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

Are you satisfied with the current garrisons?

Ravenclaw271#4724Ravenclaw271#4724 Registered Users Posts: 35
edited October 2022 in General Discussion
With update 2.0, garrisons have suffered an huge nerf, decreasing the unit numbers of minor settlements from an average of 14-16 units with balanced Tiers (higher settlement Tier = higher unit Tier) in Warhammer 2 to an average of 10-12 units with mostly T1-2 units in Warhammer 3.

With 2.2, we now got only a few changes to garrisons: important capitols got their garrisons buffed a little bit (still far worse than the current state of Warhammer 2), heroes have partly returned to garrisons and garrison mages got new spells. However, minor settlements garrisons are practically untouched and so we still have to defend our T3 Khorne settlement with a maxed out 10 unit garrison (just one example; every faction except WoC has this problem).

Since there is no clear statement in the patch notes (neither in the current notes, nor in the preview of 2.3), it could be that CA doesnt see it as a problem and thus has no plans about it. "Additionally we have lost some of the more detailed and nuanced pieces of content when we transitioned from ME to IE, but are in the process of re-adding some of this flavour." (2.2; Settlement and Garrison Change; Dev Note, 2nd paragraph) could include it, but they leave it vague.

However, the topic has been discussed in the forum from time to time and I cant remember a poll about it. I am interested in what the community thinks about the situation. Do you think garrisons are fine at the moment, or should they get buffed/nerfed? Feel free to explain your opinion and discuss about the topic!

Are you satisfied with the current garrisons? 137 votes

Yes, they should stay that way
13%
LESAMA#5456Tzor#3330Nitros14#7973ArbitraryDwarf#5835Osprey#3500RikRiorik#9890#705863durbal#5911overtaker40#8926DrawVids#5775GeorgeTruman#8059MalalTheRenegade#5644Loreguy#1056damon40000#7640andrusca89#4023Thankki#6655Dream_Keeper#6647GrudgingTimeBetonro#6942 19 votes
No, they are too weak
80%
RunsOnDiesel#9864Prkl8r#9998Serkelet#1834JGreen#4068Lethaface#2060Maedrethnir#1968Bmnoble981#3908tgoodenow#9235#372899Tombet#4402Peppis#6530Barnak#8188Commissar_G#7535Malruir#2663Otters007#7127Pray#3234lcmiracle#6727GettoGecko#78611v0#3562MeGa_N00B#2436 110 votes
No, they are too strong
0%
NightOfTheDead 1 vote
Other (please explain)
5%
Freden#5415Tennisgolfboll#5877Schussel#7671suecoxVictor300Spartasaweendra#3399lordchance2#1568 7 votes
Post edited by Ravenclaw271#4724 on
«1

Comments

  • Ravenclaw271#4724Ravenclaw271#4724 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited October 2022
    No, they are too weak
    Here are my 2 cents from another thread:

    I also dont like this change [the garrisons since 2.0] for several reasons:

    1. Extremely weak race capitol garrisons [partly changed in the current update]:

    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.
  • dogoska#1535dogoska#1535 Registered Users Posts: 103
    No, they are too weak
    If garrisons are too weak and they don't want us to build the garrison building everywhere, simply make garrisons take a small upkeep each turn.
  • Djau#5149Djau#5149 Registered Users Posts: 12,172
    No, they are too weak
    Whoever puts Blue Horrors in Garrisons loves hurting people.

  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,488
    Other (please explain)
    The whole "siege rework" is trash. Gotta do it again. Path finding, ai being able to play them, insta build garbage, garrisons etc all need fixing.
    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.
  • Bmnoble981#3908Bmnoble981#3908 Senior Member South AustraliaRegistered Users Posts: 1,325
    No, they are too weak
    I miss all the extra units you could choose to add to your garrisons by building certain buildings and that came free with a lot of the landmark buildings.

    I wish they would just give us a budget based on the cost of the units in the garrisons by default and let us set up are own garrison with useful units.
  • AceHitchers#4718AceHitchers#4718 Registered Users Posts: 8
    No, they are too weak
    Way too weak, better garrisons is an essential mod for me now. Even in cramped maps I still want large battles. If the ai can't handle the small maps then they should be made bigger.
  • Jarms48#7854Jarms48#7854 Registered Users Posts: 360
    No, they are too weak
    Now said minor settlement garrisons have been nerfed again with the removal of minor settlement battles, and the removal of walls with the garrison buildings only unlocking minor settlement battles.

    Personally I would have preferred:
    - Tier II settlement and tier II garrison building: Minor settlement battle.
    - Tier III settlement: Minor settlement battle.
    - Tier III settlement and tier III garrison building: Walled settlement battle.

    The rest could be field battles. With the majority of all races having increased garrisons.
  • overtaker40#8926overtaker40#8926 Registered Users Posts: 1,172
    Yes, they should stay that way
    I like that they are weak it means I need to plan around it by being smart about alliances and wars. They are their to supplement a defensive army.

    My only complaint has been addressed, which was some settlements needing unique garrisons.
    I like all the races. Equally. Wood elves are just the first among equals.
  • MODIDDLY1#9212MODIDDLY1#9212 Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    No, they are too weak
    I hate that garrisons are led by a random squad of units instead of a hero now.
  • SnakeMajinSnakeMajin Registered Users Posts: 601
    No, they are too weak
    The current garrisons and new settlement map change will lead to some AR festival. We won't even play more field battles because all of the new potential field battles are about having a stack versus a crap garrison.
  • Schussel#7671Schussel#7671 Registered Users Posts: 1,039
    Other (please explain)

    I like that they are weak it means I need to plan around it by being smart about alliances and wars. They are their to supplement a defensive army.

    My only complaint has been addressed, which was some settlements needing unique garrisons.

    Sorry but thats completly silly,
    The Diplomatic malus are for some factions with neighbouring factions is ofthen that big that you can't really do much about getting alliances or at least not beeing randomly attacked/declared war by that neighbouring faction.

    Without the walls in Minor settlements the enemy will plunder or conquer your minor settlements with full stacks all the time before you can even reach them with your defensive army to support the garison.
    Or you will have to have a lot of them which will slow down your progess in game extremly due to much more money needed for army upkeep and therefor not available to improve cities... and the economy of some factions already recieve a heavy nerf.

    but thats at all not the real problem the real problem is that instead of more or less intresting siege/settlement battles we now got absolutly borring landbattles with 20 Unit T4-5 Elite Stacks vs T2-T3 half sized garrison... so instead of less autoresolve we got even more autoresolve battles.



  • Maedrethnir#1968Maedrethnir#1968 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,371
    No, they are too weak
    From what I gather, they are indeed weak.
  • #1609#1609 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,542
    I don't really care, my mod will rework all the garrisons at some point anyway.
    Military buildings will contributes, settlement will be a little less important
  • overtaker40#8926overtaker40#8926 Registered Users Posts: 1,172
    Yes, they should stay that way
    Schussel said:

    I like that they are weak it means I need to plan around it by being smart about alliances and wars. They are their to supplement a defensive army.

    My only complaint has been addressed, which was some settlements needing unique garrisons.

    Sorry but thats completly silly,
    The Diplomatic malus are for some factions with neighbouring factions is ofthen that big that you can't really do much about getting alliances or at least not beeing randomly attacked/declared war by that neighbouring faction.

    Without the walls in Minor settlements the enemy will plunder or conquer your minor settlements with full stacks all the time before you can even reach them with your defensive army to support the garison.
    Or you will have to have a lot of them which will slow down your progess in game extremly due to much more money needed for army upkeep and therefor not available to improve cities... and the economy of some factions already recieve a heavy nerf.

    but thats at all not the real problem the real problem is that instead of more or less intresting siege/settlement battles we now got absolutly borring landbattles with 20 Unit T4-5 Elite Stacks vs T2-T3 half sized garrison... so instead of less autoresolve we got even more autoresolve battles.



    Most of that sounds like an excuse. Get better.

    I never wanted them to reduce minor settlement battles. I liked them. Though I will pretty much always build the garrison now so it's not a problem for me.

    The ai won't as often though so no problem there.

    I think the best fix would have been reducing base movement cause in most places the problem is cities are usually only 1 turn away.
    I like all the races. Equally. Wood elves are just the first among equals.
  • Ravenclaw271#4724Ravenclaw271#4724 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited October 2022
    No, they are too weak

    I don't really care, my mod will rework all the garrisons at some point anyway.
    Military buildings will contributes, settlement will be a little less important

    Sadly the garrison mods which are available in the Steam-Workshop always have a downside in which i cant and/or dont want to use them:

    - Zorbaz's Greater Garrisons is well balanced, but not Multiplayer compatible (atleast on me and my friend)
    - oldie's Garrison Upgrade is unbalanced; garrisons become ridiculously strong even at lower Tiers
    - The Great Settlement Battle Overhaul by Commisar Jon Fuklaw adds T4 minor settlements, which i personally dont like
  • Schussel#7671Schussel#7671 Registered Users Posts: 1,039
    Other (please explain)



    Most of that sounds like an excuse. Get better.

    I never wanted them to reduce minor settlement battles. I liked them. Though I will pretty much always build the garrison now so it's not a problem for me.

    The ai won't as often though so no problem there.

    I think the best fix would have been reducing base movement cause in most places the problem is cities are usually only 1 turn away.

    So no Idea how to coutner my arguments so only a "get better"
    the discussions are getting more and more silly.
    or people are unable to read and understand.

    Building a Garrison doesn't change anything your garissons won't stand a chance against a elite Stack going on rampage in your territory.

    how do you get the idea of reducing movement range?
    What would it help?
    you still can't reach enemy going havoc in your territory, or it will take several turns to catch them where they can sack every minor settlement in your area.

    I don't know which factions you play but it must be one thats not surounded by enemies or starting in a corner, otherwise you would understand the issue caused by removing walls.
  • Lethaface#2060Lethaface#2060 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 125
    No, they are too weak
    I'm a bit in the middle. I think several features are connected:

    * Size and quality of settlement garrisons and how they're upgraded with settlement growth / defensive buildings
    * Settlement defenses upgrades due to growth and defensive buildings (field / settlement / walls).
    * Costs and number of turns for upgrading settlements and defenses.
    * distance between settlements and movement range
    * Starting positions (how many potential enemies are close by and or surrounding the player)
    * Supply system / cost of extra armies; viability of recruiting smaller and cheaper armies for defense
    * AI interaction with all of those

    Talking about these things in isolation doesn't to justice to the overall game imo.

    The one thing I think almost everybody agrees on that the buildings towers etc during a battle is not immersive. Even though Warhammer is not 'realistic', TW is not a tower defense game.

    I do like WH3 bringing back the minor settlement battles. While in my first Realm of Chaos campaign as Skarbrand (soon after release) I basically only got minor settlement battles on the same maps (which got quite repetitive), I feel things had already improved quite a lot before the 2.2 patch.

    Adding variety to the minor settlement maps (field/minor settlement/walls) seems a good idea, but I too get the idea the changes have gone perhaps a bit too far in the other direction.

    Maybe the first question to answer is 'what actually is / represents a settlement in WH3'? A hamlet with a few souls ad a farm (level 1?) A proper developed town with purpose build defenses / barracks, a market or tradeport and some inns?

    There should imo be a tangible difference between those; a small hamlet should be relatively easily plundered by a decent enemy army if it is not guarded by a friendly army.
    But a well developed (over many turns) town shouldn't be a pushover for an average army.

    Of course an elite experienced army with an experienced general won't have much problems with sieging a town anyhow.

    So the current change is imo a step in the right direction but probably could use some more tweaking. I feel that the player should be able to upgrade a settlement and it's defenses (including a garrison) in order to make it much more hard to attack compared to a starting level settlement or a settlement without upgraded defenses / garrison. Pre 2.2 adding walls could help a lot with defense in area's with many potential enemies, if only because the AI would usually have to siege for a turn or something allowing the player to organize his defense army wise (especially in the more crowded area's enemies can often reach a settlement from their lands within one or two turns).

    There should be a real choice for players to prioritize building his economy or focus on defense with minor settlements. Economy focus means the player needs to use his armies for defense or risk getting his settlements razed / plundered. While focusing on defense should make towns much more organically defendable, allowing the player to use his armies more for campaigning but getting significantly less income from those settlements.

    So, do you want a province focused on income or a (border) province focused on defense against enemy armies?
    Of course the level of the settlement should also have an impact on defenses (and income).

    So all in all it seems to me now that the current garrisons are on average a bit weak, even with max upgraded defenses. Perhaps there could be more levels on defensive buildings for settlements, allowing for more improvements of the garrison?

    A level 1 settlement without any defensive building should have pushover garrison and a field battle seems fine in my eyes. But a max level settlement with fully upgraded defenses shouldn't be a pushover and take quite some effort to conquer or raze. Enough effort to be worth it upgrading the town and defenses.
    Obviously a gradual scaling between those two would make the whole system feel more nuanced and immersive.

    But I will need to play some more with 2.2 to develop a better understanding of where things are now and how I like it compared to pre 2.2.
  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,683
    No, they are too weak
    Garrisons are too small and weak.

    Garrison budget should go up to about what it was prior to 2.0, it should always be led by either a support hero or caster hero.

    They should mostly focus on increasing the number of units though, rather than pushing up to higher tier ones.

    This is particularly the case for walled settlements which need a large number of units to cover the amount of space and number of capture points in the settlement.
  • Shadivak#1504Shadivak#1504 Registered Users Posts: 6
    No, they are too weak
    Garrisons are absolute garbage. This is especially true for major capital cities. I have no idea who thought it would be a good idea to allow cities like Altdorf, Nagarrond, Lothern, etc., to be absolute fodder for a stack of t1/t2 units, but it is immersion and game-breaking stupidity. Yes, I'm sure the dark elves are going to defend the STRONGHOLD OF THEIR CIVILIZATION, a fully ranked, tier 5 Naggarond, with 3 dreadspears, 4 darkshards, 2 shades, 2 bleakswords, and 1 har ganeth executioner. Totally believable... As a result, you see these cities being sacked and razed CONSTANTLY. Well before they should even be in danger, let alone sitting as smoldering ruins... And this being accomplished by a rag-tag stack of tier 1 and tier 2 nurgle units? Give me a break.

    The fact that CA decided to remove walls from all settlements before addressing garrisons, tells me they are completely out of touch with the game.

    Settlements, even WITH walls, were almost impossible to defend against a decent mid-game army, because garrisons were nerfed into oblivion. Now? I'm just clicking AR. There's no point in ever building a garrison building again. Those five extra tier 1 units are completely useless without walls. Mid-game, they were more or less useless even with walls... As a player, I could solo tier 3 garrisons with a LL and a couple heroes. Even with walls. Sometimes, I didn't even need the heroes... Now? Just more auto-resolves, I guess.

    So you replaced settlement battle spam with....auto-resolve spam? Or, 2 minute open-field curb-stomping spam? Where I just rush their 10-13 tier 1 units with a couple of my elite units, and call it a day?

    What are you doing? It seems every update is five steps backwards, 1 step forward.
  • Maximum997#5036Maximum997#5036 Registered Users Posts: 30
    No, they are too weak
    I think that AR is still better yehn 10 minutes long borefest
  • MalalTheRenegade#5644MalalTheRenegade#5644 Registered Users Posts: 916
    Yes, they should stay that way
    Except in major settlements, garrisons should be weak.

    However, we should be able to support more armies (hence more "defensive armies") to defend those settlements. But this also implies a rework on army composition for both the player and the AI which can only come with soft caps (special ressources) or hard caps.
  • bli-nk#6314bli-nk#6314 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,979
    edited October 2022
    What would be the 'ideal garrisons?

    Faction capital +5 units with # and tiers depending on tier of the main settlement. Highest tier unit = to settlement tier.

    Province capital
    T1 3 tier 1, 3 tier 2, 2 tier 3, 1 tier 4 = 9
    T2 4 tier 1, 4 tier 2, 3 tier 3, 2 tier 4 = 13
    T3 6 tier 1, 5 tier 2, 3 tier 3, 3 tier 4 = 16
    T4 5 tier 1, 5 tier 2, 4 tier 3, 3 tier 4, 1 hero = 18
    T5 4 tier 1, 4 tier 2, 6 tier 3, 4 tier 4, 1 tier 5, 1 hero = 20

    Defences
    T1 2 tier 2, 1 tier 3, +1 spell caster = 4
    T2 2 tier 2, 2 tier 3, +1 spell caster =5
    T3 3 tier 2, 3 tier 3, 1 tier 4, 1 spellcaster = 8

    Higher tier units replace lower tier units so T5 with T3 Defences = 3 tier 2, 9 tier 3, 5 tier 4, 1 tier 5, hero + spellcaster = 20

    Minor settlemetns

    T1 4 tier 1, 2 tier 2, 1 tier 3 = 7
    T2 4 tier 1, 3 tier 2, 2 tier 3 = 9
    T3 5 tier 1, 5 tier 2, 2 tier 3, 1 tier 4 = 13

    Defences

    T1 2 tier 1, 2 tier 2, hero = 5
    T2 3 tier 1, 3 tier 2, 1 tier 3, hero = 8
    T3 4 tier 1, 4 tier 2, 2 tier 3, 1 tier 4, hero = 12

    Higher tier units replace lower tier.

    Minor settlement T3 + T3 Defences
    4 tier 1, 9 tier 2, 4 tier 3, 2 tier 4, hero = 20

    Then settlement building slots should be changed so T3 gets +1 slot compared to now, T4 only gives 1 additional and to unlock all slots requires T5 for normal provincial capitals so spending the money and time to upgrade to T5 gives +3 slots compared to T3 but also significantly better garrison.

    With lower supply lines most races can afford 2nd army relatively early. People complaing about not being able to defend are expanding too quickly or in the wrong direction. TW is sitll supposed to be a strategy game, choosing to expand in direction 1 army can reach in 1-2 turns to help T1 and T2 settlements defend until they grow to T3 should be part of strategy. Even Skarbrand can afford a 2nd army that might only have 3 units but that is a Lord + 2 units = 10 units on a T1 settlement that should only be T1 for a handful of turns before it has growth to T2.
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
  • speedlead#5662speedlead#5662 Registered Users Posts: 1
    No, they are too weak
    extremely week garrison + hyper anti player bias means every campaign turns into endless whac-a-mole. Garrison troops already have very limited potential because the lack of casters and low tier composition, and now 95% minor settlements battle are field battles???I just won't even bother opening the game anymore.
  • Shadivak#1504Shadivak#1504 Registered Users Posts: 6
    No, they are too weak
    Greater garrisons has become a must-have mod to return any semblance of logic to capital city garrisons.
  • Ravenclaw271#4724Ravenclaw271#4724 Registered Users Posts: 35
    No, they are too weak
    With 2.3 now dropped, it seems that garrisons will remain untouched for atleast this year. Hopefully they get buffed in 2.4, since waiting nearly a half year (3.0) for such an important part of the game would be very sad - if CA decides to buff them at all (which isnt clear if they use phrases like "among some players" in their last State of the Game).

    On the other side, with the confirmation that there will be an update before 3.0, it is possible that CA wants to overhaul sieges before Chaos Dwarfs are being released with 3.0. Maybe they want to buff garrisons in the same update as the siege rework because they are connected with each other? We may know more in the next State of the Game in December.

    For those who want garrison buffs: There is a shortlisted thread in the IE feedback sector which addresses this topic (and which is also one of the most upvoted in this sector): https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/321293/garrison-buffs-needed
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,922
    edited November 2022
    Yes, they should stay that way
    77% of people in favour of unloseable campaigns where a free garrison army can defeat a whole invasion by itself.

    Can't understand it myself. Maybe tie player garrison strength to campaign difficulty.


    You guys should open up Shogun 2 and see the garrisons there (a lowly unit of 60 samurai retainers and maybe a couple peasants if you upgraded).

    Or open up Attila Total War and see the garrisons there (three units as Eastern Rome, maybe 5 if you upgraded fully).

    Or open up Empire total war and see the garrisons there (some really bad militia).

    Or open up Three Kingdoms records mode (the garrisons are weaker than WH3)

    In the case of Shogun 2 and earlier if you wanted a garrison you had to pay for it!
  • MagicMarker#9590MagicMarker#9590 Registered Users Posts: 169
    No, they are too weak
    Garrisons are too weak for manual fights and point value should scale up but they are overpowered on AR, probably because the system gives some value for poppable tower defense.
  • Ravenclaw271#4724Ravenclaw271#4724 Registered Users Posts: 35
    edited November 2022
    No, they are too weak
    Nitros14#7973

    Autoresolve is bugged atm; it gives your attacking garrison the same balance of power as it would be defending. Additionally, AR overestimates the value of towers and walls (siege defend in general) by a lot. Thats the whole reason why a lowtier 12 unit garrison can beat a fullstack including an LL.

    Its not intended and gets hopefully fixed in the future. Apart from that it oversimplifies the whole point of sieges and makes them pretty much redundant. Also, its often a coinflip if AR gives your garrison the completely undeserved deceisive victory or the more realistic defeat.

    Comparing a fantasy game with flying units, monsters, magic, LL/heroes and a very flat siege mechanic with historical games, in which attacking a settlement without siege equipment is highly dangerous, seems a bit misplaced. The phrase "It was always so" also doesnt mean it was always good that way.
  • MODIDDLY1#9212MODIDDLY1#9212 Registered Users Posts: 1,345
    No, they are too weak

    77% of people in favour of unloseable campaigns where a free garrison army can defeat a whole invasion by itself.

    Can't understand it myself. Maybe tie player garrison strength to campaign difficulty.


    You guys should open up Shogun 2 and see the garrisons there (a lowly unit of 60 samurai retainers and maybe a couple peasants if you upgraded).

    Or open up Attila Total War and see the garrisons there (three units as Eastern Rome, maybe 5 if you upgraded fully).

    Or open up Empire total war and see the garrisons there (some really bad militia).

    Or open up Three Kingdoms records mode (the garrisons are weaker than WH3)

    In the case of Shogun 2 and earlier if you wanted a garrison you had to pay for it!

    Or, 77% of player understand that you typically are attacking garrisons and not defending with them, so would like the empty settlements you are attacking late game to be able to stand up to an army, as that's primarily what you will be fighting.
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,922
    edited November 2022
    Yes, they should stay that way

    77% of people in favour of unloseable campaigns where a free garrison army can defeat a whole invasion by itself.

    Can't understand it myself. Maybe tie player garrison strength to campaign difficulty.


    You guys should open up Shogun 2 and see the garrisons there (a lowly unit of 60 samurai retainers and maybe a couple peasants if you upgraded).

    Or open up Attila Total War and see the garrisons there (three units as Eastern Rome, maybe 5 if you upgraded fully).

    Or open up Empire total war and see the garrisons there (some really bad militia).

    Or open up Three Kingdoms records mode (the garrisons are weaker than WH3)

    In the case of Shogun 2 and earlier if you wanted a garrison you had to pay for it!

    Or, 77% of player understand that you typically are attacking garrisons and not defending with them, so would like the empty settlements you are attacking late game to be able to stand up to an army, as that's primarily what you will be fighting.
    I have no objection to buffing the AI's garrisons based on difficulty level. Player garrisons do not need buffs.
    Post edited by Nitros14#7973 on
Sign In or Register to comment.