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

13

Comments

  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,907
    edited May 2021
    eumaies said:

    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.
    they are practically different games though, if you want to forest camp in campaign as WE then go for it, they get all sorts of campaign buffs to fighting in forests, and it would still be strong vs AI as other factions without forest stalker. They can always add more combat buffs through techtrees or whatever.

    this isnt about balancing the game around some crappy players who camp forests in QB, its about making using forest terrain more tactical and dynamic rather than static, and would avoid the need for making overly complicated tournament rules, which will always result in contention, because there would be no reason to camp forests.


  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,377
    eumaies said:

    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.
    Seems like a decent option although I could quibble with some of the details (such as I don't see any reason it would need to be small enough to not dodge inside of and not just a normal siege map size).

    But I'm in 90% agreement, implementing even some rudimentary capture the flag or "hold the land" mechanic would fix not only the forest camp issue but also a number of other persistent issues that lead to requiring attacking rules etc.

    I'm not going to get too far into a discussion on what the exact solution is or should be because at the end of the day, this is a solved problem in regards to MP and has already been fixed in the vast majority of MP games. All CA needs to do is implement one of the solutions (and hopefully already have for game 3). It would be a fantastic thing for gameplay in general to have a motive in a match other than "trigger army losses in opponent". Would open up more strategies, more options, eliminate abusive/boring playstyles and builds, would just all around be a good thing.
  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869
    Loupi_ said:

    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
    You're basically asking for that. There are already a lot of units with aquatic bonuses that get no mileage out of it in campaign because CA was afraid to add varied terrain.

    Most game one maps are as plain as they come because they designed them with that mentality.

    This is a strategy game and there are like two maps with actual fords, most of the rivers are just unpassable terrain, could be magma for gameplay purposes.
    Justice for the scalies!

    Basic fixes for blessed spawnings and geomantic web:
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/293369/lizardmen-rework-suggestions/p1?new=1
  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869
    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    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.
    they are practically different games though, if you want to forest camp in campaign as WE then go for it, they get all sorts of campaign buffs to fighting in forests, and it would still be strong vs AI as other factions without forest stalker. They can always add more combat buffs through techtrees or whatever.

    this isnt about balancing the game around some crappy players who camp forests in QB, its about making using forest terrain more tactical and dynamic rather than static, and would avoid the need for making overly complicated tournament rules, which will always result in contention, because there would be no reason to camp forests.
    I'm not asking for forest camping, i never do that on campaign. But terrain bonuses are a very interesting part of warhammer, i like my large units being less effective when the ai has successfully baited me into the forest. Sure, the ai is very cheesable, but it can happen if you don't abuse it.
    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
    edited May 2021



    You're basically asking for that.

    no... im asking for more interesting and fun interaction with forests that rewards using tactics instead of passively sitting in a forest getting free combat buffs.





  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,907

    . But terrain bonuses are a very interesting part of warhammer,

    yeah terrain is interesting hence my suggestions to make it more interesting and also more fair


  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869
    Loupi_ said:



    You're basically asking for that.

    no... im asking for more interesting and fun interaction with forests that rewards using tactics instead of passively sitting in a forest getting free combat buffs.



    Turning forests into just a small speed buff is neutering them as pieces of terrain in campaign. Long skirmishing is only a thing in quick battle.

    This isn't a problem with terrain, it's a problem with the design of MP. I've been cornercamped in maps with no terrain at all. Forests are just the version of corner camping for a race that doesn't have artillery.
    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
    edited May 2021

    Loupi_ said:



    You're basically asking for that.

    no... im asking for more interesting and fun interaction with forests that rewards using tactics instead of passively sitting in a forest getting free combat buffs.



    Turning forests into just a small speed buff is neutering them as pieces of terrain in campaign. Long skirmishing is only a thing in quick battle.

    This isn't a problem with terrain, it's a problem with the design of MP. I've been cornercamped in maps with no terrain at all. Forests are just the version of corner camping for a race that doesn't have artillery.
    15% speed and improve stalk (forest stalker) or 10%speed+10% charge (forest strider) is hardly a small buff. If you're concerned with campaign then the obvious solution is adding these buffs into skill/tech trees, which CA has done before when units have been balanced for MP.


  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869
    Loupi_ said:

    Loupi_ said:



    You're basically asking for that.

    no... im asking for more interesting and fun interaction with forests that rewards using tactics instead of passively sitting in a forest getting free combat buffs.



    Turning forests into just a small speed buff is neutering them as pieces of terrain in campaign. Long skirmishing is only a thing in quick battle.

    This isn't a problem with terrain, it's a problem with the design of MP. I've been cornercamped in maps with no terrain at all. Forests are just the version of corner camping for a race that doesn't have artillery.
    15% speed and improve stalk (forest stalker) or 10%speed+10% charge (forest strider) is hardly a small buff. If you're concerned with campaign then the obvious solution is adding these buffs into skill/tech trees, which CA has done before when units have been balanced for MP.
    Lol. CA has never fixed anything for the campaign after nerfing something to please the vocal minority.

    The ancient salamander says hi.

    Also, adding skills to every lodx for all these units is a load of work with each new update that CA is not gonna do.

    Maybe they should nerf the hellcannon (I see a lot of pretty coward chaos players waiting for the enemy in quick battle) and give it its power through campaign skills. If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.
    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

    Loupi_ said:

    Loupi_ said:



    You're basically asking for that.

    no... im asking for more interesting and fun interaction with forests that rewards using tactics instead of passively sitting in a forest getting free combat buffs.



    Turning forests into just a small speed buff is neutering them as pieces of terrain in campaign. Long skirmishing is only a thing in quick battle.

    This isn't a problem with terrain, it's a problem with the design of MP. I've been cornercamped in maps with no terrain at all. Forests are just the version of corner camping for a race that doesn't have artillery.
    15% speed and improve stalk (forest stalker) or 10%speed+10% charge (forest strider) is hardly a small buff. If you're concerned with campaign then the obvious solution is adding these buffs into skill/tech trees, which CA has done before when units have been balanced for MP.
    Lol. CA has never fixed anything for the campaign after nerfing something to please the vocal minority.

    The ancient salamander says hi.

    Also, adding skills to every lodx for all these units is a load of work with each new update that CA is not gonna do.

    Maybe they should nerf the hellcannon (I see a lot of pretty coward chaos players waiting for the enemy in quick battle) and give it its power through campaign skills. If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.
    yeah they have, Ariel says hi


  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869
    Loupi_ said:

    Loupi_ said:

    Loupi_ said:



    You're basically asking for that.

    no... im asking for more interesting and fun interaction with forests that rewards using tactics instead of passively sitting in a forest getting free combat buffs.



    Turning forests into just a small speed buff is neutering them as pieces of terrain in campaign. Long skirmishing is only a thing in quick battle.

    This isn't a problem with terrain, it's a problem with the design of MP. I've been cornercamped in maps with no terrain at all. Forests are just the version of corner camping for a race that doesn't have artillery.
    15% speed and improve stalk (forest stalker) or 10%speed+10% charge (forest strider) is hardly a small buff. If you're concerned with campaign then the obvious solution is adding these buffs into skill/tech trees, which CA has done before when units have been balanced for MP.
    Lol. CA has never fixed anything for the campaign after nerfing something to please the vocal minority.

    The ancient salamander says hi.

    Also, adding skills to every lodx for all these units is a load of work with each new update that CA is not gonna do.

    Maybe they should nerf the hellcannon (I see a lot of pretty coward chaos players waiting for the enemy in quick battle) and give it its power through campaign skills. If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.
    yeah they have, Ariel says hi
    Ariel is a hero,and unbreakable a common and not very useful trait. Unit stats, specially hidden stats like mass are constantly nerfed and they're never going to make a skill that improves hidden stats just for campaign.
    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
    edited May 2021

    Loupi_ said:

    Loupi_ said:

    Loupi_ said:



    You're basically asking for that.

    no... im asking for more interesting and fun interaction with forests that rewards using tactics instead of passively sitting in a forest getting free combat buffs.



    Turning forests into just a small speed buff is neutering them as pieces of terrain in campaign. Long skirmishing is only a thing in quick battle.

    This isn't a problem with terrain, it's a problem with the design of MP. I've been cornercamped in maps with no terrain at all. Forests are just the version of corner camping for a race that doesn't have artillery.
    15% speed and improve stalk (forest stalker) or 10%speed+10% charge (forest strider) is hardly a small buff. If you're concerned with campaign then the obvious solution is adding these buffs into skill/tech trees, which CA has done before when units have been balanced for MP.
    Lol. CA has never fixed anything for the campaign after nerfing something to please the vocal minority.

    The ancient salamander says hi.

    Also, adding skills to every lodx for all these units is a load of work with each new update that CA is not gonna do.

    Maybe they should nerf the hellcannon (I see a lot of pretty coward chaos players waiting for the enemy in quick battle) and give it its power through campaign skills. If that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is.
    yeah they have, Ariel says hi
    Ariel is a hero,and unbreakable a common and not very useful trait. Unit stats, specially hidden stats like mass are constantly nerfed and they're never going to make a skill that improves hidden stats just for campaign.
    why not? there are plenty of skills that improve stats in forests and even some that improve the "hidden" stats, look at Orions new skills.

    plus have you forgotten they have already changed this mechanic before and added the woodsman trait so its totally possible that CA does something about this
    Post edited by Loupi#8512 on


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

    eumaies said:

    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.
    they are practically different games though, if you want to forest camp in campaign as WE then go for it, they get all sorts of campaign buffs to fighting in forests, and it would still be strong vs AI as other factions without forest stalker. They can always add more combat buffs through techtrees or whatever.

    this isnt about balancing the game around some crappy players who camp forests in QB, its about making using forest terrain more tactical and dynamic rather than static, and would avoid the need for making overly complicated tournament rules, which will always result in contention, because there would be no reason to camp forests.
    While I like most of the ideas in the OP, the big one is removing a highly intuitive large model disadvantage in woods. The type of design that every casual player of the game, both SP and MP, can appreciate and enjoy.

    Now to be honest the only place where forest camping is really even an issue is the MP tournament scene. It’s a side effect of the lack of rules for winning in this game and the attacking rule. In SP, in MP campaign, and even in QB you don’t see a lot of highly optimized forest camping for various reasons (in qb no one can force you to attack the woods).

    Are trees too “strong”? Only if you have a ruleset that reliably forces fights in them. And let’s face it a speed debuff as the only effect of terrain would make cav pretty much love woods more than ever. Can’t shoot em in there and they’re still faster than inf. It’s not what players intuitively expect from wooded fights.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    You can't force a fight in a forest in qb but you can force a draw you don't deserve, either by camping or or by entering the forest late game when you are losing.

    I have seen the latter a lot in qb, even lost games that way that I had "won" because I tried to keep winning instead of accepting a forest camp draw when I was ahead and clearly about to win... Its not something to enjoy and appreciate...
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Bastilean#7242Bastilean#7242 Registered Users Posts: 3,085
    edited May 2021
    I disagree. A speed debuff of 20% is significant. If you are playing lizardmen or WE and shoot them with poison, that's another 20%. Also, reducing CB by 20% is really important to cavalry who have very high CB. That could be over 10 CB you are taking away not to mention cycle charging, but it doesn't stunt them from going ham in there. Tree shouldn't impact extended fist fights with stats like MA.

    Trees get in the way of movement. They don't stop a swords man from swinging or a questing knight from swinging or a carnosaur from biting.

    That's my take on intuitive game play. You are clearly over thinking the cavalry angle. Wood Elf cavalry walks directly through trees with no negatives, but you want to nerf non-woodsman cavalry further than a 20% speed and CB reduction?
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,907
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    eumaies said:

    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.
    they are practically different games though, if you want to forest camp in campaign as WE then go for it, they get all sorts of campaign buffs to fighting in forests, and it would still be strong vs AI as other factions without forest stalker. They can always add more combat buffs through techtrees or whatever.

    this isnt about balancing the game around some crappy players who camp forests in QB, its about making using forest terrain more tactical and dynamic rather than static, and would avoid the need for making overly complicated tournament rules, which will always result in contention, because there would be no reason to camp forests.
    While I like most of the ideas in the OP, the big one is removing a highly intuitive large model disadvantage in woods. The type of design that every casual player of the game, both SP and MP, can appreciate and enjoy.

    Now to be honest the only place where forest camping is really even an issue is the MP tournament scene. It’s a side effect of the lack of rules for winning in this game and the attacking rule. In SP, in MP campaign, and even in QB you don’t see a lot of highly optimized forest camping for various reasons (in qb no one can force you to attack the woods).

    Are trees too “strong”? Only if you have a ruleset that reliably forces fights in them. And let’s face it a speed debuff as the only effect of terrain would make cav pretty much love woods more than ever. Can’t shoot em in there and they’re still faster than inf. It’s not what players intuitively expect from wooded fights.
    Instead of just having a speed debuff it could also add a charge debuff for large which would make sense since its hard to get a well formed coherent charge if you are cavalry (or something very large like trolls) in a forest but after the charge they wouldnt care so much about the trees since they wont be moving. Having a 20% speed debuff is still quite significant.

    Intuitively I would not expect a cavalryman with a lance or a troll with a club to be 20% less effective than a halberdier in a forest fight, but I would expect them to be less maneuverable as a group, so speed and charge are the only stats that really make sense.




  • The_real_FAUST#6885The_real_FAUST#6885 Registered Users Posts: 2,144
    There's two issues at play here at seemingly Cross purposes

    1. The longstanding issue of battles being Deathmatch only
    2. Forest bonuses

    I can't see why both can't be amended for the good of the game.

    Solving 1 doesn't solve 2 and solving 2 doesn't solve 1 either


  • Ninaran#8122Ninaran#8122 Registered Users Posts: 571

    You can't force a fight in a forest in qb but you can force a draw you don't deserve, either by camping or or by entering the forest late game when you are losing.

    I have seen the latter a lot in qb, even lost games that way that I had "won" because I tried to keep winning instead of accepting a forest camp draw when I was ahead and clearly about to win... Its not something to enjoy and appreciate...

    Do you see the map in advance in QB?
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Ninaran said:

    You can't force a fight in a forest in qb but you can force a draw you don't deserve, either by camping or or by entering the forest late game when you are losing.

    I have seen the latter a lot in qb, even lost games that way that I had "won" because I tried to keep winning instead of accepting a forest camp draw when I was ahead and clearly about to win... Its not something to enjoy and appreciate...

    Do you see the map in advance in QB?
    Not sure what you try to say? It's not about armies or maps, it's about player behaviour in combination with the current forest traits....
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Registered Users Posts: 9,614
    edited May 2021

    There's two issues at play here at seemingly Cross purposes

    1. The longstanding issue of battles being Deathmatch only
    2. Forest bonuses

    I can't see why both can't be amended for the good of the game.

    Solving 1 doesn't solve 2 and solving 2 doesn't solve 1 either


    If you put it that way there’s three “issues”:
    1. Deathmatch
    2. Forest visibility
    3. Forest bonuses

    But the forest bonuses part is pretty subjective.

    Fix the first two and you won’t have any issues.

    For the third it comes down to player preferences and won’t matter much what they do. But I will say if forests only reduced speed and CB they would be where I want to fight with all my large units because being shot is their biggest weakness. Granted though I don’t have an intuitive sense of how far the new shooting through woods stuff alters that, in part because you can’t see to play in woods anyway to find out.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,243
    edited May 2021

    There's two issues at play here at seemingly Cross purposes

    1. The longstanding issue of battles being Deathmatch only
    2. Forest bonuses

    I can't see why both can't be amended for the good of the game.

    Solving 1 doesn't solve 2 and solving 2 doesn't solve 1 either


    Some of us disagree that the forest bonus is a problem without the first issue. Solve the first issue and your opponent will need to leave the woods to contest the map with at least some of his forces.

    I used to play another game competitively that had this exact same problem. In tournaments, teams would set up in the ideal defensive position and try to bore or bait the other side into their entrenched position. As soon as one side was down 1, they would then be forced to attack or they would lose on time. However there were lots of draws.

    The solution was to create a game mode with five capture points around the map. Killed camping tactics overnight and made competitive play much more exciting. Most matches are still determined by kills, but you can't just sit back anymore or the other team will just cap you out by controlling the majority of capture points long enough to win on points.

    For Warhammer 2 (or 3 more likely), you could implement something similar. By spreading the capture points around to different terrain types you create opportunity to deploy units ideal to that terrain to those positions. So if two of the five capture points are in forests, you contest those with your forest-bonus troops.

    Alternatively you could create a much more elaborate and IMO fun system where the capture points actually confer varying battlefield bonuses. For example I could envision a wizard tower situated in an exposed position. Capturing the tower with a caster grants him special map-wide spells to hurl down on any camper. However capturing would take a long time and while in the square he and anyone nearby receives a -25% wardsave malus. This is so you couldn't easily hold it if the other side actually presses you. It would effectively be an anti-camp and anti-kite capture point.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Well, 1 and 2 only "fixes" 3 if it makes 3 irrelevant by removing all incentive to attack someone in a forest. It doesn't really fix it in other words, forests remain zones where some unit types are strongly disfavored vs other unit types.

    I'd rather 3 be made into something active than passive, and something that is utilised positively for ambushes and movement instead of avoided negatively because of defensive camps.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Jman5 said:

    There's two issues at play here at seemingly Cross purposes

    1. The longstanding issue of battles being Deathmatch only
    2. Forest bonuses

    I can't see why both can't be amended for the good of the game.

    Solving 1 doesn't solve 2 and solving 2 doesn't solve 1 either


    Some of us disagree that the forest bonus is a problem without the first issue. Solve the first issue and your opponent will need to leave the woods to contest the map with at least some of his forces.

    I used to play another game competitively that had this exact same problem. In tournaments, teams would set up in the ideal defensive position and try to bore or bait the other side into their entrenched position. As soon as one side was down 1, they would then be forced to attack or they would lose on time. However there were lots of draws.

    The solution was to create a game mode with five capture points around the map. Killed camping tactics overnight and made competitive play much more exciting. Most matches are still determined by kills, but you can't just sit back anymore or the other team will just cap you out by controlling the majority of capture points long enough to win on points.

    For Warhammer 2 (or 3 more likely), you could implement something similar. By spreading the capture points around to different terrain types you create opportunity to deploy units ideal to that terrain to those positions. So if two of the five capture points are in forests, you contest those with your forest-bonus troops.

    Alternatively you could create a much more elaborate and IMO fun system where the capture points actually confer varying battlefield bonuses. For example I could envision a wizard tower situated in an exposed position. Capturing the tower with a caster grants him special map-wide spells to hurl down on any camper. However capturing would take a long time and while in the square he and anyone nearby receives a -25% wardsave malus. This is so you couldn't easily hold it if the other side actually presses you. It would effectively be an anti-camp and anti-kite capture point.
    I actually went back to play that game the last weeks since I like many others got bored with the current meta and I have actually suggested before that a soft implementation of the domination game mode could work for warhammer. Here: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/comment/2591187#Comment_2591187

    We need some kind of game mode for sure, but faust is nevertheless correct in that the lack of game mode is a problem that is disconnected to the problem of balancing forests. With the logic that any forest trait could exist as long as we get a game mode to discourage camping, then we could hypothetically give +100% md in forests and -50% ma to large, but obviously that would be silly. The forest traits needs to be balanced in isolation regardless. Game modes would mitigate the negative effects on game play but it wouldnt balance the terrain piece itself. It would just limit how much time you can spend camping it, it wouldn't affect how strong defensive buffs you get while you camp it.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,243
    I just don't agree that the modifiers are too large. +15% melee defense from forest stalker is really not that big a deal for most units. It's like +4-5 Melee defense. It's only in combination with a bad match up, like trying to charge cavalry into the forest that the gap widens. And I think that's good. To me it's like complaining that your anti-large infantry did badly against an another infantry with anti-infantry. Good! The system is working!

    Obviously the values could be overtuned so you wouldn't want that, but these 10-15% values are already pretty mild. The changes suggested in OP would allow large units to run roughshod over units that supposed to be good in the forest.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,182
    edited May 2021
    THe problem is that forest encourage you just sit there because it rewards you like that. That doesn't give any fun dynamic in games, its literally camping. Forest giving you buffs to do something interesting would be fun

    Also forest should actually be a artillery magnet. Trees are perfect to create splinters and cannonballs explode hitting them creating somewhat an airburst effect, super effective against personnel. It was and is riskier to be in the forest than just lying low in an open ground. The only advantage is harder to be seen. Or you hide really deep in the forest so the cannonballs cant get through.

  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869

    THe problem is that forest encourage you just sit there because it rewards you like that. That doesn't give any fun dynamic in games, its literally camping. Forest giving you buffs to do something interesting would be fun

    Also forest should actually be a artillery magnet. Trees are perfect to create splinters and cannonballs explode hitting them creating somewhat an airburst effect, super effective against personnel. It was and is riskier to be in the forest than just lying low in an open ground. The only advantage is harder to be seen. Or you hide really deep in the forest so the cannonballs cant get through.

    Imaginary splinters are compensated by your artillery having imaginary perfect line of sight always (it's ridiculously easy to see everything) and perfect precision. Trees make it much harder to calibrate distance than in an open field, but TWW artillery always have a laser meter to know the exact distance.
    Justice for the scalies!

    Basic fixes for blessed spawnings and geomantic web:
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/293369/lizardmen-rework-suggestions/p1?new=1
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Registered Users Posts: 9,614

    Jman5 said:

    There's two issues at play here at seemingly Cross purposes

    1. The longstanding issue of battles being Deathmatch only
    2. Forest bonuses

    I can't see why both can't be amended for the good of the game.

    Solving 1 doesn't solve 2 and solving 2 doesn't solve 1 either


    Some of us disagree that the forest bonus is a problem without the first issue. Solve the first issue and your opponent will need to leave the woods to contest the map with at least some of his forces.

    I used to play another game competitively that had this exact same problem. In tournaments, teams would set up in the ideal defensive position and try to bore or bait the other side into their entrenched position. As soon as one side was down 1, they would then be forced to attack or they would lose on time. However there were lots of draws.

    The solution was to create a game mode with five capture points around the map. Killed camping tactics overnight and made competitive play much more exciting. Most matches are still determined by kills, but you can't just sit back anymore or the other team will just cap you out by controlling the majority of capture points long enough to win on points.

    For Warhammer 2 (or 3 more likely), you could implement something similar. By spreading the capture points around to different terrain types you create opportunity to deploy units ideal to that terrain to those positions. So if two of the five capture points are in forests, you contest those with your forest-bonus troops.

    Alternatively you could create a much more elaborate and IMO fun system where the capture points actually confer varying battlefield bonuses. For example I could envision a wizard tower situated in an exposed position. Capturing the tower with a caster grants him special map-wide spells to hurl down on any camper. However capturing would take a long time and while in the square he and anyone nearby receives a -25% wardsave malus. This is so you couldn't easily hold it if the other side actually presses you. It would effectively be an anti-camp and anti-kite capture point.
    I actually went back to play that game the last weeks since I like many others got bored with the current meta and I have actually suggested before that a soft implementation of the domination game mode could work for warhammer. Here: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/comment/2591187#Comment_2591187

    We need some kind of game mode for sure, but faust is nevertheless correct in that the lack of game mode is a problem that is disconnected to the problem of balancing forests. With the logic that any forest trait could exist as long as we get a game mode to discourage camping, then we could hypothetically give +100% md in forests and -50% ma to large, but obviously that would be silly. The forest traits needs to be balanced in isolation regardless. Game modes would mitigate the negative effects on game play but it wouldnt balance the terrain piece itself. It would just limit how much time you can spend camping it, it wouldn't affect how strong defensive buffs you get while you camp it.
    theres no indication at all that current forest bonuses are objectively "too strong". once forest fights are optional and not forced by tourney rules its purely a function of people liking different units being a little stronger or weaker in this situation.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Jman5 said:

    I just don't agree that the modifiers are too large. +15% melee defense from forest stalker is really not that big a deal for most units. It's like +4-5 Melee defense. It's only in combination with a bad match up, like trying to charge cavalry into the forest that the gap widens. And I think that's good. To me it's like complaining that your anti-large infantry did badly against an another infantry with anti-infantry. Good! The system is working!

    Obviously the values could be overtuned so you wouldn't want that, but these 10-15% values are already pretty mild. The changes suggested in OP would allow large units to run roughshod over units that supposed to be good in the forest.

    Hehe, look at the complaining about chariots actually killing infantry. 😉

    Seriously though, it becomes much when you add up all the factors promoting camping in forests. The tree models themselves block missiles, magic missiles, artillery and hides units from being targeted or spotted. That alone is very good because these things are designed to counter blobs. Then you for some units add 20% md (plus 10% ma for forest strider), plus that the main counter to infantry in the first place are large and all large get -20% ma, -20% speed and tree obstruction. Now, large fighting infantry is at least as often as not a beneficial interaction. Chariots, monsters like stegs or mammoths, monstrous infantry, cavalry etc are all good infantry counters that lose a 40% hit differential vs the targets they are designed to counter.

    This becomes extra problematic for factions that rely on large units to counter infantry, or factions without strong ranged tools. If you are forced to fight in a forest for whatever reason you lose.... With the current lack of game mode that simply doesn't work and extra rules had to be made to forbid any camping in forests. That should make it pretty clear that forest effects are not in a very balanced state because the only balanced way to fight on forested maps in to make sure that major engagements do not take place in any forests.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,182

    THe problem is that forest encourage you just sit there because it rewards you like that. That doesn't give any fun dynamic in games, its literally camping. Forest giving you buffs to do something interesting would be fun

    Also forest should actually be a artillery magnet. Trees are perfect to create splinters and cannonballs explode hitting them creating somewhat an airburst effect, super effective against personnel. It was and is riskier to be in the forest than just lying low in an open ground. The only advantage is harder to be seen. Or you hide really deep in the forest so the cannonballs cant get through.

    Imaginary splinters are compensated by your artillery having imaginary perfect line of sight always (it's ridiculously easy to see everything) and perfect precision. Trees make it much harder to calibrate distance than in an open field, but TWW artillery always have a laser meter to know the exact distance.
    My point is just that the forest bonus right now is way too good and it should be good to give interesting gameplay not boring toxic gameplays.

    I am not asking to get splinters. But I want to remind that the bonus of almost PERFECT artillery immunity is not realistic. Is another reason why I want forest bonus to be toned down or changed.

    You never need perfect calibration, most artillery in history have always been fire in the general direction and it works decently because armies are huge.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,243
    edited May 2021
    For whatever good it does, here is what I will suggest. Creative Assembly should change multiplayer game mode as we all agree to discourage camping and encourage active gameplay. If after doing that everyone feels forest bonuses are still too strong we can address that.

    Let's take these issues one at a time to make sure we don't over-correct.
Sign In or Register to comment.