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

14567810»

Comments

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,976
    Let's ease up on the personal bickering and off topic commentary. All folks have a right to express their opinon on this forum, if done so under the Forum Terms & Conditions.

    Stay on the thread topic.

    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539

    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?
    The problem with the mod warning is that I can't respond to you how you have done so to me. All I can say is that I haven't implied anything; I try to be direct and precise and wish people would just take what I say at face-value. When I make posts I do so whilst thinking about how I could be wrong about something and try to anticipate how people will reply. It means being clear and avoid fudging words. If this is to be interpreted as me asserting my views as facts or that I can be said to have 'implied' where I have said nothing of the sort, then what does it even matter what I say? People can just blatantly make up whatever version of my opinions they want and argue with that instead. I'm in a no-win scenario here.
  • 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?
    The problem with the mod warning is that I can't respond to you how you have done so to me. All I can say is that I haven't implied anything; I try to be direct and precise and wish people would just take what I say at face-value. When I make posts I do so whilst thinking about how I could be wrong about something and try to anticipate how people will reply. It means being clear and avoid fudging words. If this is to be interpreted as me asserting my views as facts or that I can be said to have 'implied' where I have said nothing of the sort, then what does it even matter what I say? People can just blatantly make up whatever version of my opinions they want and argue with that instead. I'm in a no-win scenario here.
    Understand now. You should try harder if possible though.

  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,748
    edited September 2017

    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.

    I agree with many of your claims, that the game would be better with slower move speed and less killy combats with higher emphasis on stamina. However walking instead of running into battle is boring and makes time where nothing is happening increase, it also allows for more realistic artillery and a longer and more meaningful skirmish phase.

    However I think FinishingLast has some good points. To claim all factions play the same because there are so many similar roles shared in similar armies is folly. Vampires do play very differently than wood elves.

    While you are correct that roles are limited, monstrous infantry, monsters, and flyers all give different playstyles that didn't exist in previous total wars. Debuffs like smoke cloud and poison also gives different roles that didn't exist in previous Total Wars. You have to acknowledge what's been added as well as taken way or I think it weakens your other points.

    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

    I'm not sure I believe that. I get Pyrrhic all the time after I've crushed my opponent unquestionably. It seems like the game is just judging it wrong.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    Kayosiv said:

    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.

    I agree with many of your claims, that the game would be better with slower move speed and less killy combats with higher emphasis on stamina. However walking instead of running into battle is boring and makes time where nothing is happening increase, it also allows for more realistic artillery and a longer and more meaningful skirmish phase.

    However I think FinishingLast has some good points. To claim all factions play the same because there are so many similar roles shared in similar armies is folly. Vampires do play very differently than wood elves.

    While you are correct that roles are limited, monstrous infantry, monsters, and flyers all give different playstyles that didn't exist in previous total wars. Debuffs like smoke cloud and poison also gives different roles that didn't exist in previous Total Wars. You have to acknowledge what's been added as well as taken way or I think it weakens your other points.

    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

    I'm not sure I believe that. I get Pyrrhic all the time after I've crushed my opponent unquestionably. It seems like the game is just judging it wrong.
    Same here on the last point. I've got phyrric victories when I've only lost half my army and no full units and the enemy is nearly or completely dead and buried.

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    I definitely understand why many people including FinishingLast are of the view that the races play differently.

    You can play them the same way, but that is probably not optimal and will usually mean losing: Dwarfs simply can not do a fast single-envelopment of an enemy flank like Beastmen can with their high move-speed, vanguard, stalking, breyheard reinforcements etc. There is nothing in the Dwarf roster that lets them replicate that tactic nor should we expect there to be any.

    When previously addressing this point, anticipating that a specific example like this would be given, I used the simple example of one of the Sonic games from the mid-90s: you could play as Sonic, Knuckles or Tails and they played virtually the same except for certain abilities. Sonic jumped higher by default, Tails could fly and Knuckles could glide and climb walls. These abilities would have been genuinely unique if they could be used in the same levels for each character; but that didn't happen, each character went through different versions of the same level. Rather than being able to use the abilities to get super-fast runs or enable more exploring, the levels were changed to keep each character on a pre-defined path. Many of them were not as multi-path as earlier Sonic games had been: they had to be designed around the different character abilities to stop them doing anything radical.

    So Sonic, Tails and Knuckles encountered a wall and they all had different ways of getting over it, but there was no difference to the outcome. Knuckles could not access special areas by climbing that others couldn't; those areas simply didn't appear if you played as Sonic or Tails.

    I see parallels in that unambitious design in Warhammer's unit design, which extends on a macro-level to the races. They all have different ways of doing things, but they mostly all do the same thing. Missile units snipe, melee infantry charge, cavalry and monsters flank, heroes and lords nuke. It's frustration that no unit can simply hold ground by bracing against a charge and then staying alive, or cover-fire, or deter with a formation or wait in reserve in loose formation to avoid being decimates by missiles. Every unit has to be attacking and killing all at once or else it's a unit you may as well have not brought at all.

    I can understand that some races should be locked out of a few tactical options, but they should each have broad tactical options outside of those restrictions. Instead what I see are almost every race being locked-in to a very narrow set of options, fighting almost as if they were all pre-bronze-age barbarians.
  • Mad MacMad Mac Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 718
    Ah yes, the famous Dwarf tactic of charging everything into melee and not holding a static formation ever. Bracing against a charge and holding out for an extended period of time to buy time for missiles to do their work is certainly not something you see Dwarf players ever do. Indeed, indeed.

    Likewise, stamina is so irrelevant in combat in Warhammer that the vigor restoring Grumbling Guard is an auto-include in every Dwarf army since it's introduction and a priority target for opponents. Silly Players.

    Do tell me exactly which TW game this idea of ranged units as "area denial" comes from, though, because ranged units are (usually ineffectual) snipers in every TW game I've ever played, and I started with Med 1. There is often merit in not charging ranged units head on when possible, but this is no less true in Warhammer.

    Magic in Warhammer OTOH, often does fill the roll of area denial or punishing the enemy for grouping up their forces too much.





  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Things were just taking a nice turn and someone decided to bring back the dumb.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,748
    edited September 2017


    When previously addressing this point, anticipating that a specific example like this would be given, I used the simple example of one of the Sonic games from the mid-90s: you could play as Sonic, Knuckles or Tails and they played virtually the same except for certain abilities. Sonic jumped higher by default, Tails could fly and Knuckles could glide and climb walls. These abilities would have been genuinely unique if they could be used in the same levels for each character; but that didn't happen, each character went through different versions of the same level. Rather than being able to use the abilities to get super-fast runs or enable more exploring, the levels were changed to keep each character on a pre-defined path..

    One of my favorite games for the Genesis was X-men 2. It is the exact opposite of this. There are 6 (7) complete unique characters. Some have full screen ranged attacks while others have no range. Some can climb on walls and some can't. Some have great melee attacks and some have literally no melee attack at all. Wolverine can climb on ceilings, Magneto can fly, Nightcrawlwer can literally teleport. Each character plays on the same levels and each one is better at certain things than the others and has unique abilities that make replaying the level interesting and different.

    As far as TW:W goes, there are fairly few holding units that are meant to hold the line and not kill things. The only ones I can think of are Ironbreakers and Chosen, both super elite and expensive and not practical for basing a strategy around because they're too pricey to have en mass.
    Mad Mac said:



    Do tell me exactly which TW game this idea of ranged units as "area denial" comes from, though, because ranged units are (usually ineffectual) snipers in every TW game I've ever played, and I started with Med 1. There is often merit in not charging ranged units head on when possible, but this is no less true in Warhammer.

    Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 that I know of. The way bow monks and bow ashigaru use their bows is very different.
    Post edited by Kayosiv on
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    It was knowing how Warrior Monk Bowmen fired that made me realise how the shooting mechanics for all units had changed in Warhammer: they all shoot how the Shogun 2 specialist sniper unit does and not the regular bowmen.

    It was also the case in Rome 2, but that game had very few bow units. Most missile infantry were slingers or javelin throwers and those were skirmishing scouts mainly with javelins having a secondary use in that they could penetrate armour from the side. I was disappointed at never getting access to bows as Romans and didn't see enough of them to know if they worked as they always had or had been changed.
  • Mad MacMad Mac Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 718
    edited September 2017
    What changed in Rome 2 was the ability to track individual arrows as distinct objects with individual physics and more realistic path tracking. Arrows in Rome 2 on will strike trees and buildings because they are physical objects that will interact with any other objects in their path. It had some early toothing issues (There was a point in Rome 2 where Slingers were insanely OP because the bouncing sling ammunition could still rack up kills) but overall it's a real improvement over older TW games.

    Shogun 2 was the game where you could zoom in and watch your individual general model magically take 300 arrows to the face simultaneously (and not from Bow Monks) don't talk to me about Warhammer ranged units being snipers when the opposite is actually true. Zoom in on ranged units firing at a single model in Warhammer, especially a smaller one and you'll see a much more realistic spread of arrows.

    Warhammer also allows individual missile units to fire out of sync with each other when necessary, this is also an improvement from a technical and gameplay level as you don't have ranged units constantly shuffling their formation and refusing to fire for no good reason.

    Mind you, I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring the way Missile Infantry used to work but there's nothing magical about it, just an all-around less advanced implementation than what we have now.

    Warhammer missile units do have much lower range on average, as far as I can tell this is just a deliberate way of adapting the shorter missile ranges of the TT game, it's something I could take or leave and that I don't expect to carry over to historical games.



  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Arrows started being individually pathed in Shogun 2; they did hit trees and buildings, just less often because the higher-ranged arcing volley-fire often meant they shot over rather than into them. Yes, there is a spread in Warhammer due to accuracy but individual troop models are being aimed at; it is very obvious when you are shooting with a depleted unit with a few models left and they keep firing at the same targets in a higher numbered unit. In Shogun 2 it wasn't the troop models themselves being aimed at but the ground-space the whole units was on adjusted for movement, so when the unit moved in a certain direction the ground they would be standing on a few seconds later if they didn't change direction is where the arrows would be fired. They only seemed to fire on individual units when the numbers became very low and generals start off with a low number of bodyguards and quickly get targeted themselves once depleted.

    I thought it was weird the first time I saw Warrior Monk Bowmen not firing in volleys. This means they obey Lanchester's square law rather than his linear law: the more the target becomes depleted, the more risk there is to the remaining troops, whilst with volley-fire aimed at an area the chance of the arrows hitting depends on the area being target-rich. This is a huge deal when basically every missile unit works like this; it's how modern soldiers shoot, not ranked formations. It means even if loose formation were brought back it wouldn't do anything.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,748
    edited September 2017
    Mad Mac said:


    Warhammer missile units do have much lower range on average, as far as I can tell this is just a deliberate way of adapting the shorter missile ranges of the TT game, it's something I could take or leave and that I don't expect to carry over to historical games.

    Tabletop shooting ranges were very high compared to this game. Longbows could shoot turn 1 into the enemy deployment zone, and guns and normal bows could shoot if anyone left their starting areas if both units were on the deployment line. In Warhammer the deployment line appears to be outside of artillery range most of the time. Ranges are like 1/3 the range they effectively are in the tabletop.
    Mad Mac said:



    I thought it was weird the first time I saw Warrior Monk Bowmen not firing in volleys. This means they obey Lanchester's square law rather than his linear law: the more the target becomes depleted, the more risk there is to the remaining troops, whilst with volley-fire aimed at an area the chance of the arrows hitting depends on the area being target-rich. This is a huge deal when basically every missile unit works like this; it's how modern soldiers shoot, not ranked formations. It means even if loose formation were brought back it wouldn't do anything.

    Warrior monks had longer range then every other monk though, so Shogun 2 archers obviously had much shorter range than they should have also.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Just had a look: the range of bows for both Ashigaru and Samurai was 150, whilst for Warrior Monks it was 175. This is enough that a rank of monks can stand behind a rank of other archers and targets roughly the same distance away. To me this is odd because I don't think it's likely they would have realistically used similar bows, let alone be able to shoot the same distance. It seems this was done for balance reasons.

    We can't be certain how the value in S2 compares to the same stat in Warhammer, I'd assume that they are the same, but Warhammer missile units absurdly short-ranged. The comparable ranges are Quarrallers, Peasant Bowmen and Empire Crossbowmen with 160, Glade Guard with 170 and Waywatchers with 180, these are the highest missile infantry ranges in the game but they look nothing like what ranged units in S2 could do.

    For comparison the straightforward Longbowmen unit in Medieval 2 has a range of 160, which is huge in that game but we can see is a lot smaller in Warhammer. There is some other scaling value which makes the result of this value very different.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,748
    The models themselves in Warhammer TW are very different than in Shogun 2, size-wise
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,539
    Yeah, they're smaller, which is weird because I'd assume that the ranges for similar values would seem further in relation rather than shorter.
Sign In or Register to comment.