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.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
i mean if we wanna do fluff or TT balance than there is no need to play TT
if temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
That's precisely what I want. The niche of lower tier units is that they are cheaper and available sooner in campaign than higher tier units. When the funds start rolling in then we naturally start swapping out our cheaper units for the better version (marauder => chaos warriors => chosen, etc.), unless we're playing with a TT caps mod or intentionally limiting ourselves for flavor reasons (which I personally do in my campaigns myself).
Personally there's a lot little contrivances placed on the design of certain units in this trilogy that drives me nuts. Probably the most talked about examples are the demotion Dwarf Miners and White Lions of Chrace in the translation from the TT to TW. But plenty of other things as well, such as spear units generally having a weaker attack value than other melee weapons, yet in both the TT, past TWs and IRL they put out more damage by simple virtue of the men behind the first line having the reach to attack as well. EDIT: By more damage I don't mean relative to other weapon types but relative to where they are now.
Still yet are the changes that arguably should have made in the translation from TT to TW yet weren't resulting in units being separated into unnecessary variations of the same thing shield and shieldless is the most common example. But another great example of this is the distinction between cavalry with lances and cavalry without. Knights and similar lance cavalry in the TW games used to hit hard on the charge then once in melee would swap to sword, axe or mace; the holdover from the TT of the distinction between lance or lanceless cav just a little braindead, especially when it was already possible to distinguish dedicated shock and prolonged melee cavalry in past games as well as utilizing different cavalry units on a given races roster.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
i mean if we wanna do fluff or TT balance than there is no need to play TT
if temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
The idea that pole arm troops were superior to other melee troops in history is not actually true. They had the advantage of being supported by additional units and generally never performed well against other troops alone. This goes all the way back the Macedonian Pikemen whom everytime they engaged Greek Hoplites with out the support of Calvary they were utterly destroyed with very minor casualties to the hoplites. Games like Total War seriously over play the effectiveness of polearms versus various other units.
The main advantage that polearms brought was as a literal holding force and versus cavalry.
Now mind you this is human reality. In Warhammer something like an Elf or Saurus using a Halberd virus other races isn't gonna have the draw back of being cumbersome to wield like it is for humans. These races are substantially stronger than Humans and inorder to get humans to that same level they'd be Grail Knights, Vampires, or Chaos Chosen.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
i mean if we wanna do fluff or TT balance than there is no need to play TT
if temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
That's precisely what I want. The niche of lower tier units is that they are cheaper and available sooner in campaign than higher tier units. When the funds start rolling in then we naturally start swapping out our cheaper units for the better version (marauder => chaos warriors => chosen, etc.), unless we're playing with a TT caps mod or intentionally limiting ourselves for flavor reasons (which I personally do in my campaigns myself).
Personally there's a lot little contrivances placed on the design of certain units in this trilogy that drives me nuts. Probably the most talked about examples are the demotion Dwarf Miners and White Lions of Chrace in the translation from the TT to TW. But plenty of other things as well, such as spear units generally having a weaker attack value than other melee weapons, yet in both the TT, past TWs and IRL they put out more damage by simple virtue of the men behind the first line having the reach to attack as well. EDIT: By more damage I don't mean relative to other weapon types but relative to where they are now.
Still yet are the changes that arguably should have made in the translation from TT to TW yet weren't resulting in units being separated into unnecessary variations of the same thing shield and shieldless is the most common example. But another great example of this is the distinction between cavalry with lances and cavalry without. Knights and similar lance cavalry in the TW games used to hit hard on the charge then once in melee would swap to sword, axe or mace; the holdover from the TT of the distinction between lance or lanceless cav just a little braindead, especially when it was already possible to distinguish dedicated shock and prolonged melee cavalry in past games as well as utilizing different cavalry units on a given races roster.
What Total War did with Cavalry is one of my biggest gripes with the game. They created entirely new units just to seperate them from the lance variants. I still will forever say Grail Knights and Questing Knights should be heros not normal cav units. But that's me.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
In lore is temple guard suppose to be these extremely rare units that are overpowered as hell?
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
In lore is temple guard suppose to be these extremely rare units that are overpowered as hell?
I mean, a lot of units definitely come off that way in lore. But Temple Guard have basically guarded Slann and the Temple Cities for like thousands of years usually with some being as old as the temple cities. Like, they usually go centuries constantly watching and protecting the Slann without sleeping. So, they're definitely overpowered from the lore. Plus a sleepless guardian that would never have to rest for my entire lifetime would be the most effective defenders imo.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
i mean if we wanna do fluff or TT balance than there is no need to play TT
if temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
That's precisely what I want. The niche of lower tier units is that they are cheaper and available sooner in campaign than higher tier units. When the funds start rolling in then we naturally start swapping out our cheaper units for the better version (marauder => chaos warriors => chosen, etc.), unless we're playing with a TT caps mod or intentionally limiting ourselves for flavor reasons (which I personally do in my campaigns myself).
Personally there's a lot little contrivances placed on the design of certain units in this trilogy that drives me nuts. Probably the most talked about examples are the demotion Dwarf Miners and White Lions of Chrace in the translation from the TT to TW. But plenty of other things as well, such as spear units generally having a weaker attack value than other melee weapons, yet in both the TT, past TWs and IRL they put out more damage by simple virtue of the men behind the first line having the reach to attack as well. EDIT: By more damage I don't mean relative to other weapon types but relative to where they are now.
Still yet are the changes that arguably should have made in the translation from TT to TW yet weren't resulting in units being separated into unnecessary variations of the same thing shield and shieldless is the most common example. But another great example of this is the distinction between cavalry with lances and cavalry without. Knights and similar lance cavalry in the TW games used to hit hard on the charge then once in melee would swap to sword, axe or mace; the holdover from the TT of the distinction between lance or lanceless cav just a little braindead, especially when it was already possible to distinguish dedicated shock and prolonged melee cavalry in past games as well as utilizing different cavalry units on a given races roster.
in camapagin wise i kind of get it you replace them as it goes on, but i will forever be against most of the things you mentioned simply because your throwing balance out of the window
these exact reasons are why the balance of every other TW game sucked and there is no need to recreate them and good riddance they should stay dead.
i agree there are unnecessary variants like shield and shield less since there is no real reason to ever pick sheildless varient out side of saving a buck
and bring back increased weapon lengths on certain formations like pikes or for whips but under no circumstance they should be on every spear unit.
this in the end of the day stems from you and me having totally different ideas of what game play should look like and for the recored Med 2 shock cav was so op there were very little reason to take melee cav , same for attila and thats not a good game design specially since thats allways been CA operation status for every total war previously a one or two unit classes were way too at top. made the game dumb
I kinda love Saurus, IronBreakers, and Dragon Guard all in their own way.
Ironbreakers are a wall of Steel, short and sturdy. Saurus are a wall of muscle and 8 foot tall Lizards. Dragon Guard are humans at their best. I think I'd go with Dragon Guard purely because they're human.
I am The Beast of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, 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.
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
I personally think this trilogy just designed AP incorrectly from the very beginning, so many units with AP feel off to me in one way or another. I'm not even saying it's imbalanced, it just feels bizarre how effective, prevalent, and necessary AP is across the board, oftentimes without a meaningful downside or trade off to using it. Not to mention the absurdity of the degree to which it bypasses even the heaviest and thickest armor. Balanced or not, it just feels weird and messes with my immersion sometimes.
I would have preferred a BvA system with graduated percentages based on armor values rather than a 'flat AP' number. This way AP units would have had trade offs and very high armor units would still have some resistance against moderate-low AP.
Regardless of the actual precise details of the hypothetical alternative system, I think it's become fairly apparent that the current system is a little shallow and too necessary/commonly handed out.
Temple Guard suffer from this alongside many other units in that a lot of their potential balance was altered to compensate for making them the Lizardmen's primary AP infantry option.
Alternatively, WITHOUT redesigning the entire Armor/AP system....I feel like the Temple Guard issue could have also been solved if CA had just given the Lizardmen a cheaper, less powerful, 'Saurus w/ Halberds' unit. Make it like, 900 or 1000 gold and unlock a little later on the tech tree, like Tier IV. Or have it require a Blacksmith-type secondary building on top of the primary Saurus infantry building.
Then, once that's done, let the Temple Guard just be more like Chosen. Tier V all out badasses like they're supposed to be. Make them 1500+ gold if you have to. But give the Lizardmen a truly elite infantry like they're actually supposed to have. They don't even have to be halberd units specifically. Maybe make them Great Weapon units or something else. Just make them feel powerful and special. Not just slightly above average.
That would have been a potentially smaller, but easier fix to the Temple Guard issue.
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
My man i get there are ton of cut mechanics i want back. Or spread. Edit 1. Naval battles 2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps) 3. pop mechanics 4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
I personally think this trilogy just designed AP incorrectly from the very beginning, so many units with AP feel off to me in one way or another. I'm not even saying it's imbalanced, it just feels bizarre how effective, prevalent, and necessary AP is across the board, oftentimes without a meaningful downside or trade off to using it. Not to mention the absurdity of the degree to which it bypasses even the heaviest and thickest armor. Balanced or not, it just feels weird and messes with my immersion sometimes.
I would have preferred a BvA system with graduated percentages based on armor values rather than a 'flat AP' number. This way AP units would have had trade offs and very high armor units would still have some resistance against moderate-low AP.
Regardless of the actual precise details of the hypothetical alternative system, I think it's become fairly apparent that the current system is a little shallow and too necessary/commonly handed out.
So much this. Tiered versions of Armor, armor piercing and shields would do wonders for this and work to differentiate unit types that are functionally identical but realistically shouldn't be and would stay close enough to the way armor worked on TT to not be a radical change.
Take Empire Swordsmen, Dwarf Warriors and Norscan Marauders for instance. Each of them have 28 WS with 7 of that being AP. Why does an arming sword have the same overall damage and AP ratio as a the hand axe of a dawi or barbarian?? Ignoring the other stats, the only difference between them is visuals and frankly it's bugged me forever.
Or take missile weapons of the Empire. Archers I'd argue are overall in a good place (except for range as it's lesser than the other options and should be longer), but both Crossbowmen and Handgunners have problems of their own. First off, apart from the range difference and AP distribution they are functionally identical in raw damage, velocity and rate of fire. The crossbow's reload rate and velocity aren't bad, but they absolutely should be effective against at least mail armor. Conversely the handguns are essentially crossbows from the past games with gun models and sound effects. Velocity: sluggish, reload speed: twice as fast as what a good soldier could do IRL, and impact: merely passable. These things should be a whole lot more deadly, capable of ignoring shields and all but the toughest armors while at the same time longer to fire off. All of this is coming from someone who believes that ranged is in general overtuned in these games, but for the case of gunpowder units and most crossbows, they're just weaker than they should be.
Of course all this goes without saying that a tier of armors something like: unarmored, cloth/leather, mail/brigandine/lamellar, plate, Gromril/Ithilmar/Chaos plate should exist with missile melee weapons AP values based on what they can get through.
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
My man i get there are ton of cut mechanics i want back. Or spread. Edit 1. Naval battles 2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps) 3. pop mechanics 4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First I think how they implemented cavalry is horrible. First Swords are not armor piercing and even if they were are far less armor piercing than a lance. Second you can still have melee infantry still be better than shock cavalry in the grind. Having shock cav absolutely struggle in melee is not only something that didn't happen irl it also doesn't happen in lore or on the TT. Lance have a horrible habit of breaking on the first charge irl and in lore. They can definitely implement cavalry far better than they did.
I also have an entire issue with how they did Bretonnia in the first place. Grail Knights and Questing Knights should have been heros at the least. These units should be insanely rare. In lore individually members of these units slayed monsters and far worse than monstrous cavalry. Watching them struggle and Bretonnia have no real answer is poor implementation of the faction. It's ot surprising though as Games Workshop even has an issue portraying them as well in novels from the Black Library.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
i mean if we wanna do fluff or TT balance than there is no need to play TT
if temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
That's precisely what I want. The niche of lower tier units is that they are cheaper and available sooner in campaign than higher tier units. When the funds start rolling in then we naturally start swapping out our cheaper units for the better version (marauder => chaos warriors => chosen, etc.), unless we're playing with a TT caps mod or intentionally limiting ourselves for flavor reasons (which I personally do in my campaigns myself).
Personally there's a lot little contrivances placed on the design of certain units in this trilogy that drives me nuts. Probably the most talked about examples are the demotion Dwarf Miners and White Lions of Chrace in the translation from the TT to TW. But plenty of other things as well, such as spear units generally having a weaker attack value than other melee weapons, yet in both the TT, past TWs and IRL they put out more damage by simple virtue of the men behind the first line having the reach to attack as well. EDIT: By more damage I don't mean relative to other weapon types but relative to where they are now.
Still yet are the changes that arguably should have made in the translation from TT to TW yet weren't resulting in units being separated into unnecessary variations of the same thing shield and shieldless is the most common example. But another great example of this is the distinction between cavalry with lances and cavalry without. Knights and similar lance cavalry in the TW games used to hit hard on the charge then once in melee would swap to sword, axe or mace; the holdover from the TT of the distinction between lance or lanceless cav just a little braindead, especially when it was already possible to distinguish dedicated shock and prolonged melee cavalry in past games as well as utilizing different cavalry units on a given races roster.
What Total War did with Cavalry is one of my biggest gripes with the game. They created entirely new units just to seperate them from the lance variants. I still will forever say Grail Knights and Questing Knights should be heros not normal cav units. But that's me.
Yeah I don't like how this trilogy altered cavalry either, but kind of in a different way.
They basically turned *almost all...a handful of tiny exceptions exist* all heavy cavalry into cycle charging shock cavalry. Regardless of their weapon type or armor level....they all functionally perform the same role in battle and that annoys me.
I would have preferred there been a more meaningful balance distinction between durable melee cav that functions how knights and cataphracts frequently did....by getting stuck in, and being a tank. Durable and effective in protracted combat.
And then you could have separately had high charge, high stamina, faster moving, but less durable shock cavalry that are balanced differently and fill a different role.
That distinction might still bother you in that there'd be still be two different roles for cavalry. But I agree with that after a charge, cavalry units not swapping weapons and not being effective does bother me as well.
Heavy cavalry right now basically all function as shock cavalry. Even the Cavalry labeled as 'melee cavalry' doesn't actually perform meaningfully well in extended melee.
Yes, niche exceptions exist like Grail Guardians.
But on the whole, cavalry feels weirdly one dimensional and specialized, and the full dynamic range of potential cavalry uses no longer exists like it did in past games.
*^This point isn't just limited to heavy cavalry either. Older TW's had a much more tactical range of variety in Skirmish Cavalry as well. This was also heavily reduced and streamlined treating them all kind of the same, regardless of weapon type or formation potential.
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
My man i get there are ton of cut mechanics i want back. Or spread. Edit 1. Naval battles 2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps) 3. pop mechanics 4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First I think how they implemented cavalry is horrible. First Swords are not armor piercing and even if they were are far less armor piercing than a lance. Second you can still have melee infantry still be better than shock cavalry in the grind. Having shock cav absolutely struggle in melee is not only something that didn't happen irl it also doesn't happen in lore or on the TT. Lance have a horrible habit of breaking on the first charge irl and in lore. They can definitely implement cavalry far better than they did.
I also have an entire issue with how they did Bretonnia in the first place. Grail Knights and Questing Knights should have been heros at the least. These units should be insanely rare. In lore individually members of these units slayed monsters and far worse than monstrous cavalry. Watching them struggle and Bretonnia have no real answer is poor implementation of the faction. It's ot surprising though as Games Workshop even has an issue portraying them as well in novels from the Black Library.
There is no grounds to them being heros in wh fantasy though since a grail hero is basically paladin with the grail vow. Or a paladin with great sword is a questing knight.
I agree there lore makes them strong but they don't exist in vaccum they had their equals in vampires and chosen
Who are also more or less in the same power curve only exceeding when juggernaut mounts were introduced.
The issue was simply Bretonnias monsters cav
1. Got the wrong model in peg knights 2. Is a more generilst role in hippo knights
And they never got a true ground superiority Monstours cav
Weither it be the water beasts of lost sons
Or questing beasts. Simply hinted
And for the record grail knights don't suck at extended melee low tier units basically do nothing to them Its only mid to high tier antilarge units that do harm Which for game play reasons they should.
You could delete those units and certainly make paladin varients and call it good.
But that would certainly make brets unplayable since knights of the realm aren't even on the same power level as reiksguard due to not having acess to dwarf armor
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
My man i get there are ton of cut mechanics i want back. Or spread. Edit 1. Naval battles 2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps) 3. pop mechanics 4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First I think how they implemented cavalry is horrible. First Swords are not armor piercing and even if they were are far less armor piercing than a lance. Second you can still have melee infantry still be better than shock cavalry in the grind. Having shock cav absolutely struggle in melee is not only something that didn't happen irl it also doesn't happen in lore or on the TT. Lance have a horrible habit of breaking on the first charge irl and in lore. They can definitely implement cavalry far better than they did.
I also have an entire issue with how they did Bretonnia in the first place. Grail Knights and Questing Knights should have been heros at the least. These units should be insanely rare. In lore individually members of these units slayed monsters and far worse than monstrous cavalry. Watching them struggle and Bretonnia have no real answer is poor implementation of the faction. It's ot surprising though as Games Workshop even has an issue portraying them as well in novels from the Black Library.
There is no grounds to them being heros in wh fantasy though since a grail hero is basically paladin with the grail vow. Or a paladin with great sword is a questing knight.
I agree there lore makes them strong but they don't exist in vaccum they had their equals in vampires and chosen
Who are also more or less in the same power curve only exceeding when juggernaut mounts were introduced.
The issue was simply Bretonnias monsters cav
1. Got the wrong model in peg knights 2. Is a more generilst role in hippo knights
And they never got a true ground superiority Monstours cav
Weither it be the water beasts of lost sons
Or questing beasts. Simply hinted
And for the record grail knights don't suck at extended melee low tier units basically do nothing to them Its only mid to high tier antilarge units that do harm Which for game play reasons they should.
You could delete those units and certainly make paladin varients and call it good.
But that would certainly make brets unplayable since knights of the realm aren't even on the same power level as reiksguard due to not having acess to dwarf armor
On Table top yes. But table top has also never supported lore. Both Grail Knights amd Questing Knights are rare. And Paladins are the top soldier of a Duke's army in lore. But Grail Knight and Questing Knight heros are wanders. This is reinforced more in the Knights of Bretonnia novel series. I'm also not implying they exist in a vacuum. All Elite cav units in this game have been done horribly wrong. With chosen being a small unit now hopefully Grail Knights and Blood Vampires get the same treatment.
The Biggest problem here is that CA horribly nerfs them because of the percieved power level of Perfect Vigor. Hyppogryphs are Grail Knights but don't get the same benefits of Grail units.
MP is even worse. Bretonnia relies on its Heros as much as its Cav but in MP not even Louen is allowed the Grail traits.
Bretonnia doesn't really need monstrous land cav. It needs its benefits applied correctly. Blessing of the Lady another major aspect of Bretonnia isnt available in MP and should be a Ward Save in the first place not a physical resistance.
This also wouldn't make Bretonnia unplayable. Even Vanilla in Campaign KotRs out do Reiksguard in the end with Technology. They literally become the best horse Cav that isn't upper elite ( Grail, Chosen, Blood Vamps) in the game. The only thing Reiksguard beat them in is Armor. The problem lies with Bretonnia with out its upgrades, this shows glaringly in MP as Bretonnia cav does not have the best stats with out it and they should.
I play with a bunch of mods that make Bretonnia play like it should and lore. It makes Grail units powerful. I also play with a mod that gives the same treatment to Chosen and Blood Vamps. It makes the faction play alot like it should. It applies an upgrade system that prevents you from recruiting anything above Knight Errants quickly. It makes you progress them in rank. It also reduces the size of u its starting from 60>30>12>4. Really BAGHolders mod is how Bretonnia should play if you want Grail and Questing Knights as units.
Meta-gaming this the choice is obviously Ironbreakers, but personal preference is Temple Guards. I'm mostly just bitter that their TW iteration is weaker than both their TT and fluff iterations. Especially when it comes to their weapon strength being lower than standard club wielding Saurus Warriors. That's just not right.
they are not weaker than saurs are we serious for second . they have majority AP , best animations of any helberd unit and much higher HP so they could survive lot longer than other elite helberd units against their natural counter not to mention BvL
they are the strongest heberd unit when it comes to offense .
I didn't say they were weaker than Saurus Warriors, I said that they had less WS than them and were weaker than their TT stats and fluff would indicate. It's absolutely true that they have a much better AP damage as well as other advantages in other stats, so put both against something like Dwarf Warriors and the TG will perform better than the simple SW will. However, put them both against low to no armor infantry targets and the TG will take longer to kill the enemy then the SW will do to the less overall weapon strength. Against something super trashy like Zombies it's not much of a difference but against tougher infantry such as Plague Monks, Daemonettes or even Nurglings and that difference in damage output and banishing or routing the enemy can wind up to a 30 second difference. That's completely asinine and it applies not only to SW and TG, but in other scenarios across the rosters as well. The problem is that anti-large units in general have their base damage artificially nerfed to account for the bonus against large targets, which ends up hampering their ability to deal with other infantry in a way that's in no way reflective of the TT, the lore or any real-life historical warfare that inspired it all.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that TG are suppossed to be better than regular Saurus Warriors in every way other than cost/upkeep, but do to the way anti-large works in game they're ironically weaker when fighting lightly equipped enemies despite their giant polearms because of the smaller amount of raw damage they dish out.
i mean if we wanna do fluff or TT balance than there is no need to play TT
if temple guard or any helberd unit suddenly became all rounder's than the combat niche of other units gets away.
in the end of the day these are two related but separate games
and for the record if we want historical accuracy pole arms generally were hell of lot better in most cases over other melee weapons that is irrelevant if you want different units performing different roles
That's precisely what I want. The niche of lower tier units is that they are cheaper and available sooner in campaign than higher tier units. When the funds start rolling in then we naturally start swapping out our cheaper units for the better version (marauder => chaos warriors => chosen, etc.), unless we're playing with a TT caps mod or intentionally limiting ourselves for flavor reasons (which I personally do in my campaigns myself).
Personally there's a lot little contrivances placed on the design of certain units in this trilogy that drives me nuts. Probably the most talked about examples are the demotion Dwarf Miners and White Lions of Chrace in the translation from the TT to TW. But plenty of other things as well, such as spear units generally having a weaker attack value than other melee weapons, yet in both the TT, past TWs and IRL they put out more damage by simple virtue of the men behind the first line having the reach to attack as well. EDIT: By more damage I don't mean relative to other weapon types but relative to where they are now.
Still yet are the changes that arguably should have made in the translation from TT to TW yet weren't resulting in units being separated into unnecessary variations of the same thing shield and shieldless is the most common example. But another great example of this is the distinction between cavalry with lances and cavalry without. Knights and similar lance cavalry in the TW games used to hit hard on the charge then once in melee would swap to sword, axe or mace; the holdover from the TT of the distinction between lance or lanceless cav just a little braindead, especially when it was already possible to distinguish dedicated shock and prolonged melee cavalry in past games as well as utilizing different cavalry units on a given races roster.
What Total War did with Cavalry is one of my biggest gripes with the game. They created entirely new units just to seperate them from the lance variants. I still will forever say Grail Knights and Questing Knights should be heros not normal cav units. But that's me.
Yeah I don't like how this trilogy altered cavalry either, but kind of in a different way.
They basically turned *almost all...a handful of tiny exceptions exist* all heavy cavalry into cycle charging shock cavalry. Regardless of their weapon type or armor level....they all functionally perform the same role in battle and that annoys me.
I would have preferred there been a more meaningful balance distinction between durable melee cav that functions how knights and cataphracts frequently did....by getting stuck in, and being a tank. Durable and effective in protracted combat.
And then you could have separately had high charge, high stamina, faster moving, but less durable shock cavalry that are balanced differently and fill a different role.
That distinction might still bother you in that there'd be still be two different roles for cavalry. But I agree with that after a charge, cavalry units not swapping weapons and not being effective does bother me as well.
Heavy cavalry right now basically all function as shock cavalry. Even the Cavalry labeled as 'melee cavalry' doesn't actually perform meaningfully well in extended melee.
Yes, niche exceptions exist like Grail Guardians.
But on the whole, cavalry feels weirdly one dimensional and specialized, and the full dynamic range of potential cavalry uses no longer exists like it did in past games.
*^This point isn't just limited to heavy cavalry either. Older TW's had a much more tactical range of variety in Skirmish Cavalry as well. This was also heavily reduced and streamlined treating them all kind of the same, regardless of weapon type or formation potential.
Oh not at all I'm all for something like that. It's far better than what we have now. If you want something similar to this Try BAGHolders Immersive Bretonnia Mod combined with his True Elites mod. It Makes Cav across the factions feel like Cav should be.
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
My man i get there are ton of cut mechanics i want back. Or spread. Edit 1. Naval battles 2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps) 3. pop mechanics 4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First I think how they implemented cavalry is horrible. First Swords are not armor piercing and even if they were are far less armor piercing than a lance. Second you can still have melee infantry still be better than shock cavalry in the grind. Having shock cav absolutely struggle in melee is not only something that didn't happen irl it also doesn't happen in lore or on the TT. Lance have a horrible habit of breaking on the first charge irl and in lore. They can definitely implement cavalry far better than they did.
I also have an entire issue with how they did Bretonnia in the first place. Grail Knights and Questing Knights should have been heros at the least. These units should be insanely rare. In lore individually members of these units slayed monsters and far worse than monstrous cavalry. Watching them struggle and Bretonnia have no real answer is poor implementation of the faction. It's ot surprising though as Games Workshop even has an issue portraying them as well in novels from the Black Library.
There is no grounds to them being heros in wh fantasy though since a grail hero is basically paladin with the grail vow. Or a paladin with great sword is a questing knight.
I agree there lore makes them strong but they don't exist in vaccum they had their equals in vampires and chosen
Who are also more or less in the same power curve only exceeding when juggernaut mounts were introduced.
The issue was simply Bretonnias monsters cav
1. Got the wrong model in peg knights 2. Is a more generilst role in hippo knights
And they never got a true ground superiority Monstours cav
Weither it be the water beasts of lost sons
Or questing beasts. Simply hinted
And for the record grail knights don't suck at extended melee low tier units basically do nothing to them Its only mid to high tier antilarge units that do harm Which for game play reasons they should.
You could delete those units and certainly make paladin varients and call it good.
But that would certainly make brets unplayable since knights of the realm aren't even on the same power level as reiksguard due to not having acess to dwarf armor
1. On Table top yes. But table top has also never supported lore. Both Grail Knights amd Questing Knights are rare. And Paladins are the top soldier of a Duke's army in lore. But Grail Knight and Questing Knight heros are wanders. This is reinforced more in the Knights of Bretonnia novel series. I'm also not implying they exist in a vacuum. All Elite cav units in this game have been done horribly wrong. With chosen being a small unit now hopefully Grail Knights and Blood Vampires get the same treatment.
2.The Biggest problem here is that CA horribly nerfs them because of the percieved power level of Perfect Vigor. Hyppogryphs are Grail Knights but don't get the same benefits of Grail units.
MP is even worse. Bretonnia relies on its Heros as much as its Cav but in MP not even Louen is allowed the Grail traits.
3. Bretonnia doesn't really need monstrous land cav. It needs its benefits applied correctly. Blessing of the Lady another major aspect of Bretonnia isnt available in MP and should be a Ward Save in the first place not a physical resistance.
4. This also wouldn't make Bretonnia unplayable. Even Vanilla in Campaign KotRs out do Reiksguard in the end with Technology. They literally become the best horse Cav that isn't upper elite ( Grail, Chosen, Blood Vamps) in the game. The only thing Reiksguard beat them in is Armor. The problem lies with Bretonnia with out its upgrades, this shows glaringly in MP as Bretonnia cav does not have the best stats with out it and they should.
5. I play with a bunch of mods that make Bretonnia play like it should and lore. It makes Grail units powerful. I also play with a mod that gives the same treatment to Chosen and Blood Vamps. It makes the faction play alot like it should. It applies an upgrade system that prevents you from recruiting anything above Knight Errants quickly. It makes you progress them in rank. It also reduces the size of u its starting from 60>30>12>4. Really BAGHolders mod is how Bretonnia should play if you want Grail and Questing Knights as units.
i labled the points you made for ease of acess
1. point one this is highly requested point form the bret perspective but unfortunately CA hasn't addresed this since their isn't lot of traction form other races elites point of view though this still would be trading damage to survivability though either case wouldn't make a big difference on their power level 2. that's again part of inconsistences from CA part which they failed to adressed since bretonnia doesn't really gets much attention form them that was true in wh 1,wh 2 and its worse wh 3. 2 of these repanse banners are unachievable due to bugs in them and i doubt they get fixed with out big update 3. actually this is debatable i am not super in to the idea my self i prefer lot more support cav, units , heroes over such units but on real level Bretonnia is a the Cav faction yet nearly every single monstrous cav can dumpster brets elite on 1 v 1 which i think should be addressed imo. i personally don't want a unit you can easily spam but some thing like questing beast knights which are super hard to get would go long way. i find upsetting that single strongest ground cav unit belongs to orgers 4. i mean bret tech tree is bret tech tree i swear its pretty bonkers but unplayable part still kind of applies for one in MP it would suck so much secondly in campaign it would still suck since it completely limits the army variety brets can have. they already have very limieted army variety this would be the nail on that coffin on that front. 5. i usually don't use mods but the negelect brets get has forced my hand here is my review on the mods i used , and i believe if even half them was implemented bretonnia would be super hit like BM or WoC became. don't worry not video https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/326409/couple-of-unit-mods-i-am-playing-with-right-now-and-how-i-feel-about-them-bretonnia#latest
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
My man i get there are ton of cut mechanics i want back. Or spread. Edit 1. Naval battles 2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps) 3. pop mechanics 4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First I think how they implemented cavalry is horrible. First Swords are not armor piercing and even if they were are far less armor piercing than a lance. Second you can still have melee infantry still be better than shock cavalry in the grind. Having shock cav absolutely struggle in melee is not only something that didn't happen irl it also doesn't happen in lore or on the TT. Lance have a horrible habit of breaking on the first charge irl and in lore. They can definitely implement cavalry far better than they did.
I also have an entire issue with how they did Bretonnia in the first place. Grail Knights and Questing Knights should have been heros at the least. These units should be insanely rare. In lore individually members of these units slayed monsters and far worse than monstrous cavalry. Watching them struggle and Bretonnia have no real answer is poor implementation of the faction. It's ot surprising though as Games Workshop even has an issue portraying them as well in novels from the Black Library.
There is no grounds to them being heros in wh fantasy though since a grail hero is basically paladin with the grail vow. Or a paladin with great sword is a questing knight.
I agree there lore makes them strong but they don't exist in vaccum they had their equals in vampires and chosen
Who are also more or less in the same power curve only exceeding when juggernaut mounts were introduced.
The issue was simply Bretonnias monsters cav
1. Got the wrong model in peg knights 2. Is a more generilst role in hippo knights
And they never got a true ground superiority Monstours cav
Weither it be the water beasts of lost sons
Or questing beasts. Simply hinted
And for the record grail knights don't suck at extended melee low tier units basically do nothing to them Its only mid to high tier antilarge units that do harm Which for game play reasons they should.
You could delete those units and certainly make paladin varients and call it good.
But that would certainly make brets unplayable since knights of the realm aren't even on the same power level as reiksguard due to not having acess to dwarf armor
1. On Table top yes. But table top has also never supported lore. Both Grail Knights amd Questing Knights are rare. And Paladins are the top soldier of a Duke's army in lore. But Grail Knight and Questing Knight heros are wanders. This is reinforced more in the Knights of Bretonnia novel series. I'm also not implying they exist in a vacuum. All Elite cav units in this game have been done horribly wrong. With chosen being a small unit now hopefully Grail Knights and Blood Vampires get the same treatment.
2.The Biggest problem here is that CA horribly nerfs them because of the percieved power level of Perfect Vigor. Hyppogryphs are Grail Knights but don't get the same benefits of Grail units.
MP is even worse. Bretonnia relies on its Heros as much as its Cav but in MP not even Louen is allowed the Grail traits.
3. Bretonnia doesn't really need monstrous land cav. It needs its benefits applied correctly. Blessing of the Lady another major aspect of Bretonnia isnt available in MP and should be a Ward Save in the first place not a physical resistance.
4. This also wouldn't make Bretonnia unplayable. Even Vanilla in Campaign KotRs out do Reiksguard in the end with Technology. They literally become the best horse Cav that isn't upper elite ( Grail, Chosen, Blood Vamps) in the game. The only thing Reiksguard beat them in is Armor. The problem lies with Bretonnia with out its upgrades, this shows glaringly in MP as Bretonnia cav does not have the best stats with out it and they should.
5. I play with a bunch of mods that make Bretonnia play like it should and lore. It makes Grail units powerful. I also play with a mod that gives the same treatment to Chosen and Blood Vamps. It makes the faction play alot like it should. It applies an upgrade system that prevents you from recruiting anything above Knight Errants quickly. It makes you progress them in rank. It also reduces the size of u its starting from 60>30>12>4. Really BAGHolders mod is how Bretonnia should play if you want Grail and Questing Knights as units.
i labled the points you made for ease of acess
1. point one this is highly requested point form the bret perspective but unfortunately CA hasn't addresed this since their isn't lot of traction form other races elites point of view though this still would be trading damage to survivability though either case wouldn't make a big difference on their power level 2. that's again part of inconsistences from CA part which they failed to adressed since bretonnia doesn't really gets much attention form them that was true in wh 1,wh 2 and its worse wh 3. 2 of these repanse banners are unachievable due to bugs in them and i doubt they get fixed with out big update 3. actually this is debatable i am not super in to the idea my self i prefer lot more support cav, units , heroes over such units but on real level Bretonnia is a the Cav faction yet nearly every single monstrous cav can dumpster brets elite on 1 v 1 which i think should be addressed imo. i personally don't want a unit you can easily spam but some thing like questing beast knights which are super hard to get would go long way. i find upsetting that single strongest ground cav unit belongs to orgers 4. i mean bret tech tree is bret tech tree i swear its pretty bonkers but unplayable part still kind of applies for one in MP it would suck so much secondly in campaign it would still suck since it completely limits the army variety brets can have. they already have very limieted army variety this would be the nail on that coffin on that front. 5. i usually don't use mods but the negelect brets get has forced my hand here is my review on the mods i used , and i believe if even half them was implemented bretonnia would be super hit like BM or WoC became. don't worry not video https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/326409/couple-of-unit-mods-i-am-playing-with-right-now-and-how-i-feel-about-them-bretonnia#latest
See I'm fine fielding an army that doesn't have alot of diversity amongst units. My favorite 40k faction in lore and Table Top is Grey Knights who suffer much the same issues as Bretonnia. A faction that for a while was almost abandoned by GW. Is more character based and plays more because of specific rules. If that's what it's lore is that's what the lore is to me. I could never get into the idea of questing beasts as they are hinted at in art work only never in lore. But that's me.
Apologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
I can understand much if this I really can but Total War has lost alot in the years from mechanics simply being scrapped because while the community wanted them fixed CA just removed them. I mean we have a list of things that were removed because CA said they were broken and they may have but they were unique mechanics that should have been expanded on. How many post since TWWH have been made asking about naval battles? How many about minor settlement battles before they were added then removed in TWWH3?
It's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
My man i get there are ton of cut mechanics i want back. Or spread. Edit 1. Naval battles 2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps) 3. pop mechanics 4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. First I think how they implemented cavalry is horrible. First Swords are not armor piercing and even if they were are far less armor piercing than a lance. Second you can still have melee infantry still be better than shock cavalry in the grind. Having shock cav absolutely struggle in melee is not only something that didn't happen irl it also doesn't happen in lore or on the TT. Lance have a horrible habit of breaking on the first charge irl and in lore. They can definitely implement cavalry far better than they did.
I also have an entire issue with how they did Bretonnia in the first place. Grail Knights and Questing Knights should have been heros at the least. These units should be insanely rare. In lore individually members of these units slayed monsters and far worse than monstrous cavalry. Watching them struggle and Bretonnia have no real answer is poor implementation of the faction. It's ot surprising though as Games Workshop even has an issue portraying them as well in novels from the Black Library.
There is no grounds to them being heros in wh fantasy though since a grail hero is basically paladin with the grail vow. Or a paladin with great sword is a questing knight.
I agree there lore makes them strong but they don't exist in vaccum they had their equals in vampires and chosen
Who are also more or less in the same power curve only exceeding when juggernaut mounts were introduced.
The issue was simply Bretonnias monsters cav
1. Got the wrong model in peg knights 2. Is a more generilst role in hippo knights
And they never got a true ground superiority Monstours cav
Weither it be the water beasts of lost sons
Or questing beasts. Simply hinted
And for the record grail knights don't suck at extended melee low tier units basically do nothing to them Its only mid to high tier antilarge units that do harm Which for game play reasons they should.
You could delete those units and certainly make paladin varients and call it good.
But that would certainly make brets unplayable since knights of the realm aren't even on the same power level as reiksguard due to not having acess to dwarf armor
1. On Table top yes. But table top has also never supported lore. Both Grail Knights amd Questing Knights are rare. And Paladins are the top soldier of a Duke's army in lore. But Grail Knight and Questing Knight heros are wanders. This is reinforced more in the Knights of Bretonnia novel series. I'm also not implying they exist in a vacuum. All Elite cav units in this game have been done horribly wrong. With chosen being a small unit now hopefully Grail Knights and Blood Vampires get the same treatment.
2.The Biggest problem here is that CA horribly nerfs them because of the percieved power level of Perfect Vigor. Hyppogryphs are Grail Knights but don't get the same benefits of Grail units.
MP is even worse. Bretonnia relies on its Heros as much as its Cav but in MP not even Louen is allowed the Grail traits.
3. Bretonnia doesn't really need monstrous land cav. It needs its benefits applied correctly. Blessing of the Lady another major aspect of Bretonnia isnt available in MP and should be a Ward Save in the first place not a physical resistance.
4. This also wouldn't make Bretonnia unplayable. Even Vanilla in Campaign KotRs out do Reiksguard in the end with Technology. They literally become the best horse Cav that isn't upper elite ( Grail, Chosen, Blood Vamps) in the game. The only thing Reiksguard beat them in is Armor. The problem lies with Bretonnia with out its upgrades, this shows glaringly in MP as Bretonnia cav does not have the best stats with out it and they should.
5. I play with a bunch of mods that make Bretonnia play like it should and lore. It makes Grail units powerful. I also play with a mod that gives the same treatment to Chosen and Blood Vamps. It makes the faction play alot like it should. It applies an upgrade system that prevents you from recruiting anything above Knight Errants quickly. It makes you progress them in rank. It also reduces the size of u its starting from 60>30>12>4. Really BAGHolders mod is how Bretonnia should play if you want Grail and Questing Knights as units.
i labled the points you made for ease of acess
1. point one this is highly requested point form the bret perspective but unfortunately CA hasn't addresed this since their isn't lot of traction form other races elites point of view though this still would be trading damage to survivability though either case wouldn't make a big difference on their power level 2. that's again part of inconsistences from CA part which they failed to adressed since bretonnia doesn't really gets much attention form them that was true in wh 1,wh 2 and its worse wh 3. 2 of these repanse banners are unachievable due to bugs in them and i doubt they get fixed with out big update 3. actually this is debatable i am not super in to the idea my self i prefer lot more support cav, units , heroes over such units but on real level Bretonnia is a the Cav faction yet nearly every single monstrous cav can dumpster brets elite on 1 v 1 which i think should be addressed imo. i personally don't want a unit you can easily spam but some thing like questing beast knights which are super hard to get would go long way. i find upsetting that single strongest ground cav unit belongs to orgers 4. i mean bret tech tree is bret tech tree i swear its pretty bonkers but unplayable part still kind of applies for one in MP it would suck so much secondly in campaign it would still suck since it completely limits the army variety brets can have. they already have very limieted army variety this would be the nail on that coffin on that front. 5. i usually don't use mods but the negelect brets get has forced my hand here is my review on the mods i used , and i believe if even half them was implemented bretonnia would be super hit like BM or WoC became. don't worry not video https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/326409/couple-of-unit-mods-i-am-playing-with-right-now-and-how-i-feel-about-them-bretonnia#latest
See I'm fine fielding an army that doesn't have alot of diversity amongst units. My favorite 40k faction in lore and Table Top is Grey Knights who suffer much the same issues as Bretonnia. A faction that for a while was almost abandoned by GW. Is more character based and plays more because of specific rules. If that's what it's lore is that's what the lore is to me. I could never get into the idea of questing beasts as they are hinted at in art work only never in lore. But that's me.
Fair enough. Personally i prefer little bit more breathing room While questing beasts have no lore mention they have art there are others with mentions no art or rules
There are ones with both art and rules its just a matter of convincing CA and GW to make a singular expansion.
Comments
Personally there's a lot little contrivances placed on the design of certain units in this trilogy that drives me nuts. Probably the most talked about examples are the demotion Dwarf Miners and White Lions of Chrace in the translation from the TT to TW. But plenty of other things as well, such as spear units generally having a weaker attack value than other melee weapons, yet in both the TT, past TWs and IRL they put out more damage by simple virtue of the men behind the first line having the reach to attack as well.
EDIT: By more damage I don't mean relative to other weapon types but relative to where they are now.
Still yet are the changes that arguably should have made in the translation from TT to TW yet weren't resulting in units being separated into unnecessary variations of the same thing shield and shieldless is the most common example. But another great example of this is the distinction between cavalry with lances and cavalry without. Knights and similar lance cavalry in the TW games used to hit hard on the charge then once in melee would swap to sword, axe or mace; the holdover from the TT of the distinction between lance or lanceless cav just a little braindead, especially when it was already possible to distinguish dedicated shock and prolonged melee cavalry in past games as well as utilizing different cavalry units on a given races roster.
- Report
1 · 2Disagree 1AgreeThe main advantage that polearms brought was as a literal holding force and versus cavalry.
Now mind you this is human reality. In Warhammer something like an Elf or Saurus using a Halberd virus other races isn't gonna have the draw back of being cumbersome to wield like it is for humans. These races are substantially stronger than Humans and inorder to get humans to that same level they'd be Grail Knights, Vampires, or Chaos Chosen.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeBut Temple Guard have basically guarded Slann and the Temple Cities for like thousands of years usually with some being as old as the temple cities.
Like, they usually go centuries constantly watching and protecting the Slann without sleeping.
So, they're definitely overpowered from the lore.
Plus a sleepless guardian that would never have to rest for my entire lifetime would be the most effective defenders imo.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2Agreethese exact reasons are why the balance of every other TW game sucked and there is no need to recreate them and good riddance they should stay dead.
i agree there are unnecessary variants like shield and shield less since there is no real reason to ever pick sheildless varient out side of saving a buck
and bring back increased weapon lengths on certain formations like pikes or for whips but under no circumstance they should be on every spear unit.
this in the end of the day stems from you and me having totally different ideas of what game play should look like
and for the recored Med 2 shock cav was so op there were very little reason to take melee cav , same for attila and thats not a good game design specially since thats allways been CA operation status for every total war previously a one or two unit classes were way too at top. made the game dumb
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIronbreakers are a wall of Steel, short and sturdy. Saurus are a wall of muscle and 8 foot tall Lizards. Dragon Guard are humans at their best. I think I'd go with Dragon Guard purely because they're human.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeApologizes at the beginning if this comes out way too harsh.
But i am just tried of all this..
Let me explain to whats wrong with your way of game design.
You want x unit or unit type to be strong when you play camapagin and select race that is literally true for vast majority of players .
Just look at the front page there is literally a thread by camapagin player like you saying helberds are too strong.
That's why there are so many op techs and mehcanics. Thats exactly why there is soo much buff stacking.
And its not unique to nu tw its been always there it just keeps getting worse.
Simply because if you want x unit class to be strong than there is another player who wants y to be strong so there has to be way to cater to them both.
So we end up at the same bloody spot.
Now you speficallay like the utter decisiveness of older tws and there are people who absolutely hate it hence why we have mechanics like resummoning units in domination mode or survival battles in mp.
I don't like either because it goes in one direction too much. It just sucks
This is why i loved wh 2 balance direction because it didn't cater to one specific unit type or went so much in one direction it didn't matter batteles has and have little bit of flex but its not too much that engagements don't really matter.
Wh 3 is going the same direction hopefully but the updates have been very slow so there is that and i am unhappy because now its going too much towards the other end of the spectrum
You know why there is no pop mechanics and ones that do have them are so lenient because people hate waiting for x amount to make x stack
They hate the prospect of clicking thorugh every army to replenish
They hate going to every single settlement and adding units to garrisons
There is level of tediousness that stems form these mechanics and there are lot of people who hate them
And there are people who praise them call it the best since slice bread.
No one is focusing on finding middle ground.
This is precisely why i hate this blind comments about med 2 did this better or tt was the best and or shogun 2 was the best
Or these systems were the best simply because each and everyone of them went in too much of one direction.
This is why i as a absolute cav enjoer hates med 2 and attila they just made this unit archetype way too strong hence made the game pointless.
And why i praise the base line balance of wh2 final years and want CA to stick to that propagate that to campaign. And follow the same path in wh 3.
Since there is no need to go in one direction or the other its utter boring.
Its the same reason i play qb more than sp
Simply because between the dumb ai rampant buff stacking its only marginally less boring as any of the older titles.
Not because i like people and enjoy talking in discord hence why i will never bother being a true mp player since they require those things.
I just wish people understand all the previous tw had some good mechanics but none of them when it came to actual balance was good. If you loved a certain unit class or certain play styles it was good.
Rather than worshipping them saying cav was good or guns were good no they were just op on those titles
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIt's much the same thing that going on right now with the removal of Minor Settlement Battles in WH3. Most of the community Wants them fixed. A good Minorty just want Land Battles. Some are fine with them as is. CAs solution remove walled minor settlement battles all together. The problem this causes is now with all these unique races and factions you now have one where walled minor settlements is something it gets as a core function.
This same stuff goes to units. Alot of Warhammer fans want the factions to be lore accurate. We don't get that because if some arbitrary sense of balance. And yes it is arbitrary especially when talking about a factions units like Bretonnia, which continuously under performs because of the idea of balance. Wyvax makes a very accurate point here. With how CA did Cavlary it hurts a faction like Bretonnia which is reliant on its Cavalry. Mind you how CA made Cavlary isn't how the TT did at all. In TT cav with lances would switch to swords in melee.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeBalanced or not, it just feels weird and messes with my immersion sometimes.
I would have preferred a BvA system with graduated percentages based on armor values rather than a 'flat AP' number. This way AP units would have had trade offs and very high armor units would still have some resistance against moderate-low AP.
Regardless of the actual precise details of the hypothetical alternative system, I think it's become fairly apparent that the current system is a little shallow and too necessary/commonly handed out.
Temple Guard suffer from this alongside many other units in that a lot of their potential balance was altered to compensate for making them the Lizardmen's primary AP infantry option.
Alternatively, WITHOUT redesigning the entire Armor/AP system....I feel like the Temple Guard issue could have also been solved if CA had just given the Lizardmen a cheaper, less powerful, 'Saurus w/ Halberds' unit. Make it like, 900 or 1000 gold and unlock a little later on the tech tree, like Tier IV. Or have it require a Blacksmith-type secondary building on top of the primary Saurus infantry building.
Then, once that's done, let the Temple Guard just be more like Chosen. Tier V all out badasses like they're supposed to be. Make them 1500+ gold if you have to. But give the Lizardmen a truly elite infantry like they're actually supposed to have. They don't even have to be halberd units specifically. Maybe make them Great Weapon units or something else. Just make them feel powerful and special. Not just slightly above average.
That would have been a potentially smaller, but easier fix to the Temple Guard issue.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeOr spread.
Edit
1. Naval battles
2. fortress and watchtowers( we already have the blue print with orger camps)
3. pop mechanics
4. animated trade lines
To name a few
I am not arguing about that .
But i am saying i like the current combat system and i like the way most unit perform compared to their status in game.
And it actually also applies to brets mind you their cavalry works just fine against all the horse level cavalry.
Where they take the plunge is when it comes to Monstours cavalry. That was true in tt as well a single model of Monstours cav was far stronger than single model of grail knights
Its just a consequence of being left in the dust. And its not even unlorefull since there comparable units like blood knights or chaos knights are in the same place
Balance curve compared to these newer monsters cav
And thanks to finally having functional lance formation bret cav is the best vs infantry out side of boar cav and squig cav for cost.
And i don't care for weapon switches apart form aesthetic reasons
Not because the swtiching to weapon types mind you the only thing the switching weapons would do is to delete grail gurdians since there would little incentive to take them .
Just like how little incentive there was to take melee cav over shock cav in med 2
Shock cav that can grind is far superior to melee cav who mostly just grind
@Valkaar#2507 its how ap always worked it either completely bipassed amrmor or half bipassed armor .
And that is true to every tw title.
You could actually make the ap only go x amount through armor there even had modder make that present it to CA duck ultimately it just never made the balance cut.
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeTake Empire Swordsmen, Dwarf Warriors and Norscan Marauders for instance. Each of them have 28 WS with 7 of that being AP. Why does an arming sword have the same overall damage and AP ratio as a the hand axe of a dawi or barbarian?? Ignoring the other stats, the only difference between them is visuals and frankly it's bugged me forever.
Or take missile weapons of the Empire. Archers I'd argue are overall in a good place (except for range as it's lesser than the other options and should be longer), but both Crossbowmen and Handgunners have problems of their own. First off, apart from the range difference and AP distribution they are functionally identical in raw damage, velocity and rate of fire. The crossbow's reload rate and velocity aren't bad, but they absolutely should be effective against at least mail armor. Conversely the handguns are essentially crossbows from the past games with gun models and sound effects. Velocity: sluggish, reload speed: twice as fast as what a good soldier could do IRL, and impact: merely passable. These things should be a whole lot more deadly, capable of ignoring shields and all but the toughest armors while at the same time longer to fire off. All of this is coming from someone who believes that ranged is in general overtuned in these games, but for the case of gunpowder units and most crossbows, they're just weaker than they should be.
Of course all this goes without saying that a tier of armors something like: unarmored, cloth/leather, mail/brigandine/lamellar, plate, Gromril/Ithilmar/Chaos plate should exist with missile melee weapons AP values based on what they can get through.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeSecond you can still have melee infantry still be better than shock cavalry in the grind. Having shock cav absolutely struggle in melee is not only something that didn't happen irl it also doesn't happen in lore or on the TT. Lance have a horrible habit of breaking on the first charge irl and in lore. They can definitely implement cavalry far better than they did.
I also have an entire issue with how they did Bretonnia in the first place. Grail Knights and Questing Knights should have been heros at the least. These units should be insanely rare. In lore individually members of these units slayed monsters and far worse than monstrous cavalry. Watching them struggle and Bretonnia have no real answer is poor implementation of the faction. It's ot surprising though as Games Workshop even has an issue portraying them as well in novels from the Black Library.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThey basically turned *almost all...a handful of tiny exceptions exist* all heavy cavalry into cycle charging shock cavalry. Regardless of their weapon type or armor level....they all functionally perform the same role in battle and that annoys me.
I would have preferred there been a more meaningful balance distinction between durable melee cav that functions how knights and cataphracts frequently did....by getting stuck in, and being a tank. Durable and effective in protracted combat.
And then you could have separately had high charge, high stamina, faster moving, but less durable shock cavalry that are balanced differently and fill a different role.
That distinction might still bother you in that there'd be still be two different roles for cavalry. But I agree with that after a charge, cavalry units not swapping weapons and not being effective does bother me as well.
Heavy cavalry right now basically all function as shock cavalry. Even the Cavalry labeled as 'melee cavalry' doesn't actually perform meaningfully well in extended melee.
Yes, niche exceptions exist like Grail Guardians.
But on the whole, cavalry feels weirdly one dimensional and specialized, and the full dynamic range of potential cavalry uses no longer exists like it did in past games.
*^This point isn't just limited to heavy cavalry either. Older TW's had a much more tactical range of variety in Skirmish Cavalry as well. This was also heavily reduced and streamlined treating them all kind of the same, regardless of weapon type or formation potential.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeOr a paladin with great sword is a questing knight.
I agree there lore makes them strong but they don't exist in vaccum they had their equals in vampires and chosen
Who are also more or less in the same power curve only exceeding when juggernaut mounts were introduced.
The issue was simply Bretonnias monsters cav
1. Got the wrong model in peg knights
2. Is a more generilst role in hippo knights
And they never got a true ground superiority Monstours cav
Weither it be the water beasts of lost sons
Or questing beasts. Simply hinted
And for the record grail knights don't suck at extended melee low tier units basically do nothing to them
Its only mid to high tier antilarge units that do harm
Which for game play reasons they should.
You could delete those units and certainly make paladin varients and call it good.
But that would certainly make brets unplayable since knights of the realm aren't even on the same power level as reiksguard due to not having acess to dwarf armor
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIt's not even a debate
Iron Breakers are masters of holding the line, you wont find other infantry in game that do it as well as they do.
Nurgle is love
Nurgle is life
#JusticeForNurglingForumAvatars
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe Biggest problem here is that CA horribly nerfs them because of the percieved power level of Perfect Vigor. Hyppogryphs are Grail Knights but don't get the same benefits of Grail units.
MP is even worse. Bretonnia relies on its Heros as much as its Cav but in MP not even Louen is allowed the Grail traits.
Bretonnia doesn't really need monstrous land cav. It needs its benefits applied correctly. Blessing of the Lady another major aspect of Bretonnia isnt available in MP and should be a Ward Save in the first place not a physical resistance.
This also wouldn't make Bretonnia unplayable. Even Vanilla in Campaign KotRs out do Reiksguard in the end with Technology. They literally become the best horse Cav that isn't upper elite ( Grail, Chosen, Blood Vamps) in the game. The only thing Reiksguard beat them in is Armor. The problem lies with Bretonnia with out its upgrades, this shows glaringly in MP as Bretonnia cav does not have the best stats with out it and they should.
I play with a bunch of mods that make Bretonnia play like it should and lore. It makes Grail units powerful. I also play with a mod that gives the same treatment to Chosen and Blood Vamps. It makes the faction play alot like it should. It applies an upgrade system that prevents you from recruiting anything above Knight Errants quickly. It makes you progress them in rank. It also reduces the size of u its starting from 60>30>12>4. Really BAGHolders mod is how Bretonnia should play if you want Grail and Questing Knights as units.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree1. point one this is highly requested point form the bret perspective but unfortunately CA hasn't addresed this since their isn't lot of traction form other races elites point of view though this still would be trading damage to survivability though either case wouldn't make a big difference on their power level
2. that's again part of inconsistences from CA part which they failed to adressed since bretonnia doesn't really gets much attention form them that was true in wh 1,wh 2 and its worse wh 3. 2 of these repanse banners are unachievable due to bugs in them and i doubt they get fixed with out big update
3. actually this is debatable i am not super in to the idea my self i prefer lot more support cav, units , heroes over such units but on real level Bretonnia is a the Cav faction yet nearly every single monstrous cav can dumpster brets elite on 1 v 1 which i think should be addressed imo. i personally don't want a unit you can easily spam but some thing like questing beast knights which are super hard to get would go long way. i find upsetting that single strongest ground cav unit belongs to orgers
4. i mean bret tech tree is bret tech tree i swear its pretty bonkers but unplayable part still kind of applies for one in MP it would suck so much secondly in campaign it would still suck since it completely limits the army variety brets can have. they already have very limieted army variety this would be the nail on that coffin on that front.
5. i usually don't use mods but the negelect brets get has forced my hand here is my review on the mods i used , and i believe if even half them was implemented bretonnia would be super hit like BM or WoC became. don't worry not video
https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/326409/couple-of-unit-mods-i-am-playing-with-right-now-and-how-i-feel-about-them-bretonnia#latest
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeWhile questing beasts have no lore mention they have art there are others with mentions no art or rules
There are ones with both art and rules its just a matter of convincing CA and GW to make a singular expansion.
Not too much but not too litle a middle ground
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree