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

CA has made a mod-level job with settlement battles changes (rant)

Processing#6286Processing#6286 Czech Republic Registered Users Posts: 836
Alright, I have to vent a bit. Longer post ahead...

So, since pretty much the release of the game people have been very vocal about frequency of minor settlements. Zerkovich made a great video on that subject 6 month prior

CA promised us back in patch... I think it was 1.2? Or 1.3? that they are gonna change the frequency. It was delayed once... then again for IE... then again for now.

And here it is, the famous rework! Except there is sadly a lot to be desired...

I really liked this mod https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2877006675&searchtext=minor+settlement+battle+remover
It removes minor settlement battles from the game, which was a great substitute until CA had decided to officially release their own system...

But that mod has one **** problem - game still consider those battles as settlement battles regarding AR (remember that AI always AR battles, so it means a lot for them to have a good AR). Which means you take a massive casualties in those battles, take damage from towers and so on...

Guess what, CA's new change has the same problem. All the minor settlements are regarded as minor settlement battles in AR (for both the player and the AI) regardless wheter they have garrison building built or not. Don't belive me? AR the settlement battle and check your casualties. You will notice that the total number of the kills on enemies unit cards don't match your own casualties... why? Because some of your units were killed by the towers in AR...

Which means that factions with bad AR like Nurgle or Slaanesh have to fight all their settlement battles manually else you will lose half of your army against 7 units...

Another thing is the garrisons - I am fine with the proposed changes that settlements are filed battles now (well, for manual resolve that is) - but why not increase garrison? Why not have, say 13 units at tier 3 instead 7? It's a field battle... LL and a hero can defeat 7 units in a field battle...

What can I say... I know devs are overwhelmed with the sheer amount of IE content, but I have expected more after they had spent 6 month designing this new system.

Thankfully the bug is known to them, but that will get fixed in November. Until then, don't AR settlement battles with weak AR factions - you will take massive casualties (from towers that don't exist in field battles, LOL)

Not a native English speaker, there are probably lots of mistakes regarding tenses. Sorry.

TLDR: AR consider all minor settlement battles as actual settlement battles regardless wheter you have garrison building built or not. **** up your AR and AI' AR. Also the garrisons are trash.

Comments

  • Bogdanov89#9316Bogdanov89#9316 Registered Users Posts: 1,161
    Dang CA, that is some minimal effort work.
    And that is saying a lot considering your previous QA record.
    Check out the Community Bug Fix Mod on the Steam Workshop.
  • mecanojavi99#6562mecanojavi99#6562 EspañaRegistered Users Posts: 11,476
    I mean, If the bug is known and we know it's getting fixed next patch, so why the necessity to make a rant? What exactly is the point here?
    "By the fires of Hashut, let them burn in the flames of eternal torment!"
    - Anonymous
  • Witch_King#3646Witch_King#3646 Registered Users Posts: 142

    I mean, If the bug is known and we know it's getting fixed next patch, so why the necessity to make a rant? What exactly is the point here?

    It's about quality standards, this is the first patch after IE (and second-last for this year) and the biggest change to campaign experience is bugged, lol
  • #1609#1609 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,542
    As a modder, I find your title almost insulting :/
  • Neodeinos#5871Neodeinos#5871 Registered Users Posts: 16,112

    As a modder, I find your title almost insulting :/

    You're right modders can do better than what CA did.
  • #28957#28957 Registered Users Posts: 2,768
    smol indi kampani, can't afford to put effort and test major patches :(((
    Now I am known as "numbers".
  • Processing#6286Processing#6286 Czech Republic Registered Users Posts: 836
    Hell, why am I getting agrees here but downvotes on reddit? BRUH

    To Javi: Yes, but we are forced to endure this bug for a month. Do me a favour. Play as Nurgle or Slaanesh (terrible AR faction) and assault a 7 unit settlement with early game full stack. You will lose half of it due to towers that shouldn't exist.

    And yes, this is a mod-level job and as Neo said, even modders can sometimes do a better job that professional game developers...

    Reminder - this system has been in development for at least 3 months.
  • WhySoSalty#3990WhySoSalty#3990 Registered Users Posts: 1,524
    Zerkovich is on point....again. Many TW streamer are telling the same day after day after day. At this point i dont understand CA. Why are they trying some idiotic fancy solutions nobody is asking for when they know exactly how to fix it easily and please the majority of the playerbase
    My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperial, can you say the same?


  • Mazisky#3267Mazisky#3267 Registered Users Posts: 1,232
    edited October 2022
    The problem with this is people endorsing CA to remove features rather than fixing, some players trade some little immediate benefit for the game being worse in the long run.
    They clearly don't love this franchise
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,488

    As a modder, I find your title almost insulting :/

    You're right modders can do better than what CA did.
    Sad but true
    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.
  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096
    edited October 2022
    I think this trilogy would have failed if it wasn't for modders.
  • #1609#1609 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,542

    You're right modders can do better than what CA did.

    Not in every situation, but in that particular case I agree it's quick lazy and dirty not-fix

  • Passthechips#4366Passthechips#4366 Registered Users Posts: 1,529

    The problem with this is people endorsing CA to remove features rather than fixing, some players trade some little immediate benefit for the game being worse in the long run.
    They clearly don't love this franchise

    The feature was not removed, it was reduced. The feature is also going to continue being looked at for more changes.

    People not liking the same things as you do does not mean they don’t love this franchise, what an incredibly self-centered take.
  • #28957#28957 Registered Users Posts: 2,768

    I mean, If the bug is known and we know it's getting fixed next patch, so why the necessity to make a rant? What exactly is the point here?

    It's about quality standards, this is the first patch after IE (and second-last for this year) and the biggest change to campaign experience is bugged, lol
    Let's not forget that this change was post-poned from 2.1 to 2.2 :)

    Enjoy the quality delays.
    Now I am known as "numbers".
  • Darksteel83#1113Darksteel83#1113 Registered Users Posts: 595
    #28957 said:

    I mean, If the bug is known and we know it's getting fixed next patch, so why the necessity to make a rant? What exactly is the point here?

    It's about quality standards, this is the first patch after IE (and second-last for this year) and the biggest change to campaign experience is bugged, lol
    Let's not forget that this change was post-poned from 2.1 to 2.2 :)

    Enjoy the quality delays.
    I think this change was delayed way longer then that.

    Yes I am correct in the roadmap it was already in the list for 1.3
    https://www.totalwar.com/blog/twwh3-roadmap-2022/
  • Processing#6286Processing#6286 Czech Republic Registered Users Posts: 836

    #28957 said:

    I mean, If the bug is known and we know it's getting fixed next patch, so why the necessity to make a rant? What exactly is the point here?

    It's about quality standards, this is the first patch after IE (and second-last for this year) and the biggest change to campaign experience is bugged, lol
    Let's not forget that this change was post-poned from 2.1 to 2.2 :)

    Enjoy the quality delays.
    I think this change was delayed way longer then that.

    Yes I am correct in the roadmap it was already in the list for 1.3
    https://www.totalwar.com/blog/twwh3-roadmap-2022/
    I literally said as much in this very post.
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,488
    #28957 said:

    I mean, If the bug is known and we know it's getting fixed next patch, so why the necessity to make a rant? What exactly is the point here?

    It's about quality standards, this is the first patch after IE (and second-last for this year) and the biggest change to campaign experience is bugged, lol
    Let's not forget that this change was post-poned from 2.1 to 2.2 :)

    Enjoy the quality delays.
    This is just absurd how could this solution have taken so long?

    It is so basic. CA should be able to do it in 1(one!) work day.
    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.
  • Darksteel83#1113Darksteel83#1113 Registered Users Posts: 595

    #28957 said:

    I mean, If the bug is known and we know it's getting fixed next patch, so why the necessity to make a rant? What exactly is the point here?

    It's about quality standards, this is the first patch after IE (and second-last for this year) and the biggest change to campaign experience is bugged, lol
    Let's not forget that this change was post-poned from 2.1 to 2.2 :)

    Enjoy the quality delays.
    I think this change was delayed way longer then that.

    Yes I am correct in the roadmap it was already in the list for 1.3
    https://www.totalwar.com/blog/twwh3-roadmap-2022/
    I literally said as much in this very post.
    Yes this change took a very long time it is not even great.

    I am happy with the change because I really did not like the minor settlement as they where and then there occurrence.

    Played IE today and enjoyed playing WH3.
  • Maedrethnir#1968Maedrethnir#1968 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,371
    Classic CA alright.
  • maddog1989#5832maddog1989#5832 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 373
    #640471 said:

    The problem with this is people endorsing CA to remove features rather than fixing, some players trade some little immediate benefit for the game being worse in the long run.
    They clearly don't love this franchise

    The feature was not removed, it was reduced. The feature is also going to continue being looked at for more changes.

    People not liking the same things as you do does not mean they don’t love this franchise, what an incredibly self-centered take.
    Don't tell me a feature was not removed it absolutely was. Oh but you dont play Bretonnia then do you? You know what Bretonnia had as a faction feature? Walled Minor settlements at Tier 3. They've had this in every single game since they first came into Total War Warhammer. A feature wasnt removed my ass. Bretonnia the faction all about Knights and Castles no longer has half its Castles and its garrisons are so trash from what CA has done in WH3 removing Paladins from their Garrison and what not that you now have to have full Armies to defend you're minor settlements .... Oh but wait your lord doesn't have enough completed in your vows either so I guess your not bringing Knights to defend your non existant Castle. Hey I know lets instead sally forth with ZERO Knights.
  • Delta#5958Delta#5958 Registered Users Posts: 197
    Why am I not surprised. Sometimes I think they want the game to fail... Further speculation would be they want to Break relations with GW and make their own IP so they don't have to pay for the license.....

    Oh yes I can see the boardroom "it's just a fantasy setting how much value can it hold?"
  • KIT#5531KIT#5531 Registered Users Posts: 499
    Deltamir said:

    Why am I not surprised. Sometimes I think they want the game to fail... Further speculation would be they want to Break relations with GW and make their own IP so they don't have to pay for the license.....

    Oh yes I can see the boardroom "it's just a fantasy setting how much value can it hold?"

    Maybe it would be better for GW if CA would break relations. Becaus bit by bit CA hurts Warhammer. They do things which are not according to the lore anymore only to satisfy MP community.
  • Darksteel83#1113Darksteel83#1113 Registered Users Posts: 595

    #640471 said:

    The problem with this is people endorsing CA to remove features rather than fixing, some players trade some little immediate benefit for the game being worse in the long run.
    They clearly don't love this franchise

    The feature was not removed, it was reduced. The feature is also going to continue being looked at for more changes.

    People not liking the same things as you do does not mean they don’t love this franchise, what an incredibly self-centered take.
    Don't tell me a feature was not removed it absolutely was. Oh but you dont play Bretonnia then do you? You know what Bretonnia had as a faction feature? Walled Minor settlements at Tier 3. They've had this in every single game since they first came into Total War Warhammer. A feature wasnt removed my ass. Bretonnia the faction all about Knights and Castles no longer has half its Castles and its garrisons are so trash from what CA has done in WH3 removing Paladins from their Garrison and what not that you now have to have full Armies to defend you're minor settlements .... Oh but wait your lord doesn't have enough completed in your vows either so I guess your not bringing Knights to defend your non existant Castle. Hey I know lets instead sally forth with ZERO Knights.
    This sound more like a mistake from CA. To be honest I did not even know this Bretonnia special. Have not played Bretonnia much.

    But the feature minor settlement battles is still in the game. But only reduced.
  • vormaerin#1910vormaerin#1910 Registered Users Posts: 234
    KIT#5531 said:

    Deltamir said:

    Why am I not surprised. Sometimes I think they want the game to fail... Further speculation would be they want to Break relations with GW and make their own IP so they don't have to pay for the license.....

    Oh yes I can see the boardroom "it's just a fantasy setting how much value can it hold?"

    Maybe it would be better for GW if CA would break relations. Becaus bit by bit CA hurts Warhammer. They do things which are not according to the lore anymore only to satisfy MP community.
    yes, quite clearly the reason they did this with siege battles is to please the MP community.

    On a side note, anyone who thinks GW cares about the "lore" beyond its ability to generate revenue has quite clearly failed to pay attention GW's behavior over the years. They do not give a rat's behind about what's already published.
  • drogarito#2548drogarito#2548 Registered Users Posts: 1,815
    If you aren't paying attention, poppable towers made CA lazy.
  • ammo2095#8079ammo2095#8079 Registered Users Posts: 1,548
    Yes, CA are lazy thinkers and incompetent in their patching of the game, well done guys. The milk is spilt and you start to see the problem.

    Now, make enough noise, so that CA can go offline and start to plan their work better.
Sign In or Register to comment.