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

Dark Elves Battle Let's Play

145679

Comments

  • HisShadowBGHisShadowBG Registered Users Posts: 3,410
    corvo said:

    Dark Elves siegue!!


    Where is this from?

    She had fought beside Aenarion in the days of her youth, killing daemons, slaughtering the enemies of her people with wild abandon. She had cast spells and brewed poisons and worked out battle strategies for his armies. She had used her gift of visions to grant the elves victories innumerable.

    The so-called high elves had forgotten that now, preferring to cast her as the villain in the simple-minded morality plays they so enjoyed since her son had sundered the realm. They had no idea what it had cost to win those battles back when all thought the world was ending, or the price she had paid for victory.
  • corvus_codexcorvus_codex Junior Member SpainRegistered Users Posts: 3,073
    edited September 2017

    corvo said:

    Dark Elves siegue!!


    Where is this from?
    image
    "I am the harbinger of your demise. I am the nightmare in all mortals. I am the thing you fear the most. I am death..."
    —Valkia the Bloody.
  • corvus_codexcorvus_codex Junior Member SpainRegistered Users Posts: 3,073
    edited September 2017

    corvo said:

    Dark Elves siegue!!


    Where is this from?
    I found a better res one.



    and another one from Lizardmen:

    image
    "I am the harbinger of your demise. I am the nightmare in all mortals. I am the thing you fear the most. I am death..."
    —Valkia the Bloody.
  • boyfightsboyfights Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,023
    lol at "a fantasy world breaking its own laws is bad writing!", as though GW were renowned for their good writing
    boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality
    or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
    stop your gladiator love for agressions.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554
    KGpoopy said:

    Seldkam said:

    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.

    Your argument boils down to muh realism dude. I'm not even exaggerating. Wood Elves aren't humans, get that through your head. If you really think all factions should have the same abilities and should be able to do the same thing and same strategies as well as each other then go play Shogun 2.

    As for the second paragraph, you're also wrong, because they use melee builds too against factions too, it's just they use certain builds like a tool. It's how the TT race played too for that matter... If you have to say "realism = easier to understand" then you've gone too far into the realm of catering to the lowest common denominator. It's not like people who play Total War are incapable of learning a **** game >_<

    Lastly yes, shooting at the corner of units is frankly idiotic as all hell but it only happens if you are using fire at will which you should almost never do anyways. But, again, previous total wars had extremely similar units because humans are not the same as elves dwarfs etc. Here it's different not because it's bad but because it facilitates different playstyles, and if you don't like that, again, too bad dude. Warhammer isn't about "everyone gets to do everything."
    Sorry to burst the bubble but apart from some race gimmicks, all races in Warhammer play virtually the same, more so than in most TW games, all due to the units themselves being reduced in their roles from a diverse army-based pattern to what were previously specialist-only: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. Four, four roles.

    Realism is not the same as realistic and realism works. Where there is no realism, there needs to be a coherent set of rules replacing it and this game with it's 'X beats Y' just doesn't have it.
    Are you going to tell me Chaos plays the same as the wood elves with a straight face?
    Dwarves and Norsca fight the same?

    Take away the gimmicks and you still have major differences. It depends on what you mean by gimmicks too. Which is unclear.
    People say rightly that Shogun 2 has identical rosters for every faction, but there are questions over whether you include the unique faction-specific units. Some factions have wholly unique ones and others have just variations on existing units. Even those variations are significant though in how they affect gameplay, but Shogun 2 still gets an undue amount of stick for the roster. Warhammer escapes this despite having a far more restricted architecture just because it has more wall-paper. The roster roles are shock, snipe, flank or sap: even where Wood Elves can skirmish, the design of the game they exist in doesn't support it so their typical ranged units are like all ranged units, snipers. This makes their marginal skirmishing ability a gimmick; they don't really skirmish with any sense of realism, the only way they can do it in this game is by firing while moving and by being able to fire backwards. Would be nice if the game showed how they manage that, with some Elven acrobatics, because doing it whilst simply running is not possible.

    Warriors of Chaos too: shock, snipe, flank or sap, the same. Does having more shock and few snipers make them sufficiently different from the Wood Elves? Races in Warhammer seem to differentiate themselves based less on what they can do and more on what they can not. None of them are particularly good at something, just rubbish at something. It does not break the mould that they all have in common and which make the battles dull and play out virtually the same. No matter how different the armies present and perform their fights, the player is required to do almost identical things controlling them. It's like thinking there was any difference between Sonic, Tails and Knuckles on the Mega Drive/Genesis back in the day when really their abilities were different forms of dealing with the same obstacles, with parts of the levels designed to make them use their 'unique' but functionally identical abilities: where Sonic could jump an inch higher, Knuckles could climb and Tails fly, they were all ways of simply getting over a wall.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554

    KGpoopy said:

    @ArecBalrin
    That man knows what he is sayin.

    But they have imitated tabletop. Just look at the evidence.

    No dismounting
    No naval battles
    No unit formations
    Low design siege gameplay (they could have cut this too if settlements weren't such a integral part of the campaign)
    No landing flying units
    Severely limited battle types

    I mean I'm not not knocking the game, before someone thinks I'm persecuting CA or something. These are facts. They brought tabletop alive very well, with all the unique gameplay and units, but it unfortunately takes away a lot of aspects of a full total war game for lack of a better term.

    Agreed. He seems to equate some tabletop features lacking to them not trying to intimate the tabletop at all which it just wrong.

    I told you what I think, I'll ask one last time to not invent opinions for me as I already have my own. I never said tabletop was not being adapted; I said that this claim which is made repeatedly in earnest and with much certainty doesn't have much to support it and seems to completely ignore conflicting evidence. I said that because it is true. I have no opinion to offer on whether tabletop is actually being adapted or not because I am not familiar enough with the tabletop game to make that judgement without taking an ignorance-fuelled guess, something which I suspect some people are doing when they assert the tabletop is being adapted to Total War.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    Seldkam said:

    Wood Elves can skirmish nominally because many of their units can fire while moving and are slightly faster than most melee infantry in the game. This is only because they have explicitly been giving the abilities to do so; there is no reason why other races shouldn't be able to, except that CA designed battles to make it impossible without utterly unrealistic features like certain units being able to not only shoot behind them with bows(you try doing that) but do so while running.

    They don't skirmish for the reason why there is a such thing as skirmishers in warfare, they do it because it's a race gimmick and why no other race can do it. The reason for making it realistic is because players can logically infer what works and don't have to try guessing the opaque design intent of CA from the under-whelming in-game explanations of what units are for. Rule-based systems are infinitely superior to top-down design and reality is rule-based. Even when fiction and fantasy deviate from reality, they have to construct coherent rules to do so. That is not the case with the battle and unit design of Total War: Warhammer.

    Somehow further ranges were never a problem in previous TWs. They are a problem in this game because of the shooting mechanics, which are applied uniformly across all units that can shoot something. They don't fire in volleys and they aim for individual troops, which does make them very ineffective if they could shoot further. The shooting system is one of the things that really needs to change.

    Your argument boils down to muh realism dude. I'm not even exaggerating. Wood Elves aren't humans, get that through your head. If you really think all factions should have the same abilities and should be able to do the same thing and same strategies as well as each other then go play Shogun 2.

    As for the second paragraph, you're also wrong, because they use melee builds too against factions too, it's just they use certain builds like a tool. It's how the TT race played too for that matter... If you have to say "realism = easier to understand" then you've gone too far into the realm of catering to the lowest common denominator. It's not like people who play Total War are incapable of learning a **** game >_<

    Lastly yes, shooting at the corner of units is frankly idiotic as all hell but it only happens if you are using fire at will which you should almost never do anyways. But, again, previous total wars had extremely similar units because humans are not the same as elves dwarfs etc. Here it's different not because it's bad but because it facilitates different playstyles, and if you don't like that, again, too bad dude. Warhammer isn't about "everyone gets to do everything."
    Sorry to burst the bubble but apart from some race gimmicks, all races in Warhammer play virtually the same, more so than in most TW games, all due to the units themselves being reduced in their roles from a diverse army-based pattern to what were previously specialist-only: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. Four, four roles.

    Realism is not the same as realistic and realism works. Where there is no realism, there needs to be a coherent set of rules replacing it and this game with it's 'X beats Y' just doesn't have it.
    X beats Y doesn't exist in this game. You just are demonstrating a lack of understanding sorry >.<

    Quarellers are a great example. They can hold their own vs enemy infantry in a pinch, whereas the number of monsters monstrous infantry magic infantry skirmishers cav monstrous cav all make it pretty hard to say x beats y.

    If you want to oversimplify everything to fit your narrative as in "oh this unit beats the other unit so it's all about x beats y" then you're just being, overly simple. Every unit is beaten by other units, the point is not all units are beaten by all of the other "counter" classification. Which is way, way better than what we have in historical titles.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • CalippolippoCalippolippo Registered Users Posts: 70
    edited September 2017
    @Seldkam It's a waste of time argue with ArecBalrin. Someone who says that there's "X beat Y" in chess is a bit confused. Also argue with him is just like argue with a wall, he just keeps posting always the same thing.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554
    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Registered Users Posts: 4,729
    Blah blah blah x beats y because I say so because I don't understand the difference between opinion and fact nyah! The fact you think all races play identical in this game, but in previous games they were completely different destroys any credibility you might have had that you had anything logical to say.
    SiWI: "no they just hate you and I don't blame them."
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554

    @Seldkam It's a waste of time argue with ArecBalrin. Someone who says that there's "X beat Y" in chess is a bit confused. Also argue with him is just like argue with a wall, he just keeps posting always the same thing.

    Quote me where I say there is 'X beats Y' in Chess.

    I'm getting a little tired of arguing with people who can not accurately represent my point of view to save their lives, let alone manage an argument.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554

    Blah blah blah x beats y because I say so because I don't understand the difference between opinion and fact nyah! The fact you think all races play identical in this game, but in previous games they were completely different destroys any credibility you might have had that you had anything logical to say.

    You too, quote me on the bit where you think I say "but in previous games they were completely different".

    Stop making things up and start having a discussion, or do neither.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • boyfightsboyfights Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,023
    A lack of effective proper skirmishers is actually another way that tww emulates tabletop, in that proper skirmishers did not appear in tabletop either

    Tww does a very good job of portraying the way tabletop battles play out to be honest. Lines are arranged, everybody charges, somebody breaks and then it's game over 80% of the time. That's warhammer, baby

    boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality
    or reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
    stop your gladiator love for agressions.
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Registered Users Posts: 4,729

    Blah blah blah x beats y because I say so because I don't understand the difference between opinion and fact nyah! The fact you think all races play identical in this game, but in previous games they were completely different destroys any credibility you might have had that you had anything logical to say.

    You too, quote me on the bit where you think I say "but in previous games they were completely different".

    Stop making things up and start having a discussion, or do neither.
    If you think they were the same in every game then what the hell are you complaining about? Your entire point in every single post you do is that the past games were better. How can they be better in the past games and the same? You keep saying that the past game had more unit and faction diversity. Again, if now you aren't saying that then what is your point? Just that some units are better at beating some other units then others? Again, how is this different to past games?

    You say there is no skirmishing because the units that skirmish can only nominally skirmish. So can they skirmish or not? In what way were archers in previous games able to skirmish better than the wood elves units? Also, if they are more useful to you just standing behind enemy lines instead of skirmishing then all this proves is you are playing the game ineffectively because their whole strength is decimating the enemy before they get to you by strafing backwards. You state this isn't skirmishing because cavalry can close the gap? You mean like in every other game? Again, why aren't you targeting said cavalry? Why aren't you intercepting with spear units? All of your complaints speak more to you not even using or recognizing the uses for each unit. Not them not having one.

    The reason I don't argue with you is because you want to believe something and so you always will. This game doesn't have skirmishers except for the skirmishers it has. This game doesn't have differences in factions except for the differences they have. Every point you make isn't to prove anything it's to try and weaken the points of others. Dwarves aren't different because they don't have cavalry! VC doesn't play differently because they don't have ranged! Bretonnia doesn't play differently because It excels at cavalry! All this proves is you aren't playing well and the reason you get all the phyrric victories you hate is because you aren't playing to faction strengths and weaknesses. This is on you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain how factions have that have differences in playstyle play differently. If you are galloping thunderers as cavalry or just sitting your wood elf archers behind your glade guard then you're not using them correctly. Each faction has strengths and weaknesses, that's how they are different. You don't understand that so, what's the point?
    SiWI: "no they just hate you and I don't blame them."
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554
    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554

    Blah blah blah x beats y because I say so because I don't understand the difference between opinion and fact nyah! The fact you think all races play identical in this game, but in previous games they were completely different destroys any credibility you might have had that you had anything logical to say.

    You too, quote me on the bit where you think I say "but in previous games they were completely different".

    Stop making things up and start having a discussion, or do neither.
    If you think they were the same in every game then what the hell are you complaining about? Your entire point in every single post you do is that the past games were better. How can they be better in the past games and the same? You keep saying that the past game had more unit and faction diversity. Again, if now you aren't saying that then what is your point? Just that some units are better at beating some other units then others? Again, how is this different to past games?

    You say there is no skirmishing because the units that skirmish can only nominally skirmish. So can they skirmish or not? In what way were archers in previous games able to skirmish better than the wood elves units? Also, if they are more useful to you just standing behind enemy lines instead of skirmishing then all this proves is you are playing the game ineffectively because their whole strength is decimating the enemy before they get to you by strafing backwards. You state this isn't skirmishing because cavalry can close the gap? You mean like in every other game? Again, why aren't you targeting said cavalry? Why aren't you intercepting with spear units? All of your complaints speak more to you not even using or recognizing the uses for each unit. Not them not having one.

    The reason I don't argue with you is because you want to believe something and so you always will. This game doesn't have skirmishers except for the skirmishers it has. This game doesn't have differences in factions except for the differences they have. Every point you make isn't to prove anything it's to try and weaken the points of others. Dwarves aren't different because they don't have cavalry! VC doesn't play differently because they don't have ranged! Bretonnia doesn't play differently because It excels at cavalry! All this proves is you aren't playing well and the reason you get all the phyrric victories you hate is because you aren't playing to faction strengths and weaknesses. This is on you. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain how factions have that have differences in playstyle play differently. If you are galloping thunderers as cavalry or just sitting your wood elf archers behind your glade guard then you're not using them correctly. Each faction has strengths and weaknesses, that's how they are different. You don't understand that so, what's the point?
    Jesus H F Kennedy Christ-On-A-Stick. Not saying something(which you claim I did say) does not mean I ever said it's exact opposite.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554
    Everything else in the above post has been addressed dozens of time already, over and over, yet I still hear complaints about me repeating myself, which I do, because you can't be arsed listening.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
    Because if a unit doesn't abide by normal x beats y rules, then by anyone's logic it DOESN"T follow x beats y rules. It's THAT simple.

    I.e. If a quareller unit shoots down an enemy infantry unit and then beats them in melee because of their weakened state, that's NOT how normal x beats y "realistic" expectations would work.

    The reason why Quarellers shouldn't destroy units in melee is because no one would ever take units that focus on melee because WTF is the point? Jesus...
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038

    KGpoopy said:

    @ArecBalrin
    That man knows what he is sayin.

    But they have imitated tabletop. Just look at the evidence.

    No dismounting
    No naval battles
    No unit formations
    Low design siege gameplay (they could have cut this too if settlements weren't such a integral part of the campaign)
    No landing flying units
    Severely limited battle types

    I mean I'm not not knocking the game, before someone thinks I'm persecuting CA or something. These are facts. They brought tabletop alive very well, with all the unique gameplay and units, but it unfortunately takes away a lot of aspects of a full total war game for lack of a better term.

    Agreed. He seems to equate some tabletop features lacking to them not trying to intimate the tabletop at all which it just wrong.

    I told you what I think, I'll ask one last time to not invent opinions for me as I already have my own. I never said tabletop was not being adapted; I said that this claim which is made repeatedly in earnest and with much certainty doesn't have much to support it and seems to completely ignore conflicting evidence. I said that because it is true. I have no opinion to offer on whether tabletop is actually being adapted or not because I am not familiar enough with the tabletop game to make that judgement without taking an ignorance-fuelled guess, something which I suspect some people are doing when they assert the tabletop is being adapted to Total War.
    That was your implication in that post or at least it not being adapted properly by having no 'strategic' tabletop features being adapted.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
    Because if a unit doesn't abide by normal x beats y rules, then by anyone's logic it DOESN"T follow x beats y rules. It's THAT simple.

    I.e. If a quareller unit shoots down an enemy infantry unit and then beats them in melee because of their weakened state, that's NOT how normal x beats y "realistic" expectations would work.

    The reason why Quarellers shouldn't destroy units in melee is because no one would ever take units that focus on melee because WTF is the point? Jesus...
    That's exactly how 'X beats Y' works: Quarallers are the X to the Y of any lightly or non-armoured infantry unit without armour-piercing or anti-infantry. Any unit in the game without the italicised stats and label is not a Y and those with any of those bolded traits will be the X to the Y of Quarallers. Units which are neither X or Y to Quarallers are irrelevant and will produce a mixed result when they engage, which is what often leads to pyrrhic victories because everyone has taken absurdly high losses.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554
    Your argument would be better if you cited the vague match-ups and I would do my argument a discredit if I didn't address them. There are of course units which ARE light infantry but have two-handed weapons, which make them armour-piercing on the unit trait and stat table. So they are both X and Y, which wins out? I'll post later.
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Registered Users Posts: 4,729

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
    Because if a unit doesn't abide by normal x beats y rules, then by anyone's logic it DOESN"T follow x beats y rules. It's THAT simple.

    I.e. If a quareller unit shoots down an enemy infantry unit and then beats them in melee because of their weakened state, that's NOT how normal x beats y "realistic" expectations would work.

    The reason why Quarellers shouldn't destroy units in melee is because no one would ever take units that focus on melee because WTF is the point? Jesus...
    That's exactly how 'X beats Y' works: Quarallers are the X to the Y of any lightly or non-armoured infantry unit without armour-piercing or anti-infantry. Any unit in the game without the italicised stats and label is not a Y and those with any of those bolded traits will be the X to the Y of Quarallers. Units which are neither X or Y to Quarallers are irrelevant and will produce a mixed result when they engage, which is what often leads to pyrrhic victories because everyone has taken absurdly high losses.
    So you losing most of your army in so often means that the game doesn't have strategy? It doesn't mean anything to you that all the people playing the game that don't get constant phyrric victories might mean them using strategies you don't use? I hardly ever get phyrric victories unless I'm fending off a full stack as a garrison or something and I only play on very hard or legendary. But yes, there's no reason to think that you are playing the game poorly and not understanding how to use your units. Despite clearly not knowing what quarrellers are and how to use them.
    SiWI: "no they just hate you and I don't blame them."
  • SeldkamSeldkam Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,455

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
    Because if a unit doesn't abide by normal x beats y rules, then by anyone's logic it DOESN"T follow x beats y rules. It's THAT simple.

    I.e. If a quareller unit shoots down an enemy infantry unit and then beats them in melee because of their weakened state, that's NOT how normal x beats y "realistic" expectations would work.

    The reason why Quarellers shouldn't destroy units in melee is because no one would ever take units that focus on melee because WTF is the point? Jesus...
    That's exactly how 'X beats Y' works: Quarallers are the X to the Y of any lightly or non-armoured infantry unit without armour-piercing or anti-infantry. Any unit in the game without the italicised stats and label is not a Y and those with any of those bolded traits will be the X to the Y of Quarallers. Units which are neither X or Y to Quarallers are irrelevant and will produce a mixed result when they engage, which is what often leads to pyrrhic victories because everyone has taken absurdly high losses.
    Which is a GOOD thing. It's not fun to have a constant 100% victory against the AI (which you do anyways).

    But you have to realize Quarellers don't ONLY win vs infantry, they win vs certain cav too. Goblin riders, wolves, some of these guys just are not good matchups against quarellers.

    So again, it's not so simple as Warhammer is all about x beats y. One role doesn't beat another in this game because whereas Quarellers don't have issues with low tier mobility, Wood Elf skirmishers do without a doubt. It's too complicated to say things are either all x beats y or not x beats y.
    The inferior races of this world will be crushed one by one, as our armies move from shore to shore, and hill to hill, and city to city-- and each of their cries will be as music to our ears, for we are the Druchii.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554

    KGpoopy said:

    @ArecBalrin
    That man knows what he is sayin.

    But they have imitated tabletop. Just look at the evidence.

    No dismounting
    No naval battles
    No unit formations
    Low design siege gameplay (they could have cut this too if settlements weren't such a integral part of the campaign)
    No landing flying units
    Severely limited battle types

    I mean I'm not not knocking the game, before someone thinks I'm persecuting CA or something. These are facts. They brought tabletop alive very well, with all the unique gameplay and units, but it unfortunately takes away a lot of aspects of a full total war game for lack of a better term.

    Agreed. He seems to equate some tabletop features lacking to them not trying to intimate the tabletop at all which it just wrong.

    I told you what I think, I'll ask one last time to not invent opinions for me as I already have my own. I never said tabletop was not being adapted; I said that this claim which is made repeatedly in earnest and with much certainty doesn't have much to support it and seems to completely ignore conflicting evidence. I said that because it is true. I have no opinion to offer on whether tabletop is actually being adapted or not because I am not familiar enough with the tabletop game to make that judgement without taking an ignorance-fuelled guess, something which I suspect some people are doing when they assert the tabletop is being adapted to Total War.
    That was your implication in that post or at least it not being adapted properly by having no 'strategic' tabletop features being adapted.
    'Implication', when retracting and apologising for claiming someone said something they didn't just won't do.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
    Because if a unit doesn't abide by normal x beats y rules, then by anyone's logic it DOESN"T follow x beats y rules. It's THAT simple.

    I.e. If a quareller unit shoots down an enemy infantry unit and then beats them in melee because of their weakened state, that's NOT how normal x beats y "realistic" expectations would work.

    The reason why Quarellers shouldn't destroy units in melee is because no one would ever take units that focus on melee because WTF is the point? Jesus...
    That's exactly how 'X beats Y' works: Quarallers are the X to the Y of any lightly or non-armoured infantry unit without armour-piercing or anti-infantry. Any unit in the game without the italicised stats and label is not a Y and those with any of those bolded traits will be the X to the Y of Quarallers. Units which are neither X or Y to Quarallers are irrelevant and will produce a mixed result when they engage, which is what often leads to pyrrhic victories because everyone has taken absurdly high losses.
    So you losing most of your army in so often means that the game doesn't have strategy? It doesn't mean anything to you that all the people playing the game that don't get constant phyrric victories might mean them using strategies you don't use? I hardly ever get phyrric victories unless I'm fending off a full stack as a garrison or something and I only play on very hard or legendary. But yes, there's no reason to think that you are playing the game poorly and not understanding how to use your units. Despite clearly not knowing what quarrellers are and how to use them.
    I see people getting close and pyrrhic victories all the time. I rarely see decisive and almost never heroic; outcomes which are inevitable when a game is designed to accommodate broad strategy and tactics, or even the basis of them described by Sun Tzu. The only time I see frequent decisive victories is when the player outnumbers the AI quite heavily or by coincidence brought a stack of Xs against a stack of Ys.

    I'm sorry but was I wrong when I described Quarallers as 'missile infantry'? Should I have said 'armoured missile infantry'? Where did I go wrong? Oh wait, that's not a point of argument: that's you resorting to personal abuse.
  • FinishingLastFinishingLast Registered Users Posts: 4,729

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
    Because if a unit doesn't abide by normal x beats y rules, then by anyone's logic it DOESN"T follow x beats y rules. It's THAT simple.

    I.e. If a quareller unit shoots down an enemy infantry unit and then beats them in melee because of their weakened state, that's NOT how normal x beats y "realistic" expectations would work.

    The reason why Quarellers shouldn't destroy units in melee is because no one would ever take units that focus on melee because WTF is the point? Jesus...
    That's exactly how 'X beats Y' works: Quarallers are the X to the Y of any lightly or non-armoured infantry unit without armour-piercing or anti-infantry. Any unit in the game without the italicised stats and label is not a Y and those with any of those bolded traits will be the X to the Y of Quarallers. Units which are neither X or Y to Quarallers are irrelevant and will produce a mixed result when they engage, which is what often leads to pyrrhic victories because everyone has taken absurdly high losses.
    So you losing most of your army in so often means that the game doesn't have strategy? It doesn't mean anything to you that all the people playing the game that don't get constant phyrric victories might mean them using strategies you don't use? I hardly ever get phyrric victories unless I'm fending off a full stack as a garrison or something and I only play on very hard or legendary. But yes, there's no reason to think that you are playing the game poorly and not understanding how to use your units. Despite clearly not knowing what quarrellers are and how to use them.
    I see people getting close and pyrrhic victories all the time. I rarely see decisive and almost never heroic; outcomes which are inevitable when a game is designed to accommodate broad strategy and tactics, or even the basis of them described by Sun Tzu. The only time I see frequent decisive victories is when the player outnumbers the AI quite heavily or by coincidence brought a stack of Xs against a stack of Ys.

    I'm sorry but was I wrong when I described Quarallers as 'missile infantry'? Should I have said 'armoured missile infantry'? Where did I go wrong? Oh wait, that's not a point of argument: that's you resorting to personal abuse.
    So now you're saying Dwarves aren't a faction because they have missile infanty that can also fight melee? Or are you saying that cavalry is all that matters for a faction to be "x beats y"?
    SiWI: "no they just hate you and I don't blame them."
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,554
    edited September 2017
    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    Seldkam said:

    If you're going to refute what I have said, having obviously only taken on-board part of it despite many posts explaining it in detail, the least you could do is get the basics right.

    Quarallers should not hold their own against enemy infantry 'in a pinch'. Quarallers should *decimate* any non-missile infantry whether in a rock-paper-scissor system or 'X beats Y', because that is kind of the point of them being missile infantry: they attack stuff which most of the time can not attack them back without first covering the dangerous ground in between. In RPS, they win because of the tactic of applying zone-control to protect the means of approach, in 'X beats Y' they win because a designer gave them rapid fire non-volley shooting and absurd stats. In RPS they are beaten by splitting an attacking force to insure zones-of-fire from which control is applied do not overlap into a killbox and engage every individual unit co-supporting each other at the same time. In 'X beats Y' they are beaten by attacking them with an anti-armour and/or anti-infantry unit, given that stat profile by a designer. Because under 'X beats Y' they aim and fire individually rather than volley, over-lapping zones of fire barely matter: just close the distance with X unit to their Y and you win. That they can hold on in melee is meant to give them a chance to receive assistance, which is the reason to engage any unit sent to assist them separately, at least under RPS. In 'X beats Y' they are made over-powered against anything not a direct counter to them in order to force you to bring that direct counter next time.

    The list of units you gave are not unit roles: every single thing there fits into just four: shock, sniper, flanker, sapper. There are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer. There are nominal skirmishers: they can skirmish in the sense that they have the skirmish option like all missile infantry do, even if they can't practically skirmish due to slow move speed and low range and some units can move while firing which is not how skirmishing works and it can't be applied in any situation where a unit would be required to skirmish. Marauder Horsemen are one of those units; they can not skirmish in what would normally be the skirmish stage of a battle because their tiny range even for missile units means they would be shot to pieces by missile infantry. Then there are some of the Wood Elf ranged units; slightly faster than most, can fire inexplicably behind them while moving, so can nominally skirmish. Warhammer does not have situations where skirmishing is better than anything else they could be doing, which is standing behind melee units sniping. There are multiple fast flanking units which completely negate their skirmish until a shock unit catches up.

    As for the monsters: they are functionally no different from specialist hero units in Shogun 2. But the design for that game at least recognised that they were specialist and not core-army roles.

    LOL no, if Quarellers could slaughter infantry in melee then no one would ever take anything else. You realize I meant melee combat right?

    Your obsession with zone control is amazing too. NO ONE in their right mind cares about zones of fire in. If they're being shot at, you don't avoid the area, you push to make sure they can't continually prevent you from moving through the battlefield. By this logic no one should ever attack because the player would be moving through ranged "zones of control" and that's, in your opinion, a bad idea.

    Good players will notice that a unit is facing a certain direction and avoid that space because if the opponent isn't paying attention that means the flanker gets through for free.

    And your blatantly *ridiculous* post of "there are no effective skirmishers in Warhammer* is such a joke I don't know what to say. Ive said multiple times, WE have fantastic skirmishers, dwarfs have good skirmishers, etc.

    And it's not because of some arbitrary "make them better than everyone else because no one else should be good at skirmishing." It's to prevent factions from playing exactly the same. Which they do not. Get your head out of Campaign where red line buffs make every unit effectively the same slaughter machine, then we'll talk...
    You realise the whole point of being missile infantry is to NOT be in melee combat, right? You tried refuting my complaints about 'X beats Y' by suggesting a unit doing what it is not intended to do somehow means 'X beats Y' is not the case.

    I'm not sure how you manage to write the rest of your post whilst completely over-looking my explanation of the scenario.
    Because if a unit doesn't abide by normal x beats y rules, then by anyone's logic it DOESN"T follow x beats y rules. It's THAT simple.

    I.e. If a quareller unit shoots down an enemy infantry unit and then beats them in melee because of their weakened state, that's NOT how normal x beats y "realistic" expectations would work.

    The reason why Quarellers shouldn't destroy units in melee is because no one would ever take units that focus on melee because WTF is the point? Jesus...
    That's exactly how 'X beats Y' works: Quarallers are the X to the Y of any lightly or non-armoured infantry unit without armour-piercing or anti-infantry. Any unit in the game without the italicised stats and label is not a Y and those with any of those bolded traits will be the X to the Y of Quarallers. Units which are neither X or Y to Quarallers are irrelevant and will produce a mixed result when they engage, which is what often leads to pyrrhic victories because everyone has taken absurdly high losses.
    Which is a GOOD thing. It's not fun to have a constant 100% victory against the AI (which you do anyways).

    But you have to realize Quarellers don't ONLY win vs infantry, they win vs certain cav too. Goblin riders, wolves, some of these guys just are not good matchups against quarellers.

    So again, it's not so simple as Warhammer is all about x beats y. One role doesn't beat another in this game because whereas Quarellers don't have issues with low tier mobility, Wood Elf skirmishers do without a doubt. It's too complicated to say things are either all x beats y or not x beats y.
    I do get the impression that I am not being listened to, rather people are cherry-picking parts of my post to answer with convenient talking-points and filling in the blanks of what they didn't read with stuff they just made up. That makes me wonder what the point even is of addressing the ambiguous cases where they touch on my argument about 'X beats Y' top-down design: If people can't handle the straightforward, they certainly damn well can't be trusted to be considerate or thoughtful when it comes to ambiguity. I will give it one try and then bug off if it's a lost cause.

    Most units in Warhammer are the X or the Y of only a few other units; they are not X or Y for the majority of the rest. There are also some units which are on-paper X and X towards each other. Some units still come off better in an engagement or worse, without either of those that fought being X or Y to each other.

    Examples of these can be Quarrallers(Armoured, Missile, Infantry, Decent in Melee) and Chaos Marauder Great Weapons(not-Armoured, Melee, Infantry, Armour-piercing): they are X and X to each other because Quarrellers having missiles have a head-start on dealing damage, making them designed to kill other infantry and 2H Marauders are designed for being effective against Armoured units which Quarrallers belong to as a category. In most scenarios though, the Quarrallers will have reduced the leadership, numbers and health of the 2H Marauders enough that even if they make it into melee range they will be too weak to beat them; their Armour-piercing trait is not sufficient. This establishes that some X's are stronger than others, doesn't it? Also, the outcome is no different under rock-paper-scissors: by default missile infantry in general are supposed to be the paper to melee infantry rocks.

    There's one crucial difference: under RPS a unit like 2H Marauders can conserve their numbers. This used to be done with loose formation, but the shooting system Warhammer uses as part of the 'X beats Y' system means individual troops are targeting so making them stand further apart does not affect the incoming damage one bit. I've discussed this shooting system a lot, refer to that for what I am talking about. What matters in this post is that the scenario I'm hinting at is one where the rock beats paper, not because of any trait but because of tactics. RPS allows for this inversion because of tactical choice, where in 'X beats Y' the choice is locked- you must attack in close formation and loose wouldn't matter anyway because every missile unit in the game shoots like a modern post-industrial soldier with semi-automatic weapons and sights accurate up to 400 metres even if the best infantry weapons in this game barely reach 100. Ranked formation units fired in organised volleys and and struck home from 'lead in the air'.

    If anyone is familiar with Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, try to imagine the traits labelled in unit cards like genes or memes. When you decide to include a unit, you are selecting those traits, those Xs to match against enemy Ys, the unit is simply the species that trait is using to survive. They can only reproduce when you decide whether to keep that unit or replace it; that trait can only permit it's host unit to be removed if it is replaced with a unit with a trait identical to itself: why bring Chaos Warhounds over Chaos Warhounds with poison? There is no drawback, it's not going to make you broke. This ends up making some units clearly superior versions of other units, rather than every unit having a role. This is why the roles are so narrow. In RPS, it is tactics which are genetic and they are cross-pollinating rather than hosted purely by individual units. An ability which a unit has that is not useful for 90% of the time(Wood Elf missile infantry or Marauder Horsemen with nominal skirmish due to faster move speed and fire-while-moving, looking at you) becomes useful when it is used as part of an army-based role, given purpose by various different supporting units.

    Missile units which have over-lapping fields of fire are not simply attacking the enemy at a distance; they are protecting the army they belong to by making the area absurdly dangerous to move through. The front line is not just charging at or passively receiving a charge from a unit they need to kill quickly in order to gang up on the next one; they are holding ground on which their side gains a benefit. The reserves are not running around the flanks to attack in the rear or intercept enemy units doing the same; they are taking on the roles of other units when they have reached their limit, being patient until then. The cavalry are not cycle-charging the missile infantry who are sniping from just a few feet away behind the enemy melee units; the cavalry are staying away from the zones of control those infantry are imposing and moving to attack only targets of opportunity like the handful of specialist shock, sniper, sapper and other flanking units that are not doing army-based roles but are meant to attack specific targets they are designed explicitly to be effective against. They are almost certainly not as under 'X beats Y' what the whole army is virtually made up of.
    Post edited by ArecBalrin on
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038

    KGpoopy said:

    @ArecBalrin
    That man knows what he is sayin.

    But they have imitated tabletop. Just look at the evidence.

    No dismounting
    No naval battles
    No unit formations
    Low design siege gameplay (they could have cut this too if settlements weren't such a integral part of the campaign)
    No landing flying units
    Severely limited battle types

    I mean I'm not not knocking the game, before someone thinks I'm persecuting CA or something. These are facts. They brought tabletop alive very well, with all the unique gameplay and units, but it unfortunately takes away a lot of aspects of a full total war game for lack of a better term.

    Agreed. He seems to equate some tabletop features lacking to them not trying to intimate the tabletop at all which it just wrong.

    I told you what I think, I'll ask one last time to not invent opinions for me as I already have my own. I never said tabletop was not being adapted; I said that this claim which is made repeatedly in earnest and with much certainty doesn't have much to support it and seems to completely ignore conflicting evidence. I said that because it is true. I have no opinion to offer on whether tabletop is actually being adapted or not because I am not familiar enough with the tabletop game to make that judgement without taking an ignorance-fuelled guess, something which I suspect some people are doing when they assert the tabletop is being adapted to Total War.
    That was your implication in that post or at least it not being adapted properly by having no 'strategic' tabletop features being adapted.
    'Implication', when retracting and apologising for claiming someone said something they didn't just won't do.
    Not it's because that's what you implied it's that simple. You're like a brick wall as someone here said because if you believe it it's true and if you don't it's not. I can tell this as well by the matter of fact way in which you constantly talk. Newer TW games don't reward your playstyle so you don't like them and claim they aren't strategic and lack tactics. And even then you can still win with it you're just a perfectionist who doesn't like narrow victories. Why do you even still play newer games?
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited September 2017
    Never mind mods can delete this.
Sign In or Register to comment.