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

Did they introduce any kind of unit caps in 3k? And if so maybe there is for tww3

Firkraag888Firkraag888 Registered Users Posts: 1,428
Im praying they have an option for caps in tww3 and was wondering if they are heading in that direction? What did they do in 3k?
«13

Comments

  • Eliak_The_Rat_MercEliak_The_Rat_Merc Registered Users Posts: 680
    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.
    I assure you, we are very real. And we have come for you and your realm.
    If DLC race so great, why no Cathay DLC instead?
  • SielgaudysSielgaudys Registered Users Posts: 125

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    I'm not saying that people should use them, indeed it would be bad if there was no option to not use them, but for me it's about immersion and variety. It's boring when you and AI spawn doomstacks of elite units. I like to have many armies with mostly core units (that would lore wise be most numerous anyway) and then use elite and special units to supplement.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,636
    Considering they have not had hard single player caps in any Total War ever.... I highly doubt they would all of a sudden go that route in the one franchise they have where massing elite monsters and heroes is part of the appeal.

    And no. The Medieval 2 limits and other systems were no more ‘hard limits’ than what the Tomb Kings have.... which is to say ‘not a hard limit at all once you get past the mid game’.

    If unit caps are important to you specifically, switch over to multiplayer or download some mods.
  • blaatblaat Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,136
    Valkaar said:

    Considering they have not had hard single player caps in any Total War ever.... I highly doubt they would all of a sudden go that route in the one franchise they have where massing elite monsters and heroes is part of the appeal.

    And no. The Medieval 2 limits and other systems were no more ‘hard limits’ than what the Tomb Kings have.... which is to say ‘not a hard limit at all once you get past the mid game’.

    If unit caps are important to you specifically, switch over to multiplayer or download some mods.

    marines and imperial/shogunate guard infantry in FOTS

    hero units, warrior nuns and the bulletproof samurai in vanilla S2

    the national guard units from empire TW

    snip

    It's much easier and more fun to get engrossed in lore that takes itself seriously and tries to make sense within its own frame of reference.

    the reason I prefer LOTR over warhammer fantasy and 40k

    I am dutch so if you like to have a talk in dutch shoot me a PM :)
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 3,830

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    That's a misconception though, caps doesnt mean you will be forced to one army style, but rare and special units will be limited to being actually rare and special. The player's choice of army composition will matter more once Dragon spamming is limited.

    There was never an army in WH consisting simply of the strongest entity without core units to back it up.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,217
    3K has a completely different unit progression system from WH or even ToB, although it takes major inspiration from the latter. It's also way more stingy with income, so it takes a while longer before you can even think of recruiting elites into any of your stacks.

  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,063

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    That's a misconception though, caps doesnt mean you will be forced to one army style, but rare and special units will be limited to being actually rare and special. The player's choice of army composition will matter more once Dragon spamming is limited.

    There was never an army in WH consisting simply of the strongest entity without core units to back it up.
    That's because WH wasn't about waging total war against the person you were playing against. TT were single battles between armies of roughly equal power while TWWH campaign is a war of total annihilation.

    And having a choice between different nuances of low tier units because some people insist that at most one can have two units above level 2 in an army is hardly all that rich on variety, is it? On the contrary, it actually forces you to skip so-so high tier units because you can't have more than 2 of them per army, and you don't want to waste such precious slots on gunk units, do you? Particularly not when the AI still gets to create 4 times as many armies as you do.

    Would you ever pick a giant in Greenie, Chaos, Norsca, Beastmen stacks? You wouldn't now, without caps, so why would you do it with caps? Would you go hierotitan over warsphinx or bone giant? Would you pick regular dragon ogres or maybe chaos knights over dragon ogre shaggoths? Et cetera, et cetera.

    And then there's hero spam, which falls into this same category. No having multiple heroes of the same type, right? No having more than two heroes per stack either, because again, it might offend some purists out there.

    So the only units you fundamentally get to use is the tier 1-2 stuff that someone has decided constitute "core". And you get to see that in battle after battle after battle after battle after battle for 200+ turns, without much chance of variety because all imaginable alternatives are rubbish and you can't make up for their weak performance with a few choice high level weight-pullers. Sounds so fun, doesn't it?

    Alternatively, how about we skip the chainsaw and wrecking ball approach and instead let CA tweak the AI so it doesn't do excessively ridiculous lolstacks, and then you do you, and I do me, and we both get to play the game the way we want to? I'm pretty sure that option works a whole lot better for me.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,217

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    That's a misconception though, caps doesnt mean you will be forced to one army style, but rare and special units will be limited to being actually rare and special. The player's choice of army composition will matter more once Dragon spamming is limited.

    There was never an army in WH consisting simply of the strongest entity without core units to back it up.
    That's because WH wasn't about waging total war against the person you were playing against. TT were single battles between armies of roughly equal power while TWWH campaign is a war of total annihilation.

    And having a choice between different nuances of low tier units because some people insist that at most one can have two units above level 2 in an army is hardly all that rich on variety, is it? On the contrary, it actually forces you to skip so-so high tier units because you can't have more than 2 of them per army, and you don't want to waste such precious slots on gunk units, do you? Particularly not when the AI still gets to create 4 times as many armies as you do.

    Would you ever pick a giant in Greenie, Chaos, Norsca, Beastmen stacks? You wouldn't now, without caps, so why would you do it with caps? Would you go hierotitan over warsphinx or bone giant? Would you pick regular dragon ogres or maybe chaos knights over dragon ogre shaggoths? Et cetera, et cetera.

    And then there's hero spam, which falls into this same category. No having multiple heroes of the same type, right? No having more than two heroes per stack either, because again, it might offend some purists out there.

    So the only units you fundamentally get to use is the tier 1-2 stuff that someone has decided constitute "core". And you get to see that in battle after battle after battle after battle after battle for 200+ turns, without much chance of variety because all imaginable alternatives are rubbish and you can't make up for their weak performance with a few choice high level weight-pullers. Sounds so fun, doesn't it?

    Alternatively, how about we skip the chainsaw and wrecking ball approach and instead let CA tweak the AI so it doesn't do excessively ridiculous lolstacks, and then you do you, and I do me, and we both get to play the game the way we want to? I'm pretty sure that option works a whole lot better for me.
    You forget the lore didn't have factions spam elites and rares as they wanted either. Archaon's army even during the End Times wasn't all Chosen and Shaggoths.

    Also, when would I take a giant? Is that really a question?

    I presume you don't either play MP or SP that deeply.

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,217
    HoneyBun said:

    Both MP and custom battles offer what this small minority want.

    If you are determined to have it in SP then you can set house rules or use mods.

    I hope and trust CA maintain the sandbox.

    What does sandbox have to do with elite spam? Nothing, that's what. If you want unlimited freedom to whatever you like, try Minecraft.

  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,202

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    That's a misconception though, caps doesnt mean you will be forced to one army style, but rare and special units will be limited to being actually rare and special. The player's choice of army composition will matter more once Dragon spamming is limited.

    There was never an army in WH consisting simply of the strongest entity without core units to back it up.
    And Warhammer died for it.

    While Total War is thriving.

    Food for thought.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,155

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    So does making units cost gold. So does making units unlock at different tiers instead of just letting people get whatever they want at the start like in Multiplayer.

    The game is full of rules that restrict player's freedom, yet you and others seemingly have no problem with those. This is just one more rule that many people believe would improve their campaign experience and balance. At the very least I would like a dropdown selection for army cap space when you create a new campaign. That way people who are opposed to this, can select unlimited.

    The problem with Tomb King's mechanic is that it's a soft cap tied to building count (among other things). The higher level your settlements are and the more territory you control, the more you can spam buildings that unlock high tier units. You can do what we have in multiplayer and have a cap space on army value based on base costs. I use a mod that does this and it makes the game much more fun for me because it's easier for the AI to keep up.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,217
    edited August 2019

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    That's a misconception though, caps doesnt mean you will be forced to one army style, but rare and special units will be limited to being actually rare and special. The player's choice of army composition will matter more once Dragon spamming is limited.

    There was never an army in WH consisting simply of the strongest entity without core units to back it up.
    And Warhammer died for it.

    While Total War is thriving.

    Food for thought.
    It died because of army building rules? So all that other stuff like GW going increasingly for a tiny minority of players with ever growing model prices and an ever more convoluted set of rules spread over way too many books had nothing to do with it?

    Hey, remember when AoS had no army building rules at all and people could bring 20 Archaons and 50 Nagashs if they so wanted? That period is universally agreed upon to be hideous and GW quickly brought back army building limitations and NOW AoS is thriving.

    That's food for thought.

    Give me caps or give me death and I'm undying.

  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 1,155

    Im praying they have an option for caps in tww3 and was wondering if they are heading in that direction? What did they do in 3k?

    To answer OP's question:

    One thing they did was split your army into 3 retinues each under a general. The general type determined what sort of units they could bring into their retinue. So a Strategist (blue) could recruit the late game ranged units into its retinue, but not the late game cavalry.

    The level of the general also was necessary to unlock some units for that general. So a level 1 general would not be able to recruit level 3 and level 6 units. Some units also seem to unlock only when you declare yourself emperor.

    Since generals will die over time, you may not be able to rebuild a new retinue with the same late game units until your replacement has leveled up a little bit.

    As for how effective this was in practice, I leave that up to people who spent more time playing it. Personally I never felt overwhelmed by the AI's armies even though I was usually just using whatever was cheap and available.
  • PoorManatee6197PoorManatee6197 Registered Users Posts: 1,088

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    There are various reasons:

    1- inmersion
    2- would give a chance to unused units to see some battlefield
    3- it would make special units actually special, if you have acces to infinite dragons it stops meaning anything, you see them as a skaven warlord would see slaves. In the other hand if dragons are limited/hard to get you see them as the powerfull beast they are, and losing 1 will actually mean something to you.
    #MakeDwarfsGreatAgain Josef Bugman, Thorek Ironbrow, Alrik Ranulfsson, Grimm Burloksson, Kazador Thunderhorn, Byrrnoth Grundadrakk, Malakai Makaisson, Gotrek Gurnisson, Garagrim, Dragon slayer, Deamon slayer, Doomseekers, Brotherhood of Grimnir, Giant slayers, Thunderbarge, Shieldbearer mount, Master brewer, Goblin Hewer, Norse dwarf war mammoth, Tractator engine, Rune golem, Shard dragon, proper Anvil of Doom, Ulther's dragon company, Lond Drong's slayer pirates, Everguard, Karak Varn, Karag Agrilwutraz, Silver Pinacle, Karag Dum, Karak Vlag, Kraka Dorden, Kraka Ornsmotek, Kraka Ravnsvake, Karak Vrag, Karak Azorn, Karak Krakaten.


    All those missing things are grudges in the great book, is in your hand to settle them, CA. Khazukan kazakit-ha!
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 23,624
    Unit caps are a bad idea.
    The forum Administrator responsible for is CA_Grace
  • SielgaudysSielgaudys Registered Users Posts: 125

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    There are various reasons:

    1- inmersion
    2- would give a chance to unused units to see some battlefield
    3- it would make special units actually special, if you have acces to infinite dragons it stops meaning anything, you see them as a skaven warlord would see slaves. In the other hand if dragons are limited/hard to get you see them as the powerfull beast they are, and losing 1 will actually mean something to you.
    Indeed, forgot the besides immersion I think caps mods make certain units more viable on campaign. I honestly now don't play without those mods.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,193
    HoneyBun said:

    Both MP and custom battles offer what this small minority want.

    If you are determined to have it in SP then you can set house rules or use mods.

    I hope and trust CA maintain the sandbox.

    Judging by the fact that every major mod have caps, I wouldn't say it's a small minority. A sizable minority, perhaps. Grimhammer alone accounts for almost 20% of the player-base (200.000 subscribers).
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,193

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    The main reason is making military building useful. You don't see it clearly with TK because they have a unique economy, but with all other races the optimal strategy is building one of each military building, then maximize money everywhere and just use global recruitment. Which makes for very shallow management strategy and doesn't make a shred of sense (hey, let's build up civilian economy in the middle of a war, because obviously we can conjure weapons and manpower out of thin air by paying money).

    Doomstacks can be countered by upkeep, but to solve this problem we need caps.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 23,624
    Xenos7 said:

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    The main reason is making military building useful. You don't see it clearly with TK because they have a unique economy, but with all other races the optimal strategy is building one of each military building, then maximize money everywhere and just use global recruitment. Which makes for very shallow management strategy and doesn't make a shred of sense (hey, let's build up civilian economy in the middle of a war, because obviously we can conjure weapons and manpower out of thin air by paying money).

    Doomstacks can be countered by upkeep, but to solve this problem we need caps.
    No thanks.

    If anything that stacks the deck in favour of larger player empires even more. Those caps are easily snowballed around.

    Caps in general serve to take strategy away from a strategy game.
    The forum Administrator responsible for is CA_Grace
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,636
    blaat said:

    Valkaar said:

    Considering they have not had hard single player caps in any Total War ever.... I highly doubt they would all of a sudden go that route in the one franchise they have where massing elite monsters and heroes is part of the appeal.

    And no. The Medieval 2 limits and other systems were no more ‘hard limits’ than what the Tomb Kings have.... which is to say ‘not a hard limit at all once you get past the mid game’.

    If unit caps are important to you specifically, switch over to multiplayer or download some mods.

    marines and imperial/shogunate guard infantry in FOTS

    hero units, warrior nuns and the bulletproof samurai in vanilla S2

    the national guard units from empire TW
    Those are basically the equivalent of RoR more or less. Not the ‘unit caps’ that the OP is suggesting.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,193

    Xenos7 said:

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    The main reason is making military building useful. You don't see it clearly with TK because they have a unique economy, but with all other races the optimal strategy is building one of each military building, then maximize money everywhere and just use global recruitment. Which makes for very shallow management strategy and doesn't make a shred of sense (hey, let's build up civilian economy in the middle of a war, because obviously we can conjure weapons and manpower out of thin air by paying money).

    Doomstacks can be countered by upkeep, but to solve this problem we need caps.
    No thanks.

    If anything that stacks the deck in favour of larger player empires even more. Those caps are easily snowballed around.

    Caps in general serve to take strategy away from a strategy game.
    That doesn't make any sense. Capped things are what strategy is about in real life. Everything is capped in reality: resources, manpower, equipment. To increase the "caps" you have to invest in it and pay opportunity costs. It's widely believed by military historians, for example, that concentrating on heavy tanks instead of medium tanks damaged the Wehrmacht efforts during WWII. Without limitations there is no strategy, just field a million Tiger tanks and you're set.
  • angry_rat_loverangry_rat_lover Registered Users Posts: 1,389
    Unit caps are a great idea that could change the game for the better, there is simply no GOOD argument against unit caps
    Soon
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 23,624
    edited August 2019
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    The main reason is making military building useful. You don't see it clearly with TK because they have a unique economy, but with all other races the optimal strategy is building one of each military building, then maximize money everywhere and just use global recruitment. Which makes for very shallow management strategy and doesn't make a shred of sense (hey, let's build up civilian economy in the middle of a war, because obviously we can conjure weapons and manpower out of thin air by paying money).

    Doomstacks can be countered by upkeep, but to solve this problem we need caps.
    No thanks.

    If anything that stacks the deck in favour of larger player empires even more. Those caps are easily snowballed around.

    Caps in general serve to take strategy away from a strategy game.
    That doesn't make any sense. Capped things are what strategy is about in real life. Everything is capped in reality: resources, manpower, equipment. To increase the "caps" you have to invest in it and pay opportunity costs. It's widely believed by military historians, for example, that concentrating on heavy tanks instead of medium tanks damaged the Wehrmacht efforts during WWII. Without limitations there is no strategy, just field a million Tiger tanks and you're set.
    The difference is that the caps you're proposing are arbitrary. They do not make logical sense. There being 2 cannons in existence does not stop my cannon factory producing more cannons.

    Arbitrary caps do not help anyone except the player. It just becomes an even faster snowball.

    Upkeep, killing supply lines, and limiting the economy is a much better way to have limits on the amount of units. Caps like these do nothing to stop doomstacking.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
    The forum Administrator responsible for is CA_Grace
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,200
    edited August 2019
    Arbitrary caps - no thanks.

    The game’s about choice. If you want to try a crazy set up then do it, shouldn’t be controlled in a sandbox game.

    If it’s made an option in mp or custom then fine, if there’s an option to modding then do it, don’t force it in the rest of us.

    If Queek wants an army full of Stormvermin; then that’s what he shall have..
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,217
    edited August 2019

    Arbitrary caps - no thanks.

    The game’s about choice. If you want to try a crazy set up then do it, shouldn’t be controlled in a sandbox game.

    If it’s made an option in mp or custom then fine, if there’s an option to modding then do it, don’t force it in the rest of us.

    If Queek wants an army full of Stormvermin; then that’s what he shall have..

    So and why should that be possible by turn 30 or so with the current setup? Once you own between 6-10 settlements you can already start pumping out the all-elite doomstacks with no problem and the game encourages it. How about 130 turns instead with NO game encouragement? How about you get punished for building armies that way instead of building balanced stacks? Right now it's the other way around.



  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Registered Users Posts: 509
    Xenos7 said:


    That doesn't make any sense. Capped things are what strategy is about in real life. Everything is capped in reality: resources, manpower, equipment. To increase the "caps" you have to invest in it and pay opportunity costs. It's widely believed by military historians, for example, that concentrating on heavy tanks instead of medium tanks damaged the Wehrmacht efforts during WWII. Without limitations there is no strategy, just field a million Tiger tanks and you're set.

    So much disinformation.
    Resources caped in game too. Manpower is not caped in, like, almost every strategy game. Build units with full equipment and training, from barracks, in 20 seconds. Or faster.
    The only "real-life" limits that are existing are mostly resources. That's why, as one of the gamers in previous topic stated, USA spends like tenfold or even 100-fold more money on air power, compared to tanks. Just because they know that "abusing" air superiority is working in modern world. That's why carrier strike groups are the main non-nuclear military power in the world now. And with nuclear weapons, in the early stages, there was a concept that nukes can win the war alone, so there were a massive shift in budgets towards nukes from conventional weapon in some early stages of the cold war.

    And, finally, that military historians are nothing but theoretical foolish coven that newer understand what kind of war was that, and what was really effective.
    Versus **** "shermans" mediums were fine. But at the eastern front tanks like KV-1 were mostly unmatched and virtually impenetrable by the first part of campaign. No heavy mobile tanks to deal with that kind of threat is very, very limiting (and all that was much more complicated) to army's operation capability.
    Also, heavy tanks with some good crew, actually paid off, for themselves, many-many times.
    And there were so many pluses in better tanks in that situation, like morale of the troops, that it can not be even seriously doubted.
    Soviet Union had tens of thousands of very powerful tanks during World War 2, and not all of them were heavy. But Soviet Union never valued lives of humans, own soldiers included. "Бабы ещё нарожают!" (“we shouldn't pity soldiers – wenches (women) will give birth to more!") - motto of some soviet generals-butchers.
    So, when someone values their soldiers, they do not want to give them some cost effective crap, like they are some expandable garbage. But, actually, want to give your women and men the best possible equipment. Like modern day Israel tzahal and many other countries do.

    So, as this ambition, to have only the best, is very realistic and totally rational. No armies are forced (if ruling power are not idiots) to use some bad inventory. We know that many armies (most of them, through the history) just destroyed unoptimal and very expensive in the past weapon systems of machines. Like old tanks and planes. Only new and shiny "elites". If resources, money allows this.
    If anything, some hard caps and limits can not be further from reality.
    Units caps are just unnatural abomination concept.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,193
    edited August 2019

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Why people want unit caps? It would ruin the freedom That Player gets. Look at TK, in late game you can have hilarious amount of doomstacks even with caps.

    The main reason is making military building useful. You don't see it clearly with TK because they have a unique economy, but with all other races the optimal strategy is building one of each military building, then maximize money everywhere and just use global recruitment. Which makes for very shallow management strategy and doesn't make a shred of sense (hey, let's build up civilian economy in the middle of a war, because obviously we can conjure weapons and manpower out of thin air by paying money).

    Doomstacks can be countered by upkeep, but to solve this problem we need caps.
    No thanks.

    If anything that stacks the deck in favour of larger player empires even more. Those caps are easily snowballed around.

    Caps in general serve to take strategy away from a strategy game.
    That doesn't make any sense. Capped things are what strategy is about in real life. Everything is capped in reality: resources, manpower, equipment. To increase the "caps" you have to invest in it and pay opportunity costs. It's widely believed by military historians, for example, that concentrating on heavy tanks instead of medium tanks damaged the Wehrmacht efforts during WWII. Without limitations there is no strategy, just field a million Tiger tanks and you're set.
    The difference is that the caps you're proposing are arbitrary. They do not make logical sense. There being 2 cannons in existence does not stop my cannon factory producing more cannons.
    Actually yes. Military units needs maintenance, ammunition, spare parts, new weapons, and above all those reinforcements that you get for free in the game... that's represented by military infrastructure. It's the whole concept of attrition, which is responsible for the majority of casualties in the history of warfare. It's extremely naive to think that maintaining an army is just about building things once. You build more foundries, you get to field and maintain more cannons. It makes perfect sense.

    Arbitrary caps do not help anyone except the player. It just becomes an even faster snowball.

    Did you ever played with caps? Because I exclusively play with Grimhammer and it doesn't nothing like that.

    Upkeep, killing supply lines, and limiting the economy is a much better way to have limits on the amount of units. Caps like these do nothing to stop doomstacking.

    It's not just about doomstacks, it's about having to build a military infrastructure to field an army. A classic grand strategy dilemma: how much of my industrial capacity should be used for butter, and how much for guns? If you play Hearts of Iron 4 you'll see how it should work in a somewhat reasonable warfare simulation.

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,193

    Arbitrary caps - no thanks.

    The game’s about choice. If you want to try a crazy set up then do it, shouldn’t be controlled in a sandbox game.

    If it’s made an option in mp or custom then fine, if there’s an option to modding then do it, don’t force it in the rest of us.

    If Queek wants an army full of Stormvermin; then that’s what he shall have..

    Every game ever is about choice *within a set of rules*. Entertainment with totally free choices isn't a "game", it's telling a story, daydreaming, making up a collective scenario and things like that. Even narrative-focused RPGs have limitations, and classical RPGs like D&D have *a lot* of limitations. You have to fulfill prerequisites to take feats. You can learn a limited number of spells. You have a limited number of attacks per round. That's what makes it a game and not just a "let's tell a fantasy story together".

    Queek *could* have an army full of Stormvermin if he pays the price. I.E., the massive military buildup necessary to field and equip a full elite army. A choice which should weight heavily on his economy and leave other armies weaker. That's what brought down the Spartans, indeed: their focus on elite heavy hoplites made their armies ever smaller and difficult to recruit and train, and losses crippling. This is not what it happens now: now Queek can have his full Stormvermin army out of a single barracks built in some god-forsaken Southland province, summon them outside Altdorf and get infinite reinforcements for them. Out of a single building. That's not choice, that's nonsense.

    You people don't really want a sandbox game, you want The Sims played with cheats. Because even The Sims has a lot of caps and limitations.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,734
    Games where you can just spam a high tier deathball and faceroll to victory SUCK.

    All tiers should remain relevant and useful. In the table top game this is true - your ridiculous units ARE capped, and you have requirements for basic units.

    The sheer number of high tier units you can make don't even exist in the lore of the world.
Sign In or Register to comment.