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

what needs to be changed to make Hordes fun?

LuckyLuke182LuckyLuke182 Registered Users Posts: 180
edited March 3 in General Discussion
Just what the title says. Despite what a certain Elf lover says I really like beastmen and would bet people would play them a lot more if the hordes were fun. it's not the beastmen are even bad they have a good army it's just that hordes are boring currently, so what do you think would need to be changed or added to make them fun

Comments

  • Mogwai_ManMogwai_Man Registered Users Posts: 4,586
    edited March 3
    One is campaign pacing. The recruitment rate is out of control to the point that battles don't matter. This is why the game turns into a massive grind.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,386
    Hordes need some way to gain and benefit from territory. Does not have to be the same as other races but in real history nomadic factions wanted territory for grazing or to eliminate threats or for future expansion.

    Beastmen are not razing just to please the Chaos gods, they want room for their herds and should have the goal of making territory empty of competing civilizations but not necessarily razed which is a big negative for them as they can't replenish nor recruit in razed territory unlike they should be in territory made safe for their herds.

    Beastmen could play in a few ways but to make them slightly more in keeping with Chaos theme that sometimes they will simply raze rather than always try to control a territory there should be some benefits from razing with the Morrslieb moon mechanic.

    Perhaps a single Herdstone can be dropped onto the map by each Horde which allows 2 regions deep around it to be controlled by that Horde. The Horde can later move their Herdstone but both setting it up and removing it should have substantial costs.

    To get more Herdstones and control more territory requires more Hordes. So a good portion of the map would still be getting razed but once a player had 5+ Hordes their Herdstones could be controlling up to 50+ regions making the recruitment of new Hordes and active border controls part of the Beastmen campaign.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 4,983
    Movement, and Recruiting.
    Impacting Territory.
    Not pure Horde.

    For BM specifically, Corruption needs to be a huge part of the solution.
    Beastmen

  • Giveaway412Giveaway412 Registered Users Posts: 863
    I honestly think something needs to be done about population growth and horde creation. At the moment, Beastmen feel very limited as their buildings are tied to their armies and therefore they are encouraged to play very safe, the opposite of how a horde should feel. Their lack of income makes it so they are very limited in how many hordes they can create. When I think of a "horde", I think of an almost neverending swarm, and that's not how Beastmen feel right now. Not relying on settlements for recruitment/income should be their strength, not their weakness.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,233
    A change in campaign goals, letting the players roam freely across the map as they please instead of being chained to an area because you need to kill faction x,y,z. Noctilus played as a horde is a lot of fun because you can go wherever you want and still get infamy.
    Also a save haven, not literally like Noctilus, but like massive defensive buffs while in recruitment stance or herdstone/ritual places like undercities and coves which still exist when razed/rebuild to get advantages out of territories without holding it.
    For campaign gameplay, several events like spawning an army that chases you or that you can chase adding tention and subgoals to the normal attacking one city after another. Lore events like dilemma for items and buffs/debuffs.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 20,000
    Make them settle down.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • mewade44mewade44 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,155
    Razed cities can't be recolonized or delay on how soon they can be. Bigger penalties for AI on corrupted areas? AI can't cheat and see through fog of war and/or they don't Immediately send armies across the map through that fog of war to resettle ruins. Chaos horde needs ambush stance so can actually catch AI armies. This all is just a start..
  • LuckyLuke182LuckyLuke182 Registered Users Posts: 180
    mewade44 said:

    Razed cities can't be recolonized or delay on how soon they can be. Bigger penalties for AI on corrupted areas? AI can't cheat and see through fog of war and/or they don't Immediately send armies across the map through that fog of war to resettle ruins. Chaos horde needs ambush stance so can actually catch AI armies. This all is just a start..

    i suppose most problems could be helped if the ai wasn't allowed to cheat, hopefully in game 3 when proving grounds stuff gets added it helps out
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,428
    Ichon said:

    Hordes need some way to gain and benefit from territory. Does not have to be the same as other races but in real history nomadic factions wanted territory for grazing or to eliminate threats or for future expansion.

    Beastmen are not razing just to please the Chaos gods, they want room for their herds and should have the goal of making territory empty of competing civilizations but not necessarily razed which is a big negative for them as they can't replenish nor recruit in razed territory unlike they should be in territory made safe for their herds.

    Beastmen could play in a few ways but to make them slightly more in keeping with Chaos theme that sometimes they will simply raze rather than always try to control a territory there should be some benefits from razing with the Morrslieb moon mechanic.

    Perhaps a single Herdstone can be dropped onto the map by each Horde which allows 2 regions deep around it to be controlled by that Horde. The Horde can later move their Herdstone but both setting it up and removing it should have substantial costs.

    To get more Herdstones and control more territory requires more Hordes. So a good portion of the map would still be getting razed but once a player had 5+ Hordes their Herdstones could be controlling up to 50+ regions making the recruitment of new Hordes and active border controls part of the Beastmen campaign.

    This is a very good idea. I think mimicking historical nomadic peoples makes some sense.

    Maybe something like: After they raze a territory, they get a lot of buffs from it (replenishment, population growth, morale for armies etc). Then as time goes by, the razed territory becomes more barren for the beastmen and the bonuses they once gained get lower and lower, until they start getting negative. The horde then must move on to raze new settlements. This way, they have to be in constant motion, only staying in place for several turns after razing a settlement to be able to build up their strength.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,233
    mewade44 said:

    Razed cities can't be recolonized or delay on how soon they can be. Bigger penalties for AI on corrupted areas? AI can't cheat and see through fog of war and/or they don't Immediately send armies across the map through that fog of war to resettle ruins. Chaos horde needs ambush stance so can actually catch AI armies. This all is just a start..

    You know that when the whole campaigns AIs decission making is based on having all informations available that you can't just adjust it a little bit, you need to build a different one from scratch and thats not gonna happen in a sequel.
  • 55JoNNo55JoNNo Registered Users Posts: 1,402
    Unless they can fix limitations with the way the AI plays and moves on the campaign map, and how many armies they can recruit then remove them entirely because they don't work with Total War's core design of painting the map. The race that can hold territory will always have the clear advantage IMO. They will field more armies with better troops and gang up on the solo hordes.

    Hordes need to be separated out from the normal growth model - they should feed off causing corruption / public order / growth maluses that actually damage the AI. In addition they need to be able to move faster than non-hordes who have the benefit of fortifying. Perhaps they should get lightning strike baseline or at least spawn more offshoot hordes when under AI control if they are not dealt with quickly.
    Change is on the way...


  • mewade44mewade44 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,155
    Ya too bad it's not as simple as opening a notepad doc and switching AICheats-TRUE to False lol
  • mdgh1991mdgh1991 Registered Users Posts: 164
    Make hordes like wood elves, they should capture cities and use them as their outposts
  • OmegaJakOmegaJak Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 180
    A small idea, one that won't fix them completely but might help a bit, is a way for one horde to give some of its population to another. The problem I find is that starting a new army/horde is a pain in the neck because it takes forever to grow *or* it's ridiculously expensive to have anything but low tier troops.

    In the case of Beastmen specifically.... I don't know. Make them more like Norsca and let them settle in some very limited, forested settlements in the same way Norsca can mostly only settle if there's a port? Something like that, anyway.
  • LordSolarMachLordSolarMach Registered Users Posts: 866
    I think Nakai's "solution" of creating a vassal faction to hold the territory almost works. CA just needs to rework vassals so that you don't get dragged into a ton of wars you don't want when your allies declare war on your vassal.

    In general, I'd like to see settlements made un-settleable/colonisable if they don't have over a certain percentage of Vampiric/Untainted corruption (whichever the want-to-be-owning faction favours). This would help with WoC and Beastmen's issues, as well as stopping Sylvania from getting rolled.

    A further solution might be to allow Racial Capitals to get special Chaos Fortresses/Bloodgrounds, so that you have somewhere to fall back to. Or just make it so that a defeated Horde suffers as if it was a settlement that had been sacked, rather than getting completely obliterated.
  • Stacks_LeeStacks_Lee Registered Users Posts: 89
    - Change the horde buildings from being bottom-heavy to top-heavy on population use. As it is now, hordes are actively denied access to their rosters because new buildings consume so much population, which gets worse with each new building. I think it would be better if the base buildings were less intensive on population, and cost more going up. This will allow Beastmen and WoC to have good unit variety from early on in the game.

    - Better action economy on the campaign map. Hordes stand to lose a lot more from army wipes than regular factions. To make matters worse, the playstyle of horde factions (this applies to Norsca as well) promotes frequently razing settlements post-battle. While this is loreful, razing settlements uses up all movement, leaves the army vulnerable until their next turn, and also denies them replenishment. This leads to a poor sense of momentum in the campaign's progression. Horde armies need more effective and consolidated bonuses for razing settlements. Raze options with growth bonuses should also include large bonuses to replenishment, for example. In addition, encampment should have no movement cost.

    - Better access to replenishment boosts.

    - A period in which razed settlements cannot be re-colonized. Could be combined with a herdstone or chaos portal mechanic to provide bonuses for local armies.
  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,245
    The only solutions I can think of that would make me interested in hordes involves some them settling down at some level.

    Something a bit like wood elves would work, not suggestions the mechanics would be in any way the same. But I think them being able to make temporary portals/forts/outposts, would work.
    I also think some truly big settlements in combination would be cool. Giant portals, big citadels and brayherd stones, something like that.

    Let them keep the horde mechanic as well.

    This is just for the chaos horde factions, I couldnt care less about the rest tbh.
  • MadDemiurgMadDemiurg Registered Users Posts: 3,822
    edited March 3
    I think it depends on the horde race in question, as they should not all be the same, but there are some core issues to be addressed:

    -Whack-a-mole with recolonisation. It's simply not fun trying to burn the world when as soon as you move out someone else moves in and settles in the razed settlements. Corruption could be a part of the solution, but in general there should either be a mechanic making it harder to recolonise or a possibility to establish some sort of garrisons to serve the same purpose.

    -Hordes lack complexity, because they miss out on a huge part of the gameplay (empire development) with nothing else to replace it. Horde factions need more stuff to manage, be it limited but strong settlements Wood Elf style, "pirate cove" like "chaos cult" networks or a unit promotion system like Amazons in Troy. Something to spend time on between battles so it's not just battles between pressing end turn, and something to make campaign map more important e.g. having to maintain chaos corruption in regions, manage agents, protect/control certain locations etc.

    -Pacing. Most horde campaigns when played optimally are reduced to sack farming some city for xp for the first x turns while getting all the horde growth and upkeep reduction bonuses upfront so you can actually afford buildings and armies, at which point you can start snowballing like crazy. Growth and upkeep reduction bonuses should be more evenly spread out and less important. E.g. base horde growth should be higher, there shouldn't be any "must have" skills and buildings for growth but maybe some other buildings would provide small bonuses which you will unlock over a longer period of time. It should be harder to reach max levels of growth and upkeep reduction but it should be easier to reach average values and it should happen more naturally without the need to specialise in it. Alternatively growth and upkeep mechanics could also be replaced with something entirely different.

    -Recruitment. As others said, due to how horde growth and buildings work, hordes are encouraged to just get one recruitment building for a significant portion of the campaign, which is just not fun. Made even more problematic by the fact that there are usually growth and upkeep buildings you want to get asap as well.
    Post edited by MadDemiurg on

  • BonutzBonutz Registered Users Posts: 3,769
    edited March 3
    Vampire Coast did it the best.

    Give horde factions the option to settle down if they choose but also give them the option to roam and be self sustaining if they desire.

    In the lore, WoC occupy empire settlements as forts so they should be able to do the same thing here.

    Beastmen gather around herdstones as a kind of home base. They should also have herdstone "settlements" on the campaign map.

    there should obviously be a limitation in which places Chaos factions can settle like Norsca. But without territorial push and pull, it just makes horde factions dreadfully boring.
    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I’m all out of bubblegum.
  • MadDemiurgMadDemiurg Registered Users Posts: 3,822
    The problem with VCoast take is that their campaign is kinda trivial no matter what you do as a result. They can still play as a single city empire, or they can conquer territory, but at the end of the day you just farm infamy one way or another and you win.

    There's no strong requirement to control any territory to succeed and you can maintain super powerful doomstacks with minimal effort (but it's not like you need many armies to win).

    So a hybrid horde like VCoast works fine but it needs to actually depend on controlling territory for economy and have victory conditions that need you to interact with the map more.

    Playing VCoast feels like playing HOMM more than playing TWW, which is fine for one race but I wouldn't like every horde to be like that.

  • aMint1aMint1 Registered Users Posts: 616
    Hordes need something to do besides playing whack-a-mole. Whilst not a horde, the WE rework is a good indication that CA can make non-imperial gameplay fun. VCoast are also fun played as a horde.

    I'm sure they can come up with something comparable to coves or healing the forests and, more importantly, I think they are aware that they need to. I'm pretty hopeful for the BM.
  • SakuraHeinzSakuraHeinz Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,062
    I wouldnt shed a tear if they remove hordegameplay and make them all like Norsca or woodelves, the AI can still be pure hordes.

    There can always be the option to still play the classic horde.
  • brahimivksbrahimivks Registered Users Posts: 101
    I think that the simplest solution would be just to reverse the ´´build an empire´´. Gain bonuses as more and more territory become inhabited, as you would if you were an order race conquering these settlements.
  • Xerxes52Xerxes52 Registered Users Posts: 648
    Convert them into Horde/Settlement hybrid factions like the Vampire Coast. You get the option to either paint the map or stay lean and just sack/raze everything as you do now.
  • MODIDDLY1MODIDDLY1 Registered Users Posts: 273
    Just a thought, but part of the weakness of hordes is that unlike settlements, they don't have garrisons, so they simply have less troops the enemy needs to fight.
    Now, while people have mentioned giving them Nakai's vassal, I haven't thought it through very hard, but what if razing a settlement spawned an AI army that would be friendly to the faction, and the strength and size would depend on the settlement level?
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,461
    It also shouldn't be so hard to maintain multiple stacks.
    81jt2dj75iky.png


    Kia Kaha and C'est La Vie Kiwi123, neodeinos and FungusHound, the mighty Troll Slayers.
  • Pr4vdaPr4vda Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,516
    Well, as other have said before, a very limited number of settlements (herdstone) would really help the BM to survive.

    Such buildings should not give a lot of income, but act more as a rally point, from where the player can safely recruit and create corruption osmosis (but at a higher level than just the adjacent territories). At first, it should be low, but with each new level, the chaos corruption osmosis should grow and become a real threat to the surronding faction. It should also have a great garrison, and a special battle map.

    Then, BM could play safier, and act as a real horde where their goal would be to rampage and raze in the name of the chaos gods. Like Norsca, but with some tweaks to better represent their bestial nature.

    A rework of the colonization should also happen, because the AI abuse it.

    But BM should also be able to move after sacking and razing a city. It is boring to raze and not be able to move, and then get attack by a full stack you could have avoid.

    Their special battle map should be reworked too ... it sux right now lol
    Team Dawis

    Dawis shall purge all their fallen Karaks, with the blood of the Greeskins and the skavens !
  • LuckyLuke182LuckyLuke182 Registered Users Posts: 180
    Yeah i think BM having some settlements in forests around the map would be good like the wood eleves have their forests across the map. Maybe in game three they would get more settlements around cathay area. These settlements or herdstones would be few in number just like the wood elves forests but would have a really good garrison
  • Pr4vdaPr4vda Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,516

    Yeah i think BM having some settlements in forests around the map would be good like the wood eleves have their forests across the map. Maybe in game three they would get more settlements around cathay area. These settlements or herdstones would be few in number just like the wood elves forests but would have a really good garrison

    I imagine a few settlements : 1 somewhere in Naggarond, 1 in the Drakwald, 1 in the South of the darklands (haunted forest), 1 near the chaos wastes (near the stone of challenge), and 1 or 2 between Ind/Cathay/Kuresh. Maybe 1 in the badlands. So yeah 6 or 7 settlements. With an occupy Oak of Age maybe.
    Team Dawis

    Dawis shall purge all their fallen Karaks, with the blood of the Greeskins and the skavens !
Sign In or Register to comment.