Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Finding (mods) solutions for the lack of Greenskins in the GC

nyraannyraan Junior MemberPosts: 164Registered Users
Greetings,
since the last patch I started a couple of grand campaigns (woodelves-angrund-empire-beastmen-VC). I'll start by citing my observations in those campaigns.

In my first 3 , I stopped because of 1 reason.. Dwarves. In those campaigns most of the dwarves faction either confederated or kicked the hell out of the local Greenskin faction in the area. it ended with dwarves controlling an empire from the northern Edge mountains to the grey mountains.
Ofc if I chose to continue those campaigns they would have been a good challenge.. but one would be bored fast while conquering 30+ dwarven settlements right ?

so I searched for ways to nerf the dwarves and give the greenskins an edge. To create some kind of balance.

In my last VC campaign I used to mods:

- AI Buildings and Recruitment
not necessary for my lack of greenskins problem.. its just cause my beastmen campaign enden with me having to fight a rival beastmen army with 11 minotaurs.. and I had 1. turned out to improve the AI army compositions including dwarves who regularly move now with longbeards, gyrocopters, canons, and even organ guns... but made enemy armies more enjoyable to fight at least.

- Diplomatic Options - No Confederations
Now this helped somehow slow the dwarven streamrolling. Dwarves no longer control every cave under the mountain.. at least not a single faction only. It added the variety of having multiple factions post turn 100 which was nice.. atm at turn 120 GC is struggling with 2 settlements while the dwarvees controls everything else.. no other greenskin faction survived.

i read somewhere that its a 50-50 fight between dwarves and GC in other peoples' experience.. but since its not my case do you guys have any mods that would increase the likeliness of fighting greenskins army in the heart of the empire ?

below are mods I am already planning to try:

- Less Razing more Sack + Occupy
Which I think may give the greenskins a chance if a human faction defeated them.. since they will just sack and go home and leave the greenskins to live a little longer before dwarves come and conquer them.

- Tier 4 Minor Settlements
Maybe what the greenskins need is the ability to field better armies.. and since they control mostly minor settlements maybe this will help.

So what you guys think ? any mod suggestions ?

Thank you.

Comments

  • LaindeshLaindesh Junior Member Posts: 1,698Registered Users
    edited December 2016
    You may want to check out:

    -Loreful diplomatic affinity.
    It creates new personality groups and randomizes it a bit. Should shake up how campaigns turns out somewhat.

    -Neutral start.
    While this does remove nearly every war (except scripted ones and those that causes crashes if removed.) it does enable factions to be assigned random personalities which should also shake things up.

    -No Aversion.
    Should also shake things up a bit especially if used with the above mod. Factions are less likely to always fight the same factions thus making the campaign turn out differently.

    You can also make your own mod by editing the startpos files for factions to enable them to be assigned random personalities, If you go in depth you can also mix up personalities and the likes but this is a large task (one reason i took down my own personality mod was because it takes countless of hours to properly make it.

    Personally its the greenskins for me who usually steamroll the dwarves :P (before i implimented mods that is)
  • RowYerboatRowYerboat Junior Member Posts: 970Registered Users
    edited December 2016
    I have the same issue as OP. Always the Dwarfs. 100%. Greenskins (not just the main ones, ALL of them) are usually dead by turn 50 or 70. Personally I think it's because the GS factions all fight each other while the Dwarf ones primarily band together and fight GS. I think splitting the Chaos invasion (not necessarily 50-50, maybe 2-1) to send part of its horde at the Dwarfs would help this problem a bit, as well as allowing (possibly) AI Empire to survive a bit longer.
  • tgoodenowtgoodenow Senior Member Posts: 778Registered Users
    Greenskin trade helps.

    Also Better AI (Minos is author) helps greenskins alot I found because it leads to alot more waazgh for them
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,765Registered Users

    I have the same issue as OP. Always the Dwarfs. 100%. Greenskins (not just the main ones, ALL of them) are usually dead by turn 50 or 70. Personally I think it's because the GS factions all fight each other while the Dwarf ones primarily band together and fight GS. I think splitting the Chaos invasion (not necessarily 50-50, maybe 2-1) to send part of its horde at the Dwarfs would help this problem a bit, as well as allowing (possibly) AI Empire to survive a bit longer.

    Nope, the GS confederate just as quickly as the dwarfs, but GS have a much weaker economy which is what spells their doom eventually.

  • RowYerboatRowYerboat Junior Member Posts: 970Registered Users

    I have the same issue as OP. Always the Dwarfs. 100%. Greenskins (not just the main ones, ALL of them) are usually dead by turn 50 or 70. Personally I think it's because the GS factions all fight each other while the Dwarf ones primarily band together and fight GS. I think splitting the Chaos invasion (not necessarily 50-50, maybe 2-1) to send part of its horde at the Dwarfs would help this problem a bit, as well as allowing (possibly) AI Empire to survive a bit longer.

    Nope, the GS confederate just as quickly as the dwarfs, but GS have a much weaker economy which is what spells their doom eventually.
    Well, that's not my experience, at all. I've seen games months ago where the Greenskins confederated quickly; I'm sure they play by the same rules, but for whatever reason, in the last bunch of games I've played, they all fight each other and die individually before being confederated. Dwarfs on the other hand start confederating almost immediately.
  • endurendur Posts: 3,240Registered Users
    Prior to the dwarf and greenskin regiments of renown, I had an edge for greenskins in my games. Since the RoR, its been an edge for dwarfs. It could all be random.
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USAPosts: 5,559Registered Users
    I'm a hack that doesn't play on the higher difficulties (hard is as high as I go as I don't enjoy VH or higher) so take from this what you will but I tend to find that 1/3 campaigns the greenskins dominate the Dwarfs. What I have noticed is that it depends on the amount of damage the Vampire Counts do to Kadrin and Zufbar, as well as how well Angrund has fared in the mountains around their starting point. If those groups are left intact Angrund comes down and takes large amounts of land from the Greenskins and the Dwarfs confederate with the northern half of map expanding their power base to a point the Greenskins can't contend with, when they lose those the northern parts of their territory they get chipped away at and lose.
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 10,217Registered Users
    I personally won't put any effort into worrying about "greenskins dying too much".

    Being concerned about map balance is somewhat pointless in my mind until the map is fully expanded and every faction is added.

    Just using the GS/Dwarf interaction the balance of power there has shifted twice since launch anyway.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • RowYerboatRowYerboat Junior Member Posts: 970Registered Users
    edited December 2016

    I personally won't put any effort into worrying about "greenskins dying too much".

    Being concerned about map balance is somewhat pointless in my mind until the map is fully expanded and every faction is added.

    Just using the GS/Dwarf interaction the balance of power there has shifted twice since launch anyway.

    I've heard this before, and I understand where the argument is coming from, but to me it's a bit disingenuous. If CA said, "Hey guys, we know you paid full price for this, plus another $60 for DLC, but the game won't actually be properly balanced until at least a year and a half after launch, and maybe even a few more years after that, when we get the whole trilogy sorted..." that would seem rather...lame? (not that CA has actually said that).

    I'm not saying it needs to be perfect at every stage of development, by any means...but it should be moderately balanced for each update. It's sort of like playing a story-focused game where the story doesn't make any sense, and the devs say "Don't worry, just play it again next year after all the DLC comes out and it will make sense."

    And with TW, we have the added downside of an imbalanced campaign making the game more repetitive than it should be.
  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Posts: 4,020Registered Users
    In my current empire play through both clan Angrund and the Dwarfs are in really bad shape. I've got a mod that increases horde spawns don't know if that's why.
  • nyraannyraan Junior Member Posts: 164Registered Users
    I made a mod that makes non playable greenskins spawn like beastmen and savage orcs when they are defeated.
    Also modified existing beastmen and savage orc armies. Hoping to have your feedback ^^

    Link: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=823571035
  • OspreyOsprey Posts: 500Registered Users
    There are 2 things that are making the Dwarfs OP against Greenskins, first the RoR units. Dwarfs RoR are far superior to Greenskins RoR, that makes it easier and faster for the dwarfs to conquer Black Crag, the economy is the other issue for Greenskins and maybe tech influences too (late game for Greenskins).
    This Dwarf domination started when the King and the Warlord and RoR was released. Before, the Dwarfs needed more time to build siege and elite units. Now they get them faster through the RoR.
  • FrontlinerDeltaFrontlinerDelta Senior Member Posts: 3,549Registered Users

    I personally won't put any effort into worrying about "greenskins dying too much".

    Being concerned about map balance is somewhat pointless in my mind until the map is fully expanded and every faction is added.

    Just using the GS/Dwarf interaction the balance of power there has shifted twice since launch anyway.

    That's actually a good point. With Wood Elves coming into the game, the balance of power shifted drastically again and now the west edge of the map (which was relatively stable previously) is now crazy.

    When Skaven are added to Skavenblight, that's gonna throw the balance in the south (both Estalia/Tilea and the badlands) into chaos again as there is no question in my mind that skaven will be able to occupy dwarf holds.

    So if CA tries to balance that now, they're gonna have to do it again when a third race is thrown in (and then if tomb kings are added....yea another rebalance on the south).
Sign In or Register to comment.