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.
Not gonna happen. CA just recently removed the minimum cast range for vortex spells, so now you can cast it on top on your mage if he gets bogged down.
Your suggestion would go against the direction CA are going with this change they made.
You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.
It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.
Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.
In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
In Starcraft you have the OPTION to build it, but like in TWW you have the OPTION to take a mage. Neither is required though both are fundamentally important to winning the game.
No, you always have access to the building, you don't have the option of it being unavailable to you. So it's like bringing a mage but then not casting any spells.
So, therefore, make mage slots mandatory. Not bringing a mage is never an advantage because you lose access to WoM and mages are so cheap, you can't make up for the loss by having a bigger or better army.
You know you don't have to use all your gold in QB right? But most peple
OK, then what would you say about making the lord slot optional too?
I actually think that be great, you would still need to have a general but a hero could be your general.
With that i would add a way to encurage lords over hears as generals.
Say If lord is your general you get +3map wide leadership OR could be lords encourage aura is 55m but hero ones is 30m.
This would be a good option. In table top, there was no need to take a lord. But typically, your lord had the highest leadership and it was well worth taking that lord because that leadership bubble was super important.
The one lord you could skip in tabletop was dwarfs sine all your troops had leadership 9 anyways.
The only requirement would be I guess that for undead factions your lord has to be a caster.
As someone who lost to players that took no mage on stream i can assure you it is possible to win without a mage.
Ha ha this. Recently I played with I made a Sartosa build with Aranessa as my lord and forgot she is not a caster and did not take a caster that game.
But boy was my army strong with Aranessa as my only character.
Aranessa has a reusable net. Nets are almost on par with healing in this game, so missing out on a mage means little in this case.
On the TT you could have heroes as leaders, so making that an option would be at least worth trying out if CA ever made a Proving Grounds patch for battles.
Comments
Your suggestion would go against the direction CA are going with this change they made.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe one lord you could skip in tabletop was dwarfs sine all your troops had leadership 9 anyways.
The only requirement would be I guess that for undead factions your lord has to be a caster.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeBut boy was my army strong with Aranessa as my only character.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeOn the TT you could have heroes as leaders, so making that an option would be at least worth trying out if CA ever made a Proving Grounds patch for battles.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree