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.
Agree. I want, bigger maps, more siege stuff to build, artilery on the walls (look at the dwarfs trailer or the orcs one...) towers in the city, bigger citys.
Every siege I look at the building and the map behind the siege(the battlefield) and I want to deffend there not the walls ...
Not to mention that every siege map is almost the same ... I'm tired of playing the same map again and again with just differet type of wall. Same can be said about the normal field battle most of them are just hills ... and forests ...
But back on point Siege need to be reworked from the ground up that is a must!
Question:Presumably you’ve needed to create a huge number of new Daemon units to properly flesh them out and give them their own armies? Answer:IR: What you’ve just said is so true,
Undermine seems like it would be right in their wheelhouse. TBH, I have a feeling that's why CA gave them "good against gates" originally, since they didn't include the ability to undermine in sieges in the first place.
please CA, and why the false advertisment on the trailers, with cannons on walls??
Oh dear. You posted a total war picture featuring a dwarf airship. The airship that launched a thousand threads.
On topic, I do hope that they allow us to put artillery up on the walls. That would be an obvious quality of life upgrade. I do think that the risk involved with putting them there given how quickly the enemy can get to the walls, would balance out the huge damage potential. Having said that, its possible with the firing arcs and walls in general that artillery just can't operate on walls at the minute and that's why they decided against it? Who knows. I'd welcome it as an addition though.
on a separate topic I believe such airships could be used as a sort of dwarven blackarcs, with designatable bombing runs from hangared gyrobombers etc
I've always thought that'd be a cool way to implement them without having them overlap with Gyrobombers. Instead of being in your armies, they'd travel the campaign map like agents with a sphere of influence like Black Arcs and could have a few bombardment abilities (obviously they shouldn't be available in Underway battles).
But I get that most people would want them as units. It'll just be a bit odd to see one fight in melee, and I think they'll be pretty vulnerable to both enemy artillery and flyers.
Give them a ton of ammo, and give them a specific ability that prevents them from swooping down in melee, so that they're just always up in the air.
They'll run into the problem of flying units that are forced to land if all other ground units are fleeing or destroyed, but yea if they can code it so the Airships can't land in the first place they'll probably anticipate that rather specific problem and divine a solution. Maybe they'll just be forced to flee as well.
They'll run into the problem of flying units that are forced to land if all other ground units are fleeing or destroyed, but yea if they can code it so the Airships can't land in the first place they'll probably anticipate that rather specific problem and divine a solution. Maybe they'll just be forced to flee as well.
I'd considered that, but then I figured it wasn't an issue. If you've lost all ground troops, your blimp will just break and run, which is fine.
Comments
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeGives miners some use too
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeEvery siege I look at the building and the map behind the siege(the battlefield) and I want to deffend there not the walls ...
Not to mention that every siege map is almost the same ... I'm tired of playing the same map again and again with just differet type of wall.
Same can be said about the normal field battle most of them are just hills ... and forests ...
But back on point Siege need to be reworked from the ground up that is a must!
Answer:IR: What you’ve just said is so true,
- Report
1 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree