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

SP balance

WolfwaysWolfways Registered Users Posts: 33
One thing I hate about TW:WH2 is that it is balanced for MP (unit point costs) but that balance is thrown out of the window for SP by having a max 20 unit for armies instead.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have armies be given a max points cost? I would love to decide what the maximum point cost is for armies. I'd make it so the only way to fill the 20 max would be with the cheapest units, so that factions with the strongest units doesn't always pound the weaker factions into jam every battle.

And yes, my Skaven did just get pasted by Lizardmen again...just as they do every time I play.
Post edited by CA_Will#2514 on

Comments

  • Baron_RobbaneBaron_Robbane Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 567
    Id advice using the army cap mod for warhammer 2.
    Team Wood Elves
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,105
    edited February 4
    Like you said, there are some factions that just do better under the 20 unit army, capless system CA has created. Their faction and rosters are simply more geared toward smaller expensive armies.

    Better balance for singleplayer would be nice and cost-based-army-cap with expanded army size works very well in campaign. Expanding the army size is something that would be best addressed as an official option as you can't just download a mod for it. You have to use a Save Parser program, which then applies to every faction evenly.

    Unfortunately, there is a vocal contingent of power-fantasy types who freak out about any sort of balance that might actually incentivize using low and mid tier units in the late game. They view those units as boring stepping stones to the interesting stuff. Needless to say, I disagree.

    But yeah, my ideal campaign rebalance would look like this:

    1. Cost Based Army Cap. It can be grown modestly over the course of the campaign through lord skills and technologies.
    2. Expanded army size. It also can be grown modestly through lord skills/techs. Different factions have larger starting army size.
    3. Soft Cap on number of Lords you can hire. As your empire expands, you can hire more lords. I'd probably tie it to how many provincial capitals you own. But techs as well.
    4. Toss out Supply lines entirely. Replace with some sort of settlement-based tax if necessary.
    5. Get rid of Lightning Strike on Very Hard and Legendary.
    6. All Instant-recruit units like RoR start with very little HP. Exception being factions like Vampire Count/Coast.
    7. Force March comes with some sort of cooldown or movement penalty the following turn. Would lead to more land battles if the AI wasn't constantly hard-marching from one settlement to the next.
    8. Optional checkbox for the first three suggestion so the power-fantasy types don't throw a fit.
  • Theo91#7431Theo91#7431 Registered Users Posts: 2,954
    Im for this idea. but one of the things i've never understood is why CA don't implement unit caps with a toggle option at the start of the game. No one will complain that way
  • Kn_Gars#2718Kn_Gars#2718 Registered Users Posts: 3,275
    Theo91 said:

    Im for this idea. but one of the things i've never understood is why CA don't implement unit caps with a toggle option at the start of the game. No one will complain that way

    I think you underestimate the anti-cap crowd, more than a few of them will protests the inclusion of optional caps just as hard as the inclusion of mandatory caps. They see any form of caps as both a threat to their freedom of choice and as waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere.

    As for CA it is a combination of prestige and money. CA has gone on record several times saying that caps are not a solution to the game's problems, they would prefer a more organic solution. However years have gone by without a trace of CA delivering this supposed solution. To implement caps now would be to admit that not only were they wrong but a bunch of modders produced the right solution years before CA did. Whatever people may think the devs over at CA does have their own pride and it is never easy admitting failure or that you were wrong.
    The second and probably bigger factor is that the game and DLC sells plenty despite having more than a few flaws, there is simply no clear monetary gain in it for CA to add optional caps. Even if the devs were willing they will have to justify the time and resources spent to management and we can see some pretty recent examples of CA not taking action even when they get some pretty heavy flak for their design decisions. Kislev and Tzeentch will launch unchanged despite the criticism from the fanbase.
    The user formerly known as KN_Gars, thanks for the involunatry rename CA.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 19,296
    KN_Gars said:

    Theo91 said:

    Im for this idea. but one of the things i've never understood is why CA don't implement unit caps with a toggle option at the start of the game. No one will complain that way

    I think you underestimate the anti-cap crowd, more than a few of them will protests the inclusion of optional caps just as hard as the inclusion of mandatory caps. They see any form of caps as both a threat to their freedom of choice and as waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere.

    As for CA it is a combination of prestige and money. CA has gone on record several times saying that caps are not a solution to the game's problems, they would prefer a more organic solution. However years have gone by without a trace of CA delivering this supposed solution. To implement caps now would be to admit that not only were they wrong but a bunch of modders produced the right solution years before CA did. Whatever people may think the devs over at CA does have their own pride and it is never easy admitting failure or that you were wrong.
    The second and probably bigger factor is that the game and DLC sells plenty despite having more than a few flaws, there is simply no clear monetary gain in it for CA to add optional caps. Even if the devs were willing they will have to justify the time and resources spent to management and we can see some pretty recent examples of CA not taking action even when they get some pretty heavy flak for their design decisions. Kislev and Tzeentch will launch unchanged despite the criticism from the fanbase.
    they already have the organic solution literally 3 solutions with 3 pop mechanics CA just need more of them and than having AI be able to play with them

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • mightygloin#2446mightygloin#2446 Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 6,122
    KN_Gars said:

    Theo91 said:

    Im for this idea. but one of the things i've never understood is why CA don't implement unit caps with a toggle option at the start of the game. No one will complain that way

    I think you underestimate the anti-cap crowd, more than a few of them will protests the inclusion of optional caps just as hard as the inclusion of mandatory caps. They see any form of caps as both a threat to their freedom of choice and as waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere.
    You are already capped though. E.g. you can only have certain amount of heroes and lords. Besides some factions like TK already utilise a sort of cap system.

    Also most of them criticize it furiously out of prejudice as far as my experience goes, and don't actually know what caps actually are, what they are meant to achieve, how they can help protect faction identities and how flexible they can be. In TT terms, they wouldn't know for example Throt could spam Plague Monks unlike any other Skaven lord. Or Bretonnia could spam Knights Errant which would be pretty strong unlike now where Empire can spam Demigryphs and poop on Bretonnia's identity as cavalry focused faction. Just an example.

    But now people got so used to "doomstacking" they find it boring that you would have spearmen in your armies by midgame. How preposterous right? Spectacle has taken over strategy in campaign.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,105

    KN_Gars said:

    Theo91 said:

    Im for this idea. but one of the things i've never understood is why CA don't implement unit caps with a toggle option at the start of the game. No one will complain that way

    I think you underestimate the anti-cap crowd, more than a few of them will protests the inclusion of optional caps just as hard as the inclusion of mandatory caps. They see any form of caps as both a threat to their freedom of choice and as waste of resources that could be spent elsewhere.
    You are already capped though. E.g. you can only have certain amount of heroes and lords. Besides some factions like TK already utilise a sort of cap system.

    Also most of them criticize it furiously out of prejudice as far as my experience goes, and don't actually know what caps actually are, what they are meant to achieve, how they can help protect faction identities and how flexible they can be. In TT terms, they wouldn't know for example Throt could spam Plague Monks unlike any other Skaven lord. Or Bretonnia could spam Knights Errant which would be pretty strong unlike now where Empire can spam Demigryphs and poop on Bretonnia's identity as cavalry focused faction. Just an example.

    But now people got so used to "doomstacking" they find it boring that you would have spearmen in your armies by midgame. How preposterous right? Spectacle has taken over strategy in campaign.
    I've concluded that most of the single player balance critics are arguing in bad faith. Their main argument is always about player choice, so you would think they would be in favor of an optional unit cap system. Yet, unless you scream "OPTIONAL" in their face, they will immediately accuse the pro unit cap players of destroying player choice. Nevermind the fact that unit caps would actually expand the number of viable army builds.

    The real motivation for most of these critics is they want their power-fantasy. They just want to build elite stacks and trash the AI without needing to try. And they want it to be the official way to play so they don't feel judged for easy-moding it.
  • Asamu#6386Asamu#6386 Registered Users Posts: 1,548
    There are mods for this on campaign.

    IMO, this would be a bad way of setting the baseline balance on campaign, because you also have to balance your economy and cover other territories, so there's an opportunity cost to bringing a more expensive army. How you allocate funds matters. Supply lines in WH3 is being toned down to 4% on legendary, so running more stacks of chaff will likely be the meta again, like it was in WH1 (in fact, it'll likely be even better compared to doomstacking, because you don't even need a military building to make the chaff). That inherently benefits factions like skaven, which have a lot of very cheap units.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 962
    I think the issue balancing SP is it isn’t really balanced. Control is basically in the players hands vs poor AI, you basically have unlimited options on how you want to play so the AI is given similar parameters but doesn’t have the intricate nuances a human does so can’t strategize hence the jank difficulty settings.

    This also why people recommend modding if you want the option to set limits it’s there I just don’t think CA wants to tell people how they should play hence why they don’t “balance” certain personal preferences for SP.

    So again as mentioned player choice should be left up to the individual not CA trying to cater to individuals.
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 522
    I tried the cost based army cap mod and initially I liked it. However it does not change the core problem of the game with missile units being op. Most missile units are still far too cost effective compared to melee infantry and cavalry. I think all missile infantry should get a 50% damage nerf in campaign. Smaller unit count units does not really do that much dmg comparatively on ultra unit scale.For MP I don't really care since I do not play that. This should be a fine starting point. Alternatively do the army cost system but increase the missile units cost by the double.

  • goremandgoremand Registered Users Posts: 182
    I hope the improvements to multiplayer campaign will make the mode more popular and create a stronger incentive for CA to balance campaign mechanics. It becomes a problem for the mode if Khorne for example just stomps every other player in human hands.
Sign In or Register to comment.