Toggleable option for Confederation?

Boria#9178

Hi, Name is Boria new here thought I joined in after 4 years of reading the forums in my free time.

So, I think we have all been through this and it's very annoying when you have a faction on the ropes maybe 2-3 settlements left and... BOOM! Confederation!!!, then the faction that you had on the ropes has like 20 settlements and you are left like this O_0!!???

The longer I play ME the longer I notice certain things that can be fixed to make ME better, AI confederations are working too early as such the map becomes quickly filled by a couple of Super powers mostly Dwarfs, HE, Empire, and Brettonia who confederate quickly. To make it worse they also align among themselves, these 4 superpowers aligned to create the Ordertide, of course, we also see Greenskins and Skaven do it but during ALL my playthroughs 3 out of these 4 good races always do it first and do it fast. I fear is that when WH3 comes we will see and I use the word "Chaoswave" there will be more Chaos-aligned factions they will also align themselves, creating instead of the Ordertide the same annoying counterpart the Chaoswave.

Races that don't confederate like V.Coast and Tomb Kings are at a disadvantage, don't get me wrong I think they do it right Confederation worked fine in WH1 since the map was small and the Chaos invasion arrived you were prepared for it... but now due to the huge size of the map and factions they have more trading going on and they expand and explode quickly by turn 100 most minor factions are long gone, and some of the main factions like Vampire Counts rarely survive endgame.

Also, the minor factions in weird locations don't stand a chance, and the factions that don't confederate are sitting ducks, literally they just sit on their bases.

I use a mod to disable the Confeds I like it, makes the whole map more varied. but If I am not mistaken I can't get the achievements if I used the mod, So a simple fix what if we had an option at the beginning that says the level of confederation we want similar to the Chaos Invasion option? we could use WH3 a whole option menu to create a custom campaign of our liking for example the Confed option.

What do you guys think? have you had that happened to you? What can be done?

User_Clue

Mods don't actually disable achievements. I don't even think something like SFO does.

BrynjarK

"Also, the minor factions in weird locations don't stand a chance"

Well, they kinda shouldn't? I mean im from Iceland, we dont have an army, our police doesn't wear guns. If we declared war on someone i hope they have a VERY poopy/crappy AI and our LL has to be extremely legendary

ED cant say s***y

IamNotArobot#8850

Optional ok but the game should be balanced with confederation ON as a reference.

Also if they delete confederation they should at least give each race a mechanic to get the others Legendary lords to join you.

TheShiroOfDalton

IamNotArobot said:

Optional ok but the game should be balanced with confederation ON as a reference.

Also if they delete confederation they should at least give each race a mechanic to get the others Legendary lords to join you.

They should do no such thing and if you want to play as other LLs, you should play as their factions.

Emrysor

ShiroAmakusa75 said:

IamNotArobot said:

Optional ok but the game should be balanced with confederation ON as a reference.

Also if they delete confederation they should at least give each race a mechanic to get the others Legendary lords to join you.

They should do no such thing and if you want to play as other LLs, you should play as their factions.

Ehh why? I get that confederation is annoying when you try to wipe a faction put. But, why shouldn't the legendary lord join you if their faction is deleted? Keep it as an option at least. I never confederate anymore when I found the recruit a defeated legendary lord mod. For me it increases replayability.

manpersal#3961

Confederation is a plague and should be hugely nerfed/removed. In my current Lustria Vortex campaign Skryre and Pestilens were doing well, overrunning everyone else and seriously threatening me when one confederated the other and then their lands turned into free state for everyone else.

I'm all for getting all the pokemons, but it should be with a Beastmenlke system.

For the AI it would suffice to make it less likely and to forbide factions from confederating bigger ones.

Sagez#6761

You're right and confederations - like unit caps - should be made official and optional.

I personally also dislike confederations and that's partly why I like Tomb Kings and Vampire Coast. They don't have it ''too easy'' like many other factions.

#902441

BrynjarK said:

Well, they kinda shouldn't? I mean im from Iceland, we dont have an army, our police doesn't wear guns. If we declared war on someone i hope they have a VERY poopy/crappy AI and our LL has to be extremely legendary

Remember the "Cod Wars" with the UK, a nuclear-armed power with one of the world's most well-regarded armed forces? Didn't matter that the British could turn Iceland into a radioactive wasteland within 45 minutes and had the Royal Navy, geopolitics prevalied and Iceland won.

Or the Finnish Winter War, won by the Russians but with huge losses on their side, due to the Finns knowing the territory.

It can be replicated in Crusader Kings a bit better than Total War, where diplomacy is an afterthought even in games not set in the Warhammer world. A tiny faction can ally with a megapower and win a war with a much bigger opponent, or take advantage of terrain and defeat a larger army/make an invasion too costly.

capybarasiesta89#4722

User_Clue said:

Mods don't actually disable achievements. I don't even think something like SFO does.

They don't at least one I used for Victory Conditions managed to get me easier Vampire Counts win achievement.

summertimelovin#4461

Confederation is a terribly implemented mechanic both for the player and AI. It should be purged from the game or updated to give it more penalties and consequences for factions that can confederate. Keep factions that can't confed just the way they are.

Boria#9178

BrynjarK said:

"Also, the minor factions in weird locations don't stand a chance"

Well, they kinda shouldn't? I mean im from Iceland, we dont have an army, our police doesn't wear guns. If we declared war on someone i hope they have a VERY poopy/crappy AI and our LL has to be extremely legendary

ED cant say s***y

haha good one well makes sense.

Boria#9178

Arsenic said:

BrynjarK said:

Well, they kinda shouldn't? I mean im from Iceland, we dont have an army, our police doesn't wear guns. If we declared war on someone i hope they have a VERY poopy/crappy AI and our LL has to be extremely legendary

Remember the "Cod Wars" with the UK, a nuclear-armed power with one of the world's most well-regarded armed forces? Didn't matter that the British could turn Iceland into a radioactive wasteland within 45 minutes and had the Royal Navy, geopolitics prevalied and Iceland won.

Or the Finnish Winter War, won by the Russians but with huge losses on their side, due to the Finns knowing the territory.

It can be replicated in Crusader Kings a bit better than Total War, where diplomacy is an afterthought even in games not set in the Warhammer world. A tiny faction can ally with a megapower and win a war with a much bigger opponent, or take advantage of terrain and defeat a larger army/make an invasion too costly.

Good point on the Finns, they did put up an amazing fight.

Boria#9178

summertimelovin said:

Confederation is a terribly implemented mechanic both for the player and AI. It should be purged from the game or updated to give it more penalties and consequences for factions that can confederate. Keep factions that can't confed just the way they are.

I agree, that why I said Tomb Kings and V.Coast are better off.

It wouldn't say purged but how about Confederate only once per faction? but it's clear it's broken now more than ever, that we agree.

I think at this point confed doesn't make sense anymore. the confed factions just steamrolled everything else.

Blaced

I'm ok with confederation, it's reasonable same race work together and join a bigger faction, though sometimes AI confederation too early and too easy, slightly reduce AI confederation and alliance chance can help

TheShiroOfDalton

Blaced said:

I'm ok with confederation, it's reasonable same race work together and join a bigger faction, though sometimes AI confederation too early and too easy, slightly reduce AI confederation and alliance chance can help

No, it makes no sense actually.

All the races in Warhammer have strong particularist leanings and some extremely so. Skaven and Greenskins would never create any long-lasting cooperation, the Empire retained its divided nature for 2500 years, Elves and Dwarfs likewise never united into single political entities in their even longer past. The greatest unifier is actually Chaos, since they have periodically Everchosen who do manage to combine all the disparate Chaos forces into one block, spanning more than one race even.

Confederation is just like autoconversion actually pretty damn incompatible with how the Warhammer world is presented.

DeadpoolSW#7283

I'm for it, the more optional settings for campaigns the better.

Personally, I like confederations. They just need to make it so that a weaker faction can never confederate a stronger faction.

#1609

I'd like a toggle with 5 options
- easy confederation : can be done just with diplo, a bit like it is now with most factions
- event conferedation: confederation can happen under some circumstances, requiring that you work for it. Not something too simple like for Bretonnia (search tech, and it's done), but several conditions are necessary. For exemple already have an alliance or trade, + defeat an ennemy army threatening your ally). I like the WE system for exemple.
- forced confederation : when you defeat the last army or capture last settlement, you can force confederate the faction (and get the LL)
- refugee confedration : when the last army of a faction is destroyed, and last settlement captured, then the faction can propose an ally to confederate (allowing getting the LL).

summertimelovin#4461

Boria said:

summertimelovin said:

Confederation is a terribly implemented mechanic both for the player and AI. It should be purged from the game or updated to give it more penalties and consequences for factions that can confederate. Keep factions that can't confed just the way they are.

I agree, that why I said Tomb Kings and V.Coast are better off.

It wouldn't say purged but how about Confederate only once per faction? but it's clear it's broken now more than ever, that we agree.

I think at this point confed doesn't make sense anymore. the confed factions just steamrolled everything else.

Yup. Confederations don't make much sense to begin with.

Regarding your proposed cap to confederations, I wrote my response in your other thread. Should've written it here but I replied there first.
Basically if confeds are to stay then I don't think a hard cap is the way to go. A permanent relations malus with all factions everytime you confed along with more temporary but substantial penalties should be good. Oh and the AI should not be able to abuse it.

Boria#9178

DeadpoolSW said:

I'm for it, the more optional settings for campaigns the better.

Personally, I like confederations. They just need to make it so that a weaker faction can never confederate a stronger faction.

Um... You are right never thought of that.

Boria#9178

summertimelovin said:

Boria said:

summertimelovin said:

Confederation is a terribly implemented mechanic both for the player and AI. It should be purged from the game or updated to give it more penalties and consequences for factions that can confederate. Keep factions that can't confed just the way they are.

I agree, that why I said Tomb Kings and V.Coast are better off.

It wouldn't say purged but how about Confederate only once per faction? but it's clear it's broken now more than ever, that we agree.

I think at this point confed doesn't make sense anymore. the confed factions just steamrolled everything else.

Yup. Confederations don't make much sense to begin with.

Regarding your proposed cap to confederations, I wrote my response in your other thread. Should've written it here but I replied there first.
Basically if confeds are to stay then I don't think a hard cap is the way to go. A permanent relations malus with all factions everytime you confed along with more temporary but substantial penalties should be good. Oh and the AI should not be able to abuse it.

Makes sense. Also like the @DeadpoolSW said a weaker faction must never confederate another.

summertimelovin#4461

Boria said:

summertimelovin said:

Boria said:

summertimelovin said:

Confederation is a terribly implemented mechanic both for the player and AI. It should be purged from the game or updated to give it more penalties and consequences for factions that can confederate. Keep factions that can't confed just the way they are.

I agree, that why I said Tomb Kings and V.Coast are better off.

It wouldn't say purged but how about Confederate only once per faction? but it's clear it's broken now more than ever, that we agree.

I think at this point confed doesn't make sense anymore. the confed factions just steamrolled everything else.

Yup. Confederations don't make much sense to begin with.

Regarding your proposed cap to confederations, I wrote my response in your other thread. Should've written it here but I replied there first.
Basically if confeds are to stay then I don't think a hard cap is the way to go. A permanent relations malus with all factions everytime you confed along with more temporary but substantial penalties should be good. Oh and the AI should not be able to abuse it.

Makes sense. Also like the @DeadpoolSW said a weaker faction must never confederate another.

Oh aye, that too. That'll be pretty helpful.

ChristofferOrmeus

ShiroAmakusa75 said:

Blaced said:

I'm ok with confederation, it's reasonable same race work together and join a bigger faction, though sometimes AI confederation too early and too easy, slightly reduce AI confederation and alliance chance can help

No, it makes no sense actually.

All the races in Warhammer have strong particularist leanings and some extremely so. Skaven and Greenskins would never create any long-lasting cooperation, the Empire retained its divided nature for 2500 years, Elves and Dwarfs likewise never united into single political entities in their even longer past. The greatest unifier is actually Chaos, since they have periodically Everchosen who do manage to combine all the disparate Chaos forces into one block, spanning more than one race even.

Confederation is just like autoconversion actually pretty damn incompatible with how the Warhammer world is presented.

Well, i'd say yes and no to that.

While it's true that the factions/races have their unique styles, and wouldnt give up power, the present system isn't able to represents the politics of warhammer either.

Sure, the electors wouldnt give upp all their power, but in a all-out war against Chaos, the emperor is able the summon the elector counts, just as Thorgrim is the High king, and thus have a greater power over dwarkind. Sure, he isnt the absolute ruler, but still, the present system is a simplification, with our without confederations.

Emrysor

ShiroAmakusa75 said:

Blaced said:

I'm ok with confederation, it's reasonable same race work together and join a bigger faction, though sometimes AI confederation too early and too easy, slightly reduce AI confederation and alliance chance can help

No, it makes no sense actually.

All the races in Warhammer have strong particularist leanings and some extremely so. Skaven and Greenskins would never create any long-lasting cooperation, the Empire retained its divided nature for 2500 years, Elves and Dwarfs likewise never united into single political entities in their even longer past. The greatest unifier is actually Chaos, since they have periodically Everchosen who do manage to combine all the disparate Chaos forces into one block, spanning more than one race even.

Confederation is just like autoconversion actually pretty damn incompatible with how the Warhammer world is presented.

I understand and agree about this arguement. But in other comment you also said that you should not be able to play other LL in a playthrough and that you should play other factions rp experience them. Why? This only if anything hinders replayability and a regid system. Confederation are only there for one thing:play other legendary lords, my arguement at least.

TheShiroOfDalton

ChristofferOrmeus said:

ShiroAmakusa75 said:

Blaced said:

I'm ok with confederation, it's reasonable same race work together and join a bigger faction, though sometimes AI confederation too early and too easy, slightly reduce AI confederation and alliance chance can help

No, it makes no sense actually.

All the races in Warhammer have strong particularist leanings and some extremely so. Skaven and Greenskins would never create any long-lasting cooperation, the Empire retained its divided nature for 2500 years, Elves and Dwarfs likewise never united into single political entities in their even longer past. The greatest unifier is actually Chaos, since they have periodically Everchosen who do manage to combine all the disparate Chaos forces into one block, spanning more than one race even.

Confederation is just like autoconversion actually pretty damn incompatible with how the Warhammer world is presented.

Well, i'd say yes and no to that.

While it's true that the factions/races have their unique styles, and wouldnt give up power, the present system isn't able to represents the politics of warhammer either.

Sure, the electors wouldnt give upp all their power, but in a all-out war against Chaos, the emperor is able the summon the elector counts, just as Thorgrim is the High king, and thus have a greater power over dwarkind. Sure, he isnt the absolute ruler, but still, the present system is a simplification, with our without confederations.

They would band together, but they would not completely surrender their political and social independence. Middenland would never accept becoming part of Reikland, even if all of it was overrun by Greenskins or Chaos. The Empire had to endure major crises in its lifetimes, but it never became a centralised state over it.

Confederation in TW is a total misnomer because it's really annexation and no faction would agree to it without any sort of massive military pressure on part of the annexing faction.

Fingolfin_the-Golden#2157

Confederation is good and fun.
Also it’s mostly loreful as the factions were in tabletop.

Boria#9178

Fingolfin_the-Golden said:

Confederation is good and fun.
Also it’s mostly loreful as the factions were in tabletop.

I wouldn't say fun, but I guess each to his own we got different standards for fun and we need to respect that, as I respect yours, Confed as a player it makes the game easier that is for sure.

I am not saying you are one nor am I attacking you since there is not enough in your comment to qualify you as one of them. but I notice some people say fun when in reality the faction they are calling fun is OP, Powercreeded with tons of unbalanced gameplay. Skryre, Taurox, Moulder and Pahuax (which was fun but the teleportation was a bit OP) are some good examples of that.

While factions that are "not fun" tend to be the ones that are really hard for example Arannesa IS the hardest campaign I have ever played on WH1 or WH2. She has always mentioned it as being the least fun of pirates and the dullest one. He campaign you need to expand fast try to make allies early be careful who you wage war with and even then I had 4 campaigns ruined never finished on campaign with her I can't.