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

I like the new, weaker garrisons

MatST#9114MatST#9114 Registered Users Posts: 167
edited September 20 in General Discussion
I know it's a contentious point for some, but I very much like the new garrisons. Reasons:

- smaller garrisons mean that I actively need to choose where to place my armies in defence. If I have 2 armies and 3 of my regions get attacked, I need to choose which ones to defend with my main armies and which ones try and defend with only the garrison or with a lord recruited just for the occasion;
- I feel pressured on all sides, and don't just feel like I'm safe for the most part when I've built the garrison building on a settlement. True, I wasn't really safe even before the change, especially on some of the races with weaker garrisons, but I did not feel pressured that much. Now, if feel the right amount of pressure: I know I can't just rely on my garrisons on all ocassions, but I still have a few men defending settlements;
- on the offense, I don't need to always bring 2 stacks to siege a city with a defending army inside: now, it can be more easily done with just 1 army, and I prefer more manageable (smaller forces) battles;
- smaller pro, but I still like it: the garrisons are more thematic. If you manage to get you hands on a mammoth, why the hell would you send it in a garrison in a remote village on the edge of Norsca? You're right, you wouldn't. You'd bring it with you. So, having only more baseline troops in the garrisons just feels better to me; it feels right.

On the flip side:

- some of the garrisons may still need a bit of adjusting; for example, tier 5 skaven do feel a bit underwhelming, and maybe there are some that feel too powerful (though I have not found them yet);
- there's a weird behaviour with the AI, at the moment: it tends to turtle in settlements and run away from the player. Weak garrisons may contribute to it. But this is an AI problem that should be resolved independently from the garrison size, as it's not specific to it, but more general to the campaign AI;
- the thing where the garrison priorities are a bit messed up and my ally's skavenslaves replace my chaos warriors. I feel like it's more a bug than a balance problem, though.

So, all in all, I really like the new garrisons. I feel this is one of the things that CA changed for the better with IE's rework, or at least something that is definitely in the right direction.
«1

Comments

  • #98724#98724 Junior Member NorwayRegistered Users Posts: 34
    Yeah I agree. Not every settlement battle need to be huge and while the new AI isnt as aggresive expanding they are very aggresive against the player and I constantly have enemies on all sides. Means that if I focus my war efforts in the north I might loose some settlements in the south, West and East while before there where quite rare that I would loose several settlements as the garrisons would keep most away.

    There are a few places where I feel the garrisons should be stronger aswell. Like Lothern, Altdorf, Skavenblight etc. Faction capitals who earlier where harder to take is now easier since they dont have the wall building. For example Altdorf owned by an Empire faction should be strong and get some extra units. If Altdorf is taken by another faction it shouldnt be any stronger than a regular city.
  • MatST#9114MatST#9114 Registered Users Posts: 167
    #98724 said:

    Faction capitals who earlier where harder to take is now easier since they dont have the wall building.

    True, I forgot to mention this. Thanks.
  • BobsyourankleBobsyourankle Registered Users Posts: 139
    I do agree generally but the point on faction capitals is valid - the factions should have the option to increase the quantity and quality of the garrisons in these cities so that they are defensible - if a faction neglects defences it would not be surprising for their capital to have a limited garrison but they do need the ability to field a decent one if they have invested the time and cost into building it up.
  • 1v0#35621v0#3562 Registered Users Posts: 2,330
    I don't like it at all - races/factions with weaker economys have no gold to support more than 1 full stack even after getting 8-10 settlemetns...

    So you end up having the AI just running around sacking all your undefended citys while your main army is trying to expand your territory so you can have more armys.
    OR you just go back and get stuck defending - because when you defend one side the other side will be attacked.
    Just try it on very hard and you will see what i mean.

    I really don't like it and already use a mod to fix this... With an smarter AI + better garrison + better autoresolve mods the glory of WH2 is back for me - but its better ! because of the bigger map and more races (thou fixes are still needed).
    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,
  • ChristianSparta#2551ChristianSparta#2551 Registered Users Posts: 251
    WH 2 garrisons were fine and didn't need to be changed due to the new supply point system.

    If you like it that way, good for you, I don't like it and use mods.

    Until CA balances it better, I'll stick with mods.
  • afverrall#1754afverrall#1754 Registered Users Posts: 1,310
    I somewhat agree but I think the compositions are off, tbeir should be a better ratio of archers and infantry. Honestly I would prefer walls give a garrisoned army upkeep reduction rather than troops like ogre camps.
  • lcmiracle#6727lcmiracle#6727 Registered Users Posts: 1,012
    Until you forgot your garrison generals and they get the procrastinator trait.
  • MalalTheRenegade#5644MalalTheRenegade#5644 Registered Users Posts: 893
    I agree but it still needs some balancing. Especially some forts which are supposed to have great garrisons.

    Also, weak garrisons would be less annoying if the AI had an interesting behavior. For now the AI just keep avoiding you until they can attack a minor settlement just to be blocked in or close to the settlement and get killed in the next turn.

    Hopefully, this will be reworked with the towers.
  • Iron_Crown#5779Iron_Crown#5779 Registered Users Posts: 1,851
    Also think it's a good change. Once you have figured out that AI armies only avoid your defenders if you bring a stronger force than necessary, that problem goes away. By having only a small/cheap defending army, you a) don't have to chase AI because they will come at you b) save money because the army doesn't cost much and c) the defense battles are actually difficult and interesting.

  • Freden#5415Freden#5415 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 624
    10 slot settlements though… they need large unique garrisons so we can utilize them fully and not waste a slot on buffing the garrison.

    This is a no brainer imho.
  • Ravenclaw271#4724Ravenclaw271#4724 Registered Users Posts: 34
    edited September 23
    I also dont like this change for several reasons:

    1. Extremely weak race capitol garrisons:

    Clearly an oversight from CA (if the garrison change was intended and not a bug*, see below). Those citys are the heart of every race in the game and losing them means a significant change in the balance of power on the campaign map. Losing so many building slots (=money) and potential special buildings sets the owning faction back greatly.

    They are also senseless and lore breaking aswell: Seeing extremely important citys or strong bastions with around 15 garrison unit, half of them being T1 units, at T5 is just embarrassing. Imagine you let the most important and best defended city of the lizardmen, Itza, be guarded by some trash skink cohorts instead of your elite temple guard etc.

    2. Fighting on multiple fronts:

    Probably the biggest problem of this change. Lets take Skarbrand as example: He starts in the mid of the southland thunderdome, hes demonic (-100 relationship with order factions) and has extremely expensive armies. T3 minor settlement garrison with maxed garrison building: 10 units(!), pretty much all of them T1/2 units, not trash units like skink cohorts or clan rats but still unable to defend against a single full stack army.

    Youre at war with mostly anything in the southlands/badlands in first rounds, you have one strong army but cant pay another potent one. Everything you conquer gets reclaimed soon after, which means you lose pretty much anything you've invested in that settlement and cant really expand. --> Not fun at all i would say.

    And Skarbrand is just one example; Besides WoC, any race has the same problem, some have slightly better garrison or a better position at the map, but the core problem is always the same and it gets exponentially worse the higher the difficult is.

    3. Internal threats:

    = rebellions, beastmen hordes, anything with underground travel, fleeing enemy armies/armies who ignore neutral ground just to annoy you, rogue armies. Your campaign gets completly chaotical in the best case if those guys can easily beat your garrisons and you have no army there because you thought these settlements are save for now, or you had no money to raise the next expensive idle army.

    4. The garrison building is now useless (atleast on minor settlements):

    Why i should waste my rare building slots for a garrison which cant even handle a fullstack of skaven slaves by its own? If i need a potent army on every threatened settlement in order to defend, it doesnt matter if the garrison has some T1 units more. Just build a money building instead so you can partly finance the army which has to defend it.

    5. AI is now unable to defend its realm properly:

    Since the AI cant leave his settlements due to weak garrisons, it leaves their armies protecting them. Result: The AI is now much more passive because it needs far more money to defend. Im playing WoC currently and my vassals are not only camping in their home settlement, they also get attrition due to lack of money, which ive never seen in my nearly 2k of hours in WH 1-3. Vassals become useless this way, while playable factions conquer much faster. The game is now much faster, but not in a positive way rather in a annoying one (see point 2).

    * Why i think the whole garrison change could be a bug instead of intention:

    - WoC's garrisons are completly different from those of other factions. One could now argue that Dark Fortresses are ment to be far stronger guarded than some towns or citys, but the differences are extreme and the DF garrisons are very similar to WH2 garrisons, both quantity and quality like. They were also the only ones who kept their garrison hero.

    - i want to cite the 2.0 patch notes: "Garrison budgets have been equalized across the board, now falling between the WARHAMMER II Mortal Empires and WARHAMMER III Realm of Chaos amounts." --> "between" WH2 and WH3 is clearly not the case in the current IE build. It would mean that maxed minor settlements would have 17 units e.g., which is far higher than the current 10-12. Also there is no word about a garrison nerf to such an extend.

    - "Heroes have been removed from the baseline garrisons but can still be added via certain building unlocks" --> not the case for WoC (a bad change anyway)

    My theory is that CA uses an AI to generate the specific garrisons, based on a set budget value. Maybe they have made an mistake with budget number, e.g. they forgot a 0 at the end, so the AI generated garrisons with much less value. Since WoC are the latest DLC faction, it is possible that the generated them seperately, with the correct value, which leads to their far stronger garrisons in comparison to other factions in the current build.
    Post edited by Ravenclaw271#4724 on
  • Iron_Crown#5779Iron_Crown#5779 Registered Users Posts: 1,851
    Some settlements like Brass Keep have a strong 20 unit garrison, while Altdorf has like 11 weak units. Might be intentional to ensure that Fecundites are not wiped out by other AI and remain a big threat to the surrounding Empire factions, but may also just be a bug that is going to be fixed.

  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 2,865

    I know it's a contentious point for some, but I very much like the new garrisons. Reasons:

    - smaller garrisons mean that I actively need to choose where to place my armies in defence. If I have 2 armies and 3 of my regions get attacked, I need to choose which ones to defend with my main armies and which ones try and defend with only the garrison or with a lord recruited just for the occasion;
    - I feel pressured on all sides, and don't just feel like I'm safe for the most part when I've built the garrison building on a settlement. True, I wasn't really safe even before the change, especially on some of the races with weaker garrisons, but I did not feel pressured that much. Now, if feel the right amount of pressure: I know I can't just rely on my garrisons on all ocassions, but I still have a few men defending settlements;
    - on the offense, I don't need to always bring 2 stacks to siege a city with a defending army inside: now, it can be more easily done with just 1 army, and I prefer more manageable (smaller forces) battles;
    - smaller pro, but I still like it: the garrisons are more thematic. If you manage to get you hands on a mammoth, why the hell would you send it in a garrison in a remote village on the edge of Norsca? You're right, you wouldn't. You'd bring it with you. So, having only more baseline troops in the garrisons just feels better to me; it feels right.

    On the flip side:

    - some of the garrisons may still need a bit of adjusting; for example, tier 5 skaven do feel a bit underwhelming, and maybe there are some that feel too powerful (though I have not found them yet);
    - there's a weird behaviour with the AI, at the moment: it tends to turtle in settlements and run away from the player. Weak garrisons may contribute to it. But this is an AI problem that should be resolved independently from the garrison size, as it's not specific to it, but more general to the campaign AI;
    - the thing where the garrison priorities are a bit messed up and my ally's skavenslaves replace my chaos warriors. I feel like it's more a bug than a balance problem, though.

    So, all in all, I really like the new garrisons. I feel this is one of the things that CA changed for the better with IE's rework, or at least something that is definitely in the right direction.

    Subjective opinion. Especially when you are looking for challenges and want to up against a powerful defense force.
  • MatST#9114MatST#9114 Registered Users Posts: 167

    I know it's a contentious point for some, but I very much like the new garrisons. Reasons:

    - smaller garrisons mean that I actively need to choose where to place my armies in defence. If I have 2 armies and 3 of my regions get attacked, I need to choose which ones to defend with my main armies and which ones try and defend with only the garrison or with a lord recruited just for the occasion;
    - I feel pressured on all sides, and don't just feel like I'm safe for the most part when I've built the garrison building on a settlement. True, I wasn't really safe even before the change, especially on some of the races with weaker garrisons, but I did not feel pressured that much. Now, if feel the right amount of pressure: I know I can't just rely on my garrisons on all ocassions, but I still have a few men defending settlements;
    - on the offense, I don't need to always bring 2 stacks to siege a city with a defending army inside: now, it can be more easily done with just 1 army, and I prefer more manageable (smaller forces) battles;
    - smaller pro, but I still like it: the garrisons are more thematic. If you manage to get you hands on a mammoth, why the hell would you send it in a garrison in a remote village on the edge of Norsca? You're right, you wouldn't. You'd bring it with you. So, having only more baseline troops in the garrisons just feels better to me; it feels right.

    On the flip side:

    - some of the garrisons may still need a bit of adjusting; for example, tier 5 skaven do feel a bit underwhelming, and maybe there are some that feel too powerful (though I have not found them yet);
    - there's a weird behaviour with the AI, at the moment: it tends to turtle in settlements and run away from the player. Weak garrisons may contribute to it. But this is an AI problem that should be resolved independently from the garrison size, as it's not specific to it, but more general to the campaign AI;
    - the thing where the garrison priorities are a bit messed up and my ally's skavenslaves replace my chaos warriors. I feel like it's more a bug than a balance problem, though.

    So, all in all, I really like the new garrisons. I feel this is one of the things that CA changed for the better with IE's rework, or at least something that is definitely in the right direction.

    Subjective opinion. Especially when you are looking for challenges and want to up against a powerful defense force.
    Of course it's subjective. That's why I wrote "I very much like the new garrisons" and not "the new garrisons are better".
  • MODIDDLY1#9212MODIDDLY1#9212 Registered Users Posts: 1,268
    I don't know, I preferred WH2's where a late game garrison was roughly equivalent to a late game army. Now it just turns into a steamroll even faster once the faction loses its 1-2 armies.
  • kraykz#3259kraykz#3259 Registered Users Posts: 9
    on that point I made a post on reddit about minor settlement garrison comparison for all factions

    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/xim3ha/all_factions_minor_settlement_garrison_comparison/

    IMO it would be ideal if we are allowed to have a medium garrison budget + unit caps and be able to fill in / customise your garrison based on your surrounding enemies. Also I hope that they fix tower models soon since it's quite silly looking at wooden towers shooting arrows/cows/rockets/lightning/etc
  • #774880#774880 Registered Users Posts: 25
    I don't like the smaller ones, i personally liked it more when we had bigger garrisons but enemies also had more units/armies than they do now. And they actually would attack you as well causing some fun defensive siege battles. Now we have nothing but offensive siege battles
  • SnakeMajinSnakeMajin Registered Users Posts: 601
    I'm neutral to the size of garrisons, but I do feel they should be more thematic with special units for major faction capitals and racial capitals.
  • Lyserus#4480Lyserus#4480 Registered Users Posts: 206

    WH 2 garrisons were fine and didn't need to be changed due to the new supply point system.

    If you like it that way, good for you, I don't like it and use mods.

    Until CA balances it better, I'll stick with mods.

    Can you recommend a mod to fix the garrison?
  • 1v0#35621v0#3562 Registered Users Posts: 2,330
    @Lyserus#4480

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2789855636
    This is what I'm using it's similar to SFO garrisons. It's not perfect but it works fine !

    This + a better AI and Auto-resolve mod and you will bring back the WH2 glory days !

    Side topic:
    If you want to play battles get a better AR mod:

    I had to play this battle - it's my army + garrison from my Co-op friend city VS 3 stacks... normally the AR will say WIN but with a better AR mod you need to play battles like this !
    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,
  • KamicalKamical Registered Users Posts: 41
    Perhaps you should be able to improve the current garrisons yourself from your available troop pool at severely reduced cost and upkeep. Ideally each tier would allow you to select one unit, at T-5 you'd have 5/20 be your personally selected troops.

    Seems reasonable to me.
  • Itharus#3127Itharus#3127 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,396
    I hate them.

    I also hate pop up towers.
  • Djau#5149Djau#5149 Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    What's the point of garrisons now if they can't defend against at least a half stack?

  • bingbangbongbingbangbong Member Registered Users Posts: 684
    My main quibble with garrison sizes is that most factions without walls/garrison building will have too few melee units to cover the various approaches to the town centre - so walls & garrison buildings just become compulsory for all frontline settlements, alongside an actual garrison army/lord half the time as well.

    Sure you can use the makeshift barricades some of the time to plug the gaps, but that comes at the expense of building towers and even then, most of the time you're just holding out until the enemy can destroy the barricade and flank or overrun you - as they will always attack from multiple directions, rather than just one when they have the numbers.

    There's not really much strategy involved and once the troops are deployed there is very limited room to make any manoeuvres, since all your troops will be committed, so they tend to just stay in place from the start of the battle until they're dead or routing.

    Personally I think they need to give a slight increase to the number of melee units in settlement garrisons, possibly balanced by reducing the number of archers, so that they at least stand a reasonable chance of putting up a heroic defence against a weak or half full stack and can put a melee unit or 2 at every approach.

    Also if they let you assign a lord to represent the province's governor, but who also deploys in defensive battles (not sure why this was ever cut beyond lack of development time) it would prevent the commander of the garrison dying randomly, because they are just a captain in a regular unit that needs to be deployed on the frontline from the start of the battle and give some sort of counter to heroes/lords who can just trash your low tier melee troops solo most of the time.
  • SteelRonin#4832SteelRonin#4832 Junior Member ChileRegistered Users Posts: 1,566
    Garrisons are ****, they can't even kill goblins. And the wizard lord, they dont even have spells to use...it is terrible.
  • ArsonLordArsonLord Registered Users Posts: 2
    The new smaller garrisons feel out of place with the huge settlement maps. It's silly to have 5 points to defend when realistically you can only really cover 1-2 with the tiny garrison.

    It's easier to make garrisons bigger to address this than to remake all the settlement maps.
  • Djau#5149Djau#5149 Registered Users Posts: 12,145
    The Tzeentch garrisons are hilariously bad. So many Blue Horrors...and they're awful in defensive siege.

  • FloppingerFloppinger Registered Users Posts: 578
    Garrison balancing between factions from best to worst aside. Do keep in mind, that the AI at the moment fields fewer/worse armies than it normally would.
    Even if we say garrisons are adequate now (I do think they´re a bit underwhelming in many cases), what about after AI economy is fixed?


  • mightygloin#2446mightygloin#2446 Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 6,123
    Yeah so you can use the tower defence game instead of relying on proper garrisons and siege layout.
  • MatST#9114MatST#9114 Registered Users Posts: 167
    An idea would be to make garrisons work similarly to ogre camps: you get a couple of free units, then you get to recruit in the garrison whatever is recruitable in the region. Then the defense building would reduce the upkeep.

    This would also make the recruitment building decision more to the point.

    Or maybe, even better: you get a fixed number of points (or budget) for the garrison that increases with the main chain and with the defense building. Each unit costs a set number of points (or just use the MP cost). Then, you get to recruit whatever is available in the city.

    Both would probably be more complex to code than the current system because of the AI. Maybe they could borrow something from the ogre camps.
Sign In or Register to comment.