Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

The sieges now suck in WH3 thanks to the supply points.

Lexa19994Lexa19994 Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 29
edited February 17 in General Discussion
The defender has 4 control points in where they get continous supplies which allows them to keep building as much and as long as they like, now within them 4 control points they can have around 3 towers per control point if not more, them 3 towers fires 3 repetitive range attacks dealing 70 damage for T1, as soon as I destroy them, they get rebuilt in a minute, so I'm recieving approx 210 damage per 10 seconds, if I can't get past a blockade or mass swamp everything and suffer deadly losses I am doomed.

I don't see how CA thought this was balanced

Comments

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,809
    Somehow they made sieges more boring and the ai even more clueless.

    Kinda impressive when you think about it
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • ValzaanValzaan Registered Users Posts: 76
    Lexa19994 said:

    The defender has 4 control points in where they get continous supplies which allows them to keep building as much and as long as they like, now within them 4 control points they can have around 3 towers per control point if not more, them 3 towers fires 3 repetitive range attacks dealing 70 damage for T1, as soon as I destroy them, they get rebuilt in a minute, so I'm recieving approx 210 damage per 10 seconds, if I can't get past a blockade or mass swamp everything and suffer deadly losses I am doomed.

    I don't see how CA thought this was balanced

    I thought that one issue was that sieges were too easy. This seems to address that.

    Not saying that the fix is perfect or without problems of its own, but on my side I appreciate that sieges are more costly (which is historically accurate)
    All that is gold does not glitter - Bilbo Baggins
  • RebelBuffoonRebelBuffoon Registered Users Posts: 1
    Lexa19994 said:

    The defender has 4 control points in where they get continous supplies which allows them to keep building as much and as long as they like, now within them 4 control points they can have around 3 towers per control point if not more, them 3 towers fires 3 repetitive range attacks dealing 70 damage for T1, as soon as I destroy them, they get rebuilt in a minute, so I'm recieving approx 210 damage per 10 seconds, if I can't get past a blockade or mass swamp everything and suffer deadly losses I am doomed.

    Thats the Point though. The point is that Sieges used to be WAY to easy.. This was intended to give Defenders an actual Fighting chance shy of just stacking an Army into the Settlement.

    The Damage is really not that bad. 210 damage every 10 seconds is like nothing considering your Units have 8k+ health. It is noticable, but this is very much needed for defenders.

    The Towers take 90 seconds to build once destroyed, so you have 90 seconds to break through the barricades and take the point to prevent the towers from being consturcted, which is also more than enough time.
    Lexa19994 said:

    I don't see how CA thought this was balanced

    I play Head 2 Head, so no AI at all in fights, and we have found it to be very balanced. Even in my Solo Campaign I play, I win all my Sieges with minimal Casualties. and I rarely tend to lose sieges against my Friend but suffer more casualties than against AI.

    This just requires you to think a little different, its called a Strategy game after all.
    In the end I hope they keep this up, I do think that the Defender starts with not enough Resources, they should start with 2k imo, it would make it far better and help the Defenders even more.
  • DruidsbrookDruidsbrook Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 366
    I thought the issue with sieges in WH2 was they were tedious as an attacker not too easy or too hard just not very fun. Also there were too many of them with few field battles.

    Now there are even more siege battles and even more tedious. I think the realm of chaos is masking it a bit as you do get plenty of field battles there plus you are not incentivised to not expand too much. Once the combined map comes out which looks likely to be very dense with settlements and no RoC to break it up the issue will be magnified.

  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 2,464

    I thought the issue with sieges in WH2 was they were tedious as an attacker not too easy or too hard just not very fun. Also there were too many of them with few field battles.

    Now there are even more siege battles and even more tedious. I think the realm of chaos is masking it a bit as you do get plenty of field battles there plus you are not incentivised to not expand too much. Once the combined map comes out which looks likely to be very dense with settlements and no RoC to break it up the issue will be magnified.

    The sieges were easy but this new change does not necessarily makes the sieges any better. If anyone played shogun 2, they remember the double/triple walls where the fun part was capturing the main point.

    This new sieges effectively encourages doomstacking with fast units. Imagine playing Bretonnia for instance, why go through the whole process of getting shot slowly by the towers when you can just rush the main point with flying units and pushing all the enemy units from the walls/positions.

    Same for other factions, it's all about rushing with fast units at the main point to avoid the big hassle, and the AI won't be able to do squat about it especially if they have slow units.
  • RikisRikis Registered Users Posts: 1,682
    You can't take over points with flying units last time I checked.
  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 2,464
    Rikis said:

    You can't take over points with flying units last time I checked.

    You do realize that now flying units can land, right? Courtesy of WH3 .
  • RikisRikis Registered Users Posts: 1,682
    KronusX said:

    Rikis said:

    You can't take over points with flying units last time I checked.

    You do realize that now flying units can land, right? Courtesy of WH3 .
    Yes but i was under the impression that they didn't take over points anyways to avoid cheesing sieges with flyers.
  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 2,464
    Rikis said:

    KronusX said:

    Rikis said:

    You can't take over points with flying units last time I checked.

    You do realize that now flying units can land, right? Courtesy of WH3 .
    Yes but i was under the impression that they didn't take over points anyways to avoid cheesing sieges with flyers.
    You can cheese it either way other ways, aka bringing full cav, bringing the gate down then rushing the point especially on those huge maps. The AI pathing is kind of meh, and on top of that the huge maps make it quite easy to just rush the point ignoring their army/towers and then winning through cheese.
  • busbee247busbee247 Registered Users Posts: 1,307
    Rikis said:

    KronusX said:

    Rikis said:

    You can't take over points with flying units last time I checked.

    You do realize that now flying units can land, right? Courtesy of WH3 .
    Yes but i was under the impression that they didn't take over points anyways to avoid cheesing sieges with flyers.
    They can't. I haven't tried it but you might be able to get the ai to abandon their defences if you land a bunch of longma Ib their victory point or something, you won't cap it but you could screw with the ai
  • RikisRikis Registered Users Posts: 1,682

    Rikis said:

    KronusX said:

    Rikis said:

    You can't take over points with flying units last time I checked.

    You do realize that now flying units can land, right? Courtesy of WH3 .
    Yes but i was under the impression that they didn't take over points anyways to avoid cheesing sieges with flyers.
    They can't. I haven't tried it but you might be able to get the ai to abandon their defences if you land a bunch of longma Ib their victory point or something, you won't cap it but you could screw with the ai
    Yes that I'm aware of. Easy to distract the enemy with a few horse units while the main force does their job.
  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 2,464
    Rikis said:

    Rikis said:

    KronusX said:

    Rikis said:

    You can't take over points with flying units last time I checked.

    You do realize that now flying units can land, right? Courtesy of WH3 .
    Yes but i was under the impression that they didn't take over points anyways to avoid cheesing sieges with flyers.
    They can't. I haven't tried it but you might be able to get the ai to abandon their defences if you land a bunch of longma Ib their victory point or something, you won't cap it but you could screw with the ai
    Yes that I'm aware of. Easy to distract the enemy with a few horse units while the main force does their job.
    So in this case they can just break the gate and rush point still with cav, which is even better since most factions have decent cav. Gl for the AI that will be busy with 20-30 movement speed to catch up to 70-100 movement speed heavy cav.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 7,468
    Funny, just got posting in another thread how when I'm attacker I often ignore the towers.

    Take the points, they died.

    Send in flying units, they are really bad at dealing with this.

    If you ample ranged units these can be torn down.

    Mess with the enemy using cavalry and other quick units, or just outright take points with them preventing towers.

    Or as I often do, ignore the towers entirely and just beat the enemy down.

    I do not understand how people as attackers are having so much issues with these unless people just are not aggressive or something? Give time by getting shredded? Do people send their entire army in a way that lets them get wedged and slowly over a long period ground? AI often doesn't build the big towers either, they build the shrinky dink lower tier half the time.
  • KotovskyKotovsky Member Registered Users Posts: 275
    Yes. Sieges was mediocre and CA managed to make them annoying. Instead of adressing what the community asked for.
  • steam_164509919181MUJbunRsteam_164509919181MUJbunR Registered Users Posts: 109
    An easy solution without needing unlikely redesign would be to give us the option to set a % then when a minor battle is launched it rolls the dice based on what ever % you choose. 100% would be its always a minor settlement battle and 0% would be never. Then everyone can just choose the rate they want to play them. Everyone would be happy. Its not too hard to implement and would make a lot of people happy while not changing anything for those that are happy with the game as it is. I personally would play with 30%.
  • SultschiemSultschiem Registered Users Posts: 3,413
    You....you know that Artillery and Flyers can pretty easily destroy them, right?

    They did exactly what players have been begging for:
    Make sieges and village battles more strategic, dynamic, allowing different ways of attack and make the different ones more unique....

    Now they are exactly that... a strategic challenge and not just send to climb wall and its over.

    And as it was predicted... the AI ofc struggles to work well with that....

    Just as it did in Rome 2 etc.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,711
    Kotovsky said:

    Yes. Sieges was mediocre and CA managed to make them annoying. Instead of adressing what the community asked for.

    Just don't sit under tower fire like an uprooted turnip.
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 14,927
    edited February 28

    Kotovsky said:

    Yes. Sieges was mediocre and CA managed to make them annoying. Instead of adressing what the community asked for.

    Just don't sit under tower fire like an uprooted turnip.
    Tell that to WoC, Khorne, Dwarfs, BM, etc.
    Furthermore, I consider that Daemon Prince must be removed.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,711
    Crossil said:

    Kotovsky said:

    Yes. Sieges was mediocre and CA managed to make them annoying. Instead of adressing what the community asked for.

    Just don't sit under tower fire like an uprooted turnip.
    Tell that to WoC, Khorne, Dwarfs, BM, etc.
    Every minor settlement has like 6 entrances. If you can't break into any of them to start capping points, the game isn't the problem.
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 7,468
    Crossil said:

    Kotovsky said:

    Yes. Sieges was mediocre and CA managed to make them annoying. Instead of adressing what the community asked for.

    Just don't sit under tower fire like an uprooted turnip.
    Tell that to WoC, Khorne, Dwarfs, BM, etc.
    I got squishy town Tzeench through those factions. Early game when Khorne is harder, not one late game faction can't blast or tear down a tower in moments.

    Which is the biggest thing still, when attacking the towers are nothing. Significantly more to do with the troops, particularly mobile flankers since you have so many entry and route points. Chaos Knights sandwhiiiiiiiiich!
  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,901
    PSA

    archers can shoot down towers sieges are a joke if you have archers.
  • LepingLeping Registered Users Posts: 547
    Minor settlement are very nice map, immersive and fun (I had the GCCM mod i Warhammer II) but the supply system with tower build after the battle are a problem for me
  • GoAwayNowGoAwayNow Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 248
    edited February 28
    The system isn't perfect, bud it's definitely better than it was. Most of the complaints can be summed up with: git gud.

    Sieges are dynamic and encourage you to outmaneuver your enemy on both offense or defense. It's a vast improvement over the previous massing your army in one corner and methodically murdering the enemy without their ability to respond.

    I'm looking forward to a mod that increases up front supply and decreases mid-battle supply. A mod that can hopefully retexture the defenses based on culture would also be appreciated. Other than that, it's much more entertaining than WH1 or WH2 sieges.
    Post edited by GoAwayNow on
  • philosofoolphilosofool Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,152
    Crossil said:

    Kotovsky said:

    Yes. Sieges was mediocre and CA managed to make them annoying. Instead of adressing what the community asked for.

    Just don't sit under tower fire like an uprooted turnip.
    Tell that to WoC, Khorne, Dwarfs, BM, etc.
    Dwarfs can blow up the towers with artillery and crossbows.

    I am playing as Khorne. Skullcannons dunk on fortifications and towers. Bloodthirsters can shred a tower in about 20 seconds. Furies can do the job almost as fast.

    Beastmen have that awesome "Shred wall" ability, flying units, Cygors, and ample speed for sieges. No problem there.

    Every faction is going to have an answer to sieges and it might actually be asymmetric, unlike the past.

    People need to play this game more and stop complaining less that they don't already know how to win it less.

  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,351
    My only issue right now is that towers popping up during a battle looks so damn goofy. That needs to be pre battle only.

    Also visually they need to be faction specific.
  • Artjuh90Artjuh90 Registered Users Posts: 1,697
    Crossil said:

    Kotovsky said:

    Yes. Sieges was mediocre and CA managed to make them annoying. Instead of adressing what the community asked for.

    Just don't sit under tower fire like an uprooted turnip.
    Tell that to WoC, Khorne, Dwarfs, BM, etc.
    actually dwarves can use sieges engines and ranged units vs towers, BM need to use their speed and charge so don't want long out dragged fights and with the large chrarge bonus and deadly but squisy units like minos and Ghorgon you can trsh through if you think where to engage and how. warriors of chaos also have fast units but less so but make up for this with sheer endurance on their roster
Sign In or Register to comment.