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

Points for Improvement

KaosfyreKaosfyre Registered Users Posts: 16
So I totally jumped off the deep end when I picked up Troy. Ive played it almost exclusively since launch. Its a great game thats dripping in style and flavour, and I think it has immense potential to leave a lasting legacy.

Ive noted a few gripes that could be addressed in future patching efforts. Ive been following this forum, so I definitely know that Im not the only one to say this.

I literally created an Access account just to pass on these points. Also, this is written on my phone so please excuse typos.

1. Chariots are broken.
2. Unit collision doesnt work well.
3. Game becomes Whack A Mole after turn 40. It is impossible to defend your territory and you end up being attacked from all sides. Recommend adjusting defensibility of provinces to require sieging of capital before outlying regions.
4. AI doesnt take military alliances or vassals into account when declaring war. Midgame, around turn 60, ends up being a giant war with EVERYONE.
5. AI Troy always invades mainland Greece and this doesnt feel right.
6. Homeric victory conditions dont feel fun. Agamemnons requires influence in Anatolia which isnt fun. Hector needs to paint the map which also isnt fun.
7. AI Agent Spam is annoying.
8. Its annoying to have the enemy raze one of your settlements, then havr a neutral colonize it, and deprive you of a complete province. Perhaps the ability to claim land would be useful to prevent.
9. Gods are too powerful. I would be happy to see combat bonuses removed from gods, since they are so powerful and ease of acquisition influeces army composition. I find myself picking spears simply because Athenas bonuses are so accessible.
10. Remove unit bonuses from royal decrees. I dont like how it changes the balance of power. Unit cost and upkeep can remain, but +18% attack should not.
11. Increase battle length by 25% to 40%. I find that my battles are over before I have a chance to manoeuvre. This isnt fun. Combat is slow, and no brawl should be over in 3 minutes. Speedy combat robs us of the ability to manoeuvre and react and incentivizes aggressive deployment too much.
12. Change supply lines to affect bronze and food equally and reduce to 10% per army.
13. Seriously remove mid game whack a mole. Its no fun to keep chasing enemy armies all over the map while they raze your settlements which arent defendible due to supply line penalties. This can be fixed by making settlements harder to conquer, or by reducing freedom of movement.
14. Eliminate AI Trade Request spam.
15. New maps needed. I LOVE the complex terrain in the maps. They are sexy and require tactical thinking to assess likely avenues of advance. But, some open flat maps would be fun as well.
16. Fix Trojan doomstack. Doomstack is too powerful. The difficulty of taking Troy should come from a garrison.
17. Increase baseline resource trickle. Its frustrating to have to seek out and conquer 1 of each type of province. This would make Tall Play easier and more fun.
18. Eliminate some AI bonuses. Single province AIs should not be fielding 20 x company stacks.
19. Restrict naval movement to several lanes either by a hard restriction or by SIGNIFICANTLY increasing attrition. By forcing both sides to cross the sea at the same points a lot of the whack a mole of midgame can be avoided, and epic battles are encouraged. This would remove some of the frustration of playing undefensible Mycenae.
20. Make it more costly, difficult, or take longer to disengage from melee. Once a unit is decisively engaged, I should have trouble pulling it out to retask. This change would be fun because it would incentivize me to keep a reserve (like real life) and more closely consider how I assign tasks initially. I feel like there is no penalty for dynamically retasking in the middle of the battlefield which hurts immersion and complexity.
21. Seriously reduce AI war spam. Ill say it again; it is annoying to always be at war with people who I shouldnt be. Neutral powers should be more neutral and require more of an effort to sway. Right now, neutral powers are randomly willing to ally with me, or randomly declare war on me. It doesnt feel like there is player agency in this. Reducing warmongering of neutral powers would also bring the focus back to the Trojan War.
22. Make the battle of Troy more exciting. Its an incredible let down as it is.
23. Slightly tune down ranged damage. It is a little overtuned at the moment, especially when firing over the heads of friendly troops.
24. Light/Medium/Heavy allocation seems arbitrary and makes no sense.
25. Add a "ranged mode" option for units with secondary ranged weapons like Club Warriors. Maybe Im just blind because I dont see it.

Overall, great work on this game and thank-you for giving it to me for free. Its slowly consuming my life hahah. Youve made me into a Total War fan! I cant wait to see where you take the game next.
«13

Comments

  • epic_159817030363AS6d3l9epic_159817030363AS6d3l9 Registered Users Posts: 86
    Thanks for this reply. What was your difficulty you were playing the game?

    I got this game at day 1 but still refusing to play and waiting for a at least one big patch or maybe 2.
  • Eptesicus8Eptesicus8 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited September 7
    I agree with most, if not all of this.

    The whack a mole situation is very frustrating. I mean i guess it keeps you on your toes, but it also means i just dont bother upgrading any settlement that might be at risk (which is a lot), because it will likely just get sacked or razed by some one region faction with a 20 stack army....you spend most of the game upgrading buildings etc and then they are just mostly put back to square on in the blink of an eye. As you say, there is no way to stop this as you simply cannot field enough troops. This could be fixed by making garrisons much stronger. Most garrisons are pretty useless even against small armies, unless you have upgraded the settlement to it's maximum with a tower/garrison building or have an army in support. It could also be helped if your own armies could move much faster on your own terrain. That would make logical sense as well (better supply lines, knows the area/territory etc). That way you can react to this sort of thing quicker.

    I will also echo the major issue with AI perks/advantages. I;ve seen one region (one region, not province...) factions have 3 generals/armies!? Everyone seems to be able to make massive amounts of food from nothing, where as i control about a third of the map and food from buildings is still minimal in comparison to being able to field enough armies to defend your kingdom.

    I mean, it is keeping the game challenging, which is good, but it just feels fake/as though the AI are just cheating. It sort of spoils the whole feel of the campaign when a faction with one region can field massive armies whilst the player struggles even though they have a third of the map.

    A few things i will add:

    "poison the well". That needs to be seriously nerfed. It is stupid that a spy or two can almost completely decimate an army. Especially when armies are made so precious due to supply lines.

    The hitpoint system seems badly balanced to unit numbers on this game. I realise the hitpoint seem has always been there and that it is needed for the heroes/small numbers units. However this is getting worse and worse in these games, to the point that some units won't lose any soliders after 3 or 4 volleys of arrows. All they lose is hitpoints. I remember in the old Total War games, the first volley would still kill some soldiers. I realise this isnt a battle sim, but its starting to become really unrealistic now.







  • epic_159733195218iGbgAl2epic_159733195218iGbgAl2 Registered Users Posts: 10
    edited September 7
    1. sad but true, i can reccomend you install mod that lowers the ramming power of chariots, you can find it on nexusmods
    While heavy units standing still can hold their ground against chariots charging front, they don't really do much damage even if it's an anti-large unit such aas spears. There should be a trait from warhammer "charge defence against large foes", can't understand why it is absent. I've played 150h+ and i only saw one thing that could help against chariots, it's a version of an ability which name i can't remember, that temporary grants 200% charge defence. Of course it's not even close to be balanced
    So yes, chariots are like nukes of the late bronze age, also probably the cause for the late bronze age collapse :smiley:
    9. when i started to play, i too recognized athena's cheesiness, with spear buffs being the most cost-effective of all of the other gods' benefits. 100 hours later i learned the reasons to favour other gods as well so in my opinion gods' benefits are not to be reduced, but athena is still top one, that's for sure. Heroes leveling up to 10th+ level upon recruitement due to athena's temple bonus might seem like a cheese, but i think it's not
    19. a very sound idea, agean sea looks like modern day airspace in terms of constant busy movement of vessels. Considering the amount of resources it took agamemnon's fleet to just reach troy it looks silly and out of place
    22. had "fun" time besieging troy. When AI saw my 4 upper-class top level armies, it had splitted up all of the armies defending troy, leaving only base garrison. While it was a strategically right move, because it prolonged the life of troy faction for 10-15 turns, the troy itself was overrun so easily that it made the 15 turn preparations and setting-ups on my part rather not worthy the cause. still and interesting turn of events, but the opportunity for that one final epic siege battle was denied to me. like in all other total war games though

    apart from that, can't really agree with you, i really think that most of the time it's more about learning the game rather than not being ok with the way it works

    glad you are enjoying the game as i also am, see you in multiplayer in a couple of months)


    This could be fixed by making garrisons much stronger. Most garrisons are pretty useless even against small armies, unless you have upgraded the settlement to it's maximum with a tower/garrison building or have an army in support.

    as Kaosfyre mentioned, favouring Athena makes even base garrisons very powerful. Athena making your usually useless garrison hero Unbreakable and Ares making him Terrifying really helps to defend your frontier settlements on higher difficulties. non-major AI factions tend to have just that much troops in their armies to slightly overpower standard garrisons and favour of the gods will surely give you a huge advantage

  • Eptesicus8Eptesicus8 Registered Users Posts: 35
    Ive tried that already, but it doesn't seem to be that effective. I mean it might give you an edge if the numbers/unit tiers are close, but beyond that it makes little difference.
  • KaosfyreKaosfyre Registered Users Posts: 16
    Yeah I dont think that having a certain patron would have a significant enough impact to suddenly turn settlements i to being defensible.

    A lot of the fixes identified would have a dramatic effect on enjoyment and wouldnt be incredibly hard to implement.

    Id love it if CA would give their thoughts on the roadmap. They made an awesome game and Im super excited to be part of helping the fine tuning.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 203
    edited September 7
    Kaosfyre said:


    1. Chariots are broken.
    2. Unit collision doesnt work well.
    3. Game becomes Whack A Mole after turn 40. It is impossible to defend your territory and you end up being attacked from all sides. Recommend adjusting defensibility of provinces to require sieging of capital before outlying regions.
    4. AI doesnt take military alliances or vassals into account when declaring war. Midgame, around turn 60, ends up being a giant war with EVERYONE.
    5. AI Troy always invades mainland Greece and this doesnt feel right.
    6. Homeric victory conditions dont feel fun. Agamemnons requires influence in Anatolia which isnt fun. Hector needs to paint the map which also isnt fun.
    7. AI Agent Spam is annoying.
    8. Its annoying to have the enemy raze one of your settlements, then havr a neutral colonize it, and deprive you of a complete province. Perhaps the ability to claim land would be useful to prevent.
    9. Gods are too powerful. I would be happy to see combat bonuses removed from gods, since they are so powerful and ease of acquisition influeces army composition. I find myself picking spears simply because Athenas bonuses are so accessible.
    10. Remove unit bonuses from royal decrees. I dont like how it changes the balance of power. Unit cost and upkeep can remain, but +18% attack should not.
    11. Increase battle length by 25% to 40%. I find that my battles are over before I have a chance to manoeuvre. This isnt fun. Combat is slow, and no brawl should be over in 3 minutes. Speedy combat robs us of the ability to manoeuvre and react and incentivizes aggressive deployment too much.
    12. Change supply lines to affect bronze and food equally and reduce to 10% per army.
    13. Seriously remove mid game whack a mole. Its no fun to keep chasing enemy armies all over the map while they raze your settlements which arent defendible due to supply line penalties. This can be fixed by making settlements harder to conquer, or by reducing freedom of movement.
    14. Eliminate AI Trade Request spam.
    15. New maps needed. I LOVE the complex terrain in the maps. They are sexy and require tactical thinking to assess likely avenues of advance. But, some open flat maps would be fun as well.
    16. Fix Trojan doomstack. Doomstack is too powerful. The difficulty of taking Troy should come from a garrison.
    17. Increase baseline resource trickle. Its frustrating to have to seek out and conquer 1 of each type of province. This would make Tall Play easier and more fun.
    18. Eliminate some AI bonuses. Single province AIs should not be fielding 20 x company stacks.
    19. Restrict naval movement to several lanes either by a hard restriction or by SIGNIFICANTLY increasing attrition. By forcing both sides to cross the sea at the same points a lot of the whack a mole of midgame can be avoided, and epic battles are encouraged. This would remove some of the frustration of playing undefensible Mycenae.
    20. Make it more costly, difficult, or take longer to disengage from melee. Once a unit is decisively engaged, I should have trouble pulling it out to retask. This change would be fun because it would incentivize me to keep a reserve (like real life) and more closely consider how I assign tasks initially. I feel like there is no penalty for dynamically retasking in the middle of the battlefield which hurts immersion and complexity.
    21. Seriously reduce AI war spam. Ill say it again; it is annoying to always be at war with people who I shouldnt be. Neutral powers should be more neutral and require more of an effort to sway. Right now, neutral powers are randomly willing to ally with me, or randomly declare war on me. It doesnt feel like there is player agency in this. Reducing warmongering of neutral powers would also bring the focus back to the Trojan War.
    22. Make the battle of Troy more exciting. Its an incredible let down as it is.
    23. Slightly tune down ranged damage. It is a little overtuned at the moment, especially when firing over the heads of friendly troops.
    24. Light/Medium/Heavy allocation seems arbitrary and makes no sense.
    25. Add a "ranged mode" option for units with secondary ranged weapons like Club Warriors. Maybe Im just blind because I dont see it.

    1. Agreed.
    2. Agreed.
    3. Try to take settlements that have a good strategic postition, try to only have a handful of settlements that the enemy can attack, then this issue should be solved. Also use one or two agents to scout. I did those three things and I didn't have the problem that you mentioned yet.
    4. Get many allies and use the war coordination, then it is much less stressful. In contrary to other Total War games alliances are really helpful in Troy.
    5. Agreed.
    6. I see your point, but I rather do roleplay than go for victory conditions so it doesn't matter to me. Also, the epic missions are great.
    7. I'm pretty much done with my third campaign and I haven't had that problem yet. The poisoning action is too strong though.
    8. Why would the AI not raze it if it makes sense for the AI? It should hurt when you don't defend your territory so it's fine when the AI punishes you for that.
    9. To me the gods are great to further individualise my playstyle. But balancing is indeed an issue.
    10. Again, I like to customise my playstyle but I agree that 18% might be too much.
    11. I generally agree, although Troy already does pretty well in that regard compared to other newer Total War games.
    12. Agreed, it would be even better to remove that mechanic.
    13. See number 3, that's not an issue if you manage to defend your territory. Get good allies, scout ahead and use your armies wisely, then you can defend your territory.
    14. Agreed.
    15. Agreed.
    16. 40 units are necessary to defend a huge city like Troy. I like the way it is because it forces you to have at least 3 good armies in the area. The Trojan army should stay insinde the city though because it is too easy to lure it out and ambush it.
    17. No, this would make the early game even easier. And it is already easy enough compared to other games.
    18. The player can also field one full army with only one province, so it's fair. The AI bonuses are ok in Troy, look to ToB (food production) and Attila (movement range and battle bonuses) if you want to see unfair bonuses.
    19. That limitation doesn't make sense. A supply system from ToB and 3K would be better because it would force you to capture some islands and not just sail straight forward.
    20. Agreed.
    21. Agreed, but you can compensate that by having good allies.
    22. Strongly agreed.
    23. Agreed.
    24. Which units do you mean? To me most of it makes sense.
    25. Their javelin is ment to be a support for melee. They are not meant to be used as skirmishers so it's fine that they only throw the javelin shortly before engaging in combat.

    "great work on this game" - Agreed! ;)
  • Eptesicus8Eptesicus8 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited September 7
    Kaosfyre said:

    Yeah I dont think that having a certain patron would have a significant enough impact to suddenly turn settlements i to being defensible.

    A lot of the fixes identified would have a dramatic effect on enjoyment and wouldn't be incredibly hard to implement.

    Id love it if CA would give their thoughts on the roadmap. They made an awesome game and Im super excited to be part of helping the fine tuning.


    Yeh, garrisons for the most part are entirely pointless unless you have heavily upgraded them. Even then they can be very weak unless you have the highest tier main building + tower, especially in the late game.

    It only takes the enemy to have a few high/top tier units and your low to medium tier garrison is useless. For example Trojan warriors which make up the bulk of a garrison until you upgrade it heavily are absolutely useless and crumble almost instantly against any later game heavy infantry, even if you set 6 units against 1 or something.

    and you can spend ages building that settlement only for it to be sacked and you have to start from scratch.

    Also, the suggestion above about only taking settlements that can be easily defended doesn't work. Try doing that as Hector. You just get attacked from every direction and if you hold any of the islands south of Troy they just get spammed constantly by the AI.



    It does keep you busy which i suppose is good, but it feels like a grind and makes me not bother upgrading settlements unless they are deep into my territory. I know at some stage, some random one region faction will declare war randomly and send a 20 stack army straight for anything on the fringes of my territory (whilst I wonder how it is possible for them to maintain the army in the first place..). Its not like they give you much food anyway. I get the majority of that through bartering.


    Like you i am enjoying the game a lot, but it does need some tweaks in a fair few areas to be considered really good.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,548
  • kelalatirkelalatir Registered Users Posts: 20
    Regarding garrisons, #13 above, I found that as long as I build whatever the faction troop building is, I can defend against any enemy except a full stack. I've only played Hector and Sarpedon, so maybe this is different for the Greek settlements. With both Hector and Sarpedon, I dedicate one building slot in each settlement to the garrison, and then I fight all the garrison siege battles manually. I can usually beat a siege battle manually due to the really cool choke-point maps. I still occasionally lose a settlement, but even a full stack rarely wins more than one battle, because they take too many casualties.
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233
    edited September 9
    First of all, you need to edit what you plan to suggest to devs before posting. Much of this stuff is incoherent and repetitive. Secondly, absolute zero mention of difficulty setting. Or faction playing. Considering the vaaaaaaaast majority of what you're saying is absolutely not a problem with the game. User screwing up does not mean the game is screwed up.

    Chariots - Yes they absolutely need to be reworked. They are absurd right now. Sarpedon is basically, unplayable due to dependence on chariots. Yet chariots are not even fun to use. Increasing production cost will not fix it. They might need half stats or something else that makes then worth investing in without being too strong. Sarpedon will need to be reworked too if chariots get reworked.

    Unit collision - Hadn't noticed any problems other than TW over 20 years has still not caught up with ai and responsiveness that Starcraft 2 innovated 10 years ago. But this isn't a problem with Troy. It's a problem with many games. Including games that aren't even RTS. Just claiming it doesn't work well doesn't mean much. Maybe you're referring to exploits of moving through enemy unit, and killing them from behind. So yes, this needs slight improvement. Not a major thing.

    Homeric victory is perfectly fine. It's fun. Aga and Hector are fun as well, and makes their campaign more interesting. Since both of those tend to be really powerful ones. Odysseus might seem lackluster, but he actually gets a mysterious quest.
    Kaosfyre said:


    3. Game becomes Whack A Mole after turn 40. It is impossible to defend your territory and you end up being attacked from all sides. Recommend adjusting defensibility of provinces to require sieging of capital before outlying regions.
    4. AI doesnt take military alliances or vassals into account when declaring war. Midgame, around turn 60, ends up being a giant war with EVERYONE.
    5. AI Troy always invades mainland Greece and this doesnt feel right.
    8. Its annoying to have the enemy raze one of your settlements, then havr a neutral colonize it, and deprive you of a complete province. Perhaps the ability to claim land would be useful to prevent.
    12. Change supply lines to affect bronze and food equally and reduce to 10% per army.
    13. Seriously remove mid game whack a mole. Its no fun to keep chasing enemy armies all over the map while they raze your settlements which arent defendible due to supply line penalties. This can be fixed by making settlements harder to conquer, or by reducing freedom of movement.
    16. Fix Trojan doomstack. Doomstack is too powerful. The difficulty of taking Troy should come from a garrison.
    17. Increase baseline resource trickle. Its frustrating to have to seek out and conquer 1 of each type of province. This would make Tall Play easier and more fun.
    18. Eliminate some AI bonuses. Single province AIs should not be fielding 20 x company stacks.
    21. Seriously reduce AI war spam. Ill say it again; it is annoying to always be at war with people who I shouldnt be. Neutral powers should be more neutral and require more of an effort to sway. Right now, neutral powers are randomly willing to ally with me, or randomly declare war on me. It doesnt feel like there is player agency in this. Reducing warmongering of neutral powers would also bring the focus back to the Trojan War.

    Supply lines - absolutely no way in living hell should they alter supply lines. The current supply lines and ai functioning keep the user from becoming considerably OP. As well as ensure some semblance of strategic play. Otherwise, there's really no point in most of what makes the game fun, as user proceeds to mow everybody down regardless of who's on who's side.

    This isn't half war. It's Total War. It's up to user to be anything going on in their territory. Whackamole is absolutely not even a problem. It doesn't even happen. If you're not going to use basic strategies, then don't complain about problems with the game.

    So yes, many users complain about problems of getting dogpiled by ai. Yet in every single case, it's extremely obvious what is going on. 100% of them are playing poorly, and the game is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing to users who play like this. There's actually two benefits to this. Firstly, it punishes poor play. Secondly, it gives a nicely balanced challenge to users who play well. Especially considering how much opposition there needs to be to prevent this game from becoming a huge steamroll by whichever side the user is on.


    Somebody even mentioned after starting over, and employing reasonable strategy, the game became extremely fun. Because he was being defended by attacks that were coming from all directions. And his alliance was functioning extremely well. Here. Found the quote from the internet:

    "First play through my military alliances doomed me

    My very first campaign I got into a bunch of military alliances that were of no benefit. I had not learnt enough about the mechanics, economy, or unit types. So the AI was targeting me fairly hard, and I was getting no support.

    Restarted my Agamemnon campaign

    I sped through the tech to get the +40 diplomatic bonus with Danaans, and next thing you know I’m running the Persian empire in Greece. Basically all the major Greeks willingly became client kingdoms.

    in terms of economy and border protection I am surrounded by vassals who seem to actually want to protect my settlements, and prevent the pesky northern Greeks from dragging me into futile wars way from the victory objective.

    So when I restarted I saved up my gold to get the tech that improves relations and my whole set up was much, much better. Definitely feel like Agamemnon, and to some extent Hector are really nice “grand alliance” factions."



    This actually says alot. So why isn't this user experiencing the same problems as users like you? Who rather claim it's a problem with the game. Rather than actually learn how to play something new, and quite different from previous TW games. And very well designed. Oh wait, he did experience the same problem. All the exact same problems. Yet instead of blaming it on the game, he learned how to improve his play, and the game became much more fun.

    So no. Absolutely they should not change any of these things you mentioned. They are part of what makes the game design excellent.


    Agent spam - Completely not a big deal. It's not difficult to counter enemy agents. And they won't be as much of a problem if you're playing well. Again, will only ever be a problem with poor play. Problem with user is not a problem with the game.

    Deities - I never noticed much probs with them. Yes they can cater to unit compositions. But really, faction overall tends to be the biggest factor in unit composition. Then choose deities that boost those units. For example, Odysseus does have some nice spear units, but mostly uses ranged. So primarily boosting ranged would be effective. And spears secondary. Other deities might be effective for other factions.

    Combat duration - Extremely unclear. Says combat is slow, and yet claims it is speedy. Who can even tell what this means?

    AI trade requests - I don't see any major problem with this. Other than never making any sense. I pretty much never take the deal they offer. If I don't reject the deal, I typically alter it to 5 bronze for some wood. Or if they don't like bronze, set other faction to 10 wood, and give them food.
    Kaosfyre said:

    Restrict naval movement to several lanes either by a hard restriction or by SIGNIFICANTLY increasing attrition. By forcing both sides to cross the sea at the same points a lot of the whack a mole of midgame can be avoided, and epic battles are encouraged. This would remove some of the frustration of playing undefensible Mycenae.

    This simply makes zero sense. No way shape or form should naval movement be restricted. That would prevent any sort of incentive for line of sight or many major factors of seafaring. And again, how would that even be logistically possible. So Poseidon is just going to happen to mandate sea routes? There are many aspects and dangers that need to be assessed with sea travel. Restricting lanes just screws all of that up, and will again, screw the entire experience of what makes this game so fun.

    And 100% false about Mycenae. Who said Mycenae was even indefensible? The entire Aga campaign is specifically setup extremely well around Mycenae as a defensive position, and the province that provides special walls to the entire faction who controls is. Which is Agamemnon starting province. And this is further benefited from the fact that you can put up an aggro statue. So enemies will specifically target that location. Without any artificial sea routing needed. So the one province that specifically has an aggro statue is the one you're calling indefensible? That is just the direct opposite description of that province.

    So what you're saying here is the exact opposite of the game. Again, it looks more like you're screwing up in your play. Then blaming it as a problem with the game rather than improving your play. Considering Aga is an extremely unique faction, if not the most powerful. He's an extremely fun playstyle for many users who lean towards diplomacy.

    Seems like quite a few of your suggestions are trying to screw this game up from being enjoyable in order to cater to a self-imposed boxed-in playstyle. Just to make the game easier and less frustrating for only you not even playing very effectively. A style of play for this game that will just make it less. Simple fact of the matter is the way you're playing clearly and obviously goes against the game's strategic design. As well as exactly what the game will punish users for. So rather than trying to change the game itself, why not just improve your play?

    Play improvement from perspective of Aga campaign - Work towards military alliance with all your pillars as soon as the game starts. He's probably the easiest one to get all seven factions allied. By turn eight, I had six of them allied, and the seventh one paying me to be my vassal. For example, in my Odysseus, pillars are taking much longer for military alliance. Pylos takes quite awhile before fully becoming a military ally. And not just that, there are even more Acheans further out you can vassal. And even other cultures that can make good allies.

    I have no doubt in my mind that users who are getting swarmed, playing whackamole, and complaining about fielding two full armies not being enough = they are not using allies correctly, and fighting them instead. Therefore, not only having less allies to help defend. Also having more enemies to have to fight off.

    Disengage cost - While I think this would be OK at best. I was having the opposite experience of the same thing as any standard TW. Which is unresponsiveness when disengaging or getting units to just move already. Like they're glued to position. I wouldn't necessarily agree with even more restriction on disengagement. Due to just making combat more cumbersome. But I'm fine with it if users think it adds to more challenging combat.
    Kaosfyre said:

    Light/Medium/Heavy allocation seems arbitrary and makes no sense.

    This statement makes no sense. If ignoring chariots, it's amazing how well designed the combat system is in Troy. If not the best of all TW. Part of it is due to light, medium, heavy. If it makes no sense to you, there is a help section explaining it. So nothing to do with feedback or changing anything in the game. So as in not make sense to have it as part of the game? As opposed to what would be better?
    Post edited by coolskill on
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 203
    @coolskill
    I agree to almost all of your points, a big part of the criticism in this forum seems to be caused by poor understanding of the game and low battle skills rather than actual problems that the game has.


    Still I would like to talk about supply lines.

    First of all, I understand why CA uses this mechanic and it generally does what it's meant to do which is restricting players in the late game. Also I see the issue that there are no inner politics where the player can get more secessions the bigger his empire is, so I get that they make supply lines a strong limitation since it's the only one.

    But I see several problems here:
    First, the mechanic doesn't make any sense from the realism aspect. The corruption mechanic from previous games is by far more realistic.

    Second, the point of the supply lines is to weaken the player in the second half of the campaign. But in my three campaigns (Agamemnon, Hector and Aeneas) it has been mostly a problem in the first half. This is because the player has problems to raise a second or third army and to create small armies to temporarily strengthen a garrison. Yet in the late game even with the supply lines the player normally has enough regions to have four to six armies which is more than enough to fight all your enemies if you used diplomacy well. So if the supply lines have to stay they should be adjusted to the state of the campaign (i.e. second army costs 5% more, third one costs 10% more, fourth one costs 15% more and so on).

    Third, the mechanic is poorly balanced. While it destroys your entire food production it hardly affects bronze. Which is another point that doesn't make sense. This is obviously more of a critique on how supply lines are implemented and doesn't deny their right to exist, but I am enough of a realist to know that CA won't remove them so I might as well make suggestions that have an actual chance to be implemented to the game.

    Conclusion:
    The problem of older titles was that the corruption mechanic didn't limit the player enough and normally you can easily steamroll the world after turn 100, but the solution for that should be a rework of the corruption or the implementation of a new rational and complex mechanic, but surely not a random mechanic that doesn't make sense and isn't balanced.
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233

    @coolskill
    I agree to almost all of your points, a big part of the criticism in this forum seems to be caused by poor understanding of the game and low battle skills rather than actual problems that the game has.


    Still I would like to talk about supply lines.

    First of all, I understand why CA uses this mechanic and it generally does what it's meant to do which is restricting players in the late game. Also I see the issue that there are no inner politics where the player can get more secessions the bigger his empire is, so I get that they make supply lines a strong limitation since it's the only one.

    But I see several problems here:
    First, the mechanic doesn't make any sense from the realism aspect. The corruption mechanic from previous games is by far more realistic.

    Second, the point of the supply lines is to weaken the player in the second half of the campaign. But in my three campaigns (Agamemnon, Hector and Aeneas) it has been mostly a problem in the first half. This is because the player has problems to raise a second or third army and to create small armies to temporarily strengthen a garrison. Yet in the late game even with the supply lines the player normally has enough regions to have four to six armies which is more than enough to fight all your enemies if you used diplomacy well. So if the supply lines have to stay they should be adjusted to the state of the campaign (i.e. second army costs 5% more, third one costs 10% more, fourth one costs 15% more and so on).

    Third, the mechanic is poorly balanced. While it destroys your entire food production it hardly affects bronze. Which is another point that doesn't make sense. This is obviously more of a critique on how supply lines are implemented and doesn't deny their right to exist, but I am enough of a realist to know that CA won't remove them so I might as well make suggestions that have an actual chance to be implemented to the game.

    Conclusion:
    The problem of older titles was that the corruption mechanic didn't limit the player enough and normally you can easily steamroll the world after turn 100, but the solution for that should be a rework of the corruption or the implementation of a new rational and complex mechanic, but surely not a random mechanic that doesn't make sense and isn't balanced.

    Yet your claim about the point of supply lines is not even the point. I have no clue where how you're even coming to that conclusion. When the point is very obviously a clear progression from the start of the game. Not something for later game. This isn't even remotely a problem in any campaign. Especially the ones you're using who can do quite well with even just one army. But will never have a problem operating two. It will absolutely not be difficult to support a second army by the time you get a quest to make an additional Hero. So I don't even know how supply lines even come up as a problem with anybody. I have never had a problem running two full armies by the time my main province is at tier 2-3. You can support two full armies very well for quite awhile. And even add some agents. I even use all tier 1 for one of my armies, but you can have both armies all tier 3 without really any problem.

    A third army an be added later. I would say typically after confederating another faction. But it's also fine to just buy another hero. Just need to be more careful with confederations due to adding more heroes. This isn't even counting the many options for reducing upkeep costs. As well as how much food you can get from random events. And even making bartering more meaningful if you need to do some long term trading for additional food income.

    If there's mechanics from other games that can improve it without changing the limitations on user armies and progression, that's fine. But as it stands, it works exceptionally well. So far, it has been highly effective at preventing users from getting out extra heroes/armies too fast.
  • epic_159817030363AS6d3l9epic_159817030363AS6d3l9 Registered Users Posts: 86
    Its time for a first patch, cmon CA!!!
  • xomitsiousxomitsious Registered Users Posts: 49
    Almost everyone who played in the Proving grounds beta for Warhammer agreed that removing supply lines made for a better game.

    Of course CA had to change other things (recruitment and building costs mainly) to stop the player from snowballing too early.

    This resulted in a "prolonged early-mid game" and much delayed "late game".

    It also resulted in a more immersive experience where high tier units were rare, expensive and impactful.

    Supply lines force the player into doomstacks. If you can only afford 3 armies, you're gonna make sure these armies are full of elite warriors capable of smashing through everything.

    If however, instead of 3 elite armies you can field 7-8 armies (most of them not even full stacks) with only a handful of elite units that allows a much nicer variety of strategies.

    It also eliminates the "whack a mole" problem, since you can reinforce vulnerable settlements with small 4-5 unit armies (which can later be reinforced and move out once you have the resources).
    Think of all those heroes that have pacifist traits (basically good governors, bad generals) and how choosing one of those to simply protect your borders and boost production offers another interesting option.

    It is unfortunate that Troy was so far into development when the Proving grounds beta started. CA themselves have stated that supply lines have to go (after receiving feedback from players in the beta), and I expect WH3 to launch without them.
  • Eptesicus8Eptesicus8 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited September 9
    I think the issue with supply lines, and the enemy factions seemingly able to have massive amounts of food even if they only have one region, is not that it makes the game too difficult as such. It just makes the game more irritating and unbalanced. I know the AI have buffs in every game, but this seems over the top. Its basically a mechanic that says - You have no food, and every other faction has tons, deal with it.

    This is supposed to be a STRATEGY game. I want to be able to cripple my enemies by taking out their key settlements, hampering their ability to make food etc. You simply cannot do this. There is no strategy to preventing your enemy fielding armies/rebuilding armies. They just always have **** tons of food. As it currently is, your faction struggles to make food to keep a reasonable amount of armies, even if you control a massive amount of settlements. You have to have all your generals take the +400 food skill, put an envoy in each army etc, and even then you are always well short so you have to barter to get food.

    I have whittled factions down to only having one or two regions left, yet within a few turns they have got two full stack expensive armies again.

    The difficulty isn't the problem. It is how the game makes you feel.

    I think things could have been better implemented so as to keep it challenging AND not make it that every other faction has some endless magic supply of food that you dont.

    This issue is that the supply line mechanic then introduces the wack-a-mole / weak garrison issues and then it becomes a slog of having to rebuild your settlements all the time or spend time sending an army back to defend some tiny settlement that keeps getting sacked by some random one region faction on the other end of the map.

    I have played Total War all my life, pretty much every game (except for Three Kingdoms) and this release gives the "AI are just cheating" impression more than any.


    i don't know how they could fix this (i'm not a game developer), but when a strategy game is so lazy that it just clearly gives the AI a ridiculous advantage, instead of making the AI fight you in a strategic way, it has failed somewhat
  • xomitsiousxomitsious Registered Users Posts: 49
    I mentioned before that CA changed recruiting and building costs to balance the romoval of supply lines in the Proving Grounds beta.

    I feel I need to explain this a bit better.

    Buildings were more expensive, and recruiting a unit was much more expensive. (Upkeep costs stayed roughly the same).

    This helped a lot to prevent the game becoming too easy.

    It also presented the player with more choices. Do I build for a better economy or recruit one more unit for my main army. It also meant your armies stayed small for longer, resulting in more interesting battles.

    The "20 units per army" is a cap, not a requirement.

    Lastly, when you finally got a higher tier unit you got to appreciate it a lot more. Those elite swordsmen you were finally able to recruit made a big impact, so maybe recruiting them, but delaying your port for another 3 turns, was worth it.
  • KaosfyreKaosfyre Registered Users Posts: 16
    I agree that its incredibly demoralizing for the enemy to spawn a doomstack from its single province after youve razed the rest.

    Maybe the solution, in part, could be spoilage where a fraction of a factions resoueces spoil each turn to minimize the occurence of giant AI treasure troves.

    Thanks for sharing that Xomitsious. Its very interrsting to know how this was tinkered.

    Overall this is such a great game and I cant pull myself from it, but a few tweaks would be nice.

  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233

    Almost everyone who played in the Proving grounds beta for Warhammer agreed that removing supply lines made for a better game

    Good thing this isn't WH. And they didn't ruin this game by doing just that. And the false assessment about being a whackamole has already been made clear over and over. To multiple users complaining about the game despite their own deficiency in common sensibility strategic play.

    is not that it makes the game too difficult as such. It just makes the game more irritating and unbalanced.

    No it absolutely does not. This is as far from correct as can possibly be. It's what makes the game extremely fun. And everybody knows your description is exactly what will happen to users who aren't employing basic strategies of this game from first turn. Including trying to play this like previous TW which you will get punished for in Troy. And will become a tedious nightmare that you should probably not even be trying to play out.

    Otherwise, it is an extremely fun and satisfying experience. Due to excellent design of ai and supply lines that require user to play more intelligently and strategically. While punishing them for trying to play this like some other old TW game.



    This is supposed to be a STRATEGY game. I want to be able to cripple my enemies by taking out their key settlements, hampering their ability to make food etc. You simply cannot do this. There is no strategy to preventing your enemy fielding armies/rebuilding armies.

    Again, as false as can possibly be. Cannot be further from the truth. Clearly have not been playing this game. You most definitely can screw enemy income, happiness, and more.

    And doesn't seem like you want to actually employ strategy as exactly what this game stands out for more than any other. It has already been explained thoroughly many times over that you simply cannot get away easily in Troy, with using the same strats as previous TW games. Even from one faction to the next in this game. You need to actually put effort into understating the unique playstyles and strategies.

    Doing so is a major difference from being thoroughly enjoyable TW or a tedious nightmare. And clearly from your description of your game, it's the latter. Which is the direct opposite of mine and many others who are not having to deal with the same problems at all.
  • Eptesicus8Eptesicus8 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited September 10
    coolskill said:

    Almost everyone who played in the Proving grounds beta for Warhammer agreed that removing supply lines made for a better game

    Good thing this isn't WH. And they didn't ruin this game by doing just that. And the false assessment about being a whackamole has already been made clear over and over. To multiple users complaining about the game despite their own deficiency in common sensibility strategic play.

    is not that it makes the game too difficult as such. It just makes the game more irritating and unbalanced.

    No it absolutely does not. This is as far from correct as can possibly be. It's what makes the game extremely fun. And everybody knows your description is exactly what will happen to users who aren't employing basic strategies of this game from first turn. Including trying to play this like previous TW which you will get punished for in Troy. And will become a tedious nightmare that you should probably not even be trying to play out.

    Otherwise, it is an extremely fun and satisfying experience. Due to excellent design of ai and supply lines that require user to play more intelligently and strategically. While punishing them for trying to play this like some other old TW game.



    This is supposed to be a STRATEGY game. I want to be able to cripple my enemies by taking out their key settlements, hampering their ability to make food etc. You simply cannot do this. There is no strategy to preventing your enemy fielding armies/rebuilding armies.

    Again, as false as can possibly be. Cannot be further from the truth. Clearly have not been playing this game. You most definitely can screw enemy income, happiness, and more.

    And doesn't seem like you want to actually employ strategy as exactly what this game stands out for more than any other. It has already been explained thoroughly many times over that you simply cannot get away easily in Troy, with using the same strats as previous TW games. Even from one faction to the next in this game. You need to actually put effort into understating the unique playstyles and strategies.

    Doing so is a major difference from being thoroughly enjoyable TW or a tedious nightmare. And clearly from your description of your game, it's the latter. Which is the direct opposite of mine and many others who are not having to deal with the same problems at all.


    What a condensing reply.

    Sorry, but artificially giving every faction insane amounts of food is a cheap way of introducing "challenge". You can't cripple other factions because they mostly all seem to have massive amounts of food, even if they only have one region!

    I would prefer it if the AI was improved, rather than just given artificially large amounts of resources.
  • KaosfyreKaosfyre Registered Users Posts: 16
    Eptesicus8,

    Do you think it is likely that CA will revisit supply lines in Troy? Or, is this a done deal?

    What you describe, keeping small armies for mobile defence, sounds exactly like what I was hoping/expecting to do. Supply Lines, as they are, unnaturally incentivizes fewer, higher quality armies, which doesnt feel fun.

    Currently it feels like 20 units per army is a hard requirement since it is overwhelmingly cost prohibitive to split it up.

    As fun as Troy is, I feel like fixing supply lines as you mention would create more options at the operational level, and more varied battles at the tactical.
  • xomitsiousxomitsious Registered Users Posts: 49
    edited September 11
    coolskill said:


    Good thing this isn't WH. And they didn't ruin this game by doing just that. And the false assessment about being a whackamole has already been made clear over and over. To multiple users complaining about the game despite their own deficiency in common sensibility strategic play.

    True, it's not Warhammer and that's good. It's actually a game where doomstacks (a strategy that supply lines force you into) make even less sense here.

    I do not support the whackamole notion.

    And I did enjoy Troy very much.

    However after playing with an alternative to supply lines I have seen the many many flaws that this mechanic has.

    It's too bad that you feel that you blindly need to defend everything about this game without knowing what you're talking about (in the case of supply lines).

    I wish you had played the proving grounds beta to see that there are alternatives. If you want to be more informed about it you can read some of the player's feedback here: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/261418/the-proving-grounds-beta-comes-to-an-end

    I agree with many of your points on this forum. However you can not seem to grasp that without supply lines CA would have to change other things to balance it out. And when they tried it, everyone loved it.

    This thread is called points for improvement. Some people do post unreasonable complaints, and some of those are done because they don't know how to play correctly (as you claim). But there are also valid points, that can help the developers into making this game even better. Dismissing every criticism about this game as people whining because they lose to the AI is a mistake.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 203
    CA constantly seaches for ways to balance out the late game. Those were the imperium level and corruption in older games and now it's supply lines (and the antagonist in Troy but that doesn't change anything from my experience).

    I never said that the early game is too hard in Troy. But it is easy because you are surrounded by (potential) allies at the start, the only exception here is Achilles, but even as him you can normally get some non-aggresion-pacts. So the way to make the start harder should be to make your diplomatic situation harder or to make your first enemy stronger or increase the risk of a rebellion/secession or pretty much anything that makes sense. But the solution is not to implement a mechanics that does nothing else than being an addition to the cheat codes that give the AI more troops.

    Every Total War game i played is harder than Troy at the beginning and none of them has supply lines. So if supply lines are meant to make the early game harder as coolskill claims they are terrible at their job. So CA might as well remove them and find a replacement that actually makes sense.


    But the main thing that annoys me about supply lines is not even the fact that it is just another aspect of unfair balancing to compensate the AI's inferiority but it is the fact that it limits the player's strategic freedom to raise troops more than anything else.

    The best games in that regard were the old ones until Shogun II where you could recruit units without even having a general. So you were free to reinforce wherever you wanted to without worrying about generals or army limits.

    The first limitations came with Rome II where you needed a general to raise an army and your army capacity was limited. Still, the game allowed you to field by far more armies than you would normally need. So although the freedom of the player was already reduced in Rome II you could still raise armies without any penalties.

    And now in Warhammer (which I haven't playes) and in Troy you get such high penalties on raising a new army that you have to only rely on your garrisons to get the job done and it pretty much forces you to have doomstacks. The great thing about the older games which was that you could use your troops in whatever way you wanted to is completely gone.


    I'm just glad that apparently many players think the way I do and CA seems to actually respond to that and doesn't plan to use supply lines in future titles anymore.
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233
    edited September 11

    What a condensing reply.

    Sorry, but artificially giving every faction insane amounts of food is a cheap way of introducing "challenge". You can't cripple other factions because they mostly all seem to have massive amounts of food, even if they only have one region!

    I would prefer it if the AI was improved, rather than just given artificially large amounts of resources.

    I don't mean to be condescending. But the point was to actually employ strategy than blame the game for problems with user play. The game is extremely well designed. It's up to you to use alliances strategically. Otherwise, it will be more tedious and punishing. That simple.

    Every Total War game i played is harder than Troy at the beginning and none of them has supply lines. So if supply lines are meant to make the early game harder as coolskill claims they are terrible at their job.

    Yet I never once stated. This. And everything you're saying simply goes against the entire point of why supply lines are highly effective in Troy.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 203
    coolskill said:


    Yet your claim about the point of supply lines is not even the point. I have no clue where how you're even coming to that conclusion. When the point is very obviously a clear progression from the start of the game. Not something for later game.

    Then please explain to me what you were trying to say by that.

    They are not "highly effective". They are just annoying and don't make sense. A player who has two single generals is punished just as hard as a player who has two doomstacks. How is that something good?
  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233

    coolskill said:


    Yet your claim about the point of supply lines is not even the point. I have no clue where how you're even coming to that conclusion. When the point is very obviously a clear progression from the start of the game. Not something for later game.

    Then please explain to me what you were trying to say by that.

    They are not "highly effective". They are just annoying and don't make sense. A player who has two single generals is punished just as hard as a player who has two doomstacks. How is that something good?
    Circular. It has already been stated as is highly effective at limiting user from amassing forces. This is even evident in users who are playing incorrectly complaining that they can't just amass a huge force. So what do you not comprehend? How to properly/effectively play this game? Or maybe you're not trying to understand it, and just want to complain and rant rather than figure out why it's not working out for you personally.
  • TejaSchwarzhaarTejaSchwarzhaar Registered Users Posts: 203
    1. Don't be personal, it takes away the value from your argument.
    2. Read my comments before answering or even blaming me.

    But I can explain it to you one last time:
    I am perfectly fine with the game, I even think that it is too easy in some regards. I understand the game and never complained about being overwhelmed by the AI or anything like that. I get along with the game really well.

    That's what I said multiple times even in this discussion so please don't try to put other words in my mouth.


    But that doesn't change anything about my arguments. Supply lines may be "effective" in a way that they force the player to have less troops but so is a mechanic that doubles upkeep cost for the player. Do you think that such a mechanic is beneficial to the game? And please don't just answer again "supply lines are effective and if you don't like them you don't understand the game" because 1. this is not an argument and 2. it shows more understanding of the game when you want a mechanic that is complex and doesn't just make the gap between the player's and the AI's upkeep costs even larger.

    Apart from that you have neither proven any of your points nor proven wrong any of my points but instead you started blaming me for not understanding the game which shows me again how invalid your arguments are.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 25,975
    Comparing Troy supply lines to WH supply lines misses the fact that Troy has elite units cost additional kinds of resources while WH has only gold so no, it does not encourage doomstacking just as much in Troy.

    Also, the Proving Grounds Beta was missing any and all late game scaling, which means you could actually doomstack even harder once you got out of the early game. Finding a suitable mid- to lategame scaling mechanic is what CA needs to do, but I find supply lines in Troy nowhere near as hair-raising an issue as in WH.

  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 593
    I think if scaling were based on army cost or empire size rather than army number it would help people play more with smaller armies.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 25,975
    Bastilean said:

    I think if scaling were based on army cost or empire size rather than army number it would help people play more with smaller armies.

    Rome2 had this, the higher you got on the Empire meter, you could deploy more armies at once but the more it cost to buy and maintain troops as well.

  • coolskillcoolskill Registered Users Posts: 233
    edited September 14

    1. Don't be personal, it takes away the value from your argument.
    2. Read my comments before answering or even blaming me.

    But I can explain it to you one last time:
    I am perfectly fine with the game, I even think that it is too easy in some regards. I understand the game and never complained about being overwhelmed by the AI or anything like that. I get along with the game really well.

    That's what I said multiple times even in this discussion so please don't try to put other words in my mouth.


    But that doesn't change anything about my arguments. Supply lines may be "effective" in a way that they force the player to have less troops but so is a mechanic that doubles upkeep cost for the player. Do you think that such a mechanic is beneficial to the game? And please don't just answer again "supply lines are effective and if you don't like them you don't understand the game" because 1. this is not an argument and 2. it shows more understanding of the game when you want a mechanic that is complex and doesn't just make the gap between the player's and the AI's upkeep costs even larger.

    Apart from that you have neither proven any of your points nor proven wrong any of my points but instead you started blaming me for not understanding the game which shows me again how invalid your arguments are.

    The only reason I haven't answered or proven any points is due to you going in circles.

    So do prove where I ever put words into your mouth.

    Also, prove where I ever even mentioned "supply lines are effective and if you don't like them you don't understand the game".

    There is no further discussion until you decide to prove what you're saying first. I don't mind explaining things. But if you're basically saying "let's move forward with discussion" while clearly posting nonsense for the purpose of moving the discussion backwards.

    Fact - You are very obviously not perfectly fine in your game. Evidence = blaming supply lines for anything.

    Fact - Supply lines are highly effective as already explained clearly why.

    I don't mind clarifying information if there's still anything unclear. If there's something you don't understand about supply lines, and their effectiveness in this game. I have no clue what you don't comprehend here.

    Buf if you just want to move backwards, then claim I'm the one putting words into your mouth. Then start putting words into my mouth by claiming something I absolutely never stated. Or try to debate these absolute facts. Claim as if supply lines are not effective. Claim that they're a problem. Claim that your game is perfectly fine. Please do that type of circular response that you already did about three times, and see how nowhere this discussion will ever go.
    Post edited by coolskill on
Sign In or Register to comment.