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

Did the Rakarth Patch shadownerf (double) skavenslave upkeep cost?

basileusfangbasileusfang Registered Users Posts: 2
I rebooted my Ikit campaign and realized that all three types of skavenslaves have an unusual upkeep cost (48 for spears, 42 for normal, 62 for slingers on legendary difficulty). They are now basically half the price of clanrats. So I double checked with LegendofTotalWar's Ikit campaign video a month ago in which their upkeep costs were halved.

I tried to find a note on this in the patch note but failed to do so. Is it a shadownerf or did I miss something?
Post edited by CA_Will on

Comments

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    sad if true, it was the only reason to use them
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    Maybe something else changed like cost reduction or somehow something got calculated wrong because of the patch. I remember them costing something like 20 per turn. Maybe they did it because peasants technically cost 54, but peasants aren't supposed to recruit and maintain them over the cap anyway.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • basileusfangbasileusfang Registered Users Posts: 2
    User_Clue said:

    Maybe something else changed like cost reduction or somehow something got calculated wrong because of the patch. I remember them costing something like 20 per turn. Maybe they did it because peasants technically cost 54, but peasants aren't supposed to recruit and maintain them over the cap anyway.

    I don't think it's anything related to cost reduction since I am comparing them on turn 1. If it is indeed a shadownerf, I think this will have a more significant impact on most players' playthrough than the garrison nerf and the ambush nerf. So this is really confusing for me, why such a major nerf is not included in the patch note?
  • UrbansKompisUrbansKompis Registered Users Posts: 49
    edited March 2021
    Yes the upkeep has been changed with the Rakarth update, but I think it was somewhat unintentional on CA's part.

    So one part of the update was that slaves were nerfed in multiplayer by having their recruitment cost increased by 25 gold (This was not listed in the patchnotes as CA completely left out all recruitment cost changes). The change can be seen here https://twwstats.com/unitscards?units=f=0&k=wh2_main_skv_inf_skavenslaves_0&m&r=0&v=4716316107383894702&units=f=0&k=wh2_main_skv_inf_skavenslave_spearmen_0&m&r=0&v=4716316107383894702&units=f=0&k=wh2_main_skv_inf_skavenslaves_0&m&r=0&v=1678833570709893302&units=f=0&k=wh2_main_skv_inf_skavenslave_spearmen_0&m&r=0&v=1678833570709893302 (left is after update, right is before).

    What I think happened is that when they updated the values their "upkeep cost"-script kicked in. If you look at most units, the majority share the relation of upkeep = recruitment cost/4. This was not the case with skaven slaves before the change. So I assume that the upkeep was either changed manually or automatically when the recruitment cost was changed to match the standard "upkeep = recruitment cost/4" (you can see that the new values also match that relation).
    Post edited by UrbansKompis on
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    They should leave it like that. Makes the techs that lower slave upkeep actually useful for something.
  • caladbolgftw#3407caladbolgftw#3407 Registered Users Posts: 441
    skaven slaves for even harder difficulty? where enemy melee units has out right cheat stats that won in melee engagements?

    I never understood the point about these difficulty. Some people claimed it was for harder challenges that made it fun. But I believe it ruined the total war experience by forcing the player to adept to unrealistic cheese strategies like corner defending and missile spam.

    My rant aside. I wish these meat shield infantry could serve some purpose in the late game, just so long they do not take up any of my army's unit space. An army can have 19 units in it, so why not make units with expendable trait to be field as extra 10 or 5 free units without consuming its space? After all, using these meatshields is part of skaven gameplay.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    skaven slaves for even harder difficulty? where enemy melee units has out right cheat stats that won in melee engagements?

    I never understood the point about these difficulty. Some people claimed it was for harder challenges that made it fun. But I believe it ruined the total war experience by forcing the player to adept to unrealistic cheese strategies like corner defending and missile spam.

    My rant aside. I wish these meat shield infantry could serve some purpose in the late game, just so long they do not take up any of my army's unit space. An army can have 19 units in it, so why not make units with expendable trait to be field as extra 10 or 5 free units without consuming its space? After all, using these meatshields is part of skaven gameplay.

    Because then you'd just have 19 metarelevant units + 5/10 slaves and Skaven have plenty of metarelevant units so they'd get a straight buff for no reason.

    No, the solution is to put the kibosh on doomstacking so that filling your army to the brim with the most powerful units you can have is no longer the encouraged way of doing things.
  • caladbolgftw#3407caladbolgftw#3407 Registered Users Posts: 441

    skaven slaves for even harder difficulty? where enemy melee units has out right cheat stats that won in melee engagements?

    I never understood the point about these difficulty. Some people claimed it was for harder challenges that made it fun. But I believe it ruined the total war experience by forcing the player to adept to unrealistic cheese strategies like corner defending and missile spam.

    My rant aside. I wish these meat shield infantry could serve some purpose in the late game, just so long they do not take up any of my army's unit space. An army can have 19 units in it, so why not make units with expendable trait to be field as extra 10 or 5 free units without consuming its space? After all, using these meatshields is part of skaven gameplay.

    Because then you'd just have 19 metarelevant units + 5/10 slaves and Skaven have plenty of metarelevant units so they'd get a straight buff for no reason.

    No, the solution is to put the kibosh on doomstacking so that filling your army to the brim with the most powerful units you can have is no longer the encouraged way of doing things.
    I agree with that. The ideal late game army for both AI and player should be 2-3 rare units (most likely giant single entity monster or warmachine like hellpit or steam tank or artillery), 5-7 units of elite units (knights, heavy armor infantry, monster infantry), then the rest with tier 1 units, which grants them some spot light in the late game to take the blunt in the front line for their elite units. units with expendable attribute can be field as extra units of an army for factions like greenskins, undeads, skavens and Bretonnian.

    For lore accuracy, certain LL or specialized lord could field a certain elite or rare units more than usual (Skrolk can have many plague monks in his army and dark elf beastmasters can have more monsters in their army) which can be granted by reach certain rank with the said lords to unlock their ability from their skill tree.

    There should also be a limit to the amount of heroes that can be field in an army. like 3 different heroes in an army? kinda like how three kingdoms did it.

  • SteamlockSteamlock Registered Users Posts: 88

    skaven slaves for even harder difficulty? where enemy melee units has out right cheat stats that won in melee engagements?

    I never understood the point about these difficulty. Some people claimed it was for harder challenges that made it fun. But I believe it ruined the total war experience by forcing the player to adept to unrealistic cheese strategies like corner defending and missile spam.

    My rant aside. I wish these meat shield infantry could serve some purpose in the late game, just so long they do not take up any of my army's unit space. An army can have 19 units in it, so why not make units with expendable trait to be field as extra 10 or 5 free units without consuming its space? After all, using these meatshields is part of skaven gameplay.

    I guess if doomstacking and cheese is fun?

    It’s to compensate for AI. AI is hard to do.

    You play very hard or legendary, it pushes players into doom stacks and cheese. What else are you supposed to do when the anvil for your hammer and anvil chain routes in minute due to AI melee and leadership buffs?

    I prefer to play on lower battle difficulty and just not corner camp or run around with 18-19 units of SoA or Mammoths.

    Even then, late game it’s useful to keep a auto resolve doomstack around during late game when some confederation snowball is pumping out 2-3 full stacks a turn and fighting the same matchup, on the same maps, with the AI doing the same damn thing starts to get repetitive.

    It also sucks for magic. The meta becomes “magic with most pew-pew” because buffing your greatswords is a waste if they are going to be beaten, damned, and drained by single low tier blob anyway. Better just to fry them with a fire wizard direct damage spells.
  • FerrumkitFerrumkit Registered Users Posts: 1
    Steamlock said:

    skaven slaves for even harder difficulty? where enemy melee units has out right cheat stats that won in melee engagements?

    I never understood the point about these difficulty. Some people claimed it was for harder challenges that made it fun. But I believe it ruined the total war experience by forcing the player to adept to unrealistic cheese strategies like corner defending and missile spam.

    My rant aside. I wish these meat shield infantry could serve some purpose in the late game, just so long they do not take up any of my army's unit space. An army can have 19 units in it, so why not make units with expendable trait to be field as extra 10 or 5 free units without consuming its space? After all, using these meatshields is part of skaven gameplay.

    I guess if doomstacking and cheese is fun?

    It’s to compensate for AI. AI is hard to do.

    You play very hard or legendary, it pushes players into doom stacks and cheese. What else are you supposed to do when the anvil for your hammer and anvil chain routes in minute due to AI melee and leadership buffs?

    I prefer to play on lower battle difficulty and just not corner camp or run around with 18-19 units of SoA or Mammoths.

    Even then, late game it’s useful to keep a auto resolve doomstack around during late game when some confederation snowball is pumping out 2-3 full stacks a turn and fighting the same matchup, on the same maps, with the AI doing the same damn thing starts to get repetitive.

    It also sucks for magic. The meta becomes “magic with most pew-pew” because buffing your greatswords is a waste if they are going to be beaten, damned, and drained by single low tier blob anyway. Better just to fry them with a fire wizard direct damage spells.
    I think it would be do-able when you consider the Waaagh mechanic giving a random army stack, however just cap it at that 5-10 and limit it to randomized slave units. You get the expendable meatshields for late game purposes without giving an outright bonus slot. You could even slap it into a lord's skill tree to soft-lock it
  • gavin786gavin786 Registered Users Posts: 10
    Just playing my first Skaven campaign since clan Moulder dropped.

    Skavenslaves are now 60(?) gold per turn? WTF?

    Their whole purpose was a cheap meat shield. There is now no reason to hire them at all(vs clanrats at 80 gold). The point of them was that one could field 3 skavenslave armies for the price of 1 low tier clanrat army.

    One of the unique things about the Skaven was that they had that early game mechanic of vast numbers of cheap but terrible troops. Now there is no point to doing that, which is a HUGE change in how I play Skaven and by comments above I guess a lot of others feel the same. Super cheap Skavenslaves are an integral part of the Skaven arsenal, and raising their prices like this seriously nerfs them, and that needs to be a fully thought out and intentional decision given how much that affects play, NOT just an afterthought from multiplayer balancing.

    Anyway I doubt CA ever listen to this forum or will change anything. It seems yet again multiplayer balancing considerations are trumping single player campaigning. It is possible using programmation magic to have 2 separate sets of rules you know: 1 for multiplayer, 1 for single.

    Anyway, I am seeing this for the first time now I am doing new Skryre campaign and I dont agree with this change. Last time I played Skryre on vortex I conquered all of Lustria all the way up to Naggarond with almost just Skavenslaves + ROR by about turn 80. They are VERY powerful if you can micro right and know how to use them and follow the "rules" of Skavenslave combat. Warp Grinders + Skavenslave army was also a really nice early game army that could conquer. Just not viable now, from previously 20/turn gold Skavenslaves, now to use Clanrats at 80/turn vs 60/turn for Skavenslaves why would I ever use them?

    Lore-wise as well, cheap meat shields that are deliberately sacrificed so other units can do their jobs or as traps to lure enemy units to unfortunate positions is very Skaven-esque and really in line with their character as a race. This means they need to be : CHEAP. Else what is the point?

    This nerf does NOT make sense IMHO, and really needs to be looked at again and properly considered. Why dont CA consult with experienced players of both single player and multi player BEFORE they do something like this? Would make sense but then again there are still long standing bugs that are serious and never get fixed such as mounts being permalost on confederation, and the most hated "feature" of the game of all : you play hard to confederate a faction then find that the AI has levelled the legendary lords so badly that they are unusable and it is better just to hire and use a regular lord. Why o why is there no ability to do a 1-time respec of lords/heroes after confederation? The 1 feature pretty much every long-time player wants. Last time I played vampires as bad gandalf, I only got Sylvania at around turn 100 or so, and by that time both Manfried and Ghorst were so badly misleveled I had to bench them both. And when they are usable it is frustrating getting to around lvl 40 with a confederated lord and just not being able to get those last skills you want because the AI put points into something really stupid before confederation. Even putting the lord back to lvl 1 and having to level them from scratch again is a BETTER choice if possible than many AI levelling choices. I am going off topic now...

    Anyway, my 2 cents on this.

    Goodbye.

    Gavin786
Sign In or Register to comment.