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

Doomstacking Makes Full Rosters Irrelevant

12357

Comments

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540

    Lol, I always wanted the AI to have doomstacks. Is not fun to face peasant mobs in late game...

    Who says the AI should bring only trash mobs? No one.

    All units should be viable and lategame stacks shouldn't be just the same 3-4 units spammed endlessly.

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 19,607
    uriak said:

    Well there are 4 ways to make a lower tier unit desirable :

    making it inevitable (slots, and other barriers to other units à this is how the TT did btw. But this is only a temporary limit.

    making it strong enough in the right situation (I think high tier buffs for low tier units is a good solution. This is the idea behind the overkills buffs of goblins for the big boss lords...)

    making it not costly : in theory, it is, but upkeep lines disagree, and the thing is the game is more rewarding when using less armies in general. More armies = better coverage, but in large battles our micro (and framerate) suffers a lot from using superior numbers.

    making it more practical : this is not debated much I think, and the game has steadily gone into the other direction. But what if elites really took longer time to recruit, and much longer time to replenish, wouldn't suddenly filling the gaps with "simpler" units be quite desirable actually ?

    I think it's a combination of the latter 3, with possibly the 1st that'll do the trick.

    Still I think the only way to make stuff like Slaves viable is if they come as part of extra army slots. Though killing supply lines would at least make it possible to have a slave stack. Currently we lack that option.
    Malakai is the best choice for a Dwarf LP. Give us Slayer lords so we may form a Slayer host and revel in our destruction!
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 3,637
    The argument that the game is a game, so we the player can't complain about the behavior it encourages?

    This really is a pretty absurd point. Only a handful of people are ever going to not use various features a game gives. If a game lets you warp past a lot of levels most players are going to exploit that, often. Even if they enjoyed the levels inbetween, players will still often skip because they can.

    Now, on the point of everything should be allowed. Restrictions don't just make things more difficult but they can make things more nuanced, or provide the better grounds to have more fun. Its why god mode in many games very rapidly grows boring. I had the old Game Genie and I found that I rarely used it for anything like infinite lives and more often things that just made it a bit sillier. If I even used it at all.

    If the game was more nuanced we'd have far more to do mid and late game. It would leave me with concerns to address, this is not just difficulty question it's a fun question. And, I don't really believe most of the people waffling about their doomstacks have actually finished that many campaigns. I certainly see on this forum a very common statement at quitting the game by mid game, definitely by late game, or having the most fun at the early portion of the game.

    So the argument to preserve doomstacks is always the antifun argument. That somehow asking for the game to be better is bad because.. we can't just be happy with what we got? Well okay, that's a fine statement to a mother to a child. But I'm not a child, and this is a product I pay for and continue to pay for it so I have every right to ask for it to be better. And not have to depend on some arbitrary methods that really just slap some bad coats of paints on a mega problem.

    This is not an argument about being elite either. I can play on any difficult in most games, this one included. But I do not actually enjoy legendary myself? But what? Oh yeah, I really don't give a flip darn about what people think about my status as elite or not. Being able to play a higher difficulty over another player is entirely pointless to me. But this affects Normal as well. On any difficulty, mid game and late game are less and less fun at every turn with lil to do while meeting armies that are all doomstacks and thinking about people on the forums championing how I can beat 8 hydras with clanrats.

    Or the absurd notion of I don't want to use hydras. I enjoy using all the rare and elite units, but I also find that many of the other fun units like hawks, various chariots, smaller monsters, and tiers of infantry/ranged units are pointless. It means I barely use most units, not all units will win. Lets not pretend they can. Fighting only hydras, or fighting only with hydras is fun a couple times but it is ultimately the same level of fun as god mode. Rapidly boring, as you're going to employ the same strategy with them every single time.

    All that contributes to a less nuanced game, with less things to do, which means less fun. And it ignores the point that if the game had more nuances it mores more ability to mod in even more kinds of interesting games. The more basic the game the less to actually do.

    Prodoomstack arguments veil themselves as 'for freedom or for fun', but they're in fact championing antifun.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,735
    Just apply core, special, rare caps to armies.
  • TheWolfLordTheWolfLord Registered Users Posts: 75

    Lol, I always wanted the AI to have doomstacks. Is not fun to face peasant mobs in late game...

    Who says the AI should bring only trash mobs? No one.

    All units should be viable and lategame stacks shouldn't be just the same 3-4 units spammed endlessly.
    Not all units can be viable late game though. Slaves and Skaven Slaves will never be viable and will always be replaced even if you introduce caps. There will always be units that just aren’t good other than early game and building to better and better armies is part of the fun. Elite units usually have more abilities and are more interesting to use.

    Some factions have a far harder time without higher tier units. I don’t doomstack and I always struggled as Queek before the update as Skaven cant counter basic Dwarves and Saurus with basic core units. As a Skaven player how would you feel if over half of your army had to be slaves or clanrats?

    I’ve played every campaign faction and always make balanced armies, never struggle against AI (because AI tactics are very poor) but some races are far harder than others and my fun nosedives as a result, it’s a chore sometimes.

    Caps would make it far harder, good for some but it should be optional as others would find it very off putting.

    So many things would need to be changed to make this work (caps, supply lines, introduction of points per army, scrapping of 20 unit limit etc) and I just don’t see CA spending this amount of time on something that many players don’t want changing.
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 3,735

    Lol, I always wanted the AI to have doomstacks. Is not fun to face peasant mobs in late game...

    Who says the AI should bring only trash mobs? No one.

    All units should be viable and lategame stacks shouldn't be just the same 3-4 units spammed endlessly.
    Not all units can be viable late game though. Slaves and Skaven Slaves will never be viable and will always be replaced even if you introduce caps. There will always be units that just aren’t good other than early game and building to better and better armies is part of the fun. Elite units usually have more abilities and are more interesting to use.

    Some factions have a far harder time without higher tier units. I don’t doomstack and I always struggled as Queek before the update as Skaven cant counter basic Dwarves and Saurus with basic core units. As a Skaven player how would you feel if over half of your army had to be slaves or clanrats?

    I’ve played every campaign faction and always make balanced armies, never struggle against AI (because AI tactics are very poor) but some races are far harder than others and my fun nosedives as a result, it’s a chore sometimes.

    Caps would make it far harder, good for some but it should be optional as others would find it very off putting.

    So many things would need to be changed to make this work (caps, supply lines, introduction of points per army, scrapping of 20 unit limit etc) and I just don’t see CA spending this amount of time on something that many players don’t want changing.
    We have a mod that introduces core, special, and rare to armies. It also applies to the AI and it works just fine.
  • TotalBorehammerTotalBorehammer Registered Users Posts: 940

    Lol, I always wanted the AI to have doomstacks. Is not fun to face peasant mobs in late game...

    Who says the AI should bring only trash mobs? No one.

    All units should be viable and lategame stacks shouldn't be just the same 3-4 units spammed endlessly.
    Not all units can be viable late game though. Slaves and Skaven Slaves will never be viable and will always be replaced even if you introduce caps. There will always be units that just aren’t good other than early game and building to better and better armies is part of the fun. Elite units usually have more abilities and are more interesting to use.

    Some factions have a far harder time without higher tier units. I don’t doomstack and I always struggled as Queek before the update as Skaven cant counter basic Dwarves and Saurus with basic core units. As a Skaven player how would you feel if over half of your army had to be slaves or clanrats?

    I’ve played every campaign faction and always make balanced armies, never struggle against AI (because AI tactics are very poor) but some races are far harder than others and my fun nosedives as a result, it’s a chore sometimes.

    Caps would make it far harder, good for some but it should be optional as others would find it very off putting.

    So many things would need to be changed to make this work (caps, supply lines, introduction of points per army, scrapping of 20 unit limit etc) and I just don’t see CA spending this amount of time on something that many players don’t want changing.
    We have a mod that introduces core, special, and rare to armies. It also applies to the AI and it works just fine.
    Pretty sure it wouldn't kill you to post a link to the mod you're talking about. :)
    CA have a Facebook page... use the comments section of their posts and express your thoughts on ME poor quality/delays etc https://www.facebook.com/CreativeAssembly/ :)
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 939

    Sagranda said:


    Reeks said:



    Still think it´s funny though, y´al keep calling the goal "Balanced stacks" when in reality they will just be "samey stacks"

    When can you mix it up more? When 20% of all the rosters are viable or when 100% of the rosters are?

    Samey stacks is what we have now. There's no denying it. Why build any melee infantry but Greatswords as Empire? Why go for anything but Black Orks for Greenskins? Why nothing but Stormvermin for Skaven? The AI does it like that, so by midgame, only doomstacks roam the landscape.

    So the great saminess is what you are defending.
    There's a difference between what one can do and what one will do.
    Even now one can use lower tiered troops even in the late game on the higher difficulties, but those who min-max won't do it because it isn't effective.
    Something similar will happen in a system where elites aren't as cost-efficient anymore or capped to some degree. Hardcore players (as in people who min-max) will merely use the same unit combination over and over again once they found the most efficient one.
    In either system those people will have "samey stacks", unless CA would achieve the perfect unit balance.
    MP proves you wrong, build variety there beats SP build variety by a country mile, and you need the different builds simply because you can meet a large variety of different units that all have different strengths and counters and you havea limited budget to construct your army from. Wasting money on the wrong unit can quickly put you on the backfoot in any battle.

    In SP it's just primitive brute elite force über alles and everything else is deliberately handicapping yourself . I fail to see how the current system has any sort of gameplay merit.

    A system where every individual army you build can only have so much of a budget (call it logistics constraints) would be a good solution if CA wants to go beyond fixing the primitive supply lines mechanic.

    Like at first you can at first only cram 12500 something worth of units into any stack you build and then through research or skills slightly expand that budget over time. So you could still have doomstacks but it would take longer to get them and they would be tied to individual characters more.
    Please never talk about logistics again, because clearly you do not know anything about it. The idea that logistics are defined by the value of what you're transporting is hilariously wrong and makes less sense than putting little bird wings on a steamtank and calling it a steamplane. If you wanted to go this path then it should have been an upkeep ceiling, because upkeep is simulating the logistical costs of a unit, but obviously adding an upkeep ceiling per army wouldn't make any kind of sense either, because that would just double-dip on the existing constraint while being completely irrational and impossible to justify.

    And we're again back at the weird idea that army one can have a dragon, army two can have a dragon, but you cannot temporarily shuffle both dragons into army one and then have something else in army two. That does not compute and is TERRIBLE design.

    And we're again back at the weird idea that races in total war against one another would gentlemanly limit themselves to only bringing as much army as the enemy. That does not compute and is TERRIBLE design.

    And we're again back at the weird idea that the game must be designed explicitly to cater to YOUR PERSONAL ideosyncratic decision variables and COMPLETELY DISREGARD EVERYBODY ELSE! That does not compute and is TERRIBLE design.

    PS
    MP is not a strategic setting, it is a tactical duel, much like TT. Forces have to be reasonably equivalent in value for it to be worth bothering with, even if such equalence is hardly reasonable in any kind of strategic context.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    I agree that unauthorizing combining units in an army is weird. It's a remnant from the TT restrictions, but those restrictions obviously applied to the whole "context" of a single battle, not a campaign.

    There is something that could make sense though. In warhammer lore, only a few factions do provides general with armies, many, many of these leaders are more like warlords that manage to assemble troops for their own personnal objectives, and thanks to their scheming/reputation/charisma. This means that having "something" tying units availabilty and some armies could actually make a lot of sense.

    As I said, unity rarity in warhammer can represent several things, and it's gonna be always a little simplistic to apply a single rule to represent this. Units are rare because they require a lot of specific trianing/experience (egg hammerers, phoenix guards, stormvermins ) because the creature/machine IS rare (giants, steamtanks, dragons) or because it's costly to produce and maintain (mostly high end artillery)

    For artillery machine and some giant beasts, it makes sense to suppose the upkeep/supply is more costly. For other high end units, less so (chosen, swordmasters, etc don't theorically requires more supply than large militia would )

    @MonochromaticSpider : the game does make a choice, though. The choice is once unlocked by one building, a unit is available in whatever number. This is not neutral in term of what happens in a campaign, both for player and AI. But this doesn't extend to all unit types, as lords suffers from supply lines and heroes do have hard cap. So it can be argued, than other types of units could be restricted too, for balance and diversity sake.

    you're trying to frame the discussion to the desire of one person, but if many mods are to be believed, the vanilla approach doesn't fit the vision of many more than that. I don't claim it's a majority, the vast majority of players will ever play the games in low difficulty and don't complete campaigns at all anyway.


  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540
    edited July 2019

    Lol, I always wanted the AI to have doomstacks. Is not fun to face peasant mobs in late game...

    Who says the AI should bring only trash mobs? No one.

    All units should be viable and lategame stacks shouldn't be just the same 3-4 units spammed endlessly.
    Not all units can be viable late game though.
    That depends entirely how unit progression in the campaign goes.

    If veteran and elite tiers are severely restriced, then even lower tiers have a place.

    ----

    So on another note:

    What do people who are against doomstack curbing have to lose? Why do you want doomstacks to be easy to make and be the preferred way of building armies in campaign? What's so great about having a dozen elite spam stacks come lategame and meeting nothing but AI elite spam stacks? Doesn't it get old to see the same 3-4 units per race every single time?

    Those who argue you don't need doomstacks to win the campaign, well, they won't notice any difference anyway.

  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 939
    uriak said:


    @MonochromaticSpider : the game does make a choice, though. The choice is once unlocked by one building, a unit is available in whatever number. This is not neutral in term of what happens in a campaign, both for player and AI. But this doesn't extend to all unit types, as lords suffers from supply lines and heroes do have hard cap. So it can be argued, than other types of units could be restricted too, for balance and diversity sake.

    you're trying to frame the discussion to the desire of one person, but if many mods are to be believed, the vanilla approach doesn't fit the vision of many more than that. I don't claim it's a majority, the vast majority of players will ever play the games in low difficulty and don't complete campaigns at all anyway.


    I don't get what you're trying to say with the choices. I'm not advocating that all units should be available in unlimited numbers, but simply that Ephraim's idea of locking everything down to the point where you're playing 200+ turns with mostly tier 1 and 2 units is not sensible.

    And I am not trying to frame the discussion as the desire of one person, but Ephraim has this rather particular way of being extremely absolute in his language, which gets a bit old after a while. I don't want to pour gasoline on the fire, but I thought a single response in the same language wouldn't hurt.

    I am not at all against modifying the gameplay so doomstacks are toned down and less ridiculous stacks become more efficient. Never have been. I just do not want to modify the gameplay with a sledgehammer, because unless the game is very bad (and I don't think it is) then sledgehammers are not suitable tools for moderate adjustments.

    I have time and time again argued that supply lines need to go, as a first step. Yes, this does lead to a problem of potentially too many lords, which in turn is a problem because lords are extremely strong for their cost. That could be handled, though. After that, some of the crazy econ boom could be looked into and maybe some of the upkeep reductions. Maybe the recruitment times go up if you recruit more than x of a unit over a period of time.

    There are plenty of potential avenues to softly nerf doomstacks that don't involve hard limits.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 939

    Lol, I always wanted the AI to have doomstacks. Is not fun to face peasant mobs in late game...

    Who says the AI should bring only trash mobs? No one.

    All units should be viable and lategame stacks shouldn't be just the same 3-4 units spammed endlessly.
    Not all units can be viable late game though.
    That depends entirely how unit progression in the campaign goes.

    If veteran and elite tiers are severely restriced, then even lower tiers have a place.

    ----

    So on another note:

    What do people who are against doomstack curbing have to lose? Why do you want doomstacks to be easy to make and be the preferred way of building armies in campaign? What's so great about having a dozen elite spam stacks come lategame and meeting nothing but AI elite spam stacks? Doesn't it get old to see the same 3-4 units per race every single time?

    Those who argue you don't need doomstacks to win the campaign, well, they won't notice any difference anyway.
    Do you want to see the same tier 1-2 units for 200 turns in a campaign? I don't. I've tried it, though. Dwarf warriors and thunderers, eventually upgrading to beards. Turn off supply lines and you can actually just spam such armies, be ever-present on the map for most purposes, and handle really bad doomstacks through weight of numbers.

    My chaos stacks are a mix of chosen, shaggoths, manticores, heroes, trolls, and cavalry. Only thing I really don't use are forsaken, chaos chariots, and the cannon, since you then have to babysit it and sitting back as chaos feels a bit silly.

    My pirate stacks are usually handgunner zombies, mortars, a couple of necrofexes for cannon duties, crabs, bigger crabs, and probably some mournguls for fun, if space permits.

    For HE I prefer sea guards and sisters. Maybe a couple of flyers, but frankly the game tends to be settled before I'm able to actually recruit the big things.

    For Icky, doom flayers, ratlings, jezzails, clanrats, rat ogres, maybe an arty piece. Could go with stormvermin but they're just roadblocks so why bother?

    For Norsca, I'm usually suffering a bit because I want it all. Fimir don't work well unless they're covered by infantry, and you need a bunch of skirmishers for ranged duties. A wyrm is always nice, a few mammoths never hurt anyone, ice trolls are beautiful, and skinwolves are a man's best friend. Would bring ice doggies too, but there's just no room.

    I guess I do bring fairly samey armies as wood elves and Beastmen, though. Wood elves are mostly treekin, some cavalry, and a whole bunch of tier 1 archers. And heroes, of course. Beastmen are as many minos and cygors as I care for, rest whatever. Full minobus or bust is pretty much the only way I can make them work.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 939
    edited July 2019
    Oh, and @ moderators, my apologies for engaging with Ephraim in the way I did. I know it isn't pretty, but it just feels really silly that two adult people cannot find some way of communicating on a topic that they both clearly care about.

    This is a good topic in principle, and IMO potentially an informative topic, but it becomes a pointless topic if the discussion gets stuck on sledgehammer changes. It has to be somewhat more fine-grained than that.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540
    edited July 2019



    Do you want to see the same tier 1-2 units for 200 turns in a campaign?

    No, I want 100% of all race's rosters to be viable into the lategame. I'm seeing the same tier 4-5 units for the entire campaign by turn 30-50 which is worse.

  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 939



    Do you want to see the same tier 1-2 units for 200 turns in a campaign?

    No, I want 100% of all race's rosters to be viable into the lategame. I'm seeing the same tier 4-5 units for the entire campaign by turn 30-50 which is worse.
    You want peasants and zombies and skavenslaves and dwarf miners to be viable late game? How is that supposed to work and what sense of progression is there if units that are frankly just placeholders at turn 1 are supposed to also be used at late stages of the game?

    And if the only difference between a turn 5 full stack and a turn 250 full stack is that at turn 250 two units of greatswords and a steamtank was added then don't you think it gets really boring? Not ever seeing all the cool stuff? And with respect, no, basic skeletons and zombies and skaveslaves and spearmen and skinks are not what I would consider "the cool stuff".

    Also, you keep saying that you're seeing doomstacks on turn 30 or some times at turn 20. Is that on legendary? Do you not think that maybe this might be relevant to the discussion? Do you think the game should be balanced for legendary? Is the whole point of legendary not that the game is absolutely not balanced at all?
  • 42konyo42konyo Registered Users Posts: 783

    Lol, I always wanted the AI to have doomstacks. Is not fun to face peasant mobs in late game...

    Who says the AI should bring only trash mobs? No one.

    All units should be viable and lategame stacks shouldn't be just the same 3-4 units spammed endlessly.
    Not all units can be viable late game though. Slaves and Skaven Slaves will never be viable and will always be replaced even if you introduce caps. There will always be units that just aren’t good other than early game and building to better and better armies is part of the fun. Elite units usually have more abilities and are more interesting to use.

    Some factions have a far harder time without higher tier units. I don’t doomstack and I always struggled as Queek before the update as Skaven cant counter basic Dwarves and Saurus with basic core units. As a Skaven player how would you feel if over half of your army had to be slaves or clanrats?

    I’ve played every campaign faction and always make balanced armies, never struggle against AI (because AI tactics are very poor) but some races are far harder than others and my fun nosedives as a result, it’s a chore sometimes.

    Caps would make it far harder, good for some but it should be optional as others would find it very off putting.

    So many things would need to be changed to make this work (caps, supply lines, introduction of points per army, scrapping of 20 unit limit etc) and I just don’t see CA spending this amount of time on something that many players don’t want changing.
    We have a mod that introduces core, special, and rare to armies. It also applies to the AI and it works just fine.
    Pretty sure it wouldn't kill you to post a link to the mod you're talking about. :)
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1456828999

  • MarkerMarker Registered Users Posts: 1,193
    Theo91 said:

    What I don’t get is why not have both options like SFO?

    Just have a tick box at the bottom when you start a campaign whether you want unit caps or not. Everybody is happy that way

    This.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 4,167
    edited July 2019
    Think such a big change would warrent making it optional, that said it is something I'd like personally.

    It might also allow some interesting options for differentiation of LLs and even Lords. Throgg for example would consider Trolls "Core" and thus be able to bring as many as he liked. It could be worked int normal Lords, for example if we had the Grandmaster for the Empire he might not have some of the leadership stuff, but knights would be considered core and perhaps Demis "special" rather than rare. I think that would be pretty fun. Edit, scratch that, the Grandmaster could have reduced ability to use arty, to make him more martial focussed perhaps.
  • ReeksReeks Registered Users Posts: 2,995

    Reeks said:

    It'ss not for me to decide what the best version of the game is. It's for CA. In a discussion like this mods are largely irrelevant. CA should set the game up as well as it can.

    @Ephraim_Dalton is absolutely right in saying the game is set up for doomstacks. A game where every unit in a roster is relevant is better than one where only 40% or so are.

    I don't think caps work, not by themselves. I think it would take a set of measures to make everything useful.

    Ideally I'd have the game balanced so late game you have 1 or 2 Doom Stacks then the rest of your armies be balanced. Allowing you theme builds without punishing you for not building for Doom.

    Of course mods are not irrelevant in discussions like this, it´s a actual solution handed to people who just can´t stand to play the way the game currently is, would it be better if CA included the option to chose if you wanted restrictions or not in the base game.....Sure it would but until then use mods if it ruffles your feathers that badly, no point in creating a gazillion threads about the same damn topic.

    Still think it´s funny though, y´al keep calling the goal "Balanced stacks" when in reality they will just be "samey stacks"
    I don't want the option to choose. I simply want the game to be as good as it can be. Part of that involves making all or almost all of rosters usable. Mods aren't relevant because ultimately it's CA's job to make the game as good as it can be. Mods have made Kislev but that's not a reason for CA not to make Kislev. Similarly mods improving the game aren't a reason for CA to not improve the game.

    TWW has some awesome rosters. Right now the game encourages the use of only elites. Changing that so that everything is useful would benefit the game.
    You would literally be forcing your wishes upon all the people who prefer the current system over the opposite by announcing "I do not want the option to chose" Are you really so selfish that you could not live with having the option to toggle recruitment restrictions on and of to make everyone happy? Why is that?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540
    Reeks said:

    Reeks said:

    It'ss not for me to decide what the best version of the game is. It's for CA. In a discussion like this mods are largely irrelevant. CA should set the game up as well as it can.

    @Ephraim_Dalton is absolutely right in saying the game is set up for doomstacks. A game where every unit in a roster is relevant is better than one where only 40% or so are.

    I don't think caps work, not by themselves. I think it would take a set of measures to make everything useful.

    Ideally I'd have the game balanced so late game you have 1 or 2 Doom Stacks then the rest of your armies be balanced. Allowing you theme builds without punishing you for not building for Doom.

    Of course mods are not irrelevant in discussions like this, it´s a actual solution handed to people who just can´t stand to play the way the game currently is, would it be better if CA included the option to chose if you wanted restrictions or not in the base game.....Sure it would but until then use mods if it ruffles your feathers that badly, no point in creating a gazillion threads about the same damn topic.

    Still think it´s funny though, y´al keep calling the goal "Balanced stacks" when in reality they will just be "samey stacks"
    I don't want the option to choose. I simply want the game to be as good as it can be. Part of that involves making all or almost all of rosters usable. Mods aren't relevant because ultimately it's CA's job to make the game as good as it can be. Mods have made Kislev but that's not a reason for CA not to make Kislev. Similarly mods improving the game aren't a reason for CA to not improve the game.

    TWW has some awesome rosters. Right now the game encourages the use of only elites. Changing that so that everything is useful would benefit the game.
    You would literally be forcing your wishes upon all the people who prefer the current system over the opposite by announcing "I do not want the option to chose" Are you really so selfish that you could not live with having the option to toggle recruitment restrictions on and of to make everyone happy? Why is that?
    CA didn't put in a tickbox when they finally nerfed summoning and healing, so why should they do this here? The current system has no advantages and just makes the game worse, so far not a single argument has been put forward why doomstacking should be encouraged and easy.

  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 5,090

    Reeks said:

    Reeks said:

    It'ss not for me to decide what the best version of the game is. It's for CA. In a discussion like this mods are largely irrelevant. CA should set the game up as well as it can.

    @Ephraim_Dalton is absolutely right in saying the game is set up for doomstacks. A game where every unit in a roster is relevant is better than one where only 40% or so are.

    I don't think caps work, not by themselves. I think it would take a set of measures to make everything useful.

    Ideally I'd have the game balanced so late game you have 1 or 2 Doom Stacks then the rest of your armies be balanced. Allowing you theme builds without punishing you for not building for Doom.

    Of course mods are not irrelevant in discussions like this, it´s a actual solution handed to people who just can´t stand to play the way the game currently is, would it be better if CA included the option to chose if you wanted restrictions or not in the base game.....Sure it would but until then use mods if it ruffles your feathers that badly, no point in creating a gazillion threads about the same damn topic.

    Still think it´s funny though, y´al keep calling the goal "Balanced stacks" when in reality they will just be "samey stacks"
    I don't want the option to choose. I simply want the game to be as good as it can be. Part of that involves making all or almost all of rosters usable. Mods aren't relevant because ultimately it's CA's job to make the game as good as it can be. Mods have made Kislev but that's not a reason for CA not to make Kislev. Similarly mods improving the game aren't a reason for CA to not improve the game.

    TWW has some awesome rosters. Right now the game encourages the use of only elites. Changing that so that everything is useful would benefit the game.
    You would literally be forcing your wishes upon all the people who prefer the current system over the opposite by announcing "I do not want the option to chose" Are you really so selfish that you could not live with having the option to toggle recruitment restrictions on and of to make everyone happy? Why is that?
    CA didn't put in a tickbox when they finally nerfed summoning and healing, so why should they do this here? The current system has no advantages and just makes the game worse, so far not a single argument has been put forward why doomstacking should be encouraged and easy.
    Makes the game worse FOR YOU. Not everyone wants the same game as you do and forcing other people to play the game that you want is just very selfsish. Letting the choice for some stuff would be better, and don't tell me about the healing nerf it was only for balance purpose.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540
    neodeinos said:

    Reeks said:

    Reeks said:

    It'ss not for me to decide what the best version of the game is. It's for CA. In a discussion like this mods are largely irrelevant. CA should set the game up as well as it can.

    @Ephraim_Dalton is absolutely right in saying the game is set up for doomstacks. A game where every unit in a roster is relevant is better than one where only 40% or so are.

    I don't think caps work, not by themselves. I think it would take a set of measures to make everything useful.

    Ideally I'd have the game balanced so late game you have 1 or 2 Doom Stacks then the rest of your armies be balanced. Allowing you theme builds without punishing you for not building for Doom.

    Of course mods are not irrelevant in discussions like this, it´s a actual solution handed to people who just can´t stand to play the way the game currently is, would it be better if CA included the option to chose if you wanted restrictions or not in the base game.....Sure it would but until then use mods if it ruffles your feathers that badly, no point in creating a gazillion threads about the same damn topic.

    Still think it´s funny though, y´al keep calling the goal "Balanced stacks" when in reality they will just be "samey stacks"
    I don't want the option to choose. I simply want the game to be as good as it can be. Part of that involves making all or almost all of rosters usable. Mods aren't relevant because ultimately it's CA's job to make the game as good as it can be. Mods have made Kislev but that's not a reason for CA not to make Kislev. Similarly mods improving the game aren't a reason for CA to not improve the game.

    TWW has some awesome rosters. Right now the game encourages the use of only elites. Changing that so that everything is useful would benefit the game.
    You would literally be forcing your wishes upon all the people who prefer the current system over the opposite by announcing "I do not want the option to chose" Are you really so selfish that you could not live with having the option to toggle recruitment restrictions on and of to make everyone happy? Why is that?
    CA didn't put in a tickbox when they finally nerfed summoning and healing, so why should they do this here? The current system has no advantages and just makes the game worse, so far not a single argument has been put forward why doomstacking should be encouraged and easy.
    Makes the game worse FOR YOU. Not everyone wants the same game as you do and forcing other people to play the game that you want is just very selfsish. Letting the choice for some stuff would be better, and don't tell me about the healing nerf it was only for balance purpose.
    Please make the case for why doomstacking should be easy and encouraged by the game.

  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 5,090

    neodeinos said:

    Reeks said:

    Reeks said:

    It'ss not for me to decide what the best version of the game is. It's for CA. In a discussion like this mods are largely irrelevant. CA should set the game up as well as it can.

    @Ephraim_Dalton is absolutely right in saying the game is set up for doomstacks. A game where every unit in a roster is relevant is better than one where only 40% or so are.

    I don't think caps work, not by themselves. I think it would take a set of measures to make everything useful.

    Ideally I'd have the game balanced so late game you have 1 or 2 Doom Stacks then the rest of your armies be balanced. Allowing you theme builds without punishing you for not building for Doom.

    Of course mods are not irrelevant in discussions like this, it´s a actual solution handed to people who just can´t stand to play the way the game currently is, would it be better if CA included the option to chose if you wanted restrictions or not in the base game.....Sure it would but until then use mods if it ruffles your feathers that badly, no point in creating a gazillion threads about the same damn topic.

    Still think it´s funny though, y´al keep calling the goal "Balanced stacks" when in reality they will just be "samey stacks"
    I don't want the option to choose. I simply want the game to be as good as it can be. Part of that involves making all or almost all of rosters usable. Mods aren't relevant because ultimately it's CA's job to make the game as good as it can be. Mods have made Kislev but that's not a reason for CA not to make Kislev. Similarly mods improving the game aren't a reason for CA to not improve the game.

    TWW has some awesome rosters. Right now the game encourages the use of only elites. Changing that so that everything is useful would benefit the game.
    You would literally be forcing your wishes upon all the people who prefer the current system over the opposite by announcing "I do not want the option to chose" Are you really so selfish that you could not live with having the option to toggle recruitment restrictions on and of to make everyone happy? Why is that?
    CA didn't put in a tickbox when they finally nerfed summoning and healing, so why should they do this here? The current system has no advantages and just makes the game worse, so far not a single argument has been put forward why doomstacking should be encouraged and easy.
    Makes the game worse FOR YOU. Not everyone wants the same game as you do and forcing other people to play the game that you want is just very selfsish. Letting the choice for some stuff would be better, and don't tell me about the healing nerf it was only for balance purpose.
    Please make the case for why doomstacking should be easy and encouraged by the game.
    That's entirely up to personal preference. You don't want doomstacks ? Just your opinion, it's not a matter of balance. I personally am fine with how it is right now, you can build doomstacks but it's very far from being something necessary, I just wish the AI would be smarter when it comes to building armies.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540
    edited July 2019
    neodeinos said:

    neodeinos said:

    Reeks said:

    Reeks said:

    It'ss not for me to decide what the best version of the game is. It's for CA. In a discussion like this mods are largely irrelevant. CA should set the game up as well as it can.

    @Ephraim_Dalton is absolutely right in saying the game is set up for doomstacks. A game where every unit in a roster is relevant is better than one where only 40% or so are.

    I don't think caps work, not by themselves. I think it would take a set of measures to make everything useful.

    Ideally I'd have the game balanced so late game you have 1 or 2 Doom Stacks then the rest of your armies be balanced. Allowing you theme builds without punishing you for not building for Doom.

    Of course mods are not irrelevant in discussions like this, it´s a actual solution handed to people who just can´t stand to play the way the game currently is, would it be better if CA included the option to chose if you wanted restrictions or not in the base game.....Sure it would but until then use mods if it ruffles your feathers that badly, no point in creating a gazillion threads about the same damn topic.

    Still think it´s funny though, y´al keep calling the goal "Balanced stacks" when in reality they will just be "samey stacks"
    I don't want the option to choose. I simply want the game to be as good as it can be. Part of that involves making all or almost all of rosters usable. Mods aren't relevant because ultimately it's CA's job to make the game as good as it can be. Mods have made Kislev but that's not a reason for CA not to make Kislev. Similarly mods improving the game aren't a reason for CA to not improve the game.

    TWW has some awesome rosters. Right now the game encourages the use of only elites. Changing that so that everything is useful would benefit the game.
    You would literally be forcing your wishes upon all the people who prefer the current system over the opposite by announcing "I do not want the option to chose" Are you really so selfish that you could not live with having the option to toggle recruitment restrictions on and of to make everyone happy? Why is that?
    CA didn't put in a tickbox when they finally nerfed summoning and healing, so why should they do this here? The current system has no advantages and just makes the game worse, so far not a single argument has been put forward why doomstacking should be encouraged and easy.
    Makes the game worse FOR YOU. Not everyone wants the same game as you do and forcing other people to play the game that you want is just very selfsish. Letting the choice for some stuff would be better, and don't tell me about the healing nerf it was only for balance purpose.
    Please make the case for why doomstacking should be easy and encouraged by the game.
    That's entirely up to personal preference. You don't want doomstacks ? Just your opinion, it's not a matter of balance. I personally am fine with how it is right now, you can build doomstacks but it's very far from being something necessary, I just wish the AI would be smarter when it comes to building armies.
    Not the question I asked.

    The question is "Why Should Doomstacking Be Easy And Encouraged By The Game?"

    Please answer this question.

  • GeneralTGeneralT Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 75
    edited July 2019
    Ephraim_Dalton


    There have been many arguments, but you don`t see/mind that, do you :(
    Anyway I can`t relate to YOUR problems at all. I enjoy the game perfectly, it can be better (always).
    But I don`t think this is first priority stuff.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540
    edited July 2019
    GeneralT said:




    There have been many arguments, but you don`t see/mind that, do you :(
    Anyway I can`t relate to YOUR problems at all. I enjoy the game perfectly, it can be better (always).
    But I don`t think this is first priority stuff.

    There has been not a single answer to this question which this thread is all about. People have dodged the question or distorted the point into something else.

    So how about you? Care to answer the question?

    If no one can make a case for why doomstacking should be easy, then CA should make it harder simply because easy doomstacking hurts the game.

  • mightygloinmightygloin Registered Users Posts: 2,523
    Some sort of flexible limits on elite units are needed to be able to utilise the CORE units like Spearmen even in the endgame.

    When the AI comes at you with 19x Colossus or 19x Dragons, you have no option but to doomstack yourself. Such armies don't even fit the theme of Warhammer. Doomstacking should've been a mod and laboratory thing.
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 5,090

    GeneralT said:




    There have been many arguments, but you don`t see/mind that, do you :(
    Anyway I can`t relate to YOUR problems at all. I enjoy the game perfectly, it can be better (always).
    But I don`t think this is first priority stuff.

    There has been not a single answer to this question which this thread is all about. People have dodged the question or distorted the point into something else.

    So how about you? Care to answer the question?

    If no one can make a case for why doomstacking should be easy, then CA should make it harder simply because easy doomstacking hurts the game.
    Or you refuse to see the answers that you disagree with.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,540
    edited July 2019
    neodeinos said:

    GeneralT said:




    There have been many arguments, but you don`t see/mind that, do you :(
    Anyway I can`t relate to YOUR problems at all. I enjoy the game perfectly, it can be better (always).
    But I don`t think this is first priority stuff.

    There has been not a single answer to this question which this thread is all about. People have dodged the question or distorted the point into something else.

    So how about you? Care to answer the question?

    If no one can make a case for why doomstacking should be easy, then CA should make it harder simply because easy doomstacking hurts the game.
    Or you refuse to see the answers that you disagree with.
    Quote where this particular question was answered. Why should doomstacking be easy and encouraged by the game?

    It becomes extremely telling that no one wants to actually answer this question because there is no good argument for it.

    All what can be deciphered by reading between the lines is that people either got used to it and don't want it changed because of that or that people like spamming elites, but that's also no good argument because it comes at the massive cost of a very stale and boring lategame phase.

  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 5,090

    neodeinos said:

    GeneralT said:




    There have been many arguments, but you don`t see/mind that, do you :(
    Anyway I can`t relate to YOUR problems at all. I enjoy the game perfectly, it can be better (always).
    But I don`t think this is first priority stuff.

    There has been not a single answer to this question which this thread is all about. People have dodged the question or distorted the point into something else.

    So how about you? Care to answer the question?

    If no one can make a case for why doomstacking should be easy, then CA should make it harder simply because easy doomstacking hurts the game.
    Or you refuse to see the answers that you disagree with.
    Quote where this particular question was answered. Why should doomstacking be easy and encouraged by the game?

    It becomes extremely telling that no one wants to actually answer this question because there is no good argument for it.

    All what can be deciphered by reading between the lines is that people either got used to it and don't want it changed because of that or that people like spamming elites, but that's also no good argument because it comes at the massive cost of a very stale and boring lategame phase.
    Not answering it because I just don't care about it. And you are good at ignoring questions or arguments too so not gonna even bother.
Sign In or Register to comment.