150-200-250 gold per turn. And so on.
    Nothing huge, because it will maim the game.

    BS

    Nerfing port income was a very good idea. The game allready has unlimited supplies of money. This is a step in the right direction.

    BS. 9000 Gold for 250 or 300 gold per turn stands in no sane relation. Would you build a money building for 8000 if it'd give you 300 gold per turn (without the oh so useful 30 Growth in a max tier settlement)?
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!"

    CA hates the Empire confirmed. The FLC LL for the new Lord Pack is Gor-Rok. Meaning the Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. And no, moving Balthasar Gelt from Reikland, where he should be, DOES NOT COUNT. If they wanted a LL in the Southern Empire: Marius Leitdorf of Averland or maybe Elspeth von Draken in Nuln...

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him?
  • tokyojoetokyojoe Posts: 7Registered Users
    Does this rectify the high priority issue stopping any multiplayer saves from being loaded? Head 2 Head, Co-op etc? Spoiler alert, this game takes a long time to play, saving is a bit of a practical issue..
  • warhammerwarlordwarhammerwarlord Posts: 165Registered Users

    And high elves has as fair economy as any other factions. Destroying economy like with ports is a bad decision. Better just some small changes. Like 200-250-300 gold on level 1,2 and 3, for example, to 150-200-250 gold per turn. And so on.
    Nothing huge, because it will maim the game.

    BS

    Nerfing port income was a very good idea. The game allready has unlimited supplies of money. This is a step in the right direction.

    This.

    Income in the late game is huge and makes for a boring play.

    If something - they need to nerf more income generating buildings. Make it worthwhile fighting for a city with gold access etc.
  • Grom_the_PaunchGrom_the_Paunch Posts: 1,241Registered Users

    And high elves has as fair economy as any other factions. Destroying economy like with ports is a bad decision. Better just some small changes. Like 200-250-300 gold on level 1,2 and 3, for example, to 150-200-250 gold per turn. And so on.
    Nothing huge, because it will maim the game.

    BS

    Nerfing port income was a very good idea. The game allready has unlimited supplies of money. This is a step in the right direction.

    This.

    Income in the late game is huge and makes for a boring play.

    If something - they need to nerf more income generating buildings. Make it worthwhile fighting for a city with gold access etc.
    Just to explain why this port nerf went wrong because a few people aren't getting it.

    The problem is not the nerf itself, as a few people have mentioned. The problem is the upgrade price!

    Wolfhart campaign for example:
    Level 1 - 100GP, 10 growth
    3600GP for level 3 - 150GP, 20 growth
    8100GP for level 5 - 200GP, 30 growth

    The basic (level one) port isn't a bad thing to have at any point in the game. The gold and growth makes a difference.

    However, it costs you 3600 to upgrade this to level 3. Level three gets you 150 gold and 20 growth. 3600/50 is 72. That is 72 turns for the port to pay for itself which is a looong time. That simply isn't worth much of anything in most playthroughs and 10 growth is a negligible boost. Meanwhile, there are tons of other things that you should be spending your money on instead. The time where 50 gold and 10 growth might have a use is the early game and yet in the early game, you simply shouldn't be wasting that much money on it. There are better buildings and armies to get instead.

    8100GP for 50GP and 10 growth? Where to start? The growth is basically useless because you have a levl 5 settlement already. 8100/50 is 162 turns to pay for itself! Most of my games don't last that long if you buy this on turn 1... Which you obviously won't!

    The problem is not the nerf, it's the upgrade price. All you "the game's too easy" types need to relax. The ports are worse than useless most of the time. A "good" player simply won't upgrade them. Not ever. That isn't just a difficulty increase, it's poor game design. There are other ways and CA will look as said in the announcement.
  • KandennKandenn Posts: 421Registered Users

    And high elves has as fair economy as any other factions. Destroying economy like with ports is a bad decision. Better just some small changes. Like 200-250-300 gold on level 1,2 and 3, for example, to 150-200-250 gold per turn. And so on.
    Nothing huge, because it will maim the game.

    BS

    Nerfing port income was a very good idea. The game allready has unlimited supplies of money. This is a step in the right direction.

    This.

    Income in the late game is huge and makes for a boring play.

    If something - they need to nerf more income generating buildings. Make it worthwhile fighting for a city with gold access etc.
    Just to explain why this port nerf went wrong because a few people aren't getting it.

    The problem is not the nerf itself, as a few people have mentioned. The problem is the upgrade price!

    Wolfhart campaign for example:
    Level 1 - 100GP, 10 growth
    3600GP for level 3 - 150GP, 20 growth
    8100GP for level 5 - 200GP, 30 growth

    The basic (level one) port isn't a bad thing to have at any point in the game. The gold and growth makes a difference.

    However, it costs you 3600 to upgrade this to level 3. Level three gets you 150 gold and 20 growth. 3600/50 is 72. That is 72 turns for the port to pay for itself which is a looong time. That simply isn't worth much of anything in most playthroughs and 10 growth is a negligible boost. Meanwhile, there are tons of other things that you should be spending your money on instead. The time where 50 gold and 10 growth might have a use is the early game and yet in the early game, you simply shouldn't be wasting that much money on it. There are better buildings and armies to get instead.

    8100GP for 50GP and 10 growth? Where to start? The growth is basically useless because you have a levl 5 settlement already. 8100/50 is 162 turns to pay for itself! Most of my games don't last that long if you buy this on turn 1... Which you obviously won't!

    The problem is not the nerf, it's the upgrade price. All you "the game's too easy" types need to relax. The ports are worse than useless most of the time. A "good" player simply won't upgrade them. Not ever. That isn't just a difficulty increase, it's poor game design. There are other ways and CA will look as said in the announcement.
    Yep, this. Now you don't even uprade ports. It's far to expensive to be interesting.

    Sorry if it has already been answered but does the beta patch compatible with our current saves ?
  • ReeksReeks Posts: 1,938Registered Users
    3 Times in my Wulfhart Vortex campaign when i sailed across a sea treasure nothing triggered, literally nothing happened...Plz fix
Sign In or Register to comment.