I hope CA are taking in TW YouTuber feedback.

Shogun_Sanjuro

Especially LegendOfTotalWar. I know he was and still is kinda the 'blunt' YouTuber in the TW community and he never beats around the bush, but that's what I like about him. Dude knows what he's talking about in regards to Total War.

He's no longer blacklisted by CA these days, so CA values his feedback now, and that's great but he was only trying to help fans when he spoke about removed features from ToB (I believe that was the case, could be misremembering) when he wasn't meant to. This is getting off-topic now.

Two things he has mentioned that I hope CA at least look into and maybe address is this:

Siege AI

https://youtu.be/mLUYJRchrEM

And also in two videos - he's stated that the Ogre's are weak on the battlefield.

A few more videos where he mentions things that could be improved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY1msjPf1g8&t=531s&ab_channel=LegendofTotalWar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pouU7sddM2k&ab_channel=LegendofTotalWar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqLZsWkT6S8&t=972s&ab_channel=LegendofTotalWar

Whether you hate him or love him; he does bring up some good points about Warhammer 3. It's with feedback like this that CA can make Warhammer 3 even better before the February launch.

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW Have a good day!

AxiosXiphos#9040

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Shogun_Sanjuro

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

AxiosXiphos#9040

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

Thomashu

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

Go take some fresh air bro.

Commissar_G#7535

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

What do you think you're achieving by repeating the some ad nausium negativity on every thread that mentions legend?

elkapp

I remember when Legend made a big deal about the old menace from below bug, where if you used food you'd get 1 less charge than what you were supposed to.
From that moment CA too like 2 years to solve that.

CA would change stuff only if basically all youtuber were to revolt and cry about a single topic. And even then, as Legend himself said, AI is not trivial matter: they can't possibly make it good for release if it's basically old WH2 AI. There's mathematically too much work for 4 month (which is less than 4 months because of holydays).

AxiosXiphos#9040

Commissar_G said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

What do you think you're achieving by repeating the some ad nausium negativity on every thread that mentions legend?

Probably the same thing that people think they are achieving by posting the same video over and over I guess...

Shogun_Sanjuro

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

You said on the other thead:

"Find me a creator I care about saying the same thing and we can talk.

Legend's feedback means nothing to me."

So, you DO agree with him? You just won't accept what he said unless it's from another YouTuber? That seems like a you problem, my friend.

AxiosXiphos#9040

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

You said on the other thead:

"Find me a creator I care about saying the same thing and we can talk.

Legend's feedback means nothing to me."

So, you DO agree with him? You just won't accept what he said unless it's from another YouTuber? That seems like a you problem, my friend.

Legend being a hack doesn't always mean he is wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day. However I'm not going to acknowledge it as valid feedback.

elkapp

Seriously guys, stop. In his mind the only joke here are you, because you are keeping to feed him.

AxiosXiphos#9040

elkapp said:

Seriously guys, stop. In his mind the only joke here are you, because you are keeping to feed him.

Oh come on man; don't be like that. Let me have my entertainment. It's all a bit of good humour and fun.

#324448

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

You said on the other thead:

"Find me a creator I care about saying the same thing and we can talk.

Legend's feedback means nothing to me."

So, you DO agree with him? You just won't accept what he said unless it's from another YouTuber? That seems like a you problem, my friend.

Legend being a hack doesn't always mean he is wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day. However I'm not going to acknowledge it as valid feedback.

So you think he's right when he says the siege AI is bad, yet you don't "acknowledge it" because...?

Commissar_G#7535

AxiosXiphos said:

elkapp said:

Seriously guys, stop. In his mind the only joke here are you, because you are keeping to feed him.

Oh come on man; don't be like that. Let me have my entertainment. It's all a bit of good humour and fun.

manpersal#3961

Delete.

AxiosXiphos#9040

Commissar_G said:

AxiosXiphos said:

elkapp said:

Seriously guys, stop. In his mind the only joke here are you, because you are keeping to feed him.

Oh come on man; don't be like that. Let me have my entertainment. It's all a bit of good humour and fun.

Not your best work.... but better then nothing I suppose.

You tried.

AxiosXiphos#9040

MisterSquid said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

You said on the other thead:

"Find me a creator I care about saying the same thing and we can talk.

Legend's feedback means nothing to me."

So, you DO agree with him? You just won't accept what he said unless it's from another YouTuber? That seems like a you problem, my friend.

Legend being a hack doesn't always mean he is wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day. However I'm not going to acknowledge it as valid feedback.

So you think he's right when he says the siege AI is bad, yet you don't "acknowledge it" because...?

No. I'm saying there is no reason to assume either way from his feedback.

Asamu#6386

Keep in mind that the build that these battles are being played on has a major bug. Magic keeps generating even after the reserves are empty. It's not supposed to do that, and it makes Tzeentch look relatively stronger.

These are also battles played against an AI with armies that aren't very cohesive. It's not a great representation of balance.

Though it is probably worth saying that Khorne and Ogre army abilities are probably a bit too difficult to activate, and the Tzeentch ones might be too easy.

The Siege AI being bad is sort of expected. It's the reason that the WH1 and WH2 sieges were made what they are in the first place. Making a good siege AI is hard, and it's easier to make the AI sort of reasonable with the smaller, more focused maps than with larger ones.
I think it's safe to expect that the new siege and settlement battles will heavily favor the player when compared to the old ones with them being so large and having more choke points/being more spread out.

whatever14

Asamu said:

Keep in mind that the build that these battles are being played on has a major bug. Magic keeps generating even after the reserves are empty. It's not supposed to do that, and it makes Tzeentch look relatively stronger.

These are also battles played against an AI with armies that aren't very cohesive. It's not a great representation of balance.

Though it is probably worth saying that Khorne and Ogre army abilities are probably a bit too difficult to activate, and the Tzeentch ones might be too easy.

The Siege AI being bad is sort of expected. It's the reason that the WH1 and WH2 sieges were made what they are in the first place. Making a good siege AI is hard, and it's easier to make the AI sort of reasonable with the smaller, more focused maps than with larger ones.
I think it's safe to expect that the new siege and settlement battles will heavily favor the player when compared to the old ones with them being so large and having more choke points/being more spread out.

what an awful try to find excuses. like ai is gonna build cohesive armies that will preform well in final version lol.

they had 6 years to do something with sieges.

ai already preformed terribly in sieges in tww1 and 2. they tried to fix that with towers that have crazy range and should on paper force players to storm the walls. but it doesn't take a genius to realise you can take out towers and shoot ai to death.

if you can't make functional sieges then scrap them all together. they bring absolutely nothing to game, they are here just to exploit ai to death.

Surge_2#1464

Commissar_G said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

AxiosXiphos said:

Shogun_Sanjuro said:

inb4 stop preaching about LoTW

Just read your comment on the other thread with his video linked.

Safe to say people don't agree with your whining.

Yes Yes. Suck up to our lord and saviour. Etc etc.

I don't care that you disagree.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

What do you think you're achieving by repeating the some ad nausium negativity on every thread that mentions legend?

Wait, someone is being repetitively negative while telling others to just move on from their negativity?

LOL

A lack of self awareness is my favorite form of hypocrisy.

#568367

Asamu said:

Keep in mind that the build that these battles are being played on has a major bug. Magic keeps generating even after the reserves are empty. It's not supposed to do that, and it makes Tzeentch look relatively stronger.

These are also battles played against an AI with armies that aren't very cohesive. It's not a great representation of balance.

Though it is probably worth saying that Khorne and Ogre army abilities are probably a bit too difficult to activate, and the Tzeentch ones might be too easy.

The Siege AI being bad is sort of expected. It's the reason that the WH1 and WH2 sieges were made what they are in the first place. Making a good siege AI is hard, and it's easier to make the AI sort of reasonable with the smaller, more focused maps than with larger ones.
I think it's safe to expect that the new siege and settlement battles will heavily favor the player when compared to the old ones with them being so large and having more choke points/being more spread out.

All I see are 4 paragraph of weak excuses for crappy AI design

Spellbound1875#4610

Eh his Ogre feedback is pretty kneejerk at this point. Until we've played the factions in battle making a claim about power level is purely speculative. Add on to that he's largely commenting not about actually in battle events but the historical performance of a unit class which is hard to assess given we know a decent amount of under the hood work has been done on how combat works.

As for the Siege AI one important thing to remember is this is custom battle against normal difficulty AI which means the AI has less troops to work with than the attacker and less troops than we'd expect for most of the garrisons we'd expect in a settlement.

Part of the issue with the way the AI is playing has to do with being outnumbered but still trying to defend most of the map, something that naturally results in both being pulled apart and the AI struggling with effective unit placement. Since the AI doesn't know where the player is attacking from they spread troops, something that makes sense with a full garrison but results in very poor trades when outnumbered.

While it is correct that the AI's constant attempts to fall back and unify are often detrimental to the current situation the AI is also playing with less resources than it was designed to have on the maps in question. Custom battle is not a good measure of the AI's performance since it's balanced around PvP. It may be a fair criticism that the AI should be more comfortable sacrificing a unit to unify a greater portion of their army but that's a hard thing to assess from one custom game.

The individual points aren't bad but assuming they'll generalize to campaign is inappropriate at this time.

HowTheStarsBurn#4488

Spellbound55 said:

Eh his Ogre feedback is pretty kneejerk at this point. Until we've played the factions in battle making a claim about power level is purely speculative. Add on to that he's largely commenting not about actually in battle events but the historical performance of a unit class which is hard to assess given we know a decent amount of under the hood work has been done on how combat works.

As for the Siege AI one important thing to remember is this is custom battle against normal difficulty AI which means the AI has less troops to work with than the attacker and less troops than we'd expect for most of the garrisons we'd expect in a settlement.

Part of the issue with the way the AI is playing has to do with being outnumbered but still trying to defend most of the map, something that naturally results in both being pulled apart and the AI struggling with effective unit placement. Since the AI doesn't know where the player is attacking from they spread troops, something that makes sense with a full garrison but results in very poor trades when outnumbered.

While it is correct that the AI's constant attempts to fall back and unify are often detrimental to the current situation the AI is also playing with less resources than it was designed to have on the maps in question. Custom battle is not a good measure of the AI's performance since it's balanced around PvP. It may be a fair criticism that the AI should be more comfortable sacrificing a unit to unify a greater portion of their army but that's a hard thing to assess from one custom game.

The individual points aren't bad but assuming they'll generalize to campaign is inappropriate at this time.

I find none of this relevant. AI using troops poorly is not purely a reflection of how many troops they have.

#902441

If I remember rightly, he was dropped for the "edgy" humour he used, not for criticising ToB. And some of it was beyond the pale for an affiliated content creator.

Still they kissed and made up, so all good now.

Neodeinos#5871

Arsenic said:

If I remember rightly, he was dropped for the "edgy" humour he used, not for criticising ToB. And some of it was beyond the pale for an affiliated content creator.

Still they kissed and made up, so all good now.

He revealed a private discussion he had with a CA staff IIRC so that's why he was immediately blacklisted.

Asamu#6386

whatever14 said:

Asamu said:

Keep in mind that the build that these battles are being played on has a major bug. Magic keeps generating even after the reserves are empty. It's not supposed to do that, and it makes Tzeentch look relatively stronger.

These are also battles played against an AI with armies that aren't very cohesive. It's not a great representation of balance.

Though it is probably worth saying that Khorne and Ogre army abilities are probably a bit too difficult to activate, and the Tzeentch ones might be too easy.

The Siege AI being bad is sort of expected. It's the reason that the WH1 and WH2 sieges were made what they are in the first place. Making a good siege AI is hard, and it's easier to make the AI sort of reasonable with the smaller, more focused maps than with larger ones.
I think it's safe to expect that the new siege and settlement battles will heavily favor the player when compared to the old ones with them being so large and having more choke points/being more spread out.

what an awful try to find excuses. like ai is gonna build cohesive armies that will preform well in final version lol.

they had 6 years to do something with sieges.

ai already preformed terribly in sieges in tww1 and 2. they tried to fix that with towers that have crazy range and should on paper force players to storm the walls. but it doesn't take a genius to realise you can take out towers and shoot ai to death.

if you can't make functional sieges then scrap them all together. they bring absolutely nothing to game, they are here just to exploit ai to death.

I'm saying that this shouldn't be surprising, not that it's good.
It was a reason to be hesitant about any sort of siege rework from the start. With the old siege maps, all they really needed to do was give the AI the ability to sally out of the walls vs an army with an overwhelming number of missile units, too much stalk, or if not enough attackers are on the walls/in the city for too long. That would have made sieges way more difficult for most factions, since it would have curbed the "just use artillery, archers, and/or magic" tactics.

Bigger maps with more mechanics do not do anything to help the AI when it couldn't handle the WH1/WH2 maps, which were small and made it relatively easy for the AI to make "reasonable" decisions. And even then, the effectiveness of the AI in sieges practically scaled inversely with the size of the map, being better on the smallest siege maps with the least area to defend.

Maps seem to be 2-3x the size of what they generally are in WH1 and WH2. That does not help the AI, whether it's attacking or defending, as it means it will spread out its forces even more to defend/attack different locations, and will leave more units behind for control points.

All you have to do as a player is stack most of your army in one place, with some unnecessary units spread elsewhere to make the AI defend other locations, and you can just overwhelm them a bit at a time. That already works with the current AI, except that the smaller maps mean your units get stuck and run into serious problems with pathing through the city and fighting effectively, and you can't make the AI split up its army as much.

The larger maps in Wh3 give more space for such tactics.

CA decided to listen to player feedback and change the siege/settlement maps to be larger and more complex. It's what people were asking for. The AI in TW games has never been able to handle such large siege maps, and fixing it so it can handle them at all is going to be exceptionally difficult for the devs, especially in a game with even more types of units and spells that can obliterate blobs of units.


IMO, probably the best thing they could do with the AI is have it set up on the walls to secure all of the towers, then once units approach within a certain range of the walls (not when they're on top of them), have them pull their units back to the next point, unless the wall fight is clearly in the AI's favor, and then repeat that again, with the battle, hopefully, ending with the entire AI army at the main plaza.
The AI needs to start retreating with enough time get off the walls and pull back with relative safety, so archers should get no more than 1-2 volleys from the walls, then pull back well before ladders/towers can even dock.

Though there's an obvious problem with that of fast units like cavalry and flyers harrying retreating units, causing them to turn and fight, and thus bleeding units from the AI, but it'd probably be better than what we've seen so far, and that can probably be mitigated by having the AI pull any nearby missile units and trying to concentrate fire to cover, while not letting the "caught" unit(s) move back towards the walls.

Spellbound1875#4610

HowTheStarsBurn said:

Spellbound55 said:

Eh his Ogre feedback is pretty kneejerk at this point. Until we've played the factions in battle making a claim about power level is purely speculative. Add on to that he's largely commenting not about actually in battle events but the historical performance of a unit class which is hard to assess given we know a decent amount of under the hood work has been done on how combat works.

As for the Siege AI one important thing to remember is this is custom battle against normal difficulty AI which means the AI has less troops to work with than the attacker and less troops than we'd expect for most of the garrisons we'd expect in a settlement.

Part of the issue with the way the AI is playing has to do with being outnumbered but still trying to defend most of the map, something that naturally results in both being pulled apart and the AI struggling with effective unit placement. Since the AI doesn't know where the player is attacking from they spread troops, something that makes sense with a full garrison but results in very poor trades when outnumbered.

While it is correct that the AI's constant attempts to fall back and unify are often detrimental to the current situation the AI is also playing with less resources than it was designed to have on the maps in question. Custom battle is not a good measure of the AI's performance since it's balanced around PvP. It may be a fair criticism that the AI should be more comfortable sacrificing a unit to unify a greater portion of their army but that's a hard thing to assess from one custom game.

The individual points aren't bad but assuming they'll generalize to campaign is inappropriate at this time.

I find none of this relevant. AI using troops poorly is not purely a reflection of how many troops they have.

If you find none of this relevant than your knowledge of total war AI is quite limited and your opinion will be a little worth. Legend literally mentions all of these points in the video we are discussing as factors contributing to the poor AI performance. The fact that the AI start positions in sieges are set based on Garrisons in campaign rather than a custom battle (where they don't have enough units to properly enact their plans) already doomed the AI, which legend notes by highlighting with the units they have they should have just concentrated their forces and hold their ground.

The video's critiques are substantially more nuanced than the clickbait title implies. It's just a shame legend doesn't seem to realize how the initial circumstances of the battle make it a pretty useless example. If with the garrison the AI is doing the same thing then I'll worry, but this circumstance is not generalizable.

#902441

AxiosXiphos said:

Arsenic said:

If I remember rightly, he was dropped for the "edgy" humour he used, not for criticising ToB. And some of it was beyond the pale for an affiliated content creator.

Still they kissed and made up, so all good now.

Lets call it how it was.

He was racist. Don't dance around it.

Now I don't think people should be shunned for the rest of their lives for mistakes in the past... but he seems to be going back to his old self recently...

I was actually thinking about his comment about Morathi not being worth a sexual assault.

Reeks#2417

AxiosXiphos said:

Arsenic said:

If I remember rightly, he was dropped for the "edgy" humour he used, not for criticising ToB. And some of it was beyond the pale for an affiliated content creator.

Still they kissed and made up, so all good now.

Lets call it how it was.

He was racist. Don't dance around it.

Now I don't think people should be shunned for the rest of their lives for mistakes in the past... but he seems to be going back to his old self recently...

What an idiotic thing to say, if you have zero clue about why he was blacklisted ask for clarification from people who knows, stop bringing in baseless acusations

Reported for slander

Reeks#2417

Neodeinos said:

Arsenic said:

If I remember rightly, he was dropped for the "edgy" humour he used, not for criticising ToB. And some of it was beyond the pale for an affiliated content creator.

Still they kissed and made up, so all good now.

He revealed a private discussion he had with a CA staff IIRC so that's why he was immediately blacklisted.

This, this is the reason

Prince_of_Pleasure#2850

I dislike Legend and avoid thinking about him and his content altogether, but holy **** talk about living rent free in some people's minds.