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

Proving Grounds Beta

145791013

Comments

  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,366

    Is there any possibility of these changes being integrated into the main game, with options to keep it "classic" for those who like the old paradigms?

    I'm liking this beta a lot and quickly getting personally attached to the changes. Order-tide seems to be greatly mitigated, there's more variance in alliances and wars between AI and the snowball effect - which has basically defined TW:WH2's campaign since release - is largely gone. The phenomenon where a few factions (including the player) become ludicrously wealthy seems to be far more unlikely; and I like that. I think the numbers need to be tweaked to keep certain building chains and specific faction mechanics (eg. Tomb Kings) relevant but the overall feature set is spot on. I'm really hoping this beta makes it in at some point but options are presented to the user to preserve the old experience if desired.

    The campaign speed can be a separated option but the "supply lines" needs to go.
  • HisFateHisFate Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2
    I think there is a bug with the minimap on campaign. Some individual settlements on the minimap show up as the wrong faction color.
  • ghoostyleghoostyle Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited March 2020
    Bonjour,

    j'apprécie la manière dont le jeu ce porte avec cette mise à jour, les unités de base sont bien plus utilisé et ont une importance capitale sur le long terme, de manière globale le rythme et bien plus lent et on dois choisir tout le temps entre développer son armée ou sa Provence.

    Je trouve par contre, hélas, que les confédération intempestives soit toujours présente, ainsi que les déclarations de guerre irrationnel.

    Ayant jouer Morathis en légendaire je me retrouve tour 30 avec Nagarythe sur le dos, une seul Provence à leur actif et la possibilité de recruter les rôdeurs par groupe de 5 tous les tours, j'ai sécurisé la Provence de départ et les événements irrationnel débute la factions voisine Skegi m'agresse puis c'est au tour de Nagaroth pourtant en positif vis à vis de nos relations puis Nagaroth invite très vite les hommes lézards.

    Tour 50 c'est le drame les hommes lézard invite le clan rictus et ce coordonne entre eux (avec tout mes ennemis) pour toujours avoir une armée pour m’agresser, devant le nombre d’assaillant et le **** pris sur ma Provence c'en était fini de ma campagne.

    devoir choisir entre armée et améliorions territorial était une bonne idée pour ralentir le développement.

    sur plusieurs front l'handicap est flagrant, on ne peu reformer assez vite son armée pour défendre son territoire et devoir
    choisir en priorité son armée fait que les bâtiments comme les murailles ne sont présent que plus tard.

    les niveau de relations entre les factions devrait être prise en compte je ne comprend pas comment les hommes lézard ont pu être invité contre moi par nagaroth de même que le clan rictus par les homme lezards leur relations les uns par rapport aux autres es purement négatif et faites le test même avec un niveau de relation supérieur à 100 avec un allié alpha et un niveau de -100 entre alpha et un ennemis beta vous n'arriverai jamais à le faire rejoindre votre cause en rentrant en guerre contre celui ci même avec un pot de vin.

    lothern ne m'avais pas encore posé de problème ici mais avais déjà confédérer comme un cochon je pense que le système de confédération, ainsi que la diplomatie de l'IA est à revoir.

    j'ai plusieurs fois recommencer ma campagne légendaire avec Morathi pour ne pas rester sur un premier avis et ce sont plus ou moins passé de la même façon dans les grandes lignes avec des factions diverse et variés.

    merci d'avoir lu jusqu'ici je m'en retourne faire une autre campagne toujours en légendaire pour voir d'autres horizons.


    This is an English language forum, please post only in English, or at least provide a translation.
    Il s'agit d'un forum en anglais, veuillez publier uniquement en anglais, ou au moins fournir une traduction.


    Via Google Translate

    I appreciate the way the game is doing with this update, the basic units are much more used and are of paramount importance in the long term, overall the pace and much slower and we have to choose all the time between developing his army or his Provence.

    On the other hand, I find, alas, that untimely confederations are always present, as well as declarations of irrational war.

    Having played Morathis in legendary I find myself round 30 with Nagarythe on the back, only one Provence under their belt and the possibility of recruiting the prowlers by group of 5 all the rounds, I secured the starting Provence and the irrational events begin the neighboring Skegi factions attack me then it is Nagaroth's turn, however in positive towards our relations then Nagaroth very quickly invites the lizard men.

    Tower 50 is the drama the lizard men invite the grin clan and this coordinates between them (with all my enemies) to always have an army to attack me, in front of the number of assailants and the **** caught on my Provence it was the end of my campaign.

    having to choose between army and territorial improvements was a good idea to slow development.

    on several fronts the handicap is flagrant, you can't reform your army fast enough to defend your territory and have to
    choosing your army as a priority means that buildings like walls are not present until later.

    the level of relations between the factions should be taken into account I do not understand how the lizard men could have been invited against me by nagaroth as well as the clan grin by the lezard men their relations with each other are purely negative and take the test even with a level of relation greater than 100 with an alpha ally and a level of -100 between alpha and a beta enemy you will never succeed in making it join your cause by going to war against it even with a pot of wine.

    lothern had not posed a problem for me here yet but had already confederated like a pig, I think that the confederation system, as well as the AI ​​diplomacy, needs to be reviewed.

    I have several times restarted my legendary campaign with Morathi so as not to remain on a first opinion and these more or less happened in the same way in the main lines with diverse and varied factions.

    thank you for reading so far I'm going back to do another campaign still legendary to see other horizons.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • trueshot211trueshot211 Registered Users Posts: 138
    Tayvar said:

    Is there any possibility of these changes being integrated into the main game, with options to keep it "classic" for those who like the old paradigms?

    I'm liking this beta a lot and quickly getting personally attached to the changes. Order-tide seems to be greatly mitigated, there's more variance in alliances and wars between AI and the snowball effect - which has basically defined TW:WH2's campaign since release - is largely gone. The phenomenon where a few factions (including the player) become ludicrously wealthy seems to be far more unlikely; and I like that. I think the numbers need to be tweaked to keep certain building chains and specific faction mechanics (eg. Tomb Kings) relevant but the overall feature set is spot on. I'm really hoping this beta makes it in at some point but options are presented to the user to preserve the old experience if desired.

    The campaign speed can be a separated option but the "supply lines" needs to go.
    You are probably right. But weren't supply lines unpopular to begin with though? I'm not sure I've ever read a glowing appreciation for that mechanic.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,366

    Tayvar said:

    Is there any possibility of these changes being integrated into the main game, with options to keep it "classic" for those who like the old paradigms?

    I'm liking this beta a lot and quickly getting personally attached to the changes. Order-tide seems to be greatly mitigated, there's more variance in alliances and wars between AI and the snowball effect - which has basically defined TW:WH2's campaign since release - is largely gone. The phenomenon where a few factions (including the player) become ludicrously wealthy seems to be far more unlikely; and I like that. I think the numbers need to be tweaked to keep certain building chains and specific faction mechanics (eg. Tomb Kings) relevant but the overall feature set is spot on. I'm really hoping this beta makes it in at some point but options are presented to the user to preserve the old experience if desired.

    The campaign speed can be a separated option but the "supply lines" needs to go.
    You are probably right. But weren't supply lines unpopular to begin with though? I'm not sure I've ever read a glowing appreciation for that mechanic.
    Yes, that why it's needs to be removed for all factions, bretonnia didn't had it to begin with.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,581
    The thing about blanket removing supply lines is that it just maintains the advantage the high economy races (men, elves, dwarfs) have over everyone else already.

    Which is a zero sum change.

    Pointless. If you are going to take away supply lines from everyone, certain races need their unit costs accordingly tweaked to cost substantially more than other race's units [IN CAMPAIGN - MP NEED NOT APPLY AND CAN GO THAT WAY --->]. Else you'll just get something like Dwarfs and High Elves once again fielding 2x as many armies as Skaven and Greenskins, and all elites to boot.

    Basically rich/elite races are SUPPOSED to be outnumbered and surrounded by enemies. But in this series they are primarily the ones who have the most armies, and they are elite armies to boot.

    You can't just remove supply lines and blanket double everyone's recruitment costs. That achieves no balance at all.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,366
    edited March 2020
    Itharus said:

    The thing about blanket removing supply lines is that it just maintains the advantage the high economy races (men, elves, dwarfs) have over everyone else already.

    Which is a zero sum change.

    Pointless. If you are going to take away supply lines from everyone, certain races need their unit costs accordingly tweaked to cost substantially more than other race's units [IN CAMPAIGN - MP NEED NOT APPLY AND CAN GO THAT WAY --->]. Else you'll just get something like Dwarfs and High Elves once again fielding 2x as many armies as Skaven and Greenskins, and all elites to boot.

    Basically rich/elite races are SUPPOSED to be outnumbered and surrounded by enemies. But in this series they are primarily the ones who have the most armies, and they are elite armies to boot.

    You can't just remove supply lines and blanket double everyone's recruitment costs. That achieves no balance at all.

    At the very least removing the "supply lines" is a step forward, the "supply lines" has made elite units spam the most efficient way to play the game, and it hurt Skaven and Greenskins more than Dwarfs and High Elves, a Dawitide was a thing even with "supply lines". The Skaven and Greenskins need higher growth and replenishment than the Dwarfs and High Elves, right now the High Elves have a higher replenishment than the Greenskins, something that don't make sense lore-wise.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,897
    Itharus said:

    The thing about blanket removing supply lines is that it just maintains the advantage the high economy races (men, elves, dwarfs) have over everyone else already.

    Which is a zero sum change.

    Pointless. If you are going to take away supply lines from everyone, certain races need their unit costs accordingly tweaked to cost substantially more than other race's units [IN CAMPAIGN - MP NEED NOT APPLY AND CAN GO THAT WAY --->]. Else you'll just get something like Dwarfs and High Elves once again fielding 2x as many armies as Skaven and Greenskins, and all elites to boot.

    Basically rich/elite races are SUPPOSED to be outnumbered and surrounded by enemies. But in this series they are primarily the ones who have the most armies, and they are elite armies to boot.

    You can't just remove supply lines and blanket double everyone's recruitment costs. That achieves no balance at all.

    Dwarfs and Elves need further nerfs to their economy. I think triplin
    Itharus said:

    The thing about blanket removing supply lines is that it just maintains the advantage the high economy races (men, elves, dwarfs) have over everyone else already.

    Which is a zero sum change.

    Pointless. If you are going to take away supply lines from everyone, certain races need their unit costs accordingly tweaked to cost substantially more than other race's units [IN CAMPAIGN - MP NEED NOT APPLY AND CAN GO THAT WAY --->]. Else you'll just get something like Dwarfs and High Elves once again fielding 2x as many armies as Skaven and Greenskins, and all elites to boot.

    Basically rich/elite races are SUPPOSED to be outnumbered and surrounded by enemies. But in this series they are primarily the ones who have the most armies, and they are elite armies to boot.

    You can't just remove supply lines and blanket double everyone's recruitment costs. That achieves no balance at all.

    GS are candidates for an overhaul, so what they get now will at best be minor adjustments.

    Elves and Dwarfs need to be further nerfed. The Entrepeneur exploit for HE needs to be removed and they and Dwarfs need to have their prices increased further.
  • AxiosXiphosAxiosXiphos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,237
    Really enjoying the beta so far! Decisions feel far more impactful! Also I like being able to effectively choose what armies/troops I want to utilise. A governor/garrison stack actually seems viable now.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,581
    Skarsnik's actually very playable atm, so for anyone who's been hesitant to play him due to the "hard" difficulty tag - now is your chance, really. He gets -40% on goblin recruitment and upkeep and without supply lines he can use that to actually outnumber the enemy with goblins for once. Would peg him "normal" difficulty for the proving grounds.

    Other greenskins, the economy doesn't work so well for right now.
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 623
    Itharus said:

    Skarsnik's actually very playable atm, so for anyone who's been hesitant to play him due to the "hard" difficulty tag - now is your chance, really. He gets -40% on goblin recruitment and upkeep and without supply lines he can use that to actually outnumber the enemy with goblins for once. Would peg him "normal" difficulty for the proving grounds.

    Other greenskins, the economy doesn't work so well for right now.

    I'm really hoping they keep PG around as an optional mode at least so I can try his campaign after the greenskin rework. Really really enjoying the fresh take on races with most of these changes
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 13,087
    Has anyone considered having a separate lord who is built to recruit troops? Since supply lines no longer exists you can have a lord without any troops without penalty and you can then gear him out with recruitment cost reduction abilities and followers.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • Reaper1510Reaper1510 Registered Users Posts: 6
    In my opinion most changes are great, however the difficulty linked to game speed, is not an good idea, in my opinion..
    They should be able to be chosen individually.

    Also Push late-game units later into the game naturally for both AI and player, is in my opinion not a good thing. just like the Removed building conversion on occupation (automatic conversion of buildings of a different race).

    For the rest, are the changes looking good

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,897

    In my opinion most changes are great, however the difficulty linked to game speed, is not an good idea, in my opinion..
    They should be able to be chosen individually.

    Also Push late-game units later into the game naturally for both AI and player, is in my opinion not a good thing. just like the Removed building conversion on occupation (automatic conversion of buildings of a different race).

    For the rest, are the changes looking good

    Autoconversion is one of the wors ideas CA ever had and that should be removed no matter what. It dumbs down expansion to a ridiculous extent since by midgame you can take immediate advantage of any captured settlement which means it's always the best idea to constantly expand.
  • petertel123petertel123 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,003
    Ingr8 said:

    My biggest objection to the mechanics in both the proving grounds beta and the existing "live" game has always been that AI lords, heroes and units earn so much experience for doing absolutely nothing. Some Lords (Tyrion and Settra come to mind) can be an absolute ball-ache to kill particularly at higher levels. Giving them something for nothing annoys me.

    If they have expanded aggressively, it is fair enough but Settra on his War Sphinx is quite capable of steam-rolling most of the surrounding factions without needing an army. I would prefer a small bonus xp% to successful actions (defeating armies, capturing towns etc) rather than just getting large xp boosts simply for being on the map.

    Is that really true? I'm already way in the late game in a Skryre playthrough and the Red Duke is still level 12 because he has mostly been sitting on his ass all game.
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Dark Elves
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 623
    Crossil said:

    Has anyone considered having a separate lord who is built to recruit troops? Since supply lines no longer exists you can have a lord without any troops without penalty and you can then gear him out with recruitment cost reduction abilities and followers.

    I'm doing just this at the moment with the Barrow legion, kemmler can recruit 6 rank 7 skellies per turn at a cost of 390 per unit and fills up a general who has at least 1-2 fast attack units and voila: skellitide.
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 2,262
    Crossil said:

    Has anyone considered having a separate lord who is built to recruit troops? Since supply lines no longer exists you can have a lord without any troops without penalty and you can then gear him out with recruitment cost reduction abilities and followers.

    Yes. PG makes specialised lords a viable option which is great for RP. It also means that I now have province governors. Which I personally love.
    Live your life and try to do no harm.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,366
    Ingr8 said:

    My biggest objection to the mechanics in both the proving grounds beta and the existing "live" game has always been that AI lords, heroes and units earn so much experience for doing absolutely nothing. Some Lords (Tyrion and Settra come to mind) can be an absolute ball-ache to kill particularly at higher levels. Giving them something for nothing annoys me.

    If they have expanded aggressively, it is fair enough but Settra on his War Sphinx is quite capable of steam-rolling most of the surrounding factions without needing an army. I would prefer a small bonus xp% to successful actions (defeating armies, capturing towns etc) rather than just getting large xp boosts simply for being on the map.

    That's the AI buffs/cheats, and access to characters mounts should be tied to buildings.
  • SielgaudysSielgaudys Registered Users Posts: 125
    How badly did they ruin my dark elf economy?
  • SielgaudysSielgaudys Registered Users Posts: 125

    How badly did they ruin my dark elf economy? If they butchered it, I swear, I will stop playing. Also, if you want slower game implement optional unit caps, not whatever it is you are doing.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,581
    edited March 2020
    Crajoh said:

    Crossil said:

    Has anyone considered having a separate lord who is built to recruit troops? Since supply lines no longer exists you can have a lord without any troops without penalty and you can then gear him out with recruitment cost reduction abilities and followers.

    Yes. PG makes specialised lords a viable option which is great for RP. It also means that I now have province governors. Which I personally love.
    Yarp. This is part of what made Bretonnia so badass. I usually brought another couple lords and a prophetess next to every major army. Leveled up Bretonnian lords are beastly.

    TO BE FAIR:

    Bretonnian infantry are subpar, as is their economy.

    Races such as Elves, Empire, Dwarfs taking advantage of this will simply maintain their unstoppable advantage..... These races need considerably more setbacks to recruitment and upgrade than most - or their economies heavily nerfed. There needs to be a balance between the "elite" forces and the standard or even swarm forces. The latter need to be able to field 2 or more armies for every 1 of the better off races simply to be able to compete.

    I also recommend that reinforcing armies have different limits by race. Right now each side can field 4 armies. This encourages doomballs of all your elite armies moving in one giant mob. This means that the weaker races can NEVER outnumber you due to that artificial limit of 4 stacks a side. Elite races should either be limited in how many stacks can reinforce at once (say, 2, to make it fair v the weaker races' 4) -- or, remove the limit all together. If you wind up with a giant cluster#$%! of 6 elite armies v 12 weaker armies... let it just be one loooooong battle with waves and waves of reinforcements. Naturally, limiting the number on a per race basis would be easier on the machines.

    But yeah - the above is a huge problem. Especially when attacking Dwarfholds as Greenskins. A tier 5 hold with an elite stack inside takes like... 6 damned armies of Greenskins (unless you gimmick) - which you cannot achieve. The problem with pulling another siege after one is broken immediately is thus: being defeated causes your army to go expend most or all of their move points to run away, and the enemy settlement repairs all walls in 1 turn regardless -- ALSO -- any nearby armies that were NOT engaged are ALSO forced into that same retreat (idiotically!) and so cannot then move back to resiege the settlement. Stopping that last thing alone would make sieges of crazy dwarfholds far more feasible.

    There are so many little issues like this seeded throughout the game :(
  • CA_NicCA_Nic The Creative Assembly Registered Users, CA Staff Posts: 106
    edited March 2020
    Thank you all for your feedback! We will now start gathering and analysing the feedback. At this point I cannot guarantee that we will show our results publicly but future decisions will use this information going forward.

    The Beta still stays open and you can continue to share your experiences with it. Generally the more we have the more accurate our picture becomes.

    It has been a pleasure to read how passionate you all are to further improve this game with us together.
    Huge thanks again for your participation!
    Post edited by CA_Nic on
    Formal disclaimer: any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • rrinscheidrrinscheid Registered Users Posts: 169
    edited March 2020
    This may be controversial but I don’t think supply lines should go away.

    Maybe tone them down a bit in the higher difficulties but it’s pretty easy to form some crazy armies when you get established at which point the game becomes quite easy.

    I’d be in favor of supply lines being diminished or even going away for armies known for swarming though (greenskins and skaven). This would be more accurate lore wise although I realize it brings a whole other rebalancing issue. And I’m still in favor of elite unit caps.

    Overall though I very much like these changes. The game feels fun longer in a campaign and ordertide isn’t as crazy as it was so mission accomplished there.

    Also may I make a suggestion to maybe increase the public order decline in unpleasant and uninhabitable climates? I don’t think I’ve paid any attention to public order at all with this beta.
    Post edited by rrinscheid on
  • marcusaurelusmarcusaurelus Registered Users Posts: 1
    Proving grounds are pretty good. The balance seems better between the AI. The problem that I have is that the early game became even more difficult (in VH at least) due to higher recruitment costs and the nerfs on the economy while the late game became way easier due to the removal of supply lines (which is a good thing the %increase was very frustrating in the late game due to the number of armies the AI could throw). One thing that would be good would be a military system like Medieval 2 with caps and cooldown on units. The removal of PO penalty is good and to prevent steamrolling maybe you should implement a distance to capital penalty and an upkeep increase in ruined/ennemy/low tier city region.
  • DjauDjau Registered Users Posts: 7,840
    I feel in general this change is fine, but we need to take a complete re-look at Tomb Kings who are triple-nerfed by this and receive no benefit from these changes despite the only weaker faction in Vanilla being greenskins.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.

    We're paying full price for a Chaos Warrior of Tzeentch without any actual Tzeentch markings or changes to the model? Change this now CA, #JusticeForTzeentch #TLM
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 623

    This may be controversial but I don’t think supply lines should go away.

    Maybe tone them down a bit in the higher difficulties but it’s pretty easy to form some crazy armies when you get established at which point the game becomes quite easy.

    I’d be in favor of supply lines being diminished or even going away for armies known for swarming though (greenskins and skaven). This would be more accurate lore wise although I realize it brings a whole other rebalancing issue. And I’m still in favor of elite unit caps.

    Overall though I very much like these changes. The game feels fun longer in a campaign and ordertide isn’t as crazy as it was so mission accomplished there.

    Also may I make a suggestion to maybe increase the public order decline in unpleasant and uninhabitable climates? I don’t think I’ve paid any attention to public order at all with this beta.




    😋
  • rrinscheidrrinscheid Registered Users Posts: 169

    This may be controversial but I don’t think supply lines should go away.

    Maybe tone them down a bit in the higher difficulties but it’s pretty easy to form some crazy armies when you get established at which point the game becomes quite easy.

    I’d be in favor of supply lines being diminished or even going away for armies known for swarming though (greenskins and skaven). This would be more accurate lore wise although I realize it brings a whole other rebalancing issue. And I’m still in favor of elite unit caps.

    Overall though I very much like these changes. The game feels fun longer in a campaign and ordertide isn’t as crazy as it was so mission accomplished there.

    Also may I make a suggestion to maybe increase the public order decline in unpleasant and uninhabitable climates? I don’t think I’ve paid any attention to public order at all with this beta.




    😋
    Lol it’s all good, like I said I realize I’m in the minority here.
  • DumbledoodDumbledood Registered Users Posts: 182
    edited March 2020
    *Very Hard difficulty becomes Veteran: A slower-paced Total War with more expensive recruitment and construction and increased AI buffs
    *Legendary difficulty remains Legendary: A slower-paced Total War with more expensive recruitment and construction, increased AI buffs, no quick save, and battle realism

    Does this mean Very Hard will be easier than it is right now?

    For me, my most-desired improvement tends to be AI-related (It was turn times :D), in order to make single-player Mortal Empire campaigns a fun, interesting battle for survival. However, I tend to play with a dangerous number of mods (they can be volatile in combination), and sometimes (often) at some point in the campaign, a mod update happens, or an event triggers which hadn't triggered up to that point that causes a SNAFU in the game which borks the campaign. So basically what I'm saying in a very roundabout way is that when that happens I need to be able to reload quicksaves until I find the last playable one to isolate the event that broke the game, disable a suspected mod, and then eventually I can continue the game from that point. If I played on Legendary then this wouldn't be possible because of the Ironman feature. As someone that really likes difficult AIs, and mods, a high difficulty setting with an option to reload is great and I just wanted to let you guys know. Thanks!

    This looks like a really impressive attempt to tackle redesigning various aspects of the game based on player feedback. Also looks crazy complicated, hazardous and difficult to approach, so good luck!

    Last thing.. People complaining about you opening it up for testing and feedback can all go gargle hot sauce.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,581
    By slow it basically means everything costs way more... anything past "standard" is eyebrow raising to me in pricing. I don't think the prices in standard actually work for everyone. It seems that everyone got basically a 100% cost increase and possibly a 25% upkeep reduction, just from eyeballing it (standard).

    Problem is that's not universally palatable. Really nasty for "cheap" army races such as GS, Skaven, Beasties, etc; and VERY nasty for anyone that needs to use global recruitment a lot (RIP Wood Elves).

    Also just nasty for any weak economy race. Races with good econs (Elves, Dwarfs especially) are more or less fine.

    That's why I was saying earlier that a blanket approach won't necessarily work... it just extends the status quo.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 33,897
    Itharus said:

    By slow it basically means everything costs way more... anything past "standard" is eyebrow raising to me in pricing. I don't think the prices in standard actually work for everyone. It seems that everyone got basically a 100% cost increase and possibly a 25% upkeep reduction, just from eyeballing it (standard).

    Problem is that's not universally palatable. Really nasty for "cheap" army races such as GS, Skaven, Beasties, etc; and VERY nasty for anyone that needs to use global recruitment a lot (RIP Wood Elves).

    Also just nasty for any weak economy race. Races with good econs (Elves, Dwarfs especially) are more or less fine.

    That's why I was saying earlier that a blanket approach won't necessarily work... it just extends the status quo.

    That's absolutely appropriate for WE. They represent such a tiny fraction of the Warhammer world, having trouble to project power should be a major weakness of them.
Sign In or Register to comment.