Since the game pushes doomstacking and to always fill up to the full 20 units, what's the point of vanilla garrisons, which are low tier and low in number? They're pure AR fodder in no time. They contribute nothing but free XP to the attacker on top of him getting the settlement anyway. At the same time it encourages spamming the garrison building which turns lategame into one siege after another. Boring!
So here's what needs to happen:
1.Remove garrisons from all minor settlements. They're useless and only contribute to the enemy anyway
2.Make the garrison building's troops much stronger and more numerous while also reducing an invader's movement speed by 50% and disable underground movement in the region they stand in so they become actual useful barriers. Towers also need an extended firing arc, more firepower and the gate needs to be more resistant to getting broken
3.Make the garrison building chain lower growth and economical output by 25% in the whole province so you actually have to weigh its usefulness against its economic impact and building more than one becomes expensive. Also double its building time and have it destroyed whenever a settlement with it is successfully assaulted forcing a rebuild
4.Reduce the siege timer when an army camps inside a settlement to immediate starvation if it gets besieged, but reduce attrition rates from 50% to 10%
That way building garrisons strategically becomes actually important.
0 ·
Comments
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
3 · 3LikeWhy do you think medieval towns, which were almost all heavily fortified, never quite got to be as big or prosperous as the less protected towns in the old Roman Empire?
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
3 · 3Like1. Stops a single lord stack roaming around like in ToB gobbling up/sacking settlements, which is/was somewhat of an issue even in a game designed around it,, andso makes garrisons more vital to build rather than less.
3. Doesn't make sense in the context of the building system of the wider game- this is not Attila! There is already an opportunity cost in building the garrison.
4. Basically takes 'even' seige battles out of the game, as the optimal course for the besieger is to wait, while the defender either salllies out or waits for a relief army within a few turns. The attacker can always just wait a couple of turns for the disparity in power to be great enough, then attack in an uneven battle.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
3 · 3Like6) I'd also like to see the player be able to choose their own Garrison. It'd be very simple; you get a set amount of funds to purchase units and you purchase them with limit being that the max tier of unit is the same tier as the city. It'd make me actually get involved in my cities and it'd allow for clever players to maximize the value of their garrisons by catering them to counter the enemies of that region.
1) No thanks. Minor settlements with walls are essential in this game. Like it or not that's just how it's set up. Undefended Minor settlements can just be rolled over ad infinitum. If nothing else walls in minor settlements delay the enemy enough to let you get your forces either there, or on the way there.
2) I pretty much agree with this. Not necessarily with stronger troops per se, but the rest, yes. I'd even go a step further and have the deployment zone be outside of tower range. For example making tower range 550 and Deployment begin at 560, forcing someone who wants to bombard to walk in and do it.
3) Eh, I like Walls having an impact greater than just walls but probably not this. As I said walls are essential because of the games nature so that has to be taken into account.
4) I'm against this purely because I love big battles. Having a stack inside a city facing off against 2+ stacks attacking it is EPIC. Though I see where this comes from.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
2 · 2LikeIs this so hard to get?
As garrisons work right now they suck, they only contribute to more AR and endless sieges in lategame.
I want less but in return more decisive sieges.
- Spam
- 1Abuse
- Report
-1 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like1. is very useful to slow down armies and you can still garrison an army within it to help it out.
3. Nobody is going to want to lose so much, and there's mods (sfo) that sort of fix some issues.
4. Some mods already cover this to some extent.
As for proposal 2:
What I would propose is the ability to garrison more than one army in a regional capital. These are vast necropolis's that can house thousands of troops, but make it interesting and it is currently doable I think with some modding.
More than one army present within capital:
+ to public order
+ to leadership
+ defence
+ able to recruit levies within city while under siege.
- "levies", lower actual population which will effect growth time, and may make city destitute, lose a level.
- negative or halted growth as all surplus goes to the army while more than one present, but not under siege.
"Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death." - Vlad von Carstein
My steam workshop Warhammer II mods
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1LikeElements of points #2 and 3 exist in SFO and are well-implemented. I particularly like the idea of garrisons negating growth and income, but not to the extent you suggest.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeMinor settlement garrisons do nothing. They are just free XP to the conqueror and have no slowing effect whatsoever, especially not to the lategame doomstacks. So they need to go. No more free XP for a simple AR click. Oh, and it means you actually have to defend your territory actively and be wary of threats. Imagine that, strategic decisions to be made in a strategy game.
Garrison buildings should have bigger effects but also not be spammable, period. The siege battles you do get need to be bigger in scope, harder to win as the attacker but also fewer in number. Is anyone so enarmored with the lategame siege battle spam?
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikePersonally I've found that settlement battles are some of the most exciting battles I've fought since they are so heavily out of your favor. When you win one it actually feels like an accomplishment. And even if the odds are impossible, I like see how much of the enemy army I can take down with me.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
7 · 7LikeWH sieges are not fun and especially not so fun that they should be 90% of the battles you get in lategame.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeMost people actually enjoy the game, so they don't incessantly ask for an overhaul for this or a revamp for that... So yeah.. People are clearly "enarmoured" by the "lategame siege battle spam"..
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
5 · 5LikeThe garrisons you do get can always hurt the one or two stacks the AI sends at you enough to blunt the charge and since they have to run a gauntlet of garrisons, you are never threatened. The reverse is not true, the AI spamming garrisons does not help it at all, just makes the game more tedious. The AI is simply too stupid to take advantage of it like the player can.
If you think people like the warhammer sieges then you have clearly not been paying attention.
The game being easy and simplistic makes it attractive to tons of casual players, but CA should not forget that seasoned veterans would like to enjoy the game too.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeCA hates the Empire confirmed. The FLC LL for the new Lord Pack is Gor-Rok. Meaning the Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. And no, moving Balthasar Gelt from Reikland, where he should be, DOES NOT COUNT. If they wanted a LL in the Southern Empire: Marius Leitdorf of Averland or maybe Elspeth von Draken in Nuln...
Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him?
GHAL MARAZ IS THE WEAPON OF THE SETTING! YET SOME BRETONNIAN SWORD IS MORE POTENT?! BUFF GHAL MARAZ IN SIGMAR'S NAME!
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
2 · 2LikeThat's the way I like to play so I'm more or less fine with the current garrison system. Personally, I think the solution would be to overhaul siege battles and/or perhaps CA should take another cue from the modders and put minor settlement battles back in the game in lieu of throwing walls up everywhere. I find the GCCM maps to be fantastic.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeStop trying to hoodwink me.
- Spam
- 1Abuse
- Report
-1 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
4 · 4LikeThe last TW game that forced decisions on the player WRT settlement buildings was Attila. This title in comparison is so simplistic and straightforward that I can't believe people actually struggle with it.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeSome people like having to actually fight for a settlement instead of boring causal clickfest.
Making the garrisons any stronger will result in me never losing a single settlement.
They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle."
Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
Let the Games Begin!
https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1LikeRemoving them would hurt no one.
- Spam
- 1Abuse
- Report
-1 · LikeThere is still strategy here. Slowing down the enemy and chipping at their army is an almost necessity in the Vortex campaign when Chaos stacks teleport only to where none of your armies are at. Just because a battle is one that can't be won doesn't mean there is nothing that can be strategically gained from it.
The majority of your issues stems from the issue of doomstacks being the default gameplay style come mid to late game. That would be a much better target for changing to incentivize smarter, composed armies than just making it even easier for them to cut through the map leaving you with dozens of turns to recolonize and rebuild. That would not be fun to do every time any army even with just a couple of units a garrison could easily handle came through your lands.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
2 · 2LikeIn the current game they're simply necessary.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
3 · 3LikeGenerally the discussion here is not going anywhere, and if this continues I will just close the thread.
-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
-The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
-...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeAlso, has everyone actually overlooked I don't want garrison buildings to be barred from minor settlements? I just don't want them spammed.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeHigh Elves: Militia chain, Cavalry Chain, and Hunting grounds are capped at tier 3
Lizardmen: Skink chain, Terradons, and Cold Ones are capped at tier 3
Tomb Kings: Barracks chain, Chariot chain, and Arkhan's VC chain are capped at tier 3
Vampires: Infantry chain and Abyssal Wood are capped at tier 3
Dark Elves: Barracks chain, Dark Rider chain, and Shade chain are capped at tier 3
I could go on, but I've made my point. There are plenty of military recruitment buildings capped at tier 3 to the point where it does become a dilemma on which buildings to choose, especially in 2-3 settlement provinces and especially for races with more than 2 recruitment buildings capped at tier 3.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1LikeAs an aside to that... I miss the ability to take those forces out onto the map under command of a "captain" that you could promote to a general if you kicked some major butt with them in a battle.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like