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

Zerkovich's video about siege battles

drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,817
«134

Comments

  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    TLDR?

    I'm guessing.

    Too many.
    AR too punishing.
    Tower mini game unsatisfying.
    AI bad.
    Pathing bad.

    How did I do?
    Kneel

  • Helhound#7332Helhound#7332 Registered Users Posts: 5,374
    Is probably the best articulated explanation of the current settlement problem.
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,492
    edited April 2022
    Surge_2 said:

    TLDR?

    I'm guessing.

    Too many.
    AR too punishing.
    Tower mini game unsatisfying.
    AI bad.
    Pathing bad.

    How did I do?

    TLDR
    He is utterly clueless. Says that there were to many land battles in wh2 (there isnt if anything there are to many sieges). Land battles are way less common on wh3 and he wants a happy medium between the two games. Which is a garbage solution. As ive said there were still to many sieges in wh2.

    And he says the instant build trash and new sieges are good fun just to many. Again just garbage.
    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.
  • NickCageStoleMyFace#5594NickCageStoleMyFace#5594 Registered Users Posts: 2,775
    Tier 1 & 2 buildings should be land battles, Tier 3 should be minor settlement.

    If you build the tier 2 garrison building it should be a minor settlement battle as well.

    I don’t understand why it wasn’t like this in the first place.

    I do like minor settlement battles to a extent but I agree with Zerk, 50/50 is the way to go.
  • BaronRodney#9956BaronRodney#9956 Registered Users Posts: 1,307

    Surge_2 said:

    TLDR?

    I'm guessing.

    Too many.
    AR too punishing.
    Tower mini game unsatisfying.
    AI bad.
    Pathing bad.

    How did I do?

    TLDR
    He is utterly clueless. Says that there were to many land battles in wh2 (there isnt if anything there are to many sieges). Land battles are way less common on wh3 and he wants a happy medium between the two games. Which is a garbage solution. As ive said there were still to many sieges in wh2.

    And he says the instant build trash and new sieges are good fun just to many. Again just garbage.
    That's not really what he said.

    He said he would prefer far fewer settlement battles and that he didn't like the towers or barricades. Then he proposed solutions to them, which I think were quite measured and achievable.
  • NightOfTheDeadNightOfTheDead Member Registered Users Posts: 825
    Just let players choose which battle it will be before battle, minor settlement or land battle if there are no t3 walls

    Problem solved.
  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,817
    Pre-deployables would be the best option, especially if you could put them anywhere you want, just like in Rome 2 or in Three Kingdoms.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,169
    I agree with his argument about giving the players more freedom in blocker deployment.

    One thing he didn't mention is that it always feels kind of janky when fighting on a blocker because the defender can effortlessly move through them. Not sure what the solution here is.
  • 1v0#35621v0#3562 Registered Users Posts: 2,350
    After this video I want to play Rome 2 or 3K.
    Question:Presumably you’ve needed to create a huge number of new Daemon units to properly flesh them out and give them their own armies?
    Answer:IR: What you’ve just said is so true,
  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,817
    You could then make it impossible for your troops to go through the blocking barricades that you made. Simple as that, if you are concerned with realism.
  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,817
    1v0 said:

    After this video I want to play Rome 2 or 3K.

    Yeah, the sieges in Rome II are epic. You can put on pre-deployable traps etc, and you can also put siege artillery like catapults and balistas on certain towers.
  • PoorManatee6197#6481PoorManatee6197#6481 Registered Users Posts: 2,603

    1v0 said:

    After this video I want to play Rome 2 or 3K.

    Yeah, the sieges in Rome II are epic. You can put on pre-deployable traps etc, and you can also put siege artillery like catapults and balistas on certain towers.
    Dont know why is it so hard for CA to maintain the things they do well in future tittles.
    #MakeDwarfsGreatAgain Josef Bugman, Thorek Ironbrow, Alrik Ranulfsson, Grimm Burloksson, Kazador Thunderhorn, Byrrnoth Grundadrakk, Malakai Makaisson, Gotrek Gurnisson, Garagrim, Dragon slayer, Deamon slayer, Doomseekers, Brotherhood of Grimnir, Giant slayers, Thunderbarge, Shieldbearer mount, Master brewer, Goblin Hewer, Norse dwarf war mammoth, Tractator engine, Rune golem, Shard dragon, proper Anvil of Doom, Ulther's dragon company, Lond Drong's slayer pirates, Everguard, Karak Varn, Karag Agrilwutraz, Karaz Bryn, Karag Dum, Karak Vlag, Kraka Dorden, Kraka Ornsmotek, Kraka Ravnsvake, Karak Vrag, Karak Azorn, Karak Krakaten.


    All those missing things are grudges in the great book, is in your hand to settle them, CA. Khazukan kazakit-ha!

    IT'S HOBGOBBO TIME!!!!!!!
    #JusticeForKurgan
  • LegendaryArticuno#9965LegendaryArticuno#9965 Registered Users Posts: 501

    1v0 said:

    After this video I want to play Rome 2 or 3K.

    Yeah, the sieges in Rome II are epic. You can put on pre-deployable traps etc, and you can also put siege artillery like catapults and balistas on certain towers.
    Dont know why is it so hard for CA to maintain the things they do well in future tittles.
    Too many whiteknights are happy to make the excuse, "but Warhammer 2 or Rome 2 took years to get good". They can't comprehend people are supposed to learn from mistakes and not repeat them in the future.
  • mecanojavi99#6562mecanojavi99#6562 EspañaRegistered Users Posts: 11,487

    1v0 said:

    After this video I want to play Rome 2 or 3K.

    Yeah, the sieges in Rome II are epic. You can put on pre-deployable traps etc, and you can also put siege artillery like catapults and balistas on certain towers.
    Dont know why is it so hard for CA to maintain the things they do well in future tittles.
    Too many whiteknights are happy to make the excuse, "but Warhammer 2 or Rome 2 took years to get good". They can't comprehend people are supposed to learn from mistakes and not repeat them in the future.
    Looking at the past week of posts and the reaction to the most recent CA video, I really don't understand this weird idea about the whiteknigths being all over the forum and somehow having power over CAs decisions.
    "By the fires of Hashut, let them burn in the flames of eternal torment!"
    - Anonymous
  • Theo91#7431Theo91#7431 Registered Users Posts: 2,971
    He's spot on. The minor settlements themselves look absolutely stunning but the pop up towers/ supplies and the frequency of the battles ruins it. so infuriating
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,492
    Theo91 said:

    He's spot on. The minor settlements themselves look absolutely stunning but the pop up towers/ supplies and the frequency of the battles ruins it. so infuriating

    He likes all those things except the frequency of the minor settlement battles. And he still wants more sieges than wh2 ever had. Utter trash solutions.

    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.
  • Theo91#7431Theo91#7431 Registered Users Posts: 2,971
    I wonder if CA listens to the content creators at all. Feels like there's so many good suggestions flying around and they all get ignored
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    How can someone think there are too many land battles.

    You know, where you can move.
    See animations.
    Enjoy the spectacle of the magic.

    Nah, let's stuff our full stack down some poorly pathed roads into some choke points?!

    What?
    Kneel

  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,492
    edited April 2022

    Surge_2 said:

    TLDR?

    I'm guessing.

    Too many.
    AR too punishing.
    Tower mini game unsatisfying.
    AI bad.
    Pathing bad.

    How did I do?

    TLDR
    He is utterly clueless. Says that there were to many land battles in wh2 (there isnt if anything there are to many sieges). Land battles are way less common on wh3 and he wants a happy medium between the two games. Which is a garbage solution. As ive said there were still to many sieges in wh2.

    And he says the instant build trash and new sieges are good fun just to many. Again just garbage.
    That's not really what he said.

    He said he would prefer far fewer settlement battles and that he didn't like the towers or barricades. Then he proposed solutions to them, which I think were quite measured and achievable.
    He says at 0.50 talking about instant build trash and i quote:

    "I am glad they are in the game and i do like minor settlement battles."


    Then he proceeds with his critism being the frequency. And he wants it to be more than wh2 that had to many sieges. In fact he wants alot more. Which would be between wh2 and wh3.


    So pay attention next time
    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.
  • NickCageStoleMyFace#5594NickCageStoleMyFace#5594 Registered Users Posts: 2,775
    Seems to me everyone has different ideas about what sieges and settlement battles should be.

    That’s why CA should only listen to me.

    -Everyone
  • aMint1#4859aMint1#4859 Registered Users Posts: 1,255

    Surge_2 said:

    TLDR?

    I'm guessing.

    Too many.
    AR too punishing.
    Tower mini game unsatisfying.
    AI bad.
    Pathing bad.

    How did I do?

    TLDR
    He is utterly clueless. Says that there were to many land battles in wh2 (there isnt if anything there are to many sieges). Land battles are way less common on wh3 and he wants a happy medium between the two games. Which is a garbage solution. As ive said there were still to many sieges in wh2.

    And he says the instant build trash and new sieges are good fun just to many. Again just garbage.
    That's not really what he said.

    He said he would prefer far fewer settlement battles and that he didn't like the towers or barricades. Then he proposed solutions to them, which I think were quite measured and achievable.
    He says at 0.50 talking about instant build trash and i quote:

    "I am glad they are in the game and i do like minor settlement battles."
    That quote is literally about minor settlement battles in general. He was disparaging about pop-up towers specifically.
  • Passthechips#4366Passthechips#4366 Registered Users Posts: 1,539

    Theo91 said:

    He's spot on. The minor settlements themselves look absolutely stunning but the pop up towers/ supplies and the frequency of the battles ruins it. so infuriating

    He likes all those things except the frequency of the minor settlement battles. And he still wants more sieges than wh2 ever had. Utter trash solutions.

    Want to say how these are trash solutions? I actually agree with his takes. Minor settlement battles as a concept are cool, they need a bit of polishing and adjustment to their frequency before they become a great addition to the game.
  • Yurisusuki#3719Yurisusuki#3719 Somewhere in LustriaRegistered Users Posts: 1,412

    Surge_2 said:

    TLDR?

    I'm guessing.

    Too many.
    AR too punishing.
    Tower mini game unsatisfying.
    AI bad.
    Pathing bad.

    How did I do?

    TLDR
    He is utterly clueless. Says that there were to many land battles in wh2 (there isnt if anything there are to many sieges). Land battles are way less common on wh3 and he wants a happy medium between the two games. Which is a garbage solution. As ive said there were still to many sieges in wh2.

    And he says the instant build trash and new sieges are good fun just to many. Again just garbage.
    Too many siege in warhammer 2? Lol, seens like you beem playing a different game.

    And just for you to know, people like different things, maybe people like things you don't and vice-versa
    Gib mony plox i report u

    http://www.pudim.com.br/

    SALVATION



  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,492
    edited April 2022

    Theo91 said:

    He's spot on. The minor settlements themselves look absolutely stunning but the pop up towers/ supplies and the frequency of the battles ruins it. so infuriating

    He likes all those things except the frequency of the minor settlement battles. And he still wants more sieges than wh2 ever had. Utter trash solutions.

    Want to say how these are trash solutions? I actually agree with his takes. Minor settlement battles as a concept are cool, they need a bit of polishing and adjustment to their frequency before they become a great addition to the game.
    In my opinion ofc

    I fully respect and accept that zerkvich and you like the insta build trash
    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.
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,492
    edited April 2022
    aMint1 said:

    Surge_2 said:

    TLDR?

    I'm guessing.

    Too many.
    AR too punishing.
    Tower mini game unsatisfying.
    AI bad.
    Pathing bad.

    How did I do?

    TLDR
    He is utterly clueless. Says that there were to many land battles in wh2 (there isnt if anything there are to many sieges). Land battles are way less common on wh3 and he wants a happy medium between the two games. Which is a garbage solution. As ive said there were still to many sieges in wh2.

    And he says the instant build trash and new sieges are good fun just to many. Again just garbage.
    That's not really what he said.

    He said he would prefer far fewer settlement battles and that he didn't like the towers or barricades. Then he proposed solutions to them, which I think were quite measured and achievable.
    He says at 0.50 talking about instant build trash and i quote:

    "I am glad they are in the game and i do like minor settlement battles."
    That quote is literally about minor settlement battles in general. He was disparaging about pop-up towers specifically.
    No he says about them specificaly and again i quote (parenthasis below mine):

    "I am glad they are in the game (instant build barricades and towers) and i do like minor settlement battles."


    The fact zerkovich even brings this up in a video is because even he gets that to many players have left and are leaving because they are fed up.

    He has known the game worked like this since before release.
    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.
  • Passthechips#4366Passthechips#4366 Registered Users Posts: 1,539

    Theo91 said:

    He's spot on. The minor settlements themselves look absolutely stunning but the pop up towers/ supplies and the frequency of the battles ruins it. so infuriating

    He likes all those things except the frequency of the minor settlement battles. And he still wants more sieges than wh2 ever had. Utter trash solutions.

    Want to say how these are trash solutions? I actually agree with his takes. Minor settlement battles as a concept are cool, they need a bit of polishing and adjustment to their frequency before they become a great addition to the game.
    In my opinion ofc

    I fully respect and accept that zerkvich and you like the insta build trash
    Stealing this poll from a thread from last week, but it looks like the majority of people (at least on Facebook) have a similar opinion to Zerkovich. You do know you can mod out most settlement battles right?


  • ChoraChora Registered Users Posts: 872
    IMO the talk of trying to find the right balance between land battle vs minor siege is just a band aid.

    The percentage shouldn’t matter too much (assuming one side isn’t too lop sided), the issue is how to make both types of battles fun.

    If one isn’t fun and the other is widely accepted to just be better, just go heavy o the fun.

    But trying to balance how much we experience both should really happen after the work is done to make sieges more fun. I appreciate that wrk was already “done” but they missed the mark and need to try again.
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,492

    Theo91 said:

    He's spot on. The minor settlements themselves look absolutely stunning but the pop up towers/ supplies and the frequency of the battles ruins it. so infuriating

    He likes all those things except the frequency of the minor settlement battles. And he still wants more sieges than wh2 ever had. Utter trash solutions.

    Want to say how these are trash solutions? I actually agree with his takes. Minor settlement battles as a concept are cool, they need a bit of polishing and adjustment to their frequency before they become a great addition to the game.
    In my opinion ofc

    I fully respect and accept that zerkvich and you like the insta build trash
    Stealing this poll from a thread from last week, but it looks like the majority of people (at least on Facebook) have a similar opinion to Zerkovich. You do know you can mod out most settlement battles right?


    Of those who voted....


    And it doesnt change my opinion of them being utter trash one bit.



    Ofc i mod to get what i want (i make my own)
    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.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,169

    You could then make it impossible for your troops to go through the blocking barricades that you made. Simple as that, if you are concerned with realism.

    Not concerned about realism. It's just the combat gets a bit janky when a defending unit is effortlessly moving back and forth between being behind and in front of a barricade. Makes it hard to attack both the barricade and the unit.

    I see the merit in allowing defenders to move through them. You wouldn't want an archer to be able to stand just outside the barricade and pummel defenders for free. I just wish I didn't need to constantly babysit as the attack orders get dropped.
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    Jman5 said:

    You could then make it impossible for your troops to go through the blocking barricades that you made. Simple as that, if you are concerned with realism.

    Not concerned about realism. It's just the combat gets a bit janky when a defending unit is effortlessly moving back and forth between being behind and in front of a barricade. Makes it hard to attack both the barricade and the unit.

    I see the merit in allowing defenders to move through them. You wouldn't want an archer to be able to stand just outside the barricade and pummel defenders for free. I just wish I didn't need to constantly babysit as the attack orders get dropped.
    It's just so bad...
    Kneel

Sign In or Register to comment.