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

1789101113»

Comments

  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 2,213

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    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
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    Crajoh said:

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Asymmetry is at the heart of ALL good strategy games.

    The sameyness of hard counter systems and their like that - let's be honest - is the core of modern competitive MP are PRECISELY what destroys otherwise good games.

    A good example is actually StarCraft. The original. GD it used to be SO fun back when everything was asymmetrical! Then over time, everything was made more and more hard-counter based, and suddenly it was nothing but build orders and rock paper scissors and even factions that were supposed to be different ultimately were really just the same with the only differences being in who's section of X unit type was stronger than the others.

    Strategy games need to be 'fuzzy' and soft-counter to have any sort of longevity or meaningfulness. It's what makes room for SKILL on anything more than a technical level. When everything is rigid and hard countered, all that differentiates players is hand-eye coordination and matching Pattern A to hard counter Pattern B. There's no MENTAL EXERCISE left in the game... just rote memorization and mechanical training.

    It's horrible.

    It's popular simply BECAUSE it's so simple to master and exploit... and most people simply like to "win", not really caring about the how. This whole thing has ruined almost every single game with any kind of competitive MP I've ever played because it results in devs endlessly balancing in an attempt to destroy the latest exploit or uber build until the whole game is just..... connect four levels of mediocrity.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Itharus said:

    Crajoh said:

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Asymmetry is at the heart of ALL good strategy games.

    The sameyness of hard counter systems and their like that - let's be honest - is the core of modern competitive MP are PRECISELY what destroys otherwise good games.

    A good example is actually StarCraft. The original. GD it used to be SO fun back when everything was asymmetrical! Then over time, everything was made more and more hard-counter based, and suddenly it was nothing but build orders and rock paper scissors and even factions that were supposed to be different ultimately were really just the same with the only differences being in who's section of X unit type was stronger than the others.

    Strategy games need to be 'fuzzy' and soft-counter to have any sort of longevity or meaningfulness. It's what makes room for SKILL on anything more than a technical level. When everything is rigid and hard countered, all that differentiates players is hand-eye coordination and matching Pattern A to hard counter Pattern B. There's no MENTAL EXERCISE left in the game... just rote memorization and mechanical training.

    It's horrible.

    It's popular simply BECAUSE it's so simple to master and exploit... and most people simply like to "win", not really caring about the how. This whole thing has ruined almost every single game with any kind of competitive MP I've ever played because it results in devs endlessly balancing in an attempt to destroy the latest exploit or uber build until the whole game is just..... connect four levels of mediocrity.
    Agreed. I've been a hardcore player of Heroes 3 of Might and Magic for years, and it's lasting appeal is just fascinating. I think Heroes 3 does really good in asymmetry. Warhammer is doing a lot better than other total war titles but still some way to go compared to some classical games. Btw, that's why I give up on three kingdoms after just one hour.
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 2,213
    Jackydai said:

    Itharus said:

    Crajoh said:

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Asymmetry is at the heart of ALL good strategy games.

    The sameyness of hard counter systems and their like that - let's be honest - is the core of modern competitive MP are PRECISELY what destroys otherwise good games.

    A good example is actually StarCraft. The original. GD it used to be SO fun back when everything was asymmetrical! Then over time, everything was made more and more hard-counter based, and suddenly it was nothing but build orders and rock paper scissors and even factions that were supposed to be different ultimately were really just the same with the only differences being in who's section of X unit type was stronger than the others.

    Strategy games need to be 'fuzzy' and soft-counter to have any sort of longevity or meaningfulness. It's what makes room for SKILL on anything more than a technical level. When everything is rigid and hard countered, all that differentiates players is hand-eye coordination and matching Pattern A to hard counter Pattern B. There's no MENTAL EXERCISE left in the game... just rote memorization and mechanical training.

    It's horrible.

    It's popular simply BECAUSE it's so simple to master and exploit... and most people simply like to "win", not really caring about the how. This whole thing has ruined almost every single game with any kind of competitive MP I've ever played because it results in devs endlessly balancing in an attempt to destroy the latest exploit or uber build until the whole game is just..... connect four levels of mediocrity.
    Agreed. I've been a hardcore player of Heroes 3 of Might and Magic for years, and it's lasting appeal is just fascinating. I think Heroes 3 does really good in asymmetry. Warhammer is doing a lot better than other total war titles but still some way to go compared to some classical games. Btw, that's why I give up on three kingdoms after just one hour.
    Hah you just made me realise one of the key things I don't like about 3K. I really really want to like the game
    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
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,965
    Crajoh said:

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Couldnt agree more!
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Crajoh said:

    Jackydai said:

    Itharus said:

    Crajoh said:

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Asymmetry is at the heart of ALL good strategy games.

    The sameyness of hard counter systems and their like that - let's be honest - is the core of modern competitive MP are PRECISELY what destroys otherwise good games.

    A good example is actually StarCraft. The original. GD it used to be SO fun back when everything was asymmetrical! Then over time, everything was made more and more hard-counter based, and suddenly it was nothing but build orders and rock paper scissors and even factions that were supposed to be different ultimately were really just the same with the only differences being in who's section of X unit type was stronger than the others.

    Strategy games need to be 'fuzzy' and soft-counter to have any sort of longevity or meaningfulness. It's what makes room for SKILL on anything more than a technical level. When everything is rigid and hard countered, all that differentiates players is hand-eye coordination and matching Pattern A to hard counter Pattern B. There's no MENTAL EXERCISE left in the game... just rote memorization and mechanical training.

    It's horrible.

    It's popular simply BECAUSE it's so simple to master and exploit... and most people simply like to "win", not really caring about the how. This whole thing has ruined almost every single game with any kind of competitive MP I've ever played because it results in devs endlessly balancing in an attempt to destroy the latest exploit or uber build until the whole game is just..... connect four levels of mediocrity.
    Agreed. I've been a hardcore player of Heroes 3 of Might and Magic for years, and it's lasting appeal is just fascinating. I think Heroes 3 does really good in asymmetry. Warhammer is doing a lot better than other total war titles but still some way to go compared to some classical games. Btw, that's why I give up on three kingdoms after just one hour.
    Hah you just made me realise one of the key things I don't like about 3K. I really really want to like the game
    I don't really get why CA create five dragon armies out of nowhere and make them so powerful that every faction use them instend of their unique units. There are many historical armies that can be put into the game but CA somehow didn't. It's really puzzling to me.
  • StyleStyle Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited April 2020
    Playing as Tomb Kings, Nagash the Black on Legendary difficulty. Found a bug.

    When capturing a town and chosing the "loot" option, you do not get any money, even though the description says you should get money. Only capturing + sacking works for getting canopic jars, but you are not awarded the stated money from looting the setllement. I've tried several times and the money option never works like it should.

    After a normal battle you can choose to take the money instead of canopic jars like normal, so no bug there.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    Hhhm, just a heads up......

    Bretonnia's economy only worked because they had no supply lines.

    Now that no one has supply lines... their econ buildings are insufficient to the task of the new costs.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 11,288
    Itharus said:

    Hhhm, just a heads up......

    Bretonnia's economy only worked because they had no supply lines.

    Now that no one has supply lines... their econ buildings are insufficient to the task of the new costs.

    Supply lines or not their economy has always been crazy strong.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    neodeinos said:

    Itharus said:

    Hhhm, just a heads up......

    Bretonnia's economy only worked because they had no supply lines.

    Now that no one has supply lines... their econ buildings are insufficient to the task of the new costs.

    Supply lines or not their economy has always been crazy strong.
    Not so much. Before PG it certainly was, at least if you were Alberic and got Bretonnia unified. But in older versions it was baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Also they never had supply lines. I'm saying with PG, it's... bad again. Being immune to Supply Lines was literally why their peasant economy works. Now that EVERYONE is immune to supply lines -- they're just flat out disadvantaged.

    TBH supply lines shouldn't have been fully removed. It should have been applied on a per unit per race basis. Someone earlier in this thread suggested that, and it was a good idea. Or even just massively increasing upkeep for elite units only would have the same effect. It would leave doom stacks possible... but limit the number of them. I think it's a great idea. Coupled with the cost increases that might make some of the OP economies actually not OP anymore.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 11,288
    Itharus said:

    neodeinos said:

    Itharus said:

    Hhhm, just a heads up......

    Bretonnia's economy only worked because they had no supply lines.

    Now that no one has supply lines... their econ buildings are insufficient to the task of the new costs.

    Supply lines or not their economy has always been crazy strong.
    Not so much. Before PG it certainly was, at least if you were Alberic and got Bretonnia unified. But in older versions it was baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Also they never had supply lines. I'm saying with PG, it's... bad again. Being immune to Supply Lines was literally why their peasant economy works. Now that EVERYONE is immune to supply lines -- they're just flat out disadvantaged.

    TBH supply lines shouldn't have been fully removed. It should have been applied on a per unit per race basis. Someone earlier in this thread suggested that, and it was a good idea. Or even just massively increasing upkeep for elite units only would have the same effect. It would leave doom stacks possible... but limit the number of them. I think it's a great idea. Coupled with the cost increases that might make some of the OP economies actually not OP anymore.
    I don't see how it's such a big deal for Bretonnia, it's easily one of the most absurd economy of the game, I doubt the removal of supply lines for the other factions is going to really affect Bretonnia, the economy is still stupidly strong.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    Heads up, Greenskins (or at least skarsnik) bug -- can't do anything with the Oak of Ages in this patch. Can't demolish it, can't build anything on ruins, nada. None of that "cowed oak of ages" thing that makes you not get Athel attrition. There's 100% literally nothing that can be done, no conversions.
  • epic_1597335232833kImiJwepic_1597335232833kImiJw Registered Users Posts: 4
    Itharus said:

    Heads up, Greenskins (or at least skarsnik) bug -- can't do anything with the Oak of Ages in this patch. Can't demolish it, can't build anything on ruins, nada. None of that "cowed oak of ages" thing that makes you not get Athel attrition. There's 100% literally nothing that can be done, no conversions.

    That's a bug with all factions in PG.
  • AttercopAttercop Registered Users Posts: 113
    Odd I've just played Clan Skyrer on PG and have conquered all of Athel Loren and built the pacified Oak.
  • NymuraxNymurax Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 90
    edited April 2020
    Not sure if I'm suppsoed top post this here or in the Campaign Bugs area but...
    Playing PG Beta as World Walkers and just captured Couronne. According to the tooltip I should have 1 building slot per level but atm I'm getting the full 2/4/6/8/9 slots. Also I'm supposed to get an income of 500 at my current level and right now I'm getting nothing.
    Still had an army raiding so only the building slots issue :p



  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167

    Itharus said:

    Heads up, Greenskins (or at least skarsnik) bug -- can't do anything with the Oak of Ages in this patch. Can't demolish it, can't build anything on ruins, nada. None of that "cowed oak of ages" thing that makes you not get Athel attrition. There's 100% literally nothing that can be done, no conversions.

    That's a bug with all factions in PG.
    Nope, just some I'm afraid.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Nymurax said:

    Not sure if I'm suppsoed top post this here or in the Campaign Bugs area but...
    Playing PG Beta as World Walkers and just captured Couronne. According to the tooltip I should have 1 building slot per level but atm I'm getting the full 2/4/6/8/9 slots. Also I'm supposed to get an income of 500 at my current level and right now I'm getting nothing.
    Still had an army raiding so only the building slots issue :p



    I guess having more slots is welcomed since Norsca can't capture a lot of areas. Btw I'm playing World Walker too. Cheers.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    edited April 2020
    The battle aftermath options do not count reinforcements right now. For example if I beat an army of one enemy lord reinforced by a 20 units legion, I don't get much money for releasing captive option since the 20 units legion is not counted here. That should be a easy fix.
  • GradenGraden Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 720


    Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • RelwinRelwin Registered Users Posts: 4
    I also played a lot of proving grounds lately with my friend. Many observations i noticed were mentioned by previous posts but nobody mentions that vampire count minor settlement defense is crap and utterly uselss. I had quite few plays and the best solution was to just run T1/T2 settlements even in late game just to make cash and eventually defend choke points on map than build walls, because even settlement is built-up it's still very fragile to any attacker. To be honest, as vampire count, defending minor settlements is waste of time. All eco and all defense and all the juicy power is in major cities and only they are important.

    Another thing is difference in stats between vampire count units and other race's units. I know that there is corpse cart (oh, DLC!) and you gotta spam danse macabre vanhela to raise that attack to actually make units useful, but in longer term it makes vamps less competetive. It feels like it's necesserity to cast buff and winds of death in order to succeed in battle because units won't win at their own. Especially against dwarven late game units.

    Only grave guards from spammable troops are actually very useful, they are accessible early in game but they are hella expensive. Their cost/efficiency rate is very bad tho im compare to other units from other races that are cheaper and on equal with GGs.

    AI vamps spams zombies, skeletons and stuff. I observed how they do. They do still very terribly. They don't recruit much if not at all once their main force gets crushed. AI tends to fill stacks with cheap troops in state of game when they are useless. Vamps are aggressive but because how bad vamp units are they will always lose no matter what, with current balance. Only a player can make vampire count a good faction. AI will never do. It results in auto resolves even, where you can see that huge majority of advantage is on enemy side but meantime you 'can' somehow win a fight because u're a human and u do tactics AI cannot. Because vampire count cannot be played 'normally'. Their cheesy mechanics are only things that keep them still viable.

    I don't really understand place of cairn wraiths, their stats are too low for tier they are unlocked at. Grave Guards with greatswords still mostly win, I never had a situation when cairn wraiths were absolute beasts. They feel like... useless? They're not bad, but for stage of game they are unlocked at, they're pretty bad. They woudl do much better on tier 2 settlement unlocks as replacement for eventual grave guards with GS.

    Fell bats are so weak they aren't able to kill anything. It's like flying zombie, that costs money. Waste of cash tbh. Vargheists are must-have in army for that artillery. Maybe if fell bats had discount on upkeep and recruitment zombies do, they would find a fine place in early game army. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

    Ghouls are kinda nice but they die too fast. I don't see them much beside early game.
    Unless it's a minor settlement defense, where there are 2 ghouls, 2 fell bats and 2 zombies. On T3. jeez.
  • maksimpavlyuchenkomaksimpavlyuchenko Registered Users Posts: 2
    Okay.
    1. We very-very need a button “attack nearest enemy without order” for melee units, especially for infantry. I think player must spend his micro to control casters, heroes, chivalry, artillery etc. But now I must control each infantry units in XtX, because they stop after charge and can’t retarget if their enemy was run away or eliminated. Sometimes I have APM about 100 during a battle for orcs vs scavens - every 5-10 seconds I must retarget each infantry.
    2. There is too many disciples and equipments in campaign, sometimes I take about 5 new disciples every turn. All lords and heroes filled these “trinkets” and many more of this in reserve.
    3. I think we need limites for high-tier units like for heroes. Dwarf have about 1 000 000 golds on 100 turn, high price for these units don’t prevents doom-stack.
    4. Campaign AI stupidly moving his army between cities there and back, it’s take a lot of time;
    5. Orcs still too weak;
    6. Late game still not interesting, dwarf economics in late game still very powerfull, I have avout 1 400 000 on 140 turn and about 40 000 income per turn.
    7. I have a bug with "Book of resentiments" - "resentiments" don't strike out.
    8. Uncorrect showing snow (Ryzen 7 3700x, 32GB RAM, 2080 Super, 4k resolve, max quality).
    Sorry for my English.
  • AnglocanerAnglocaner Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 52
    Please change the Lord recruit panel so it is similar to the hero panel.







    Take Dark Elves lords, for example. They can choose between Supreme Sorceress, Dreadlord and High Beastmaster. Why not have the same panel as heroes? Where they are separated by what type of Lord they are.
    Veni, vidi, vici
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 591
    Relwin said:

    I also played a lot of proving grounds lately with my friend. Many observations i noticed were mentioned by previous posts but nobody mentions that vampire count minor settlement defense is crap and utterly uselss. I had quite few plays and the best solution was to just run T1/T2 settlements even in late game just to make cash and eventually defend choke points on map than build walls, because even settlement is built-up it's still very fragile to any attacker. To be honest, as vampire count, defending minor settlements is waste of time. All eco and all defense and all the juicy power is in major cities and only they are important.

    Another thing is difference in stats between vampire count units and other race's units. I know that there is corpse cart (oh, DLC!) and you gotta spam danse macabre vanhela to raise that attack to actually make units useful, but in longer term it makes vamps less competetive. It feels like it's necesserity to cast buff and winds of death in order to succeed in battle because units won't win at their own. Especially against dwarven late game units.

    Only grave guards from spammable troops are actually very useful, they are accessible early in game but they are hella expensive. Their cost/efficiency rate is very bad tho im compare to other units from other races that are cheaper and on equal with GGs.

    AI vamps spams zombies, skeletons and stuff. I observed how they do. They do still very terribly. They don't recruit much if not at all once their main force gets crushed. AI tends to fill stacks with cheap troops in state of game when they are useless. Vamps are aggressive but because how bad vamp units are they will always lose no matter what, with current balance. Only a player can make vampire count a good faction. AI will never do. It results in auto resolves even, where you can see that huge majority of advantage is on enemy side but meantime you 'can' somehow win a fight because u're a human and u do tactics AI cannot. Because vampire count cannot be played 'normally'. Their cheesy mechanics are only things that keep them still viable.

    I don't really understand place of cairn wraiths, their stats are too low for tier they are unlocked at. Grave Guards with greatswords still mostly win, I never had a situation when cairn wraiths were absolute beasts. They feel like... useless? They're not bad, but for stage of game they are unlocked at, they're pretty bad. They woudl do much better on tier 2 settlement unlocks as replacement for eventual grave guards with GS.

    Fell bats are so weak they aren't able to kill anything. It's like flying zombie, that costs money. Waste of cash tbh. Vargheists are must-have in army for that artillery. Maybe if fell bats had discount on upkeep and recruitment zombies do, they would find a fine place in early game army. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

    Ghouls are kinda nice but they die too fast. I don't see them much beside early game.
    Unless it's a minor settlement defense, where there are 2 ghouls, 2 fell bats and 2 zombies. On T3. jeez.

    Sorry but barrow legion PG is the only legendary I've ever won and it's because of the endlessly spammable skellie stacks. They do well with red line buffs and recruit rank buffs and necromancers on corpse carts to heal. Also confederating the red Duke gave me 3 bonus blood dragons 👍
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Relwin said:

    I also played a lot of proving grounds lately with my friend. Many observations i noticed were mentioned by previous posts but nobody mentions that vampire count minor settlement defense is crap and utterly uselss. I had quite few plays and the best solution was to just run T1/T2 settlements even in late game just to make cash and eventually defend choke points on map than build walls, because even settlement is built-up it's still very fragile to any attacker. To be honest, as vampire count, defending minor settlements is waste of time. All eco and all defense and all the juicy power is in major cities and only they are important.

    Another thing is difference in stats between vampire count units and other race's units. I know that there is corpse cart (oh, DLC!) and you gotta spam danse macabre vanhela to raise that attack to actually make units useful, but in longer term it makes vamps less competetive. It feels like it's necesserity to cast buff and winds of death in order to succeed in battle because units won't win at their own. Especially against dwarven late game units.

    Only grave guards from spammable troops are actually very useful, they are accessible early in game but they are hella expensive. Their cost/efficiency rate is very bad tho im compare to other units from other races that are cheaper and on equal with GGs.

    AI vamps spams zombies, skeletons and stuff. I observed how they do. They do still very terribly. They don't recruit much if not at all once their main force gets crushed. AI tends to fill stacks with cheap troops in state of game when they are useless. Vamps are aggressive but because how bad vamp units are they will always lose no matter what, with current balance. Only a player can make vampire count a good faction. AI will never do. It results in auto resolves even, where you can see that huge majority of advantage is on enemy side but meantime you 'can' somehow win a fight because u're a human and u do tactics AI cannot. Because vampire count cannot be played 'normally'. Their cheesy mechanics are only things that keep them still viable.

    I don't really understand place of cairn wraiths, their stats are too low for tier they are unlocked at. Grave Guards with greatswords still mostly win, I never had a situation when cairn wraiths were absolute beasts. They feel like... useless? They're not bad, but for stage of game they are unlocked at, they're pretty bad. They woudl do much better on tier 2 settlement unlocks as replacement for eventual grave guards with GS.

    Fell bats are so weak they aren't able to kill anything. It's like flying zombie, that costs money. Waste of cash tbh. Vargheists are must-have in army for that artillery. Maybe if fell bats had discount on upkeep and recruitment zombies do, they would find a fine place in early game army. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

    Ghouls are kinda nice but they die too fast. I don't see them much beside early game.
    Unless it's a minor settlement defense, where there are 2 ghouls, 2 fell bats and 2 zombies. On T3. jeez.

    Grave guards can beat chosen with coprse cart's buff. They don't need to be strengthened. Besides, undead units are usually slightly weaker than living soldiers of the same price because undead units do not rout and causes fear. But yes fell bats and settlement defense are weak. The problem with Vampire Counts unit roster though, is not its low tier unit but its high tier units that occupies similar ecological niche and lack countering ability to certain tactics.
  • bluflarebluflare Registered Users Posts: 22
    Some Observations for PG Beta

    1. You are likely to reach the end game without coming close to finishing the tech tree, in part because it takes longer to grow to tier 4 settlements, and most races only get additional research (other than the steal tech heroes) at tier 4. Either reduce the research cost for individual items on the tech tree or increase the research % rate on buildings. Need to catch up somehow.

    2. Autoresolve seems to favor good races, especially the legendary lords. Vampires and Orcs got curbstomped; only reasons orcs made it so long in my Belagar campaign is because of all the consolidations.

    3. This may be related to autoresolve; Orcs would avoid undefended Prince provinces to go across the map to take a weak settlement of mine. I understand the AI prefers to attack you, but the Princes had 3-4 undefended settlements that to orcs could have easily taken but took a long way around just to get to me.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,167
    Undead are still better off than Greenskins :-P

    Some races do not use many elite troops though. They are SUPPOSED to overwhelm elite armies with hordes of cheaper units. Vampire Counts are one of these. You bring weaker units but then have cool monsters and great heroes and hq.

    GS are like that too, although they are a bit weaker in some areas and are supposed to counter that with diversity that allows them to tailor their army to the enemy. Which is where they fail here for a couple of reasons: 1) TOO weak, even for non elites, 2) too expensive for their performance, 3) many missing units, despite already having one of the broader rosters they are missing some critical tools*.

    *NOT ALL FACTIONS ARE AS BROAD AS EVERY OTHER FACTION. So don't hate on Empire/Greenskins for being so broad. Not all factions are equally yolked. Some are one trick ponies. Others are very limited in diversity but overpowered to compensate.
Sign In or Register to comment.