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.
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Hold on to the holy cow. Doesn't make it smell or look any better
The MA debuff on large I can see your point (don't agree, but see), but Forest Strider and Forest Stalker not even a little bit. Do they have higher midi-chlorian counts in the forest? Should they get special glowies so people know somethings up?
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Whilst I agree, setting fire to forests would be good it is only a supplement not a supplanting act to problems with MP.
Draw kiting and corner camping will forever exist so long as crap maps exist in rotation and Deathmatch remains as the only game mode. Allowing some counterplay to forests is good and I fully back it but it doesn't answer the mechanical problems of TW MP.
Something people need to recognize here. This is primarily a multiplayer problem, so we should focus on addressing it on the multiplayer side of things before we start screwing around with values that impact the much, larger single player scene.
Fix the game mode, then see if further, more extreme action is necessary.
Something people need to recognize here. This is primarily a multiplayer problem, so we should focus on addressing it on the multiplayer side of things before we start screwing around with values that impact the much, larger single player scene.
Fix the game mode, then see if further, more extreme action is necessary.
While I agree the solution to the problem is changing the game mode, this argument doesn't really hold based on the evidence. CA does all sorts of changes to battles/factions/units based on multiplayer needs. For instance all the healing changes, mortis effect, summons changes, nerfs to spells, nerfs to units, etc.
CA has balanced battles off MP basically since the games inception and will continue to do so. Cause the flipside of the bigger SP scene is that most campaign players don't care about stuff like this at all. Whereas all MP people do. So the number who this stuff impacts is more significant on the MP side.
Something people need to recognize here. This is primarily a multiplayer problem, so we should focus on addressing it on the multiplayer side of things before we start screwing around with values that impact the much, larger single player scene.
Fix the game mode, then see if further, more extreme action is necessary.
While I agree the solution to the problem is changing the game mode, this argument doesn't really hold based on the evidence. CA does all sorts of changes to battles/factions/units based on multiplayer needs. For instance all the healing changes, mortis effect, summons changes, nerfs to spells, nerfs to units, etc.
CA has balanced battles off MP basically since the games inception and will continue to do so. Cause the flipside of the bigger SP scene is that most campaign players don't care about stuff like this at all. Whereas all MP people do. So the number who this stuff impacts is more significant on the MP side.
I am not against balancing the overall game for mostly multiplayer reasons. What I'm saying is that we should try to address this multiplayer problem on the multiplayer only side first before escalating into stat changes that impact the campaign players.
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
You are again confusing penalties to a particular approach/playstyle with penalties in general.
If you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest. Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
How is this is multiplayer problem, thats some frikking nonsense right there.
Welf territory in campaign r frikking full of forest. While its all fun and kumbaya when ure playing welf, coz even the most basic eternals r turned into mad terminators that kills everything in forest
Lets not kid ourselves, with the extremely slow movement and crazy attrition in loren, no one even bothers to invade them.
Lets be honest here, which one u actually fight welf in loren?
I dont go in with less than 5 stacks, those rank 9 eternals r deadly af, u even seen the bonus they getting from the trees? Try that with welf doomstack of rank 9 in forest
Dont even get me started with units beyond eternals like wildwood and those op singers
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
You are again confusing penalties to a particular approach/playstyle with penalties in general.
If you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest. Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
Not confused at all, if you move abusive forest camping out of the forest it's no longer abusive forest camping.
The forest traits we can easily make something with, game mode will not happen in game 2.... Either way, both are needed.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
You are again confusing penalties to a particular approach/playstyle with penalties in general.
If you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest. Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
Not confused at all, if you move abusive forest camping out of the forest it's no longer abusive forest camping.
The forest traits we can easily make something with, game mode will not happen in game 2.... Either way, both are needed.
Swamps are terrain where ranged and cav are stronger than Melee inf (who are both slower and weaker). Forests are terrain where Melee inf are strong and ranged and cav are weak. Even with the new shooting dynamic you still don’t want a ranged build in the woods, the line of sight is crippling for such an army.
So remove the game design that would force fights in any particular terrain. That aside, there’s nothing wrong with the terrain bonuses. They just enhance different army types.
Swamps are terrain where ranged and cav are stronger than Melee inf (who are both slower and weaker). Forests are terrain where Melee inf are strong and ranged and cav are weak. Even with the new shooting dynamic you still don’t want a ranged build in the woods, the line of sight is crippling for such an army.
So remove the game design that would force fights in any particular terrain. That aside, there’s nothing wrong with the terrain bonuses. They just enhance different army types.
I don't think swamps should have a MA/MD effect on infantry either just reduce MV and CB. That's it if you ask me. MA/MD is non-sensical.
Also, there are a ton of aquatic or nautical units that aren't receiving aquatic trait.
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
You are again confusing penalties to a particular approach/playstyle with penalties in general.
If you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest. Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
Not confused at all, if you move abusive forest camping out of the forest it's no longer abusive forest camping.
The forest traits we can easily make something with, game mode will not happen in game 2.... Either way, both are needed.
Not really sure what you're saying here.
It just means that the forest traits is what makes forest camping abusive and forbidden by rules, you can do the same thing but not in a forest and then it's not abusive and allowed.
The point is that all forest camping is explicitly forbidden in tournaments, if you hide units in a forest its on you to emerge before an engagement takes place and if you're to slow to exit and the opponent "catches you in the forest" then it's your fault and you will be ruled to have camped and broken the rules. That how forbidden forest camping is in tournaments.
What will happen if a game mode replaced tournament rules and forests stayed the same would be that it would make forest camping legitimate up until the point that the game mode makes you lose the game from alternative winning condition whatever that is. During this time you can legitimately bunker up in a forest while killing mobility or lord/mage of opponent with hawks, gyros, terradons/chiefs etc.
So the main reasons to address both forest traits and game mode is that:
A. Game mode will allow more camping than now, because now its strictly forbidden out of necicity, and whatever degree the game mode allows will be legit camping.
B. That won't happen before game 3.
C. Tuning down/redesigning is not the same as removing the terrain effects. It will still be there, just less campy.
D. Swamps needs adjusting too. It's just harder/less common to abuse swamps so it hasn't required special rules to forbid it, but the stat bonuses could absolutely be redesigned or tuned down. In general terms swamps are for most part just a bad spot to put your army in, and you won't see large units camping it. It also doesn't offer missile protection which is very central in forest camping, and that will always remain a positive trait of forests. In any case, aquatics is op when you can make use it and no excuse to keep forests unbalanced too.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
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....
If you see a map with forest is coming up and you bring units that perform badly in the strategic correct location (the forest), you can't really tell the other player "undeserving" if he already outplayed you at army selection.
Don't take away strategic depth from this game, that's what it's (supposed to be) all about.
Make forest camping unattractive for MP (just like corner camping) first, then see if forests really are such a big issue still. If that doesn't work out, then you can see about nerfing terrain.
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....
If you see a map with forest is coming up and you bring units that perform badly in the strategic correct location (the forest), you can't really tell the other player "undeserving" if he already outplayed you at army selection.
Don't take away strategic depth from this game, that's what it's (supposed to be) all about.
Make forest camping unattractive for MP (just like corner camping) first, then see if forests really are such a big issue still. If that doesn't work out, then you can see about nerfing terrain.
No need to wait until in the middle of game 3 when we already know what the iterative evolution of tournament rules has arrived at = zero tolerance to forest camping. You used to be allowed to forest camp while fulfilling the attacking rule elsewhere and that was increasingly abused until the rules had to change.
A hypothetical game mode in game 3 could find a middle ground but at the end of the day, what truly "works" with regards to competitive play and forests is that major engagements don't take place in forests. As long as forests stay this "broken" the only way a game mode will "unbreak" it is by making sure nobody has to fight in a forest, and then what's the point?
The op tries to encourage tactical use of forests, not bandaid it by making fights not happen in them....
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
You are again confusing penalties to a particular approach/playstyle with penalties in general.
If you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest. Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
Not confused at all, if you move abusive forest camping out of the forest it's no longer abusive forest camping.
The forest traits we can easily make something with, game mode will not happen in game 2.... Either way, both are needed.
Not really sure what you're saying here.
It just means that the forest traits is what makes forest camping abusive and forbidden by rules, you can do the same thing but not in a forest and then it's not abusive and allowed.
The point is that all forest camping is explicitly forbidden in tournaments, if you hide units in a forest its on you to emerge before an engagement takes place and if you're to slow to exit and the opponent "catches you in the forest" then it's your fault and you will be ruled to have camped and broken the rules. That how forbidden forest camping is in tournaments.
What will happen if a game mode replaced tournament rules and forests stayed the same would be that it would make forest camping legitimate up until the point that the game mode makes you lose the game from alternative winning condition whatever that is. During this time you can legitimately bunker up in a forest while killing mobility or lord/mage of opponent with hawks, gyros, terradons/chiefs etc.
So the main reasons to address both forest traits and game mode is that:
A. Game mode will allow more camping than now, because now its strictly forbidden out of necicity, and whatever degree the game mode allows will be legit camping.
B. That won't happen before game 3.
C. Tuning down/redesigning is not the same as removing the terrain effects. It will still be there, just less campy.
D. Swamps needs adjusting too. It's just harder/less common to abuse swamps so it hasn't required special rules to forbid it, but the stat bonuses could absolutely be redesigned or tuned down. In general terms swamps are for most part just a bad spot to put your army in, and you won't see large units camping it. It also doesn't offer missile protection which is very central in forest camping, and that will always remain a positive trait of forests. In any case, aquatics is op when you can make use it and no excuse to keep forests unbalanced too.
Lol, aquatic is probably the worst bonus possible. You are paying extra or getting lower stats for a bonus that you have almost never opportunity to use.
It seems to me as if you need to get better tactics and learn to use different units for different situations, rather than complain about the terrain. Almost all races have ways of dealing with forests, and all races have ways of dealing with water.
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
You are again confusing penalties to a particular approach/playstyle with penalties in general.
If you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest. Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
Your suggestion is to not use large on 90% of the maps? Dont agree the slightest.
How many maps we got with shallow water in qb map pool? If we had 90% of maps have large areas of shallow water you would definetly see people complain about it.
The current bonuses for shallow water and forests are just not good for balance. I think OP’s ones make more sense but i would simply just make it a speed penalty kinda like it was on table top but not just to large to all and shallow water i rather see it give a buff to aquatic only and nothing else for other and if needed than speed penalty only.
All terrain creates imbalances that’s what makes it interesting. But without an artificial forcing mechanism you have to be creative to get the enemy to fight on your terms. Forests are a little OP for non interactive camping with specially designed armies but in other contexts they’re a double edged sword. They let enemies sneak up on you and they limit your own ranged units often more than the opponents.
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
Its a good thing that terrain has effects, but in this case its just too much, largely because of the additional missile resist & obstruction it offers, but also partly because it specifically debuffs the natural counters to camping infantry.
You are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
You are again confusing penalties to a particular approach/playstyle with penalties in general.
If you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest. Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
Your suggestion is to not use large on 90% of the maps? Dont agree the slightest.
No, that is not my suggestion at all.
Not all forests maps are good for forest camping and not all factions are good at forest camping.
Comments
In the natural flow of the game right now they’re about equally useful for cavalry to sneak up on things without taking ranged fire as they are for infantry or ranged units to surprise an unsuspecting foe or guard a flank of an army in open terrain. I don’t see a problem.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreeThe MA debuff on large I can see your point (don't agree, but see), but Forest Strider and Forest Stalker not even a little bit. Do they have higher midi-chlorian counts in the forest? Should they get special glowies so people know somethings up?
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeYou are stretching a lot here. If you forest camp, the approach of the enemy will not be hidden, they will be in the open while you are hidden. Forest is useful for hidden movement in general though and that is what the op encourages and wants to buff (extra speed and cb instead of defensive stats for forest stalker/strider). Further it does not obstruct your own missiles any more, that's just wrong. They removed that by giving small and a grace period when shooting out of woods so that arrows can teleport through trees. It makes it so a single entity with ranged and stalker like the way stalker can sit inside a tree trunk and fire out and be immune to return fire...
I mean the creative way to force a fight in a forest with a game mode would basically be to camp in or behind forests for as long as the game mode allow you to do it without losing the game. Most likely long enough to use the forest to have a ground force uncounterable by mobile units while using air spam to kill either the mobile units or the mage/lord. That's not creative, it's abusive and it's forbidden in tournaments for that very reason.
The current traits could stay if we could burn forests down though, I could buy into that. Then we'd have a counter play to smoke campers out. Maybe even add a vulnerability to fire damage as a negative forest trait, then we're approaching balanced.
- Report
4 · 2Disagree 4AgreeDraw kiting and corner camping will forever exist so long as crap maps exist in rotation and Deathmatch remains as the only game mode.
Allowing some counterplay to forests is good and I fully back it but it doesn't answer the mechanical problems of TW MP.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeFix the game mode, then see if further, more extreme action is necessary.
- Report
3 · 1Disagree 3AgreeCA has balanced battles off MP basically since the games inception and will continue to do so. Cause the flipside of the bigger SP scene is that most campaign players don't care about stuff like this at all. Whereas all MP people do. So the number who this stuff impacts is more significant on the MP side.
- Report
0 · 3Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIf you take an army filled with large units that are dependent on CB to be effective and lose to a more grindy, infantry based army in a forest, that's on you, not on the forest.
Both sides had access to same information prior to battle.
Map should affect your faction pick and army building. I'm strongly opposed to the approach that every faction and every possible build should be equally effective on all maps.
When it comes to Wood Elves specifically, I made a thread long time ago - Forest Stalker needs to be changed to bonus speed and a flat bonus CB while in the forests, active for about 10-15 seconds after a unit leaves the forest, to encourage leaving the forest, instead of camping in it.
Other than that, simply make visibility better, so it is possible to direct your units properly instead of blindly stumbling about.
Burn-able forests might sound like an interesting idea on paper, but I don't think it is realistic as an aspect of tactical battles.
- Report
4 · 3Disagree 4AgreeWelf territory in campaign r frikking full of forest. While its all fun and kumbaya when ure playing welf, coz even the most basic eternals r turned into mad terminators that kills everything in forest
Lets not kid ourselves, with the extremely slow movement and crazy attrition in loren, no one even bothers to invade them.
Lets be honest here, which one u actually fight welf in loren?
I dont go in with less than 5 stacks, those rank 9 eternals r deadly af, u even seen the bonus they getting from the trees? Try that with welf doomstack of rank 9 in forest
Dont even get me started with units beyond eternals like wildwood and those op singers
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
3 · 2Disagree 3AgreeThe forest traits we can easily make something with, game mode will not happen in game 2.... Either way, both are needed.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeSo remove the game design that would force fights in any particular terrain. That aside, there’s nothing wrong with the terrain bonuses. They just enhance different army types.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1AgreeAlso, there are a ton of aquatic or nautical units that aren't receiving aquatic trait.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreeThe point is that all forest camping is explicitly forbidden in tournaments, if you hide units in a forest its on you to emerge before an engagement takes place and if you're to slow to exit and the opponent "catches you in the forest" then it's your fault and you will be ruled to have camped and broken the rules. That how forbidden forest camping is in tournaments.
What will happen if a game mode replaced tournament rules and forests stayed the same would be that it would make forest camping legitimate up until the point that the game mode makes you lose the game from alternative winning condition whatever that is. During this time you can legitimately bunker up in a forest while killing mobility or lord/mage of opponent with hawks, gyros, terradons/chiefs etc.
So the main reasons to address both forest traits and game mode is that:
A. Game mode will allow more camping than now, because now its strictly forbidden out of necicity, and whatever degree the game mode allows will be legit camping.
B. That won't happen before game 3.
C. Tuning down/redesigning is not the same as removing the terrain effects. It will still be there, just less campy.
D. Swamps needs adjusting too. It's just harder/less common to abuse swamps so it hasn't required special rules to forbid it, but the stat bonuses could absolutely be redesigned or tuned down. In general terms swamps are for most part just a bad spot to put your army in, and you won't see large units camping it. It also doesn't offer missile protection which is very central in forest camping, and that will always remain a positive trait of forests. In any case, aquatics is op when you can make use it and no excuse to keep forests unbalanced too.
- Report
2 · 3Disagree 2AgreeDon't take away strategic depth from this game, that's what it's (supposed to be) all about.
Make forest camping unattractive for MP (just like corner camping) first, then see if forests really are such a big issue still. If that doesn't work out, then you can see about nerfing terrain.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreeA hypothetical game mode in game 3 could find a middle ground but at the end of the day, what truly "works" with regards to competitive play and forests is that major engagements don't take place in forests. As long as forests stay this "broken" the only way a game mode will "unbreak" it is by making sure nobody has to fight in a forest, and then what's the point?
The op tries to encourage tactical use of forests, not bandaid it by making fights not happen in them....
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeIt seems to me as if you need to get better tactics and learn to use different units for different situations, rather than complain about the terrain. Almost all races have ways of dealing with forests, and all races have ways of dealing with water.
Basic fixes for blessed spawnings and geomantic web:
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/293369/lizardmen-rework-suggestions/p1?new=1
- Report
0 · 3Disagree AgreeHow many maps we got with shallow water in qb map pool? If we had 90% of maps have large areas of shallow water you would definetly see people complain about it.
The current bonuses for shallow water and forests are just not good for balance.
I think OP’s ones make more sense but i would simply just make it a speed penalty kinda like it was on table top but not just to large to all and shallow water i rather see it give a buff to aquatic only and nothing else for other and if needed than speed penalty only.
- Report
2 · 4Disagree 2AgreeNot all forests maps are good for forest camping and not all factions are good at forest camping.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · 1Disagree Agree- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2Agree