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

Bretonnia, Dwarfs and Wood Elves need more units

124

Comments

  • Wtfah114Wtfah114 Registered Users Posts: 352
    edited May 2020

    Bretonnia not only has its entire TT roster it got upgraded to 8e with anything remaining.

    I know you love being the contrarian for the sake of it (you literally told me that) but them getting a few units to stop them from being not worth including doesn't make them done. If CA had released the Celestial Hurricanum with the first Empire DLC and made a point of getting all their 8th edition stuff in, do you really think people would be satisfied for the next 10 years with the Empire getting no future content drops?! (bearing in mind that nothing to do with Ulric, not even Todbringer I don't think, is in their 8th edition army book. Nor is Elspeth or anything that specific to Wissenland).
    This comparison is disingenuous, Boris/middle land and Elspeth/nuln stuff are not in the 8th army book yes, but they were from campaign books and have model and rules, which is not true for the rpg book stuff you mentioned, a closer comparison would be empire road wardens, a type of crossbow/melee hybrid medium cavalry in empire rpg books, and indeed you don’t see anyone scream about road wardens inclusion in the game do you?
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761

    Xenos7 said:

    jfraser said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Jastall said:

    No. Dwarfs, WEs and Brets are highly focused factions by design. The Dawi are slow but tough and pack a punch, the WEs, are fast and high-damage, and Brets are big on cavalry and suck at everything else. That's how they are designed and how they should play. Faction asymmetry is a big part of what makes them unique.

    If people want versatile factions, there's already several of them, especially Empire, High Elves and Dark Elves. Let the specialists remain specialists, it's much better game design.

    It's not design. It's just that they sold less so GW didn't add more minis to them. I mean, if you want to justify it with lore, strategy or whatever be my guest, but in the end it was all about selling minis. GW looked at their sales charts, and then decided if they should add new units for a race or not.
    You're oversimplifying a lot here. Dwarfs and Bretonia were clearly designed by GW to be hyper-specialised factions, and their lore too was deliberately restrictive. Part of the reason, I would argue, is that, while GW were always trying to sell models, in earlier editions they did this by making an interesting strategy game with an interesting rule set. Later on, with improved technology, flashy centrepiece models became a selling point in themselves, to the extent that GW would add strategically redundant or uninteresting units to armylists because they looked cool and would sell well (this ultimately led to AoS).
    I've no problem with that. Gimme the cool stuff.
    The cool stuff is the WHFB stuff. It is made worse by pollutants in the form of made up units that don't fit the race.
    Unless you can find some reliable record of ratmen and giant zombie bats in world history, I'll argue every unit is made up. What's exactly the difference if it's made up by CA with GW approval, instead of being made up by GW alone?
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,553
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    jfraser said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Jastall said:

    No. Dwarfs, WEs and Brets are highly focused factions by design. The Dawi are slow but tough and pack a punch, the WEs, are fast and high-damage, and Brets are big on cavalry and suck at everything else. That's how they are designed and how they should play. Faction asymmetry is a big part of what makes them unique.

    If people want versatile factions, there's already several of them, especially Empire, High Elves and Dark Elves. Let the specialists remain specialists, it's much better game design.

    It's not design. It's just that they sold less so GW didn't add more minis to them. I mean, if you want to justify it with lore, strategy or whatever be my guest, but in the end it was all about selling minis. GW looked at their sales charts, and then decided if they should add new units for a race or not.
    You're oversimplifying a lot here. Dwarfs and Bretonia were clearly designed by GW to be hyper-specialised factions, and their lore too was deliberately restrictive. Part of the reason, I would argue, is that, while GW were always trying to sell models, in earlier editions they did this by making an interesting strategy game with an interesting rule set. Later on, with improved technology, flashy centrepiece models became a selling point in themselves, to the extent that GW would add strategically redundant or uninteresting units to armylists because they looked cool and would sell well (this ultimately led to AoS).
    I've no problem with that. Gimme the cool stuff.
    The cool stuff is the WHFB stuff. It is made worse by pollutants in the form of made up units that don't fit the race.
    Unless you can find some reliable record of ratmen and giant zombie bats in world history, I'll argue every unit is made up. What's exactly the difference if it's made up by CA with GW approval, instead of being made up by GW alone?
    I see there's confusion here.

    When I said "made up units" I wasn't referring to things that don't exist in the real world. I was referring to units that didn't exist in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles world. That's the Intellectual property this game is based off of.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • JastalllJastalll Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,724

    "No cavalry or monsters makes them specialized in a world where literally every other faction has one or both. Specialization means that your army is often built a certain way due to your roster, and the Dwarfs are absolutely like that; infantry to hold the line, ranged units to bring the pain. That's 90% of your battles as the Dawi, SP or MP, no ifs no buts unless you meme with a Slayer army or something. What next, Vampire Coast aren't specialized in ranged firepower because they got Mournguls, Rotting Leviathans and Depth Guard?"


    Specialised means specialised ****. its in the word. Specialised doesn't mean you lack something, it means you're focused almost entirely on something.

    You realise that with your definition so wide you could drive a truck through it, Skaven are also a specialised niche faction. As are the Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts and so on.

    Bretonnia are a specialised faction because, barring some niche units on the side, they live and die by their cavalry. Yes, you could say they lack good infantry, but that's not what makes them specialised.

    The Dwarfs are good with arching ranged fire, straight shooting flanking ranged fire, Artillery, Infantry, Lords and Heroes, support magic and they have niche units to compensate their weaknesses. Yes they lack cavalry but the Dwarfs can go heavy on the infantry, both types of ranged, Artillery and even their niche units and come out on top. they do not have a specific set of skills that they must lean into or lose like Bretonnia or the Wood Elves do. That's what makes you wrong.

    You're inventing categories now. Dwarfs are good at ranged fire, artillery and have tough infantry, that's it. Their Lords aren't very good (they have one of the worst Lord roster in fact, owing to having no caster Lord or solid mounted fighter), their Heroes are mediocre since the only good one (Runesmith) has his bases covered by the Runelord, their melee infantry is tougher than usual but rarely wins battles by themselves owing to low damage across the board, their support magic is mostly reduced to Wrath and Ruin spam on key targets, and their only niche units are the air force and Rangers, which can catch opponents by surprise yes, but aren't as reliable as the good old infantry + ranged grind formation.

    By contrast, you can do a melee HE army, a cavalry focused HE army, a dragon and magic focused HE army, or a ranged infantry focused HE army and they are all quite viable. Empire doesn't have great melee, but can bring cavalry, ranged play or an artillery focus to bear quite effectively. Tomb Kings usually go melee construct heavy but their ranged game is nothing to scoff at either. Skaven have plenty of good builds now even if the backbone is almost always some variety of ranged units, I could go on. But Dwarfs without sufficient melee infantry to cover their other units get overwhelmed and pounded, and Dwarfs without enough ranged firepower just don't have the damage to kill anything but low tier infantry. They are very much as one-dimensional as Bretonnia, and more than WEs that can at least field a melee and/or Wild Rider focused army and do fairly well against some factions.

    I'd add that Chaos and Norsca are also specialized factions to some degree, owing to the fact that their gameplay rarely if ever deviates from pounding the opposition with monsters and heavy infantry, sometimes with cavalry support.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,310
    edited May 2020

    Even if I concede that the Dwarfs are a specialised faction then surely you must see the level of complexity in the Dwarfen niche and how poorly it reflects on factions like the Wood Elves and Bretonnia by comparison. Despite being a 'niche faction' in your eyes, the Dwarfs have very powerful Infantry, both types of ranged, artillery, Lords and Heroes, their airforce and niche units, decent support magic and in the future they may have Runic constructs, chariot like Engineer contraptions, and even a bloody dragon.

    compare this to the Wood Elves having the equivelent to Witch Elves, good kiting archers, Treemen aaaaaand...that's about it.

    or Bretonnia who have a very flawed but overall very strong cavalry roster, great Lords, artillery and archers aaaaand....that's about it.

    Even you're right, they still look anemic by comparison and even if you wanna say the Dwarfs are a niche faction that doesn't mean it cant be effectively argued that they're in dire need of this or that for various reasons.

    Oh come on, that is such a bad faith argument. I'm not even particularly interested in this back and forth, but this has to be called out. Bretonnia and WE are hardly less well off in terms of roles filled.

    Dwarfs have units in 4 categories; melee infantry, missile infantry, artillery, and "air force". You can break that down more, but even then, the Dwarfs have quite a narrow selection in several of those sub-categories.

    Melee infantry comes in 3 different flavors; hand weapon and shield, great weapon, and slayer (let's call them "specialist" infantry). They don't have any units with spears nor halberds nor units in the anti-infantry/dual wield role. Characters come in 3 flavors as well; melee, support, and ranged.

    Missile infantry comes in 3-ish flavors; Low-AP, high-AP, and flamethrower. Granted, they probably have the most diverse artillery section of any race, but if it's more than 3 sub-categories that's a stretch; point-target, area-target, and then maybe "all-comers" (organ gun). Their air force only consists of missile-flyers. That's 13 roles, maybe 1 or 2 more if you really stretch it.

    Wood Elves have spear infantry, great weapon infantry, anti-infantry/dual wield, and whatever Dryads count as (let's call them "specialist" infantry too). They have low-AP and high-AP missile infantry. They have shock cavalry, missile cavalry, and "specialist" cavalry. They have missile flyers and melee flyers. They have monstrous infantry and a single entity ground monster. Their characters also come in 3 flavors; hybrid weapon, monster, and "small" spellcaster. That's 16 roles, before you even take character mounts into account.

    Bretonnia has hand weapon and shield infantry, spear infantry, halberd infantry, and great weapon infantry. They have low-AP missiles. They have melee cavalry and shock cavalry. They have missile cavalry. They have melee flyers. They have area-target artillery. They have a specialist support unit (grail reliquae). Their characters come in 2 flavors; melee and spellcaster. That's 13 roles, before accounting for character mounts.
  • DurgilDurgil Registered Users Posts: 93
    For the dwarves, if CA wanted to give them new units, can could always pull from the Storm of Chaos book. They could add:
    - Doom-seeker slayer, which could be work either like the Night Gobbo fanatics, or the Bloated corpse, or a small unit of powerful entity like the Champion of Chaos
    - Brotherhood of Grimnir (extra magic resistant slayer)
    - Slayer hero
    - Goblin Hewer
    - Long Drong Silver RoR

    And while not from any solid source book, it would not look out of place for those units to be added:
    - Dwarf Shieldmaiden
    - Magical attack Ironbreaker or Hammerer (both unit leader was able to get Weapon Runes in the 8th book)
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,854
    I went to sleep and suddendly dozens of people answered :)

    From what I have seen there are several people who disagree with me and several who see the things similar to me. I cannot answer every direct ciritsim to my original post created over the course of this night, therefore I would like to do it representative with the long critism list from @psychoak
    psychoak said:

    sykall said:

    Hi everyone,

    I am a fan of Total War Warhammer and truly enjoy the game as one of the best Total War titles. I especially enjoy the huge amount of different factions, who all have their own identity and unique playstyle, both on the campaign and on the battlefield.

    Yet concerning the battlefield performance of the factions it must be said, that a few factions have some problems within their unit rooster and playstyle, especially Bretonnia and the Dwarfs and partially the Wood Elves.

    What do I mean by this?
    Each faction has their main modus operandi on the battlefield. The Empire has a diverse rooster of units and is adaptable to every battlefield condition, so they are generalist. The Vampire Counts meanwhile are a rush army, High Elves are elitist, Chaos Warriors rushing elitists, etc.

    And the dwarfs prefer a defensive playstyle, bretonnia favours heavy cavalry and the WE a guerrilla/ranged warfare approach. But the rooster of those three factions is lacking diversity in its units. I think they need new units to enrich their playstyle.

    Because what can the dwarfs do on the battlefield?
    An expert with them probably knows many different tactics with the current unit set, but from what I have seen, is that they can either invest in infantry to try to outlast the enemy, concentrate on artillery to take the enemy out from afar, or a combination of both approaches. These are the three obvious tactics.
    Compared to another faction with a defensive playstyle as its MO, like the Tomb Kings, the problems become apparent.

    The Tomb Kings e.g. can invest heavily in infantry and some constructs to outlast the enemy, they can invest in ranged units and artillery, they can invest in offensively strong constructs to be be more offensive, they even can invest into a semi-mobile army concentrating on necropolis knights and cavalry, and a mixture of any of the mentioned approaches.
    Their overall modus is still defensive, but their rooster supports other playstyles, they have a larger tactical toolset and are overall more interesting to play and experiment with.

    Infantry or artillery? Massive oversimplification of Dwarfs.

    Lets ignore that they have AP ranged infantry, vanguard ranged units with stalk, including an AP axe thrower version, infantry with bombs, including shielded elite armored infantry that are nearly invincible, with bombs, torpedo launching infantry, and even infantry with flamethrowers.

    You've simplified artillery down to one word, as if catapults, cannons, gatling guns, and flame throwers, are all the same thing. They're not. They have long range standoff artillery, and they have shorter range killing machines. Flame Cannons and Organ Guns are utterly different from their longer range brethren. The impact of them is a whole different order of magnitude. They absolute destroy their intended targets.

    You completely left off the air units too. They're actually pretty good when used properly. Could they stand some balance tweaking? Maybe.

    Dwarfs have a mobility problem, they don't really have a problem with anything else.
    Furthermore, the Dwarfs, and bretonnian cavalry, share the problem that many of their existing units are just upgrades to previous ones. Dwarf Warriors
    If Ironbreakers are Dwarf Warriors, then the same is true for all elite infantry. They have a ranged bomb attack and Expert Charge Defense. They're not even remotely the same unit.

    Do a lot of units fill the same roles? Sure, but this is true of all factions. You keep listing Tomb Kings, but they've got how many large melee monsters? That three tiers of melee infantry? Same deal. Tomb Guard are just better Skeletons after all.
    This problem is a result of a lack of attention that already existed in the tabletop version. It becomes apparent, when compared to CA boosted factions like Norsca or the Vampire Coast.

    As Norsca the player can concentrate of heavy hitting monsters, or on monstrous infantry, or on a huge line of marauders, or on skinwolves and chariots for mobility, without losing the main modus operandi of a rush army with elite units.
    And even the vampire coast, which MO is spamming ranged attacks, has more tactical choices than the three aforementioned factions.

    What dwarfs, Bretonnia and Wood Elves need are units, which help them to break out of this corset.
    Some people will now claim, that dwarfs, Bretonnia and WE have almost their entire tabletop rooster, and do not need other units. But this problem already existed in the tabletop game.
    GW had to manage a system with a dozen different factions, some more beloved by fans than others. Under those conditions it is difficult to give them all the same attention and treatment. Therefore, some factions had to get the shorter end of the overall development process.

    Comparted to other Elven Factions the Wood Elves are a great example for getting the short end. From all elven factions they appear to have been treated as the unloved middle-child, with a small and narrowly focused rooster.
    Thematically it is especially problematic, as they are often described as a union between Elven and Forest units and in their fluff, it is mentioned, that the natural inhabitants of Athel Loren are a dangerous fighting force in their own right. But the WE rooster never reflects this. Even if units like Dragons and eagles are counted as forest creatures, they contain something around five units, less than the elves and only in auxillary roles to them. Thankfully the WE still have more tactical tools than bretonnia and dwarfs, but it is nonetheless lacking.
    First off, there are 8 forest spirit units. Ancient Treemen, Branchwraiths, Dryads, Hawk Riders, Great Eagles, Treekin, Treemen, and Forest Dragons. They're over a third of the roster if you get rid of the equipment variants.

    At the highest level of simplification, High Elves have melee infantry, ranged infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, melee chariots, ranged chariots, an artillery piece,and flying monsters.

    Wood Elves have melee infantry, ranged infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, monstrous infantry, monsters, flying ranged monstrous cavalry, and flying monsters.

    If we break it down further by all the differences, the comparison doesn't get any better. Where's the shortage in the WE faction? They've got AP anti-large line infantry, three varieties of damage dealer melee infantry, poison ranged units, fire damage AP ranged units, magic damage units, a magical cavalry unit that casts spells...

    Amber? Yeah, amber is a bit of a dud and limits their effective rosters, but that's not a shortage in the faction roster, that's a bad game design.

    Bretonnia are a bit more simplistic. They break down to melee infantry, ranged infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, flying cavalry, flying monstrous cavalry, and artillery. They're a bit more short as you add complexity to your list. There is still a lot of differentiation to this though. Magic weapons are a serious difference. Units that don't tire are a serious difference. So are fire and poison arrows, and shielded infantry with frenzy.

    Since Bretonnia doesn't have supply lines, cost is even important. Being able to afford two units of Knights Errant for every Grail Knight, is not a non factor. You can accomplish most of the same goals with the lesser unit. They can still destroy ranged infantry, they can still rear charge the melee lines, they can still screen flankers. You can spam them all over creation to reinforce weak points in your empire. You can't afford to do that with Grail Knights, but you wont be able to match the raw power they bring to the table in a single fight either. These are very different units in function, even if their role in combat is fairly similar. One is easily affordable, one is not.
    In Total War Warhammer what those factions need is more care from CA, who should give them more units to enlarge their tactical toolset. Of course, I don’t say that everyone should be as flexible as the empire. But WE, Dwarfs and Bretonnia need more variety. CA already has made up units and has shown to be good at that. If should be no problem to improve the rooster of those three factions, if the deal with GW allows this, especially when they can also tranplant units from other GW sources like the monstrous arcanum or forgeworld, if a fitting candidate exists there.

    I am no game developer and therefore have not the mechanical insight of unit creation or faction balancing, but a few interesting units would help those factions a lot. Maybe shard dragons for dwarfs or robin-hood inspired stealth bowmen for bretonnia, more playable different forest spirits for WE or something else.

    Some people might claim, that CA invented units are an defilement of the lore or the tabletop game or else, but the problem I am talking comes directly from the tabletop game and already existed there.

    Also, Warhammer Total War is not the tabletop version but its own thing. Some people get upset if Total War Warhammer introduces things that were never mentioned in the canon, but the canon of a source is a guideline, not a law for an adaptation.

    A battle for the vortex between DE, HE, Sk, and LM was never mentioned in the Lore. Units like Hippogryph knights or sacred kroxigors never existed in tabletop. And still they are fun to play in the computer game and fit into the essence of Warhammer. In the end this fun is all that counts.
    In the end every adaptation needs to diverge from the source material, as no source material is perfect nor directly usable in another medium. And every adaptation has the potential to improve upon the source material.

    Thank you for reading. I hope you can agree in some points with me. :)
    The source material is barely a foundation for the mechanics. CA hasn't rigidly stuck to the source material in transferring it to a new medium. There is no AP two handed weapon, no AP halberd, no anti-infantry units, or anti-large units. The mechanics of TW only marginally resemble the TT game in the barest of senses.

    What you want isn't needed adaptations. Dwarfs don't have monsters. Bretonnians aren't Elves. There isn't even a limitation in the WE roster, no idea what your problem is there if it isn't amber. Treekin and Glade Guard will do the HE game plan with line archers behind a solid defense, better than the HE do. Faction differences and limitations, are what make there be a point to playing the damn game. The more same they all are, the less point there will be in playing them all.



    1. Yes my list is a simplification of the dwarfen & bretonnian playstyle. It is an introductionary post for a basic form of critiqusm. It is meant to be short to read, so that people quickly understand my main points. Also the more specific I go, the more will people start to nitpick, without concentrating on the broader aspects. Which they will probably do now with this list.

    2. depsite being a simplification my points still stand in general. As other people have pointed out, currently many dwarfen and bretonnian playstyles are very narrow. And yes many of their units are just upgraded units that perform the same function than the other lower tier ones. In the case of ironbreakers, that might not be the case completly, with their charges and expert charge defense, but the other units I mentioned still stand in this regard.
    Longbeards are just better dwarf warriors. Most of the bretonnian cavalary are just upgrades to the prevoius unit.

    In general it is ok for higher tier units to be upgrades of lower tier ones, but with the dwarfs and bretonnia this is especially appearent and kinda borint to play.
    Lets compare them with the tomb kings, who have less infantry units in general.
    Scelelton soldiers with spear and sword are the basic form. The next tierhowever are nehekaran warriors, who are different within the entire rooster. They are suddenly an offensivly strong unit with less defense capabilties.
    And then come the tomb guard, who in a basic sense can be considered just upgrades, even though their general function differ far greater from the basic sceleton warriors than longbeards do from dwarf warriors. E.g. the basic units can be used as cannon fodder, the tomb guard not so much. But no dwarf unit is really meant to be used as cannon fodder. Yes some people use miners as cannon fodder, but compared to other cannon fodder units, they are not designed to fullfill this purpose.

    3. I always excluded lords and heroes from my critism. They are important to the armies but specific, while I wanted to concentrate on the general strategy and capabilities of the faction. And Hawk Riders have elves on them. I never understood, why the amber mechanic counted them as forest units and always thought, that they were used for them, as their general number is so small. Because without hawk riders or lords they have five units. Also four of these units are available to the High Elves, especially avelorn. And as I mentioned, the WE are more diverse in their playstyle, than dwarfs and bretonnia, but their roster is lacking in the thematic sense, their utility is limited.

    4. Campaign mechanics are not mentioned in my critism, neither amber nor supply lines, as I concentrate on the battlefield.

    Sum-up:
    Some people will probably now nitpick these corrections to death and therefore think everything I said is invalid. But my main critism still stands.
    To repeat myself: I do not want to have every faction generic, each should have its preferred playstyle and main strategies. But Bretonnia, Dwarfs and WE lack units which are need to make them more engaging, to allow different apporaches. Some things are the result of the adaptation, e.g. that the dwarfs lack offensive power for their infantry. One or two units to spurr them into a slightly other direction would be enough.

    And those points of critism existed even on the tabletop. The Lore or truthfullness-to-the-faction aspect, that many people bring up, is simply limited to GWs previous handling. But they made mistakes, had favorites, etc. Things CA can now do better for this adaptation.
    As I also said: Total War is an adapation, which mean it is meant to be different. And it gives it the unique position to improve upon the source material.
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,854
    Edit: My original answer seems to be lost, due to technical issues. If it shows up later, sorry for doubleposting.

    Well, I was astonished to have dozens of posts in this thread after going to sleep. I am glad, that many people seem to share my point. Though becuase of the huge number of posts I cannot answer every direct critique in my original posts individually. Therefore I will representitvly use this one from @psychoak
    psychoak said:

    sykall said:

    Hi everyone,

    I am a fan of Total War Warhammer and truly enjoy the game as one of the best Total War titles. I especially enjoy the huge amount of different factions, who all have their own identity and unique playstyle, both on the campaign and on the battlefield.

    Yet concerning the battlefield performance of the factions it must be said, that a few factions have some problems within their unit rooster and playstyle, especially Bretonnia and the Dwarfs and partially the Wood Elves.

    What do I mean by this?
    Each faction has their main modus operandi on the battlefield. The Empire has a diverse rooster of units and is adaptable to every battlefield condition, so they are generalist. The Vampire Counts meanwhile are a rush army, High Elves are elitist, Chaos Warriors rushing elitists, etc.

    And the dwarfs prefer a defensive playstyle, bretonnia favours heavy cavalry and the WE a guerrilla/ranged warfare approach. But the rooster of those three factions is lacking diversity in its units. I think they need new units to enrich their playstyle.

    Because what can the dwarfs do on the battlefield?
    An expert with them probably knows many different tactics with the current unit set, but from what I have seen, is that they can either invest in infantry to try to outlast the enemy, concentrate on artillery to take the enemy out from afar, or a combination of both approaches. These are the three obvious tactics.
    Compared to another faction with a defensive playstyle as its MO, like the Tomb Kings, the problems become apparent.

    The Tomb Kings e.g. can invest heavily in infantry and some constructs to outlast the enemy, they can invest in ranged units and artillery, they can invest in offensively strong constructs to be be more offensive, they even can invest into a semi-mobile army concentrating on necropolis knights and cavalry, and a mixture of any of the mentioned approaches.
    Their overall modus is still defensive, but their rooster supports other playstyles, they have a larger tactical toolset and are overall more interesting to play and experiment with.

    Infantry or artillery? Massive oversimplification of Dwarfs.

    Lets ignore that they have AP ranged infantry, vanguard ranged units with stalk, including an AP axe thrower version, infantry with bombs, including shielded elite armored infantry that are nearly invincible, with bombs, torpedo launching infantry, and even infantry with flamethrowers.

    You've simplified artillery down to one word, as if catapults, cannons, gatling guns, and flame throwers, are all the same thing. They're not. They have long range standoff artillery, and they have shorter range killing machines. Flame Cannons and Organ Guns are utterly different from their longer range brethren. The impact of them is a whole different order of magnitude. They absolute destroy their intended targets.

    You completely left off the air units too. They're actually pretty good when used properly. Could they stand some balance tweaking? Maybe.

    Dwarfs have a mobility problem, they don't really have a problem with anything else.
    Furthermore, the Dwarfs, and bretonnian cavalry, share the problem that many of their existing units are just upgrades to previous ones. Dwarf Warriors
    If Ironbreakers are Dwarf Warriors, then the same is true for all elite infantry. They have a ranged bomb attack and Expert Charge Defense. They're not even remotely the same unit.

    Do a lot of units fill the same roles? Sure, but this is true of all factions. You keep listing Tomb Kings, but they've got how many large melee monsters? That three tiers of melee infantry? Same deal. Tomb Guard are just better Skeletons after all.
    This problem is a result of a lack of attention that already existed in the tabletop version. It becomes apparent, when compared to CA boosted factions like Norsca or the Vampire Coast.

    As Norsca the player can concentrate of heavy hitting monsters, or on monstrous infantry, or on a huge line of marauders, or on skinwolves and chariots for mobility, without losing the main modus operandi of a rush army with elite units.
    And even the vampire coast, which MO is spamming ranged attacks, has more tactical choices than the three aforementioned factions.

    What dwarfs, Bretonnia and Wood Elves need are units, which help them to break out of this corset.
    Some people will now claim, that dwarfs, Bretonnia and WE have almost their entire tabletop rooster, and do not need other units. But this problem already existed in the tabletop game.
    GW had to manage a system with a dozen different factions, some more beloved by fans than others. Under those conditions it is difficult to give them all the same attention and treatment. Therefore, some factions had to get the shorter end of the overall development process.

    Comparted to other Elven Factions the Wood Elves are a great example for getting the short end. From all elven factions they appear to have been treated as the unloved middle-child, with a small and narrowly focused rooster.
    Thematically it is especially problematic, as they are often described as a union between Elven and Forest units and in their fluff, it is mentioned, that the natural inhabitants of Athel Loren are a dangerous fighting force in their own right. But the WE rooster never reflects this. Even if units like Dragons and eagles are counted as forest creatures, they contain something around five units, less than the elves and only in auxillary roles to them. Thankfully the WE still have more tactical tools than bretonnia and dwarfs, but it is nonetheless lacking.
    First off, there are 8 forest spirit units. Ancient Treemen, Branchwraiths, Dryads, Hawk Riders, Great Eagles, Treekin, Treemen, and Forest Dragons. They're over a third of the roster if you get rid of the equipment variants.

    At the highest level of simplification, High Elves have melee infantry, ranged infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, melee chariots, ranged chariots, an artillery piece,and flying monsters.

    Wood Elves have melee infantry, ranged infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, monstrous infantry, monsters, flying ranged monstrous cavalry, and flying monsters.

    If we break it down further by all the differences, the comparison doesn't get any better. Where's the shortage in the WE faction? They've got AP anti-large line infantry, three varieties of damage dealer melee infantry, poison ranged units, fire damage AP ranged units, magic damage units, a magical cavalry unit that casts spells...

    Amber? Yeah, amber is a bit of a dud and limits their effective rosters, but that's not a shortage in the faction roster, that's a bad game design.

    Bretonnia are a bit more simplistic. They break down to melee infantry, ranged infantry, melee cavalry, ranged cavalry, flying cavalry, flying monstrous cavalry, and artillery. They're a bit more short as you add complexity to your list. There is still a lot of differentiation to this though. Magic weapons are a serious difference. Units that don't tire are a serious difference. So are fire and poison arrows, and shielded infantry with frenzy.

    Since Bretonnia doesn't have supply lines, cost is even important. Being able to afford two units of Knights Errant for every Grail Knight, is not a non factor. You can accomplish most of the same goals with the lesser unit. They can still destroy ranged infantry, they can still rear charge the melee lines, they can still screen flankers. You can spam them all over creation to reinforce weak points in your empire. You can't afford to do that with Grail Knights, but you wont be able to match the raw power they bring to the table in a single fight either. These are very different units in function, even if their role in combat is fairly similar. One is easily affordable, one is not.
    In Total War Warhammer what those factions need is more care from CA, who should give them more units to enlarge their tactical toolset. Of course, I don’t say that everyone should be as flexible as the empire. But WE, Dwarfs and Bretonnia need more variety. CA already has made up units and has shown to be good at that. If should be no problem to improve the rooster of those three factions, if the deal with GW allows this, especially when they can also tranplant units from other GW sources like the monstrous arcanum or forgeworld, if a fitting candidate exists there.

    I am no game developer and therefore have not the mechanical insight of unit creation or faction balancing, but a few interesting units would help those factions a lot. Maybe shard dragons for dwarfs or robin-hood inspired stealth bowmen for bretonnia, more playable different forest spirits for WE or something else.

    Some people might claim, that CA invented units are an defilement of the lore or the tabletop game or else, but the problem I am talking comes directly from the tabletop game and already existed there.

    Also, Warhammer Total War is not the tabletop version but its own thing. Some people get upset if Total War Warhammer introduces things that were never mentioned in the canon, but the canon of a source is a guideline, not a law for an adaptation.

    A battle for the vortex between DE, HE, Sk, and LM was never mentioned in the Lore. Units like Hippogryph knights or sacred kroxigors never existed in tabletop. And still they are fun to play in the computer game and fit into the essence of Warhammer. In the end this fun is all that counts.
    In the end every adaptation needs to diverge from the source material, as no source material is perfect nor directly usable in another medium. And every adaptation has the potential to improve upon the source material.

    Thank you for reading. I hope you can agree in some points with me. :)
    The source material is barely a foundation for the mechanics. CA hasn't rigidly stuck to the source material in transferring it to a new medium. There is no AP two handed weapon, no AP halberd, no anti-infantry units, or anti-large units. The mechanics of TW only marginally resemble the TT game in the barest of senses.

    What you want isn't needed adaptations. Dwarfs don't have monsters. Bretonnians aren't Elves. There isn't even a limitation in the WE roster, no idea what your problem is there if it isn't amber. Treekin and Glade Guard will do the HE game plan with line archers behind a solid defense, better than the HE do. Faction differences and limitations, are what make there be a point to playing the damn game. The more same they all are, the less point there will be in playing them all.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1.Yes my first pose was a simplification of the dwarfen playstyle, as well as of the bretonnian one. It is the introduction to his topic after all. Everyone should be able to see my main problems after a short read. If I would have gone too much into detail, people are more inclined to nitpick instead on concentrating on my critism on a larger scale. Some people will feel invited to do just that with my answers to this critique.

    But is my simplification wrong in general? No. The dwarfs have a problem, that many of theit units are just upgraded versions of the previous ones. This alone is not an issue. Elites should feel like a better version of the reguglar stuff. But the dwarfs revel in it to some points.
    Yes Ironbreakers fall somewhat out of it but my other dwarfen examples and most of the bretonnian cavalary are still just upgrades, and they lack overall unit diversity.

    What do I mean by that? The Tomb Kings were mentioned, so lets take them with their five infantry units. Skeleton Warriors with and withuot spears are very basic. But the next tier are nehecarian warriors, which will a different battlefield role. They are suddenly offenisve but lack a shield or standing power compared to the basic unit. And the tomb guard after them could be considered a elite version of the basic spearmen, but even then they will different combat roles. Sceleton warriors are also meant as cannon fodder, tomb guard not.
    No look at the dwarf infantry line and you will see, that they have many more units, but functionaliry they many are the same, just better and more exepenisve. You have two handed weapons as anti armour, basic warriors and slayers. And upgrades of them. The same goes for much of the bretonnian cavalary.

    One or two new units to mix this up would be enough. To give another off handed example: Maybe a unit that is functionarily between dwarfs warriors and slayers. Offensivly strong yet armoured.

    2. Concerning the WE: I always speak about the basic rooster, never about Lords and Heroes. And even then the warhawk is ridden by elves, so why the amber mechanic counts them as spirits/forest units is somewhat beyond me. Discounting this the forest units have five units left, four of which can be found directly in the HE rooster, especially in Avelorn, who also have dragons.

    I mentioend, that the wood elves have more diverse tactics than the other two. Yet what is there to make them thematicly unique? Just their lightly armoured elven units, even though they are always mentioend to be a union between forest and elven units. Its just lost potential.

    3. I never mentioned amber nor supply lines nor other campaign mechanics. I concentrated on the battlefield aspects of the factions alone.


    To sum up:

    As I mentioned several times, I do not want to make each faction generic. Each faction should have a unique style of combat. Yet some faction were created more equally than others in how they can engage in their unique style of combat. This has its roots within the tabletop, where GW policies preferred some factions over others. And points like Lorefullness or truthfullness only go so far. Had GW reacted to those critism, which existed back then, suddenly it would be loreful or truthful to the faction.

    But Total War Warhammer is not the tabletop game. It is an adaptation and as such has the right to do things differently. And neither the tabletop nor lore were perfect. And as such it is not GW but CA who has the chance to correct past oversights and improve upon them.
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,310
    Durgil said:

    For the dwarves, if CA wanted to give them new units, can could always pull from the Storm of Chaos book. They could add:
    - Doom-seeker slayer, which could be work either like the Night Gobbo fanatics, or the Bloated corpse, or a small unit of powerful entity like the Champion of Chaos
    - Brotherhood of Grimnir (extra magic resistant slayer)
    - Slayer hero
    - Goblin Hewer
    - Long Drong Silver RoR

    And while not from any solid source book, it would not look out of place for those units to be added:
    - Dwarf Shieldmaiden
    - Magical attack Ironbreaker or Hammerer (both unit leader was able to get Weapon Runes in the 8th book)

    I think the Brotherhood of Grimnir would work very well as an RoR for Giant Slayers (and as a matter of fact, Long Drong's Slayer Pirates should be an RoR as well, but for DoW).

    And while Hammerer champions could take runic weapons, that wasn't the case for Ironbreakers. Instead, hey could take either a brace of Drakefire pistols or Cinderblast bombs (which is likely what the current TW Ironbreakers ranged attack is based on).


  • Cadia101Cadia101 Registered Users Posts: 1,400

    Bretonnia not only has its entire TT roster it got upgraded to 8e with anything remaining.

    Oh, true but then what about factions that don’t have all their units from their army book but still get monster arcanum units, rpg lore of magic ?

    Like they don’t need those, they still have units missing. But everyone is glad to get those.

    Now a faction that has most of there army book complete (minus a few variants) cannot have the same treatment ?

    By your logic the dread saurian, rogue idol, eshin triad/lord/hero, ancient/sacred kroksigor and lore of stealth shouldn’t be in the game right ?
  • Tanegashima_TokitakaTanegashima_Tokitaka Registered Users Posts: 84
    You can definitely see the difference in design between game 1 and Game 2 factions. Bretonnia, Dwarfs, Wood Elves (and even Beastmen to some extent) are almost outdated when compared to the newer all-rounder factions. The problem is that there is a very vocal part of the fanbase that tends to throw a tantrum everytime you ask for stuff that isn't meant for their own favorite faction (usually the Empire).

    Heck, if we'd listen to them Bretonnia shouldn't even get the fooot squires or hippogryph knights, and Norsca outright should feature its own unique roster.

    Imo it's best to just ignore them. Their attitude could be understandable when it come to complete factions like the Empire and Skaven, but the flaws in their reasoning is immediately apparent when focused on GW's incomplete or outdated factions like Bretonnia and Wood Elves. ("It was incomplete on the tabletop and thus should also be incomplete in Total War" what kind of logic is that?)

    I personally consider that GW's codexes and models should be a starting point rather than a limiting factor when designing army rosters.
  • Cadia101Cadia101 Registered Users Posts: 1,400
    Wtfah114 said:

    Bretonnia not only has its entire TT roster it got upgraded to 8e with anything remaining.

    I know you love being the contrarian for the sake of it (you literally told me that) but them getting a few units to stop them from being not worth including doesn't make them done. If CA had released the Celestial Hurricanum with the first Empire DLC and made a point of getting all their 8th edition stuff in, do you really think people would be satisfied for the next 10 years with the Empire getting no future content drops?! (bearing in mind that nothing to do with Ulric, not even Todbringer I don't think, is in their 8th edition army book. Nor is Elspeth or anything that specific to Wissenland).
    This comparison is disingenuous, Boris/middle land and Elspeth/nuln stuff are not in the 8th army book yes, but they were from campaign books and have model and rules, which is not true for the rpg book stuff you mentioned, a closer comparison would be empire road wardens, a type of crossbow/melee hybrid medium cavalry in empire rpg books, and indeed you don’t see anyone scream about road wardens inclusion in the game do you?
    So I gess that the skaven lore of stealth coming from the rpg shouldn’t be a thing right ?

    People don’t ask for road warden, true, but I saw at last 10 people ask for mistwalker in the last 2 days ?

    Nobody shut them down the way some people do EVERY TIME someone proposes units for Bretonnia/Wood Elves.
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 5,601
    I think people are misunderstanding something.


    We are not saying that WElves, Bretonnia, Beastmen, etc, should change their playstyle. We are saying, "give them more options inside that playstyle, and give them small, situational units that could permit the faction to be played differently sometimes.


    For example:

    Wood Elves are supposed to be about:


    Infantry, Ranged units, cavalry, and tree creatures. With the general tactical approach of all of them is being glass cannons (hit hard, tree creatures excepted).


    How many cavalry units does it have? One unit of shock cavalry (I am not including shields as they do not change the unit's role) and three units of ranged cavalry, arrow variants. 4 if you include Warhawks. A total of five, including a monster unit.

    How many cavalry units does the Empire have? Three different units of shock cavalry, and 3 different units of ranged cavalry. Plus chariots (war wagons) and two units of monster cavalry.

    Infantry? The Empire has 5, Wood Elves have... 5

    Ranged infantry? Oh, for sure, Wood Elves will win this time! They have 6 and the Empire only has... 5?

    But... but... but the Empires doesn't have monsters! Yeah, and the Wood Elves do not have artillery. Btw, Empire has much more artillery than the WE have monsters, with 6 different variants, against the WE 4 different monsters.


    And that is without adding lords, and heroes, which make the difference even more exaggerated. 3 different generic lords vs 2, 5 LLs vs 2, 2 legendary heroes vs none, 4 different heroes vs 3, 7 different lores of magic, each of them with a unique model, against 3 with no unique models...


    We have come to the absurd were generalists factions such as Skaven, Empire, Dark of High Elves, which are supposed to be all rounders, have more diverse units in any area than those faction supposedly specialised in one or two areas.


    And that is without adding RoRs, with some of them being actual new units (black lions? Queen Bess for the vampire coast?) or campaign specific units.

    Why can't the WEs have, for example, the Hounds of Orion of sabertooth tigers as fast monsters? How are those units less adequate to their theme or strategic? Or why doesn't CA add champion units (for example, Wild Hunters as an elite AP variant of the Wild Riders, or Oak dryads as actual armoured infantry (no vanguard but higher AP ratio and armour) to give a little more strategical nuance?


    Having say that, Dawis are not suffering from this problem at all.
  • Cadia101Cadia101 Registered Users Posts: 1,400
    Pocman said:

    I think people are misunderstanding something.


    We are not saying that WElves, Bretonnia, Beastmen, etc, should change their playstyle. We are saying, "give them more options inside that playstyle, and give them small, situational units that could permit the faction to be played differently sometimes.


    For example:

    Wood Elves are supposed to be about:


    Infantry, Ranged units, cavalry, and tree creatures. With the general tactical approach of all of them is being glass cannons (hit hard, tree creatures excepted).


    How many cavalry units does it have? One unit of shock cavalry (I am not including shields as they do not change the unit's role) and three units of ranged cavalry, arrow variants. 4 if you include Warhawks. A total of five, including a monster unit.

    How many cavalry units does the Empire have? Three different units of shock cavalry, and 3 different units of ranged cavalry. Plus chariots (war wagons) and two units of monster cavalry.

    Infantry? The Empire has 5, Wood Elves have... 5

    Ranged infantry? Oh, for sure, Wood Elves will win this time! They have 6 and the Empire only has... 5?

    But... but... but the Empires doesn't have monsters! Yeah, and the Wood Elves do not have artillery. Btw, Empire has much more artillery than the WE have monsters, with 6 different variants, against the WE 4 different monsters.


    And that is without adding lords, and heroes, which make the difference even more exaggerated. 3 different generic lords vs 2, 5 LLs vs 2, 2 legendary heroes vs none, 4 different heroes vs 3, 7 different lores of magic, each of them with a unique model, against 3 with no unique models...


    We have come to the absurd were generalists factions such as Skaven, Empire, Dark of High Elves, which are supposed to be all rounders, have more diverse units in any area than those faction supposedly specialised in one or two areas.


    And that is without adding RoRs, with some of them being actual new units (black lions? Queen Bess for the vampire coast?) or campaign specific units.

    Why can't the WEs have, for example, the Hounds of Orion of sabertooth tigers as fast monsters? How are those units less adequate to their theme or strategic? Or why doesn't CA add champion units (for example, Wild Hunters as an elite AP variant of the Wild Riders, or Oak dryads as actual armoured infantry (no vanguard but higher AP ratio and armour) to give a little more strategical nuance?


    Having say that, Dawis are not suffering from this problem at all.

    I would say the problem with dawis are the transition from TT to the game, in TT playing melee with dawi was possible. They had bonus when charging and good melee stat. In the game the have bad charge bonus and weak ma with great md. I think that making the already existing units more compétent in melee or at least on the charge could open more playstyle and make the faction less one dimensional.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,553
    Cadia101 said:

    Bretonnia not only has its entire TT roster it got upgraded to 8e with anything remaining.

    Oh, true but then what about factions that don’t have all their units from their army book but still get monster arcanum units, rpg lore of magic ?

    Like they don’t need those, they still have units missing. But everyone is glad to get those.

    Now a faction that has most of there army book complete (minus a few variants) cannot have the same treatment ?

    By your logic the dread saurian, rogue idol, eshin triad/lord/hero, ancient/sacred kroksigor and lore of stealth shouldn’t be in the game right ?
    That's not my logic....? If I wanted to say those things I would have said them? Why are you assigning me views I don't hold?

    Bretonnia got its entire army book. Not most of it, the entirety of it. Then it got things which were only lore mentions. Everything you mention is simply false equivalency as Bretonnia doesn't have equivalents to those to add. You've also assigned me the view that I agree with all those things and think they should be added. I could go through and explain my logic and views, but that wasn't asked, so instead I'll point out that I never expressed an opinion on anything you listed.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • RzeźbiarzRzeźbiarz Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 139
    I would fully agree that WE, Dwarfs and Bretonnia need units to enchance their play style.

    Dwarfs air units should be revised, existing units should be made more useful and thunderbarge should be added as flying artillery masterpiece .

    Brettonia should get something to enchance their bowman playstyle. Herrminauts(possible wrong spelling, that bandit Robin hood style unit) with addition to stakes to their existing units would enchance their playstyle.

    WE here I have problem to find one solution. I would add some hybrid unit in style from lotherguard , some quick mobile monster swarm unit would be good addition, sabretooth or something similar would enchance their monster playstyle.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    jfraser said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Jastall said:

    No. Dwarfs, WEs and Brets are highly focused factions by design. The Dawi are slow but tough and pack a punch, the WEs, are fast and high-damage, and Brets are big on cavalry and suck at everything else. That's how they are designed and how they should play. Faction asymmetry is a big part of what makes them unique.

    If people want versatile factions, there's already several of them, especially Empire, High Elves and Dark Elves. Let the specialists remain specialists, it's much better game design.

    It's not design. It's just that they sold less so GW didn't add more minis to them. I mean, if you want to justify it with lore, strategy or whatever be my guest, but in the end it was all about selling minis. GW looked at their sales charts, and then decided if they should add new units for a race or not.
    You're oversimplifying a lot here. Dwarfs and Bretonia were clearly designed by GW to be hyper-specialised factions, and their lore too was deliberately restrictive. Part of the reason, I would argue, is that, while GW were always trying to sell models, in earlier editions they did this by making an interesting strategy game with an interesting rule set. Later on, with improved technology, flashy centrepiece models became a selling point in themselves, to the extent that GW would add strategically redundant or uninteresting units to armylists because they looked cool and would sell well (this ultimately led to AoS).
    I've no problem with that. Gimme the cool stuff.
    The cool stuff is the WHFB stuff. It is made worse by pollutants in the form of made up units that don't fit the race.
    Unless you can find some reliable record of ratmen and giant zombie bats in world history, I'll argue every unit is made up. What's exactly the difference if it's made up by CA with GW approval, instead of being made up by GW alone?
    I see there's confusion here.

    When I said "made up units" I wasn't referring to things that don't exist in the real world. I was referring to units that didn't exist in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles world. That's the Intellectual property this game is based off of.
    Like Cylostra or Sacred Kroxigors?
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,553
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    jfraser said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Jastall said:

    No. Dwarfs, WEs and Brets are highly focused factions by design. The Dawi are slow but tough and pack a punch, the WEs, are fast and high-damage, and Brets are big on cavalry and suck at everything else. That's how they are designed and how they should play. Faction asymmetry is a big part of what makes them unique.

    If people want versatile factions, there's already several of them, especially Empire, High Elves and Dark Elves. Let the specialists remain specialists, it's much better game design.

    It's not design. It's just that they sold less so GW didn't add more minis to them. I mean, if you want to justify it with lore, strategy or whatever be my guest, but in the end it was all about selling minis. GW looked at their sales charts, and then decided if they should add new units for a race or not.
    You're oversimplifying a lot here. Dwarfs and Bretonia were clearly designed by GW to be hyper-specialised factions, and their lore too was deliberately restrictive. Part of the reason, I would argue, is that, while GW were always trying to sell models, in earlier editions they did this by making an interesting strategy game with an interesting rule set. Later on, with improved technology, flashy centrepiece models became a selling point in themselves, to the extent that GW would add strategically redundant or uninteresting units to armylists because they looked cool and would sell well (this ultimately led to AoS).
    I've no problem with that. Gimme the cool stuff.
    The cool stuff is the WHFB stuff. It is made worse by pollutants in the form of made up units that don't fit the race.
    Unless you can find some reliable record of ratmen and giant zombie bats in world history, I'll argue every unit is made up. What's exactly the difference if it's made up by CA with GW approval, instead of being made up by GW alone?
    I see there's confusion here.

    When I said "made up units" I wasn't referring to things that don't exist in the real world. I was referring to units that didn't exist in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles world. That's the Intellectual property this game is based off of.
    Like Cylostra or Sacred Kroxigors?
    Please express your point?
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,553
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    jfraser said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Jastall said:

    No. Dwarfs, WEs and Brets are highly focused factions by design. The Dawi are slow but tough and pack a punch, the WEs, are fast and high-damage, and Brets are big on cavalry and suck at everything else. That's how they are designed and how they should play. Faction asymmetry is a big part of what makes them unique.

    If people want versatile factions, there's already several of them, especially Empire, High Elves and Dark Elves. Let the specialists remain specialists, it's much better game design.

    It's not design. It's just that they sold less so GW didn't add more minis to them. I mean, if you want to justify it with lore, strategy or whatever be my guest, but in the end it was all about selling minis. GW looked at their sales charts, and then decided if they should add new units for a race or not.
    You're oversimplifying a lot here. Dwarfs and Bretonia were clearly designed by GW to be hyper-specialised factions, and their lore too was deliberately restrictive. Part of the reason, I would argue, is that, while GW were always trying to sell models, in earlier editions they did this by making an interesting strategy game with an interesting rule set. Later on, with improved technology, flashy centrepiece models became a selling point in themselves, to the extent that GW would add strategically redundant or uninteresting units to armylists because they looked cool and would sell well (this ultimately led to AoS).
    I've no problem with that. Gimme the cool stuff.
    The cool stuff is the WHFB stuff. It is made worse by pollutants in the form of made up units that don't fit the race.
    Unless you can find some reliable record of ratmen and giant zombie bats in world history, I'll argue every unit is made up. What's exactly the difference if it's made up by CA with GW approval, instead of being made up by GW alone?
    I see there's confusion here.

    When I said "made up units" I wasn't referring to things that don't exist in the real world. I was referring to units that didn't exist in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles world. That's the Intellectual property this game is based off of.
    Like Cylostra or Sacred Kroxigors?
    Point?
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,761

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    jfraser said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Jastall said:

    No. Dwarfs, WEs and Brets are highly focused factions by design. The Dawi are slow but tough and pack a punch, the WEs, are fast and high-damage, and Brets are big on cavalry and suck at everything else. That's how they are designed and how they should play. Faction asymmetry is a big part of what makes them unique.

    If people want versatile factions, there's already several of them, especially Empire, High Elves and Dark Elves. Let the specialists remain specialists, it's much better game design.

    It's not design. It's just that they sold less so GW didn't add more minis to them. I mean, if you want to justify it with lore, strategy or whatever be my guest, but in the end it was all about selling minis. GW looked at their sales charts, and then decided if they should add new units for a race or not.
    You're oversimplifying a lot here. Dwarfs and Bretonia were clearly designed by GW to be hyper-specialised factions, and their lore too was deliberately restrictive. Part of the reason, I would argue, is that, while GW were always trying to sell models, in earlier editions they did this by making an interesting strategy game with an interesting rule set. Later on, with improved technology, flashy centrepiece models became a selling point in themselves, to the extent that GW would add strategically redundant or uninteresting units to armylists because they looked cool and would sell well (this ultimately led to AoS).
    I've no problem with that. Gimme the cool stuff.
    The cool stuff is the WHFB stuff. It is made worse by pollutants in the form of made up units that don't fit the race.
    Unless you can find some reliable record of ratmen and giant zombie bats in world history, I'll argue every unit is made up. What's exactly the difference if it's made up by CA with GW approval, instead of being made up by GW alone?
    I see there's confusion here.

    When I said "made up units" I wasn't referring to things that don't exist in the real world. I was referring to units that didn't exist in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles world. That's the Intellectual property this game is based off of.
    Like Cylostra or Sacred Kroxigors?
    Point?
    Point that everything created by CA and approved by GW is canon, so it exists in the WH world. Which is exactly how it works for all licensed videogames: Sarevok, Irenicus and all Baldur's Gate stuff are Faerun canon now, the same would be for new Bretonnia and Dwarf units.
  • Wtfah114Wtfah114 Registered Users Posts: 352
    People just need to accept some factions are inherently more important than others, have bigger presence in the lore with larger pool of materials to draw from, HE, and empire for example is simply more important and deserve more work put into them then say WE or Bret.
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,854
    edited May 2020
    Wtfah114 said:

    People just need to accept some factions are inherently more important than others, have bigger presence in the lore with larger pool of materials to draw from, HE, and empire for example is simply more important and deserve more work put into them then say WE or Bret.

    Things like balance aside for the following example;

    Please correct me if I missunderstood something but if I would translate this reasoning on other franchise games, e.g. starcraft, it would say: terrans have more lore and background therefore they should have the most units.

    Its just a bizarre way to think about a game. With this reasoning it could also be justified that the beastmen still miss many units. After all when do beastmen get great attention in the Lore?
    Post edited by sykall on
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • Wtfah114Wtfah114 Registered Users Posts: 352
    sykall said:

    Wtfah114 said:

    People just need to accept some factions are inherently more important than others, have bigger presence in the lore with larger pool of materials to draw from, HE, and empire for example is simply more important and deserve more work put into them then say WE or Bret.

    Things like balance aside for the following example;

    Please correct me if I missunderstood something but if I would translate this reasoning on other franchise games, e.g. starcraft, it would say: terrans have more lore and background therefore they should have the most units.

    Its just a bizarre way to think about a game. With this reasoning it could also be justified that the beastmen still miss many units. After all when do beastmen get great attention in the Lore?
    Starcraft is a rts game with three factions and focused primarily on the competitive side of things, comparing it to a grand strategy/rts hybrid total war that focus primarily on singleplayer experience and with dozenof factions and more to come, so no you can’t compare the two. Another thing of note blizzard owns the Starcraft ip same can’t be said about ca and warhammer.
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,854
    edited May 2020
    Wtfah114 said:

    sykall said:

    Wtfah114 said:

    People just need to accept some factions are inherently more important than others, have bigger presence in the lore with larger pool of materials to draw from, HE, and empire for example is simply more important and deserve more work put into them then say WE or Bret.

    Things like balance aside for the following example;

    Please correct me if I missunderstood something but if I would translate this reasoning on other franchise games, e.g. starcraft, it would say: terrans have more lore and background therefore they should have the most units.

    Its just a bizarre way to think about a game. With this reasoning it could also be justified that the beastmen still miss many units. After all when do beastmen get great attention in the Lore?
    Starcraft is a rts game with three factions and focused primarily on the competitive side of things, comparing it to a grand strategy/rts hybrid total war that focus primarily on singleplayer experience and with dozenof factions and more to come, so no you can’t compare the two. Another thing of note blizzard owns the Starcraft ip same can’t be said about ca and warhammer.
    I know that both games are different. I just wanted to show how misleading this line of thought is, when driven to a more extreme form.

    Think about the beastmen if you want a more warhammer specific example. I could use the same line of thought to say: the beastmen played the second fiddle in the lore. They are missing some units in their rooster but overall they are playable the way they should be played.
    Therefore CA should give factions with more background more attention, e.g empire, HE or Lizardmen
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • Cadia101Cadia101 Registered Users Posts: 1,400

    Cadia101 said:

    Bretonnia not only has its entire TT roster it got upgraded to 8e with anything remaining.

    Oh, true but then what about factions that don’t have all their units from their army book but still get monster arcanum units, rpg lore of magic ?

    Like they don’t need those, they still have units missing. But everyone is glad to get those.

    Now a faction that has most of there army book complete (minus a few variants) cannot have the same treatment ?

    By your logic the dread saurian, rogue idol, eshin triad/lord/hero, ancient/sacred kroksigor and lore of stealth shouldn’t be in the game right ?
    That's not my logic....? If I wanted to say those things I would have said them? Why are you assigning me views I don't hold?

    Bretonnia got its entire army book. Not most of it, the entirety of it. Then it got things which were only lore mentions. Everything you mention is simply false equivalency as Bretonnia doesn't have equivalents to those to add. You've also assigned me the view that I agree with all those things and think they should be added. I could go through and explain my logic and views, but that wasn't asked, so instead I'll point out that I never expressed an opinion on anything you listed.
    Except I didn’t assume your opinion, I ask you questions. Should they be better worded ? By your reaction yes.

    Missing units from the codex :
    - peasants archer with stakes
    - Men-at-arm polearm and shield
    They may be variants but they are still missing.

    My questions are :
    1. You shot down mention lore unit for Bretonnia, yet when people mention units like Mistwalker you don’t ? Tho this question is for anyone who do so.
    2. Why couldn’t Bretonnia use rpg material for new content when skaven have done it with the lore of stealth ?
    3. If faction that have completed army book and still get new unit from other sources why can’t Bretonnia ?

    Why refuse content for that faction and not others ?
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 5,601
    Wtfah114 said:

    People just need to accept some factions are inherently more important than others, have bigger presence in the lore with larger pool of materials to draw from, HE, and empire for example is simply more important and deserve more work put into them then say WE or Bret.

    Why making the game worse is a good thing?

    In TT, yeah, that could make sense because you had to sell minis. But in the game? As long as it makes sense, feels unique, etc. we will buy it and will make the game richer and better.

    Even playing empire becomes more fun when the WEs, Beastmen, etc. have more varied armies and options.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,310
    Cadia101 said:

    Cadia101 said:

    Bretonnia not only has its entire TT roster it got upgraded to 8e with anything remaining.

    Oh, true but then what about factions that don’t have all their units from their army book but still get monster arcanum units, rpg lore of magic ?

    Like they don’t need those, they still have units missing. But everyone is glad to get those.

    Now a faction that has most of there army book complete (minus a few variants) cannot have the same treatment ?

    By your logic the dread saurian, rogue idol, eshin triad/lord/hero, ancient/sacred kroksigor and lore of stealth shouldn’t be in the game right ?
    That's not my logic....? If I wanted to say those things I would have said them? Why are you assigning me views I don't hold?

    Bretonnia got its entire army book. Not most of it, the entirety of it. Then it got things which were only lore mentions. Everything you mention is simply false equivalency as Bretonnia doesn't have equivalents to those to add. You've also assigned me the view that I agree with all those things and think they should be added. I could go through and explain my logic and views, but that wasn't asked, so instead I'll point out that I never expressed an opinion on anything you listed.
    Except I didn’t assume your opinion, I ask you questions. Should they be better worded ? By your reaction yes.

    Missing units from the codex :
    - peasants archer with stakes
    - Men-at-arm polearm and shield
    They may be variants but they are still missing.
    Just a small nitpick here; polearms are essentially the same thing as halberds, both in TT and TW. Halberds require 2 hands to use and thus can't be used in conjunction with a shield. Units could carry both on TT, but they couldn't use them simultaneously. It's the same reason why great weapon infantry don't get to use shields either.

    This rule has been upheld for nearly every other race in TW; just about every infantry unit that uses halberds does not use a shield. I think the only exceptions are Tomb Guard and Temple Guard and those are understandable outliers. Giving Bretonnian polearm-men shields would necessitate giving shields to State Troops, Chaos Warriors, Chosen, Stormvermin, etc.
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,854
    Wtfah114 said:

    sykall said:

    Wtfah114 said:

    People just need to accept some factions are inherently more important than others, have bigger presence in the lore with larger pool of materials to draw from, HE, and empire for example is simply more important and deserve more work put into them then say WE or Bret.

    Things like balance aside for the following example;

    Please correct me if I missunderstood something but if I would translate this reasoning on other franchise games, e.g. starcraft, it would say: terrans have more lore and background therefore they should have the most units.

    Its just a bizarre way to think about a game. With this reasoning it could also be justified that the beastmen still miss many units. After all when do beastmen get great attention in the Lore?
    Starcraft is a rts game with three factions and focused primarily on the competitive side of things, comparing it to a grand strategy/rts hybrid total war that focus primarily on singleplayer experience and with dozenof factions and more to come, so no you can’t compare the two. Another thing of note blizzard owns the Starcraft ip same can’t be said about ca and warhammer.
    I mentioned starcraft as an extreme example to show how strange this line of thought can be.

    But, as mentioned originally, i could use tge same reasoning to say that the beastmen do not need more units. Sure ghorgons and other creatures of their rooster are missing, but they have more than enough units to be played as they were Intentioned. And they only played the second fiddle in the lore anyway. Therefore CA should concentrate on the empire HE and Lizardmen as they have more lore and background
    Filling the white spots - 7 made-up factions to enrich the empty parts of the WFB setting
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/288418/filling-the-white-spots-7-made-up-factions-to-fill-out-the-wfb-setting
  • Cadia101Cadia101 Registered Users Posts: 1,400
    Ol_Nessie said:

    Cadia101 said:

    Cadia101 said:

    Bretonnia not only has its entire TT roster it got upgraded to 8e with anything remaining.

    Oh, true but then what about factions that don’t have all their units from their army book but still get monster arcanum units, rpg lore of magic ?

    Like they don’t need those, they still have units missing. But everyone is glad to get those.

    Now a faction that has most of there army book complete (minus a few variants) cannot have the same treatment ?

    By your logic the dread saurian, rogue idol, eshin triad/lord/hero, ancient/sacred kroksigor and lore of stealth shouldn’t be in the game right ?
    That's not my logic....? If I wanted to say those things I would have said them? Why are you assigning me views I don't hold?

    Bretonnia got its entire army book. Not most of it, the entirety of it. Then it got things which were only lore mentions. Everything you mention is simply false equivalency as Bretonnia doesn't have equivalents to those to add. You've also assigned me the view that I agree with all those things and think they should be added. I could go through and explain my logic and views, but that wasn't asked, so instead I'll point out that I never expressed an opinion on anything you listed.
    Except I didn’t assume your opinion, I ask you questions. Should they be better worded ? By your reaction yes.

    Missing units from the codex :
    - peasants archer with stakes
    - Men-at-arm polearm and shield
    They may be variants but they are still missing.
    Just a small nitpick here; polearms are essentially the same thing as halberds, both in TT and TW. Halberds require 2 hands to use and thus can't be used in conjunction with a shield. Units could carry both on TT, but they couldn't use them simultaneously. It's the same reason why great weapon infantry don't get to use shields either.

    This rule has been upheld for nearly every other race in TW; just about every infantry unit that uses halberds does not use a shield. I think the only exceptions are Tomb Guard and Temple Guard and those are understandable outliers. Giving Bretonnian polearm-men shields would necessitate giving shields to State Troops, Chaos Warriors, Chosen, Stormvermin, etc.
    Really ? Then why all their models use polarm one handed with a shield ?
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 17,628

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    jfraser said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Jastall said:

    No. Dwarfs, WEs and Brets are highly focused factions by design. The Dawi are slow but tough and pack a punch, the WEs, are fast and high-damage, and Brets are big on cavalry and suck at everything else. That's how they are designed and how they should play. Faction asymmetry is a big part of what makes them unique.

    If people want versatile factions, there's already several of them, especially Empire, High Elves and Dark Elves. Let the specialists remain specialists, it's much better game design.

    It's not design. It's just that they sold less so GW didn't add more minis to them. I mean, if you want to justify it with lore, strategy or whatever be my guest, but in the end it was all about selling minis. GW looked at their sales charts, and then decided if they should add new units for a race or not.
    You're oversimplifying a lot here. Dwarfs and Bretonia were clearly designed by GW to be hyper-specialised factions, and their lore too was deliberately restrictive. Part of the reason, I would argue, is that, while GW were always trying to sell models, in earlier editions they did this by making an interesting strategy game with an interesting rule set. Later on, with improved technology, flashy centrepiece models became a selling point in themselves, to the extent that GW would add strategically redundant or uninteresting units to armylists because they looked cool and would sell well (this ultimately led to AoS).
    I've no problem with that. Gimme the cool stuff.
    The cool stuff is the WHFB stuff. It is made worse by pollutants in the form of made up units that don't fit the race.
    Unless you can find some reliable record of ratmen and giant zombie bats in world history, I'll argue every unit is made up. What's exactly the difference if it's made up by CA with GW approval, instead of being made up by GW alone?
    I see there's confusion here.

    When I said "made up units" I wasn't referring to things that don't exist in the real world. I was referring to units that didn't exist in the Warhammer Fantasy Battles world. That's the Intellectual property this game is based off of.
    When CA adds units they do by getting GW approval. What we are trying to do is at least try to discuss what if units.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


Sign In or Register to comment.