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

I want balanced armies!

124

Comments

  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,204
    Considering there are multiple mods to fix this and the dude's desires were answered in the first few posts, the thread got really long...

    Table Top Caps is up to date, perfect mod for the problem.

    Should we have to use mods? A different problem.

    Part of the problem here is that some of you are used to tiered gameplay. You start out with a crappy spearman, and you get a better spearman, and then an even better spearman, but they're all just spearmen.

    This isn't Warhammer. Phoenix Guard and Spearmen do not fill the same role. One of them is supposed to be rare, the other is a core infantry. TT rules prevent elite spam by requiring core, special and rare be limited in their usage. They also had relatively balanced points costs.

    CA didn't follow this way of thinking when they ported the game design to TW. They made higher tier troops inherently better. Not by cost effectiveness, but in total card power. This largely removes the validity of cheap units after a very short period of the game. We replace line infantry with heavily armored AP elites. We replace light cavalry with heavy cavalry. We replace archers with AP archers. We end up with entire armies of heavily armored AP units, that can kill several times their number in basic troops.

    The other two thirds of the game ceases to be relevant. Some of us prefer to play the whole game.
  • TsiarTsiar Registered Users Posts: 384
    I'm somewhat shocked I'm saying it but
    psychoak said:

    Considering there are multiple mods to fix this and the dude's desires were answered in the first few posts, the thread got really long...

    Table Top Caps is up to date, perfect mod for the problem.

    Should we have to use mods? A different problem.

    Part of the problem here is that some of you are used to tiered gameplay. You start out with a crappy spearman, and you get a better spearman, and then an even better spearman, but they're all just spearmen.

    This isn't Warhammer. Phoenix Guard and Spearmen do not fill the same role. One of them is supposed to be rare, the other is a core infantry. TT rules prevent elite spam by requiring core, special and rare be limited in their usage. They also had relatively balanced points costs.

    CA didn't follow this way of thinking when they ported the game design to TW. They made higher tier troops inherently better. Not by cost effectiveness, but in total card power. This largely removes the validity of cheap units after a very short period of the game. We replace line infantry with heavily armored AP elites. We replace light cavalry with heavy cavalry. We replace archers with AP archers. We end up with entire armies of heavily armored AP units, that can kill several times their number in basic troops.

    The other two thirds of the game ceases to be relevant. Some of us prefer to play the whole game.

    Except its bugged for certain armies.
  • foureyes85foureyes85 Registered Users Posts: 175
    edited December 2019
    Maksbo said:

    I too would like more variation across the tier spectre. I agree that the game as is penalises you for not going elite stacking yourself. It ultimately boils down to personal preference whether you like that or not, nobody in here is probably going to convince someone on the other side of the fence, that their subjective opinion is right and they are wrong.

    For what it is worth though, too me the elite stacking and supply line mechanic is the single most problematic aspect of the game right now. I completely agree with the person who wrote, that making units obsolete makes sense in TW games where the timeline moves forward and the units evolve as a consequence... but that is not the case in TWW. Phoenix guard should not be viewed as the evolutionary end step for spearman... they are something on their own.

    Bringing caps on army caps would even open up for additional interesting parameters, that could be tweaked by certain generals. Say, for instance, that swordmasters are capped at max 2 per army... but with Teclis or a loremaster you would be allowed 5 in the stack of said general.

    I hope that CA will have time to go through the supply line mechanic and introduce OPTIONAL unit caps. Why would anyone be against having options on this is beyond me

    Good post! I like the system for Tomb Kings, one of my favorite factions. Naturally, I nevertheless end up getting armies that consist of far more Tomb Guard than the lore suggests there should be but skeleton spearmen cannot hold the line in late game.
  • tyrannustyrannus Registered Users Posts: 1,081
    I play with boyz will be boyz+tabletop caps. First makes low tier units much more viable, and second prevents doomstacking. Much more insteresting to play than boring-ass vanilla.

    Believe in humanity!
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,262
    Nyumus said:

    vova514 said:

    Nyumus said:



    I was rooting for you frank up until this comment. It is ok to read things a second time if you dont understand it the first. You are clearly arguing for arguments sake and not to be understood.

    This should hurt my feelings somehow or what? I no need your approval, you know?
    Celebare said:



    It seems hard for you to understand that the problem is lot the difficulty. It's that the doomstack make the game BORING !!!

    I'm sorry for you but winning against doomstacks doesn't revel a great strategist. Everybody can in this game.

    Is it clear now

    Is it clear now? No, it's not. Winning against anyone not a big deal, you know? I'm pretty sure AI cannot spam you with real "doomstacks" on easy, so try it. Also, I said I don't mind if CA will rework recruitment system for all races like they did for TK faction, but this should be optional, maybe some option in campaign settings. Did you seen that part? Is it clear enough? And yeah, this not about difficulty, sure))) Facing elite army is boring for you because kinda hard to win without casualties, right?)))
    Again you misquote. I will try despite others probably doing it better.

    1) Difficulty is not the problem or even part of the doom stacks complaint.

    2) Doom stacks are BORING because you have to field the same armies to keep beating the “doom” stack. Again BORING it is not related to casualties.

    3) People are saying “doom” stacks are armies that are all tier 4 or 5 units. “Doom” stacks arent unbeatable stacks they are all elite unit stacks.

    4) I dont play easy. I have always played very hard and would play legendary but i like pausing to cast spells. Personally i dont mind doom stacks but i wanted to pipe in when you keep arguing points that arent part of the discussion. Thats why i said i was rooting for you but lost me when you argue about unrelated points. I was pointing out you should take your time, read the comment and if you have too, read it again.

    1 - difficulty is a problem, because people complain about endless waves of "doomstack", which happens because the AI get economy bonuses.

    2 - fielding the same tier 1 units aren't boeing, but fielding an mix of tier 4-5 is? Honestly, you guys must be joking right now.

    3 - nope. Elite unit stacks are.... Elite unit stacks. Doomstack is spamming the high end units, without variation of composition making It powerfull and annoying. A Full 18 Mammoth stack from Norsca, Full Dragon stacks, Full Necroflex. Those are doomstack. A mix of SM, PG, DP and Phoenix is a balanced army composition of late game units. I saw some people saying that balanced comps are those composed of ALL tiers, and this is wrong. Balanced army is based on what units your factions could field. HE? A mix of archers, AL and Anti Infantry, can and aerial Monsters os a balanced army, doesn't matter the tier. VCounts? AL, Anti-Infantry, Cavalry, land and Air Monsters os your balanced comp.
    I don't understand why don't you get it.
    1.it is not difficult ,as i have to field "doomstacks" or "elite stacks" or whatever you want to call them.
    2.fielding the same tier 1 stacks would be extremely boring as well.
    3.it's just semantics.the problem is, for example,once HE unlock sisters you wont see any other archers,once the unlock phoneix guard ,you wont see spearmen ,once they unlock dragon princes,no other cavalry etc.

    all we want is some sort of cap system like in quick battles.have you played quick battles?almost every unit can find its way into an army.obviously we want ourselves to be capped by the same rules ,and even give the AI some advantage as it is dumb anyway.the tomb kings have a nice system.
    i understand that people may like the way it is now.that is why at the start of the campaign we should get a choice if we want to play with caps or not,and everyone will be happy
    Is you who don't get It, why limite the game? I agree on the choice, but I don't on those people that want tô make ALL games like that.
    Option is Fine, limiting is NOT.
    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.
  • kitekazekitekaze Registered Users Posts: 295
    Itharus said:

    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.

    Wasn't downloading mod an option? Who want capping, just downloading mod, who don't want to, ignore it.

    Why trying to bother C.A to make it in-game option? They will have to test it for every patch coming out, and tons of bugs will be ensured. DLC won't come in 4-5 months cycles but will take 6-8 months, that's even worse.

    By allowing modder to handle this "option", not only C.A free themselves from the matter, but also bug fix arrive faster.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787
    Apologies for skimming most of the thread, so I might not be 1:1 on-topic in regards the discussion that's evolved since it started.

    I'm still however confused as to what people mean when they talk about 'balance', so I don't think it's a useful term. Most discussion I've followed about balance is different people with wholly different ideas about what 'balance' even means as a definition, talking past each other.

    In regards to unit design though; I'm of the view that units which become obsolete are badly-designed units. This is something that should either never happen or only happen in specific circumstances which are emergent and not the result of top-down design decisions. To say that the alternative to this is that a player is 'forced' to use them and it is therefore bad isn't a counter to this. Yes, it is bad if a player is forced into something with no possible way of avoiding it(see the decision to anchor armies to generals/lordsn and cap them), that is not the counter-factual scenario to badly-designed units which inevitably fall into obsoletion in favour of 'higher tier' ones.

    Basic units should be upgraded but not replaced; they should still have a function that makes them irreplaceable if circumstances emerge that would make them beneficial. I again cite the objectively best Total War game: Shogun 2's Yari Ashigaru is the only unit in the game with the Yari Wall, the most powerful deterrent against reckless charges that is anticipatory more than it is reactive(the Yari Samurai unit ability by comparison is purely reactive, it's just a shame it's a silly cooldown ability rather than a toggle).

    There are several other unit-design issues, all inter-connected, which I've talked about before. It's just a shame that it's players having the conversations about unit design, with CA not only having no involvement but seemingly to have no clear direction of what their design philosophy even is at this point.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,162
    edited December 2019
    kitekaze said:

    Itharus said:

    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.

    Wasn't downloading mod an option? Who want capping, just downloading mod, who don't want to, ignore it.

    Why trying to bother C.A to make it in-game option? They will have to test it for every patch coming out, and tons of bugs will be ensured. DLC won't come in 4-5 months cycles but will take 6-8 months, that's even worse.

    By allowing modder to handle this "option", not only C.A free themselves from the matter, but also bug fix arrive faster.
    For ten billionth time, because modders are not required to keep updating their mods. Got it now? This must be part of the basegame.

  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 4,078
    Oh hey look another thread about the problems with doomstacking, and not using the rosters to their fullest. Got a copy paste response to this somewhere....found it.

    Recruitment concerns are the foundation of every fault in TWW. Doomstacking, early critical mass, AI recruitment, spam, etc. ToB presented a potential solution to be built upon, the most redeeming quality of ToB now left to wayside. You can roughly round productive elements into three points.

    1) Entire roster is available for recruitment from turn 1. No tech bar, buildings don't unlock units, the game makes available to the player and AI their resources early. Recruitment is done from your own settlements or while in encamp stance. This would help curtail spam and slow down the players ability to press a significant early advantage. However, it's not entirely free game. The recruitment relies upon a distinct pooling of the units that has varying maximum capacity and replenishment rate based upon units expense and rarity. The more powerful the unit, the longer and harder to replace. Bringing me to point 2.

    2) Unit pooling has several factors that directly impact it, but works upon specific percentage. For example, at base turn 1 nothing to support it a High Elf spearmen gets replaced in the recruitment pool at a rate of 50% per turn. So every 2 turns, you get one High Elf Spearmen. You can store up to a max of 8 unused.This rate goes down depending on how many you have. So each spearmen increases the upkeep and reduces the pooling rate of spearmen by 1%. This effect scales with the units rarity. So a Star dragon can store only 1 at a time, and that it pools at a rate of 7.5% per turn. So after 14 turns you get your first star dragon to recruit from its stored pool. This will increase the upkeep of and reduce the pooling rate of star dragons by 5%. So on and so forth for the various units and their "tiers". Supply lines obviously will go away entirely.

    3) Buildings and tech that would otherwise enable recruitment are changed to empower recruitment. So building that tier three barracks would not unlock units, but rather increase their availability. A single tier three barracks would lower upkeep for Spearmen/Archers faction wide by 6%, Lothern Sea Guard by 6%, and increase their respective pooling by the same amounts. With an increase of max stored by 3 and 1 respectively. So basically tech and military buildings serve to counter the penalty associated with fielding a lot of any one unit, and allow you to quickly replace depleted versions of that unit.

    The reasons this would help:

    1) It counters the early game spam. Lizardmen buildings, for example, are cost prohibitive. Saurus Warriors are not. Field 100 of them and roll over the whole world. Fun **** times. Now you would have access to the dinos early and still be able to emphasize how you want your armies to look with the military buildings you choose.

    2) Elites are harder to replace without investment. It took 14 turns to pool that first Star Dragon. You care when Darkshards rip it out of the sky.

    3) Moves away from single center military. You can recruit with limited investment, but one defeat is gonna make you wish you'd supported your military infrastructure.

    4) The AI is easier to account for. Faster recruitment on harder difficulties. Wipe a stack and their own infrastructure makes it easier to replace a reliable balanced stack against the player.

    5) There's no hard caps. What you foster is what you get. Build stacks of military buildings and flood the field with hordes. Build economically and shelter the units you manage to field. If you do nothing but build Dragon roosts across the world you could in theory, field 20 stacks of dragons. Player choice gets to stay intact while it still discourages endless Elite stacking.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 20,571
    Tone it down folks. Discuss your points and counter-points without personal remarks to, or about, those having differing opinions.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787

    kitekaze said:

    Itharus said:

    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.

    Wasn't downloading mod an option? Who want capping, just downloading mod, who don't want to, ignore it.

    Why trying to bother C.A to make it in-game option? They will have to test it for every patch coming out, and tons of bugs will be ensured. DLC won't come in 4-5 months cycles but will take 6-8 months, that's even worse.

    By allowing modder to handle this "option", not only C.A free themselves from the matter, but also bug fix arrive faster.
    For ten billionth time, because modders are not required to keep updating their mods. Got it now? This must be part of the basegame.
    I remember how we used to have arguements in regards to battle-pacing and I'm glad you now see the light regarding mods solving intrinsic game design problems. You are however side-stepping the argument Kitekaze is making here, so I'll address it.

    It comes back again to the issue of 'balance'. Several topics converge on this and the back-stop always relied upon for those arguing that CA should do nothing or not consider suggestions is 'they have to test and balance every possible option that players might use'. If players have 10 binary choices to make that's 100 configurations by itself.

    Do players have just 10 binary choices to make in a Total War game? No, they actually have many times more than that. Does CA really test so many for 'balance' purposes? They don't say, but the likely answer is 'no'. Not even close.

    The argument that CA should not adjust the game based on feedback because they would have to 'test everything' relies on that assumption; that they already currently do test everything, in every combination, something which stretches into the many tens of billions. It doesn't stand up to a minute of thinking about the plausibility of it.

    If however they cut-down on the test workload by using randomised sampling and weighting techniques to figure out what billions of outcomes would have looked like if actually done, and this is the only way they could, then the point about 'testing everything' is moot anyway.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 5,934

    kitekaze said:

    Itharus said:

    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.

    Wasn't downloading mod an option? Who want capping, just downloading mod, who don't want to, ignore it.

    Why trying to bother C.A to make it in-game option? They will have to test it for every patch coming out, and tons of bugs will be ensured. DLC won't come in 4-5 months cycles but will take 6-8 months, that's even worse.

    By allowing modder to handle this "option", not only C.A free themselves from the matter, but also bug fix arrive faster.
    For ten billionth time, because modders are not required to keep updating their mods. Got it now? This must be part of the basegame.
    Come on, a caps mod will always be up. It's like camera mods, someone is bound to make them.
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 1,931

    kitekaze said:

    Itharus said:

    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.

    Wasn't downloading mod an option? Who want capping, just downloading mod, who don't want to, ignore it.

    Why trying to bother C.A to make it in-game option? They will have to test it for every patch coming out, and tons of bugs will be ensured. DLC won't come in 4-5 months cycles but will take 6-8 months, that's even worse.

    By allowing modder to handle this "option", not only C.A free themselves from the matter, but also bug fix arrive faster.
    For ten billionth time, because modders are not required to keep updating their mods. Got it now? This must be part of the basegame.
    +1
    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
  • dodge33cymrudodge33cymru Registered Users Posts: 2,137
    Completely agree with @Fear_The_Wolf - ToB has a superb recruitment system that I fear will be lost to time with that game's relative failure. I also thought the lack of agents in that game was a big step up.



    Xenos7 said:

    kitekaze said:

    Itharus said:

    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.

    Wasn't downloading mod an option? Who want capping, just downloading mod, who don't want to, ignore it.

    Why trying to bother C.A to make it in-game option? They will have to test it for every patch coming out, and tons of bugs will be ensured. DLC won't come in 4-5 months cycles but will take 6-8 months, that's even worse.

    By allowing modder to handle this "option", not only C.A free themselves from the matter, but also bug fix arrive faster.
    For ten billionth time, because modders are not required to keep updating their mods. Got it now? This must be part of the basegame.
    Come on, a caps mod will always be up. It's like camera mods, someone is bound to make them.
    You think it's easy to add? I wouldn't have a he where to start and i certainly wouldn't like to take modders like Vandy, Cataph and DrunkFlamingo (and many others) for granted, they're doing amazing work.

    Reason I would like to see this is that it would be easier to mod out than to mod in and if it were part of the base game the AI would be primed to deal with it better and adjust accordingly.

    I'd prefer a system like ToB, but failing that some form of cost or caps would be a big step forward for TWW3 for me.

    Nyumus said:

    vova514 said:

    Nyumus said:



    I was rooting for you frank up until this comment. It is ok to read things a second time if you dont understand it the first. You are clearly arguing for arguments sake and not to be understood.

    This should hurt my feelings somehow or what? I no need your approval, you know?
    Celebare said:



    It seems hard for you to understand that the problem is lot the difficulty. It's that the doomstack make the game BORING !!!

    I'm sorry for you but winning against doomstacks doesn't revel a great strategist. Everybody can in this game.

    Is it clear now

    Is it clear now? No, it's not. Winning against anyone not a big deal, you know? I'm pretty sure AI cannot spam you with real "doomstacks" on easy, so try it. Also, I said I don't mind if CA will rework recruitment system for all races like they did for TK faction, but this should be optional, maybe some option in campaign settings. Did you seen that part? Is it clear enough? And yeah, this not about difficulty, sure))) Facing elite army is boring for you because kinda hard to win without casualties, right?)))
    Again you misquote. I will try despite others probably doing it better.

    1) Difficulty is not the problem or even part of the doom stacks complaint.

    2) Doom stacks are BORING because you have to field the same armies to keep beating the “doom” stack. Again BORING it is not related to casualties.

    3) People are saying “doom” stacks are armies that are all tier 4 or 5 units. “Doom” stacks arent unbeatable stacks they are all elite unit stacks.

    4) I dont play easy. I have always played very hard and would play legendary but i like pausing to cast spells. Personally i dont mind doom stacks but i wanted to pipe in when you keep arguing points that arent part of the discussion. Thats why i said i was rooting for you but lost me when you argue about unrelated points. I was pointing out you should take your time, read the comment and if you have too, read it again.

    1 - difficulty is a problem, because people complain about endless waves of "doomstack", which happens because the AI get economy bonuses.

    2 - fielding the same tier 1 units aren't boeing, but fielding an mix of tier 4-5 is? Honestly, you guys must be joking right now.

    3 - nope. Elite unit stacks are.... Elite unit stacks. Doomstack is spamming the high end units, without variation of composition making It powerfull and annoying. A Full 18 Mammoth stack from Norsca, Full Dragon stacks, Full Necroflex. Those are doomstack. A mix of SM, PG, DP and Phoenix is a balanced army composition of late game units. I saw some people saying that balanced comps are those composed of ALL tiers, and this is wrong. Balanced army is based on what units your factions could field. HE? A mix of archers, AL and Anti Infantry, can and aerial Monsters os a balanced army, doesn't matter the tier. VCounts? AL, Anti-Infantry, Cavalry, land and Air Monsters os your balanced comp.
    I don't understand why don't you get it.
    1.it is not difficult ,as i have to field "doomstacks" or "elite stacks" or whatever you want to call them.
    2.fielding the same tier 1 stacks would be extremely boring as well.
    3.it's just semantics.the problem is, for example,once HE unlock sisters you wont see any other archers,once the unlock phoneix guard ,you wont see spearmen ,once they unlock dragon princes,no other cavalry etc.

    all we want is some sort of cap system like in quick battles.have you played quick battles?almost every unit can find its way into an army.obviously we want ourselves to be capped by the same rules ,and even give the AI some advantage as it is dumb anyway.the tomb kings have a nice system.
    i understand that people may like the way it is now.that is why at the start of the campaign we should get a choice if we want to play with caps or not,and everyone will be happy
    Is you who don't get It, why limite the game? I agree on the choice, but I don't on those people that want tô make ALL games like that.
    Option is Fine, limiting is NOT.
    But then why limit anything in game? Why have stats for units at all? Isn't it too limiting that goblin spearmen aren't as good as Chosen, or that a clanrat can't match Kroq-Gar? How about climate preferences? And needing buildings to unlock units is very limiting.
  • Frank9945671Frank9945671 Registered Users Posts: 175
    edited December 2019
    Mooncake said:

    God, this Frank guy is a moron. Do you really not understand why invalidating the majority of every faction's roster after 50 turns is a problem or are you being intentionally obtuse?

    Yeah, moron because I'm okay with some aspects of vanilla game and elite stacks like in every TW game. That means just because I'm not on your side. I understand monsters are new thing in TW and fighting against dragons or phoenixes probably is not so funny, etc.

    Anyway, some people, including me, already said some words about additional options for campaign, which can limit units somehow. I guess everyone already agreed with that fact: if CA will add some unit caps as an option for campaign this will be fine. But this is not enough for some of you guys and you still throwing some **** here like monkeys and spamming with same posts over and over again, because you simply like it. And this dalton guy obviously a troll, really, most of the time just trashtalking. Never seen from him any good idea for the game, just complains, really.

    I guess, we done here.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 8,743
    I don't care for balanced armies. Most fun I had was ruining a friendship by spamming mammoths.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,162
    Crossil said:

    I don't care for balanced armies. Most fun I had was ruining a friendship by spamming mammoths.

    That's fun for maybe one playthrough. Or not at all for many who actually care a damn about the setting.

    It must go away.

  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Registered Users Posts: 451
    I'll argue for status quo.

    The only thing I'd change is no added upkeep per lord. I already use a mod for this, it just shortens the time spent with 1 stack.

    People already complain about the game having no challenge and being bored very quickly, and then want the AI to not form elite armies that actually take effort to defeat. When the AI finally forms a large powerful empire the players complain it is a boring tedious grind, without realising that issue would magnify by capping all elites. Now you quit at the same point, this time with Spearmen instead of Phoenix Guard.

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,162

    I'll argue for status quo.

    The only thing I'd change is no added upkeep per lord. I already use a mod for this, it just shortens the time spent with 1 stack.

    People already complain about the game having no challenge and being bored very quickly, and then want the AI to not form elite armies that actually take effort to defeat. When the AI finally forms a large powerful empire the players complain it is a boring tedious grind, without realising that issue would magnify by capping all elites. Now you quit at the same point, this time with Spearmen instead of Phoenix Guard.

    Doomstacks are not challenging because you can always spam your own to counter them. They're BORING!

    So many varied units, such big rosters, the game should not make the majority of them no-shows 50 turns into the campaign.

  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 13,338

    I'll argue for status quo.

    The only thing I'd change is no added upkeep per lord. I already use a mod for this, it just shortens the time spent with 1 stack.

    People already complain about the game having no challenge and being bored very quickly, and then want the AI to not form elite armies that actually take effort to defeat. When the AI finally forms a large powerful empire the players complain it is a boring tedious grind, without realising that issue would magnify by capping all elites. Now you quit at the same point, this time with Spearmen instead of Phoenix Guard.

    The elite spam is one reason why the late game gets boring so fast. Fighting the same stack with 2-3 units over and over again is just stupid.

    Around turn 50, 80% of the unit rosters get obsolete.


  • NyumusNyumus Registered Users Posts: 219

    Crossil said:

    I don't care for balanced armies. Most fun I had was ruining a friendship by spamming mammoths.

    That's fun for maybe one playthrough. Or not at all for many who actually care a damn about the setting.

    It must go away.
    Why? Because you don't like It? If It is Fun for some of us (most, actually) why remove It?
    Stop trying to gut the game, don't take things out, add more.
    Like I said, give additional option is Fine, and Will make everyone happy, but changing the game as It is now Will only make a Lot of people upset.
    Is It hard to get It?
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,204
    Almost no one finishes campaigns, if it were fun for most of us to slog through endless armies of max tier troops, we'd be finishing our campaigns. Instead, most campaigns are ended before turn 100. :)

    Because the game goes from diverse armies and a state of challenge, to a bunch of lost causes with singular doomstack armies that are actually less of a challenge than fighting a couple real armies together would have been.

    Outside of a couple exceptions, like Star Dragons, it's a hell of a lot easier to kill one elite unit, than it is a few low and mid tier units. You eat the heavy cavalry unit with a light cavalry and a halberd unit and obliterate it, instead of getting your infantry cycle charged by a unit of light cavalry, while another grinds your own into hamburger.

    Combined arms rules all.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787
    Yeah, let us put the 'most people enjoy' meme to rest. As Psychoak points out, we do actually have a critical data-point and in the absence of CA releasing more(companies rarely release non-fluff stats though) the fact is plain to see: most players do not finish campaigns. That's actually an understatement by a huge margin: most people don't continue campaigns to a point where even basic achievements are unlocked.

    This is the case with a lot of games, which suggests the cause of the symptom is people buying more games than they can actually get round to playing, but Total War has always been a narrow-focused niche and we should expect a lot more players getting campaigns done. I'm not sure I've finished one since Shogun 2.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 833
    edited December 2019
    The problem is beyond the cap rules (or lack thereof). The whole game railroads you into Doomstacking.
    • Lightning Strikes makes high value Doomstacks optimal.
    • Supply Lines make it more economical to go Doomstacks over multi-stacks. This especially hurts some factions that are supposed to be more swarmy in nature.
    • Reinforcement system rewards just using 1 or 2 armies. (unless you enjoy auto-resolving cheese)
    • Late game economic growth makes individual unit cost efficiency less important. (especially when factoring in supply line penalty)
    • Some races get recruitment turn time reduction techs and buildings which reduce the burden of recruiting those tier 4 and 5 units. (looking at you high elves)
    • replenishment rate and attrition is uniform
    • armies are capped at 20 units which means a skavenslave takes up as much room as a Stormvermin.
    • It's more optimal to recruit a bunch of big units that wont die easily than get a bunch of weaker units that will need to be repurchased (globally) after every fight. (I like what they did with three kingdoms)
    • Legendary Lords unique unit buffing skills are often not strong enough compete with tier 4 or 5 units.(Volkmar being one of the few exceptions)
    • Autoresolve works better with doomstacks.
    A unit cap system is the first thing, but I would really like to see a more comprehensive focus on addressing the Doomstack issue. Improving any of these things would help open up the roster as well as encourage more varied strategies.
  • KN_GarsKN_Gars Registered Users Posts: 290
    Jman5 said:

    The problem is beyond the cap rules (or lack thereof). The whole game railroads you into Doomstacking.

    • Legendary Lords unique unit buffing skills are often not strong enough compete with tier 4 or 5 units.(Volkmar being one of the few exceptions)
    • Autoresolve works better with doomstacks.
    A unit cap system is the first thing, but I would really like to see a more comprehensive focus on addressing the Doomstack issue. Improving any of these things would help open up the roster as well as encourage more varied strategies.
    At least in the case of the Empire in WH1 and early Mortal Empire the lord skills did buff the core state troops to the point where they could stand up to higher tier units but because these buffs made them better than the supposed elite units which did not have similar buffs from skills CA ended up making a heavy nerf of the skill which lost 33% of the bonus it used to provide. (The actual solution would have been to change and improve the skill which buffed Greatswords...)
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787
    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,595

    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.

    You say it’s bad, others disagree. If you’d been around on the release of Atilla you’d know how popular the White Huns campaign was.

    The ability for some units to take missiles better adds to a players options. Let’s not dumb the game down.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 833

    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.

    Makes sense to me. 35% chance that the arrow will hit the rider's shield, 65% chance the arrow will hit the horse.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787

    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.

    You say it’s bad, others disagree. If you’d been around on the release of Atilla you’d know how popular the White Huns campaign was.

    The ability for some units to take missiles better adds to a players options. Let’s not dumb the game down.
    What I described is already dumbed-down. What that unit can do is magical and arbitrary, yet it's in a 'historical' TW title.

    Things like this make it impossible for a player to intuit what their options are. It's pointless having options when they aren't clear and players have to stumble through trial and error to guess what the developers design-intent was. It's got to the point where the stat-card matters more than anything, yet it's still bereft of important information. The accuracy stat is no longer shown for example because it's mostly irrelevent with the current borked design of the shooting mechanics.

    The lack of intuitive design and overwhelming surplus of arbitrary design makes most games since Shogun 2 just not at all fun for me.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787
    Jman5 said:

    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.

    Makes sense to me. 35% chance that the arrow will hit the rider's shield, 65% chance the arrow will hit the horse.
    Take longer than a second to think about it then because that shield is not 35% the size of the rider + horse. The unit basically has the same missile resistance as a much smaller infantry unit carrying the same-sized shield but which covers them much more proportionately.

    CA's design intentions for units no longer make any sense when thinking about how they would actually work in a real situation. They were sticking 'magic' in the game even before Warhammer, robbing players of the means to win by knowledge of historical military tactics and role-playing them.
Sign In or Register to comment.