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

Vampire Counts Campaign on harder difficulty

cugexebudcugexebud Registered Users Posts: 32
Is it possible to win a vampire counts campaign on harder difficulties (vh/legendary) without cheesing?

On harder difficulty melee units simply can't beat the AI because of the melee buffs (with other factions you can use range), but with vampires you either cheese with magic or spam with lots of armies, just wandering if it's possible to beat the game with them playing with balanced builds.

They are very slow no range deference and by the time you get in melee your already suffered a lot of casualties because of enemy range and you have to face units a lot better stats then yours ... as I see it only way you can win without using more armies is using wod ...

Comments

  • warhammerwarlordwarhammerwarlord Registered Users Posts: 170
    Yes, it is possible.
    Use cavalry, lots of it.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 8,708
    Flyers, cav, magic... you say cheese I say tactics.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799
    edited September 2019
    @cugexebud
    With balanced armies - I would say probably no, but if you would consider something like 3/5 Skeleton Warriors/Grave Guard and rest are Monsters/elite cav - maybe. On top of that as Crossil mentioned you could just add more groups like Cav and Flying units to make armies look less like doomstack.

    If you fight manually:
    Don't spend IoN for non-elite units, until Elites are secured.
    Get Raise Dead (and Raise Dead+Master of the Dead for Necromancers) and Curse of the Undeath, if you go with magic approach.
    WoD and Vortex spells indeed good, but idk if you would consider it cheesing vs AI.
    Macabre (especially upgraded) is good on elite units as well (especially right before charge occurs). Maybe even Curse of Years, if you would be able to force AI to blob.

    You could also use Lore of Death to weaken your enemy or Lore of Shadows to weaken your enemy and improve your elite one.

    If you think you don't have enough unit buffs - there is special skill tree for each lord for that.

    Another way is to buff your lord melee capacities, but idk how cheesy is that and when it starts to become cheesy.
    Sniping opponent lords could be alternative to that.

    Necromancer Lords and Bloodline Lords are very good atm. Generic Strigoi is quite poor at the beginining (and with magic), but you could sort of improve them. Generic Vampire Lord...well, generic.

    Idk, if you consider using some normal armies and support spam armies as cheese, but yeah, that could be a way to go.
    You could play through losses (aka Raise Dead Landmarks and Zombie/Skeleton Stacks) - but I would recommend not to use elite units in that case. Weaken enemy with these stacks. Get Landmark. Atttack with normal army.

    If you consider one of the parts of your army being bloated in respective group - you could use few heroes to replace it and improve melee/magic capabilities or add flying/cav/chariots/beast units.

    Vs Range:
    You could use fast units like Bats/Dire Wolves and summons. Don't expose your elite units to ranged fire much and you would probably be in fine spot.
    As an alternative: you could fill your army with Sylvanian troops and add some other quasi ranged options (Zombie Dragon/Terrorgheist/Mortis Engine/Heroes).



    Point is that Counts are a bit imbalanced atm and are better with No Upkeep techs, Bloodline mechanic buffs and Doomstacks and more on campaign, than on battlefield.

    Their regular tech buffs for units still weak, IoN/RD nerfs still weren't compensated for campaign and quite unpleasant in early-mid game. And half of their army roster still meh.

    But then you could invest in replenishment or other campaign buffs and play through campaign dimension more, until you would get your units upgraded enough - then support them with magic.



    I think something like this could be a thing. Would be interesting to hear your feedback later about that.

    Also I would add that it would be a bit problematic to counter doomstack with any race, if your army isn't elite enough/doesn't have great output.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Firkraag888Firkraag888 Registered Users Posts: 1,428
    @Op

    Man go on youtube and watch some of the channels from legend of total war or milkandcookies.

    You can easily beat the game on VH difficulty with any race after you have enough experience. Easily
  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799

    @Op

    Man go on youtube and watch some of the channels from legend of total war or milkandcookies.

    You can easily beat the game on VH difficulty with any race after you have enough experience. Easily

    Question is not about is it possible to beat - but to beat it without stuff, which could be considered imbalanced or cheesy.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • cugexebudcugexebud Registered Users Posts: 32

    Yes, it is possible.
    Use cavalry, lots of it.

    @Op

    Man go on youtube and watch some of the channels from legend of total war or milkandcookies.

    You can easily beat the game on VH difficulty with any race after you have enough experience. Easily

    Point is if you can win a fair battle against the ai ... I have completed the game on legendary with a few of there lords ... but it's not that fun playing with them anymore ... completing a campaign doesn't offer anything so what is the point if you aren't enjoying it ?

    Only reason cheese tactics work is because AI is an idiot on all difficulties ... fighting a fair battle against some factions, elves or an empire army that spams you with a heavy artillery army, you just can't win without cheesing.

    Even on legendary if your only purpose is to win I know you can just waste there ammo with a flying vampire (which can also heal themselves so they are really good at doing that) and then it's an easy win from there ... but is it fun to have a vampire run in circles like an idiot at each battle start? ... vampires feel like a very cheesy faction because they don't have anything else ... just seems to me
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 964
    What is a "balanced" army? Taking t1 ghouls and expect an even fight against t1 saurus?
    Seriously I hate melee infantry and I'm not good at using them but VC has tons of monsters, cav and flyers so you can beat anything in a straight up confrontation and you have Graveguards to catch arrows against heavy ranged factions.
    They have a lot of advantages and not using them isn't "balanced" its out right stupid and shows a lack of understanding of the faction you are playing. They are awesome for what they are and it's a lot of fun to play them but if you expect to play them like Empire or HE than you will do poorly and thats not the VCs fault.
  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799
    edited September 2019
    cugexebud said:


    Point is if you can win a fair battle against the ai ...

    Thing is that you shouldn't be able to win straight fight without additional investments like magic or buffs for example with Counts. They are Undead and played a bit differently with their pros and cons. Healing, resurrection and summons were their pros before nerf.
    As for higher difficulties you need to get more involved in tactical and strategical approach regadless of race you play. That's imo point of higher difficulties. Same example with Vampire Hero could be replaced with less cheesy Bats/Dire Wolves. I mean, you're not forced to use Vampire Hero solely or get her healing ability. It just more convinient. And that's where discussion, imo, is required regading what convinient things are ok and not ok and why.

    fighting a fair battle against some factions, elves or an empire army that spams you with a heavy artillery army, you just can't win without cheesing.

    Well, tbh it may be problem with Elven/Empire AI, rather than with Counts.

    vampires feel like a very cheesy faction because they don't have anything else ... just seems to me

    Well, they kinda are.
    But that's mostly because nobody cares about what they have/get and about their inner balance.
    Most popular themes I've heard about on this forum related to Counts in positive manner: Red Duke/Neferata addition and Raise Dead being broken at the Mortal Empires Launch or post-patch discussions regading Bloodline Mechanic and Kemmler sub-faction.
    Vampire Counts aren't very loved here and Vampire Counts fans aren't very involved into discussions regading additions to their race/race inner balance.

    ________________________________

    What is a "balanced" army? Taking t1 ghouls and expect an even fight against t1 saurus?

    Balanced army is when you have infantry, support and cav/mosters, I assume, not whole army of Single Entities/Flyers/Cav/Infantry.
    Ghouls are good counter to non-armored/non infantry oriented ap targets and cheap poison providers, so it's not balanced army issue. What you describe is more like wrong usage niche.

    They have a lot of advantages and not using them isn't "balanced" its out right stupid and shows a lack of understanding of the faction you are playing. They are awesome for what they are and it's a lot of fun to play them

    Why?
    Why for some races its inner imbalance, while for Counts (like with No Upkeep for Skeletons or current IoN beeing nerfed to the ground for campaign) it's ok and fun?

    but if you expect to play them like Empire or HE than you will do poorly and thats not the VCs fault.

    I assume, no one expects them to be played as other races. But have more fair options to play around and more balanced inner tools would be cool. I seriously find that there are not enough discussions regading Vampire Counts inner balance for campaign among Vampire Counts fans, while there are lots of topics:
    - Raise Dead
    - Corruption
    - Diplomacy
    - Bloodline Mechanic
    - lack of Flexible and interactive big mechanics
    - Bloodline Lords vs Generic Lords
    - Tech Tree buffs
    - Tech Tree no Upkeep for Zombies/Skeletons
    - IoN and Raise Dead nerfs
    - buildings (which were changed in this patch, btw)
    etc.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 964

    Balanced army is when you have infantry, support and cav/mosters, I assume, not whole army of Single Entities/Flyers/Cav/Infantry.
    Ghouls are good counter to non-armored/non infantry oriented ap targets and cheap poison providers, so it's not balanced army issue. What you describe is more like wrong usage niche.

    Well he asked for higher difficulties and I for myself speak about legendary. So its an army, beside some post win trolling gameplay you wouldn't go for single entity armies because they aren't efficent without support, so why would anyone use mass expensive units that do perform worse in mass than in small numbers with cheaper supplements. That speaks more of a misconception of the difficulty and army compositions on that difficulty, while these "doomstacks" might work on lower difficulties they will get punished on legendary so you will see no legendary players use the so called "cheese" simply because its nothing that would work.

    Why?
    Why for some races its inner imbalance, while for Counts (like with No Upkeep for Skeletons or current IoN beeing nerfed to the ground for campaign) it's ok and fun?

    No upkeep for skellies is useless like skellies in general (on legendary). I tried it when the mechanic was introduced with the whole Kemmler start position and further buffs and it got me into deep trouble midgame. Will never do it again, it might be a fun playstyle on lower difficulties, its not a viable option on legendary.
    What I was referring to is the "magic cheese" while complaining about "not having range protection", well thats what their magic and graveguards are for. They are literally made to bring your army into close combat while a precision strike with air, cav and monsters make units route even on legendary.

    I assume, no one expects them to be played as other races. But have more fair options to play around and more balanced inner tools would be cool. I seriously find that there are not enough discussions regading Vampire Counts inner balance for campaign among Vampire Counts fans, while there are lots of topics:
    - Raise Dead
    - Corruption
    - Diplomacy
    - Bloodline Mechanic
    - lack of Flexible and interactive big mechanics
    - Bloodline Lords vs Generic Lords
    - Tech Tree buffs
    - Tech Tree no Upkeep for Zombies/Skeletons
    - IoN and Raise Dead nerfs
    - buildings (which were changed in this patch, btw)
    etc.

    Raise Dead: Nice and useful mechanic to get units on the fly with the downside of getting them without ranks. Whats your problem here?

    Corruption: Now every faction has some form of corruption so the basic idea isn't wrong. It slows down the expansion and encurage to play tall which is benefical to the VC economy. Its basically something to draw the player into the right direction at start and than is spread automatically while "protecting" your land (not on legendary but at least it looks good).

    Diplomacy: Yeah not my cup of tea in general so I follow my basic behavior to declare wars. What the issue here?

    Bloodline: Great addition to the VC to follow the in general higher and stronger buffs of game 2 factions while adding the options more specialisation.

    ???: What do you mean with that?

    Lords: By the time I have the economy that could field an army for every LL the game will be over, so while I really like the new lords for their unique style I will stick with LL and haven't cared about standard lords before. This might be different on lower difficulties with lower upkeep but its not an issue for me at all.

    Tech Tree: VC tech wasn't great in the beginning its not great now but it does something so it works for me.

    Free Trash: As I have writen above if I can get a unit without use for "free" its still not worth it because the upkeep raise for the Lord I would need to field them is just to much of a price. Might be different on lower difficultier but not an useful option for me.

    Magic nerfs: I'm not a magic guy, I heal and use (de)buffs from time to time and it works but because my focus is on other stuff and as long as it works for me I can't complain. I did a Ghorst campaign before the DLC and it was fine.

    Buildings: What do you mean and what was changed? They changed a lot at the start of ME for VC but they where faster to play on the campaign map than in game so that I was happy about the changes, they are a slow mementum gaining faction but benefit heaviely in late game so that by the time you start expanding you basically always get t4 settlements on legendary which than help to steam roll. I like that because late game is the most part of the game and you reach it very fast on legendary.
  • RodentofDoomRodentofDoom Registered Users Posts: 578
    With Vampires there are many tactics you can use to win

    A unit of Crypt Horrors can be placed within a unit of Skeletons or Crypt Ghouls, enable GUARD mode on both units and you can happily chew through enemy infantry units. (Meat Shields are there to screen your Anti-Infantry troops)

    Tie up enemy ranged units with Fell Bats and then hit them in the rear/flank with Hounds or Knights or Vargheists

    Tie up enemy Cavalry with Hounds and then strike them from the air with a Terrorgheist (Your Cav shredder)

    Use your Varghulf's to attack engaged units from the rear, they will regen whilst traversing the map between targets.

    If you have Vlad ALWAYS keep Isabella within reinforcement distance.

  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799
    @GettoGecko
    Sorry for late reply. Took some time to formulate and tried to find most recent pre-patch screenshot (wasn't able though).
    Also want to add, that by no means I tried to harass you or your approach or anything. I'm just honestly confused with it regadring some aspects. But of course, each has own point of view. So don't take it personal, since it wasn't intended.


    ____________________________________

    Raise Dead:
    Nice and useful mechanic to get units on the fly with the downside of getting them without ranks. Whats your problem here?

    Imo, mechanic is a bit raw and imbalanced: could be useful to a point of early game snowballing or useless, if you don't invest in it (and get proper high amount of casaulties), which means almost no alternative apart from local recruitment.
    I must admit, that it's quite interactive and interesting in that sense, but it also cuts Global Recruitment (RD is basically alternative to it) and Global Recruitment Stance, which leaves Counts only with 1 relatively rare Stance (Channeling), with only 1 Immune to Attrition (Raiding) and could leave without any support as I've mentioned above. On top of that, while Raise Dead Landmarks are way superior to Global Recruitment, general access is quite poor. And Unlike Global Recruitment buffs, RD usually requires separate skills from Local recruitment to buff it. I get that RD is cheaper/better in terms of mobility and faster, if you have Landmark, but in total it seems just has no big difference apart from some obvious gameplay changes.

    Diplomacy:
    Yeah not my cup of tea in general so I follow my basic behavior to declare wars. What the issue here?

    I find there is no big point to get into it and indeed declaring war seems like good solution in most cases for Counts, after Diplomacy was nerfed.
    Yeah, I get that it's Total WAR: WARhammer, so there is x2 Wars, but Diplomacy still an option, especially for some other Races and I don't get why Vampire Counts (both Carsteins factions and Necromancers at least), which are schemers and related to diplomaitc maneuvers should be exception (even as baddies).
    And btw, don't you want one day to try something new with them like same diplomacy approach? And if you may want it one day, wouldn't it be better to think about it now in terms of long term perspective?
    As for issues specifically:

    - there are only 8 Counts factions: all apart from Sylvania are weak and small, at least few don't even start in Capitals, at least few designed to be killed early in a game, at least one can't be cofederated at all, South factions almost impossible to confederate, since they don't agree/die early
    - Almost everyone apart from Coast and TK have high affinity vs Counts and these 2 races are only for late game (at least TK very survivable, even though not always a thing for Arkhan)
    - Tech Tree for Diplomacy require quite a bit of time and everyone still would dislike you (just a bit less, but at that point your Empire penalties would neglect that)
    - Confederation process may take long or be risky due to not getting some LLs, either require solid investments (which again, don't gurantee anything especially with South factions)
    - Templehof while can't be confederated is the only faction, which I know accepts to be vassalized with Vampire Counts as result Vassalization option almost non-existent for Counts (I know its general issue, but still with Counts diplomacy in other areas it's not that shiny) even with Humans/Undead
    - You can't imbue "Vampiric influence" Trait as one Greenskins have, so you fully in RNG power even with GS and again its GS exclusively
    Game 1 Diplomacy possibilities were better, even with taking into account that same Humans there were the only way to expand and Trading with neighbours made expansion quite problematic, if you don't rush Kislev and kill Chaos at the gates. But then everyone become aggressive though.

    As result, Vampires feel like GS with their approach, especially with taking into account on top of that Bloodline mechanic which also mostly based around killing Lords/Heroes and vassalization/confederation issues related to this mechanic are mentioned above.

    Corruption:
    Now every faction has some form of corruption so the basic idea isn't wrong. It slows down the expansion and encurage to play tall which is benefical to the VC economy. Its basically something to draw the player into the right direction at start and than is spread automatically while "protecting" your land.

    Corruption/Untainted existed from the beginning same as different Attritions as far as I remember.
    Don't get part regading "every faction" (Skaven; Counts/Coast; Chaos factions/DE sub-faction/ some factions campaign Attrition effects through Rites etc), same as don't get part with "wrong".
    I don't mean it's wrong mechanic, it just seems quite imbalanced for AI and potentially for player on different difficulties in different circumstances.
    Also old WH1 version was more interactive due to ability to spread corruption from start with any Lord/Hero (though it was nerfed and currently you still have alternative with skill upgrades for some or getting rid from Untainted Attrition for Counts with mechanic).
    I must admit, I don't have strong position regading its current state, because from average perspective:
    - You still have tools to spread it and now you have even basic corruption in your buildings from Tier 1
    - You have other forms of Corruption/Attrition/Untainted and Order penalties
    - It still interactive and I assume (didn't try) after fix to AI restores option to cause effective rebellions in enemy provinces
    - it's more unique, than Untainted and while has minor presentation on the map, gives benifits with spreading it via rebellions/Order penalties/Attrition compared to Untainted vs Untainted and immunity to any other Attrition and now with Bloodline mechanic Immunity for Untainted and other buffs it could be even turned almost fully into positive mechanic with good investments in this area (but usually its late game thing, since you need other stuff apart from it)
    - Meanwhile, it's not as interactive as Skaven one or positive as Chaos and more of restrictive straight thing compared to both with negative tendency without upgrades/buffs: you get Order penalties, if Corruption is lower, than 95% or give order penalties to your allies, when there's just a tiny bit of it, even if you didn't want that and of course it always causes Attrition to your ally from your lands or to you in ally lands with lack of it
    - I would also say that its a bit debatable thing to be able to cleanse some starting Vampiric Lands, like Sylvania/Mousillon/Vampire Coast/Galleon's Graveyard at least; if it would be like stabile 50% (at least for AI) and there would be higher chances for Counts/Coast AI to resurrect itself without even rebellion, there would be less issues, with them not being aggressive enough or fully dying, with them not being presented/all these resurrection issues etc.

    Again, I don't say Vampiric Corruption is bad mechanic. It just feels like Loyality, but on a bigger scale - more mundayne, straightforward, forced and with more negative aspects. I don't mind it (especially now, when you have tools to turn tables fully) and think maybe in long run it could be for the better, because it grants Vampires their uniqueness and people don't like to fight it.
    I just think that Vampire Counts need something in exchange to balance these unpleasant aspects (instead of more and more tools to fight or exclude it, like with 4 out 15 Bloodline buffs, few techs, some buffs and few buildings). Some more interactive aspects or it related to some new interactive stuff could be a good thing.
    (not on legendary but at least it looks good)

    I'm sorry, but it sounds like you try to justify it in any case. :smiley:
    Don't get me wrong, you are free to do so, but if to try to justify and to ignore anything it won't lead anywhere, so indeed with such approach any discussion is pointless.
    I mean even Counts Update or Raise Dead ME Launch fix could be justified as unneeded and motivated by: more classic and simplistic approach, more hardcore playthrough etc.

    Bloodline:
    Great addition to the VC to follow the in general higher and stronger buffs of game 2 factions while adding the options more specialisation.

    I agree that it's great, but at the same time I have lots of issues with its integration, which would probably require whole separate topic. My issues (like basicall my current post) could be interpreted as nitpicking, but I think it's important to point and discuss it as long run issues for Counts.

    Lack of flexible and interactive big mechanics:
    What do you mean with that?

    I mean that their mechanics aren't flexible and interactive compared to WH2 Races or even some WH1 Races, like Norsca, Bretonnia, Dwarfs and Empire.

    Compare flexibility and interactive elements (even on simple UI level, lol) of their Raise Dead+Corruption+Bloodlines to same:
    - Empire with Global Recruitment+Untainted/Attrition+Elector Counts (even though EC is Empire lands oriented mostly, unlike Global stuff for Counts, but then its deeper, than anything Counts have, Empire is more versatile in all aspects and they are goodies with all benifits)
    - Dwarfs with Global Recruitment+Untainted/Attrition+Book of Grudges+Forge (even with taking into account that Dwarfs have only 1 magic analog and their roster is mostly infantry+artillery, but then they have solid techs, solid economy and they are goodies with all benifits)

    Do you see pattern I try to point out? Bloodlines lose in comparasion, even with taking Raise Dead/Corruption into account. Even though I think Bloodlines are great due to additional content, roleplaying and some buffs (and Update, which brought No Upkeep Techs), I still find them on weaker side and Bloodline mechanic not covering it.

    On top of that Bloodlines basically the only additional mechanic. RD/Corruption are good alternatives, but they are alternaitves to basic elements.

    Lords:
    so while I really like the new lords for their unique style I will stick with LL and haven't cared about standard lords before. This might be different on lower difficulties with lower upkeep but its not an issue for me at all.

    Do you play different difficulties? If so, why it's not an issue? If not, do you plan to play only Legendary? Would you ignore these specific circumstances in that case as well?
    As much as you don't care about Generic Lords, don't you find it a bit wrong that Bloodline Lords neglect Generic Vampire Lord and especially Generic Strigoi making them redundant?

    Tech Tree:
    VC tech wasn't great in the beginning its not great now but it does something so it works for me.

    You seem to have really low expectations and requirements for gameplay, I must admit.
    I'm thankful for your feedback - it grants ability to see other point of view, even though as I said before, with such approach, there would be no difference, if even WH1 as is at its launch would be considered as fully fleshed WH fantasy game and won't have any further fixes, improvements and additions as result.
    Do you have such level of expectations regading other races and game aspects as well?

    Free Trash:
    As I have writen above if I can get a unit without use for "free" its still not worth it because the upkeep raise for the Lord I would need to field them is just to much of a price. Might be different on lower difficultier but not an useful option for me.

    Yeah, but Zombies/Skeletons with no Upkeep compete with each other and Zombies obviously lose (even though not that much, since RD pool/base infantry building still grants them some play, plus they are cheaper sacrifices for Landmarks creation, but that's basically it).
    Also don't get point regading Lords cost more. Compared to pre-Bloodline situation it doesn't matter, since armies cost less And 1 Lord+somehow Elite Army before is weaker/price compared to 2 Lords+Free Chaff+somehow Elite Army now. So in same situation you would be in better spot in any case on any difficulty.
    What caused issues with your approach with them in game you've mentioned? Why not to use Free Trash armies supported with Doom Stack Armies?

    Magic nerfs:
    I'm not a magic guy, I heal and use (de)buffs from time to time and it works but because my focus is on other stuff and as long as it works for me I can't complain. I did a Ghorst campaign before the DLC and it was fine.

    Ok. But does it work well or does it work "fine"? Because Counts are not only magic oriented Race, but magic based Race as Core Concept.
    I'm not saying about magic in general, but Invocation of Nehek and Raise Dead are main spells of Counts (at least Invocation). And with taking into account nerfs it should affect you gameplay in some manner even, if you play with 1 army only, if you don't autoresolve all your battles. And if you fight in region with poor WoM it would affect drastically chances, even if you use few casters with WoM tools, since on top of that, requirements are high per each unit and each cast with current state.

    Buildings:
    What do you mean and what was changed?

    Well, nothing drastical (at least I think so). Some changes for basic buildings Tiers and requirements for units.
    Armory Chain moved down to Teir 2-3 (before Tier 3-4).
    Spirit Building moved up to Tier 4-5 (before Tier 3-4).
    All Wraiths, Mortis Engine, Blood Knights, Black Knights and Black Coach don't require Armory Chain, while Corpse Carts require it, instead of Necromancy building.
    Wight King requires Tier 2 building (before Tier 3) and Tier 3 grants +2 Levels for him.
    Repression Chain Level 1 moved to Tier 1.
    Unfortunately, I didn't find most recent pre-patch screenshot (but there only Necromancer Hero+buffs for him were added for Boneyard Chain and Anti Patrols Building agains Skaven).


    Pre Vampire Bloodline Update:


    Current:











    That's it as far as I understand.
    Interesting, but strange changes. I would speculate it was to balance/standartize or to fix something.
    It looks weird, though.
    Blood Knights/Black Knights don't require Armory, while Grave Guard require.
    Mortis Engine don't require armory, while Corpse Carts require.
    Ghosts are free from Armory, but fully Capital based (maybe because of Banshee?).
    Repression Chain was moved partly for some reason.


    Anyway, thanks for detailed big reply.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 964
    Hi nice to see your answer. Btw I'm german and we normally don't sugarcoat our point of views or argue on a personal level so I just read your stuff as normal oppinions and don't even know from what I could have felt harrassed. :lol:

    RD: Yes its their alternative for the global recruitment and I get where you are comming from with the "investment" but on legendary you get free fields everywhere and your early game units are so weak that you basically fill the starting area yourself without willingly sacrificeing armies to get them. I know it is or was a strategy to get mass chaff units and waste them but I never though of it as usefull way because its wastes time and money so instead of preparing an area why wouldn't you just take it directly and than being able to build there? This might be different on lower difficulties where the AI isn't fighting constantly with large armies.
    I disagree with the "no difference" point of view because that it is instant instead of up to 6 rounds for global recruitment has a huge gameplay impact. Don't forget that withdrawing VC units doesn't mean that they are save they can always crumble if you don't get their leadership up again so for VC its basically a viable strat to waste valuable and even high rank units in combat instead of trying to save them. This is fitting for their setting and style and also makes the point that they come unranked less important because it might be totally possible that you just spawend half an army to support in a major battle and will letting them die as high value canon fodder to minimise the losses for your main army.
    When I get demigriffs as Empire I know what their role is, will get attached to them and protect them, when I get a terrogheist as VC the first question is "do I want it to stay in the army or not" and that defines how I will use it in battle. So the main difference for me is that I can use RD as a punctual precission instrument in warfare if I want while global recruitment is always a long term investment.

    Diplomacy: Well I use it more often than before the... I guess it was the VP patch or something. At least now the AI don't declare war on you one turn after it payed for a peace treaty so its more reliable now. The diplomacy has a huge mechanical flaw in the sense that the AIs get weakend when you ally with them and having a defensive pact can get you into wars you don't want so the only things I can do on legendary if I don't want my AIs to die is to not get higher than trade and travel agreement or if I want them to die quickly ally with them.
    Well they are Vampires and they don't get issues as long as they aren't viewed as that, so from the TWW point I see them just as demasked VC which then will get all the witch hunters in the world trying to kill them, that works for me.
    Also depending on their bloodline VC don't get along all too well with each other so I don't need an "vampiric alliance" the feel well, if they don't get killed before I'm there than I will be the one who kill the minor factions. And I will try to watch the LL faction get nearly destructed without helping them to than get their LL via confederation, why would I help them if I can benefit from their defeat?

    Corruption: In game one you only had chaos and vampiric corruption which where counted against a base value and where directly reduced by others. In game two non-corruption is also a "type of corruption" like skaven as a fourth variant and whichever is the highest gets its effect. You know simply stack numbers against each other which makes the mechanic from more even from my point of view which I like more than the game one version, so I think that was a good change.
    So the point for me is that is works the same for every faction now and I'm ok with it, sure its one of the mechanics that work completly different on difficulties but not having your base form of defence is just another aspect to consider when choosing the difficulty. I can't benefit from a lot of "normal" stuff on legendary but people often tend to forget that the difficulty also gives you benefits you don't have on other difficulties. In the sense of corruption the downside of legendary is you will still get attacked by armies with only small losses but you can kill more in the battles which is benefical for the RD stacks on the map. :smiley: And you get more money.
    So as a legendary player corupption for me is just an altered way of dealing with PO where it can save me building slots to deal with it while this is something you don't have to think about on lower difficulties.

    Bloodlines: My only problem with it is that you spam assasins to farm the kisses but since the tragets are limited and the heroes are nerfed it takes some time, the rest is really good.

    Interactive Mechanics: Well I disagree, I think the Empire is too much now and even for HE I and others I often though "omg f** off I just want to play the game and not clicking stuff that has no real impact but annoy me". Not every faction needs clicky stuff as the turn starts. I get this is what some players desire but I don't want every faction have that and for VC I feel I have enough stuff to do.

    Lords: I play coop legendary if that counts as another difficulty because its easier and I did achievement runs in the past on easy or normal but only used AR there. But generally I play on legendary and the additional upkeep costs are need to be taken into account, so when it comes down to lord choices I will most of the time prefer LL for "roleplay reasons". I had bloodline lords in the past and they are strong but because they are my 5th or 6th army choice than it becomes completly irrelevant to my campaign which lords I choose to bring in secondary troops. When 2-3 LL are max level with highend heroes and the bloodline or standard lords are around 20 they just can't keep up and their choice from my side mostly depends on which skills they bring instead of what class they are.

    Free Trash: Yeah I just tried it again with this patch after these posts and failed misserably, granted infantry play isn't my strong side more like the opposite but I know could have defeated the dwarfs in these battles with graveguards and black knights instead of mass skellies. When I field one "strong" army which I'm able to use efficently why I should tech all the way for a second trash supplyment instead of building up and banking for a second high tier armie at a later point. With Ghorst it will take 17 turns to rush free skellies, at the same point I could eighter get +10% move speed which I don't need that early or a bloodkiss, lots of growth and bonus income. While I have to admit that these techs really matter I won't invest the time again because by the time I can field them for free they are already outdated and I assume I would have to field 3-4 armies to compensate for their weakness which would be a massiv direct investment even without upkeep. Fielding so much armies would increase the base costs by 45-60% which is way to much early on, thats what I meant with the lords cost too much.
    I also don't agree that zombies compete with skellies since they have a different role, I assume that on a difficulty where you can use them efficently it would simply be a matter of choice and their recruitment costs are also lower. So you could argue that if you already invest the time into that tree you just do both to get more cheap masses from RD.

    Magic: Well it doesn't work "properly" since they added the max regeneration cap and doesn't feel right since then because I regularly hit the cap and it just feels so wrong every time. But that said you can make it work and thats all whats legendary is about, right? So is it overnerfed, yes, is it unplayable, no. Its fine, it works but that doesn't mean it feels good if thats what you are referring to.

    Buildings: Yes I saw it when I tried it and I missed my level 3 assasine to farm kisses. The rest of the changes I didn't even noticed. :sweat_smile: So they changed it but I can only say if it does make a difference when I'm able to complete another game. The spirit building I assume has to do with early assasination and kisses but I think t4 might be to late because than the enemy heroes will have tons of levels but we will see how it turns out. Now I'm currious how it turns out when playing again.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 964
    Short update on the free trash. I'm now at turn 12 with the way I normally play and already have 7 graveguards in my army so by the time I could have free skellies I will have exchanged all of them except 4-6 spears vs empire cav, so there is absolutly no way I can see that I will come out better long term with the free trash tech investment. As I said before, it might be a great way to play on lower difficulties but its not one for me.
  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799
    edited September 2019
    Dear Mods.
    Please don't close this thread. I'm slowpoke and this replies are huge. Also this topic still fresh! I almost swear!
    _________________________________

    @cugexebud
    Sorry for hijacking your topic. It still somehow supports main ideas though.

    _________________________________

    @GettoGecko
    Again, sorry for late reply.
    Hi nice to see your answer. Btw I'm german and we normally don't sugarcoat our point of views or argue on a personal level so I just read your stuff as normal oppinions and don't even know from what I could have felt harrassed. :lol:

    I'm just not always sure regarding content and form of my posts, especially in context of Internet, where it's more tricky to express your thoughts in 1:1 like in real life. Also, my English is poor and I use it as very formal tehnical tool to express general part of my ideas.


    RD:
    on legendary you get free fields everywhere
    ...
    This might be different on lower difficulties where the AI isn't fighting constantly with large armies.

    Indeed, issue is that on difficulties like Normal, it could become free fields only in late game (and still a bit debatable), so at least there it doesn't work that handy.

    I disagree with the "no difference" point of view because that it is instant instead of up to 6 rounds for global recruitment has a huge gameplay impact. Don't forget that withdrawing VC units doesn't mean that they are save they can always crumble if you don't get their leadership up again so for VC its basically a viable strat to waste valuable and even high rank units in combat instead of trying to save them. This is fitting for their setting and style and also makes the point that they come unranked less important because it might be totally possible that you just spawend half an army to support in a major battle and will letting them die as high value canon fodder to minimise the losses for your main army.

    It is instant, but you exchange stuff to get this instantly (like same buffs/or encampment stance) or wait turns for pool to fill (Full Landmark pool is on overpowered side, imo, as I've mentioned though) - you just don't need to wait in one spot in Encampment Stance and actually need to move instead.
    And as I said on other dfficulties this mechanic doesn't work that handy (at least Easy/Normal/Hard).
    As for their fitting style, it also restricts options. You have Raise Dead and "Dead Rise Again", but if you lost - you lost. And if lost without enough casualties you may get nothing and whole your army would be dead, because Undead don't rout.
    On top of that they are highly restricted in their ranged options, which restricts their ability to stick to safe tactics like with damaging units without direct melee engagement, which means their death count would be high in any case compared to others, even with resurrection tools (which now are nerfed hard), if we take into account that their units still underperforming in 50% cases (and then you also have worse upgrades due to weaker Tech). Also their ranged restriction almost cut completly whole dimension and make them even more simplistic/straightforward in tactical diversity. And their need in their Lore usually also makes other Lore choices less viable. But that's more to my point regarding Counts already being too simplistic and straightforward in some aspects even with addition of Bloodline Lords/Sylvanian Levy.


    As for viable stategy to waste valuable units - I highly doubt that's viable even on Normal difficulty, since value of a unit doesn't count for RD landmark as far as I'm aware and only numbers matter.
    Sure, you could wear off your opponent by damaging his army as much as possible if you have no choice and battle/valuable units are lost anyway or you could use your elite units to make a Landmark, but it's not cost-effective from time investment perspective, espeically if you've lost upgraded units or even Lord with tools during such battle (with that said, if you have only LLs at this point, it's matter of time of course and how many you have atm).
    On Higher Difficulties it seems even more of a hit, where everything seems more important. Idk about Legendary, but if free fields allow to raise dead few Terrogheists without much movement and huge investments, it sound like imbalance on Legendary in RD department, especially compared to Normal (or maybe it's Normal one a bit on weaker side with Landmark creation) and if RD strat is more viable, than Elite Recruitment strat, then again - it's probably imbalance.

    To get half of the army from RD it would require Landmark. It would be really problematic to raise so much with regular Raise Dead pool, if you aren't in sweet spot between few provinces and again, you would need to wait few turns to use this province again (sometimes even after few turns base pool doesn't update for some reason).

    When I get demigriffs as Empire I know what their role is, will get attached to them and protect them, when I get a terrogheist as VC the first question is "do I want it to stay in the army or not" and that defines how I will use it in battle. So the main difference for me is that I can use RD as a punctual precission instrument in warfare if I want while global recruitment is always a long term investment.

    Terrorgheist cost a lot. Terrogheist adds only 1 casaulty to potential casualty pool. So, idk what's a difference between Demis and TG in this example, apart from your personal roleplay approach.
    I value my units regardless of race, if their deaths don't serve tactical purpose. I don't see difference bettween fleeing Demis and "dead rise again" TG (apart obvious price gap). I don't see difference between TG being wasted and Demis being wasted, because in both cases it would bring nothing aside battlefield goals, which again could be equal.

    As for Global Recruitment vs Raise Dead on Legendary - tbh, I've seen Legendary Counts gameplay long ago and if what you describe is a thing - it sounds quite broken, especially compared to Normal and may be one of the reasons why Counts AI was broken there in previous patches.
    On Normal RD Landmark is always Long term investment. And unlike Global Recruitment for some races it can't be upgraded that handy with most lords and usually comes down to cost reductions, rather increasing base pool for example or decreasing casaulties numbers for creation of Landmark.


    Diplomacy:
    Well they are Vampires and they don't get issues as long as they aren't viewed as that, so from the TWW point I see them just as demasked VC which then will get all the witch hunters in the world trying to kill them, that works for me.
    Also depending on their bloodline VC don't get along all too well with each other so I don't need an "vampiric alliance" the feel well

    Being all time demasked is a good way to get yourself killed for Vampires as we know from TT/Lore.
    Vampires need to be schemers and cunning to certain degree not to get killed and to ensure their goals. Current one look like they don't need diplomacy at all and could go yolo, which is fair only for "rush faction" trope.
    Most Bloodlines support each other to certain degree. Strigoi are the only outsiders and not by their will and still they are included into Counts armies. Necrarchs while being mostly lone wolves still interact with other Vampires. Blood Dragons/Lahmian are quite integrated in Counts society. On top of that Lahmian/Von Carstein quite integrated in human society (maybe Blood Dragons as well to certain degree and even Necrarchs under disguise could be exceptions).
    Also there is a trope of at Vampiric unity requirement for grand battles to be successful (like Vlad vs Empire/Konrad vs Empire) or it would lead to defeat (Mannfred vs Empire).

    And I will try to watch the LL faction get nearly destructed without helping them to than get their LL via confederation, why would I help them if I can benefit from their defeat?

    In case of Vlad/Mannfred - Isabella/Ghorst. In case of others - I may agree, though supporting them could help to support havok on Bretonnian/Southland front and while going for other areas.


    Corruption:
    So as a legendary player corupption for me is just an altered way of dealing with PO where it can save me building slots to deal with it while this is something you don't have to think about on lower difficulties.

    Wouldn't this slow your expansion a lot?


    Bloodlines:
    My only problem with it is that you spam assasins to farm the kisses but since the tragets are limited and the heroes are nerfed it takes some time, the rest is really good.

    Yeah, it also one of my problems, but in completly different way. You spam assassins instead of having interactions with other Bloodlines to get Bloodline Lords. Basically again, it all concentrated only on brutal straight ways of Counts solving issues and now integrated in terms of their mechanic.
    And with this tactic on Normal, it still seems to fast for some benifits (even though I admit, some other benifits don't worth long time).

    Interactive Mechanics:
    Well I disagree, I think the Empire is too much now and even for HE I and others I often though "omg f** off I just want to play the game and not clicking stuff that has no real impact but annoy me". Not every faction needs clicky stuff as the turn starts. I get this is what some players desire but I don't want every faction have that and for VC I feel I have enough stuff to do.

    If most factions have clicky stuff, I want this clicky stuff for Vampires and they should have it not to feel obsolete/underdeveloped/lackluster/outdated compared to others. There are average standards, which we could see regading race integrations and Counts still didn't achieve these standards.

    I don't see any reason to leave them without that and make them as empty, simplistic and straightforward as possible.
    Even for most tribal and straightforward Races like Chaos/GS/BM (which are somehow similar to Norsca) there is or should be stuff, which makes them flexible and interactive and deeper in terms of their lore presentation.
    And Counts are high organized society similar to Humans, so they definitely should be deeper than they are now with: achieve 5000 casaulties to create RD Landmark or wait few turns to get few chaff units; support corruption in your lands not to farm rebellions without need and support corruption in nearby lands to be able to walk, either move in raiding stance until you get 3 Bloodline upgrades; assassinate target to get blood kiss, do this few times to get Bloodline Buff/upgrade. Ehhh...

    I assume, I get your point as well, with more spartan approach and with adaptation to conditions over demands for fixes, but honestly we already have such version for Vampire Counts - in WH1. More than that, other Races presented there and Campaign itself follows all these requirements.
    I don't see any reason to keep them that way in WH2/WH3, especially compared to others getting such things. That would leave them underdeveloped compared to others and their own potential presentation and without options in cases when people would actually like this stuff to interact with.

    Lords:
    so when it comes down to lord choices I will most of the time prefer LL for "roleplay reasons".
    ...
    When 2-3 LL are max level with highend heroes and the bloodline or standard lords are around 20 they just can't keep up and their choice from my side mostly depends on which skills they bring instead of what class they are.

    Ok. Now I get it. My bad, For some reason I thought that you've played only with 1LL which got me confused and I thought you try to play in most hardcore way possible, lol.
    Yeah, LLs are priority for me as well, but since it takes some time to get most of them (especially if you not forcing things for that on Normal/Hard at least), I usually take some other Lords on Normal (Necromancer Lords or Bloodline Lords). Afterall, I always could disband them and use them in areas where I don't want or cant use my starting LL.

    Free Trash:
    Well, with taking specifics you've mentioned regading RD on Legendary, I would agree that it's not as handy in Legendary case. With that said, fighting Dwarfs with Skeletons solely would probably be defeat in any case even on Normal, especially with current IoN/RD support, if they have full army of decent units. They are fitting more against something weaker like Empire/Brets/GS etc.
    As for Tech time investments - indeed, if you don't need RD or to wear off your opponent and armies grant a lot of additional upkeep, even if one is almost free, standard Lahmian Tech Line is way to go as usual (like it was for me before Bloodlines Update with only Isabella as exception).

    Magic:
    Well it doesn't work "properly" since they added the max regeneration cap and doesn't feel right since then because I regularly hit the cap and it just feels so wrong every time. But that said you can make it work and thats all whats legendary is about, right? So is it overnerfed, yes, is it unplayable, no. Its fine, it works but that doesn't mean it feels good if thats what you are referring to.

    Yep. Exactly in a sense of magic. Though idk about max regen cap. I'm more about IoN cap being at 4 and IoN being nerfed/being more expensive, which in bad magic region in early/mid game without strong magic tools/upgrades or ability to suprass opponent army signficantly could be quite unpleasant and feels quite powerless. In later game it's indeed more of cap issue with good WoM support, especially with elite armies vs elite armies (but again my feedback mostly regading Normal and on Higher difficulties with all additional battle buffs for opponent it could be even bigger problem, as far as I understand).
    As for Cap, I would like to see it being upgradable with, let's say 5% for each furthest finished research tree tech.

    Buildings:
    Yes I saw it when I tried it and I missed my level 3 assasine to farm kisses. The rest of the changes I didn't even noticed. :sweat_smile: So they changed it but I can only say if it does make a difference when I'm able to complete another game. The spirit building I assume has to do with early assasination and kisses but I think t4 might be to late because than the enemy heroes will have tons of levels but we will see how it turns out. Now I'm currious how it turns out when playing again.

    Yep. I thought same thing regading Banshees/Spirit Chain. But then as a change for other Ethereals or building itself is like 50/50. I don't think Ethereal units are that great.
    Also I don't get why they need Armory for Grave Guard/Corpse Cart, but not for Black Knights/Blood Knights/Black Coach/Mortis Engine/Wight King/Vampire Heroes.



    In any case, thanks as always for great reply.

    Edited:
    P.S.
    I just wanted to add that most of my feedback and thoughts are related to previous patches and general picture for Counts.

    Current patch seems, "special" in that sense that even on Normal I find it a bit, if not Hard, but restrictive and problematic for me at least in terms of ability to experiment without big punishment.
    Don't remember what values were for creating most primitive Landmark (I thought around 2000), but I was able to create only with 3000+ casualties (which granted me quite nice, but not full access).
    Templehof acts really weird and seems a bit too defensive/passive affecting some tactics related to interactions with it (including Landmarks and vassalization).
    Carsteins also not ver successful (though, maybe its not their fault). I need to babysit them so they won't get killed by Dwarfs/Empire.
    Red Duke/Kemmler wait for my gifts, while I don't have spare money.
    I see parade of alliances for good factions (Dwarfs/Humans) and periodically get involved in war with 1-2 factions without even 1 turn without wars (not something new, but such occured really rare during previous patches).
    Due to how big Empire neighbours become their economies able to afford good armies and city upgrades at the same time, while I'm always need to chose, which I prefer.
    Must admit that with current situation, Free Skeletons don't look like a 100% bargain that much and Free Zombies seem pretty useless, if not to use them for creating Landmarks.
    First Landmark I saw was created by me artifically during 2 (20-40 Turns max) campaign, lol.
    Armies seems to be slightly more elite for Empire at least - previously my free trash was well fitting, now - not so much, as result I need either to invest in more armies, either in stronger armies and then waste them for Landmark, because opponent armies aren't that crowded, but effective enough to counter my Zombie/Skeleton spam.
    Bloodlines buffs seems more of a need now and my economy can't handle it as great as before due to a bit more active pacing of a game, I guess.
    IoN and RD still awful. Replenishment not that great without upgrades and IoN/RD spam can't outheal all cheap non-elite armies.
    Idk afterall. Tbh, campaign became less pleasant even on Normal. It's not Legendary/Very Hard level of restrictions with very problematic economy, aggressive world and mistakes being punished hard, but still not fitting Normal difficulty.
    Need to run few for 100 Turns though to get full impression.
    Post edited by Elder_Moloch on
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • GioRoggiaGioRoggia Registered Users Posts: 77
    Vampire Counts campaign on very hard and above is awful. You're landlocked between two very strong factions that hate you, confederate everyone around them and tend to be allies between them - Reikland and Karaz-a-Karak. Transitioning from early to mid game you'll often have no one to fight because every single human or dwarf faction around you hates you and is allied with a regional "superpower". Do you want to take on the Golden Order? But wait, they're allied with both Empire and Karaz-a-Karak. Same for Border Princes, Bretonnia, etc. You either fight no one or you fight everyone. And since you just can't keep a decent amount of stacks due to poor economy, no trade... Good luck.

    But if you somehow make it through by crushing Reikland early on, late game the entire world will declare war on you, because you don't have a single faction that is amenable to you. Everyone hates you front the get go. Sometimes you can't get a single trade partner and that's a huge hit on your economy.

    The campaign bonuses you get with bloodlines and raise dead are nice but the units are just subpar compared with other factions. You've got no ranged units but hey, your melee units are not truly good either. There are just so many things you absolutely can't counter... You have no defense against SEM, no defense against units that were made to be countered by ranged and artillery such as Slayer armies. The leadership bonuses that AI gets with difficulty negate the fear ability of your troops.

    Well, it's just hell.
Sign In or Register to comment.