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

Confederation Needs A Paddling

TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 34,001
A lot of pacing problems can be traced back to the AI's sudden bouts of large-scale real estate acquisition. There's also barely any rhyme and reason behind it. It happens when AI factions are winning wars, losing wars and when it's tea time or the Jupiter is ascending in the house of Mercury. And they happen in quick succession too. O wow, I have Karlucky Franz Caesar with the back to wall! PSYCHE! He just gobbled up an elector count! And then another! Back to square one! Congratulations, you wasted your time and get to grind some more! Don't you love games that undo your progress in one fell swoop?

@CA

This is buttergloop. It's unbelievable that you're keeping that goddamn mechanic in its current state although it's pretty much obvious it's screwing campaigns up. Please, do something about it. Give it a large cooldown, have confederates suffer serious debuffs, SOMETHING!

Comments

  • manuelpsmanuelps Registered Users Posts: 2,736
    I disagree in one thing: dwarf confederations are even more obnoxious than Empire's. But yes, confederations are a big problem. For the player it dshould be tied to missions or quests, for the AI to performance.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    manpersal said:

    I disagree in one thing: dwarf confederations are even more obnoxious than Empire's. But yes, confederations are a big problem. For the player it dshould be tied to missions or quests, for the AI to performance.

    Yeah, I like how it works when you play the Empire yourself, because it's something you actually have to seriously work towards and it can cost you, but the AI just does it whenever it feels like it and that blows hardcore.
  • WaaaghCheifWaaaghCheif Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,332
    Even worse is it when the AI takes the confederation as a pure bail out. You are laying siege to Clan Mors final settlement? CONFEDERATION CLAN MORS X CLAN ESHIN.
  • TemudhunTemudhun Member Registered Users Posts: 622
    To be honest, I was surprised to see less confederations than usual in my current game in EotV. I'm past turn 85, the Dark Elves let themselves get eaten alive separately with two, maybe three confederations hapening, I think Eathaine only confederated Yvresse, the Lizardmen in Southlands are still split up in three separate factions... It's rather unusual compared to my previous campaigns.
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 4,060
    I think AI confederations is a good thing. Without it the AI has no way of keeping up with the player's expansion, and would be left in tiny chunks of 10 to 25 settlements while the player keeps steamrolling the whole map. It also makes them more fun to fight, since you get to see their LL numerous times. It's a lot more fun invading Ulthuan when they have several LL to lead their armies than just fighting the leader and a horde of generics.
  • EmeraldThanatosEmeraldThanatos Registered Users Posts: 2,904
    For players it is good, especially if there is a cool mechanic tied to it like the empire, norsca and wood elves. The AI confederating is just obnoxious and probably the main culprit for the ordertide, as the empire, dawi, HE and bretonnia just confederate quickly and then push out from there.
    Ranking of all Total War games I've played:
    1. Three kingdoms
    2. Attila
    3. Warhammer (1, 2 & 3)
    4. Medieval 2
    5. Shogun 2
    6. Thrones
    7. Rome 2
    8. Napoleon
    9. Empire


  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    I think AI confederations is a good thing. Without it the AI has no way of keeping up with the player's expansion, and would be left in tiny chunks of 10 to 25 settlements while the player keeps steamrolling the whole map. It also makes them more fun to fight, since you get to see their LL numerous times. It's a lot more fun invading Ulthuan when they have several LL to lead their armies than just fighting the leader and a horde of generics.

    You know, I'd take the steamroll over the tedious grind any day of the week, at least then the game wouldn't lag so much in the lategame phase.
  • jamesbluewavejamesbluewave Registered Users Posts: 531
    Yep.... low key wish confederations worked like “Vassals”. When you confederate they become your vassal and They support you/part of your empire but they’re autonomous and you still need to maintain a good relationship with them or they leave.
  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    In the last patch, I was playing a Norsca campaign, and all I had to do to win was take the Empire's last settlement. As I was besieging it, Reikland confederated with the ****ing Huntsmarshal, who controlled half of Lustria. Total bs.
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind, Khuresh & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • EmeraldThanatosEmeraldThanatos Registered Users Posts: 2,904

    In the last patch, I was playing a Norsca campaign, and all I had to do to win was take the Empire's last settlement. As I was besieging it, Reikland confederated with the ****ing Huntsmarshal, who controlled half of Lustria. Total bs.

    I had literally the exact same thing happen to me, what a coincidence.
    Ranking of all Total War games I've played:
    1. Three kingdoms
    2. Attila
    3. Warhammer (1, 2 & 3)
    4. Medieval 2
    5. Shogun 2
    6. Thrones
    7. Rome 2
    8. Napoleon
    9. Empire


  • DjauDjau Registered Users Posts: 9,908
    The Wood Elf way was the best way to handle it in the rework...though it really only works in that form cause of the worldroots mechanic.

  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    Amonkhet said:

    The Wood Elf way was the best way to handle it in the rework...though it really only works in that form cause of the worldroots mechanic.

    The idea of just doing it through missions (and making regular/AI confess harder) should become the norm.
    Empire/Greenskins/Norsca are fine as is, but every other faction should take this approach in one way or another.
    As these missions pop up by upgrading the Oak for WE, each race would probably need its own system to unlock these missions, eg Bretonnia's tech tree works fine, Dwarfs can tie it to the book of grudges, Tomb Kings could link it to upgrading the Black Pyramid (rename it subjugation so it makes more sense, and make it so Settra can't be subjugated and Arkhan can't subjugate), and Vamps could link to to the bloodlines.
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind, Khuresh & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • DjauDjau Registered Users Posts: 9,908

    Amonkhet said:

    The Wood Elf way was the best way to handle it in the rework...though it really only works in that form cause of the worldroots mechanic.

    The idea of just doing it through missions (and making regular/AI confess harder) should become the norm.
    Empire/Greenskins/Norsca are fine as is, but every other faction should take this approach in one way or another.
    As these missions pop up by upgrading the Oak for WE, each race would probably need its own system to unlock these missions, eg Bretonnia's tech tree works fine, Dwarfs can tie it to the book of grudges, Tomb Kings could link it to upgrading the Black Pyramid (rename it subjugation so it makes more sense, and make it so Settra can't be subjugated and Arkhan can't subjugate), and Vamps could link to to the bloodlines.
    This is like it, the more roleplaying in the game, combined with SOME nerfs, will provide a much more interactive experience.

  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 9,429

    In the last patch, I was playing a Norsca campaign, and all I had to do to win was take the Empire's last settlement. As I was besieging it, Reikland confederated with the ****ing Huntsmarshal, who controlled half of Lustria. Total bs.

    OOF.

    That would be an instant delete.
    Glory matters not.

  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,340
    Surge_2 said:

    In the last patch, I was playing a Norsca campaign, and all I had to do to win was take the Empire's last settlement. As I was besieging it, Reikland confederated with the ****ing Huntsmarshal, who controlled half of Lustria. Total bs.

    OOF.

    That would be an instant delete.
    That's been a pretty common problem in Warhammer for a long time. Factions on the verge of defeat shouldn't be able to usurp world powers.
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • DjauDjau Registered Users Posts: 9,908
    That happened with my Sisters campaign I was doing.

  • karge068karge068 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,424

    Surge_2 said:

    In the last patch, I was playing a Norsca campaign, and all I had to do to win was take the Empire's last settlement. As I was besieging it, Reikland confederated with the ****ing Huntsmarshal, who controlled half of Lustria. Total bs.

    OOF.

    That would be an instant delete.
    That's been a pretty common problem in Warhammer for a long time. Factions on the verge of defeat shouldn't be able to usurp world powers.
    This would be Ok for me if the Empire Confederated the Huntsmarshall - it would actually be fun " Karl Franny Franz fled his last stronghold and took charge of his major colonial outpost" - you could chase him down there

    But yes in general not good - I have had dwarfs do that to me many times
  • RutgerhuerRutgerhuer Registered Users Posts: 313
    I'm all for the AI confederating when its losing. I'd much rather fight enemy LL's then generic lords so I hate it when they *poof* and die prematurely because the AI is dumb. Less fun to fight that way. The AI needs this to improve it's survivability.
    TW:WH2 needs a playable Legendary Lord for every TW:WH1 race on Vortex before it can be considered complete.
  • DruidsbrookDruidsbrook Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 296
    Did anyone here ever have to fight the Sassanids in Attila? They had loads of vassals that could support 2-3 armies each even if they were tiny. They were fun to fight late game but could be pretty horrible with the endless waves of armies thrown at you.

    Confederation makes the AI generally weaker I've found as small factions can punch above their weight and support more armies than you would expect. I'm more worried about a coalition of small factions than one large faction as the coalition can field more armies thanks to having that base income for each faction and fewer supply line penalties.

    I do agree that confederation happens a bit too much though I feel like some factions give in too soon but I'm not sure the best method to improve it.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    Did anyone here ever have to fight the Sassanids in Attila? They had loads of vassals that could support 2-3 armies each even if they were tiny. They were fun to fight late game but could be pretty horrible with the endless waves of armies thrown at you.

    Confederation makes the AI generally weaker I've found as small factions can punch above their weight and support more armies than you would expect. I'm more worried about a coalition of small factions than one large faction as the coalition can field more armies thanks to having that base income for each faction and fewer supply line penalties.

    I do agree that confederation happens a bit too much though I feel like some factions give in too soon but I'm not sure the best method to improve it.

    You can't use the Sassassnids as an example because they had the advantage of being an "edge" faction that could fully concentrate on expanding in one direction, where their one major enemy, the ERE, was always beleaguered from multiple sides. It notably became better when CA dropped the White Huns in their corner so they couldn't just throw everything they had westwards.

    Confederation makes the lategame more annoying by drawing out wars like chewing gum. And the worst are big alliances of confederated order factions. If it was Reikland allied with Couronne and Lothern it would be more manageable than fighting Empire, High Elves and Bretonnia.
  • DruidsbrookDruidsbrook Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 296
    The White Huns did help but I still felt the Sassanids would too easily steamroll the ERE. If the ERE had been broken up into vassals like Egypt, Syria, Asia, etc. You'd probably see them more evenly matched as those territories would better defend themselves.

    Anyway my point is I basically agree it is a problem but there is a risk it makes order tide worse where rather than being at war with Empire, Brettonia and High Elves. You are at war with Reikland, Golden Order, Ostland, Kislev, Nordland, Lothern, Sapphery, Avelorn, Yvresse, Coruonne, Pavron, etc. If they dont confederate and instead make an unbreakble network of alliances they might have even greater map sweeping potential thanks to each faction enjoying that 2000 gold background income on top of the upkeep reductions the harder AI's enjoy.

    They might get harder to kill off since the AI has no problem with making border gore mess where ostland has random territories its pinched in the southlands and Norsca.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,492
    I tried doing a game with no confederations and it was much much easier to paint map against AIs that stay small and get fewer options for high tier units because they don't get as many recruitment buildings out.

    What people don't notice about the AI supporting lots of armies off of few cities is that they're usually full of trash.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited December 2020

    I tried doing a game with no confederations and it was much much easier to paint map against AIs that stay small and get fewer options for high tier units because they don't get as many recruitment buildings out.

    What people don't notice about the AI supporting lots of armies off of few cities is that they're usually full of trash.

    So less doomstack spam and you actually can make progress that isn't nullified on a whim. Plus the lategame doesn't drag.

    What's the downside again?

    If they want to make it harder on the player, then they should remove all the exploit and cheese and fix the pacing instead of having the AI cheat more and more egregiously with immersion breaking nonsense like confederation.
  • yolordmcswagyolordmcswag Registered Users Posts: 4,060

    I think AI confederations is a good thing. Without it the AI has no way of keeping up with the player's expansion, and would be left in tiny chunks of 10 to 25 settlements while the player keeps steamrolling the whole map. It also makes them more fun to fight, since you get to see their LL numerous times. It's a lot more fun invading Ulthuan when they have several LL to lead their armies than just fighting the leader and a horde of generics.

    You know, I'd take the steamroll over the tedious grind any day of the week, at least then the game wouldn't lag so much in the lategame phase.
    That is more problem with victory conditions than anything else. Removing confederations solves some problems but creates a lot of others, and does not adress what makes the lategame bad. What we need is a huge overhaul to recruitment, replenishment and army composition, preventing doomstacking and makes battle victories actually matter. Also, a total war endgame should be all about the big empires duking it out, and it's more loraful than every single kingdom being shattered into a 10 way civil war for no reason.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,218
    Id love a rebalance of the game where the player is heavily nerfed. And then fixing all the whack a mole. No chain confeding ai etc.

    And no supply lines but no doomstacks either etc
    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.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited December 2020
    It's interesting how we have people saying that removing confederation would make the game harder and people saying it would make the game easier. That tells me that there has not been yet reached a consensu on just how much impact confederation has on the game's difficulty.
    Anyway I didn't even demand this time it be removed completely, I suggested nerfing it. This is also not me wanting an easier or harder game, but one that simply flows better.
  • NameAlreadyExistsNameAlreadyExists Registered Users Posts: 223
    I have to admit, the best and most fun campaigns I played were campaigns, were I fully disabled confederations by mod (player and AI).

    I get, that a lot of people like the mechanic, but I see the same issues with it like the op.
Sign In or Register to comment.