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

Doomstacking is not funny

TheVaultdweller13TheVaultdweller13 Registered Users Posts: 105
With each new patch I hope that CA has balanced the game's economy (and supply lines) problem, which favors doomstacking, and I was disappointed in each update.

I may be the weirdo, but I don't enjoy playing the first 20 turns with tier 1 units, then suddenly switch to max tier level. Warhammer is a fantastic saga, and it is wonderful to play a Warhammer Total War. That said, I enjoyed the campaigns in the Proving Grounds beta more than the rest of the Warhammer 2 lifecycle. Slower, using intermediate units, managing the economy better.

I wish they removed the supply lines in Warhammer 2; if it is necessary to carry out a control of the player's snowball, it would be much more interesting if the penalty was for the number of repeated units in the same army, and not for the number of armies. It would also be nice if the settlement construction had penalties / bonuses, and not just bonuses. That you had to build under a certain criteria, as in other Total War, and not automatically and mechanically.

As I doubt I will ever see such an update in Warhammer 2, I sincerely hope Warhammer 3 has a good campaign job. Mortal Empires is boring after the first 50 turns, because you only find doomstack. And it's not like you can play any other way.

CA models a lot of units that can only be enjoyed in multiplayer, because in the campaign you never need them, directly. Who hires Lions of Cracia, if in a couple more turns you can hire Guardians of the Phoenix? Who makes small reconnaissance armies, if it is better to have a doomstack with which to auto-solve 90% of the battles?

That sums up the Mortal Empires campaigns from Warhammer 2.
«13

Comments

  • Kouran_DarkhandKouran_Darkhand Registered Users Posts: 698
    Supply lines must go, that’s obvious. Hopefully we won’t see it anymore in TWW3.


    MAKE HORDES HORDES AGAIN!
    You are the true king of the elves, Malekith. You are the son of Aenarion, champion of the Daemon War, heir to the Phoenix Crown. It is your right by deed, merit and birth and I would give my life to see that ancient wrong reversed and your rightful position restored. As an elf I can think of no higher calling.



  • HL230P45HL230P45 Registered Users Posts: 254
    If we are being honest there is no less than 15 turns between white lions and the next good AP infantry. Probably even more. That being said there are a lot of units you need never touch in a campaign. Mostly skirmishers, flyers, and light cavalry.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 12,377

    Supply lines must go, that’s obvious. Hopefully we won’t see it anymore in TWW3.


    MAKE HORDES HORDES AGAIN!

    I really hope we will see the changes from the proving ground beta added in Warhammer 3. I had hoped it would happen in WH2 but I guess not.
    #JusticeForTzeentch
    #JusticeForMonogods

  • Rolf1989Rolf1989 Registered Users Posts: 493
    I think the issues with doomstacking are exaggerated, at least how fast it happens. But I still agree that changes a la PG would make the game a hell of a lot more fun. And changes that encourages the player to use the whole rooster would be wonderful aswell.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,406
    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.
  • SchusselSchussel Registered Users Posts: 832
    I play WH from the start but I still don't know how people get that fast forward
    It takes so many turns depneding on campaign at least 60 turns to get even one settlement to tier 5 and thats when I use everything to max growth and neglect all other stuff.

  • BlacedBlaced Registered Users Posts: 1,459
    edited July 17
    Supply lines is one of the worst thing in Warhammer, if CA want to prevent snowballing there are other ways
  • peabodyestatepeabodyestate Registered Users Posts: 1,399
    Proving Grounds fanatic reporting in.
  • MadDemiurgMadDemiurg Registered Users Posts: 4,604
    I think PG were too easy tbh, but supply lines need to be changed or replaced with another mechanic that would support non linear scaling of the armies you can afford in relation to your income without unfairly punishing cheap and low tier units.
  • SagezSagez Registered Users Posts: 133
    CA should make unit caps optional like they did with Chaos Invasions.

    There are all kinds of unit caps, but the point is that it's totally doable.
  • TheVaultdweller13TheVaultdweller13 Registered Users Posts: 105

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    About the "20 turns", it was obviously a way of speaking. But it is undeniable that there is no sense of linear progression in the campaign, and that most of the intermediate units ARE NOT USED.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 3,335

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    You can literally get T5 by turn 2 depending on your faction
  • DragonbroodlingsDragonbroodlings Registered Users Posts: 206

    With each new patch I hope that CA has balanced the game's economy (and supply lines) problem, which favors doomstacking, and I was disappointed in each update.

    I may be the weirdo, but I don't enjoy playing the first 20 turns with tier 1 units, then suddenly switch to max tier level. Warhammer is a fantastic saga, and it is wonderful to play a Warhammer Total War. That said, I enjoyed the campaigns in the Proving Grounds beta more than the rest of the Warhammer 2 lifecycle. Slower, using intermediate units, managing the economy better.

    I wish they removed the supply lines in Warhammer 2; if it is necessary to carry out a control of the player's snowball, it would be much more interesting if the penalty was for the number of repeated units in the same army, and not for the number of armies. It would also be nice if the settlement construction had penalties / bonuses, and not just bonuses. That you had to build under a certain criteria, as in other Total War, and not automatically and mechanically.

    As I doubt I will ever see such an update in Warhammer 2, I sincerely hope Warhammer 3 has a good campaign job. Mortal Empires is boring after the first 50 turns, because you only find doomstack. And it's not like you can play any other way.

    CA models a lot of units that can only be enjoyed in multiplayer, because in the campaign you never need them, directly. Who hires Lions of Cracia, if in a couple more turns you can hire Guardians of the Phoenix? Who makes small reconnaissance armies, if it is better to have a doomstack with which to auto-solve 90% of the battles?

    That sums up the Mortal Empires campaigns from Warhammer 2.

    The most fun I've ever had with the game was during proving grounds, and I also currently use caps and AI mods that make the game fun for me now. No caps and insane upkeep penalties encourage cheese. Anyone can stack up whatever monster or elite units in their armies and win. It's not a deep strategy. With caps I can fight many, many more strategic battles and I must use low and mid tier units.
  • TheVaultdweller13TheVaultdweller13 Registered Users Posts: 105

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    You can literally get T5 by turn 2 depending on your faction
    Yeah, that too. With Throt for example, on turn 10 you already have 4 or 6 ogre rats easily
  • summertimelovinsummertimelovin Registered Users Posts: 460
    Had a lot of fun playing PG. Really hope to see those changes implemented in WH3.
  • GettoGeckoGettoGecko Registered Users Posts: 1,406

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    About the "20 turns", it was obviously a way of speaking. But it is undeniable that there is no sense of linear progression in the campaign, and that most of the intermediate units ARE NOT USED.
    So making up things and strait up lying is just a way of speaking, sure. Wait no its not, its just a lot of nonsense which isn't based on the game. How can you claim you have a valid issue if you have no valid arguement to ground it on? You made things up so your conclusions are just a random mess.

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    You can literally get T5 by turn 2 depending on your faction
    And which faction shall that be? Is there a Skaven faction that starts with 80 supply? No, there is not.

    So you would have to grind 30 more supply, than raze your city and rebuild it from scratch. The 2 fastes chains take 12 turns the third one 14 turn and the building cost of only these 3 chains are over 50K. Have fun trying to get a single full T5 army by turn 20 when there is also recruitment time on top of the building time and prove your point.

    Its fine to be for changes in supply lines, its not fine to make things up to advocate for said changes. No reasonable person would take it as topic worth thinking about when the premise is just a pile of nonsense. There are good reasons to change supplylines but I haven't read a single on in this thread and this tread won't help to convince a dev to think about it. Make an arguement for what should be changed and why it should be changed based on how the game actually works.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 11,088
    Maybe not haha funny. But still funny.
    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.
  • TheVaultdweller13TheVaultdweller13 Registered Users Posts: 105

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    About the "20 turns", it was obviously a way of speaking. But it is undeniable that there is no sense of linear progression in the campaign, and that most of the intermediate units ARE NOT USED.
    So making up things and strait up lying is just a way of speaking, sure. Wait no its not, its just a lot of nonsense which isn't based on the game. How can you claim you have a valid issue if you have no valid arguement to ground it on? You made things up so your conclusions are just a random mess.

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    You can literally get T5 by turn 2 depending on your faction
    And which faction shall that be? Is there a Skaven faction that starts with 80 supply? No, there is not.

    So you would have to grind 30 more supply, than raze your city and rebuild it from scratch. The 2 fastes chains take 12 turns the third one 14 turn and the building cost of only these 3 chains are over 50K. Have fun trying to get a single full T5 army by turn 20 when there is also recruitment time on top of the building time and prove your point.

    Its fine to be for changes in supply lines, its not fine to make things up to advocate for said changes. No reasonable person would take it as topic worth thinking about when the premise is just a pile of nonsense. There are good reasons to change supplylines but I haven't read a single on in this thread and this tread won't help to convince a dev to think about it. Make an arguement for what should be changed and why it should be changed based on how the game actually works.
    You are focusing on specific words, rather than the general meaning of the post.

    The problem with supply lines is that they encourage doomstacking, and affect the progression of the campaign; you hold the first turns with Tier 1 units while you accumulate money and improve your settlements, and as soon as you can, you take your first doomstack and the snowball begins. I don't care if this happens on turn 10, turn 20, or turn 50. Intermediate units are residual and practically useless for most of the campaign, and basic units are only good for the early stages of the game.

    The bulk of the armies should be the basic units, also having some intermediate units, and only a few elite units. What is the bulk of your infantry playing Skaven after the first few turns have passed? Slaves or Stormvermin? And the same for clanrats, they are only used at the beginning, until you can fill your 4 or 5 doomstacks with Stormvermin.

    The only ones that work well in this regard, by design, are the Tomb Kings and (despite being OP for being the current DLC), the Beastmen. You can take Settra with Tomb Guard and all that, but the rest of the kings will have to use skeletons and few elite units.

    If we talk about Norsca, the concept of the faction (and how the AI ​​plays) should be to have small looting armies, not a couple of armies full of mammoths and paladins. With the norsemen economy + supply lines economy, this is, outright, impossible.

    I have played all Total War, and almost 2000 hours of Warhammer. We may not agree, but of course I know the game and the saga
  • rinsuirinsui Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 84
    edited July 19

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    About the "20 turns", it was obviously a way of speaking. But it is undeniable that there is no sense of linear progression in the campaign, and that most of the intermediate units ARE NOT USED.
    So making up things and strait up lying is just a way of speaking, sure. Wait no its not, its just a lot of nonsense which isn't based on the game. How can you claim you have a valid issue if you have no valid arguement to ground it on? You made things up so your conclusions are just a random mess.

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    You can literally get T5 by turn 2 depending on your faction
    And which faction shall that be? Is there a Skaven faction that starts with 80 supply? No, there is not.

    So you would have to grind 30 more supply, than raze your city and rebuild it from scratch. The 2 fastes chains take 12 turns the third one 14 turn and the building cost of only these 3 chains are over 50K. Have fun trying to get a single full T5 army by turn 20 when there is also recruitment time on top of the building time and prove your point.

    Its fine to be for changes in supply lines, its not fine to make things up to advocate for said changes. No reasonable person would take it as topic worth thinking about when the premise is just a pile of nonsense. There are good reasons to change supplylines but I haven't read a single on in this thread and this tread won't help to convince a dev to think about it. Make an arguement for what should be changed and why it should be changed based on how the game actually works.
    You are focusing on specific words, rather than the general meaning of the post.

    The problem with supply lines is that they encourage doomstacking, and affect the progression of the campaign; you hold the first turns with Tier 1 units while you accumulate money and improve your settlements, and as soon as you can, you take your first doomstack and the snowball begins. I don't care if this happens on turn 10, turn 20, or turn 50. Intermediate units are residual and practically useless for most of the campaign, and basic units are only good for the early stages of the game.

    The bulk of the armies should be the basic units, also having some intermediate units, and only a few elite units. What is the bulk of your infantry playing Skaven after the first few turns have passed? Slaves or Stormvermin? And the same for clanrats, they are only used at the beginning, until you can fill your 4 or 5 doomstacks with Stormvermin.

    The only ones that work well in this regard, by design, are the Tomb Kings and (despite being OP for being the current DLC), the Beastmen. You can take Settra with Tomb Guard and all that, but the rest of the kings will have to use skeletons and few elite units.

    If we talk about Norsca, the concept of the faction (and how the AI ​​plays) should be to have small looting armies, not a couple of armies full of mammoths and paladins. With the norsemen economy + supply lines economy, this is, outright, impossible.

    I have played all Total War, and almost 2000 hours of Warhammer. We may not agree, but of course I know the game and the saga
    Sadly in a way modders like Venris & Co (SFO mod) understood this basic problem ages ago and invented unit caps for every army based on "rarity" similar to how the tabletop game works.

    Works wonders and I only say "sadly" because it is part of a huge mod that changes many things and because they always need several weeks to adapt it after each new patch.

    And, well, because CA could *so easily* have adapted this system but for some reason didn't. Comment removed.
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 2,041
    edited July 19
    rinsui said:

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    About the "20 turns", it was obviously a way of speaking. But it is undeniable that there is no sense of linear progression in the campaign, and that most of the intermediate units ARE NOT USED.
    So making up things and strait up lying is just a way of speaking, sure. Wait no its not, its just a lot of nonsense which isn't based on the game. How can you claim you have a valid issue if you have no valid arguement to ground it on? You made things up so your conclusions are just a random mess.

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    You can literally get T5 by turn 2 depending on your faction
    And which faction shall that be? Is there a Skaven faction that starts with 80 supply? No, there is not.

    So you would have to grind 30 more supply, than raze your city and rebuild it from scratch. The 2 fastes chains take 12 turns the third one 14 turn and the building cost of only these 3 chains are over 50K. Have fun trying to get a single full T5 army by turn 20 when there is also recruitment time on top of the building time and prove your point.

    Its fine to be for changes in supply lines, its not fine to make things up to advocate for said changes. No reasonable person would take it as topic worth thinking about when the premise is just a pile of nonsense. There are good reasons to change supplylines but I haven't read a single on in this thread and this tread won't help to convince a dev to think about it. Make an arguement for what should be changed and why it should be changed based on how the game actually works.
    You are focusing on specific words, rather than the general meaning of the post.

    The problem with supply lines is that they encourage doomstacking, and affect the progression of the campaign; you hold the first turns with Tier 1 units while you accumulate money and improve your settlements, and as soon as you can, you take your first doomstack and the snowball begins. I don't care if this happens on turn 10, turn 20, or turn 50. Intermediate units are residual and practically useless for most of the campaign, and basic units are only good for the early stages of the game.

    The bulk of the armies should be the basic units, also having some intermediate units, and only a few elite units. What is the bulk of your infantry playing Skaven after the first few turns have passed? Slaves or Stormvermin? And the same for clanrats, they are only used at the beginning, until you can fill your 4 or 5 doomstacks with Stormvermin.

    The only ones that work well in this regard, by design, are the Tomb Kings and (despite being OP for being the current DLC), the Beastmen. You can take Settra with Tomb Guard and all that, but the rest of the kings will have to use skeletons and few elite units.

    If we talk about Norsca, the concept of the faction (and how the AI ​​plays) should be to have small looting armies, not a couple of armies full of mammoths and paladins. With the norsemen economy + supply lines economy, this is, outright, impossible.

    I have played all Total War, and almost 2000 hours of Warhammer. We may not agree, but of course I know the game and the saga
    Sadly in a way modders like Venris & Co (SFO mod) understood this basic problem ages ago and invented unit caps for every army based on "rarity" similar to how the tabletop game works.

    Works wonders and I only say "sadly" because it is part of a huge mod that changes many things and because they always need several weeks to adapt it after each new patch.

    And, well, because CA could *so easily* have adapted this system but for some reason didn't. Comment removed. .

    What SFO learned is that choice is important which is why they gave a choice to have caps or no caps. Also nice analogy for people wanting to enjoy the game as being ''fat kiddies that want to lean back and munch potato chips''. Should I also call people wanting everything super hard in this game jobless bums that have nothing going on in their life therefore they want to portray some sort of achievement and therefore explains why they max the hardest settings?
    Post edited by dge1 on
  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 789
    This question pops up every day in the Facebook group I belong to, and this is my take on doomstacks:

    1 - I do not care whether you try to have an impossible to beat fully buffed up lord that solo's everything. Have fun with it.

    2 - I also do not care if you enjoy buffing up a stack of only one unit to have an almost unbeatable doomstack. Have fun with it.

    3 - I have no issue whatsoever with the style of play, if you want to cheese the AI so much it ends up having mold instead of corruption. By all means. It is your game, have fun with it.

    4 - what I DO have an issue with is the thought that you HAVE to play with doomstacks to win. Nothing farther from the truth. I have never used doomstacks as it does not appeal to me, and manage to win just fine.

    Although the supply lines mechanic do encourage you to have stronger armies with plenty of elite units, I have often 3, maybe 4 armies that have a specific combination that is very powerful.

    My other armies have a different composition, many times without elite troops or with different ones, just to explore the potential of the faction and its units. My elite armies show up whenever they are needed to break the AI's initial power, then my weaker armies go around and grab anything they can. Weak settlements, smaller armies, or reinforcing my elite ones.

    Now, of course I would like for a review of the supply lines mechanic. It does not make sense that I recruit a lord that ends up costing 10k in upkeep throughout my faction... it only encourages you to field always 20 unit stacks, and I would love to have smaller, raiding stacks, or hit and run stacks, or just a stack of catapults to reinforce my main army for a siege.

    Tl;dr supply lines should be reworked in order to encourage more variety and lower tier unit use; doomstack all you want, just don't say it is necessary, because there are alternatives;

    Ty for your time.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • TheVaultdweller13TheVaultdweller13 Registered Users Posts: 105
    edited July 18
    SusaVile said:

    This question pops up every day in the Facebook group I belong to, and this is my take on doomstacks:

    1 - I do not care whether you try to have an impossible to beat fully buffed up lord that solo's everything. Have fun with it.

    2 - I also do not care if you enjoy buffing up a stack of only one unit to have an almost unbeatable doomstack. Have fun with it.

    3 - I have no issue whatsoever with the style of play, if you want to cheese the AI so much it ends up having mold instead of corruption. By all means. It is your game, have fun with it.

    4 - what I DO have an issue with is the thought that you HAVE to play with doomstacks to win. Nothing farther from the truth. I have never used doomstacks as it does not appeal to me, and manage to win just fine.

    Although the supply lines mechanic do encourage you to have stronger armies with plenty of elite units, I have often 3, maybe 4 armies that have a specific combination that is very powerful.

    My other armies have a different composition, many times without elite troops or with different ones, just to explore the potential of the faction and its units. My elite armies show up whenever they are needed to break the AI's initial power, then my weaker armies go around and grab anything they can. Weak settlements, smaller armies, or reinforcing my elite ones.

    Now, of course I would like for a review of the supply lines mechanic. It does not make sense that I recruit a lord that ends up costing 10k in upkeep throughout my faction... it only encourages you to field always 20 unit stacks, and I would love to have smaller, raiding stacks, or hit and run stacks, or just a stack of catapults to reinforce my main army for a siege.

    Tl;dr supply lines should be reworked in order to encourage more variety and lower tier unit use; doomstack all you want, just don't say it is necessary, because there are alternatives;

    Ty for your time.

    Strongly agree.

    Another problem I see related to this, is that since the AI ​​also prefers to recruit top units in fewer armies, than to form many varied armies (I suppose supply lines will affect it, in some way), races that focus on quantity Before quality, like vampire counts, they are usually wiped out because the autoresolve prefers 2 dragons to 20 zombies.

    I have to say that in these last patches, the autoresolve has improved a lot; but even in this last patch I have found battles in which 2 heroes and a demigryph "beat" my entire army of skeletons according to the autoresolve. That seems to affect the AI. Until the arrival of Khazrak, he saw even Estalia win against Clan Skryre. Arkhan also usually always loses to the Bretonnians from the south.

    This is not an inherent problem with the supply lines, but I think they affect in some way. A balanced armies for the AI, would make a more balanced game.

    Another thing I don't like about supply lines is that LL upgrading a unit type is a lost skill point. Malagor, for example, "scares" harpies; but the harpies soon become useless. I usually carry thematic armies, but it is clear that it is not the optimal way to play.

    It was the same with Lokhir Fellheart and the corsairs. CA's decision was to further upgrade Lokhir's corsairs, to be equivalent to a top tier infantry; but for me, the ideal would be for these types of troops to continue to be valid in the late game.
  • rinsuirinsui Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 84
    KronusX said:

    rinsui said:

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    About the "20 turns", it was obviously a way of speaking. But it is undeniable that there is no sense of linear progression in the campaign, and that most of the intermediate units ARE NOT USED.
    So making up things and strait up lying is just a way of speaking, sure. Wait no its not, its just a lot of nonsense which isn't based on the game. How can you claim you have a valid issue if you have no valid arguement to ground it on? You made things up so your conclusions are just a random mess.

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    You can literally get T5 by turn 2 depending on your faction
    And which faction shall that be? Is there a Skaven faction that starts with 80 supply? No, there is not.

    So you would have to grind 30 more supply, than raze your city and rebuild it from scratch. The 2 fastes chains take 12 turns the third one 14 turn and the building cost of only these 3 chains are over 50K. Have fun trying to get a single full T5 army by turn 20 when there is also recruitment time on top of the building time and prove your point.

    Its fine to be for changes in supply lines, its not fine to make things up to advocate for said changes. No reasonable person would take it as topic worth thinking about when the premise is just a pile of nonsense. There are good reasons to change supplylines but I haven't read a single on in this thread and this tread won't help to convince a dev to think about it. Make an arguement for what should be changed and why it should be changed based on how the game actually works.
    You are focusing on specific words, rather than the general meaning of the post.

    The problem with supply lines is that they encourage doomstacking, and affect the progression of the campaign; you hold the first turns with Tier 1 units while you accumulate money and improve your settlements, and as soon as you can, you take your first doomstack and the snowball begins. I don't care if this happens on turn 10, turn 20, or turn 50. Intermediate units are residual and practically useless for most of the campaign, and basic units are only good for the early stages of the game.

    The bulk of the armies should be the basic units, also having some intermediate units, and only a few elite units. What is the bulk of your infantry playing Skaven after the first few turns have passed? Slaves or Stormvermin? And the same for clanrats, they are only used at the beginning, until you can fill your 4 or 5 doomstacks with Stormvermin.

    The only ones that work well in this regard, by design, are the Tomb Kings and (despite being OP for being the current DLC), the Beastmen. You can take Settra with Tomb Guard and all that, but the rest of the kings will have to use skeletons and few elite units.

    If we talk about Norsca, the concept of the faction (and how the AI ​​plays) should be to have small looting armies, not a couple of armies full of mammoths and paladins. With the norsemen economy + supply lines economy, this is, outright, impossible.

    I have played all Total War, and almost 2000 hours of Warhammer. We may not agree, but of course I know the game and the saga
    Sadly in a way modders like Venris & Co (SFO mod) understood this basic problem ages ago and invented unit caps for every army based on "rarity" similar to how the tabletop game works.

    Works wonders and I only say "sadly" because it is part of a huge mod that changes many things and because they always need several weeks to adapt it after each new patch.

    And, well, because CA could *so easily* have adapted this system but for some reason didn't. Possibly because fat kiddies want to spend their weekends watching fat doomstacks of fat mammoths doing fat damage while they lean back and munch on potato chips.

    What SFO learned is that choice is important which is why they gave a choice to have caps or no caps. Also nice analogy for people wanting to enjoy the game as being ''fat kiddies that want to lean back and munch potato chips''. Should I also call people wanting everything super hard in this game jobless bums that have nothing going on in their life therefore they want to portray some sort of achievement and therefore explains why they max the hardest settings?
    The comparison to vertically challenged extra-large citizens may have been out of place, yes.

    It stems from my frustration with game developers trying to pamper even the super-casual into believing they win due to skill; hence most difficulty settings nowadays skip "beginner" and "easy" to start with "normal", while the original "normal" is labeled as "godlike" or something equally grandiose.

    Too hard is masochist frustration, and I am totally not into that. But too easy (for me at least) is even more so. Because it feels like the game assumes I am too **** to find the solution to a problem myself.

    Just take the tomb raider series; totally ruined because even on the hardest difficulty it is almost impossible to die without tying both hands behind your back.

    No, I am not a super-gamer and I don't ask CA to make th game so hard that it becomes annoying for the average weekend gamer. Because those also paid and want to enjoy the game. Fully legit in my playbook.

    But I want some setting that allows me to enjoy the race to victory without having to shoot myself in the foot. That's all, basically.
  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 789

    SusaVile said:

    This question pops up every day in the Facebook group I belong to, and this is my take on doomstacks:

    1 - I do not care whether you try to have an impossible to beat fully buffed up lord that solo's everything. Have fun with it.

    2 - I also do not care if you enjoy buffing up a stack of only one unit to have an almost unbeatable doomstack. Have fun with it.

    3 - I have no issue whatsoever with the style of play, if you want to cheese the AI so much it ends up having mold instead of corruption. By all means. It is your game, have fun with it.

    4 - what I DO have an issue with is the thought that you HAVE to play with doomstacks to win. Nothing farther from the truth. I have never used doomstacks as it does not appeal to me, and manage to win just fine.

    Although the supply lines mechanic do encourage you to have stronger armies with plenty of elite units, I have often 3, maybe 4 armies that have a specific combination that is very powerful.

    My other armies have a different composition, many times without elite troops or with different ones, just to explore the potential of the faction and its units. My elite armies show up whenever they are needed to break the AI's initial power, then my weaker armies go around and grab anything they can. Weak settlements, smaller armies, or reinforcing my elite ones.

    Now, of course I would like for a review of the supply lines mechanic. It does not make sense that I recruit a lord that ends up costing 10k in upkeep throughout my faction... it only encourages you to field always 20 unit stacks, and I would love to have smaller, raiding stacks, or hit and run stacks, or just a stack of catapults to reinforce my main army for a siege.

    Tl;dr supply lines should be reworked in order to encourage more variety and lower tier unit use; doomstack all you want, just don't say it is necessary, because there are alternatives;

    Ty for your time.

    Strongly agree.

    Another problem I see related to this, is that since the AI ​​also prefers to recruit top units in fewer armies, than to form many varied armies (I suppose supply lines will affect it, in some way), races that focus on quantity Before quality, like vampire counts, they are usually wiped out because the autoresolve prefers 2 dragons to 20 zombies.

    I have to say that in these last patches, the autoresolve has improved a lot; but even in this last patch I have found battles in which 2 heroes and a demigryph "beat" my entire army of skeletons according to the autoresolve. That seems to affect the AI. Until the arrival of Khazrak, he saw even Estalia win against Clan Skryre. Arkhan also usually always loses to the Bretonnians from the south.

    This is not an inherent problem with the supply lines, but I think they affect in some way. A balanced armies for the AI, would make a more balanced game.

    Another thing I don't like about supply lines is that LL upgrading a unit type is a lost skill point. Malagor, for example, "scares" harpies; but the harpies soon become useless. I usually carry thematic armies, but it is clear that it is not the optimal way to play.

    It was the same with Lokhir Fellheart and the corsairs. CA's decision was to further upgrade Lokhir's corsairs, to be equivalent to a top tier infantry; but for me, the ideal would be for these types of troops to continue to be valid in the late game.
    Yeah, the autoresolve evolved since warhammer 1 to become a balance tool more than anything. It is meant to cause specific units to have a higher chance in the autoresolve, which the AI only does, all AI vs AI battles are never played of course. This combined with confederations, causes a good balance in the campaign in ensuring most grand factions stay alive while minor ones get eliminated eventually. However, it impacts the player's autoresolve too, which creates these silly situations like you mentioned, of units having surprising outcomes in battles they should not.

    Still, it is not an easy task. Change too much and we might have Reikland always dying, or Skaven not existant, etc. Right now Chaos seems to be the one suffering most in autoresolve, and tweaks to it would allow more success for the invasion. Eager to see game 3 how it will work.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • DjauDjau Registered Users Posts: 7,786
    I think a more balanced, considerate form of the Proving Grounds could come. Not the broken mess we had.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.

    We're paying full price for a Chaos Warrior of Tzeentch without any actual Tzeentch markings or changes to the model? Change this now CA, #JusticeForTzeentch #TLM
  • TheVaultdweller13TheVaultdweller13 Registered Users Posts: 105
    Amonkhet said:

    I think a more balanced, considerate form of the Proving Grounds could come. Not the broken mess we had.

    For me, Proving Grounds is the way to go. It wasn't perfect, for example, the chaos was very easy, because the hordes made too much money looting; but overall, the campaign was much more enjoyable, even considering that Proving Grounds was an experimental beta.

    I used a lot of units that I hadn't used in vanilla in my life.
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 2,257

    To be frank, your scenarios are just bs.
    You won't be able to get T5 main settlement and all T5 recruitment buildings within 20 turns.
    No one only use T1 units until turn 20 if they aren't weirdos.
    Also on most difficulty settings the AI itsn't even able to field T5 only units/armies by turn 50.

    You might not like supplylines and I'm also for changes on that topic but writing nonsense doesn't make your point seem valid or based in reality, contrary it drawns criticism because you just make things up.

    I disagreed then realised I probably qualify as a weirdo.
    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
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,748
    Proper population mechanic and this issue will be solved and the game will feel better.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • SnoopacSnoopac Registered Users Posts: 414
    I agree! I have no idea how you would fix doomstacking though. It's not a massive problem for myself as I usually try to play with self-imposed limitations based on the tabletop like caps for Special and Elite units, and I typically try to avoid things that I don't like because they're lore breaking/not in the tabletop like feral Dinosaurs and feral Dragons, and I hope we'll get the ability to field multiple Lords someday. However, it's always annoying when enemy armies doomstack, especially with AI cheats allow them to field said doomstacks very cheaply and it's difficult to fight against these things with my self imposed unit caps, although it isn't as bad as it once was I think.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 29,907
    edited July 18
    Well this thread is toxic.

    I'm perfectly fine with doomstacks. They certainly should not be banned. I just want alternatives to be viable as well. Personally I think caps are a terrible solution and worse than supply lines. I don't want them in.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "Under construction" - Becky, daughter of Guanyin.

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus

Sign In or Register to comment.