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.
My solution: Play Legendary Campaign - Normal battle difficulty.
Your campaign is still challenging, battles are harder, longer and far more common against tougher and more numerous enemies but your troops still act how they should perform. Chaos warriors are still chaos warriors.
To me this is the best way to play - but i'm sure others have their own methods which are equally valid.
I really like this approach. Part of the problem is that the difficulty system doesn't penalize missile armies but it does penalize melee armies. So with normal battles, melee and missile are back in balance. Legendary just adds more of both to the AI. Legendary also prevents pausing during battles, so the player can't min-max ability usage.
Another thing I do is I turn off the camera for AI moves on the Ai turn on the campaign map. The AI doesn't see where I move or when I go into ambush stance, so I shouldn't see when the AI goes into ambush stance.
My solution: Play Legendary Campaign - Normal battle difficulty.
Your campaign is still challenging, battles are harder, longer and far more common against tougher and more numerous enemies but your troops still act how they should perform. Chaos warriors are still chaos warriors.
To me this is the best way to play - but i'm sure others have their own methods which are equally valid.
I do the same thing. VH battles make enemy Dwarf unbreakable and player's low leadership (slaves, zombies, ...) useless. A no-name Lords can defeat Tyrion and Grimgore easily. Leg-Normal is the best way to play.
Yeah, the argument that it's just too hard to play with a missile-lite army on Legendary/VH is nonsense. If that were the case, all those melee-heavy factions like vampire count would be non-viable.
Really though, the whole argument about unfair bonuses go out the window when you compare Lord/Hero levels with what those SCARY Legendary difficulty armies have. It's not a huge difference early game, but by turn 30 you're blowing everyone else away. Beating Tyrion isn't so hard when he's barely leveled up all game and your lords and heroes are all maxed. Those redline skills you have wipe out any built in stat advantage the AI gets.
I'll readily admit that the way the bonuses are structured it favors going ranged, but it hardly precludes you from using mostly melee.
Yeah, the argument that it's just too hard to play with a missile-lite army on Legendary/VH is nonsense. If that were the case, all those melee-heavy factions like vampire count would be non-viable.
Really though, the whole argument about unfair bonuses go out the window when you compare Lord/Hero levels with what those SCARY Legendary difficulty armies have. It's not a huge difference early game, but by turn 30 you're blowing everyone else away. Beating Tyrion isn't so hard when he's barely leveled up all game and your lords and heroes are all maxed. Those redline skills you have wipe out any built in stat advantage the AI gets.
I'll readily admit that the way the bonuses are structured it favors going ranged, but it hardly precludes you from using mostly melee.
I'm not saying it's too hard. In fact there is no reason for anyone here to argue - we can all choose to play how we like. My only point is the battle settings are clearly a bit janky and the buffs are not well balanced.
If you are already playing Vh/Vh or Legendary/Vh or whatever and enjoying it then by all means continue; but just putting it out there that Legendary/Normal is a fun, challenging but much more natural feeling game mode IMPO.
https://youtu.be/gOHsnxbsvBU this shows how legend just throws his melee away. He could have used the hero and malekith dodging missiles and harassing and saved pretty every single melee unit.
After he says well melee didn't do much. Yeah no **** sherlock you just let them eat all missiles and stood there whole battle wiping his melee units etc
Using a checkpoint was more efficient in that battle, and didn't try wasting enemy's ammunition because the enemy have a clear air superiority. Legend shown time and time again that on highest difficulties melee units are mostly useless at even holding the line, because AI get so much melee cheats on the highest difficulties, range units are even better at holding the line because they are able to inflict a lot more casualties on the AI armies before they get butchered at melee. The melee units get butchered on highest difficulties almost as fast as range units, so they don't hold the line for much longer than the range units, a range units spam is the most efficient tactic on highest difficulties.
https://youtu.be/gOHsnxbsvBU this shows how legend just throws his melee away. He could have used the hero and malekith dodging missiles and harassing and saved pretty every single melee unit.
After he says well melee didn't do much. Yeah no **** sherlock you just let them eat all missiles and stood there whole battle wiping his melee units etc
Using a checkpoint was more efficient in that battle, and didn't try wasting enemy's ammunition because the enemy have a clear air superiority. Legend shown time and time again that on highest difficulties melee units are mostly useless at even holding the line, because AI get so much melee cheats on the highest difficulties, range units are even better at holding the line because they are able to inflict a lot more casualties on the AI armies before they get butchered at melee. The melee units get butchered on highest difficulties almost as fast as range units, so they don't hold the line for much longer than the range units, a range units spam is the most efficient tactic on highest difficulties.
You are correct about air superiority. Nonetheless, black guard cant hold the line against fenix, even in normal, despite being similar units, fenix has the edge. And they also had a huge amount of swordmasters, who cut infantry like butter. It was not the best example to show how difficulty affects melee combat by any means.
"It's small, filthy and noisy. H! Just like a dwarf!"
https://youtu.be/gOHsnxbsvBU this shows how legend just throws his melee away. He could have used the hero and malekith dodging missiles and harassing and saved pretty every single melee unit.
After he says well melee didn't do much. Yeah no **** sherlock you just let them eat all missiles and stood there whole battle wiping his melee units etc
Using a checkpoint was more efficient in that battle, and didn't try wasting enemy's ammunition because the enemy have a clear air superiority. Legend shown time and time again that on highest difficulties melee units are mostly useless at even holding the line, because AI get so much melee cheats on the highest difficulties, range units are even better at holding the line because they are able to inflict a lot more casualties on the AI armies before they get butchered at melee. The melee units get butchered on highest difficulties almost as fast as range units, so they don't hold the line for much longer than the range units, a range units spam is the most efficient tactic on highest difficulties.
You are correct about air superiority. Nonetheless, black guard cant hold the line against fenix, even in normal, despite being similar units, fenix has the edge. And they also had a huge amount of swordmasters, who cut infantry like butter. It was not the best example to show how difficulty affects melee combat by any means.
Yes swordmasters are good against infantry even without AI cheats, but the AI cheats make them kill infantry even faster, and it's not like the black guard don't considered an elite infantry as well.
In addition to the obvious reasons regarding melee performance, you have to also consider that in the higher campaign difficulties you often fight 3-4 battles in a turn with the same army and the only way to survive that is through healing or avoiding casualties.
You can heal to full with an army of single entities like monsters or with a low count like hipogrifs or treekin that can sustain a lot of damage before losing models. So with those kind of armies it is viable to play melee although less optimal due ti the debuffs.
With melee infantry if you don't play vampires you will lose models and won't be able to fully heal.
Melee units will always receive damage even if they are chosen against goblins, and after a couple battles you will start to risk losing units and even your army.
Ranged units deal damage without receiving any if played correctly thus allowing you to win battles unscathed and to win many battles in a row without problems.
This is the main reason stacking ranged is done on VH/L. You can win with melee. It is really difficult to win 3 battles in 1 turn with melee as you will take more losses in every battle.
Also- the people who say Elven Spearmen or really anything less than T3 front melee line other than Saurus can hold long enough... not normally on VH when the enemy is gold chevroned with melee buffs. The +10 morale and rank 7 gold chevron which adds +7 gives a total +17 leadership not to mention your own units are fighting at -4.
Then the +20% MD on the average 30ish MD of low tier units gives 36 MD + 7 MD from gold chevron = 43 MD vs player's 30.
Not all melee is useless and you need something to hold/distract AI frontline because only a few armies can completely demolish enemy without them ever reaching melee. However, there are certainly some units with lower MD/leadership that become effectively useless on VH/L as the AI buffs will overrun them super quickly.
Races with weaker T1-T3 melee units that are what you usually need to use due to supply line costs-
The Skaven can overcome this with scurry away and sheer numbers + speed while getting T3 extremely fast. Vampire Coast has the cheapest ranged units to compensate for their crap low tier melee. Vampires rely on the strength of their heroes and magic. Tomb Kings... not many options until research some dynasties and unlock some higher tier units. Norsca can get higher tier units relatively quickly
Lizardmen Saurus, Wood Elves Eternal Guard, High Elves spearmen, and Dwarf Warriors are the only low tier units that can actually last in melee but only Saurus actually put out damage so even for the Elves and Dwarfs the melee line is all about holding while ranged do the damage. Once you are facing enemies with T3 and higher units only Saurus really remain feasible to hold for any long period of time.
Races which have speed or stalk can also do swarm/micro heavy low tier builds which work 1 v 1.
Greenskins now have some options with Nasty Skulkers with stalk, fast Wolf Riderz, and cheap units with good shields but still rely primarily on specific Lords special buffs. Skarsnik, Grom, Wurrzag all buff their respective units heavily. Grimgor and Azhag are probably the most difficult as they lack buffs until much later but Grimgor has an easy start position which greatly helps him feel not so bad.
Norsca without the starting army units and getting Mammoths/confederations from nearby tribes would be almost impossible to play on Legendary. I think overall they have the worst low tier units but really strong and diverse mid/upper tiers so if you survive the start and get some income they are playable.
Post edited by bli-nk#6314 on
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
https://youtu.be/gOHsnxbsvBU this shows how legend just throws his melee away. He could have used the hero and malekith dodging missiles and harassing and saved pretty every single melee unit.
After he says well melee didn't do much. Yeah no **** sherlock you just let them eat all missiles and stood there whole battle wiping his melee units etc
Using a checkpoint was more efficient in that battle, and didn't try wasting enemy's ammunition because the enemy have a clear air superiority. Legend shown time and time again that on highest difficulties melee units are mostly useless at even holding the line, because AI get so much melee cheats on the highest difficulties, range units are even better at holding the line because they are able to inflict a lot more casualties on the AI armies before they get butchered at melee. The melee units get butchered on highest difficulties almost as fast as range units, so they don't hold the line for much longer than the range units, a range units spam is the most efficient tactic on highest difficulties.
You misunderstand. Im not saying he shouldnt have corner camped. I am saying that after he took out the charging air units he could have saved ALL of the melee units if he had used malekith and the hero to harass (cycle charge missile troops) and waste ammo by moving them in and out, left and right. And he had alot of time to see this yet he missed it for minutes. Very bad.
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.
https://youtu.be/gOHsnxbsvBU this shows how legend just throws his melee away. He could have used the hero and malekith dodging missiles and harassing and saved pretty every single melee unit.
After he says well melee didn't do much. Yeah no **** sherlock you just let them eat all missiles and stood there whole battle wiping his melee units etc
Using a checkpoint was more efficient in that battle, and didn't try wasting enemy's ammunition because the enemy have a clear air superiority. Legend shown time and time again that on highest difficulties melee units are mostly useless at even holding the line, because AI get so much melee cheats on the highest difficulties, range units are even better at holding the line because they are able to inflict a lot more casualties on the AI armies before they get butchered at melee. The melee units get butchered on highest difficulties almost as fast as range units, so they don't hold the line for much longer than the range units, a range units spam is the most efficient tactic on highest difficulties.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying he shouldn't have corner camped. I am saying that after he took out the charging air units he could have saved ALL of the melee units if he had used malekith and the hero to harass (cycle charge missile troops) and waste ammo by moving them in and out, left and right. And he had alot of time to see this yet he missed it for minutes. Very bad.
Legend is not super good at macro and he admit it, he prefer tactics that don't require a lot of macro. Yes he could had done better work at that battle, but still a range spam is efficient at highest difficulties.
https://youtu.be/gOHsnxbsvBU this shows how legend just throws his melee away. He could have used the hero and malekith dodging missiles and harassing and saved pretty every single melee unit.
After he says well melee didn't do much. Yeah no **** sherlock you just let them eat all missiles and stood there whole battle wiping his melee units etc
Using a checkpoint was more efficient in that battle, and didn't try wasting enemy's ammunition because the enemy have a clear air superiority. Legend shown time and time again that on highest difficulties melee units are mostly useless at even holding the line, because AI get so much melee cheats on the highest difficulties, range units are even better at holding the line because they are able to inflict a lot more casualties on the AI armies before they get butchered at melee. The melee units get butchered on highest difficulties almost as fast as range units, so they don't hold the line for much longer than the range units, a range units spam is the most efficient tactic on highest difficulties.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying he shouldn't have corner camped. I am saying that after he took out the charging air units he could have saved ALL of the melee units if he had used malekith and the hero to harass (cycle charge missile troops) and waste ammo by moving them in and out, left and right. And he had alot of time to see this yet he missed it for minutes. Very bad.
Legend is not super good at macro and he admit it, he prefer tactics that don't require a lot of macro. Yes he could had done better work at that battle, but still a range spam is efficient at highest difficulties.
I think you mean micro. And i think his micro is good and he could have done it if he had seen it. And that is really were i blame him in this instance, how could he not see that he should have used malekith and the hero more? He lost all the melee troops and finished the battle with healthy lord and hero.
Legend is very good at this game but he dropped the ball there. And there was so much time for him to see it.
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.
Yeah, the argument that it's just too hard to play with a missile-lite army on Legendary/VH is nonsense. If that were the case, all those melee-heavy factions like vampire count would be non-viable.
Really though, the whole argument about unfair bonuses go out the window when you compare Lord/Hero levels with what those SCARY Legendary difficulty armies have. It's not a huge difference early game, but by turn 30 you're blowing everyone else away. Beating Tyrion isn't so hard when he's barely leveled up all game and your lords and heroes are all maxed. Those redline skills you have wipe out any built in stat advantage the AI gets.
I'll readily admit that the way the bonuses are structured it favors going ranged, but it hardly precludes you from using mostly melee.
I'm not saying it's too hard. In fact there is no reason for anyone here to argue - we can all choose to play how we like. My only point is the battle settings are clearly a bit janky and the buffs are not well balanced.
If you are already playing Vh/Vh or Legendary/Vh or whatever and enjoying it then by all means continue; but just putting it out there that Legendary/Normal is a fun, challenging but much more natural feeling game mode IMPO.
I wasn't calling you out specifically. I was talking more about the general argument I've seen time and time again here and elsewhere. In fact the post just below yours has a guy calling melee "mostly useless at holding the line" on L/VH difficulty, which is just absurdly untrue.
Don't bother with it, some people can't grasp more than hammer and anvil tactic and can't even execute it properly and they will call every tactic that works on vh battle difficulty cheese.
No need to be hostile - people can play as they choose.
However the point i'm making about h/vh battle is that it unfairly buffs/debuffs melee units.
Because of this, on VH difficulty your melee units are suddenly useless whereas your ranged units perform almost identically as they do on Normal.
The thing here is that if you take a very ranged heavy build on VH (as you probably should do) then you are effectively ignoring the benefits that VH offers the A.I- the A.I will have a small leadership bonus and reload speed. Thats it. If you take a ranged heavy build you might as well be playing on normal - as that's the only stats that are really being affected.
My take on it is this;
Normal Difficulty;
Melee Heavy Army: Performs as expected. Balanced Army: Performs as expected. Ranged Heavy Army: Performs as expected.
VH Difficulty:
Melee Heavy Army: Performs far worse then expected due to huge melee buffs/debuffs. Balanced Army: Performs moderately worse as melee components will suffer due to melee buffs/debuffs. Ranged Heavy Army: Performs very slightly worse as melee buffs will only take effect if you are caught in melee. All other times your units will perform as expected.
So yes the game will always be harder on VH - but effectively all you are doing is forcing yourself to take ranged builds. I think what CA intended was players would still use balanced builds for VH and therefore the challenge would be more rounded - but if you are playing 'cheese' as some might call it then you are going out of your way to ignore any benefits the A.I. is given. Basically you are playing pretty much normal difficulty again. Your 'cheese' build would perform against a normal A.I. very similarly as it would against a VH A.I.
So my summary (IMPO) is that all VH does it make you not play many melee units - other then that the game might aswell be called normal.
It's cheese vs cheats, did CA also intended for players to use attrition tactics on AI that become mostly immune to attrition with the cheats that the AI gets on higher difficulties?
fighting some levelled up dwarfs on very hard some times its like fighting an entire army that is unbreakable. I would recommend campaign: Very Hard, Battle: Hard.
This is the main reason stacking ranged is done on VH/L. You can win with melee. It is really difficult to win 3 battles in 1 turn with melee as you will take more losses in every battle.
Also- the people who say Elven Spearmen or really anything less than T3 front melee line other than Saurus can hold long enough... not normally on VH when the enemy is gold chevroned with melee buffs. The +10 morale and rank 7 gold chevron which adds +7 gives a total +17 leadership not to mention your own units are fighting at -4.
Not all melee is useless and you need something to hold/distract AI frontline because only a few armies can completely demolish enemy without them ever reaching melee. However, there are certainly some units with lower MD/leadership that become effectively useless on VH/L as the AI buffs will overrun them super quickly.
Norsca without the starting army units and getting Mammoths/confederations from nearby tribes would be almost impossible to play on Legendary. I think overall they have the worst low tier units but really strong and diverse mid/upper tiers so if you survive the start and get some income they are playable.
1st: All your calculus assume your units will have no upgrades from either red skill tree, technology tree, and units at rank 0, and AI always deploy r9 units, which is not true. Some factions have very easy ways to recruit units at r7+ without the need of quests/blue tree/invocations.
2nd: what you understand for low tier units? Saurus with shields are T2 i believe, who share same tier as norscan's bersekers. I can tell you from my experience in VH/VH, bersekers are one of the best units I ever played with, and one of the cheapest as well. They only need 2-4 champion marauders to tank missiles, but they cut infantry and even chavalry like butter. Their weapon damage is absurd, andd his attack too. From turn 2 you already have them, and last till the very end of the game. they require micro though. But Norsca is far from being the worst low tier faction. Normal marauders also win against most trash tier units, with the exception of dwarfs (I dont think saurus are in that category, they belong with bersekers, and here, these crazy dudes win with ease).
Edit: my TT army is lizardmen, but Norsca in melee is just great, far from the worst as you mentioned.
"It's small, filthy and noisy. H! Just like a dwarf!"
I really like Legend but I don't agree with him always especially on Melee infantry part and skeleton spam, it doesn't always work later on Skeleton Spam is not viable you have to replace them otherwis AR will screw you up every time.
Imo the only time Ar should happen is on your sack cities or minor settlements with a small garrison, or you are just suffering too many casualties from being lazy. The ai just bases off of stats not strategy
Missile units perform better on higher difficulties because they don't have as many penalties from the difficulty. Its right there in black and white.
Missile units are more efficient in dealing damage than cavalry. Then you get into debates about buff stacking.
Even if you want to argue that cav's benefit is speed, it depends on the cav and the range of the missile unit. Any combo of long range missile infantry + artillery will out perform cav spam. They do more damage per volley, from further away, and without taking damage. All things that charge bonus from cav doesn't do.
Yes rear charge is one of the higher hits you can deliver to leadership but why bother when you can spam missiles and kill the enemy rather than route them?
It's a matter of efficiency. When given the opportunity players will optimize the fun out of a game. Developers need to protect the players from themselves. Shooting is just too good to pass up on.
I play on vh/vh/legendary (cannot go legendary because it would imply a lot more time, and I have a baby and wife to take care of^^)
I cannot tell you many times I have had this same discussion on my Facebook group for tw:warhammer 2.
Melee troops are quite fine in the game. They suit their purpose well, and for the most part, you can buff them enough to overcome and compensate any and all AI buffs, just with Redline buffs and research.
The main issue with melee is they have to (surprise) melee in order to do damage, which causes casualties. Ranged units have ALWAYS been effective in previous total war titles because not only they do damage, but they take few casualties. One of the biggest changes EVER in TW is the replenishment mechanic: before Empire TW, I would have to constantly keep replenishing my melee troops, building extra, while the ranged units would evolve into gold chevrons faster.
When people mention that they do not use melee troops because the AI gets advantages, I often wonder if they actually know what advantages the AI gets. Plus, there are plenty of other factors (fatigue, high/low ground, leadership, shield, flanks) that affect melee attack, melee defense, or just melee combat in general. You can often have amazing results with low tier units vs high tier just ensuring you grasp a few of these concepts.
You can of course play how you wish. By all means, use only ranged, or doomstacks, whatever. But stating that melee is bad, well, it could work better, but it is definitely viable regardless of the difficulty. And, may I add, it creates a lot of options.
As an example, I have used both clanrats and Stormvermin, the later buffed to the point of having similar stats to buffed Swordmasters of Hoeth.
One thing I would like to add for ranged units is a downgrade of their leadership or other stats when they have lower ammunition. In essence, archers would kinda realize how vulnerable they become once ammunition is exhausted, you are not going to have 2 arrows and think "oh this is fine". But that is my point of view.
Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
Cheers
SusaVile
Total war youtuber
The main issue with melee is they have to (surprise) melee in order to do damage, which causes casualties.
This observation is spot on, but it's not the main problem. The main problem is supply lines, efficiency and AI army spam.
On higher *campaign* difficulties, it is fairly common for major AI factions to be running around with half a dozen full stacks by turn 10. Minor AI factions will typically field 2-3 full stacks at around this same time. The player usually finds themselves in a position where their single army (the ONLY army they can afford) has to be able to fend off and defeat multiple AI armies in a single turn, every turn. Try a Karaz-a-Karazk campaign, for example. Have fun killing 3-6 orc armies PER turn.
Faced with these odds, the only way to make this work is a combination of Lightning Strike and Ranged Spam/Hero spam to minimize casualties. Yes, melee can still work, but a balanced army with melee will run out of steam much, much faster and thus put you in a position where campaign loss is inevitable. Once again, it's all about efficiency: How can my single army defeat 6 AI armies PER TURN?
Additionally, offensive melee units (things like Greatswords, Swordmasters of Hoeth, Executioners, Hammerers, etc.) are the most disadvantaged. I will still use Halberdiers, Phoenix Guard, Black Guard and Ironbreakers on Legendary/Very Hard, because they are defensive units that can hold. Offensive melee, unfortunately, gets wrecked much faster and makes it harder to deal with multiple AI armies.
My solution: Play Legendary Campaign - Normal battle difficulty.
Your campaign is still challenging, battles are harder, longer and far more common against tougher and more numerous enemies but your troops still act how they should perform. Chaos warriors are still chaos warriors.
To me this is the best way to play - but i'm sure others have their own methods which are equally valid.
I don't play SP much anymore, but I echo this.
For me I tended to be less extreme and played VH difficulty campaign and Hard battles. The bonuses AI gets on hard battle were very minor and not really noticeable for me that much.
The main issue with melee is they have to (surprise) melee in order to do damage, which causes casualties.
This observation is spot on, but it's not the main problem. The main problem is supply lines, efficiency and AI army spam.
On higher *campaign* difficulties, it is fairly common for major AI factions to be running around with half a dozen full stacks by turn 10. Minor AI factions will typically field 2-3 full stacks at around this same time. The player usually finds themselves in a position where their single army (the ONLY army they can afford) has to be able to fend off and defeat multiple AI armies in a single turn, every turn. Try a Karaz-a-Karazk campaign, for example. Have fun killing 3-6 orc armies PER turn.
Faced with these odds, the only way to make this work is a combination of Lightning Strike and Ranged Spam/Hero spam to minimize casualties. Yes, melee can still work, but a balanced army with melee will run out of steam much, much faster and thus put you in a position where campaign loss is inevitable. Once again, it's all about efficiency: How can my single army defeat 6 AI armies PER TURN?
Additionally, offensive melee units (things like Greatswords, Swordmasters of Hoeth, Executioners, Hammerers, etc.) are the most disadvantaged. I will still use Halberdiers, Phoenix Guard, Black Guard and Ironbreakers on Legendary/Very Hard, because they are defensive units that can hold. Offensive melee, unfortunately, gets wrecked much faster and makes it harder to deal with multiple AI armies.
I understand what you are saying, I really do. However, a couple of assumptions you are doing:
1 - "the only way is to use lightning strike and ranged/hero spam" - assumption. I have been avoiding lightning strike, and other than my Norsca campaign, on my Beastmen, Brettonia, High Elves, Skaven, Greenskins, Tomb Kings latest campaigns I had no LS on any lord. The key was army positioning, letting the AI getting in a bad position, using heroes to slow them down or cause losses/assassinations, etc. Sometimes, one well placed ambush was all it took. Currently on dwarves campaign, vh/vh, still good melee use so far.
2 - "how can my army defeat 3-6 armies in a single turn" - again, assumption, but I rarely get to a point where that happens. Unless the settlement is extremely important, you can give the AI a target while you gather up forces, ambush, send heroes to diminish the AI strength etc. Sending armies head on without realizing whether it is a "fight ir flee" scenario is a quick way to lose a campaign. Sometimes, fight another day is the best way.
3 - offensive melee is the most wrecked - true, but also a glass cannon of sorts. Often the tiping point of a battle is decided by those damage dealer units, but there are many variables to account for. Black orcs are amazing, swordmasters too, but a couple spears to cover their advance go a long way. There are more strategies to find out, of course.
Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
Cheers
SusaVile
Total war youtuber
Melee units such as War Hydras, Dragon Ogre Shaggoths and Treemen usually perform really well in campaign. When people say "melee sucks on legendary" they most likely refer to melee infantry and cavalry specifically.
Cavarly is indeed in a pitiful state. Rear charges do nothing to enemy leadership on VH battle difficulty and their damage output is abysmal when you factor in their upkeep cost and constant need for micro-management and cycle charging. It's a hundred times more effective to focus on your spellcaster and ranged units.
Melee infantry is the same except a lot slower and more susceptible to AoE magic/abilities.
I usually play on VH/VH with the most balanced armies i can (maybe a bit heavy on the elite infantry), and switch up a few things to deal with certain enemies.
Melee units such as War Hydras, Dragon Ogre Shaggoths and Treemen usually perform really well in campaign. When people say "melee sucks on legendary" they most likely refer to melee infantry and cavalry specifically.
Cavarly is indeed in a pitiful state. Rear charges do nothing to enemy leadership on VH battle difficulty and their damage output is abysmal when you factor in their upkeep cost and constant need for micro-management and cycle charging. It's a hundred times more effective to focus on your spellcaster and ranged units.
Melee infantry is the same except a lot slower and more susceptible to AoE magic/abilities.
Since it is often not known, the "J" key makes your cavalry back to their original position, helpful to micromanage large amounts of cav (looking at you, brettonians)
Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
Cheers
SusaVile
Total war youtuber
I find what I enjoy the most is playing on VH campaign and Hard battle. I like the challenge of VH and play it instead of legendary because I like to be able to pause during battles and not have a restricted camera view. When it comes to army comp, I always go with a balanced thematic army. Usually something like 8-10 melee units to hold the line and spearman to deal with cavalry charges. 5 or 6 ranged units, a few cavalry units, and then fill the rest of my army with either artillery, SEM's, or heroes depending on what I need that army to do. The way that I build my armies might not be the most efficient or cost effective, but it is the way that I enjoy playing the game. I find the doomstack or single unit type playstyles completely boring.
Really, I want to understand these people. Do they only watch streamers cheesing AI with all missiles and 3 heroes and echo the same tactic on their campaigns?
Yes, AI get buffed in VH/Legendary, but it is managable. From what I gather from maaaany discussions on forum / reddit, people tend to go Doomstacking, either full missile armies, or if not, heavy slow elite intantry like chosen/ironbreakers and artillery behind do the work. Not only you have a high upkeep underperforming army, but very boring as well, where you can simply sit behind, spam 2 spells and drink a coffee in the meantime.
Units like skirmishers or chavalry almost never see a play because they require micro. As an example, in my VH chaos campaign I had a frontline of chosen and 4-6 horsemasters as hammer and anvil. And guess who did all the killing? yup, the 0 upkeep horsemasters. Why is it so? It is the price+speed that makes the so good in manual battles. Chosen/chaos warriors or even elven tier1 spears can hold the line the required time to break their lines.
Yes, you can break leadership in VH, if you flank enemies from behind. The cheap price of these skirmishers makes AI not shoot them at all, which is their main weakness. If you have 4-6 of them you can use half to chase their missiles/artillery and with good micro, they dont shoot at all, using fake charges and good micro. The other half, you use them to shoot enemy frontline from behind and charge/go back/charge again till they break formations fast. Make sure you have some fear in your frontline as well, to reduce morale even more, and a strong magic user to buff/debuff or cast damage spells.
After all the combined forces outmaneuver enemy lines, they WILL flee. This is the part where Skirmishers works the best. Dont end battle. Chase them to death. Your skirmishers have around 80-100 speed, and usually shoot while moving, while fat ironbreakers or whatever is left of their army are very slow. Using all these steps can make a good skirmisher unit to make 150-250 kills in a huge battle (large unit size, not ultra).
If your army dont have fast light chavalry skirmishers, like skavens, you need to use stalk fast units, like deathrunners. Place them behind enemy lines at start of the game, and move directly to enemy artillery undetected. After you take them out, use them like I said before, half of them to chase missiles, the other to attack from behind, and stack those leadershipt debuffs.
Easy way to win AI on hardest difficutly without cheese tactics. Just hammer and anvil.
I personally dont find heavy chavalry that useful since AI tend to shoot the most expensive unit, and they usually are, which heavily reduce their numbers before they can do their job. Specially against elves, dwarfs, empire and skavens.
Regarding the frontline, I find best to have heavy intrantry with silver shields if available, so they can be the enemy missile targets, and survive long enough for the hammer and anvil to work. Some tier 1 race units work as well, if you have strong support for them, like a mix of 4-6 dreadspears and 2 hydras for terror spread+fire breath with darksshards behind as an example.
I used to cheese AI back when I started seeing how powerful it was. The game became boring as hell. Theres no need to win campaign in 120 turns, it is not a competitive game, and streamers do these not to lose battles in front of hundreds of people. You dont really need to use this same tactic to play, Total War is not a job.
EDIT: the purpose of these threat is not for me to state I am a great player. I am not. But to remark you can win AI on hardest difficulty avoiding doomstacking, and disclaim only Missile heavy focused army can be used. Additionally, it makes the campaign battles much more enjoyable and micro focused.
I think OP, you don t understand the argument.
It was never about the AI beeing too hard to beat.
It is/was about it beeing boring that the more cheats the AI gets less and less tactics remain viable.
Sure, you can try to do the same as on medium /hard, but it´s going to be extremely tedious.
Not hard, tedious!
Especially so since you can just doomstack and all your problems go away.
If you play on VH then you are playing an unbalanced game.
Don't complain if the enemy doesn't get hit by cav or meele like they get on normal or hard.
Very hard adds nothing besides some buffs to the AI.
You are literally asking for it.
Till shade is gone,
till water is gone,
into the Shadow with the teeth bared,
screaming defiance with the last breath,
to spit into Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day
Comments
Another thing I do is I turn off the camera for AI moves on the Ai turn on the campaign map. The AI doesn't see where I move or when I go into ambush stance, so I shouldn't see when the AI goes into ambush stance.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeReally though, the whole argument about unfair bonuses go out the window when you compare Lord/Hero levels with what those SCARY Legendary difficulty armies have. It's not a huge difference early game, but by turn 30 you're blowing everyone else away. Beating Tyrion isn't so hard when he's barely leveled up all game and your lords and heroes are all maxed. Those redline skills you have wipe out any built in stat advantage the AI gets.
I'll readily admit that the way the bonuses are structured it favors going ranged, but it hardly precludes you from using mostly melee.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree AgreeIf you are already playing Vh/Vh or Legendary/Vh or whatever and enjoying it then by all means continue; but just putting it out there that Legendary/Normal is a fun, challenging but much more natural feeling game mode IMPO.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAlso- the people who say Elven Spearmen or really anything less than T3 front melee line other than Saurus can hold long enough... not normally on VH when the enemy is gold chevroned with melee buffs. The +10 morale and rank 7 gold chevron which adds +7 gives a total +17 leadership not to mention your own units are fighting at -4.
Then the +20% MD on the average 30ish MD of low tier units gives 36 MD + 7 MD from gold chevron = 43 MD vs player's 30.
Not all melee is useless and you need something to hold/distract AI frontline because only a few armies can completely demolish enemy without them ever reaching melee. However, there are certainly some units with lower MD/leadership that become effectively useless on VH/L as the AI buffs will overrun them super quickly.
Races with weaker T1-T3 melee units that are what you usually need to use due to supply line costs-
Vampire Coast, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Skaven, Greenskins, Norsca.
The Skaven can overcome this with scurry away and sheer numbers + speed while getting T3 extremely fast.
Vampire Coast has the cheapest ranged units to compensate for their crap low tier melee.
Vampires rely on the strength of their heroes and magic.
Tomb Kings... not many options until research some dynasties and unlock some higher tier units. Norsca can get higher tier units relatively quickly
Lizardmen Saurus, Wood Elves Eternal Guard, High Elves spearmen, and Dwarf Warriors are the only low tier units that can actually last in melee but only Saurus actually put out damage so even for the Elves and Dwarfs the melee line is all about holding while ranged do the damage. Once you are facing enemies with T3 and higher units only Saurus really remain feasible to hold for any long period of time.
Races which have speed or stalk can also do swarm/micro heavy low tier builds which work 1 v 1.
Greenskins now have some options with Nasty Skulkers with stalk, fast Wolf Riderz, and cheap units with good shields but still rely primarily on specific Lords special buffs. Skarsnik, Grom, Wurrzag all buff their respective units heavily. Grimgor and Azhag are probably the most difficult as they lack buffs until much later but Grimgor has an easy start position which greatly helps him feel not so bad.
Norsca without the starting army units and getting Mammoths/confederations from nearby tribes would be almost impossible to play on Legendary. I think overall they have the worst low tier units but really strong and diverse mid/upper tiers so if you survive the start and get some income they are playable.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeLegend is very good at this game but he dropped the ball there. And there was so much time for him to see it.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeBut to each there own
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree2nd: what you understand for low tier units? Saurus with shields are T2 i believe, who share same tier as norscan's bersekers. I can tell you from my experience in VH/VH, bersekers are one of the best units I ever played with, and one of the cheapest as well. They only need 2-4 champion marauders to tank missiles, but they cut infantry and even chavalry like butter. Their weapon damage is absurd, andd his attack too. From turn 2 you already have them, and last till the very end of the game. they require micro though. But Norsca is far from being the worst low tier faction. Normal marauders also win against most trash tier units, with the exception of dwarfs (I dont think saurus are in that category, they belong with bersekers, and here, these crazy dudes win with ease).
Edit: my TT army is lizardmen, but Norsca in melee is just great, far from the worst as you mentioned.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeImo the only time Ar should happen is on your sack cities or minor settlements with a small garrison, or you are just suffering too many casualties from being lazy. The ai just bases off of stats not strategy
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeMissile units are more efficient in dealing damage than cavalry. Then you get into debates about buff stacking.
Even if you want to argue that cav's benefit is speed, it depends on the cav and the range of the missile unit. Any combo of long range missile infantry + artillery will out perform cav spam. They do more damage per volley, from further away, and without taking damage. All things that charge bonus from cav doesn't do.
Yes rear charge is one of the higher hits you can deliver to leadership but why bother when you can spam missiles and kill the enemy rather than route them?
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
3 · 1Disagree 3AgreeI cannot tell you many times I have had this same discussion on my Facebook group for tw:warhammer 2.
Melee troops are quite fine in the game. They suit their purpose well, and for the most part, you can buff them enough to overcome and compensate any and all AI buffs, just with Redline buffs and research.
The main issue with melee is they have to (surprise) melee in order to do damage, which causes casualties. Ranged units have ALWAYS been effective in previous total war titles because not only they do damage, but they take few casualties. One of the biggest changes EVER in TW is the replenishment mechanic: before Empire TW, I would have to constantly keep replenishing my melee troops, building extra, while the ranged units would evolve into gold chevrons faster.
When people mention that they do not use melee troops because the AI gets advantages, I often wonder if they actually know what advantages the AI gets. Plus, there are plenty of other factors (fatigue, high/low ground, leadership, shield, flanks) that affect melee attack, melee defense, or just melee combat in general. You can often have amazing results with low tier units vs high tier just ensuring you grasp a few of these concepts.
You can of course play how you wish. By all means, use only ranged, or doomstacks, whatever. But stating that melee is bad, well, it could work better, but it is definitely viable regardless of the difficulty. And, may I add, it creates a lot of options.
As an example, I have used both clanrats and Stormvermin, the later buffed to the point of having similar stats to buffed Swordmasters of Hoeth.
One thing I would like to add for ranged units is a downgrade of their leadership or other stats when they have lower ammunition. In essence, archers would kinda realize how vulnerable they become once ammunition is exhausted, you are not going to have 2 arrows and think "oh this is fine". But that is my point of view.
Cheers
SusaVile
Total war youtuber
- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeOn higher *campaign* difficulties, it is fairly common for major AI factions to be running around with half a dozen full stacks by turn 10. Minor AI factions will typically field 2-3 full stacks at around this same time. The player usually finds themselves in a position where their single army (the ONLY army they can afford) has to be able to fend off and defeat multiple AI armies in a single turn, every turn. Try a Karaz-a-Karazk campaign, for example. Have fun killing 3-6 orc armies PER turn.
Faced with these odds, the only way to make this work is a combination of Lightning Strike and Ranged Spam/Hero spam to minimize casualties. Yes, melee can still work, but a balanced army with melee will run out of steam much, much faster and thus put you in a position where campaign loss is inevitable. Once again, it's all about efficiency: How can my single army defeat 6 AI armies PER TURN?
Additionally, offensive melee units (things like Greatswords, Swordmasters of Hoeth, Executioners, Hammerers, etc.) are the most disadvantaged. I will still use Halberdiers, Phoenix Guard, Black Guard and Ironbreakers on Legendary/Very Hard, because they are defensive units that can hold. Offensive melee, unfortunately, gets wrecked much faster and makes it harder to deal with multiple AI armies.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1AgreeFor me I tended to be less extreme and played VH difficulty campaign and Hard battles. The bonuses AI gets on hard battle were very minor and not really noticeable for me that much.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree1 - "the only way is to use lightning strike and ranged/hero spam" - assumption. I have been avoiding lightning strike, and other than my Norsca campaign, on my Beastmen, Brettonia, High Elves, Skaven, Greenskins, Tomb Kings latest campaigns I had no LS on any lord. The key was army positioning, letting the AI getting in a bad position, using heroes to slow them down or cause losses/assassinations, etc. Sometimes, one well placed ambush was all it took.
Currently on dwarves campaign, vh/vh, still good melee use so far.
2 - "how can my army defeat 3-6 armies in a single turn" - again, assumption, but I rarely get to a point where that happens. Unless the settlement is extremely important, you can give the AI a target while you gather up forces, ambush, send heroes to diminish the AI strength etc. Sending armies head on without realizing whether it is a "fight ir flee" scenario is a quick way to lose a campaign. Sometimes, fight another day is the best way.
3 - offensive melee is the most wrecked - true, but also a glass cannon of sorts. Often the tiping point of a battle is decided by those damage dealer units, but there are many variables to account for. Black orcs are amazing, swordmasters too, but a couple spears to cover their advance go a long way. There are more strategies to find out, of course.
Cheers
SusaVile
Total war youtuber
- Report
1 · 2Disagree 1AgreeCavarly is indeed in a pitiful state. Rear charges do nothing to enemy leadership on VH battle difficulty and their damage output is abysmal when you factor in their upkeep cost and constant need for micro-management and cycle charging. It's a hundred times more effective to focus on your spellcaster and ranged units.
Melee infantry is the same except a lot slower and more susceptible to AoE magic/abilities.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeCheers
SusaVile
Total war youtuber
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeIt was never about the AI beeing too hard to beat.
It is/was about it beeing boring that the more cheats the AI gets less and less tactics remain viable.
Sure, you can try to do the same as on medium /hard, but it´s going to be extremely tedious.
Not hard, tedious!
Especially so since you can just doomstack and all your problems go away.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1AgreeIf you play on VH then you are playing an unbalanced game.
Don't complain if the enemy doesn't get hit by cav or meele like they get on normal or hard.
Very hard adds nothing besides some buffs to the AI.
You are literally asking for it.
till water is gone,
into the Shadow with the teeth bared,
screaming defiance with the last breath,
to spit into Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day
- Report
2 · Disagree 2Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree