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

Yes the game is too easy and unbalanced... but you can mostly fix it for yourself

2

Comments

  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Registered Users Posts: 1,865
    *Checks out the various mods in the OP*

    "Damn, girl post, you looking fine..."
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,239
    You made your point and I can follow your argumentation and conclusion and following your approach of the game and your point of view I agree with you. But regarding my point of view I don't even share the premise, neighter I think the game is too easy nor I think the game is unbalanced.

    During the last weeks alone we had several threads about people who wanted advice on how to get into the game or which had struggeled with some or all of the games aspects, so my point of view is this game is incredibly bad at teaching players its fundamentals which later on results in difficulites to adapt to higher difficulties. For example the campaign progression, on normal you can turtle or rush all the way and will be successful because the AI avoid the player and don't punish overstretching or idling so players aren't made aware of the AI progression pace and teached on how to follow it. The results are comments like "at difficulty xy the AI just spams too much armies to overrun me which is unfun and unfair" instead of realising that this wouldn't be an issue if the own territory developement would fit the difficulty and AI pace. The same goes for battle difficulty, players normally accumulate tech, lord and campaign buffs so fast that players normally have a hughe stat advantage over the AI that basically just sending the units into battle and don't do anything is sufficent to win and from a game design point it makes sense that everyone can have on normal without any requisite. The problem from getting away with anything is that instead of realising that the players have an advantage on normal people claim "unreasonable buffs" when 15% of a stat with 40 on VH is just an increase of 6 and basically just worth around 2 points of a red tree skill. Instead of trying to teach players how to utilise units in a way that these small buffs aren't that impactful they get the impression and have the expectation of how units work that doesn't fit on higher difficulties.
    Another thing why I don't think the game is too easy is that some of the forum members who are ferociously active in threads where they complain about difficulty have also confessed that they only play MP, have stopped playing TWW months ago or aren't using higher difficulties at all, so for me their posts are more like opinions than actual arguments based on experience.

    Now to the balance part. First of all I liked the balance approach of game one more than I do the way it is made in game two but because people wanted a slower battle pace the unit stats have been shifted more into the defensive direction and while the complains about battle pace have stopped the complaining about (offensive) infantry units have started often paired and intermingled with battle difficulty complains. Yes the infantry gameplay is more a war of attrition than the pressure play in game one but that is a consequence of the slower game pace and not some imbalance that suddenly appeared. It's a balance direction players wanted from CA whether we personally like it or not. The last campaigns I played where Vlad, Azagh and currently Throgg and I really get annoyed when people claim that melee isn't playable on VH battle difficulty, the only thing you have to do differently compared to heavy ranged factions is to take more replenishment times into account and expand more carefully but that doesn't change how the units are used.

    As I said at the beginning I agree with you that everyone can turn the game into what fits their personal taste if they really want to because this game has an active modding community. When it comes down to complains about the accessability and wanted changes for vanilla than I want to keep it as accessable as possible for cassual players because every gamer starts as one and only accessable games are able to gather a greater fanbase which contributes to prolonging the developement cycle. I don't see any need to make the game harder but I really wish the game would have a learning curve like AoE or SCII where you do the same gameplay from lower to higher difficulties just in a faster and more focused way instead of unlearning and retraining bad habits you have developed while getting into the game because it lets you slip away with them instead of teaching ways that will always work.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    edited January 27
    @GettoGecko

    Increasing the difficulty in WH2 predominantly increases AI cheating and AI anti-player bias, which means first there's no point to diplomacy since everyone bears irrational hatred for you and second it means any war can only ever end if you annihilate the enemy restlessly by destroying all armies and taking all settlements since the cheating basically removes any economical concerns from the AI and letting it live will just have it attack again and again. Autoconversion also means that endless expansion is always the best way of playing the game on any difficulty anyway.

    In short, no matter what difficulty you choose, the experience is suboptimal. On E/N the AI rolls over and barely resists the player and on anything harder the game just becomes a boring grind.

    Why is that?

    Because CA is too afraid to nerf the player and remove all the stacks of cheese, so they can only add "difficulty" by empowering the AI, albeit only in the most primitive and least satisfying manner possible.

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 24,870
    I don't like mods.

    This is not a solution. The solution is for CA to fix the game themselves.
    I apologize in for everything I say till around 29/04
  • Lampros73Lampros73 Registered Users Posts: 158
    neodeinos said:

    Radious does most of these all in one.

    As someone who never used mods much, I have to say Radious more than doubles the length of time that the game is difficult.

    By difficult I mean where it is feasible you could be wiped out. Hell even Dwarfs are tough through turn 50-70 whereas on vanilla the Dwarf campaign is secured in 25 turns once you have Gunbad, Silver Road, and Black Crag.

    Ah yes, Radious the unloreful mod made by a massive moron stealing other people's work since Rome 2.
    Indeed!
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,280

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 5,028
    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    No it isn't.

    A good or bad book doesn't render my saved game invalid.
    Beastmen

  • RheingoldRheingold Registered Users Posts: 820
    @JadawinKhanidi
    Thanks for your mods. Only use the one really - unnatural selection but I thoroughly recommend it. Saying for ages that something like your mod needs to be in the base game.
    Re: mods. They have always been a really important part of pc gaming and often fulfill a niche that the devs simply can't - customization. And anyone still complaining about the ordertide are being ridiculous, there are so many mods that fix that (including yours).
    None of this should be taken as an excuse for CA not to balance their damn game though.
    Balance is important in both sp and mp. And CA with their obnoxious power creep are doing their best to undermine the game.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,280
    Surge_2 said:

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    No it isn't.

    A good or bad book doesn't render my saved game invalid.
    123 mods installed at the moment, never had a corrupted savegame. It's just an urban myth.
  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 5,028
    I didn't say corrupt. I said invalid.

    I had ONE texture update mod, ONE.

    Those saves no longer work.
    Beastmen

  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,280
    Surge_2 said:

    I didn't say corrupt. I said invalid.

    I had ONE texture update mod, ONE.

    Those saves no longer work.

    Weird. What mod?
  • Giveaway412Giveaway412 Registered Users Posts: 873
    Surge_2 said:

    I didn't say corrupt. I said invalid.

    I had ONE texture update mod, ONE.

    Those saves no longer work.



    Did you check and uncheck this box?
  • PatriksevePatrikseve Member Registered Users Posts: 1,966
    edited January 27
    I doubt its more than a few percent of the playerbase that find the hardest difficulty too easy anyway. But im certain if they might add an ultra mega hard mode that gives you barely anything and the Ai buffs and boosts and whatnot. The problem is sooner or later those few players will find that to easy to. Theres always going to be a few that find a game far to easy even with lots of options and difficulty settings. But Mods can really help those players.

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870

    I doubt its more than a few percent of the playerbase that find the hardest difficulty too easy anyway. But im certain if they might add an ultra mega hard mode that gives you barely anything and the Ai buffs and boosts and whatnot. The problem is sooner or later those few players will find that to easy to. Theres always going to be a few that find a game far to easy even with lots of options and difficulty settings. But Mods can really help those players.

    Have you read my post above for what the actual problem with the higher difficulties in TW is?

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,795
    Many of these cures are worse than the disease.

    How bout CA bring some half decent balance into their game?
    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.
  • ProcessingProcessing Czech Republic Registered Users Posts: 241
    edited January 27
    I think that mods can be a solution, but I would still prefer CA to do it.

    Modders, while they can add many things, aren't proffesional programmers and you can't simply add caps to the game, because AI isn't programmed to work with caps and thus doesn't know how to work with it.

    That's like adding supply line to the AI. AI isn't programmed to use it, so you would still see AI spamming new lord every turn...

    There are just some things that are hard coded in the game that even modders can't change.

    I have tried some of your mods in the past Jadawin, but there are some things not even you can do.

    You don't have acces to CA code, you can't improve AI, friend.

    This is the biggest issue with Total War games. The AI.

  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 5,028

    Surge_2 said:

    I didn't say corrupt. I said invalid.

    I had ONE texture update mod, ONE.

    Those saves no longer work.



    Did you check and uncheck this box?
    I'm not sure.. I don't think I kept them once they wouldn't allow me to load.

    At this point the hassle of mods is not nearly worth it, to me.
    Beastmen

  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,239

    @GettoGecko

    Increasing the difficulty in WH2 predominantly increases AI cheating and AI anti-player bias,

    So like in every other (strategy) game, can you explain why this should only be bad in TWW when its common practise for SCII, AoE, Civ, AoW, C&C and many others?


    which means first there's no point to diplomacy since everyone bears irrational hatred for you

    Don't blame you for the assumption as I shared that opinion for dozend hundreds of hours. (longer explanation here)

    But thats not how it works, diplomacy becomes quite predictable and useful on legendary once you don't try to see it as a system that tries to emulate human social interactions but as a tool to trigger specific AI behaviors. For example when you want a bufferzone don't interact with a factions in the area, instead declare war on a faction behind that area so that this faction want to attack you but because of the distance it won't fully commit and only send one or few armies, thereby trespassing and raiding in the area you don't want to deal with and stack up bad relations with the factions there. Sending armies to the player also weakens the faction in its local conflicts so that its likely that they want to return the armies half way through or getting into war with the factions in the area which than results in lower power rank for the involved factions making it more likely that other AIs would rather attack them instead the player.

    As I said before TWW is incredibly bad at telling players how the game works and how to utilise its systems, but that doesn't mean the systems don't work once you stop expecting them to work in a way you imagine them to work.


    and second it means any war can only ever end if you annihilate the enemy restlessly by destroying all armies and taking all settlements since the cheating basically removes any economical concerns from the AI and letting it live will just have it attack again and again.

    Not true, the AI isn't suicidal (except if it has no more cities) when you have a high power level and wealth reduce a faction of your choice to a minor settlement and station one or two armies nearby, it will than rebuild its armies (3-5 on legendary depending on the faction) and when it comes to the conclusion that with all its forces it can't win it will seek peace and try to gain more power by accumulating other regions before it trys to contest the player again.

    Strategical its still the better choice to get rid of enemies instead of letting them survive but thats the players choice not the AIs.


    Autoconversion also means that endless expansion is always the best way of playing the game on any difficulty anyway.

    The pace of the expansion is relevant not that you should expand, with ranged heavy factions you can take care of 5 battles a turn with melee factions you normally don't want to do more than 3 so that is quite a difference in campaign pace to avoid overstretching and building up settlements.
    There is a thread from someone within the last two weeks who wanted advice on a normal or hard campaign because after he fought off and defeated two enemies in the 70ish turns he was "suddenly" overwhelmed by other factions, the discription was pretty well written and I got the imagination that it was a fun and intense back and forth campaign until the realization came the initial fast expansion and set backs through reconquering the same settlement over and over lead to losing the campaign.

    Again another example of where the game didn't tell and teach the player that something went wrong, having 2-3 provinces in the 70ths is just not enough but the reason of the struggle was that the second was taken too fast and couldn't be defended which lead to a prolonged two front war.
    Although I think it was still enjoyable it would have been better when the player realised that during gameplay instead of asking forum members to tell about why it happend.


    In short, no matter what difficulty you choose, the experience is suboptimal. On E/N the AI rolls over and barely resists the player and on anything harder the game just becomes a boring grind.

    I disagree, at least with the last part because when start a chill round on VH/VH the main reason I quit is because the AI just can't send enough armies to keep me entertained and I get bored because of the down times. I don't have the feeling of grind at all, which is probably just a matter of habituation but still.

    And for the first part, yes it doesn't really matter what a player does on these settings. I think in context of a sandbox game that still is a comprehensible approach but my critic still stand that because of that it utterly fails to teach the player its mechanics.


    Why is that?

    Because CA is too afraid to nerf the player and remove all the stacks of cheese, so they can only add "difficulty" by empowering the AI, albeit only in the most primitive and least satisfying manner possible.

    You can't fix players. Some have more experience others have less, some have more inteligence than others, some play to relax, some for the atmosphere, others to challenge them and some for imagined goals. Players are more diverse than all mechanics of the game together.

    Games need to be accessible and entertaining to be successful. Catering to minority core gamers like me won't do that and I as a minority core player have to accept that its in my best interesst that the vanilla games stays as accessible as possible so that the developement cycle will be as long as possible.
  • redknight83redknight83 Registered Users Posts: 250
    I always hate they attitude if their is major fault, something missing, an obvious function that should be added you should just be expected to mod the game to correct it. Because the problem I have run into a number of times is the person supporting the mod goes MIA, several patches are released and it never works properly again. So it is best when it is officially implemented by the developer.

    Mods should not be for correcting issues with the game but adding to it and taking it completely different directions. But as we all know it does happen some of the mods I personally are the "One Button Respec" and "Region trading" which do work well but really in my opinion should be added into the game in some form.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,239

    I always hate they attitude if their is major fault, something missing, an obvious function that should be added you should just be expected to mod the game to correct it. Because the problem I have run into a number of times is the person supporting the mod goes MIA, several patches are released and it never works properly again. So it is best when it is officially implemented by the developer.

    Mods should not be for correcting issues with the game but adding to it and taking it completely different directions. But as we all know it does happen some of the mods I personally are the "One Button Respec" and "Region trading" which do work well but really in my opinion should be added into the game in some form.

    We got island battles which were a mod before and we got other stuff that modders came up with but what will be implemented into vanilla is up to CA and I assume their approach and decision making differs quite a lot from what core players think is important for the game.
    Some players might like management stuff and I like it in other games, but when you look at mechanics like loyalty, the first bret economy or BM moon events then each system that had an aspect of balancing buffs and debuffs has drawn criticism so I really don't see why people still think implementing such stuff would be beneficial to the game or should be something that CA has implement, it just won't happen.

    As long as players know what they actually want from the game and not only want to be against something than they will find mods to turn the game into what they desire. From complete overhauls, over reskins to differently balanced base mechanics there is everything and as long as the dreams aren't too high getting into modding the game without programming knowledge is pretty easy.

    Sure modders might stop projects because the majority does it for themselfs and their vision of the game and they quit when they are no longer interested in a game, only a hand full of people do it to actually grab money. But when that happens and someone who really cares about the mod ask nicely for an update or the permission to continue the project most modders will agree. That said, users can also be absolute jerks with no respect for modders and when that happens it can result in mods getting deleted instead.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,280

    I always hate they attitude if their is major fault, something missing, an obvious function that should be added you should just be expected to mod the game to correct it. Because the problem I have run into a number of times is the person supporting the mod goes MIA, several patches are released and it never works properly again. So it is best when it is officially implemented by the developer.

    It's not about what should be. It's about what is. Jadawin offered you people a solution. Is it perfect? No, but it's what we have now. Realpolitik. No point in arguing and not using mods out of principle, it makes no sense. For example. CA a couple of updates ago added a button to abandon settlements. I've had that same feature for years, through a mod. That's all, it's just being pragmatic while we wait for CA to fix all the wrong stuff themselves, which will probably never happen.
  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,256
    I use a lot of these mods already and they are great, thank you for making them.
    Another thing I like to do to make things harder is to use unnatural selection 2 and buff my natural enemies and nerf my natural allies, makes sure I always have a scary enemy to fight.

    I think the idea behind Progressively Harder Campaign campaign is really good and this is only down to preference, but I do not like how it disincentiveses taking settlements. There is nothing else to do in the game so I think it would be cool if it buffed the AIs economy instead, especially if it scaled with turns which would give you a sort of losing condition if you fall behind.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 24,870
    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    Which is a totally valid thing to say.

    I don't like mods, and they're not an answer to issues with the game.
    I apologize in for everything I say till around 29/04
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 20,121
    Mods... meh.

    I prefer the taste of vanilla.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,461

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    Which is a totally valid thing to say.

    I don't like mods, and they're not an answer to issues with the game.
    They literally are an answer to issues you have with the game.
    81jt2dj75iky.png


    Kia Kaha and C'est La Vie Kiwi123, neodeinos and FungusHound, the mighty Troll Slayers.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 24,870

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    Which is a totally valid thing to say.

    I don't like mods, and they're not an answer to issues with the game.
    They literally are an answer to issues you have with the game.
    I want CA to fix them. Mods are totally irrelevant as I don't like using them.

    Mods are fine for people who like them. They're not a reason for CA to ignore flaws in the game.
    I apologize in for everything I say till around 29/04
  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 4,611

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    Which is a totally valid thing to say.

    I don't like mods, and they're not an answer to issues with the game.
    They literally are an answer to issues you have with the game.
    Can't fix the AI though.

    Relying on free labor to make a game enjoyable is unsatisfactory to me as a consumer.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,280

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    Which is a totally valid thing to say.

    I don't like mods, and they're not an answer to issues with the game.
    They literally are an answer to issues you have with the game.
    Can't fix the AI though.

    Relying on free labor to make a game enjoyable is unsatisfactory to me as a consumer.
    Nobody ever said that CA should stop working on the game because there is modding. It's just about, *while we wait*, we use the solution that's at hand. No point in making this a matter of principle. It's just a game.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,461

    Xenos7777 said:

    I don't like mods.

    That's like saying "I don't like books". There are bad mods and good mods.
    Which is a totally valid thing to say.

    I don't like mods, and they're not an answer to issues with the game.
    They literally are an answer to issues you have with the game.
    Can't fix the AI though.

    Relying on free labor to make a game enjoyable is unsatisfactory to me as a consumer.
    I see these types of comments all the time.

    "The AI should prioritise skills better". "The AI shouldn't blob as much" etc.

    The AI isn't meant to emulate any kind of skilful opponent. It's there to be crushed under your iron boot.
    81jt2dj75iky.png


    Kia Kaha and C'est La Vie Kiwi123, neodeinos and FungusHound, the mighty Troll Slayers.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 30,870
    @GettoGecko

    Difficulty in TW is almost always the pure numbers type, the "bad" difficulty type. Why is it bad? Because it's very noticeable that the game cheats in order to create challenge. The AI popping out several fullstacks out of a single settlement does absolutely shred immersion because the game basically just pulled down its pants to show you its willy, so anything that should be hidden no longer is and you are reminded that that you're playing a game.

    There are better ways to deal with difficulty.

    Just an example, sophisticated flight simulators, even in ye olden days often give a you a lot of options in how you'd like to customise your game, from arcadey to ultra-realistic with a lot of steps in-between. TW gives you very little means to customise campaigns, it doesn't even quite tell you what higher and lower difficulties do (the one exception being Troy). Several things like unit caps, AI aggression, AI cheats, building times, research times and so on could be separate options, somthing that modern 4X games often have.

    Mods are kind of an emulation of such options, but because they're dependent on free labor that can stop at any minute, they're not reliable and there are things modders can't affect at all.


Sign In or Register to comment.