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

Proving Grounds Beta

179111213

Comments

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 11,072
    edited March 2020
    Jackydai said:

    Now that my first thread has triggered some good conversation, I shall carry on with other problems. Just to clarify again, everything is refering to SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN. The reference of MOBA was just to point out the importance of stat caps, cause people are familiar with LOL. Be sure to understand my points before stating I'm talking about MP battles. OK let's go.

    a. Siege battles. For old players, it should be a very familliar tactic to first destroy a fort tower, then just stay outside the castle and shoot all the ammunition and damage spells before climbing the walls. This gains huge advantage for the attackers, but siege battles are supposed to be in favor of the defenders. The key problem is that the defending AI would NEVER come out of the wall no matter how, so even when they are under missile fire they just bear with it. A lot of battles that could never been won at field can be easily won at siege. I can use an army of 19 catapults destroy thousands of swordmasters with no effort at all, cause I know they are not coming out of the wall. What makes matters worse is that if I don't have enough ammunition, but the army still have enough moving points on the campaign map, I can wait until draw in the battle, then actively withdraw on the campaign map, then move in to attack again on the same turn (Never tried this? That's how you take Eight Peaks straight fast as Grimgor). That way no matter how strong the defending army is I can eat bit by bit with no cost until I win.
    My solution is: first, adjust the AI's logic to the same as field battle where they can choose to come out and meet the attacker; second, change fort towers' coverage area because there are too many dead angles in many maps, especially the one with a mountain on the left side and the one with square walls and four towers in front; third, give defending army some deployable area in front of the wall at the deployment stage - I mean, why can't they? They surely have time for that. In real warfare there are also many cases that the defenders intercept in front of the wall, Troy for example; fourth, fort towers have a default 0.5 garrison army instead of 0, which means they fire automatically without needing a friendly troop nearby until captured by the enemy. I feel much more confident doing a siege battle than a field battle, but this phenomenon is really not healthy. Btw, Attila/Rome 2 all have this issue.
    Another little problem is when the player is defender, sometimes fleeing enemy troops would recover and come back to the victory point and start capturing, which is quite annoying. Imagine you are a soldier in the attacking army, would you think of fleeing in that direction? I think anyone would choose to flee to the outside of the wall rather than further inside the city. Btw, why make killing fleeing men so hard, CA? Can't we just do it the same speed like Medieval 2?

    b. Ammunition. It's kinda related to the first problem. You get the ammo refilled after every battle, as well as wind of magic. In some cases, we can have the same "shoot for free" tactic like in siege battle. For instance, when it's AI's turn and I'm attacked by a stronger army, if my army have longer range or higher mobility, I can shoot until no ammo then actively withdraw. If AI pursue, then I suddenly get ammo filled up again and have a much better chance to win. It's the same with the spells, both damage spells and healing spells. Damage spells work the same like ammunition. What about healing spells? For example, if I have an army of monsters and a healing mage, I would deliberately leave a slow enemy troop after wining a battle, then pursue. In this second battle I will use the healing mage to heal up all the half-healthed monsters before crushing that one enemy troop, so I get a full health army again. Wierd isn't it? You get a stronger army after a battle.
    My solution is: ammunition and wind of magic(as well as item bounded spells) should be replenished when the army is being replenished, or if that's hard to be done, make it replenished on each turn rather than after each battle. This also makes more sense because in history we see a lot of cases when an army is traped and run out of ammo. If they can get magical ammo refill for every conflict, history would be rewritten. That is also why supply line was so important in real warfare. As for wind of magic, I think the logic works as well, because you've already drained the winds in the area and it needs time to gather again.
    It would be better if vigor will also inherit. It makes more sense for an army to tire after each battle and recover the next turn, rather than becoming refreshed again after each battle. Just put a one turn little debuff there and it's done. (except for the orcs. Waaaaagh!)

    A would be solved if the ai and the player could deploy outside the walls and we remove capturing town center. This way ai could defend the walls with infantry and cav (by just attacking you) and missile troops on the walls would rain down on you. Facing the ai like that would be alot harder. Or siege maps and ai would need a full revamp.

    B i disagree. That is setting that can be chosen by the player. If we put limitless time you dont get draws. And running out of ammo then matters. So this is a non issue. If someone wants the setting on and draws then go ahead. No skin off my nose.
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • philosofoolphilosofool Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 699
    edited March 2020

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 11,072
    edited March 2020

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    Ive seen many complain (me included). There has even been several threada about it. I love building powerful lords. I do it pretty much always as it is right there in your face and it is fun. What isnt fun is that it is so good it breaks the hardest difficulty settings.
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 607

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    Its actually come up a number of times, especially when balancing is being discussed. Like I said, I dont mind if some people want to do it, i do think it exemplifies some of the issues that a minority see as a problem but most players will never care about
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,360
    edited March 2020
    Jackydai said:

    Now that my first thread has triggered some good conversation, I shall carry on with other problems. Just to clarify again, everything is refering to SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN. The reference of MOBA was just to point out the importance of stat caps, cause people are familiar with LOL. Be sure to understand my points before stating I'm talking about MP battles. OK let's go.

    a. Siege battles. For old players, it should be a very familiar tactic to first destroy a fort tower, then just stay outside the castle and shoot all the ammunition and damage spells before climbing the walls. This gains huge advantage for the attackers, but siege battles are supposed to be in favor of the defenders. The key problem is that the defending AI would NEVER come out of the wall no matter how, so even when they are under missile fire they just bear with it. A lot of battles that could never been won at field can be easily won at siege. I can use an army of 19 catapults destroy thousands of swordmasters with no effort at all, cause I know they are not coming out of the wall. What makes matters worse is that if I don't have enough ammunition, but the army still have enough moving points on the campaign map, I can wait until draw in the battle, then actively withdraw on the campaign map, then move in to attack again on the same turn (Never tried this? That's how you take Eight Peaks straight fast as Grimgor). That way no matter how strong the defending army is I can eat bit by bit with no cost until I win.
    My solution is: first, adjust the AI's logic to the same as field battle where they can choose to come out and meet the attacker; second, change fort towers' coverage area because there are too many dead angles in many maps, especially the one with a mountain on the left side and the one with square walls and four towers in front; third, give defending army some deployable area in front of the wall at the deployment stage - I mean, why can't they? They surely have time for that. In real warfare there are also many cases that the defenders intercept in front of the wall, Troy for example; fourth, fort towers have a default 0.5 garrison army instead of 0, which means they fire automatically without needing a friendly troop nearby until captured by the enemy. I feel much more confident doing a siege battle than a field battle, but this phenomenon is really not healthy. Btw, Attila/Rome 2 all have this issue.
    Another little problem is when the player is defender, sometimes fleeing enemy troops would recover and come back to the victory point and start capturing, which is quite annoying. Imagine you are a soldier in the attacking army, would you think of fleeing in that direction? I think anyone would choose to flee to the outside of the wall rather than further inside the city. Btw, why make killing fleeing men so hard, CA? Can't we just do it the same speed like Medieval 2?

    b. Ammunition. It's kinda related to the first problem. You get the ammo refilled after every battle, as well as wind of magic. In some cases, we can have the same "shoot for free" tactic like in siege battle. For instance, when it's AI's turn and I'm attacked by a stronger army, if my army have longer range or higher mobility, I can shoot until no ammo then actively withdraw. If AI pursue, then I suddenly get ammo filled up again and have a much better chance to win. It's the same with the spells, both damage spells and healing spells. Damage spells work the same like ammunition. What about healing spells? For example, if I have an army of monsters and a healing mage, I would deliberately leave a slow enemy troop after wining a battle, then pursue. In this second battle I will use the healing mage to heal up all the half-healthed monsters before crushing that one enemy troop, so I get a full health army again. Weird isn't it? You get a stronger army after a battle.
    My solution is: ammunition and wind of magic(as well as item bounded spells) should be replenished when the army is being replenished, or if that's hard to be done, make it replenished on each turn rather than after each battle. This also makes more sense because in history we see a lot of cases when an army is traped and run out of ammo. If they can get magical ammo refill for every conflict, history would be rewritten. That is also why supply line was so important in real warfare. As for wind of magic, I think the logic works as well, because you've already drained the winds in the area and it needs time to gather again.
    It would be better if vigor will also inherit. It makes more sense for an army to tire after each battle and recover the next turn, rather than becoming refreshed again after each battle. Just put a one turn little debuff there and it's done. (except for the orcs. Waaaaagh!)

    Fortifications gave an advantage to the defender, unless the attacker had a lot of artillery and was fully willing to use it, but yea it's odd that the AI defenders don't sally out even when it's to their advantage to do so. Yes it's odd when the troops can easily get new ammunition, unless the troops are using slings or something of that sort. The "winds of magic" is chaos energy, and the power of chaos is almost limitless, and if anything the mages in Total War: Warhammer 2 tend to have more limits on them than they would have lore-wise, or in other words it's make sense for magic to be OP. Yes healing magic and healing factor are a powerful abilities, but if anything the odd part is actually that those monsters are not getting healed just as fast outside of battle, and current healing cap already don't has much to do with logic.

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CombatExclusiveHealing

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HealingFactor
  • CountTalabeclandCountTalabecland Registered Users Posts: 695
    This is my first time downloading a beta. How long should it take? Says its only 135.9 mb but its already been 30 minutes and its not done yet?
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34

    This is my first time downloading a beta. How long should it take? Says its only 135.9 mb but its already been 30 minutes and its not done yet?

    Despite being only 135.9mb the way it updates is like redownloading the whole game. It's been complained many times but this is how CA defend against pirates.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    It's not powerful lords that I'm against, it's the cost-effectiveness curve. In game designing industry, you ususally want the effectiveness of each point of armor/attack/health gain resulting in similar effectiveness, that way the effort you put in gaining the value remains at a stable level. Ward saves is a typical subtraction style value where the effectiveness is calculated as 1-x%. The problem with subtraction style value is that its cost-effectiveness curve is exponential, 1% gained at 0% is vastly different from 1% gained at 99%. If you look at the armor calculation of the Age of Empire 2 (simple subtraction) and Warcraft 3 (percentage curve) you'll see the latter one is more scentific than the former. For substarction style value, today's game designing industry ususally set a medium cap for it so it doesn't get too exponential, 40% cooldown in LOL for instance as I mentioned. CA staff would understand what I'm saying here. A 60% cap wouldn't affect most players who don't do intentional ward saves stack up and you still get powerful lords, trust me.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34

    Jackydai said:

    Now that my first thread has triggered some good conversation, I shall carry on with other problems. Just to clarify again, everything is refering to SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN. The reference of MOBA was just to point out the importance of stat caps, cause people are familiar with LOL. Be sure to understand my points before stating I'm talking about MP battles. OK let's go.

    a. Siege battles. For old players, it should be a very familliar tactic to first destroy a fort tower, then just stay outside the castle and shoot all the ammunition and damage spells before climbing the walls. This gains huge advantage for the attackers, but siege battles are supposed to be in favor of the defenders. The key problem is that the defending AI would NEVER come out of the wall no matter how, so even when they are under missile fire they just bear with it. A lot of battles that could never been won at field can be easily won at siege. I can use an army of 19 catapults destroy thousands of swordmasters with no effort at all, cause I know they are not coming out of the wall. What makes matters worse is that if I don't have enough ammunition, but the army still have enough moving points on the campaign map, I can wait until draw in the battle, then actively withdraw on the campaign map, then move in to attack again on the same turn (Never tried this? That's how you take Eight Peaks straight fast as Grimgor). That way no matter how strong the defending army is I can eat bit by bit with no cost until I win.
    My solution is: first, adjust the AI's logic to the same as field battle where they can choose to come out and meet the attacker; second, change fort towers' coverage area because there are too many dead angles in many maps, especially the one with a mountain on the left side and the one with square walls and four towers in front; third, give defending army some deployable area in front of the wall at the deployment stage - I mean, why can't they? They surely have time for that. In real warfare there are also many cases that the defenders intercept in front of the wall, Troy for example; fourth, fort towers have a default 0.5 garrison army instead of 0, which means they fire automatically without needing a friendly troop nearby until captured by the enemy. I feel much more confident doing a siege battle than a field battle, but this phenomenon is really not healthy. Btw, Attila/Rome 2 all have this issue.
    Another little problem is when the player is defender, sometimes fleeing enemy troops would recover and come back to the victory point and start capturing, which is quite annoying. Imagine you are a soldier in the attacking army, would you think of fleeing in that direction? I think anyone would choose to flee to the outside of the wall rather than further inside the city. Btw, why make killing fleeing men so hard, CA? Can't we just do it the same speed like Medieval 2?

    b. Ammunition. It's kinda related to the first problem. You get the ammo refilled after every battle, as well as wind of magic. In some cases, we can have the same "shoot for free" tactic like in siege battle. For instance, when it's AI's turn and I'm attacked by a stronger army, if my army have longer range or higher mobility, I can shoot until no ammo then actively withdraw. If AI pursue, then I suddenly get ammo filled up again and have a much better chance to win. It's the same with the spells, both damage spells and healing spells. Damage spells work the same like ammunition. What about healing spells? For example, if I have an army of monsters and a healing mage, I would deliberately leave a slow enemy troop after wining a battle, then pursue. In this second battle I will use the healing mage to heal up all the half-healthed monsters before crushing that one enemy troop, so I get a full health army again. Wierd isn't it? You get a stronger army after a battle.
    My solution is: ammunition and wind of magic(as well as item bounded spells) should be replenished when the army is being replenished, or if that's hard to be done, make it replenished on each turn rather than after each battle. This also makes more sense because in history we see a lot of cases when an army is traped and run out of ammo. If they can get magical ammo refill for every conflict, history would be rewritten. That is also why supply line was so important in real warfare. As for wind of magic, I think the logic works as well, because you've already drained the winds in the area and it needs time to gather again.
    It would be better if vigor will also inherit. It makes more sense for an army to tire after each battle and recover the next turn, rather than becoming refreshed again after each battle. Just put a one turn little debuff there and it's done. (except for the orcs. Waaaaagh!)

    A would be solved if the ai and the player could deploy outside the walls and we remove capturing town center. This way ai could defend the walls with infantry and cav (by just attacking you) and missile troops on the walls would rain down on you. Facing the ai like that would be alot harder. Or siege maps and ai would need a full revamp.

    B i disagree. That is setting that can be chosen by the player. If we put limitless time you dont get draws. And running out of ammo then matters. So this is a non issue. If someone wants the setting on and draws then go ahead. No skin off my nose.
    I just offer a possible solution, there might be other ways around. As long as CA blocks players' means to cheat I'm okay with it. After all, we play total war for good commanding experience, not utilizing the loophole in the game mechanics for cheap wins.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Talking about value balancing, I have some other small suggestions, but these might be controversial. Please share your opinions guys.

    a. Most buffing magic spells that only works on one unit are quite weak and not worth the wind cost. This makes the lore of Nehekhara the weakest lore. Wind/vortex/tear shape/bombardment damage spells are generally stronger than direct damage/missile spells. I'm not sure if CA can keep track of average damage each spell is doing in campaign, but we can look at what lore and spells people are bringing to MP campaigns. I know that unit size also influence this balance. Perhaps we can set different value for different unit size. (but seriously, who doesn't set at ultra size? that's why we play total war!)

    b. Too much AP damage is making armors quite useless. In fact, I think CA is a bit lazy in setting ap and non-ap damage values. For most units, you get either most damage ap, or most damage non-ap. There's not much 50-50,40-60 or 30-70. I don't quite understand the reason behind it, cause CA's been doing this great in previous titles, swords are like 10-90, axes like 50-50, maces like 80-20 or so. You get a gradual spectrum from totally non-ap to totally ap. However, here in Warhammer it's always extremely ap or extremely non-ap, making armors like Schrodinger's cat. It doesn't have to be like this. I'd like to see more units like saurus warriors that stay in the middle. This way armors can also function normally.

    c. Recruitment time problem. There are many factions that you can get the global recruitment time less than local recruitment time, which is wierd. Considering that upkeep is so high in late game the rational option would become global recruitment even when local recruitment is present. It's not so much a big deal but just wierd. Also some units suffer from too much recruitment time, like Bestigor herd of Beastmen - it takes 3 turns while Minotaurs take only 1 turn, even Chosen only takes 1 turn. I don't think CA wants any of their unit design wasted. Each unit need its location in the system and be the rational choice of the player from time to time. CA should rethink about units that never appear in players' armies for the entire campaign, and adjust what prohibit them from showing up.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Three more little points:

    a. We usually upgrade a settlement to level 3 when we have 2 popuplation, which is 125+375=500growth. Yet sometimes when we upgrade to level 3 settlement when we have 3 population, we actually consume 375+750=1125growth, or 750+1250=2000growth at 4 population. It's quite a loss. This is because of the growth-popuplation counting system. I mean if we let go of these 12345 population and just count by growth this could be prevented.

    b. Saving does not remember changes on edicts. If I ordered to change some edicts, then save and reload, every other order would be recorded except for these changes on edicts. They have to be done again. By the way, I hope CA can make a function where player can click to order a province into auto-management. In auto management these provinces upgrade buildings automatically at each turn start as long as we have enough money, except empty slots and settlement buildings. This would save much time in late game, time which does not promote game experience.

    c.Auto resolve value. It seems the auto resolve values of units are quite irrelevant to their recruitment costs. We have almost invincible Hydra and we have very weak Blackguards of Naggarond. I don't know why CA is not simply copying basic recruitment cost as the fundamental reference, which would make a lot of things easier here. Another thing is when we have an army of mainly missile troops and several melee troops, the melee troops are very easy to be wiped out in auto resolves, even when we have great advantages. It forces players to reload and do it manually. Indeed melee units usually tend to take more casualties, but then can we have less wiping out scenario when it's not phyric victory? It seems units in auto resolve don't have leadership and never flee, even Skavens fight to the last rat. In my experience seldom do units get wiped out in manually played close or decisive victories.
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,317

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Sorry I have to disagree too. There’s a ton of ways to cheese the game. If you watch legend of total war game, he non stop cheeses the game. I think however, anyone who thinks cheesing the game isn’t fun, should have the self control to not cheese the game and ruin it for themselves. Anyone who likes cheesing the game can go ahead and do it. CA shouldn’t be forcing any players down a certain play style.

    I like having thematic armies. Not always the most efficient way of doing things but it’s my play style.
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,317

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Well that is how previous TW games were ruined. By CA constantly balancing and tweaking to suit the MP community and the mindset of 'MOBA players'.

    That is how everyone got onagers in Attila.

    I am just voicing the view of the SP/grand strategy crowd. The fact that as soon as I do I get some very rude replies kind of highlights how important it is that someone speaks up for the 95%.
    I second this opinion. People working hard to abuse the game should not be the standard for balancing. Getting free buildings and demolishing them for $$$ takes a long time and a lot more effort than just properly playing the game and beating the developers originally intended challenges
    Wrong, vanilla requires no such effort. In vanilla cheesing is easier than playing normally.
    So what if it’s easier. Other people cheesing the game doesn’t force you to cheese the game
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 11,072
    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    It's not powerful lords that I'm against, it's the cost-effectiveness curve. In game designing industry, you ususally want the effectiveness of each point of armor/attack/health gain resulting in similar effectiveness, that way the effort you put in gaining the value remains at a stable level. Ward saves is a typical subtraction style value where the effectiveness is calculated as 1-x%. The problem with subtraction style value is that its cost-effectiveness curve is exponential, 1% gained at 0% is vastly different from 1% gained at 99%. If you look at the armor calculation of the Age of Empire 2 (simple subtraction) and Warcraft 3 (percentage curve) you'll see the latter one is more scentific than the former. For substarction style value, today's game designing industry ususally set a medium cap for it so it doesn't get too exponential, 40% cooldown in LOL for instance as I mentioned. CA staff would understand what I'm saying here. A 60% cap wouldn't affect most players who don't do intentional ward saves stack up and you still get powerful lords, trust me.
    Well said.

    I pretty much agree with all your other points you posted after aswell. It is clear you have looked long and hard at the mechanics and possible issues.

    Ive said many times before; armor is often to good. And armor is to often useless. The whole all or nothing implementation creates issues like that.
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • rrinscheidrrinscheid Registered Users Posts: 163
    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    Now that my first thread has triggered some good conversation, I shall carry on with other problems. Just to clarify again, everything is refering to SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN. The reference of MOBA was just to point out the importance of stat caps, cause people are familiar with LOL. Be sure to understand my points before stating I'm talking about MP battles. OK let's go.

    a. Siege battles. For old players, it should be a very familliar tactic to first destroy a fort tower, then just stay outside the castle and shoot all the ammunition and damage spells before climbing the walls. This gains huge advantage for the attackers, but siege battles are supposed to be in favor of the defenders. The key problem is that the defending AI would NEVER come out of the wall no matter how, so even when they are under missile fire they just bear with it. A lot of battles that could never been won at field can be easily won at siege. I can use an army of 19 catapults destroy thousands of swordmasters with no effort at all, cause I know they are not coming out of the wall. What makes matters worse is that if I don't have enough ammunition, but the army still have enough moving points on the campaign map, I can wait until draw in the battle, then actively withdraw on the campaign map, then move in to attack again on the same turn (Never tried this? That's how you take Eight Peaks straight fast as Grimgor). That way no matter how strong the defending army is I can eat bit by bit with no cost until I win.
    My solution is: first, adjust the AI's logic to the same as field battle where they can choose to come out and meet the attacker; second, change fort towers' coverage area because there are too many dead angles in many maps, especially the one with a mountain on the left side and the one with square walls and four towers in front; third, give defending army some deployable area in front of the wall at the deployment stage - I mean, why can't they? They surely have time for that. In real warfare there are also many cases that the defenders intercept in front of the wall, Troy for example; fourth, fort towers have a default 0.5 garrison army instead of 0, which means they fire automatically without needing a friendly troop nearby until captured by the enemy. I feel much more confident doing a siege battle than a field battle, but this phenomenon is really not healthy. Btw, Attila/Rome 2 all have this issue.
    Another little problem is when the player is defender, sometimes fleeing enemy troops would recover and come back to the victory point and start capturing, which is quite annoying. Imagine you are a soldier in the attacking army, would you think of fleeing in that direction? I think anyone would choose to flee to the outside of the wall rather than further inside the city. Btw, why make killing fleeing men so hard, CA? Can't we just do it the same speed like Medieval 2?

    b. Ammunition. It's kinda related to the first problem. You get the ammo refilled after every battle, as well as wind of magic. In some cases, we can have the same "shoot for free" tactic like in siege battle. For instance, when it's AI's turn and I'm attacked by a stronger army, if my army have longer range or higher mobility, I can shoot until no ammo then actively withdraw. If AI pursue, then I suddenly get ammo filled up again and have a much better chance to win. It's the same with the spells, both damage spells and healing spells. Damage spells work the same like ammunition. What about healing spells? For example, if I have an army of monsters and a healing mage, I would deliberately leave a slow enemy troop after wining a battle, then pursue. In this second battle I will use the healing mage to heal up all the half-healthed monsters before crushing that one enemy troop, so I get a full health army again. Wierd isn't it? You get a stronger army after a battle.
    My solution is: ammunition and wind of magic(as well as item bounded spells) should be replenished when the army is being replenished, or if that's hard to be done, make it replenished on each turn rather than after each battle. This also makes more sense because in history we see a lot of cases when an army is traped and run out of ammo. If they can get magical ammo refill for every conflict, history would be rewritten. That is also why supply line was so important in real warfare. As for wind of magic, I think the logic works as well, because you've already drained the winds in the area and it needs time to gather again.
    It would be better if vigor will also inherit. It makes more sense for an army to tire after each battle and recover the next turn, rather than becoming refreshed again after each battle. Just put a one turn little debuff there and it's done. (except for the orcs. Waaaaagh!)

    Forgot one there.
    c. Z running. In current field battles, defending AI catapults make no threats to players, because we can use our lords to cheat out their ammunition. Just put all the other troops behind and send our lord to the maximum range of enemy catapults, then start Z running left and right. We can dodge all the shots from enemy catapults that way and they become useless. The more accurate they fire the easier they are to dodge, with hell cannon and flying goblin exceptions because they can trace after shooting. We can also cheat out enemy archers' ammo with very little health lost too, except for handguns because the bullets fly too fast. The root of this problem is that AI tend to hold its ground as much as possible when its the defender.
    There are multiple settings that deal with this: one, set a shorter alert range for units that have this dodging ability, which means AI's cannon does not fire at a lord or a phoenix who is not engaged in melee until 120 yards, but still fire at spearmen when they step into 450 yards; two, when AI discover that the player is sending his lord too close and far away from other troops, it sends in its mobile melee troops to bully the lord rather than just shoot at him; three, let the defending AI army not stick to their position too much, give them some flexible choices. If there is a good target 10 yards away from the catapult's max range, let AI bring it forward and fire, but just not too much maneuvering distance to prevent player from luring the catapults to a trap. I'd say 30 yards for catapults should be good, cavalries can have more. Just keep it to the extend that all units can come back to formation before player brings up his main army. All these should not be too hard to apply to the game imo, but makes the AI much more intelligent and more like a real commander.
    This is a good point. I’m guilty of doing this currently in my vampire playthrough and even through its extremely effective it definitely does feel like I’m taking advantage of an idiot (the AI in the place).
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 11,072
    edited March 2020
    Yeah it is a good point for sure. But overall making the ai aggresive is key as often it will habe weaknesses otherwise.

    For example he says let them fire on spearmen. Well then you just move obe regiment of spearmen max range spagetti line. As it suffer casulties it will become vwry hard to hit for artillery. 1 spearmen thus empty 4 catapults ammo.

    Now if the map was round without corner camping and the ai was always comig for you then alot of issues would be fixed. The catapults would be designed to favor hitting infantry and move with the rest of the ai army.

    Having ai be passive is always a recipe for disaster imo
    Post edited by Tennisgolfboll on
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,360
    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    Now that my first thread has triggered some good conversation, I shall carry on with other problems. Just to clarify again, everything is refering to SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN. The reference of MOBA was just to point out the importance of stat caps, cause people are familiar with LOL. Be sure to understand my points before stating I'm talking about MP battles. OK let's go.

    a. Siege battles. For old players, it should be a very familliar tactic to first destroy a fort tower, then just stay outside the castle and shoot all the ammunition and damage spells before climbing the walls. This gains huge advantage for the attackers, but siege battles are supposed to be in favor of the defenders. The key problem is that the defending AI would NEVER come out of the wall no matter how, so even when they are under missile fire they just bear with it. A lot of battles that could never been won at field can be easily won at siege. I can use an army of 19 catapults destroy thousands of swordmasters with no effort at all, cause I know they are not coming out of the wall. What makes matters worse is that if I don't have enough ammunition, but the army still have enough moving points on the campaign map, I can wait until draw in the battle, then actively withdraw on the campaign map, then move in to attack again on the same turn (Never tried this? That's how you take Eight Peaks straight fast as Grimgor). That way no matter how strong the defending army is I can eat bit by bit with no cost until I win.
    My solution is: first, adjust the AI's logic to the same as field battle where they can choose to come out and meet the attacker; second, change fort towers' coverage area because there are too many dead angles in many maps, especially the one with a mountain on the left side and the one with square walls and four towers in front; third, give defending army some deployable area in front of the wall at the deployment stage - I mean, why can't they? They surely have time for that. In real warfare there are also many cases that the defenders intercept in front of the wall, Troy for example; fourth, fort towers have a default 0.5 garrison army instead of 0, which means they fire automatically without needing a friendly troop nearby until captured by the enemy. I feel much more confident doing a siege battle than a field battle, but this phenomenon is really not healthy. Btw, Attila/Rome 2 all have this issue.
    Another little problem is when the player is defender, sometimes fleeing enemy troops would recover and come back to the victory point and start capturing, which is quite annoying. Imagine you are a soldier in the attacking army, would you think of fleeing in that direction? I think anyone would choose to flee to the outside of the wall rather than further inside the city. Btw, why make killing fleeing men so hard, CA? Can't we just do it the same speed like Medieval 2?

    b. Ammunition. It's kinda related to the first problem. You get the ammo refilled after every battle, as well as wind of magic. In some cases, we can have the same "shoot for free" tactic like in siege battle. For instance, when it's AI's turn and I'm attacked by a stronger army, if my army have longer range or higher mobility, I can shoot until no ammo then actively withdraw. If AI pursue, then I suddenly get ammo filled up again and have a much better chance to win. It's the same with the spells, both damage spells and healing spells. Damage spells work the same like ammunition. What about healing spells? For example, if I have an army of monsters and a healing mage, I would deliberately leave a slow enemy troop after wining a battle, then pursue. In this second battle I will use the healing mage to heal up all the half-healthed monsters before crushing that one enemy troop, so I get a full health army again. Wierd isn't it? You get a stronger army after a battle.
    My solution is: ammunition and wind of magic(as well as item bounded spells) should be replenished when the army is being replenished, or if that's hard to be done, make it replenished on each turn rather than after each battle. This also makes more sense because in history we see a lot of cases when an army is traped and run out of ammo. If they can get magical ammo refill for every conflict, history would be rewritten. That is also why supply line was so important in real warfare. As for wind of magic, I think the logic works as well, because you've already drained the winds in the area and it needs time to gather again.
    It would be better if vigor will also inherit. It makes more sense for an army to tire after each battle and recover the next turn, rather than becoming refreshed again after each battle. Just put a one turn little debuff there and it's done. (except for the orcs. Waaaaagh!)

    Forgot one there.
    c. Z running. In current field battles, defending AI catapults make no threats to players, because we can use our lords to cheat out their ammunition. Just put all the other troops behind and send our lord to the maximum range of enemy catapults, then start Z running left and right. We can dodge all the shots from enemy catapults that way and they become useless. The more accurate they fire the easier they are to dodge, with hell cannon and flying goblin exceptions because they can trace after shooting. We can also cheat out enemy archers' ammo with very little health lost too, except for handguns because the bullets fly too fast. The root of this problem is that AI tend to hold its ground as much as possible when its the defender.
    There are multiple settings that deal with this: one, set a shorter alert range for units that have this dodging ability, which means AI's cannon does not fire at a lord or a phoenix who is not engaged in melee until 120 yards, but still fire at spearmen when they step into 450 yards; two, when AI discover that the player is sending his lord too close and far away from other troops, it sends in its mobile melee troops to bully the lord rather than just shoot at him; three, let the defending AI army not stick to their position too much, give them some flexible choices. If there is a good target 10 yards away from the catapult's max range, let AI bring it forward and fire, but just not too much maneuvering distance to prevent player from luring the catapults to a trap. I'd say 30 yards for catapults should be good, cavalries can have more. Just keep it to the extend that all units can come back to formation before player brings up his main army. All these should not be too hard to apply to the game imo, but makes the AI much more intelligent and more like a real commander.
    Wasting ammunition is a tactic that make sense, unless the troops have unlimited ammunition, and the core of that cheese is single entity units, who tend to be harder to hit, for obvious reasons, in Total War: Three Kingdoms the AI troops know how to not waste their ammunition on single entity units but only on the hardest difficulty, it shows that CA knows about that.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338
    Someone mentioned magic being too weak -- YES.

    First of all, give Greenskins buffs their AOE back, seriously. That was the dumbest nerf I have ever seen other than vanguard deployment being made useless.

    But yeah, over all, magic is far too costly for what it actually accomplishes; this is made worse by SOME spells actually being properly balanced. Certain winds and the like are actually decent, but it's not equal across races. Fire, heavens. and Waaagh! magic are actually pretty solid and where they should be, but the damaging abilities of many others are laughable.

    Buffing and Debuffing magics are usually too overpriced for being single target, most of them should be AOE.
  • PTreePTree Registered Users Posts: 803
    Itharus said:

    Someone mentioned magic being too weak -- YES.

    First of all, give Greenskins buffs their AOE back, seriously. That was the dumbest nerf I have ever seen other than vanguard deployment being made useless.

    But yeah, over all, magic is far too costly for what it actually accomplishes; this is made worse by SOME spells actually being properly balanced. Certain winds and the like are actually decent, but it's not equal across races. Fire, heavens. and Waaagh! magic are actually pretty solid and where they should be, but the damaging abilities of many others are laughable.

    Buffing and Debuffing magics are usually too overpriced for being single target, most of them should be AOE.

    Agreed. Skull fire spell barely does any damage now even on 3 points.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Tayvar said:

    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    Now that my first thread has triggered some good conversation, I shall carry on with other problems. Just to clarify again, everything is refering to SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN. The reference of MOBA was just to point out the importance of stat caps, cause people are familiar with LOL. Be sure to understand my points before stating I'm talking about MP battles. OK let's go.

    a. Siege battles. For old players, it should be a very familliar tactic to first destroy a fort tower, then just stay outside the castle and shoot all the ammunition and damage spells before climbing the walls. This gains huge advantage for the attackers, but siege battles are supposed to be in favor of the defenders. The key problem is that the defending AI would NEVER come out of the wall no matter how, so even when they are under missile fire they just bear with it. A lot of battles that could never been won at field can be easily won at siege. I can use an army of 19 catapults destroy thousands of swordmasters with no effort at all, cause I know they are not coming out of the wall. What makes matters worse is that if I don't have enough ammunition, but the army still have enough moving points on the campaign map, I can wait until draw in the battle, then actively withdraw on the campaign map, then move in to attack again on the same turn (Never tried this? That's how you take Eight Peaks straight fast as Grimgor). That way no matter how strong the defending army is I can eat bit by bit with no cost until I win.
    My solution is: first, adjust the AI's logic to the same as field battle where they can choose to come out and meet the attacker; second, change fort towers' coverage area because there are too many dead angles in many maps, especially the one with a mountain on the left side and the one with square walls and four towers in front; third, give defending army some deployable area in front of the wall at the deployment stage - I mean, why can't they? They surely have time for that. In real warfare there are also many cases that the defenders intercept in front of the wall, Troy for example; fourth, fort towers have a default 0.5 garrison army instead of 0, which means they fire automatically without needing a friendly troop nearby until captured by the enemy. I feel much more confident doing a siege battle than a field battle, but this phenomenon is really not healthy. Btw, Attila/Rome 2 all have this issue.
    Another little problem is when the player is defender, sometimes fleeing enemy troops would recover and come back to the victory point and start capturing, which is quite annoying. Imagine you are a soldier in the attacking army, would you think of fleeing in that direction? I think anyone would choose to flee to the outside of the wall rather than further inside the city. Btw, why make killing fleeing men so hard, CA? Can't we just do it the same speed like Medieval 2?

    b. Ammunition. It's kinda related to the first problem. You get the ammo refilled after every battle, as well as wind of magic. In some cases, we can have the same "shoot for free" tactic like in siege battle. For instance, when it's AI's turn and I'm attacked by a stronger army, if my army have longer range or higher mobility, I can shoot until no ammo then actively withdraw. If AI pursue, then I suddenly get ammo filled up again and have a much better chance to win. It's the same with the spells, both damage spells and healing spells. Damage spells work the same like ammunition. What about healing spells? For example, if I have an army of monsters and a healing mage, I would deliberately leave a slow enemy troop after wining a battle, then pursue. In this second battle I will use the healing mage to heal up all the half-healthed monsters before crushing that one enemy troop, so I get a full health army again. Wierd isn't it? You get a stronger army after a battle.
    My solution is: ammunition and wind of magic(as well as item bounded spells) should be replenished when the army is being replenished, or if that's hard to be done, make it replenished on each turn rather than after each battle. This also makes more sense because in history we see a lot of cases when an army is traped and run out of ammo. If they can get magical ammo refill for every conflict, history would be rewritten. That is also why supply line was so important in real warfare. As for wind of magic, I think the logic works as well, because you've already drained the winds in the area and it needs time to gather again.
    It would be better if vigor will also inherit. It makes more sense for an army to tire after each battle and recover the next turn, rather than becoming refreshed again after each battle. Just put a one turn little debuff there and it's done. (except for the orcs. Waaaaagh!)

    Forgot one there.
    c. Z running. In current field battles, defending AI catapults make no threats to players, because we can use our lords to cheat out their ammunition. Just put all the other troops behind and send our lord to the maximum range of enemy catapults, then start Z running left and right. We can dodge all the shots from enemy catapults that way and they become useless. The more accurate they fire the easier they are to dodge, with hell cannon and flying goblin exceptions because they can trace after shooting. We can also cheat out enemy archers' ammo with very little health lost too, except for handguns because the bullets fly too fast. The root of this problem is that AI tend to hold its ground as much as possible when its the defender.
    There are multiple settings that deal with this: one, set a shorter alert range for units that have this dodging ability, which means AI's cannon does not fire at a lord or a phoenix who is not engaged in melee until 120 yards, but still fire at spearmen when they step into 450 yards; two, when AI discover that the player is sending his lord too close and far away from other troops, it sends in its mobile melee troops to bully the lord rather than just shoot at him; three, let the defending AI army not stick to their position too much, give them some flexible choices. If there is a good target 10 yards away from the catapult's max range, let AI bring it forward and fire, but just not too much maneuvering distance to prevent player from luring the catapults to a trap. I'd say 30 yards for catapults should be good, cavalries can have more. Just keep it to the extend that all units can come back to formation before player brings up his main army. All these should not be too hard to apply to the game imo, but makes the AI much more intelligent and more like a real commander.
    Wasting ammunition is a tactic that make sense, unless the troops have unlimited ammunition, and the core of that cheese is single entity units, who tend to be harder to hit, for obvious reasons, in Total War: Three Kingdoms the AI troops know how to not waste their ammunition on single entity units but only on the hardest difficulty, it shows that CA knows about that.
    Glad to know that CA have noticed it. I'm curious why they don't apply it to Warhammer though.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    PTree said:

    Itharus said:

    Someone mentioned magic being too weak -- YES.

    First of all, give Greenskins buffs their AOE back, seriously. That was the dumbest nerf I have ever seen other than vanguard deployment being made useless.

    But yeah, over all, magic is far too costly for what it actually accomplishes; this is made worse by SOME spells actually being properly balanced. Certain winds and the like are actually decent, but it's not equal across races. Fire, heavens. and Waaagh! magic are actually pretty solid and where they should be, but the damaging abilities of many others are laughable.

    Buffing and Debuffing magics are usually too overpriced for being single target, most of them should be AOE.

    Agreed. Skull fire spell barely does any damage now even on 3 points.
    Well skull fire does good damage at times but just needs to be lucky, as its path turned astray very often. I once did 300+ kill with an overloaded skull fire spell fighting against a Tomb Kings army, so it's a high cost high potential spell. Nehekhara's direct damage spell is at the same cost of skull fire and if you try that you realize how useless a spell can be.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Theo91 said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Sorry I have to disagree too. There’s a ton of ways to cheese the game. If you watch legend of total war game, he non stop cheeses the game. I think however, anyone who thinks cheesing the game isn’t fun, should have the self control to not cheese the game and ruin it for themselves. Anyone who likes cheesing the game can go ahead and do it. CA shouldn’t be forcing any players down a certain play style.

    I like having thematic armies. Not always the most efficient way of doing things but it’s my play style.
    Problem is: there is not a very clear line between cheesing and not cheesing. For instsance, is it cheesing to get a -30% building cost mage to save money? Obviously no. But then is it cheesing to get two of them? Maybe not. When you get three it suddenly becomes cheesing. People choose to cheese not because they are having fun with it, but rather because they are perfectionists that pursue maximum efficiency. It's like when I discover that I can get away with a crime using certain loophole of the laws, I'd be constantly seduced to practice it for profit, yet reason would tell me that blocking the loophole would be better for the whole society. Players wouldn't really complain about not being able to cheese any more, because the game would become more challenging intellectually, the way it's supposed to be at first place.
  • philosofoolphilosofool Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 699

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    Ive seen many complain (me included). There has even been several threada about it. I love building powerful lords. I do it pretty much always as it is right there in your face and it is fun. What isnt fun is that it is so good it breaks the hardest difficulty settings.
    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    It's not powerful lords that I'm against, it's the cost-effectiveness curve. In game designing industry, you ususally want the effectiveness of each point of armor/attack/health gain resulting in similar effectiveness, that way the effort you put in gaining the value remains at a stable level. Ward saves is a typical subtraction style value where the effectiveness is calculated as 1-x%. The problem with subtraction style value is that its cost-effectiveness curve is exponential, 1% gained at 0% is vastly different from 1% gained at 99%. If you look at the armor calculation of the Age of Empire 2 (simple subtraction) and Warcraft 3 (percentage curve) you'll see the latter one is more scentific than the former. For substarction style value, today's game designing industry ususally set a medium cap for it so it doesn't get too exponential, 40% cooldown in LOL for instance as I mentioned. CA staff would understand what I'm saying here. A 60% cap wouldn't affect most players who don't do intentional ward saves stack up and you still get powerful lords, trust me.
    CA knew what they were doing when they put the Sword of Khaine and LL abilities that provide high Ward Save right in our faces. You don't have to be harvesting ward saves to get (for example) Malus Darkblade to constantly 55-90%. (Sword of Khaine +20, Possession +5-40, Armor +10, Talisman +20) Without even maxing out the sword or hunting lord traits, it just falls in your lap. If the CA staff "would understand what you are saying" they would not have made that so easy or blindingly obvious. Sure, you have to choose the sword of khaine route and you have to manage possession, but that's almost certainly an element that (1) CA is fully aware of and, therefore, (2) intended. They set the cap, and set it at 90%. And, honestly, people who are complaining about that are just complaining about the way other people want to play the game. (Unless you count the 1% of people doing H2H campaign.)

    The example of Malus, by the way, shows that it will really affect the way the game is played for the people who shelled out to get the Shadow and the Blade: Malus campaign dynamic (not loved by all, but liked by many) basically gives him the ability to be an unstoppable lord who can also try to balance the PO effects of the Sword of Khaine with his potions that provide a PO benefit--at the expense of not being an unstoppable lord for about 10 turns. It's a fun dynamic that caps ruin--which is basically what caps do: hard limit game play in a single player game. That's justified when, but only when, without that hard limit many playstyles become unworkable or too easy. Limiting a few play styles for miniscule benefits in the others doesn't do that.

    There are some hero abilities that are too good when stacked; the best route there is just to prevent them from stacking, like Death Hag healing (which doesn't stack from multiple death hags.) These things come form hero spam, which is (in my opinion) a different psuedo-problem, i.e., a problem with how others play the game, not with
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Some thoughts on skill points and technologies. Many skill points and technologies are quite useless for now, including:

    a. All the increase experience skill for heroes like Empire Captain. Even at level 3 it only offers 25 experience per turn, while level 1 of a unit requires 1100 experience. I can gain such experience in battles easily.
    b. All the increase speed skill for lords and heroes that don't have mounts, because they are in percentage and with 3 points invested we get 15% which means 5-6 speed added. Who needs that?
    c. All the raiding related skill points and technologies. It's actually not the skill's fault, but the total failure of raiding itself. We can't even get the upkeep back from raiding. What's the point to raid other than fulfilling quests?
    d. All the attrition reduction skill points. 15% attrition reduction really doesn't do much.
    e. All the percentage-based charge increase on lords/heroes/units that don't have a good charge value. Also heroes like Khanite Assassin of Dark Elves has charge bonus skill points. Really? Why do I want to click that?
    f. All the percentage-based ap/non-ap damage increase on lords/heroes/units that don't have a good ap/non-ap value.
    g. Immortality for Black Ark Admirals. They are already immortal.

    Again I don't think CA wants to see their design wasted and never used in the game. It's also irritating to get legendary lords who spent skill points on useless stuff after joining confederation. Btw, it would be REALLY REALLY REALLY nice if the skill points of AI are refreshed after join confederation. I would also be REALLY REALLY REALLY happy if I can sell useless items and followers for coins. They just give me a headache in late games. After all, why can't a king sell his swords collection to the market?
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    Ive seen many complain (me included). There has even been several threada about it. I love building powerful lords. I do it pretty much always as it is right there in your face and it is fun. What isnt fun is that it is so good it breaks the hardest difficulty settings.
    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    I have almost never, ever heard anyone on these boards complain that solo lord cheese ruins the game. Solo lord cheese is, to me, the very model of “silly things some people like in their own campaign which I have absolutely no business telling them not to do.” Anyone who is posting that PG needs to solve solo lord cheese can go mod like one line of the game files and change the cap. We don’t need CA to “address” this non-issue.
    It's not powerful lords that I'm against, it's the cost-effectiveness curve. In game designing industry, you ususally want the effectiveness of each point of armor/attack/health gain resulting in similar effectiveness, that way the effort you put in gaining the value remains at a stable level. Ward saves is a typical subtraction style value where the effectiveness is calculated as 1-x%. The problem with subtraction style value is that its cost-effectiveness curve is exponential, 1% gained at 0% is vastly different from 1% gained at 99%. If you look at the armor calculation of the Age of Empire 2 (simple subtraction) and Warcraft 3 (percentage curve) you'll see the latter one is more scentific than the former. For substarction style value, today's game designing industry ususally set a medium cap for it so it doesn't get too exponential, 40% cooldown in LOL for instance as I mentioned. CA staff would understand what I'm saying here. A 60% cap wouldn't affect most players who don't do intentional ward saves stack up and you still get powerful lords, trust me.
    CA knew what they were doing when they put the Sword of Khaine and LL abilities that provide high Ward Save right in our faces. You don't have to be harvesting ward saves to get (for example) Malus Darkblade to constantly 55-90%. (Sword of Khaine +20, Possession +5-40, Armor +10, Talisman +20) Without even maxing out the sword or hunting lord traits, it just falls in your lap. If the CA staff "would understand what you are saying" they would not have made that so easy or blindingly obvious. Sure, you have to choose the sword of khaine route and you have to manage possession, but that's almost certainly an element that (1) CA is fully aware of and, therefore, (2) intended. They set the cap, and set it at 90%. And, honestly, people who are complaining about that are just complaining about the way other people want to play the game. (Unless you count the 1% of people doing H2H campaign.)

    The example of Malus, by the way, shows that it will really affect the way the game is played for the people who shelled out to get the Shadow and the Blade: Malus campaign dynamic (not loved by all, but liked by many) basically gives him the ability to be an unstoppable lord who can also try to balance the PO effects of the Sword of Khaine with his potions that provide a PO benefit--at the expense of not being an unstoppable lord for about 10 turns. It's a fun dynamic that caps ruin--which is basically what caps do: hard limit game play in a single player game. That's justified when, but only when, without that hard limit many playstyles become unworkable or too easy. Limiting a few play styles for miniscule benefits in the others doesn't do that.

    There are some hero abilities that are too good when stacked; the best route there is just to prevent them from stacking, like Death Hag healing (which doesn't stack from multiple death hags.) These things come form hero spam, which is (in my opinion) a different psuedo-problem, i.e., a problem with how others play the game, not with
    Again it's not a play style thing. I myself enjoy powerful lords too. It's a mathematical model thing. Instead of 1-x% we can have a/(a+x) or something, yet CA is choosing the most exponential calculation, which many other games are trying to avoid using. "CA staff would understand" meant that they know what problem I'm pointing towards. The core idea is: it's the player's freedom to choose their playstyle, but CA needs to get cost-effectiveness curve for each playstyle linear, so players reap what they sow proportionally.
  • spivospivo Registered Users Posts: 64
    Total War Warhammer is the most popular TW game, because you can make insanely strong characters.

    Go play some other TW game if you don't like it, and let those of us who enjoy it keep it that way.


    This thread is so full of tips on how to cheese the game, that I never even knew about.
    If they bother you, stop doing it!

    It's beyond my comprehension how people on one hand can complain that confederated lords don't get respecs, and at the same time people complain lords are to powerful.


    If you want a harder game, stop abusing the mechanics, it's really just that simple.
    When sieging, stop putting whole army in one corner, instead of complaining that siege is to easy.
    When complaining about stacking ward saves on a lord, stop stacking ward saves on the lord.

    Just because you can abuse the mechanics, doesn't mean you have to.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,504
    edited March 2020
    spivo said:

    Total War Warhammer is the most popular TW game, because you can make insanely strong characters.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. It's also completely wrong anyway because 3K's characters are stronger on average and are so right off the bat, but there it's balanced with every battle featuring multiples of them and the duel function.

    I consider it the TW game with the worst campaign layer because it's so broken and encourages really stupid playstyles. At least PG is trying to reverse the trend.


  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    spivo said:

    Total War Warhammer is the most popular TW game, because you can make insanely strong characters.

    Go play some other TW game if you don't like it, and let those of us who enjoy it keep it that way.


    This thread is so full of tips on how to cheese the game, that I never even knew about.
    If they bother you, stop doing it!

    It's beyond my comprehension how people on one hand can complain that confederated lords don't get respecs, and at the same time people complain lords are to powerful.


    If you want a harder game, stop abusing the mechanics, it's really just that simple.
    When sieging, stop putting whole army in one corner, instead of complaining that siege is to easy.
    When complaining about stacking ward saves on a lord, stop stacking ward saves on the lord.

    Just because you can abuse the mechanics, doesn't mean you have to.

    Why so emotional dude? If you don't know about those cheesing tactics, fine carry on with your game. Fixing those stuff won't affect any of your game experience, so why oppose fixing them? And again I'm not against powerful lords, I'm against the calculation model. How many times do I have to repeat? This is a feedback discussion. If you don't wanna see feedbacks you can go see other threads. Nobody's forcing you.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    A simple solution to Greenskin replenish problem: just make them able to replenish anywhere, even in enemy territories, and unaffected by climate penalty. Higher fightiness gives bonus to replenish rate. This also makes it more loreful.
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,317
    Jackydai said:

    A simple solution to Greenskin replenish problem: just make them able to replenish anywhere, even in enemy territories, and unaffected by climate penalty. Higher fightiness gives bonus to replenish rate. This also makes it more loreful.

    There’s plenty that can be improved in their roster but lack of replenishment is the single biggest thing that makes their campaign a nightmare to play
Sign In or Register to comment.