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

[Important Thread] A list of addresses that are ABSOLUTELY necessary for WARHAMMER 3 (Summarized)

2»

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 30,133
    If anything we need more open field battles, not less.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "Under construction" - Becky, daughter of Guanyin.

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus

  • VictuzVictuz Sao Paulo, BrazilRegistered Users Posts: 413
    edited October 2020

    Victuz said:

    Casus Belli justification against raiding or land-corruptive armies, this is extremely important for diplomacy.

    ROMOBOY said:

    Casus Belli justification for trespassers, or some ultimatum. I’m tired of the A.I. being able to trespass without repercussions. Why must I follow rules that no one else does?

    Reddit's the place with the most people so they go there.


    But Casus Belli is using diplomacy to wage war without damaging your reputation, c'mon it doesn't make sense as it is currently, you have to recognize that.
    Post edited by Victuz on
  • WaaaghCheifWaaaghCheif Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,244

    If anything we need more open field battles, not less.

    I think we all agree on this, except when all the Open Field Battles are more or less the same. I for one, tired of constantly battling on these symmetrical deploy zones Rolling Hills maps.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,247
    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.
  • ROMOBOYROMOBOY Registered Users Posts: 4,369

    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.

    “- Casus Belli justification against raiding or land-corruptive armies, this is extremely important for diplomacy.”

    Nothing here says that you can’t just outright declare war on someone. It’s merely a loophole to avoid getting negative diplomatic penalties for wiping out an enemy raiding army or trespasser.
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    Cathay > Chaos Dwarfs = Pain

  • DwarfSizedBeardDwarfSizedBeard Registered Users Posts: 936

    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.

    ok, but thet shouldn't have a deal with the dwarfs in the first place, if you break the treaty on your own fine, if you can't do anything because raiding doesn't it breaks the treaty that's dumb
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,247
    ROMOBOY said:

    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.

    “- Casus Belli justification against raiding or land-corruptive armies, this is extremely important for diplomacy.”

    Nothing here says that you can’t just outright declare war on someone. It’s merely a loophole to avoid getting negative diplomatic penalties for wiping out an enemy raiding army or trespasser.
    This works for a system were everyone is Christian and they have to follow certain rules. If a Skaven raids a Dwarf, does that really mean the GS would worry about this? I just don't think this suits the WH situation, could work for internal wars within Empire or Bretonnia.

  • ROMOBOYROMOBOY Registered Users Posts: 4,369

    ROMOBOY said:

    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.

    “- Casus Belli justification against raiding or land-corruptive armies, this is extremely important for diplomacy.”

    Nothing here says that you can’t just outright declare war on someone. It’s merely a loophole to avoid getting negative diplomatic penalties for wiping out an enemy raiding army or trespasser.
    This works for a system were everyone is Christian and they have to follow certain rules. If a Skaven raids a Dwarf, does that really mean the GS would worry about this? I just don't think this suits the WH situation, could work for internal wars within Empire or Bretonnia.

    It’s not a perfect fix, but it’s still a good bandaid. The way it works now, you look bad to everyone for killing trespassers and raiders. Let’s say a minor Skaven clan was raiding you, and you declare a “surprise war” to stop them. It’s going to negatively affect your diplomacy with not just other Skaven, but everyone else.

    I agree that it doesn’t perfectly fit the Warhammer world in all scenarios, but it’s a much better alternative to what we have now.
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    Cathay > Chaos Dwarfs = Pain

  • VictuzVictuz Sao Paulo, BrazilRegistered Users Posts: 413
    ROMOBOY said:

    ROMOBOY said:

    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.

    “- Casus Belli justification against raiding or land-corruptive armies, this is extremely important for diplomacy.”

    Nothing here says that you can’t just outright declare war on someone. It’s merely a loophole to avoid getting negative diplomatic penalties for wiping out an enemy raiding army or trespasser.
    This works for a system were everyone is Christian and they have to follow certain rules. If a Skaven raids a Dwarf, does that really mean the GS would worry about this? I just don't think this suits the WH situation, could work for internal wars within Empire or Bretonnia.

    It’s not a perfect fix, but it’s still a good bandaid. The way it works now, you look bad to everyone for killing trespassers and raiders. Let’s say a minor Skaven clan was raiding you, and you declare a “surprise war” to stop them. It’s going to negatively affect your diplomacy with not just other Skaven, but everyone else.

    I agree that it doesn’t perfectly fit the Warhammer world in all scenarios, but it’s a much better alternative to what we have now.
    For Warhammer we would need an individualistic diplomacy system in which your reliability is set through the POV of each faction instead of a universal reliability assigned to you.

    But since this will make things too complicated for CA devs, it won't happen.
  • ROMOBOYROMOBOY Registered Users Posts: 4,369
    Victuz said:

    ROMOBOY said:

    ROMOBOY said:

    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.

    “- Casus Belli justification against raiding or land-corruptive armies, this is extremely important for diplomacy.”

    Nothing here says that you can’t just outright declare war on someone. It’s merely a loophole to avoid getting negative diplomatic penalties for wiping out an enemy raiding army or trespasser.
    This works for a system were everyone is Christian and they have to follow certain rules. If a Skaven raids a Dwarf, does that really mean the GS would worry about this? I just don't think this suits the WH situation, could work for internal wars within Empire or Bretonnia.

    It’s not a perfect fix, but it’s still a good bandaid. The way it works now, you look bad to everyone for killing trespassers and raiders. Let’s say a minor Skaven clan was raiding you, and you declare a “surprise war” to stop them. It’s going to negatively affect your diplomacy with not just other Skaven, but everyone else.

    I agree that it doesn’t perfectly fit the Warhammer world in all scenarios, but it’s a much better alternative to what we have now.
    For Warhammer we would need an individualistic diplomacy system in which your reliability is set through the POV of each faction instead of a universal reliability assigned to you.

    But since this will make things too complicated for CA devs, it won't happen.
    Yeah I would much rather prefer that as well. But what I’m proposing is actually doable (for CA) lol
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    Cathay > Chaos Dwarfs = Pain

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,247
    ROMOBOY said:

    ROMOBOY said:

    Can you really imagine Skaven feeling the need to apply a Casus Belli for the sake of raiding or attacking. ‘Sorry Queek, you can’t attack the Dwarfs without a formal act of law’.

    “- Casus Belli justification against raiding or land-corruptive armies, this is extremely important for diplomacy.”

    Nothing here says that you can’t just outright declare war on someone. It’s merely a loophole to avoid getting negative diplomatic penalties for wiping out an enemy raiding army or trespasser.
    This works for a system were everyone is Christian and they have to follow certain rules. If a Skaven raids a Dwarf, does that really mean the GS would worry about this? I just don't think this suits the WH situation, could work for internal wars within Empire or Bretonnia.

    It’s not a perfect fix, but it’s still a good bandaid. The way it works now, you look bad to everyone for killing trespassers and raiders. Let’s say a minor Skaven clan was raiding you, and you declare a “surprise war” to stop them. It’s going to negatively affect your diplomacy with not just other Skaven, but everyone else.

    I agree that it doesn’t perfectly fit the Warhammer world in all scenarios, but it’s a much better alternative to what we have now.
    I think a meter may work for bad behaviour. If you do raid an ally then you get hit with a big reliability penalty that gets more severe per turn.

    I notice in certain games the vampires simply hang around without raising and raise the corruption :-/
  • Crucial_EndCrucial_End Registered Users Posts: 3

    CA will do the very least possible for WH3 and still get applauded for it. It's really quite sickening.

    Happy to be proven wrong. Will WH3 release with as empty a game as WH2 vortex at release? We shall see.

    Not quite paradox tier of selling gutted games at release but not that far off either tbh.

    I've noticed this aswell. Is CA just lazy or incompetent? there are so many things that needs to be addressed/updated that I feel cheated for paying for this game, it's nowhere near worth the amount they are asking. The bare minimum for the highest price possible is what you get from CA. I should have pirated it, and probably will when the next installment is released unless its reasonably priced for the low quality that you get.
  • Crucial_EndCrucial_End Registered Users Posts: 3

    CA will do the very least possible for WH3 and still get applauded for it. It's really quite sickening.

    Happy to be proven wrong. Will WH3 release with as empty a game as WH2 vortex at release? We shall see.

    Not quite paradox tier of selling gutted games at release but not that far off either tbh.

    You're welcome to be a pessimist, but what does this have to do with the topic? Seemingly nothing.
    What he means is that the chances that any of these things are addressed are miniscule at best and non-existant at worst.
  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Registered Users Posts: 1,865
    Victuz said:

    - Units with Vanguard Deployment trait to already be on the battlefield when reinforcing, ready for deployment.

    Just wanted to say: I've never seen that recommended anywhere else, but that is an utterly brilliant suggestion.
Sign In or Register to comment.