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

13

Comments

  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,492

    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."


    Literally 2 secons before that he sais "I'm not a fan of the supply system and the instant pop-up defenses". He is glad they are in game because is better than nothing.

    Later in the video he sais he doesnt hate it (as in, dislike yes, but not hate) and hopes it doesnt come back in future titles, refering to defenses.
    He is still glad instant build towers are in wh3. And im not. They are utter trash. He likes minor settlement battles despite 75% of his game being those. I do not.

    He tries to walk on both sides of the fence. It is a bad video that doesnt grasp how deep the siege problems run and his solution is laughable. About half as many minor and sieges are good and done? Allow me to laugh. Complete nonsense.
    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.
  • SemtexOro#2225SemtexOro#2225 Registered Users Posts: 85
    New sieges are a real doom of this game. Not because sieges per se, but how AI is coded to act on the map and around settlements. And its a problem CA cant fix without mayor new siege overhaul - which will probably not happen.

    AI is designed to avoid fights and try to pull you in a siege, where AI units will not try to win but again run around and try to do as much dmg to your army with towers. Its so boring it drains the life out of you, combined with how bad auto resolve is and how cramped new maps are with obstructions and narrow corridors that completely break path finding.

    W2 had different problem. As AI couldn't stand a chance in battles they would get free armies to through at you. I prefer W2 system, but it is unplayable without lightning strike, which again I'm fine with.

    At this point I just hope someday we will be able to port new factions into W2 with W3 IE map.
  • UgandaJim#4927UgandaJim#4927 Registered Users Posts: 687
    edited April 2022
    he is right about everything he said. I think CA can fix this over time. Give us the Rome 2 or 3k System, the baseline is set in WH3 and everything is fine.

    The maps could use some redisgn too. more open spaces like he said.

    I really hope they delayd IE and are silent about it because they saw the feedback and try to rework some maps and maybe play with changes for the siege and supply systems around. I really hope that is the case.

    On top of that AR is total garbage in this game and needs to be changed back to WH2 status
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044



    he said it all.

    Total War in general is devolving. Anyone who thought the current settlements in Warhammer are a good thing is horribly mistaken since it's all limiting and in general makes it all unrealistic. Same with the sieges back then (they are still irritating me with magical ladders), lack of any dismount option for horse cavalry and a gamut of other things. All people wanted was it to be like Call of Warhammer but with actual functioning monsters, magic and generally it being Warhammer: Medieval Total War Edition.
  • Commissar_G#7535Commissar_G#7535 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,865
    Ben1990 said:



    he said it all.

    Total War in general is devolving. Anyone who thought the current settlements in Warhammer are a good thing is horribly mistaken since it's all limiting and in general makes it all unrealistic. Same with the sieges back then (they are still irritating me with magical ladders), lack of any dismount option for horse cavalry and a gamut of other things. All people wanted was it to be like Call of Warhammer but with actual functioning monsters, magic and generally it being Warhammer: Medieval Total War Edition.
    Who wants to tell him the entire game is limiting and unrealistic?
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • Fingolfin_the-Golden#2157Fingolfin_the-Golden#2157 Registered Users Posts: 6,790

    Ben1990 said:



    he said it all.

    Total War in general is devolving. Anyone who thought the current settlements in Warhammer are a good thing is horribly mistaken since it's all limiting and in general makes it all unrealistic. Same with the sieges back then (they are still irritating me with magical ladders), lack of any dismount option for horse cavalry and a gamut of other things. All people wanted was it to be like Call of Warhammer but with actual functioning monsters, magic and generally it being Warhammer: Medieval Total War Edition.
    Who wants to tell him the entire game is limiting and unrealistic?
    Not I.
    BEARS, Beets, Battlestar Galactica 🧝‍♀️ Pandas too please CA!
  • invernomutoinvernomuto Registered Users Posts: 19
    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

    I do not really understand how devs could think that pop up towers and supplies were good ideas to add to TWW3. They totally break immersion in sieges IMHO. They do not make sense in a game like this. It's not a tower defense game for mobile...
    Rome II approach seems the best.
  • Neodeinos#5871Neodeinos#5871 Registered Users Posts: 16,120
    edited April 2022

    Just copy 3K lmao.
    It even solved minor settlement battles being chores because you can just choose to burn everything down.


    Sieges like the historical games is all that the community asked but CA had to make it different for reasons and now it sucks.
  • aMint1#4859aMint1#4859 Registered Users Posts: 1,255
    Neodeinos said:

    Just copy 3K lmao.
    It even solved minor settlement battles being chores because you can just choose to burn everything down.


    Sieges like the historical games is all that the community asked but CA had to make it different for reasons and now it sucks.
    Tbh, the community asked for about a million different things when it came to sieges, with a lot of it contradictory. I'm not surprised they turned out this bad.
  • HarveyJames#1968HarveyJames#1968 Registered Users Posts: 376
    i mean when they make the game actually worse at most things then much older iterations of the game .. you kinda question what they thinking and why they do it?
    CA please give us Shogun Multi layer wall Sieges back along with Roles/Fog of war we want EPIC sieges!! 'personally i think the 3 kingdoms style of building armies is the best for balance alongside stronger unit roles and larger unit sizes' also allowing Chars too specialise in range/siege in particular in skills/traits..
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044

    Ben1990 said:



    he said it all.

    Total War in general is devolving. Anyone who thought the current settlements in Warhammer are a good thing is horribly mistaken since it's all limiting and in general makes it all unrealistic. Same with the sieges back then (they are still irritating me with magical ladders), lack of any dismount option for horse cavalry and a gamut of other things. All people wanted was it to be like Call of Warhammer but with actual functioning monsters, magic and generally it being Warhammer: Medieval Total War Edition.
    Who wants to tell him the entire game is limiting and unrealistic?

    Ben1990 said:



    he said it all.

    Total War in general is devolving. Anyone who thought the current settlements in Warhammer are a good thing is horribly mistaken since it's all limiting and in general makes it all unrealistic. Same with the sieges back then (they are still irritating me with magical ladders), lack of any dismount option for horse cavalry and a gamut of other things. All people wanted was it to be like Call of Warhammer but with actual functioning monsters, magic and generally it being Warhammer: Medieval Total War Edition.
    Who wants to tell him the entire game is limiting and unrealistic?
    Not I.
    Unrealistic? Well it's a over-the-top fantasy setting that combines multiple fantasy genres. The limiting and unrealistic part would be the settlements slots which are both limiting and unrealistic because if we're talking about this kind of stuff in a fantasy setting based on a ramped-up crazy version of Earth's history with equally ramped-up and altered fantasy elements, even there should be some logic behind it.
    I mean places like Altdorf, Karaz-A-Karak, Couronne, Lothern, Naggarond, Kislev, Weijin, Hexoatl/Itza and such are massive places that would have a lot of facilities, buildings and more to offer right? If not then thanks to the smaller villages and non-major cities around them. Yet here we are with the provinces divided into max 4 settlements with the major settlement having 8 slots most of the time, 6 at worst and 10 at best while all other have 4.
    Should've either done it like every TW game before Empire did it (aka: can build everything in a province since 1 province = 1 settlement) or took the Empire route and have one province where you can build fill up all the slots with all the buildings you want while the other things like manufacturing, pop-growth and such are done by the smaller villages in a province (as well as weakening the garrisons of the province by taking and razing said villages).
    BUT NOPE. We have instead what we have.
    If at least they took the whole cove/under-empire/cult/outpost elements (you know, they buttons on the right from your province slots in a selected procince), but added to the left side of a province's slots and these being essentially province slot tabs (with the main settlement slot having its own dedicated slot, the various logistics buildings like Empire road buildings having their own slots, garrisons having their own slots, landmarks having their own too and the usual sets of slots being restricted to any other building set, then it would've been a massive improvement). Not to mention that in case of coastal settlements and settlements with resources these should have unique settlements ala what TROY has, only in this case the settlements and ports are combined into one (thus in both cases we get buildings that combine the functions of a settlement, as well as either a port or a resource building). And if the coastal settlements also have a resource, then we get an utterly unique settlement that combines the functions of all three.
    THAT IS ALL.
    Also agreed with Zerkovich on the sieges in TWW3. The stuff with barricades should be like in 3K and ROME II while I think the towers should be part of a settlement's upgrade instead of being build during or before a siege.

  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,816
    So here are 7 pre-deployables that you can use in Rome 2. And you deploy them anywhere you want, before the battle. I have a feeling that a lot of people don't know that they exist.

    1)barricades
    2)stakes - extra damage to charging cavalry, a great way to protect your archers
    3)sharp stones - approaching unit is vulnerable to ranged fire
    4) sudes caltrops - extra damage to cavalry from any angle
    5)brimstone pits - activates with fire arrows to burn everything down
    6)fireballs - perfect for ambush battles, unit just rolls them down to the enemy.
    7) spike traps - does extra damage to any unit that passes over it




    You also have siege defenses:

    1) Bastion Onager
    2)Bastion Balista
    3) Bastion Scorpion

    So basically Rome 2 had 10 deployables (if you don't count the burning oil at the gates) and Warhammer 3 has only 4.


    If you want to see fireballs in action, just take a look at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, where Germanic tribes are launching them on the Roman legion. (fast forward to 2:32 in the video)



    So in Rome 2 campaign, you would have different traps depending on the battle stance: if you fortify, you have defensive deployables (barricades, stakes etc). If you are in the ambush stance, you have the fireballs - Ben Hur style.

    Also, you have siege defenses such as burning oil at the gates + Bastion Onager/Balista/Catapults. And these bastion siege engines are limited to 4 and can be put on certain towers before the battle.

    The generals also have the skills to increase the number of deployables.




    The momentum mechanic in Warhammer 3 s ok but it seems that it cannot compensate for the advantage that the defender has with walls, towers, and tower defense deployables.

    So the question is: why did CA downgrade the deployables in Warhammer 3? Why can't we put the barricades anywhere we want? And why are deployables limited to only 4 types (2 of which are the same for each race - barricades and damn towers). Why can't we have offensive deployables and siege engines and defensive deployables and siege engines? It already existed in Medieval 2, Rome 2, and Shogun 2, goddamn it!
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    I honestly cannot fathom how game 3 comes across so....incomplete.
    Kneel

  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,816
    I can't find the Bastion onager or scorpions on walls. They can kill a bunch of enemies. This is what WH3 needs to be EPIC!
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044

    I can't find the Bastion onager or scorpions on walls. They can kill a bunch of enemies. This is what WH3 needs to be EPIC!

    WH3 needs all the stuff people loved that was in previous TW games. That's that. Since it's an adaptation it doesn't need to be 100% faithful to the tabletop.
  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,816
    Ben1990 said:

    I can't find the Bastion onager or scorpions on walls. They can kill a bunch of enemies. This is what WH3 needs to be EPIC!

    WH3 needs all the stuff people loved that was in previous TW games. That's that. Since it's an adaptation it doesn't need to be 100% faithful to the tabletop.
    Couldn't agree more.
  • WuKaiHo#9381WuKaiHo#9381 Registered Users Posts: 23
    In Three Kingdoms, the AI will always place their depolyables right in front of their army. Then they suicide their cavalry on their own stakes and burn their infantry in their own oil puddles.

    Predetermined deployment sites and non-friendly damage deployables in Warhammer 3 were likely the solution.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,790
    Ben1990 said:



    he said it all.

    Total War in general is devolving. Anyone who thought the current settlements in Warhammer are a good thing is horribly mistaken since it's all limiting and in general makes it all unrealistic. Same with the sieges back then (they are still irritating me with magical ladders), lack of any dismount option for horse cavalry and a gamut of other things. All people wanted was it to be like Call of Warhammer but with actual functioning monsters, magic and generally it being Warhammer: Medieval Total War Edition.
    The entire game is limiting and unrealistic.
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • overtaker40#8926overtaker40#8926 Registered Users Posts: 1,177
    edited April 2022
    DTAPPSNZ said:

    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.

    I agree
    I like all the races. Equally. Wood elves are just the first among equals.
  • overtaker40#8926overtaker40#8926 Registered Users Posts: 1,177

    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.
    Or maybe its subjective. Gosh!
    I like all the races. Equally. Wood elves are just the first among equals.
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954
    WuKaiHo said:

    In Three Kingdoms, the AI will always place their depolyables right in front of their army. Then they suicide their cavalry on their own stakes and burn their infantry in their own oil puddles.

    Predetermined deployment sites and non-friendly damage deployables in Warhammer 3 were likely the solution.

    OK, but this could have been funny the first few times.
    Kneel

  • Yurisusuki#3719Yurisusuki#3719 Somewhere in LustriaRegistered Users Posts: 1,412
    Itharus said:

    Anyone remember the awesome settlement battles in Attila where all the devastation happened and you could even do awful crap like massacre the fleeing civilians and what not?

    Grotesque. But the place burning down around you was pretty engrossing.

    Attila grows on me more and more... I just wish they hadn't condensed the game down to 8 rosters. Wasted potential. Also some retrofitting history they did was sketchy af, but otherwise? Good game. Pity it was never optimized.

    Yeah, attila have some kind of apocalyptic vibe that was awesome, I started a huns campaign some months ago but forgot to come back, I want to burn Rome again.

    Surge_2 said:

    So you guys are telling me that other TW games did settlements better, even 3K, and we somehow got this trash Game 3?

    Unreal.

    I am convinced that the people who like the current implementation of minor settlements in WH3 have never played another TW game before. Or maybe it's been a while and they don't realize how dumbed down and awful they really are. Attila had extremely engaging minor settlement battles on both attacking and defending sides. Rome 2, for all its faults, had a decent deployable system, wall-mounted artillery, and a huge range of siege engines and siege artillery for attackers. I haven't played 3K but from what I hear the sieges there are close to Rome 2. While the Warhammer series, after 6 years of active development, has finally received these awful convoluted city maps with nonsensical tower defense crap tacked on. Apparently all of the CA employees with any design skill or common sense are assigned to 3 Kingdoms 2 right now because they definitely weren't working on WH3.
    You are wrong
    Gib mony plox i report u

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

    SALVATION



  • 8Ball8Ball Registered Users Posts: 2
    I absolutly agree wie Zerkovich. The main strenght for the whole Total War Series are the open battle fields, not sieges. Forcing into minor settlement battles is a killer for me as here we missing the tactics which makes the games great.

    Playing Major Settlement Sieges or minor settlemen battles form time to time is ok, but this shouldn't be the main matches you play in campaign. Cav is useless during this battles, Monsters too. This kills the variety, which is a key point for the Warhammer series.

    This needs a rework urgently.

    I think the idea from Zerkovich is good. Minor settlements, Phase 1 and two, normal open field battle, just Phase 3 leads to minor settlement battles. Same for Ogre Camps.


    The quick buidling of walls and towers feels anorganic to me. I would say, based on the supplypoints you can build something during the army placing, but not during the battle. It would be also much better to choose free the point of this buidlings.



  • Reeks#2417Reeks#2417 Registered Users Posts: 10,387
    Ugh watching how CA butchered sieges/minor settlement battles in game 3 makes me a sad panda

    Here's to hoping that they or the modders change it for the better soon

    Lot of Zerko's suggestions would be a straight up improvement...



    Nurgle is love

    Nurgle is life

    #JusticeForNurglingForumAvatars
  • UgandaJim#4927UgandaJim#4927 Registered Users Posts: 687
    Reeks said:

    Ugh watching how CA butchered sieges/minor settlement battles in game 3 makes me a sad panda

    Here's to hoping that they or the modders change it for the better soon

    Lot of Zerko's suggestions would be a straight up improvement...

    I hope modders can change it. Not like pocket ladders that seem to be hard coded ...
  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,816
    This 'mods will fix it' logic is totally wrong. It's making CA lazy and irresponsible. They should be the ones who should fix the game, not modders.
  • Thursdaythe12thThursdaythe12th Registered Users Posts: 145

    Ben1990 said:

    I can't find the Bastion onager or scorpions on walls. They can kill a bunch of enemies. This is what WH3 needs to be EPIC!

    WH3 needs all the stuff people loved that was in previous TW games. That's that. Since it's an adaptation it doesn't need to be 100% faithful to the tabletop.
    Couldn't agree more.
    Astonishing they can't maintain what already exists in their own games.
  • Surge_2#1464Surge_2#1464 Registered Users Posts: 11,954

    This 'mods will fix it' logic is totally wrong. It's making CA lazy and irresponsible. They should be the ones who should fix the game, not modders.

    Should or not no longer matters.

    Who actually has the will to fix this flaming dumpster?

    Modders.
    Kneel

  • Thursdaythe12thThursdaythe12th Registered Users Posts: 145
    Surge_2 said:

    I honestly cannot fathom how game 3 comes across so....incomplete.

    A consistent pattern across the games.

    AI can't handle naval battles - ditch them

    AI can't handle firing lines - models now shoot through each other

    AI can't handle using siege equipment - cut it down to basics

    AI can't handle barricade and tower placement - restrict it to selected positions

    There are probably more, especially if we go back to Rome 1 days. I suspect many problems arise from the engine itself, especially with physics and performance
  • akaLuckyEye#3157akaLuckyEye#3157 SwedenRegistered Users Posts: 231
    I agree with the fixed defence placements. What is the point of a barricade if you can just take a street that doesn't have a barricade option? On top of that most of the barricade placements are bad. I don’t mind that towers & barricades just pop up from nowhere.
    I’ve no opinion on more siege tools really but I would be careful about adding too much until I see how the old factions handle the new settlement battles. Especially Vampire Counts that don’t have any range & a really slow army.

    I personally like the minor settlement battles. No offence to Zerkovich but showing three games he played, a person that wants to show us that there’s too many minor settlement battles, are not the best sample of games to look at. Especially when it sounds like he doesn't think the chaos realm open battles count. He also could check if minor settlements with walls count towards open or siege battles in Warhammer 2. By checking records before a battle & then after. Not super important but it shows that more time could have been spent on researching then just looking at numbers that safety his point of view.

    With that said, I would guess that his numbers are not far from the mark but can’t base that on any facts, just a gut feeling. In my campaigns it’s more 40/60, town battles are 60. I however ambush a lot so I guess it comes down to playstyle.
    Only CA have the true numbers but I would not mind if they changed so tier 1 settlements are open battles. Tier 2 & 3 are town battles or so the first garrison building makes it a town battle. If the numbers are 25/75 it’s not unreasonable to want it to be closer to 50/50.
    I don’t agree that tier 3 would turn it into a town battle. It would bring back the tedious stay put until you have a wall part of Warhammer. Open battles with a garrison is just pointless in my opinion, with a town you have a chance at least.
    "It is said that Abhorash wept tears of blood for his victims
    and from that day on he travelled to the desert to pray upon the scattered nomads
    instead of his own people."
Sign In or Register to comment.