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

I'am confused, is every battle now a siege?

2

Comments

  • joproulx99joproulx99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,569
    Mazisky said:

    Mazisky said:

    I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

    The ai is to stupid to attack. It just starves. So now you get the choice of paying the same minor settlement siege a few turns later against a starved ai (boooring) or play it immediately against a non starved ai (boring siege).

    (Maybe the ai is super smart though because it understands so many hate the boring wait so most players will attack immediately when they know the ai happily starves over and over. The ai understands it wastes the humans time and the humans will thus learn to attack immediately. The true victim being the humans and good gameplay.)
    In most footage i've seen it seems the AI sally out and attack, which may also be driven by the autoresolve being extremely in favour of the AI
    Yes, it depends on the difficulty and the power you put into your stack, if you have a strong enough stack, the AI is better to let itself starve and make you waste turns then sally out, frankly. If you want the AI to sally, you have to appear weaker on paper. On higher difficulties AI has bonus autoresolve and is a lot more aggressive so it could affect it to its detriment, not certain though.

    As for the topic, I like it better then previous games, in vanilla WH2 by mid - late game its all walled settlements, which is tedious. Now at least we have un-walled settlements for minor ones, which imo is a lot better then before. Also the objectives add different tactics depending on the strength of each factions which is a welcome change as well.

    My biggest critique will be the construction time of siege equipment, since you starve the attackers right away, I feel that it shouldnt take so much turns to build them otherwise you dont even need them by the time they are built as the garrison will be already dead...

    I use my simple mod in WH2 to make them build in more or less 1 turn depending on the amount of infantry you have, it has a very positive effect of making the AI attack you the very next turn after it besiege, and enable me to play siege with equipment as it should be instead of always zerging.
    "Fear me mortals, for I am the Anointed, the favored Son of Chaos, the Scourge of the World. The armies of the gods rally behind me, and it is by my will and by my sword that your weakling nations shall fall."

    ~ Archaon, Lord of the End Times
  • Steph_F_DavidSteph_F_David Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,148

    Players just launch the attack immediately, so it will not change the amount of sieges.

    In game 2 I often start a siege to build equipment, and wait a turn, the AI often sally and I play the battle on the field.

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,460
    Mazisky said:

    Mazisky said:

    I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

    The ai is to stupid to attack. It just starves. So now you get the choice of paying the same minor settlement siege a few turns later against a starved ai (boooring) or play it immediately against a non starved ai (boring siege).

    (Maybe the ai is super smart though because it understands so many hate the boring wait so most players will attack immediately when they know the ai happily starves over and over. The ai understands it wastes the humans time and the humans will thus learn to attack immediately. The true victim being the humans and good gameplay.)
    In most footage i've seen it seems the AI sally out and attack, which may also be driven by the autoresolve being extremely in favour of the AI
    Csnt agree with this. Havent seen the ai sally ouy even once on its first turn?

    Link or never happened.
    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.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,460
    edited February 16

    Players just launch the attack immediately, so it will not change the amount of sieges.

    In game 2 I often start a siege to build equipment, and wait a turn, the AI often sally and I play the battle on the field.

    This isnt true either. Wh2 ai needs a huge advantage to sally. (Aggresive ai like vampire counts sally more though but most dont)

    Start a campaign as skarsnik and go siege karak norn. They will starve to death rather than sally despite a field battle being absolutely massively in their favour.

    What really bothers me is that they wont even sally before they starve and lose half their numbers.
    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.
  • SeswathaSeswatha Registered Users Posts: 4,757
    The number of relevant land battles is unchanged. A land battle of a full stack vs like 10 or less units garrison of an unwalled minor settlement in WH2 is a foregone conclusion anyway.

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,815
    /tinfoil/

    Rome 2 started off with win/lose capture-points in normal battles. People hated it and told CA it was a stupid 'casual, mobile-game type of thing'.

    CA do not take criticism very well, but were forced by the extent of the backlash(even in the background of complaints about Rome 2's launch-state) to remove this nonsense.

    CA do not take criticism very well; people were wrong to tell CA they were wrong about win/lose capture-points in normal battles.

    Now you will have the capture-points in normal battles and you won't complain, because now normal battles are almost entirely settlement, survival and siege battles.

    CA have forgotten how to make a Total War game.
  • epic_159758496946hNeETHlepic_159758496946hNeETHl Registered Users Posts: 87

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,815

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Because CA used to respond to criticism and at least tolerate lively but respectful discussion.

    When they decided to make drastic changes to the TW formula with Rome 2 and all games since then, they never announced or explained why. A few of their least-popular ideas got pushback and were removed, yet they keep trying to shoe-horn them in and now appear to be succeeding as they've realised they only needed to change the presentation. Most battles in WH3 appear to involve the control-points that TW fans heavily criticised in 2013.

    To some people, this has been a betrayal of the most loyal player-base. When you've played Total War for as long as you've been gaming on PC, it feels like part of your identity has been crumpled up and your only choices are to demand CA stops doing that, or put it through the shredder yourself seeing as CA prefers the new and less-critical audience.
  • MaziskyMazisky Registered Users Posts: 924

    Mazisky said:

    Mazisky said:

    I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

    The ai is to stupid to attack. It just starves. So now you get the choice of paying the same minor settlement siege a few turns later against a starved ai (boooring) or play it immediately against a non starved ai (boring siege).

    (Maybe the ai is super smart though because it understands so many hate the boring wait so most players will attack immediately when they know the ai happily starves over and over. The ai understands it wastes the humans time and the humans will thus learn to attack immediately. The true victim being the humans and good gameplay.)
    In most footage i've seen it seems the AI sally out and attack, which may also be driven by the autoresolve being extremely in favour of the AI
    Csnt agree with this. Havent seen the ai sally ouy even once on its first turn?

    Link or never happened.
    I never meant on first turn
  • epic_159758496946hNeETHlepic_159758496946hNeETHl Registered Users Posts: 87

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Because CA used to respond to criticism and at least tolerate lively but respectful discussion.

    When they decided to make drastic changes to the TW formula with Rome 2 and all games since then, they never announced or explained why. A few of their least-popular ideas got pushback and were removed, yet they keep trying to shoe-horn them in and now appear to be succeeding as they've realised they only needed to change the presentation. Most battles in WH3 appear to involve the control-points that TW fans heavily criticised in 2013.

    To some people, this has been a betrayal of the most loyal player-base. When you've played Total War for as long as you've been gaming on PC, it feels like part of your identity has been crumpled up and your only choices are to demand CA stops doing that, or put it through the shredder yourself seeing as CA prefers the new and less-critical audience.
    Im playing Total War since Rome, so i would count me to the "loyal player base". And i like the changes CA did in Warhammer. I dont want to play a game in 2022 that feels like a 15 years old total war.
    If you've been criticizing the same things for almost ten years, you might want to realize that this game series isn't for you anymore.
  • JohnAdamssJohnAdamss Registered Users Posts: 68

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    monopoly

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Because CA used to respond to criticism and at least tolerate lively but respectful discussion.

    When they decided to make drastic changes to the TW formula with Rome 2 and all games since then, they never announced or explained why. A few of their least-popular ideas got pushback and were removed, yet they keep trying to shoe-horn them in and now appear to be succeeding as they've realised they only needed to change the presentation. Most battles in WH3 appear to involve the control-points that TW fans heavily criticised in 2013.

    To some people, this has been a betrayal of the most loyal player-base. When you've played Total War for as long as you've been gaming on PC, it feels like part of your identity has been crumpled up and your only choices are to demand CA stops doing that, or put it through the shredder yourself seeing as CA prefers the new and less-critical audience.
    Im playing Total War since Rome, so i would count me to the "loyal player base". And i like the changes CA did in Warhammer. I dont want to play a game in 2022 that feels like a 15 years old total war.
    If you've been criticizing the same things for almost ten years, you might want to realize that this game series isn't for you anymore.
    consoomer mindset is strong with this one.
  • epic_159758496946hNeETHlepic_159758496946hNeETHl Registered Users Posts: 87
    consoomer mindset is strong with this one.

    yes of course, everyone who is not overly negative is just a stupid uncritical consumer
  • JohnAdamssJohnAdamss Registered Users Posts: 68

    consoomer mindset is strong with this one.

    yes of course, everyone who is not overly negative is just a stupid uncritical consumer


    Unironically YES
  • abishaabisha Registered Users Posts: 48
    edited February 16
    siege is a big word

    do you really think battles would not take place without some sort of defense? even on open fields they create wood pillars to counter Calvary flanking

    each battle on earth that take place is practical a siege

    a open battle you see in example highlander is that fantasy that would never happen
  • JohnAdamssJohnAdamss Registered Users Posts: 68
    abisha said:

    siege is a big word

    do you really think battles would not take place without some sort of defense? even on open fields they create wood pillars to counter Calvary flanking

    each battle on earth that take place is practical a siege

    a open battle you see in example highlander is that fantasy that would never happen

    yeah yeah, its cool and all. but warhammer isn't half as deep to make it work properly
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 1,549


    With addition of minor settlement battles, on top of map density where almoust every settlement is one turn away, this leaves us with next to no field battles.

    Warhammer 3's map has lower settlement density. Most settlements are 2 turns away from each other.
  • JohnAdamssJohnAdamss Registered Users Posts: 68


    With addition of minor settlement battles, on top of map density where almoust every settlement is one turn away, this leaves us with next to no field battles.

    Warhammer 3's map has lower settlement density. Most settlements are 2 turns away from each other.
    let's hope immortal empires keeps it this way
  • JohnAdamssJohnAdamss Registered Users Posts: 68

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Because CA used to respond to criticism and at least tolerate lively but respectful discussion.

    When they decided to make drastic changes to the TW formula with Rome 2 and all games since then, they never announced or explained why. A few of their least-popular ideas got pushback and were removed, yet they keep trying to shoe-horn them in and now appear to be succeeding as they've realised they only needed to change the presentation. Most battles in WH3 appear to involve the control-points that TW fans heavily criticised in 2013.

    To some people, this has been a betrayal of the most loyal player-base. When you've played Total War for as long as you've been gaming on PC, it feels like part of your identity has been crumpled up and your only choices are to demand CA stops doing that, or put it through the shredder yourself seeing as CA prefers the new and less-critical audience.
    Because CA lost it's best people and sold it's soul to corporations.
    Did you know that those ugly arrow trails were considered a POSITIVE adiition by them?
    Only thing that keeps them alive is extrimely profitable warhammer ip, monopoly, and good modelers.

    For seven years every non-warhammer game failed, gotta tell you something.
  • WoodensenWoodensen Registered Users Posts: 11
    Isn't it in late game warhammer 2, almost all minor settlement is also walled? So we also have to fight walled sieges every time? Wh3 will reduce this tedium in late game i guess

    And with instant siege attrition, i guess you could lure the defender to sally out too, resulting in open field battle.

    I dont know, its too early to decide whether this is a good/bad change. I wish CA could implement checkbox deactivate minor settlement 2.0 in immortal empires, just like you can deactivate chaos invasion in ME.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,815

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Because CA used to respond to criticism and at least tolerate lively but respectful discussion.

    When they decided to make drastic changes to the TW formula with Rome 2 and all games since then, they never announced or explained why. A few of their least-popular ideas got pushback and were removed, yet they keep trying to shoe-horn them in and now appear to be succeeding as they've realised they only needed to change the presentation. Most battles in WH3 appear to involve the control-points that TW fans heavily criticised in 2013.

    To some people, this has been a betrayal of the most loyal player-base. When you've played Total War for as long as you've been gaming on PC, it feels like part of your identity has been crumpled up and your only choices are to demand CA stops doing that, or put it through the shredder yourself seeing as CA prefers the new and less-critical audience.
    Im playing Total War since Rome, so i would count me to the "loyal player base". And i like the changes CA did in Warhammer. I dont want to play a game in 2022 that feels like a 15 years old total war.
    If you've been criticizing the same things for almost ten years, you might want to realize that this game series isn't for you anymore.
    The changes I'm talking about happened in Rome. You can see me explicitly mention Rome 2 in the post you replied to.

    Whether you are an old TW fan is neither here nor they; you may like the series for very different reasons to why I did.

    CA have been making the same Total War game since 2013; they are nearly all identical to Rome 2 and can be called 'Rome 2 with extra steps' like single-entities and 'magic'(Rome 2 had such abilities that were functionally 'magic' but not presented as such). They will continue to do this as long as they make money from it: keeping the series stagnant and in 2013 for as long as they can.

    The days of Total War that I appreciate were the ones where there was always progress, but they are long since gone. I am not the one grasping at the past here, but the alternate-present where CA didn't choose to dumb-down the games in order to chase a broader(and more fickle) audience.

    The Warhammers would have been much better games.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 19,542

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Because CA used to respond to criticism and at least tolerate lively but respectful discussion.

    When they decided to make drastic changes to the TW formula with Rome 2 and all games since then, they never announced or explained why. A few of their least-popular ideas got pushback and were removed, yet they keep trying to shoe-horn them in and now appear to be succeeding as they've realised they only needed to change the presentation. Most battles in WH3 appear to involve the control-points that TW fans heavily criticised in 2013.

    To some people, this has been a betrayal of the most loyal player-base. When you've played Total War for as long as you've been gaming on PC, it feels like part of your identity has been crumpled up and your only choices are to demand CA stops doing that, or put it through the shredder yourself seeing as CA prefers the new and less-critical audience.
    Im playing Total War since Rome, so i would count me to the "loyal player base". And i like the changes CA did in Warhammer. I dont want to play a game in 2022 that feels like a 15 years old total war.
    If you've been criticizing the same things for almost ten years, you might want to realize that this game series isn't for you anymore.
    Yes, there are plenty of us who have been here since the beginning way back in the days of Shogun 1 who certainly don't feel betrayed. Some will enjoy and some won't - that's life.
  • TheacutTheacut Registered Users Posts: 93
    I dunno.
    The minor settlement siege battles seems pretty fun from the vids I've seen.
  • MaziskyMazisky Registered Users Posts: 924

    Mazisky said:

    Mazisky said:

    I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

    The ai is to stupid to attack. It just starves. So now you get the choice of paying the same minor settlement siege a few turns later against a starved ai (boooring) or play it immediately against a non starved ai (boring siege).

    (Maybe the ai is super smart though because it understands so many hate the boring wait so most players will attack immediately when they know the ai happily starves over and over. The ai understands it wastes the humans time and the humans will thus learn to attack immediately. The true victim being the humans and good gameplay.)
    In most footage i've seen it seems the AI sally out and attack, which may also be driven by the autoresolve being extremely in favour of the AI
    Csnt agree with this. Havent seen the ai sally ouy even once on its first turn?

    Link or never happened.
    I never meant on first turn
    Theacut said:

    I dunno.
    The minor settlement siege battles seems pretty fun from the vids I've seen.

    I would take these new minor settlements over land(no settlement)battle of Wh2 any time.

    Maybe they will be too much frequent, but as I said, the new attrition system may force both you and the AI to go land battle when defending a settlement
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 4,709

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Because CA used to respond to criticism and at least tolerate lively but respectful discussion.

    When they decided to make drastic changes to the TW formula with Rome 2 and all games since then, they never announced or explained why. A few of their least-popular ideas got pushback and were removed, yet they keep trying to shoe-horn them in and now appear to be succeeding as they've realised they only needed to change the presentation. Most battles in WH3 appear to involve the control-points that TW fans heavily criticised in 2013.

    To some people, this has been a betrayal of the most loyal player-base. When you've played Total War for as long as you've been gaming on PC, it feels like part of your identity has been crumpled up and your only choices are to demand CA stops doing that, or put it through the shredder yourself seeing as CA prefers the new and less-critical audience.
    Im playing Total War since Rome, so i would count me to the "loyal player base". And i like the changes CA did in Warhammer. I dont want to play a game in 2022 that feels like a 15 years old total war.
    If you've been criticizing the same things for almost ten years, you might want to realize that this game series isn't for you anymore.
    The changes I'm talking about happened in Rome. You can see me explicitly mention Rome 2 in the post you replied to.

    Whether you are an old TW fan is neither here nor they; you may like the series for very different reasons to why I did.

    CA have been making the same Total War game since 2013; they are nearly all identical to Rome 2 and can be called 'Rome 2 with extra steps' like single-entities and 'magic'(Rome 2 had such abilities that were functionally 'magic' but not presented as such). They will continue to do this as long as they make money from it: keeping the series stagnant and in 2013 for as long as they can.

    The days of Total War that I appreciate were the ones where there was always progress, but they are long since gone. I am not the one grasping at the past here, but the alternate-present where CA didn't choose to dumb-down the games in order to chase a broader(and more fickle) audience.

    The Warhammers would have been much better games.
    Nah, you are wrong.
    BEARS, Beets, Battlestar Galactica 🧝‍♀️ Pandas too please CA!
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,460
    edited February 16

    CA botched wh3 greatly.

    Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


    Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

    There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

    I dont get it. Obviously you hate every aspect of the game. Why dont you just leave and find another game you like instead of wasting hours of your time complaining about everything?
    Love wh2. Will be playing long after most have left wh3.

    This is a forum for wh total war. If there was a wh2 one id probably spend most of my forum time there.

    There is also the hope (no matter how slim) that wh3 years from now will become good.
    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.
  • Lexa19994Lexa19994 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 29
    The main issue with these sieges is supply point regeneration, its neverending, I destroyed multiple towers and they just keep coming back, not to mention these towers cost us players 500 each, I hate this tower defence capture flag thing, they need to make it a pre-deployable based on points we have before the battle
  • mm3791mm3791 Registered Users Posts: 177
    Pede said:

    Yes 107,5 % of all battles are sieges now.
    Even land battles and ambushes, all sieges.

    Next question pls.

    I laughed so loud when I saw this, best comment of the year.
  • PatriksevePatrikseve Member Registered Users Posts: 2,109
    I think its better than in game 2... the variation is still better. In the old games most battles where either field battles or those same siege battles. Now the siege maps are much more enjoyable with verticality and such. And the minor ones are great to. The entire chaos realm is non sieges and I have had plenty of field battles in my campaigns.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 6,737
    John is an alt account that has been spewing and running around with several others at this point to just spam the baseline. No not the other one spamming accounts. Hallowed out by bans for a reason.
  • ravonlineravonline Registered Users Posts: 22
    Theacut said:

    I dunno.
    The minor settlement siege battles seems pretty fun from the vids I've seen.

    It will get boring and fast. The problem is people play to relax and sieges are gonna be very very very micro intensive in ME with most factions and now in a 360 degree environment it means ppl need to constantly move from one unit to another. Not even gonna mention what that does if you are playing on L/VH bc of the restricted camera. So yea - the maps look nice but there are some issues.

    Also let me point out that GCCM is 2 classes above what CA designed both in looks [they had to work with the old assets and effects] and in terms of design.

    But yes - CA has made small town battles fun. For a bit - then they might just get tedious especially in long campaigns. I'd rather have the open map fights but let the AI get much bigger and stronger garrisons as the campaign progresses. Such an easy fix compared to the work done and time invested in the small town sieges.
Sign In or Register to comment.