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

Taurox's starting army is way too strong, please nerf.

123457»

Comments

  • ammo2095ammo2095 Registered Users Posts: 81
    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    Ghorgons are not even that good xD They lack armor, mobility and basically anything to make a good SEM.

    Yeah, CA won't do that. They add new units to new legendary lords for a reason. To promote them and give you a shot a using them.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    ammo2095 said:

    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    Ghorgons are not even that good xD They lack armor, mobility and basically anything to make a good SEM.

    Yeah, CA won't do that. They add new units to new legendary lords for a reason. To promote them and give you a shot a using them.
    How about they also give you a reason to use them? Right now I can disband the Ghorgon and still obliterate the AI easy. Most often I don't even have to fight, I just press the AR button and if I lose units, I just recover them all immediately.
  • ammo2095ammo2095 Registered Users Posts: 81

    ammo2095 said:

    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    Ghorgons are not even that good xD They lack armor, mobility and basically anything to make a good SEM.

    Yeah, CA won't do that. They add new units to new legendary lords for a reason. To promote them and give you a shot a using them.
    How about they also give you a reason to use them? Right now I can disband the Ghorgon and still obliterate the AI easy. Most often I don't even have to fight, I just press the AR button and if I lose units, I just recover them all immediately.
    That's because you played the campaign and you know they are **** xD If you made up your mind, don't use them. Simple.

  • ZowiebernerZowieberner Registered Users Posts: 7
    edited July 19
    Quote removed.

    Please attempt stay civilized all of you, everyone's opinion matters even if you do not agree with them.

    As to the discussion. I do think the difficulty of the campaign could be balanced a bit better than the current state, but I don 't believe the Ghorgon is the only issue here.

    There should be some additional difficulty on hard difficulty or higher than there currently is.

    Post edited by dge1 on
  • Ad4mGAd4mG Registered Users Posts: 476
    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    the initial composition of the army is easily corrected by the mod.

    I would rather ask why BM have such strong garrisons and other races still have weak garrisons?
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969
    ammo2095 said:

    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    Ghorgons are not even that good xD They lack armor, mobility and basically anything to make a good SEM.

    Yeah, CA won't do that. They add new units to new legendary lords for a reason. To promote them and give you a shot a using them.
    . . . what? They rip apart a lot of other monsters.
  • mephisto04mephisto04 Registered Users Posts: 3
    Ad4mG said:

    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    Itharus said:

    Taurox is insanely powerful by himself. He can kill a Ghorgon by himself. Therefore effectively having two Ghorgons to start the game with is FAR too insanely powerful.

    I recommend removing his Ghorgon from his start. He has absolutely no need of it. It makes the early battles wholly trivial. Taurox himself is more than capable of eradicating that big statue that Khatep has so that's not even a valid excuse. Plus he starts with Minotaurs... which are hella powerful... although ditch the Ghorgon and he can keep those.

    My $0.02.

    the initial composition of the army is easily corrected by the mod.

    I would rather ask why BM have such strong garrisons and other races still have weak garrisons?
    Wood elves have strong garrisons as well in their trees. Norsca get huge garrisons with their garrison building. These all get huge garrisons cause they lack walls.
  • NoPoet406NoPoet406 Registered Users Posts: 5
    edited July 25
    I'm not that good a player, TW2 is the first strategy game I have ever persisted at. I play on Normal/Normal. Currently my Reikland campaign has stalled at the continent of Naggaroth, as the Dark Elves are resisting magnificently.

    I started a new campaign as Taurox. With just two armies, one of which isn't very good, I've laid waste to Naggaroth and much of the southlands. I have never lost a battle and autoresolved all but two battles (all sieges which are won in a single turn - so much for having lots of pitched battles across the map to increase devastation, everyone cowers in their cities and dies in one battle).

    I now surround Ulthuan with just my two invincible autoresolve armies. I'm at war with five factions and don't even feel remotely threatened. I have eliminated countless others, some of whom I've never seen before.

    I've just started a third army. The Old World is doomed.

    (Their only hope is the hideous movement bug...)
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969
    edited July 26
    NoPoet406 said:

    I'm not that good a player, TW2 is the first strategy game I have ever persisted at. I play on Normal/Normal. Currently my Reikland campaign has stalled at the continent of Naggaroth, as the Dark Elves are resisting magnificently.

    I started a new campaign as Taurox. With just two armies, one of which isn't very good, I've laid waste to Naggaroth and much of the southlands. I have never lost a battle and autoresolved all but two battles (all sieges which are won in a single turn - so much for having lots of pitched battles across the map to increase devastation, everyone cowers in their cities and dies in one battle).

    I now surround Ulthuan with just my two invincible autoresolve armies. I'm at war with five factions and don't even feel remotely threatened. I have eliminated countless others, some of whom I've never seen before.

    I've just started a third army. The Old World is doomed.

    (Their only hope is the hideous movement bug...)

    So are you acknowledging that Taurox is way too easy?

    Or are you making uwu faces at CA and thanking them profusely for allowing you to faceroll your way through the game?

    Also: there's no movement bug, per se. You can still get all your movement.
  • NoPoet406NoPoet406 Registered Users Posts: 5
    Itharus said:

    NoPoet406 said:

    I'm not that good a player, TW2 is the first strategy game I have ever persisted at. I play on Normal/Normal. Currently my Reikland campaign has stalled at the continent of Naggaroth, as the Dark Elves are resisting magnificently.

    I started a new campaign as Taurox. With just two armies, one of which isn't very good, I've laid waste to Naggaroth and much of the southlands. I have never lost a battle and autoresolved all but two battles (all sieges which are won in a single turn - so much for having lots of pitched battles across the map to increase devastation, everyone cowers in their cities and dies in one battle).

    I now surround Ulthuan with just my two invincible autoresolve armies. I'm at war with five factions and don't even feel remotely threatened. I have eliminated countless others, some of whom I've never seen before.

    I've just started a third army. The Old World is doomed.

    (Their only hope is the hideous movement bug...)

    So are you acknowledging that Taurox is way too easy?

    Or are you making uwu faces at CA and thanking them profusely for allowing you to faceroll your way through the game?

    Also: there's no movement bug, per se. You can still get all your movement.
    Probably a bit of both, it was glorious fun at first and the mechanics of building and upgrading the horde are so addictive. I love all the units, I love unlocking cool new stuff. But being able to recruit two Manticores, an extra Ghorgon, a Giant and a Jabberslythe - all in one turn, for free - as well as having a monster for a leader and heavily buffed Minotaurs, is way too strong. It's become a game of point-and-click destruction with no strategy.

    If I destroy a settlement with any of my armies, then selecting Raiding stance with ANY of my armies cancels all of that army's remaining movement. It is beyond frustrating and happens all the time. There's no point taking the lesser option after destroying a city, you may as well totally ransack it for as much loot as possible, as your movement afterwards will be the same anyway. (You also lose some of that movement by automatically running away from the ruins!)

    Taurox and the Beastmen really are a glorious force, but it needs bringing down a few pegs, it is miles too strong.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969
    Do not change stance with bonus movement unless you wish to end your movement, is basically how extra movement seems to work.

    Remember that raiding stance is free -- you can enter it at the end of your movement.

    I suppose that yeah, this might get a little messy with stances if you destroy a city early into your movement cycle, but remember that you are indeed razing the settlement - for every other faction that ends all movement. So you haven't really truly lost anything at least. Just gotta remember not to switch stances and you'll be fine and still considerably more mobile with that extra movement than any other faction.
  • NoPoet406NoPoet406 Registered Users Posts: 5
    Itharus said:

    Do not change stance with bonus movement unless you wish to end your movement, is basically how extra movement seems to work.

    Remember that raiding stance is free -- you can enter it at the end of your movement.

    I suppose that yeah, this might get a little messy with stances if you destroy a city early into your movement cycle, but remember that you are indeed razing the settlement - for every other faction that ends all movement. So you haven't really truly lost anything at least. Just gotta remember not to switch stances and you'll be fine and still considerably more mobile with that extra movement than any other faction.

    But razing a settlement doesn't end all movement for all other armies, just the one that conducted the attack. Maybe I am doing something wrong then, but it isn't made clear in the game and it seems like most people are having problems with it.

    For all the criticism though, I would like to thank CA for allowing me to indulge my monster army needs! If they add in the Cockatrice and Chimera, and eventually even feral dragons and maybe some of the Storm of Magic bestiary, there couldn't possibly be a better Games Workshop game ever made.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969
    What?

    ALL your armies are having their movement stopped when ONE razes a settlement?

    That's weird as hell... are you modded at all? I haven't seen that one personally.

    For movement: After your army razes something, it has an amount of movement granted to it (normal movement is lost per the razing, as is normal). Raze and move on gives more, raze and loot gives less. You must use that movement WITHOUT changing stance to get the use of it. If you change stance, it immediately consumes all movement.

    If, per se, you want to use some of it but reserve 10% movement to camp with, then do just that - move then enter hidden encampment. If you want to raid - move as much as you can THEN raid (it takes no movement, etc) - if you raid first changing the stance does end the movement. Think of your extra movement like a special hidden stance that you have, leave that stance, lose your extra movement.

    Remember that the act of razing removes all movement points, and you only have this bonus movement to use afterwards. If you raze while 75% of your movement is left, you do not get the bonus movement AND that 75% -- the 75% is lost to the razing, you get only the bonus movement.

    If you are having issues with Taurox's momentum, there is a button on the left of his portrait. You sacrifie 2 momentum to reset your movement meter completely. I am not sure if changing stances after resetting the movement removes all bonus movement, too, it might. I haven't touched Taurox after the first few days so I'm not sure on that one. Easy to check, though.
  • NoPoet406NoPoet406 Registered Users Posts: 5
    edited July 29
    What happens is that if I raze a settlement, then any army which adopts the raid stance afterwards, even if it hasn't already moved, immediately loses all its movement. This has cost me a number of opportunities to attack or move towards other settlements. I have to plan my turns before doing anything, and I always choose the option to completely destroy settlements, as I am so used to losing my movement.

    There is no way in hell I could fight 27 battles in a turn as Legend did, the enemies always cower in settlements and I think I've had two open plains battles in 75 turns, the dozens of other battles were all sieges, all auto-resolved, all victories. (The one battle which might have been a close defeat turned into an easy win as I simply waited a turn and added a Manticore, a RoR Jabberslythe and a RoR Ghorgon into my army, for free, in a single turn.)

    My campaign is unmodded.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969
    When you say any army -- do you mean any army that did the razing? Or any army PERIOD after one different army did razing?

    Cuz the former has been explained. Do NOT change stances after razing or it uses the excess movement. Remember that normally when you raze, you lose all movement. Beastmen basically just get some extra movement afterwards so they can move some, consider it like a separate stance almost. If you change stance, you lose the movement. Just move without changing stance - you can enter raiding at the END of movement (it has no movement cost) if you need to.

    If you mean that when one army razes a settlement and some army somewhere else has movement problems because of the actions of that first army -- THAT is a new one, and you may want to try verifying your files in steam to make sure your game isn't broken.

    Also, if you use Taurox's momentum after razing, it will reset his movement bar. Not sure if changing stance after using the momentum will deplete all movement or not for that special movement. It might though. You'd have to test it.
  • medmed Registered Users Posts: 4
    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    Everything is wrong with that sentence.

    No, if I choose hard difficulty, then I want a hard campaign, regardless of race or faction.

    Got that?

  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    Correct, a few people can’t stomach it though.

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    Everything is wrong with that sentence.

    No, if I choose hard difficulty, then I want a hard campaign, regardless of race or faction.

    Got that?

    Wrong, some campaigns are easy, deal with it.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969
    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    WTF should any one race be sacrificed to casuals and casuals alone?

    This is why we have difficulty settings. All difficulty should be adjusted by these sliders -- not the given nature of a race.

    Proper difficulty settings allow any faction to be easy.

    What possible reason would you want AN ENTIRE FACTION OF THE GAME -- that you have to pay extra for, no less -- TO BE PERMANENTLY EASY ON ALL SETTINGS???
  • PTreePTree Registered Users Posts: 857
    Why do people feel the need to demand factions be nerfed? Don't they realise the game responds to the player?
  • medmed Registered Users Posts: 4

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    Everything is wrong with that sentence.

    No, if I choose hard difficulty, then I want a hard campaign, regardless of race or faction.

    Got that?

    that is never even how total war has worked, different factions are always designed with highly varying level of inherent difficulty. that's how it should be for the sake of variety, though I do think every race should absolutely have "the one hard faction" per say. I'm not certain the beastmen have that right now, havent played Khazrak/Morghur since the update went live.
    Itharus said:

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    WTF should any one race be sacrificed to casuals and casuals alone?

    This is why we have difficulty settings. All difficulty should be adjusted by these sliders -- not the given nature of a race.

    Proper difficulty settings allow any faction to be easy.

    What possible reason would you want AN ENTIRE FACTION OF THE GAME -- that you have to pay extra for, no less -- TO BE PERMANENTLY EASY ON ALL SETTINGS???
    there should absolutely be varying difficulty amongst races and factions, the game would not be nearly as interesting otherwise. there is nothing wrong with beastmen in general being an easy race so long as it is fun, which it is; just like there is nothing wrong with norsca being very difficult so long as it is fun, though their lackluster mechanics might cause some to debate how enjoyable they are. With that said though, as previously stated I do think one faction of each race should have standout difficulty.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969
    med said:

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    Everything is wrong with that sentence.

    No, if I choose hard difficulty, then I want a hard campaign, regardless of race or faction.

    Got that?

    that is never even how total war has worked, different factions are always designed with highly varying level of inherent difficulty. that's how it should be for the sake of variety, though I do think every race should absolutely have "the one hard faction" per say. I'm not certain the beastmen have that right now, havent played Khazrak/Morghur since the update went live.
    Itharus said:

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    WTF should any one race be sacrificed to casuals and casuals alone?

    This is why we have difficulty settings. All difficulty should be adjusted by these sliders -- not the given nature of a race.

    Proper difficulty settings allow any faction to be easy.

    What possible reason would you want AN ENTIRE FACTION OF THE GAME -- that you have to pay extra for, no less -- TO BE PERMANENTLY EASY ON ALL SETTINGS???
    there should absolutely be varying difficulty amongst races and factions, the game would not be nearly as interesting otherwise. there is nothing wrong with beastmen in general being an easy race so long as it is fun, which it is; just like there is nothing wrong with norsca being very difficult so long as it is fun, though their lackluster mechanics might cause some to debate how enjoyable they are. With that said though, as previously stated I do think one faction of each race should have standout difficulty.
    Yes, varying by DIFFICULTY SETTING.

    Making it unilaterally easy or hard arbitrarily is sheer stupidity of the highest magnitude as it means you have enjoyed an entire faction - many of which you pay for separately - unenjoyable by anyone who prefers easy/hard/normal games -- but still loves the theme and character of a given race.

    For instance, I enjoy Beastmen, but now every single one of them is too easy and my enjoyment is greatly lessened. Increasing the difficulty options in the game itself are insufficient to make the race enjoyable because it either doesn't go far enough or breaks too many other mechanics.

    If they improved difficulty settings you could then play ANY race super easy or super hard and anything in between and it would be great.

    As for relative power -- they already settled on trying to make things relatively equal for the AI's sake to promote variety in outcomes so that you don't end up with a few races dominant all the time.

    So... by demanding some ENTIRE FACTIONS be easy by design instead of by setting, you're basically being a complete **** to everyone who likes the faction but also likes a challenge.

    Why the **** would you support that instead of supporting a difficulty setting that accommodates everyone? That's rude. Shame on you.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    med said:

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    Everything is wrong with that sentence.

    No, if I choose hard difficulty, then I want a hard campaign, regardless of race or faction.

    Got that?

    that is never even how total war has worked, different factions are always designed with highly varying level of inherent difficulty. that's how it should be for the sake of variety, though I do think every race should absolutely have "the one hard faction" per say. I'm not certain the beastmen have that right now, havent played Khazrak/Morghur since the update went live.
    Itharus said:

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    WTF should any one race be sacrificed to casuals and casuals alone?

    This is why we have difficulty settings. All difficulty should be adjusted by these sliders -- not the given nature of a race.

    Proper difficulty settings allow any faction to be easy.

    What possible reason would you want AN ENTIRE FACTION OF THE GAME -- that you have to pay extra for, no less -- TO BE PERMANENTLY EASY ON ALL SETTINGS???
    there should absolutely be varying difficulty amongst races and factions, the game would not be nearly as interesting otherwise. there is nothing wrong with beastmen in general being an easy race so long as it is fun, which it is; just like there is nothing wrong with norsca being very difficult so long as it is fun, though their lackluster mechanics might cause some to debate how enjoyable they are. With that said though, as previously stated I do think one faction of each race should have standout difficulty.
    Hmm, difficulty settings influencing campaigns so that people with different tastes can get their share of entertainment or campaigns that are permanently looked in n00b mode so only a single group of players actually enjoys it.

    I swear, casual players are the worst gatekeepers in the gaming industry.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,969

    med said:

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    Everything is wrong with that sentence.

    No, if I choose hard difficulty, then I want a hard campaign, regardless of race or faction.

    Got that?

    that is never even how total war has worked, different factions are always designed with highly varying level of inherent difficulty. that's how it should be for the sake of variety, though I do think every race should absolutely have "the one hard faction" per say. I'm not certain the beastmen have that right now, havent played Khazrak/Morghur since the update went live.
    Itharus said:

    med said:

    there is nothing wrong with one or two races being particularly easy to play in campaign, it can be a satisfying change of pace sometimes

    WTF should any one race be sacrificed to casuals and casuals alone?

    This is why we have difficulty settings. All difficulty should be adjusted by these sliders -- not the given nature of a race.

    Proper difficulty settings allow any faction to be easy.

    What possible reason would you want AN ENTIRE FACTION OF THE GAME -- that you have to pay extra for, no less -- TO BE PERMANENTLY EASY ON ALL SETTINGS???
    there should absolutely be varying difficulty amongst races and factions, the game would not be nearly as interesting otherwise. there is nothing wrong with beastmen in general being an easy race so long as it is fun, which it is; just like there is nothing wrong with norsca being very difficult so long as it is fun, though their lackluster mechanics might cause some to debate how enjoyable they are. With that said though, as previously stated I do think one faction of each race should have standout difficulty.
    Hmm, difficulty settings influencing campaigns so that people with different tastes can get their share of entertainment or campaigns that are permanently looked in n00b mode so only a single group of players actually enjoys it.

    I swear, casual players are the worst gatekeepers in the gaming industry.
    I think it's because they resent that they are so incredibly bad at games that they want to make everyone else suffer.
Sign In or Register to comment.