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

Forest Combat Changes

24

Comments

  • BovineKing#8781BovineKing#8781 Registered Users Posts: 977
    I mean I like when I can use forest to mask my approach but that’s about it. With closer and smaller deployment zones this becomes less necessary.
  • WitchbladeWitchblade Registered Users Posts: 1,007

    I think forest are getting unnecessary hate to a large degree.

    They're a terrain feature, available to all participants, and when you're building your army, you should be aware of terrain features of the map.

    Not that I would mind a redesign, but biggest issue for me is lack of visibility in the forest. This is not about hidden units, even when they're eventually seen, it is hard keep track of what's happening. If I could know what was going on, I'd have far less issues with forest.

    Sure, forests may influence tactics, but the same is true for shallow water, hills, ridges, obstacles and all other map features. I don't see why forests should be singled out.

    The problem is that if you get bonuses in the forest, it often becomes the dominant strategy to camp the forest. Especially without any attacking rule enforcement in the game, that makes for really dull gameplay.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377

    I think forest are getting unnecessary hate to a large degree.

    They're a terrain feature, available to all participants, and when you're building your army, you should be aware of terrain features of the map.

    Not that I would mind a redesign, but biggest issue for me is lack of visibility in the forest. This is not about hidden units, even when they're eventually seen, it is hard keep track of what's happening. If I could know what was going on, I'd have far less issues with forest.

    Sure, forests may influence tactics, but the same is true for shallow water, hills, ridges, obstacles and all other map features. I don't see why forests should be singled out.

    The problem is that if you get bonuses in the forest, it often becomes the dominant strategy to camp the forest. Especially without any attacking rule enforcement in the game, that makes for really dull gameplay.
    Yea but then the issue is there is no disincentive to forest camp, not the bonuses themselves. Forest camping and corner camping are effectively the same problem, find an advantageous terrain position and then refuse to leave it. The fix for both will be the same.

    The only changes needed for forests are:

    - increase visibility considerably when in forest. There should be a way to completely remove foliage at any height.
    - have an outline or something so it is more clear where is and isn't forest. This can extemeely frustrating on maps with dense but patchy forest

    And then change the QB game to have a capture point system or some other mechanism. Various ways to do this that have been done in different games, CA just need to implement one of them.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,243

    I think forest are getting unnecessary hate to a large degree.

    They're a terrain feature, available to all participants, and when you're building your army, you should be aware of terrain features of the map.

    Not that I would mind a redesign, but biggest issue for me is lack of visibility in the forest. This is not about hidden units, even when they're eventually seen, it is hard keep track of what's happening. If I could know what was going on, I'd have far less issues with forest.

    Sure, forests may influence tactics, but the same is true for shallow water, hills, ridges, obstacles and all other map features. I don't see why forests should be singled out.

    The problem is that if you get bonuses in the forest, it often becomes the dominant strategy to camp the forest. Especially without any attacking rule enforcement in the game, that makes for really dull gameplay.
    This is the crux of the problem. It's not the forest per say, it's that land battles reward you for camping in an advantageous position. The moment you create an advantage for controlling the map, a lot of these problems take care of themselves.

    The biggest mistake Creative Assembly has made is to create a game where boring your opponent into attacking you is a viable tactic. You have to incentivize action.
  • BovineKing#8781BovineKing#8781 Registered Users Posts: 977
    Hopefully in game 3 they do a separate ladder with picks and bans for factions and maps.
  • Bastilean#7242Bastilean#7242 Registered Users Posts: 3,085

    I mean I like when I can use forest to mask my approach but that’s about it. With closer and smaller deployment zones this becomes less necessary.

    Forest already provides bonuses to stalking or stalking if the unit doesn't normally have it, so it doesn't need to provide an additional layer of foliage cover as well right?

    I mean I have trouble seeing my OWN troops. That's actually part of this problem.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377
    Jman5 said:

    I think forest are getting unnecessary hate to a large degree.

    They're a terrain feature, available to all participants, and when you're building your army, you should be aware of terrain features of the map.

    Not that I would mind a redesign, but biggest issue for me is lack of visibility in the forest. This is not about hidden units, even when they're eventually seen, it is hard keep track of what's happening. If I could know what was going on, I'd have far less issues with forest.

    Sure, forests may influence tactics, but the same is true for shallow water, hills, ridges, obstacles and all other map features. I don't see why forests should be singled out.

    The problem is that if you get bonuses in the forest, it often becomes the dominant strategy to camp the forest. Especially without any attacking rule enforcement in the game, that makes for really dull gameplay.
    This is the crux of the problem. It's not the forest per say, it's that land battles reward you for camping in an advantageous position. The moment you create an advantage for controlling the map, a lot of these problems take care of themselves.

    The biggest mistake Creative Assembly has made is to create a game where boring your opponent into attacking you is a viable tactic. You have to incentivize action.
    Exactly, draw kitting, bore kiting, corner camping, forest camping, hill camping, swamp camping are all at root the same issue. There is no incentive to attack or move from a favourable position or to engage at all at any time.

    I had a match the other day as Dwarf VS Lizardmen where my opponent brought two ballista stegs & a rev crystal and sniped my solitary cannon within the first 3 minutes or so. Took him about half his ammo on the stegs. Fairplay, so I advance and start chasing him around the map.

    The next 10 minutes was him running away with his whole army healing the damage my cannon put on one of his dinos while lining up ballista shots. The ridiculous part was that with his ballista shots he managed to kill 5 giant slayers and 30ish thunderers which meant that the balance of power was pulling in MY favour as he expended his ammo. He used all ammo and we engaged, he missed a few crucial rock drops and didn't really have what he needed to kill my build, so after a scrap it pulled in my favour. But it wasn't over yet. You see he still had a 60% ammo razordon so pulled back everything again, and now resumed dancing around to get those sweet side shots into three 75% Ironbreakers and 1 full hp longbeard (I also had a 50% giant slayer and full hp Ungrim left). He had virtually no ability to win a sustained melee fight (primarily due to misplacing his lord and letting him get down to 20% fighting giant Slayers) . With 3 minutes left on the clock, a 9 second reload on razordons (with 11 shots remaining) and him playing Footloose trying to get an angle that wouldn't change anything, I conceded rather than waste more of my time getting bore kited.

    Keep in mind that the ENTIRE time what he was doing is obeying attacking rules. But functionally he just ends up drawkiting or what I call "bore kiting".

    All of these camping, drawkite/borekite issues stem from the same root problem of nothing motivating attacking. Other than introducing blind faction pick into ladder and penalising dodging, that is the number one priority to resolve 99% of the poor sportsmanship on ladder. That and no smurfing so if you want to rage out and insult/slur your opponent you can be reliably banned.
  • Sarmatianns#6760Sarmatianns#6760 Registered Users Posts: 4,928

    I think forest are getting unnecessary hate to a large degree.

    They're a terrain feature, available to all participants, and when you're building your army, you should be aware of terrain features of the map.

    Not that I would mind a redesign, but biggest issue for me is lack of visibility in the forest. This is not about hidden units, even when they're eventually seen, it is hard keep track of what's happening. If I could know what was going on, I'd have far less issues with forest.

    Sure, forests may influence tactics, but the same is true for shallow water, hills, ridges, obstacles and all other map features. I don't see why forests should be singled out.

    The problem is that if you get bonuses in the forest, it often becomes the dominant strategy to camp the forest. Especially without any attacking rule enforcement in the game, that makes for really dull gameplay.
    That's a grand total of 1 faction out of 15. How is that different than hill or shallow water camping?
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    All large units gets penalties in forests so it affects all factions.

    It's worse than hills (you can't enter a forest from a different direction to avoid penalties or deny camping unit their bonus), and white line camping at least does not make units trade differently.

    Even if they fixed game mode to remove incentive to camp it would still be problematic to play on maps with a lot of forests/shallow water because it greatly affects units/faction balance. It's enough of an impact that line of sight is broken on forest heavy maps, having stat buffs/debuffs on top makes it much worse.

    Large penalty could stay but reduce to -10% ma imo because most factions have large. The defensive stats of forest stalker and forest strider should go imo, it's not like these units are balanced around their forest stats anyways, they just become op in forests. Like pipp also said, the grace period for missile collisions shooting out of woods needs to be really really short, just to clear the first 10 meters or so.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,571


    Large penalty could stay but reduce to -10% ma imo because most factions have large. The defensive stats of forest stalker and forest strider should go imo, it's not like these units are balanced around their forest stats anyways, they just become op in forests. Like pipp also said, the grace period for missile collisions shooting out of woods needs to be really really short, just to clear the first 10 meters or so.

    I think what they should do is remove the forest strider attribute and rename Woodsman to forest strider instead
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • Pocman#6295Pocman#6295 Registered Users Posts: 5,887
    Agree.


    Guardians oc the wildwood however should only activate against terror, or you would see them spamed v undead.

  • Sarmatianns#6760Sarmatianns#6760 Registered Users Posts: 4,928

    All large units gets penalties in forests so it affects all factions.

    It's worse than hills (you can't enter a forest from a different direction to avoid penalties or deny camping unit their bonus), and white line camping at least does not make units trade differently.

    I don't really understand - how does the direction of climbing a hill help nullify the elevation bonus the army on top of the hill gets? You can't outmaneuver shallow water camping either. And shallow water swings stats more than forests.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    All large units gets penalties in forests so it affects all factions.

    It's worse than hills (you can't enter a forest from a different direction to avoid penalties or deny camping unit their bonus), and white line camping at least does not make units trade differently.

    I don't really understand - how does the direction of climbing a hill help nullify the elevation bonus the army on top of the hill gets? You can't outmaneuver shallow water camping either. And shallow water swings stats more than forests.
    You may be able to climb the high ground from other directions, or engage sideways elevation-wise, or pull through to remove the elevation disadvantage for the rest of the engagement. Forests are permanent modifiers as long as you stay in it, and it affects different units differently so its impact is less "fair" to both players.

    I agree aquatics/shallow water is just as bad stat wise, but it's less campable since it doesn't offer missile protection and the units with aquatics are not units you camp with, and the units that counter skinks in a box are typically not affected by shallow water (all large units)... So it's equally bad i think, but it is just much less likely to cause problems in practice.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Registered Users Posts: 9,614
    The unique things about forests is the double penalty of ranged and melee impact.
    Then coupled with terrible optics.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Registered Users Posts: 9,614

    Jman5 said:

    I think forest are getting unnecessary hate to a large degree.

    They're a terrain feature, available to all participants, and when you're building your army, you should be aware of terrain features of the map.

    Not that I would mind a redesign, but biggest issue for me is lack of visibility in the forest. This is not about hidden units, even when they're eventually seen, it is hard keep track of what's happening. If I could know what was going on, I'd have far less issues with forest.

    Sure, forests may influence tactics, but the same is true for shallow water, hills, ridges, obstacles and all other map features. I don't see why forests should be singled out.

    The problem is that if you get bonuses in the forest, it often becomes the dominant strategy to camp the forest. Especially without any attacking rule enforcement in the game, that makes for really dull gameplay.
    This is the crux of the problem. It's not the forest per say, it's that land battles reward you for camping in an advantageous position. The moment you create an advantage for controlling the map, a lot of these problems take care of themselves.

    The biggest mistake Creative Assembly has made is to create a game where boring your opponent into attacking you is a viable tactic. You have to incentivize action.
    Exactly, draw kitting, bore kiting, corner camping, forest camping, hill camping, swamp camping are all at root the same issue. There is no incentive to attack or move from a favourable position or to engage at all at any time.

    I had a match the other day as Dwarf VS Lizardmen where my opponent brought two ballista stegs & a rev crystal and sniped my solitary cannon within the first 3 minutes or so. Took him about half his ammo on the stegs. Fairplay, so I advance and start chasing him around the map.

    The next 10 minutes was him running away with his whole army healing the damage my cannon put on one of his dinos while lining up ballista shots. The ridiculous part was that with his ballista shots he managed to kill 5 giant slayers and 30ish thunderers which meant that the balance of power was pulling in MY favour as he expended his ammo. He used all ammo and we engaged, he missed a few crucial rock drops and didn't really have what he needed to kill my build, so after a scrap it pulled in my favour. But it wasn't over yet. You see he still had a 60% ammo razordon so pulled back everything again, and now resumed dancing around to get those sweet side shots into three 75% Ironbreakers and 1 full hp longbeard (I also had a 50% giant slayer and full hp Ungrim left). He had virtually no ability to win a sustained melee fight (primarily due to misplacing his lord and letting him get down to 20% fighting giant Slayers) . With 3 minutes left on the clock, a 9 second reload on razordons (with 11 shots remaining) and him playing Footloose trying to get an angle that wouldn't change anything, I conceded rather than waste more of my time getting bore kited.

    Keep in mind that the ENTIRE time what he was doing is obeying attacking rules. But functionally he just ends up drawkiting or what I call "bore kiting".

    All of these camping, drawkite/borekite issues stem from the same root problem of nothing motivating attacking. Other than introducing blind faction pick into ladder and penalising dodging, that is the number one priority to resolve 99% of the poor sportsmanship on ladder. That and no smurfing so if you want to rage out and insult/slur your opponent you can be reliably banned.
    See my post in the MP forum section for my proposed solution. A subtle forcing mechanism.
  • Sarmatianns#6760Sarmatianns#6760 Registered Users Posts: 4,928

    All large units gets penalties in forests so it affects all factions.

    It's worse than hills (you can't enter a forest from a different direction to avoid penalties or deny camping unit their bonus), and white line camping at least does not make units trade differently.

    I don't really understand - how does the direction of climbing a hill help nullify the elevation bonus the army on top of the hill gets? You can't outmaneuver shallow water camping either. And shallow water swings stats more than forests.
    You may be able to climb the high ground from other directions, or engage sideways elevation-wise, or pull through to remove the elevation disadvantage for the rest of the engagement. Forests are permanent modifiers as long as you stay in it, and it affects different units differently so its impact is less "fair" to both players.
    That is not an argument of fairness. Outside one faction which has bonuses, forests affect unit types, not factions. It is inherently fair. Both players' large units take a 20% reduction in stats, and both players' small units don't.

    I agree aquatics/shallow water is just as bad stat wise, but it's less campable since it doesn't offer missile protection and the units with aquatics are not units you camp with, and the units that counter skinks in a box are typically not affected by shallow water (all large units)... So it's equally bad i think, but it is just much less likely to cause problems in practice.


    I would strongly disagree that you wouldn't want to camp in shallow water with Coast. That is perfect camping ground for them, and their infantry gets +20% on stats while opponent's infantry gets 20% malus.
    It is far more skewed than even Wood Elves in forests.
    The difference is that there are fewer maps with shallow water so it gets under the radar.

    Hill camping is also a thing, and while theoretically you can try to reduce the disadvantage, in practice it won't be pulled off completely succesfully. There will almost always be some disadvantage.

    The reason I'm trying to make this argument is because some people simply dislike fighting in forests, and that bias has even been codified in some tournament rules.
    Bottom line, forests are a map feature. Both players play on the same map. It is a potential resource that can be tapped into by both sides and both sides can try to take advantage of it in some way. Like hills, ridges, impassable terrain, water, vanguard possibilities etc...
    We should not be about removing map features from the game. The problem is that currently there's very little way to actually figure out what's going on during a forest fight. The game currently does a poor job of giving either player enough information about what's going on, thus rewarding the side with tankier units usually.
    That is the part that needs fixing, no need to change mechanics first.


  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Registered Users Posts: 9,614
    Very good points sarmatian. People dislike woods in part because they don’t like infantry being stronger in a terrain type and they don’t likethe incentive to play boxy armies. It’s not a fairness issue.

    Where I definitely agree with people though is the inability to see in forests is a deal breaker for tactical play.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Forest camping is not explicitly forbidden in tournaments because its hard to see.... but because of the buffs it provides and what it does to game play vs factions like vc, woc and bret when you can basically cheese them to death by forcing a fight in a forest, and you don't need to be WE to do that. Let's add ogres being screwed over too for game 3....

    I dont get how you can put that and "inherently fair" in the same sentence.

    I was not saying shallow water was any better, just that it's less commonly abused for the reasons I gave.

    I think loupi has a very good reason for his suggestions in the op, and that is to make forests more compatible with competitive play without explicit rules that forbids you from using forests tactically... These rules have been hard to make work properly with lots of contested results and replays. I'd be delighted if we got forest traits that could function well in competitive play without special exception rules and I also believe that would increase the number of maps that can be used in comp games.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,243
    Nerfing forests would not suddenly make forests more tactically used. It would make them more ignorable, which hurts the tactical depth of the game. Again, the problem has nothing to do with the terrain, it's that camping in an ideal spot is too good. We have to break the defender's advantage and make map control matter.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Jman5 said:

    Nerfing forests would not suddenly make forests more tactically used. It would make them more ignorable, which hurts the tactical depth of the game. Again, the problem has nothing to do with the terrain, it's that camping in an ideal spot is too good. We have to break the defender's advantage and make map control matter.

    Well, the problem with forests is that the benefits, buffs and debuffs stacks to buff camping in forests. It's not because it benefits infantry as such, but because it stacks and promotes camping.

    It's true that infantry is favored in forests. First and foremost, everything that is not small gets -20% ma and -20% speed. Then if you're we (or he) you have units that get +20% md (wl also gets 10% ma iirc). BM large don't get penalty.

    Now, what counters said infantry to begin with? Ranged: gets mitigated by projectiles hitting trees, while we units in forest gets +50% accuracy. More importantly, there is as of last dlc a grace period so that ranged units in the forest can shoot out without hitting trees.

    What else counters infantry, that is not infantry itself? Chariots? Monstrous infantry? Monsters? Cavalry? All of them are large and will suffer both -20% ma and -20% speed, which will hurt any mobility/charge advantage and in addition tree trunks are obstacles for chariot models and monsters to get stuck on if you don't have strider.

    Even vs magic it can help by obstructing line of sight, or blocking magic missiles.

    So it's just too much incentive to camp and blob. In a different game with different game mode that may matter less, but right now we're playing this game.... and even so, it only works as long as you lose the match if you camp the forest. In any scenario where you will win by sitting still in the forest the current design will fail. That's why it makes a lot if sense to use forest bonuses to promote active play like ambushes and hidden movement instead of passive play like camping and/or blobbing.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Bastilean#7242Bastilean#7242 Registered Users Posts: 3,085
    edited May 2021
    First off I just want to say I strictly like and agree with the OP and agree with the intent of all the recommendations made. I just want to provide a more practical spin on some of the ideas presented.

    1. Adding speed to Forest Stalker/Strider/Spirits in forest doesn't make sense to me. If you want to, give them vigor reduction. I would be ok with that. I agree bonus accuracy is dumb. +15%MD should probably be a flat +3 MD or +5MD if you keep this at all. If something needs a unique forest buff/affinity it's only dryads+ not elves or cavalry etc and I think their super good forest 'stalking' is working for them.

    2. Personally, would prefer if CA could do small units get -10% speed&CB, larget units get -20% speed&charge bonus without woodsman. Same basic idea, but units aren't running faster with trees in the way. All skirmishing units should have Woodsman (Shadow Warriors, Shades, Black Arc Corsairs, etc). This would also be closer to TT.

    These debuffs could be reversed in the water with small -20% and large -10%. Skinks, Krox, Corsairs and Sea Guard should all have aquatic. If CA wanted to, militia could be renamed sailors and Empire gets an aquatic. Slayers could get acquatic, Bretonnians could get mermaids, etc.

    Buffs to accuracy in a forest are dumb. That's got to go!

    3. No penalties for forest/acquatic in the zone. Makes sense and also supports strider being the pinnacle.

    4. 100% agree. Would very much like this. No WWRangers won't be taken against every undead faction. That's like saying halberds will be taken against every undead faction. It's a slippery slope argument and it's false. WWRangers received bonuses against cold ones and undead cavalry on TT too.

    5. I am fine with removing the MA debuff, but adding a CB debuff instead. See point 2 comments above. Generally, a speed debuff should debuff CB in most cases.

    6. Cool, but unlikely. This isn't Total Annihilation for goodness sakes.

    7. Better visibility in forests IS THE POINT. All these other points aren't relevant without visibility.

    Thanks Loupi!
    Post edited by Bastilean#7242 on
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,907
    Bastilean said:

    First off I just want to say I strictly like and agree with the OP and agree with the intent of all the recommendations made. I just want to provide a more practical spin on some of the ideas presented.

    1. Adding speed to Forest Stalker/Spirits in forest doesn't make sense to me. If you want to, give them vigor reduction. I would be ok with that. I agree bonus accuracy is dumb. +15%MD should probably be a flat +3 MD or +5MD if you keep this.

    Speed and improved stalk for forest stalker is the most logical buff. Firstly in game 1 forest stalker was a speed buff, and got changed at some point to its current state for no good reason. Secondly it makes more sense since units that know the forest will move more deftly and quicker through them. thirdly its called forest STALKER so improved stalk should be obvious and makes sense for the same reason as above.

    vigor reduction doesnt make sense to me and would be bad for the game. This would arguably be stronger and more obnoxious than it is now since vigour affects many combat stats, including AP, melee attack and armour so no i think vigour reduction is a bad idea.


  • Bastilean#7242Bastilean#7242 Registered Users Posts: 3,085
    Yeah, you are right. I would rather replace it with woodsman than add speed though. Trees don't add speed or accuracy to hunters and wild things.

    Just making it a small buff to the stalking range could be very powerful and all that is needed. The ones that aren't stealthy like riders and stags should be woodsman.

    Dryads and Treemen are special and could get something unique.

    That's my take. Having a 25% speed and CB advantage is advantage enough.
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,907
    edited May 2021
    Bastilean said:

    Yeah, you are right. I would rather replace it with woodsman than add speed though. Trees don't add speed or accuracy to hunters and wild things.

    Just making it a small buff to the stalking range could be very powerful and all that is needed. The ones that aren't stealthy like riders and stags should be woodsman.

    Dryads and Treemen are special and could get something unique.

    That's my take. Having a 25% speed and CB advantage is advantage enough.

    all WE units already have woodsman. I dont get what you are saying, in one sentence you say you dont want to add speed buff then the next you say 25% speed buff is enough? (btw i think 25% is too much)


  • Bastilean#7242Bastilean#7242 Registered Users Posts: 3,085
    edited May 2021
    I mean, if you have woods man and the other unit has a 20% speed debuff, then you have a 25% speed advantage. That's all I am saying.

    Math: 100% is 25% greater than 80%. :wink:

    Also, I am not sure which units have forest stalkerstrider rather than woodsman. I didn't look that hard, and that ability doesn't show up on the TWW Stats unit cards.
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,907
    Bastilean said:

    I mean, if you have woods man and the other unit has a 20% speed debuff, then you have a 25% speed advantage. That's all I am saying.

    Math: 100% is 25% greater than 80%. :wink:

    Also, I am not sure which units have forest stalkerstrider rather than woodsman. I didn't look that hard, and that ability doesn't show up on the TWW Stats unit cards.

    ok but then infantry units with forest stalker get no advantage vs infantry units without it, so forest stalker would be useless a lot of the time.


    as for units with forest strider white lions and rangers are the only ones i know of (and alistair the white lion)


  • Bastilean#7242Bastilean#7242 Registered Users Posts: 3,085
    Ok, yeah I found a thread where CA Duck talked about Forest Strider and Forest Stalker with Sarmatian.

    Just remove Forest Strider and Forest Strider melee buffs. This is dumb and it's holding the game back. These buffs were also bad (and different) for TT, and only good for creating a sense of niche but it does more damage to game play than it does good in servicing the unit. D&D is suffering similar problems with the Ranger class.

    DisposableHero is right, you shouldn't have an extended advantage fighting in the trees. Having a CB debuff and speed debuff on non-woodsmen (and more woodsmen traits given to skirmishers) would be a lot better for everyone.
  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869
    How about we don't balance the game around a tiny subset of people who camp in multiplayer? If this is a problem, you can just play your mp games on no terrain maps.
    Justice for the scalies!

    Basic fixes for blessed spawnings and geomantic web:
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/293369/lizardmen-rework-suggestions/p1?new=1
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,907

    How about we don't balance the game around a tiny subset of people who camp in multiplayer? If this is a problem, you can just play your mp games on no terrain maps.

    yeah cos that would be sooo fun


  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Registered Users Posts: 9,614

    How about we don't balance the game around a tiny subset of people who camp in multiplayer? If this is a problem, you can just play your mp games on no terrain maps.

    it's a very good point. People like to play they like to play in SP.

    Much easier to fix the rules of the game to not reward camping in MP.
Sign In or Register to comment.