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

The Death of the Oak of Ages?

RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 8,948
Anyone else think that maybe, just maybe the coming Wood Elf update and DLC will see the removal of the Oak of Ages from the campaign map and it being moved to instead simply be an accesible mechanic?

Even better yet does anyone else feel like that would be a good idea? Personally I don't really feel that the Oak of Ages needs to be it's own settlement. I'd much rather the space be used for something else. Or that the Oak of Ages is turned into a proper settlement and the campaign mechanics are changed to accomodate this somewhat.

At least that would mean one more settlement inside of Athel Loren and possibly with a bit of rejigging we can see the Wildwood added too.
Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
«1

Comments

  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 2,592
    I like that the oak of of ages is something the wood elves need to defend, something you always need to keep watch over. That said, Athel Loren should be more defensible, so that enemy stacks can't just force march right up the oak in one turn. Either adding a couple settlements and making the zone of control block entry, or add a movement penalty/attrition for armies moving into Athel Loren would be good.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,158
    I removed the Oak of Ages in my Ikit Campaign >:-)
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 4,234

    I like that the oak of of ages is something the wood elves need to defend, something you always need to keep watch over. That said, Athel Loren should be more defensible, so that enemy stacks can't just force march right up the oak in one turn. Either adding a couple settlements and making the zone of control block entry, or add a movement penalty/attrition for armies moving into Athel Loren would be good.

    Pretty sure Wood Elf defensive buildings already cause movement/attrition penalties to enemy armies.
  • SerPusSerPus Registered Users Posts: 2,608
    No, I think that they should add even more landmarks on the map. The only problem with the Oak is that its destruction doesn't really affect the world.
  • FerestorFerestor Registered Users Posts: 307
    SerPus said:

    No, I think that they should add even more landmarks on the map. The only problem with the Oak is that its destruction doesn't really affect the world.

    Yeah. If you lose as the WE the Oak then you should get hefty Penaltys like upkeep increased, public order malus etc.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 8,160
    edited August 6

    I like that the oak of of ages is something the wood elves need to defend, something you always need to keep watch over. That said, Athel Loren should be more defensible, so that enemy stacks can't just force march right up the oak in one turn. Either adding a couple settlements and making the zone of control block entry, or add a movement penalty/attrition for armies moving into Athel Loren would be good.

    Pretty sure Wood Elf defensive buildings already cause movement/attrition penalties to enemy armies.
    Didn't seem to prevent me from moving to the Oak in one turn, from the Karak Izor border to the Oak with 4% movement left. Managed to kill off Orion in one turn.

    If it even causes movement penalty, which is usually implemented as affecting starting movement value when you start in the province, not rate at which movement is lost while moving through the province(a major oversight or design flaw, imo).

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 4,234
    Crossil said:

    I like that the oak of of ages is something the wood elves need to defend, something you always need to keep watch over. That said, Athel Loren should be more defensible, so that enemy stacks can't just force march right up the oak in one turn. Either adding a couple settlements and making the zone of control block entry, or add a movement penalty/attrition for armies moving into Athel Loren would be good.

    Pretty sure Wood Elf defensive buildings already cause movement/attrition penalties to enemy armies.
    Didn't seem to prevent me from moving to the Oak in one turn, from the Karak Izor border to the Oak with 4% movement left. Managed to kill off Orion in one turn.

    If it even causes movement penalty, which is usually implemented as affecting starting movement value when you start in the province, not rate at which movement is lost while moving through the province(a major oversight or design flaw, imo).
    It's possible I'm also thinking of when I played as/against Wood Elves in SFO, been a while since I actually did a normal Wood Elf campaign.
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 11,397
    It should be a proper settlement in my opinion.
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 6,308
    I think it's good as it is, it could be better sure but I don't really see the point to change it.
  • peabodyestatepeabodyestate Registered Users Posts: 335
    edited August 6
    For me the key is all about Terraforming. I love that Woody outposts provide trees to all areas. Killing the Oak of Ages should have some graphical representation. Something graphically astounding that makes your heart sink, or provides glee for those evil types burning it to an ashen wasteland.

    Durthu, chained, forced to fight for Dark Elf lords, prodded and burnt until he unleashed a furious disinhibitaed act of aggresion.

    That would be good too.
  • AxiosXiphosAxiosXiphos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,330
    edited August 6

    For me the key is all about Terraforming. I love that Woody outposts provide trees to all areas. Killing the Oak of Ages should have some graphical representation. Something graphically astounding that makes your heart sink, or provides glee for those evil types burning it to an ashen wasteland.

    Durthu, chained, forced to fight for Dark Elf lords, prodded and burnt until he unleashed a furious disinhibitaed act of aggresion.

    That would be good too.

    A little cinematic that plays showing the tree being burnt - similar to the chaos incursion would be nice. Just a nod to a big event. Maybe after that theres a very slight global increase to chaos corruption until its restored.
  • lucibuislucibuis Registered Users Posts: 4,202
    It should be the largest settlement , 14 slots with special buildings that provide the bonuses
  • mewade44mewade44 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 964
    Ferestor said:

    SerPus said:

    No, I think that they should add even more landmarks on the map. The only problem with the Oak is that its destruction doesn't really affect the world.

    Yeah. If you lose as the WE the Oak then you should get hefty Penaltys like upkeep increased, public order malus etc.
    Agreed! Should have its own great siege map when attacked but when razed should give huge penalty to we. And not able to be rebuilt the very next turn....
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 8,160
    Look, even if CA updates the Wood Elves original DLC they will probably still have the Oak of Ages battle as the final confrontation of their campaign so removing it would be nonsensical.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • RockNRolla92RockNRolla92 Registered Users Posts: 1,426

    For me the key is all about Terraforming. I love that Woody outposts provide trees to all areas. Killing the Oak of Ages should have some graphical representation. Something graphically astounding that makes your heart sink, or provides glee for those evil types burning it to an ashen wasteland.

    Durthu, chained, forced to fight for Dark Elf lords, prodded and burnt until he unleashed a furious disinhibitaed act of aggresion.

    That would be good too.

    A little cinematic that plays showing the tree being burnt - similar to the chaos incursion would be nice. Just a nod to a big event. Maybe after that theres a very slight global increase to chaos corruption until its restored.
    It should really provided something truly horrible for the forces of evil that can capture/ raise it as well. It's a huge part of the warhammer world.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 8,948
    edited August 6
    Crossil said:

    Look, even if CA updates the Wood Elves original DLC they will probably still have the Oak of Ages battle as the final confrontation of their campaign so removing it would be nonsensical.

    Removing it from the campaign map wouldn't remove it from the lore and I'm certain it would still be possible to have what is essentially a quest battle take place around it even if it wasn't on the map as a named settlement.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • DaGangsterDaGangster Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,293
    Ferestor said:

    SerPus said:

    No, I think that they should add even more landmarks on the map. The only problem with the Oak is that its destruction doesn't really affect the world.

    Yeah. If you lose as the WE the Oak then you should get hefty Penaltys like upkeep increased, public order malus etc.
    Well the Oak already gives you upkeep reduction and Public order so losing already loses you those things. Unless you mean even more than already.

    Team Vampire Counts

    "Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

    - Soren Johnson
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 8,948

    Make Athel Loren *more* defensible??

    How badly are you people playing if you think it needs even more help? Ugh.

    Not my thoughts though. I just don't feel the Oak really needs to be a settlement. Not likely going to change though even if the Amber system might be changed with the coming update.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 4,753

    Make Athel Loren *more* defensible??

    How badly are you people playing if you think it needs even more help? Ugh.

    Err, as far as I've seen most of the arguments on making AL more defensible is that it is too easy to attack, so that question of "how bad are you playing" can be turned right back around on you :lol:
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 8,160
    edited August 6
    Goatforce said:

    Make Athel Loren *more* defensible??

    How badly are you people playing if you think it needs even more help? Ugh.

    Err, as far as I've seen most of the arguments on making AL more defensible is that it is too easy to attack, so that question of "how bad are you playing" can be turned right back around on you :lol:
    That would be the result of WE having few settlements. The reason is that it requires you to win exactly five battles to conquer the entirety of that and the WE are so ineffective that they won't even counter invade and let you do whatever.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 4,753
    Crossil said:

    Goatforce said:

    Make Athel Loren *more* defensible??

    How badly are you people playing if you think it needs even more help? Ugh.

    Err, as far as I've seen most of the arguments on making AL more defensible is that it is too easy to attack, so that question of "how bad are you playing" can be turned right back around on you :lol:
    That would be the result of WE having few settlements. The reason is that it requires you to win exactly five battles to conquer the entirety of that and the WE are so ineffective that they won't even counter invade and let you do whatever.
    My point was Chesters attack belittling people saying they want AL to be more defensible seems to miss the mark a bit
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,375
    Crossil said:

    Goatforce said:

    Make Athel Loren *more* defensible??

    How badly are you people playing if you think it needs even more help? Ugh.

    Err, as far as I've seen most of the arguments on making AL more defensible is that it is too easy to attack, so that question of "how bad are you playing" can be turned right back around on you :lol:
    That would be the result of WE having few settlements. The reason is that it requires you to win exactly five battles to conquer the entirety of that and the WE are so ineffective that they won't even counter invade and let you do whatever.
    Because the alternative is the hippietide.

    Everyone is happy with easily killable elves. Dead elves are best elves.

  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 8,160

    Crossil said:

    Goatforce said:

    Make Athel Loren *more* defensible??

    How badly are you people playing if you think it needs even more help? Ugh.

    Err, as far as I've seen most of the arguments on making AL more defensible is that it is too easy to attack, so that question of "how bad are you playing" can be turned right back around on you :lol:
    That would be the result of WE having few settlements. The reason is that it requires you to win exactly five battles to conquer the entirety of that and the WE are so ineffective that they won't even counter invade and let you do whatever.
    Because the alternative is the hippietide.

    Everyone is happy with easily killable elves. Dead elves are best elves.
    Yeah, but I hope that changes eventually with a balance shake up. Like this, it's one race that's effectively removed from the game unless you care enough to go to them. Are they not part of this world?

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 8,160
    edited August 6

    Crossil said:

    Crossil said:

    Goatforce said:

    Make Athel Loren *more* defensible??

    How badly are you people playing if you think it needs even more help? Ugh.

    Err, as far as I've seen most of the arguments on making AL more defensible is that it is too easy to attack, so that question of "how bad are you playing" can be turned right back around on you :lol:
    That would be the result of WE having few settlements. The reason is that it requires you to win exactly five battles to conquer the entirety of that and the WE are so ineffective that they won't even counter invade and let you do whatever.
    Because the alternative is the hippietide.

    Everyone is happy with easily killable elves. Dead elves are best elves.
    Yeah, but I hope that changes eventually with a balance shake up. Like this, it's one race that's effectively removed from the game unless you care enough to go to them. Are they not part of this world?
    I thought the WE were isolationists?
    Highly aggressive, ransacking, wild, far-reaching, isolationists. Unless they try to destroy everything 2 to 3 provinces away from Athel Loren it just doesn't feel right for me.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • SaurianDruidSaurianDruid Registered Users Posts: 1,115
    I think it should stay a settlement, but it should also be controlled by a neutral faction that has a permanent defensive pact with other wood elf factions. This way wood elves you go to war with don't randomly bullrush the oak and burn it down, dooming all of Athel Loren. Nor can they sit back and let it burn just because the enemy isn't technically at war with them. Declaring war on the Oak is declaring war on all of Athel Loren, not just the player character.

    Maybe make it like Nakai's vassal. Only you have the ability to tell it when to upgrade and get bonuses when it does.

    Adding a world-root system would also allow far away wood elf armies to always jump back to the Oak of Ages when enemies draw near, making it significantly less vulnerable. You couldn't just wait for a wood elf army to be away and attack when nobody is home in that case.
  • brago90brago90 Registered Users Posts: 516
    The tree must be present. However it needs a revision. Either turn it into a functional capital controlled by Ariel or make the whole forest an impenetrable fortress full of fortresses at all accesses to the forest and the tree.
    Be that as it may, it also needs to have a global impact for all factions, the death of the tree must obviously be lethal for the wood elves but the rest of the factions of the world should also be greatly affected (without the tree, plant life dies) with the exception of the factions of death and chaos.
  • Arthas_MenethilArthas_Menethil Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,302
    I don't see the oak getting removed especially since the FLC WE Lord is for ME only where the Oak of Ages is and not on the Vortex where Athel Loren isn't on.
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

Sign In or Register to comment.