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

Do Greenskins have worse supply lines now?

SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960





Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems way worse than the average supply lines, so not only did CA not remove supply lines but they added on top of it.

If you wanted to represent other Bosses getting out of line, why not give them the loyalty system the Skaven and Dark Elves have instead of increasing my upkeep by over 1000?

Is this something you've noticed and what other issues with the GS have you had lately?
«1

Comments

  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 3,027
    Supply lines are largely irrelevant to Greenskins since you can practically sack a new city times however many armies you got every turn. So as long as your armies sack a city that yields more than their upkeep per turn, then the upkeep is irrelevant.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 9,371
    7% so you are playing on hard.

    3x7
    4x7
    5x7
    6x7

    (First army doesnt count)
    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.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960

    Supply lines are largely irrelevant to Greenskins since you can practically sack a new city times however many armies you got every turn. So as long as your armies sack a city that yields more than their upkeep per turn, then the upkeep is irrelevant.

    That's not an argument though, that's like saying Chaos, Beastmen and Nakai are totally fine beause you have to cheat the system and constantly work outside your means, always in - x amount of upkeep.

    if you have 4 armies that's -2000 a turn just for having 4 armies. That's an entire other armies worth of upkeep and you could potentially stay afloat with that amount of debt per turn but that's not really feasible or reasonable.

    Greenskins don't have the mobility of Nomadic factions (something CA should have given them) so they can't dart all across the map and sack all the live long day like some of the others.

    Greenskins are meant to be a swarm faction of sorts and kneecapping the faction by giving us way worse Supply lines (a feature that should be long gone by now) is just bad design.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    @Tennisgolfboll

    I am yeah, what would it be on VH and Legendary? is this just a common thing with the difficulty or is it specific to the GS?
  • ChesterMcGirrChesterMcGirr Registered Users Posts: 1,101
    Please no to giving greenskins the awful loyalty mechanic.

    Supply lines are stupid too but outside of caps (which most vanilla players seem averse to?) idk how CA is going to balance removing them.
  • Tk913Tk913 Registered Users Posts: 7
    But you can attack an city and win the battle then you raid them my highest was over 240k for only one city which I've auto resolved I see no problem.
    Greenskins are designed for WAAAGH everytime and everywhere.
  • Tk913Tk913 Registered Users Posts: 7
    And every hero can reduce the cost by 30% in the blue skill line and the tech tree reduce also by 30% If I'm not wrong
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960

    Please no to giving greenskins the awful loyalty mechanic.

    Supply lines are stupid too but outside of caps (which most vanilla players seem averse to?) idk how CA is going to balance removing them.

    Loyalty would make sense. I really don't like it when people say 'dont give x faction horde mechanics like Vampire coast' 'dont give y faction loyalty' 'dont give z faction a home base like the oak of ages' simply because these things don't work 100% as they should as of right now.


    Just because a mechanic isn't super great right now, doesn't mean it wouldn't be thematic and that it can't be fixed. Loyalty would fit well, Supply lines fit no one.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    edited June 18
    Tk913 said:

    But you can attack an city and win the battle then you raid them my highest was over 240k for only one city which I've auto resolved I see no problem.
    Greenskins are designed for WAAAGH everytime and everywhere.

    But their WAAAGH mechanic has alot of issues still as well. Why the hell would you call one when you've already got the best trophy unless you're in trouble? you get passive buffs for having the highest rep and if you've already got a good trophy there's really no rush to call a WAAAGH because the admin bonuses are way better than calling one to trade in your top 10 trophy for a worse one just so you can Krump a few nobody factions that you could wreck in your sleep.

    You realise that if you're right, if its meant to be played this way, then CA has intentionally gimped the faction, shot them in the kneecap, just so it can justify the existence of the WAAAGH mechanic?!

    they did the exact same thing with scrap. Scrap is useless, but they took alot of upgrades out of the tech tree for good and instead made them upgrade options in the scrap system, like how rock lobbers now get no bonuses to reload rate or range (or anything for that matter) because they're scrap upgrades now.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 20,719

    Supply lines are largely irrelevant to Greenskins since you can practically sack a new city times however many armies you got every turn. So as long as your armies sack a city that yields more than their upkeep per turn, then the upkeep is irrelevant.

    Ultimately supply lines will force you to have fewer, more elite armies than you otherwise would. That you can make a lot of money elsewhere doesn't change how Supply Lines works, which is to penalize you for having more armies.
    Malakai is the best choice for a Dwarf LP. Give us Slayer lords so we may form a Slayer host and revel in our destruction!
  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 1,776
    Yea i find im running at a huge loss all the time which i can only fund through non stop sacking and raiding... which seems quite thematic to me. Means i need to keep fightig all the time to keep the waagh going
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 3,027

    Supply lines are largely irrelevant to Greenskins since you can practically sack a new city times however many armies you got every turn. So as long as your armies sack a city that yields more than their upkeep per turn, then the upkeep is irrelevant.

    That's not an argument though, that's like saying Chaos, Beastmen and Nakai are totally fine beause you have to cheat the system and constantly work outside your means, always in - x amount of upkeep.

    if you have 4 armies that's -2000 a turn just for having 4 armies. That's an entire other armies worth of upkeep and you could potentially stay afloat with that amount of debt per turn but that's not really feasible or reasonable.

    Greenskins don't have the mobility of Nomadic factions (something CA should have given them) so they can't dart all across the map and sack all the live long day like some of the others.

    Greenskins are meant to be a swarm faction of sorts and kneecapping the faction by giving us way worse Supply lines (a feature that should be long gone by now) is just bad design.
    They have a better mobility than most Horde factions.... The fact that their raiding stance is free and they have underway movement gives them better mobility than Warriors of Chaos and Nakai....

    I am currently playing a Greenskin campaign where I have around 7-8 armies going at all times. And while I am loosing money every turn through upkeep, it is made up for in the huge amount of money I get in every turn from sacking and raiding.... I have well over 2 million gold in my coffers emaning taht I can run at a deficit for practically ever....

    The failure arise on the players' side when they retardedly try to play Greenskins conventionally and paint the map.. That is not what the Greenskins are about.. They are meant to get out there and get in a scrap. Sack, raid and plunder. You only need 2-3 provinces to keep all your armies going (and you can of course settle the provinces with good landmarks to alleviate some of the money problems)...

    That is actually a problem I eel comes up with Total War Warhammer in general... People think that all the factions play like the conventional factions in the historical games, and that you need to paint the map...
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    @CaesarSahlertz

    Perhaps mobility was the wrong word.

    If you're going to live off of sacking you need to be able to stray far and wide without worrying about protecting a particular plot of land. Greenskins still have to defend their borders and unlike BM their encamp stance isn't hidden.

    Their rading stance being free is an issue in and of itself. No action should be free in a strategy game. Now every single GS army gets a default +5 melee defence and leadership and earns money by default if they're outside a settlement, not in the underway and the AI isn't being stupid. It should be 75% at least.

    While I do agree that alot of players seem to have trouble adapting to a new playstyle (this is why alot of people hate Vampire Coast, even though they're one of the best factions) I don't think GS are one of those factions.

    It takes a long LONG time to build up a settlement to tier 4-5 so even if you only have a couple of provinces, you're still going to be sitting around twiddling your thumbs until you can unlock Big 'Uns, River and Stone Trolls, Troll Hags, Rogue Idolz, Doom Divers, Giants, etc.

    You're talking like GS don't even have to worry about defence but CA didn't really change their base roster at all and their garrisons are still the same (meaning utter trash). The AI will come for you, especially if you're on higher difficulties and replenishing out in the field is not really easy or viable since it leaves you vulnerable.

    Yes they can earn a decent amount, but saying you only need a few settlements and that you don't even have to worry about defence when the AI will traipse across the whole map to f*ck with you is just wrong and even if you were right, that doesn't exclude how excessive these supply lines are (a feature that should be long gone)
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    @CaesarSahlertz

    Who are you playing? what difficulty are you on? who are you fighting against that's giving you so much income? you realise all these factors affect this and unless you're bullying the whole map you're eventually going to have to settle or you're going to be swarmed.
  • whatever140596whatever140596 Registered Users Posts: 34
    supply lines overstayed their welcome, no one likes them, they are restrictive and unthematic.

    how is ca gonna balance the game and not make it too easy for player is another question. it seems they have no idea.
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 6,009
    I really feel that the GS supply lines are awful. I'm playing on VH and with Azhag I could barely have two armies by turn 100.
  • innerpinnerp Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 788

    supply lines overstayed their welcome, no one likes them, they are restrictive and unthematic.

    how is ca gonna balance the game and not make it too easy for player is another question. it seems they have no idea.

    they were looking at tanking the player economy back when they practically removed ports, so i can see it being something like that combined with higher upkeep on higher tier units.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 3,027

    @CaesarSahlertz

    Who are you playing? what difficulty are you on? who are you fighting against that's giving you so much income? you realise all these factors affect this and unless you're bullying the whole map you're eventually going to have to settle or you're going to be swarmed.

    I am playing Grimgor on VH/VH. I got 7-8 stacks with one dedicated to defense, while the rest are roaming the world sacking and plundering. Sure, some of thsoe stacks sometimes gets swarmed and defeated, but Greenskins can incredibly fast field a new stack and move it out.

    Also, growth is incredibly easy for Greenskins now, since with enough reputation you get masssive buffs to your growth. You can actually rebuild a compeltely razed province in record time. Especially if they also have harbours..
  • whatever140596whatever140596 Registered Users Posts: 34
    innerp said:

    supply lines overstayed their welcome, no one likes them, they are restrictive and unthematic.

    how is ca gonna balance the game and not make it too easy for player is another question. it seems they have no idea.

    they were looking at tanking the player economy back when they practically removed ports, so i can see it being something like that combined with higher upkeep on higher tier units.
    that's what they did with proving grounds. obviously they no intention of applying this to game. it did create even bigger snowball once u get the things going tho, so that wasn't solution either.

    what they should do imo, something they will never do since too many players would whine, is setting caps on elite units. you get to have multiple armies without restrictions but you can't have multiple doomstacks like you could have in pg. these caps can be raised for ai on harder difficulties so you don't just play against artificialy better armies that have been boosted stat wise but you instead play against more elite armies.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    @CaesarSahlertz

    The more I think about it the less reasonable your statement seems.

    I'll give you an examples (the Wurrzag campaign I took those pictures from):

    So, paying as Wurrzag, I quickly confederate my way through the surrounding area in like 10 Turns, then I destroy Barak Varr because they're a big threat on my border. I get my first WAAAGH and Karaz-a-Karak is strength rank 2 so I call it against them, smash the doors of their capital and take it.

    Now I've taken Karaz-a-Karak on turn 13 or something, I've got "Da Biggest Stunty trophy" and I've still got 15 turns of WAAAGH left, so I use it to sack/loot and capture the Border Princes.

    After this, I defeat alot of rebellions (something that doesn't seem to factor into your theory at all) and I march down to Khemri and take the city while I wait for everything to stablize. I manage it and now I have 2 Gold Mines and Karaz-a-Karak.

    But I've still only got 2 armies and a bit and most of it is chaff. So after this I consolidate my victories, recruit 'the Orrible' from the tech tree and have him keep a vigil over Khemri while I move up north and as I'm about to attack Grimgor, I get roped into a war with the Empire who have confederated their way into becoming a powerhouse that eclipses me.

    So what did I do wrong based on your 'strategy'? If I'd not captured Karaz-a-Karak you can bet they'd have become a thorn in my side. Same thing with Khemri, who are able to field armies insanely quickly and create sandstorms of attrition in their lands.

    Are you telling me sacking them for the money is worth more than owning the settlement with the gems and gold mine they have? would you have just sacked them? even though they would have grown into powerhouses? How would you deal with the Empire? would you just Waltz into their territory and start sacking and razing even though they have 9 full stacks?

    You see, it seems like your idea of how they should play and how this is totally just our fault for sucking, doesn't really take into account rebellions and public order, the threat a major faction can pose, how limited the GS actually are in what they can do compared to a horde, how the AI and Ordertide can just steamroll and make it so you cannot simply sack and raid your way casually through their stuff because doing that doesn't actually affect their economy or their ability to produce armies, yet it does affect your armies strength.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 3,027
    edited May 27
    Why are you even getting rebellions? Greenskins barely ever get rebellions with the recent rework.... Full reputation and Big Boss building gives you permanent green PO.... Also, if you only have a small consolidated amount of provinces, you don't really need to worry about rebellions even if they (somehow) occur.... Since you can defend all 2-4 provinces easily with one army....

    And yes... Sacking then razing is worth much more if you want to win...
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    edited May 27
    @CaesarSahlertz

    I thought so, You're playing as GRIMGOR! the Lord they made super OP this patch. the Character who starts with an insanely good economy (goldmine) and literally the most defensible city in the game!

    So let me guess: you either dealt with Karaz-a-Karak first and then went due east or you just went east right away. You conquered/sacked and razed that whole area (Which is separated from the rest of the map by mointains and can only be accessed via 2/3 choke points, one of which is guarded by your main settlement)

    Then after doing that, you were never challenged by anyone, ever, because you're curled up in a little hidey hole, and you were able to attack the rest of the map with impunity.

    Am I getting warm?

    You realise this cannot be done with Skarsnik, Azhag or Wurrzag, all of whom are out in the open and start completely surrounded by enemies. Azhag has the whole of the Empire to the west. Kislev and Norsca to the North and Karak Kadrin directly south of him. Skarsnik has Karl Franz, Belegar, the Wood Elves and Bretonnia on all Sides and Wurrzag's only defence is that it might take a while to get to him. Hes literally out in the open.

    Grimgor is a faction leader which means his campaign is designed to be way easier (starts with a gold mine and a stupidly strong settlement) and hes OP right now, And you likely exploited the map to insulate yourself perfectly so that you'd never be attacked.

    This is not something the GS can do, this is only something Grimgor can do!
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    edited May 27
    @CaesarSahlertz

    I'm getting rebellions because I'm not Grimgor and I have to deal with corruption or instability from enemy armies or whatever the issue is.

    Do you see what I mean though? your campaign was extremely circumstantial and isn't representative of the faction as a whole.

    and regardless, this is not a defence of the crushing supply lines.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 3,027
    I actually went for K8P and Ekrund first... To get a solid few provinces and give Karaz-a-Karak time to be worth sacking.

    After ahving secured K8P and Ekrund provinces i fielded 2 more stacks, which I sent South and West repsectively, while Grimgor went North. Sackign and plundering all in my way, I have at elast 200k in the bank at around turn 50ish.

    While Grimgor himself is ridiculously powerful, he can (and this may come as a shock) not be everywhere at once.. So the other armies actually have to cope without him.. (I know, right?)

    Also, comming from a guy playing Wurrzag this is incredibly rich, since Wurrzag starts next to the Oathgold Mine... So he is just as rich as Grimgor... And Azhag literally also starts with a Gold Mine... Only Skarsnik ca't boast of starting with a an easy strong economy.. However Skarsnik can easily go raiding the rich lands of Bretonnia and get fat on that (the same goes for Grom, but Grom is incredibly easy jn other ways aswell).
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    edited May 27
    @CaesarSahlertz

    so you exploited the dumb confederation mechanic to sweep the Badlands and used Black Crag's defensible nature to simply ignore the east. You realise you're still relying on the settlement as a crutch?

    You say Grimgor cant be in 2 places at once but you just said yourself that he's strong enough for you to send him out alone into the Mountains which, again, is something unique to him. We basically did the same thing with Karaz a Karak except you went north and I went south after that.

    You are playing your campaign in a very specific narrow way, you hopscotched from one gold mine to the next and in-between you were sacking and razing powerful dwarf settlements.

    This is a very min-max narrow way to play the campaign where you've obfuscated the issue entirely. Anyone who doesn't do basically exactly what you did (and isn't playing Gromgor) is going to be screwed or have a much worse time thanks to the Supply lines.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 3,027

    @CaesarSahlertz

    so you exploited the dumb confederation mechanic to sweep the Badlands and used Black Crag's defensible nature to simply ignore the east. You realise you're still relying on the settlement as a crutch?

    You say Grimgor cant be in 2 places at once but you just said yourself that he's strong enough for you to send him out alone into the Mountains which, again, is something unique to him. We basically did the same thing with Karaz a Karak except you went north and I went south after that.

    You are playing your campaign in a very specific narrow way, you hopscotched from one gold mine to the next and in-between you were sacking and razing powerful dwarf settlements.

    This is a very min-max narrow way to play the campaign where you've obfuscated the issue entirely. Anyone who doesn't do basically exactly what you did (and isn't playing Gromgor) is going to be screwed or have a much worse time thanks to the Supply lines.

    First of all... There is nothing to the East of Black Crag... You are thinking of the WEST..... Second of all, I am not "exploting" any thing.. I am using a mechanic which is working EXACTLY as intended... If you for whatever dumb reason, don't, that is entirely on YOU..

    The only way, that the supply lines mess up the playthrough for a Greenksin palyer, is if he is dumb enougn to jsut sit around and wait for his settlements to grow tall... If a palyer is so dumb as to do that, then he deserves to have a bad time.... If isntead you constantly have your armies out fighting, earning loot and sacking, you will never have any money problems and you can safely ignore supply lines... This playstyle can EASILY be achieved on all Greenskin lords, even Skarsnik. It is harder on some than others, but that is the entire point of having different start locations...

    Greenskins are not emant to be played slow and sit around and wait for "the right time". Instead you should send them scrapping immediately. If you are any good at the game, you will win the fights, which means that you earn money.. If you lose... Well.. Then you lose... Just like the Greenksins in the lore would...
  • LordTorquemadoLordTorquemado Registered Users Posts: 1,512
    Supply lines in certain factions like Greenskins, Chaos, Skaven or Vampire Counts are awful. I want to deploy absurd amounts of skavenslaves, goblins and zombies supporting the big armies without going bankrupt.
    "You stumble about in darkness. There is no light here, no mercy. Naggarond has claimed the souls of better heroes than you."
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 6,009

    Supply lines in certain factions like Greenskins, Chaos, Skaven or Vampire Counts are awful. I want to deploy absurd amounts of skavenslaves, goblins and zombies supporting the big armies without going bankrupt.

    The worst about Skaven is that they have both Supply Lines AND Food to limit their number of armies.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 745

    @Tennisgolfboll

    I am yeah, what would it be on VH and Legendary? is this just a common thing with the difficulty or is it specific to the GS?

    15%. In this specific case it would go from 5,460 extra gold in upkeep for 7 armies to 11,700 extra upkeep.

    Yeah, it's fun...
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 2,960
    @CaesarSahlertz

    Lol. Ok then I'm never going to be able to get past that level of arrogance so I might as well just do a little sweep before I leave you to seethe in the corner...

    "nothing to the east of black Crag"

    What? Crookback mountain? Kroq Gar, Malus, Snikch, Imrik? nothing to the east huh?

    It's not stupid for someone to have a different preference for how to play the game. You realise you're exploiting a bunch of different things at once, treating it like a spreadsheet and trying to min-max everything.

    If players have to follow your path to actually succeed then the campaign is poorly designed or an element of it certainly is (supply lines) Mortal Empires is meant to be a sandbox.

    And Again, your min-max strategy for Grimgor does not reflect the faction as a whole or what you should and should not be able to do in a GS campaign. the whole point is diversity of start positions, playstyles, strategy's etc.

    In the example I laid out to you I did not wait for my settlements to grow tall. I was on my feet the entire time, sacking, raiding looting and conquering. The only thing I didn't do was focus in on every single goldmine within a 200 mile radius and try to own them all by turn 10.

    You realise also that when you're having to prop up your economy with Black Crag, Mount Gunbad, Oathgold, K8P and Ekrund...that's not indicative of the factions economy and what they can do without that kind of cash right?

    You literally are exploiting the whole game. saying 'I'm just using the mechanics as intended' has nothing to do with whether or not those mechanics are balanced and good. Legendoftotalwar says the same kind of sh*t when he spends half an hour running his heroes in zigzags to expend all the enemies ammo, which is a crucial tactic on Legendary difficulty, yet that's complete bs and if you have to do stuff like that to win then that difficulty isn't balanced (which it isn't).

    I really hate it when people like you attack everyone who questions the balance of the game to defend your pride even if the mechanic is broken or terrible. You're the kind of person that would rage against putting a lower difficulty into Dark Souls or abuse people into the ground for daring to say something is unbalanced and broken (even though half the community cheats out the Wazoo to win and then pretends they did it legit and attacks any 'weakling' who cant handle it :D )
Sign In or Register to comment.