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

Total War Warhammer 3: How CA should improve the Victory Conditions, Endgame and why the End Times w

2»

Comments

  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 4,010Registered Users
    Eldrick said:

    I have put in more than 3000hrs into TWW1 & 2, and probably only completed maybe 5 long victory conditions. Without being tied to rewards, the victory condions are just pointless and hollow.

    I tend to play for 200-250 turns per campaign and as a consequence I set my own conditions.

    I would suggest that the short conditions be tied to owning all traditional territories belonging to the faction (and get to choose a kingdom/empire wide buff similar to owning an entire province), levelling main LL to cap, completing all quests for LL items, and building all landmark buildings.

    Long victory could be around retaining above + killing x stacks of enemy armies, defeating chaos, recruiting and caping all available LL’s including quest items and a series of epic loreful quest battles.

    I haven’t put too much thought into this, maybe half hour or so including typing on my phone, which would seem to be about twice as long as CA put into thinking about the current victory conditions!

    Come on CA, this is a very good game and poor half cooked design choices like this hold this game back from being an epic game that will be revered generations after its release.

    Excellent said.
  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users
    Eldrick said:

    I have put in more than 3000hrs into TWW1 & 2, and probably only completed maybe 5 long victory conditions. Without being tied to rewards, the victory condions are just pointless and hollow.

    I tend to play for 200-250 turns per campaign and as a consequence I set my own conditions.

    I would suggest that the short conditions be tied to owning all traditional territories belonging to the faction (and get to choose a kingdom/empire wide buff similar to owning an entire province), levelling main LL to cap, completing all quests for LL items, and building all landmark buildings.

    Long victory could be around retaining above + killing x stacks of enemy armies, defeating chaos, recruiting and caping all available LL’s including quest items and a series of epic loreful quest battles.

    I haven’t put too much thought into this, maybe half hour or so including typing on my phone, which would seem to be about twice as long as CA put into thinking about the current victory conditions!

    Come on CA, this is a very good game and poor half cooked design choices like this hold this game back from being an epic game that will be revered generations after its release.

    Yes they are tedious and because of that many people just don't care about them. CA needs to look at what players achiev at a specific point in a campaigne to balance them out better. pls no more conquering of regions you never want to travel to in the first place.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 13,404Registered Users
    Irongut said:

    Eldrick said:

    I have put in more than 3000hrs into TWW1 & 2, and probably only completed maybe 5 long victory conditions. Without being tied to rewards, the victory condions are just pointless and hollow.

    I tend to play for 200-250 turns per campaign and as a consequence I set my own conditions.

    I would suggest that the short conditions be tied to owning all traditional territories belonging to the faction (and get to choose a kingdom/empire wide buff similar to owning an entire province), levelling main LL to cap, completing all quests for LL items, and building all landmark buildings.

    Long victory could be around retaining above + killing x stacks of enemy armies, defeating chaos, recruiting and caping all available LL’s including quest items and a series of epic loreful quest battles.

    I haven’t put too much thought into this, maybe half hour or so including typing on my phone, which would seem to be about twice as long as CA put into thinking about the current victory conditions!

    Come on CA, this is a very good game and poor half cooked design choices like this hold this game back from being an epic game that will be revered generations after its release.

    Yes they are tedious and because of that many people just don't care about them. CA needs to look at what players achiev at a specific point in a campaigne to balance them out better. pls no more conquering of regions you never want to travel to in the first place.
    It's not that they're tedious, rather it's because they're simply not relevant to a campaign.

    It doesn't matter what the objectives are, if they have no impact on the game people will in general ignore them.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users
    edited August 2018

    Irongut said:

    Eldrick said:

    I have put in more than 3000hrs into TWW1 & 2, and probably only completed maybe 5 long victory conditions. Without being tied to rewards, the victory condions are just pointless and hollow.

    I tend to play for 200-250 turns per campaign and as a consequence I set my own conditions.

    I would suggest that the short conditions be tied to owning all traditional territories belonging to the faction (and get to choose a kingdom/empire wide buff similar to owning an entire province), levelling main LL to cap, completing all quests for LL items, and building all landmark buildings.

    Long victory could be around retaining above + killing x stacks of enemy armies, defeating chaos, recruiting and caping all available LL’s including quest items and a series of epic loreful quest battles.

    I haven’t put too much thought into this, maybe half hour or so including typing on my phone, which would seem to be about twice as long as CA put into thinking about the current victory conditions!

    Come on CA, this is a very good game and poor half cooked design choices like this hold this game back from being an epic game that will be revered generations after its release.

    Yes they are tedious and because of that many people just don't care about them. CA needs to look at what players achiev at a specific point in a campaigne to balance them out better. pls no more conquering of regions you never want to travel to in the first place.
    It's not that they're tedious, rather it's because they're simply not relevant to a campaign.

    It doesn't matter what the objectives are, if they have no impact on the game people will in general ignore them.
    with tedious I mean conquering 8 of 17 capitols around the map. Good luck doing this with an evil faction like greenskins who rarely get allies at all.

    And this are only the short V. C.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 13,404Registered Users
    edited August 2018
    Irongut said:

    Irongut said:

    Eldrick said:

    I have put in more than 3000hrs into TWW1 & 2, and probably only completed maybe 5 long victory conditions. Without being tied to rewards, the victory condions are just pointless and hollow.

    I tend to play for 200-250 turns per campaign and as a consequence I set my own conditions.

    I would suggest that the short conditions be tied to owning all traditional territories belonging to the faction (and get to choose a kingdom/empire wide buff similar to owning an entire province), levelling main LL to cap, completing all quests for LL items, and building all landmark buildings.

    Long victory could be around retaining above + killing x stacks of enemy armies, defeating chaos, recruiting and caping all available LL’s including quest items and a series of epic loreful quest battles.

    I haven’t put too much thought into this, maybe half hour or so including typing on my phone, which would seem to be about twice as long as CA put into thinking about the current victory conditions!

    Come on CA, this is a very good game and poor half cooked design choices like this hold this game back from being an epic game that will be revered generations after its release.

    Yes they are tedious and because of that many people just don't care about them. CA needs to look at what players achiev at a specific point in a campaigne to balance them out better. pls no more conquering of regions you never want to travel to in the first place.
    It's not that they're tedious, rather it's because they're simply not relevant to a campaign.

    It doesn't matter what the objectives are, if they have no impact on the game people will in general ignore them.
    with tedious I mean conquering 8 of 17 capitols around the map. Good luck doing this with an evil faction like greenskins who rarely get allies at all.

    And this are only the short V. C.
    That's not difficult, it's time consuming.

    My point is it simply does not matter what the objectives say. Unless they connect to the gameplay (they do in Vortex, not in ME) objectives are for the vast majority of people irrelevant.

    By the way, you have a great username.
    Post edited by Vanilla_Gorilla on
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Posts: 4,884Registered Users
    Razmirth said:

    I’m all for other victory conditions in ME. I enjoyed beastmens killing empire and Bretonnia. But most factions are just global domination. Vampire counts taking jungles across the world, dwarves living in open wastelands, tomb kings expanding outside their kingdoms...meh. Only race that it makes sense for global domination is Skaven and chaos/Norca. Other factions wouldn’t have much interest in conquering the world. Especially since many of the factions are allies like high elves and empire/Bretonnia.

    Remember, alliances count. The long victory condition is essentially about removing every threat to your empire - every other major power is either slapped down sufficiently that they're no longer a threat, or a close ally.

    This actually makes a lot of sense for the order races, and particularly the high elves. Destroy your enemies, assist your allies in destroying theirs, and become the senior partner of an alliance that can hold against all comers.

    The hard part is stopping your allies from fighting each other like children.
  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users

    Irongut said:

    Irongut said:

    Eldrick said:

    I have put in more than 3000hrs into TWW1 & 2, and probably only completed maybe 5 long victory conditions. Without being tied to rewards, the victory condions are just pointless and hollow.

    I tend to play for 200-250 turns per campaign and as a consequence I set my own conditions.

    I would suggest that the short conditions be tied to owning all traditional territories belonging to the faction (and get to choose a kingdom/empire wide buff similar to owning an entire province), levelling main LL to cap, completing all quests for LL items, and building all landmark buildings.

    Long victory could be around retaining above + killing x stacks of enemy armies, defeating chaos, recruiting and caping all available LL’s including quest items and a series of epic loreful quest battles.

    I haven’t put too much thought into this, maybe half hour or so including typing on my phone, which would seem to be about twice as long as CA put into thinking about the current victory conditions!

    Come on CA, this is a very good game and poor half cooked design choices like this hold this game back from being an epic game that will be revered generations after its release.

    Yes they are tedious and because of that many people just don't care about them. CA needs to look at what players achiev at a specific point in a campaigne to balance them out better. pls no more conquering of regions you never want to travel to in the first place.
    It's not that they're tedious, rather it's because they're simply not relevant to a campaign.

    It doesn't matter what the objectives are, if they have no impact on the game people will in general ignore them.
    with tedious I mean conquering 8 of 17 capitols around the map. Good luck doing this with an evil faction like greenskins who rarely get allies at all.

    And this are only the short V. C.
    That's not difficult, it's time consuming.

    My point is it simply does not matter what the objectives say. Unless they connect to the gameplay (they do in Vortex, not in ME) objectives are for the vast majority of people irrelevant.

    By the way, you have a great username.
    Ehm yes this is my point. Connect the conditions to what the can actually achiev and makeing sense from a loreperspectiv.

    Thank you :P
  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users
    Draxynnic said:

    Razmirth said:

    I’m all for other victory conditions in ME. I enjoyed beastmens killing empire and Bretonnia. But most factions are just global domination. Vampire counts taking jungles across the world, dwarves living in open wastelands, tomb kings expanding outside their kingdoms...meh. Only race that it makes sense for global domination is Skaven and chaos/Norca. Other factions wouldn’t have much interest in conquering the world. Especially since many of the factions are allies like high elves and empire/Bretonnia.

    Remember, alliances count. The long victory condition is essentially about removing every threat to your empire - every other major power is either slapped down sufficiently that they're no longer a threat, or a close ally.

    This actually makes a lot of sense for the order races, and particularly the high elves. Destroy your enemies, assist your allies in destroying theirs, and become the senior partner of an alliance that can hold against all comers.

    The hard part is stopping your allies from fighting each other like children.
    mmaybe for the high elvs but what about the Empire, Bretonnia or the dwarfs? they are interested in holding their empire and not something far off. I doubt those factions ever heard of itza, hexoatl and so on.

    I simply want them to be lorefriendly and also not so far stretched at least for the factions where it make sense. Because as you said the only faction where it make sense to hold a specific amount of citys of other factins are actually only the high elfs.
  • acroguePatrickacroguePatrick Posts: 332Registered Users
    Don't add the end times.

    If Chaos is conquering WH1 - then why does the game have this 'end times' aspect anyway?

    Add Cathay, Nippon, Ind and Araby.

    We might get some much-needed diversity within the human factions themselves.
  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users

    Don't add the end times.

    If Chaos is conquering WH1 - then why does the game have this 'end times' aspect anyway?

    Add Cathay, Nippon, Ind and Araby.

    We might get some much-needed diversity within the human factions themselves.

    the chances we will see the endtimes is much higher then any of the eastern factions. Only araby is possible at the moment.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 13,404Registered Users
    Rather than a story campaign I'd rather see more variability in campaigns.

    Skavenblight taken out? A vermintide is triggered. Athel Loren burned to the ground? Hello Beastmen hordes, Empire is unified? G'day super Empire.

    Chaos as the big bad is all well and good, but the campaign would gain a lot more replayability if there were more large threats from more races. Ideally that happens organically but it should also happen from events like I've described. Rather than pushing story on the player let it be organic.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users

    Rather than a story campaign I'd rather see more variability in campaigns.

    Skavenblight taken out? A vermintide is triggered. Athel Loren burned to the ground? Hello Beastmen hordes, Empire is unified? G'day super Empire.

    Chaos as the big bad is all well and good, but the campaign would gain a lot more replayability if there were more large threats from more races. Ideally that happens organically but it should also happen from events like I've described. Rather than pushing story on the player let it be organic.

    Or daemon invasions after the vortex is weakend/destroyed.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Posts: 4,884Registered Users
    Irongut said:

    Draxynnic said:

    Razmirth said:

    I’m all for other victory conditions in ME. I enjoyed beastmens killing empire and Bretonnia. But most factions are just global domination. Vampire counts taking jungles across the world, dwarves living in open wastelands, tomb kings expanding outside their kingdoms...meh. Only race that it makes sense for global domination is Skaven and chaos/Norca. Other factions wouldn’t have much interest in conquering the world. Especially since many of the factions are allies like high elves and empire/Bretonnia.

    Remember, alliances count. The long victory condition is essentially about removing every threat to your empire - every other major power is either slapped down sufficiently that they're no longer a threat, or a close ally.

    This actually makes a lot of sense for the order races, and particularly the high elves. Destroy your enemies, assist your allies in destroying theirs, and become the senior partner of an alliance that can hold against all comers.

    The hard part is stopping your allies from fighting each other like children.
    mmaybe for the high elvs but what about the Empire, Bretonnia or the dwarfs? they are interested in holding their empire and not something far off. I doubt those factions ever heard of itza, hexoatl and so on.

    I simply want them to be lorefriendly and also not so far stretched at least for the factions where it make sense. Because as you said the only faction where it make sense to hold a specific amount of citys of other factins are actually only the high elfs.
    I said it fits the High Elves well because of their inclination towards propping up other nations for their own benefit.

    Other Order races tend to be more parochial in their ambitions, it is true - but that's because the High Elves are the only Order race apart from the isolationist Lizardmen to have an opportunity to look at things from a global perspective.

    However, I think the short victory conditions cover those more parochial aims. Once you start shooting for the long victory conditions, I think it's reasonable to say that your faction has gone past parochial goals and is now going for superpower status...and, for an Order race, responsibilities.

    Take the Empire, for instance. Achieving hegemony over the Old World would achieve their immediate goals, but does not guarantee the continued prosperity of the Empire. Dark Elf raids are still a threat, Skaven and Vampires dwelling outside the Old World still have the potential to return and cause trouble, some Imperial nobles and citizens might be considering the potential of overseas colonies, and the Colleges of Wizards might be developing ambitions of fully restoring the defenses against Chaos, alone or with the assistance of other races.

    There is a point at which it makes sense for almost any Order faction to decide that they've achieved their local goals and that it's time to set up a new world order that suits them. And the exceptions have alternative victory conditions, IIRC.
  • SteppelordSteppelord Junior Member Posts: 1,951Registered Users
    TO be honest I kind of like the idea of four endgame challenges. Just replace Malekith's one with Grom's waaaaaagh.

    So the four options are:

    Archaon end times (including beastmen and demons)

    Grom's great Waaaaaaaagh

    Nagash's legions of undeath

    Skaven doomtide

    These you can choose in an end game dilemma, with archaon's being most difficult, followed by Nagash, and then skaven and greenskins. so choose whichever one you want.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Posts: 4,884Registered Users

    TO be honest I kind of like the idea of four endgame challenges. Just replace Malekith's one with Grom's waaaaaagh.

    So the four options are:

    Archaon end times (including beastmen and demons)

    Grom's great Waaaaaaaagh

    Nagash's legions of undeath

    Skaven doomtide

    These you can choose in an end game dilemma, with archaon's being most difficult, followed by Nagash, and then skaven and greenskins. so choose whichever one you want.

    I think there is value in having an Order-oriented endgame threat in the mix. It shouldn't pop up when you're playing an Order-oriented race yourself, but if you're playing one of the races that would potentially be in their sights, something like the Lizardmen suddenly spawning massive armies for a holy war to restore the Great Plan or the Elves uniting and their allies (dragons, forest spirits, etc) all waking up at once for one last defiant stand against the darkness engulfing the world (namely, you) could be suitable endgame threats.
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Posts: 2,013Registered Users
    Fraxinus said:

    Honestly, the main problem I see with long campaigns in Total War right now is pretty simple - the end is always anticlimactic. The major events of the campaign usually happen long before you meet the Long Victory conditions.

    The reason for this is that - with some exceptions - generally everyone spawns near their arch-rival. The Dwarf and Greenskin capitols are in literally neighboring provinces. Altdorf is a stone's throw away from Bretonnia. Khazrak spawns just around the corner from Athel Loren. I could go on.

    What happens in these situations is defeating your main rival becomes the early-to-mid-game objective instead of the end-game objective. As the Dwarves, you can kill Grimgor and Queek, take back Eight Peaks, rebuild the Karaz Ankor... and still be a long way from victory. Shouldn't that be victory? What else would the Dwarves do, in the lore? They have no reason to go after the territory of the manlings. I suppose they could cross the ocean and have the War of Vengeance Round 2, but I'm pretty sure most Dwarf leaders nowadays realize that would be a generally bad idea for the state of the world in general.

    Likewise, as Naggarond, you could unify all the Dark Elves and conquer Ulthuan, and still have lots to do before official victory. This is, I think, the main reason why so many people give up on their campaigns. The main objective of their faction has already been accomplished. Most people who play Tyrion don't want to go across the sea and conquer the Old World, they just want to secure Ulthuan, kill Malekith, and call it a day.

    I see a couple solutions to this - either reduce the victory conditions to something more lore-appropriate, or get more creative in start locations and objectives. They've been getting better about this recently - Grand Hierophant Khatep who starts in Naggaroth, for example.

    There is one other problem to late-game campaigns, which is AI army elite spam. Because of the way AI economy works, AI factions get a bunch of free money and somehow can still support two full armies with only one settlement. Don't ask me how. On top of this, they build their armies like a fat kid in a candy store. It gets REALLY TIRESOME to constantly fight full stacks of nothing but high-tier units over and over again. During one conquest of Ulthuan, I was about ready to commit seppuku after the fifth time that I had to deal with a 20-stack army that was basically nothing but Swordmasters, archers of some description, and phoenixes / dragons.

    The solution to this one is easy - cut back on AI economy (seriously, they don't need that much free money) and force them to build their armies more like a real person would. I don't want to fight sixteen stacks of Greatswords and three artillery pieces. Not only is that not fun, it's immersion-breaking. Fix it.

    Thrones really improved the supposed endgame slog (I never get that far ususally which is reason why supposed is used.) with lots of conditions so hopefully warhammer gets them.

  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users

    Fraxinus said:

    Honestly, the main problem I see with long campaigns in Total War right now is pretty simple - the end is always anticlimactic. The major events of the campaign usually happen long before you meet the Long Victory conditions.

    The reason for this is that - with some exceptions - generally everyone spawns near their arch-rival. The Dwarf and Greenskin capitols are in literally neighboring provinces. Altdorf is a stone's throw away from Bretonnia. Khazrak spawns just around the corner from Athel Loren. I could go on.

    What happens in these situations is defeating your main rival becomes the early-to-mid-game objective instead of the end-game objective. As the Dwarves, you can kill Grimgor and Queek, take back Eight Peaks, rebuild the Karaz Ankor... and still be a long way from victory. Shouldn't that be victory? What else would the Dwarves do, in the lore? They have no reason to go after the territory of the manlings. I suppose they could cross the ocean and have the War of Vengeance Round 2, but I'm pretty sure most Dwarf leaders nowadays realize that would be a generally bad idea for the state of the world in general.

    Likewise, as Naggarond, you could unify all the Dark Elves and conquer Ulthuan, and still have lots to do before official victory. This is, I think, the main reason why so many people give up on their campaigns. The main objective of their faction has already been accomplished. Most people who play Tyrion don't want to go across the sea and conquer the Old World, they just want to secure Ulthuan, kill Malekith, and call it a day.

    I see a couple solutions to this - either reduce the victory conditions to something more lore-appropriate, or get more creative in start locations and objectives. They've been getting better about this recently - Grand Hierophant Khatep who starts in Naggaroth, for example.

    There is one other problem to late-game campaigns, which is AI army elite spam. Because of the way AI economy works, AI factions get a bunch of free money and somehow can still support two full armies with only one settlement. Don't ask me how. On top of this, they build their armies like a fat kid in a candy store. It gets REALLY TIRESOME to constantly fight full stacks of nothing but high-tier units over and over again. During one conquest of Ulthuan, I was about ready to commit seppuku after the fifth time that I had to deal with a 20-stack army that was basically nothing but Swordmasters, archers of some description, and phoenixes / dragons.

    The solution to this one is easy - cut back on AI economy (seriously, they don't need that much free money) and force them to build their armies more like a real person would. I don't want to fight sixteen stacks of Greatswords and three artillery pieces. Not only is that not fun, it's immersion-breaking. Fix it.

    Thrones really improved the supposed endgame slog (I never get that far ususally which is reason why supposed is used.) with lots of conditions so hopefully warhammer gets them.
    Also like them and because of that there is hope warhammer gets them too.
  • RazmirthRazmirth Posts: 2,037Registered Users
    Draxynnic said:

    Razmirth said:

    I’m all for other victory conditions in ME. I enjoyed beastmens killing empire and Bretonnia. But most factions are just global domination. Vampire counts taking jungles across the world, dwarves living in open wastelands, tomb kings expanding outside their kingdoms...meh. Only race that it makes sense for global domination is Skaven and chaos/Norca. Other factions wouldn’t have much interest in conquering the world. Especially since many of the factions are allies like high elves and empire/Bretonnia.

    Remember, alliances count. The long victory condition is essentially about removing every threat to your empire - every other major power is either slapped down sufficiently that they're no longer a threat, or a close ally.

    This actually makes a lot of sense for the order races, and particularly the high elves. Destroy your enemies, assist your allies in destroying theirs, and become the senior partner of an alliance that can hold against all comers.

    The hard part is stopping your allies from fighting each other like children.
    The other issue you face is after you stop the chaos invasion, even close allies all break everything and go to war/don’t like you anymore.

    In my tww1 dwarf long campaign victory, i had everyone defeated/allied and confederated except Karak Hirn. They broke alliances, declared war and I spent literally 40 extra turns bribing them out of war and into confed. Took 15000 gold a turn and then finally 150,000 gold to make them confed and win long victory.

    It was the longest waste of time in any campaign I’ve ever played. But I didn’t feel like with the world saved and life going back to semi-normal that the high king would just start butchering his own people. That’s completely un-dwarf like in every way imaginable.
  • IrongutIrongut Junior Member Posts: 34Registered Users
    Razmirth said:

    Draxynnic said:

    Razmirth said:

    I’m all for other victory conditions in ME. I enjoyed beastmens killing empire and Bretonnia. But most factions are just global domination. Vampire counts taking jungles across the world, dwarves living in open wastelands, tomb kings expanding outside their kingdoms...meh. Only race that it makes sense for global domination is Skaven and chaos/Norca. Other factions wouldn’t have much interest in conquering the world. Especially since many of the factions are allies like high elves and empire/Bretonnia.

    Remember, alliances count. The long victory condition is essentially about removing every threat to your empire - every other major power is either slapped down sufficiently that they're no longer a threat, or a close ally.

    This actually makes a lot of sense for the order races, and particularly the high elves. Destroy your enemies, assist your allies in destroying theirs, and become the senior partner of an alliance that can hold against all comers.

    The hard part is stopping your allies from fighting each other like children.
    The other issue you face is after you stop the chaos invasion, even close allies all break everything and go to war/don’t like you anymore.

    In my tww1 dwarf long campaign victory, i had everyone defeated/allied and confederated except Karak Hirn. They broke alliances, declared war and I spent literally 40 extra turns bribing them out of war and into confed. Took 15000 gold a turn and then finally 150,000 gold to make them confed and win long victory.

    It was the longest waste of time in any campaign I’ve ever played. But I didn’t feel like with the world saved and life going back to semi-normal that the high king would just start butchering his own people. That’s completely un-dwarf like in every way imaginable.
    yeah never get it why CA did this.
Sign In or Register to comment.