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

Hordes are unidimensional and force elite spam (Suggestions)

cool_ladcool_lad Senior MemberIndiaPosts: 2,090Registered Users
The big issue with horde factions in the game is that they're anything but.

Horde factions' gameplay tends to encourage the use of a few elite stacks while not really encouraging the use of multiple armies. The most effective tactic, and one with little to no drawbacks with these factions is a deathstar of multiple armies all reinforcing each other.

In a word, horde gameplay is boring. They're boring to play as and even more boring in the hands of the AI.

I would like to propose that horde races be overhauled so that they both have a unique flavour to their gameplay, as well as some places to protect and rebound from in case of losses.

I made a thread detailing how this could be done for historical hordes here: " https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/217360/making-better-horde-factions-especially-nomads#latest "

But for Warhammer, I think that the following system should be used:-
1. Horde factions should get settlements. Beastmen herdstones and Chaos Rifts respectively are lore appropriate bases for these factions. These bases would largely act as normal settlements with the exception that they wouldn't have any sort of economic or garrison buildings.
2. These bases would be unable to get walls or enhanced garrisons, being entirely reliant on their field armies for protection.
3. These bases would serve as both recruitment and replenishment centres for horde factions, field armies wouldn't be able to recruit outside of these areas, not even through encampments.
4. Horde factions would have little to no economy, being almost entirely reliant on raiding, sacking and battles to gain any money beyond their starting income. They may get some token income from their main settlement building, but this would never exceed 100 gold at best, which would require them to rely on raiding instead of their settlements.
5. Horde factions wouldn't pay the supply lines penalty for additional armies, encouraging the use of multiple armies instead of a few elite stacks. Especially since they would also need to protect their bases.
6. Hordes would also rely exclusively on these bases for replenishment, with replenishment being reliant on corruption and main building level.

I think that theses changes would make horde gameplay more dynamic and more interesting to face by both giving them something to defend while also giving them bases to rebound from. On the other hand, these factions would also need to be actual hordes with multiple armies due to the defenseless nature of their bases.

Comments

  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 3,919Registered Users
    Well said! CA do it!
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 982Registered Users
    I do think some kind of settlement is a good idea for ai hordes (to act as spawners so that ai hordes actually can grow to a menace and not just be there), though for the player, I think such a drastic change is not necessary (such changes can always result in unintended consequences, e.g. protecting and investing in settlements seems very un-hordelike to me and would largely remove the "not having to care for settlements" part people actually like about hordes). Imo, getting rid of or reducing supply lines (as you said) in combination with being able to spawn new hordes with some starting population (depending on the population spent to create it and maybe other factors) would go a long way to making hordes less clunky to play as.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,090Registered Users

    I do think some kind of settlement is a good idea for ai hordes (to act as spawners so that ai hordes actually can grow to a menace and not just be there), though for the player, I think such a drastic change is not necessary (such changes can always result in unintended consequences, e.g. protecting and investing in settlements seems very un-hordelike to me and would largely remove the "not having to care for settlements" part people actually like about hordes). Imo, getting rid of or reducing supply lines (as you said) in combination with being able to spawn new hordes with some starting population (depending on the population spent to create it and maybe other factors) would go a long way to making hordes less clunky to play as.

    The thing about the races that are represented as hordes in Warhammer is that they're net even hordes in the lore. Beastmen have herdstones where they gather and Chaos has a number of fortresses and bases (not to mention the rifts).

    The ruins they create also don't really add much to the game, since you're basically forced to lose a portion of your army through no fault of your own in order to resettle them.

    I'd say, turn these ruins into something like wood elf outposts. They'd allow recruitment through the global pool and replenishment of troops along with maybe a small amount of income (say 25-50). Hordes would be unable to recruit or replenish anywhere outside these areas.

    These outposts would be easy come-easy go, you could afford to lose quite a few of the peripheral ones, but there would also be the ones you've developed, and those you'd want to protect (as the Beastmen would want to protect their herdstones and Chaos forces their shrines).

    The two objectives are:-
    1. Discouraging elite spam armies. This would be done by making economy a greater concern for hordes, especially in light of point 2.
    2. Encouraging the creation of a large number of armies (because their territories, though individually not very valuable, would still need to be defended) and their dispersal across the map (preventing horde army deathballs).

    This would make hordes feel more like hordes while also creating interesting systems for them,along with adding some much needed longevity to horde factions by ensuring they aren't always swinging between snowballing and extinction.

    Their individual settlements may not be valuable at all, being utterly replaceable, but territory as a whole would need to be defended, thereby necessitating the dispersing of armies instead of clumping them into a single massive group. They wouldn't need to really pay attention to the settlements, but they'd still need to defend the edges of conquered areas to prevent the enemy from retaking too much territory.

    This would also make facing horde factions more fun, since instead of deathballs you'd face proper invasions, and retaking territory wouldn't be such a chore since you'd be conquering outposts instead of resettling ruins.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 3,919Registered Users
    Currently I play as Archaon, after I make all quests so I have a lot of population boost then I start to make more hordes, it's awful. Also WoC aren't just hordes in lore, they will create and some lords even DEMAND palaces. So the way WoC works in campaign is trash.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,090Registered Users

    Currently I play as Archaon, after I make all quests so I have a lot of population boost then I start to make more hordes, it's awful. Also WoC aren't just hordes in lore, they will create and some lords even DEMAND palaces. So the way WoC works in campaign is trash.

    I got the WoC as a preorder bonus; the campaign was such a yawn fest that I just gave up midway because it felt pointless and repetitive.

    Beastmen are the other horde faction; and last I checked, their herdstones were pretty close to settlements in lore.

    Hordes were terrible in Attila and they're just as bad in Warhammer.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 3,919Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Currently I play as Archaon, after I make all quests so I have a lot of population boost then I start to make more hordes, it's awful. Also WoC aren't just hordes in lore, they will create and some lords even DEMAND palaces. So the way WoC works in campaign is trash.

    I got the WoC as a preorder bonus; the campaign was such a yawn fest that I just gave up midway because it felt pointless and repetitive.

    Beastmen are the other horde faction; and last I checked, their herdstones were pretty close to settlements in lore.

    Hordes were terrible in Attila and they're just as bad in Warhammer.
    I got WoC as preorder too, I won it many times and I did the ME win too when we first got ME. It's boring, stupid definitely not Chaos.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,090Registered Users
    If nothing else I'd appreciate the devs actually explaining why they decided to make hordes this way; they're boring and inaccurate (both for historical and Warhammer).

    It's a bad system and a disservice to the campaign experience.
  • doclumbagodoclumbago Posts: 1,018Registered Users
    Disagree with the premise. Beastmen HAVE to adapt their armies to different enemies.

    Agree with every proposal except garrison.
    Give em a fighting chance.
    You could limit their numbers to places with lore significance.
    Beastmen-Averlorn, Athel Loren,...
    Chaos-Middenland, Xlanhuapec,...
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 16,097Registered Users
    This is a result of horde gameplay being seriously flawed. Every turn you can either maneuver and fight or build and recruit which means you have half as much work to do every turn as the settled factions and so spend much more time watching the AI doing its turns.

    Horde gameplay is also incredibly slow-paced and requires a way more careful playstyle than the settled factions since creating new hordes requires a lot of time and care and losing a horde will also lose you the equivalent of a capital city.

    The most important change would be to speed horde gameplay up. Creating new hordes shouldn't be such a slog and there should be more to do during turns than just half-work.

  • AxonumAxonum Posts: 135Registered Users
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 3,919Registered Users
    CA plz fix the game, I gonna preorder TWW3 anyhow, so do most ppl here so plz stop **** us with bad gameplay experience.
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Posts: 982Registered Users

    This is a result of horde gameplay being seriously flawed. Every turn you can either maneuver and fight or build and recruit which means you have half as much work to do every turn as the settled factions and so spend much more time watching the AI doing its turns.

    Horde gameplay is also incredibly slow-paced and requires a way more careful playstyle than the settled factions since creating new hordes requires a lot of time and care and losing a horde will also lose you the equivalent of a capital city.

    The most important change would be to speed horde gameplay up. Creating new hordes shouldn't be such a slog and there should be more to do during turns than just half-work.

    Pretty much this. And the way you wrote this, maybe give hordes the ability to regenerate the 50% movement while recruiting units so that the 2-turn (and especially the 3-turn) recruitments would not be as punishing and only cost you the equivalent of 2 (3) times the movement range of 1-turn recruitments (since you can move the 50% the turn you start recruiting them). Though I have not thought this trough yet.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 16,097Registered Users
    There shouldn't be multiple turn recruitment for hordes in the first place, all units should be ready in one turn. Instead of chaining upkeep reductions to horde buildings, they should be tied to research, so that building up a new horde isn't such a drawn-out slog with the requirement of tedious babysitting. Research itself could be tied to destroying settlements or killing units instead of a flat rate every turn, so the more you actually do the more you are rewarded instead of forcing you to do nothing for multiple turns.

  • NotaroNotaro Posts: 14Registered Users
    Perhaps horde factions could also get new armies by spreading corruption. As well as from their bases. Perhaps, if corruption is high enough, rebels would spawn that are allied to your faction.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 3,919Registered Users
    Notaro said:

    Perhaps horde factions could also get new armies by spreading corruption. As well as from their bases. Perhaps, if corruption is high enough, rebels would spawn that are allied to your faction.

    Yes that's what I wanted since game 1,the chaos army spawned from rebellion for example should be yours to command.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,090Registered Users
    Thinking of the hordes in Attila.

    Perhaps the settlement hordes could be separated from their armies. So the civilian horde/tribe itself would be sort of like a mobile settlement, but only able to recruit low level units to defend itself with and have low movement ranges. The penalties for creating new hordes could be kept as is, since the addition of a new horde would be much more significant due to the significant improvement it would bring in the number of armies you can field (with each alternate tier of the main building adding in extra armies).

    The armies would be separate from the horde and act like normal armies.

    As for Warhammer

    A similar system of hordes being separate from armies could be used, with slow moving encampments allowing for the fielding of a certain number of armies depending on the main building tier (so, for example, a max rank main settlement would allow maybe 2 armies to be fielded and if you want more you create more encampments).

    Replenishment would only be possible if the army were in the same province as an encampment, but the presence of multiple encampments in the same province would do the opposite and lead to attrition (to prevent deathballing using multiple encampments).

    Encampments would be defenseless or be only lightly defended, so if they're left undefended, you risk taking really significant losses.

    Beastmen encampments would be hidden but become more visible as they stay in one area for longer periods, so the encampment would allow for Beastmen to survive longer since they don't lose everything every time their armies are killed, but just staying in the same area after being defeated is also a bad idea (encouraging them to move/sneak away and replenish before coming back and attacking again). It also adds in an interesting mechanic where you're hunting for the actual source of the Beastmen instead of just their armies.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file