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

domination favoring the infantry grind a bit too much

eumaieseumaies Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 9,219
domination is the best it's ever been. i'm loathe to experiment with it and break it again. but still doesn't feel quite right, even on the few good maps.

The caps should matter; it's good they do. But it's still too much about shenanigans of delay and holding them; perhaps because of ultra unit sizes but the infantry slog is still the dominant way to play, even for a ranged faction like cathay. Too high a % of the game is spent suiciding units to hold ground rather than using units to their full potential.

Although i've been supportive of the comeback mechanic for the incentives it can bring, i think it's a little too strong and can make the game too bloated with units and make killing stuff not important enough. And I think the game could go to a bit higher victory points.

The thing is there's just something about the dynamic of having to move units from reinforcements to the front that always favors a steady stream of melee units to contest caps. I think the only way to offset that dynamic is to make killing more important.

Or you know improve land battles with some capture points and let this game mode be a football style game.

«1

Comments

  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,303
    The comeback mechanic is too strong. It is deeply counter-intuitive that players would be wanting to get the comeback mechanic as that implies that you are better off getting the additional supplies from the comeback mechanic than getting the victory tickets which are the primary win condition for the game mode. I'd like it to be reduced from 33%/66% additional funds to 25%/50% or roughly thereabouts.

    As for the rest, let's wait until immortal empires brings the old factions back and see if the issues persist. While I can neither confirm nor deny that I have played the illicit mod that let's game 1/2 factions be used in game 3, my gut feeling is that we need to be careful about extrapolating out current gameplay to being a feature of Domination mode as opposed to a product of the factions in the game currently.
  • griffithxigriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 1,459
    edited June 5
    The comeback mechanic imo is one of those things where if you lose and feel it was the comeback mechanic that allowed your opponent to stay in the game and beat you it feels bad/frustrating.

    Yet I believe the game would be worse without it. You would potentially see a situation where everything is all about that first trade and there is a short standoff where people are trying to line things up to their advantage then once the first trade happens and it goes badly for one side they immediately quit the match.
    Then there are 2 minute matches where most of your units don't even see combat because after the initial trade most players feel there is no point in continuing.

    Its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.
  • BloodyStreamBloodyStream Registered Users Posts: 164
    Really telling that just spamming infantry with nurgle is a game winning strategy
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,219

    Really telling that just spamming infantry with nurgle is a game winning strategy

    To me it’s really telling that spamming infantry with Cathay is a game winning strategy.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,219

    The comeback mechanic imo is one of those things where if you lose and feel it was the comeback mechanic that allowed your opponent to stay in the game and beat you it feels bad/frustrating.

    Yet I believe the game would be worse without it. You would potentially see a situation where everything is all about that first trade and there is a short standoff where people are trying to line things up to their advantage then once the first trade happens and it goes badly for one side they immediately quit the match.
    Then there are 2 minute matches where most of your units don't even see combat because after the initial trade most players feel there is no point in continuing.

    Its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

    I don’t think it’s giving someone more chances to come back or rewarding delaying capping is the biggest problem; I think it’s just when one side can get too many units over the course of the game it makes killing those units matter less and crowding into cap the dominant way to play, rather than managing your units well.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,219

    The comeback mechanic is too strong. It is deeply counter-intuitive that players would be wanting to get the comeback mechanic as that implies that you are better off getting the additional supplies from the comeback mechanic than getting the victory tickets which are the primary win condition for the game mode. I'd like it to be reduced from 33%/66% additional funds to 25%/50% or roughly thereabouts.

    As for the rest, let's wait until immortal empires brings the old factions back and see if the issues persist. While I can neither confirm nor deny that I have played the illicit mod that let's game 1/2 factions be used in game 3, my gut feeling is that we need to be careful about extrapolating out current gameplay to being a feature of Domination mode as opposed to a product of the factions in the game currently.

    I’m not sure what your “intuiting” about the other factions but even if I play ranged vs ranged faction right now I find melee spam is the way to go.
  • White-PaladinWhite-Paladin Registered Users Posts: 86
    No matter what they do and what changes they make to domination mode, it's always going to be a soulless game mode.
    The only solution is land battles with a capture point and that's all there is to it.
  • griffithxigriffithxi Registered Users Posts: 1,459
    eumaies said:

    The comeback mechanic imo is one of those things where if you lose and feel it was the comeback mechanic that allowed your opponent to stay in the game and beat you it feels bad/frustrating.

    Yet I believe the game would be worse without it. You would potentially see a situation where everything is all about that first trade and there is a short standoff where people are trying to line things up to their advantage then once the first trade happens and it goes badly for one side they immediately quit the match.
    Then there are 2 minute matches where most of your units don't even see combat because after the initial trade most players feel there is no point in continuing.

    Its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

    I don’t think it’s giving someone more chances to come back or rewarding delaying capping is the biggest problem; I think it’s just when one side can get too many units over the course of the game it makes killing those units matter less and crowding into cap the dominant way to play, rather than managing your units well.
    eumaies said:

    The comeback mechanic imo is one of those things where if you lose and feel it was the comeback mechanic that allowed your opponent to stay in the game and beat you it feels bad/frustrating.

    Yet I believe the game would be worse without it. You would potentially see a situation where everything is all about that first trade and there is a short standoff where people are trying to line things up to their advantage then once the first trade happens and it goes badly for one side they immediately quit the match.
    Then there are 2 minute matches where most of your units don't even see combat because after the initial trade most players feel there is no point in continuing.

    Its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

    I don’t think it’s giving someone more chances to come back or rewarding delaying capping is the biggest problem; I think it’s just when one side can get too many units over the course of the game it makes killing those units matter less and crowding into cap the dominant way to play, rather than managing your units well.
    If that is the concern maybe a potential solution to that is lowering the overall income both base income and comeback mechanic income in equal proportion to slow things down more and make preservation/effective use of units more important?
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,535

    No matter what they do and what changes they make to domination mode, it's always going to be a soulless game mode.
    The only solution is land battles with a capture point and that's all there is to it.

    it is soulless, gamey and more of an arithmetic problem than a game, and the comeback and resummon mechanics need euthanising, but im starting to think its better than landbattles. It requires a little thought at least, even if the thought is more about numbers and remembering things than any kind of creative tactics or things that were important in wh2.

    Landbattles are so awful at the moment, due to terrible faction design all-around. All you see is blobs everywhere.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,535
    We really need immortal empires to save this mess, so we can forget about these trash factions.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,654
    Reinforcements needs to be removed really
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,535
    yst said:

    Reinforcements needs to be removed really

    im ok with having reinforcements, i would like it to be a smaller amount (like 30% or so) so you use them as tactical options to cover holes etc, but concept of reinforcements is ok.

    really we need classic battles to not get ignored, and some competent faction balancing to happen. Could be easily improved with a few capture points like they did 10 years ago in shogun 2.
  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 18,355
    remove the resummons the root cause of the issue and go from there


    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,303
    edited June 5
    eumaies said:

    The comeback mechanic is too strong. It is deeply counter-intuitive that players would be wanting to get the comeback mechanic as that implies that you are better off getting the additional supplies from the comeback mechanic than getting the victory tickets which are the primary win condition for the game mode. I'd like it to be reduced from 33%/66% additional funds to 25%/50% or roughly thereabouts.

    As for the rest, let's wait until immortal empires brings the old factions back and see if the issues persist. While I can neither confirm nor deny that I have played the illicit mod that let's game 1/2 factions be used in game 3, my gut feeling is that we need to be careful about extrapolating out current gameplay to being a feature of Domination mode as opposed to a product of the factions in the game currently.

    I’m not sure what your “intuiting” about the other factions but even if I play ranged vs ranged faction right now I find melee spam is the way to go.
    So I assume you have played the mod too, right? Just making sure we are talking about the same thing here because the base game 3 factions are extremely barebones atm and the way matchups play with them vs game 1/2 factions is very different.

    And to be fair, ranged vs ranged matchups were generally pretty unfun matchups in game 2.

    If we were to say "ranged" factions are:

    - Dwarfs
    - Empire
    - Vampire Coast
    - Skaven
    - Tomb Kings
    - Wood Elves

    In terms of matchups I'd define as counters, the breakdown would be (faction on left counters faction on right):

    - Dwarfs vs Empire
    - Dwarfs vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Vampire Coast
    - Empire vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Wood Elves
    - Skaven vs Dwarfs
    - Tomb Kings vs Skaven
    - Tomb Kings vs Vampire Coast (the exception being 5 deck dropper builds which really leaned into the flying shooter dodging fun)
    - Wood Elves vs Skaven
    - Wood Elves vs Vampire Coast

    And then even matchups are:

    - Empire vs Skaven
    - Skaven vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Wood Elves (even but very build roulettey)
    - Tomb Kings vs Wood Elves (not too sure about this, it may be TK favoured after nerfs to Orion/Ariel and aspect of the dread knight gave magic damage)

    Some of these are more or less hard than others (and I may have misplaced the odd matchup) but there is certainly a lot of pretty nasty matchups in there that experienced tournament players would try and avoid. But when greater than 2/3 of ranged vs ranged matchups were hard counters in land battles, I think Domination is a big improvement honestly. And ranged still plays an important part in these matchups (I was regularly taking at least 30-40% ranged units in them and theorycrafting has barely scratched the surface on them).
    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,303
    Just to be clear on the above, I'm not saying ranged vs ranged matchups are inherently unfun in land battles (Empire vs Skaven was one of my favourite matchups in the game) just that hard counters are unfun and for whatever reason there tended to be a lot of them between ranged factions.
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 3,535

    Just to be clear on the above, I'm not saying ranged vs ranged matchups are inherently unfun in land battles (Empire vs Skaven was one of my favourite matchups in the game) just that hard counters are unfun and for whatever reason there tended to be a lot of them between ranged factions.

    i think you're seeing what you want to see there, there are as many hard counters between melee v range factions, melee vs melee and the shades in between.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,303
    edited June 6
    Loupi_ said:

    Just to be clear on the above, I'm not saying ranged vs ranged matchups are inherently unfun in land battles (Empire vs Skaven was one of my favourite matchups in the game) just that hard counters are unfun and for whatever reason there tended to be a lot of them between ranged factions.

    i think you're seeing what you want to see there, there are as many hard counters between melee v range factions, melee vs melee and the shades in between.
    I agree there are plenty of hard counters to go round, I didn't say there aren't hard counters between ranged vs melee or melee vs melee etc.

    But I was responding to the comment about ranged vs ranged factions being mainly reliant on melee spam (although not sure if this is game 3 factions specifically or all factions using the mod) so was just pointing out that ranged vs ranged matchups were in a pretty bad spot in land battles if that is the comparison point.

    If how ranged factions interact in Domination is seen as problematic, it is reasonable to point out that how they interacted in land battles was pretty bad as well. Whether or not it is worse is likely a matter of perspective and what you prioritise but at least imo ranged vs ranged matchups are much more enjoyable in Domination than in land battles.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,219
    edited June 6

    eumaies said:

    The comeback mechanic is too strong. It is deeply counter-intuitive that players would be wanting to get the comeback mechanic as that implies that you are better off getting the additional supplies from the comeback mechanic than getting the victory tickets which are the primary win condition for the game mode. I'd like it to be reduced from 33%/66% additional funds to 25%/50% or roughly thereabouts.

    As for the rest, let's wait until immortal empires brings the old factions back and see if the issues persist. While I can neither confirm nor deny that I have played the illicit mod that let's game 1/2 factions be used in game 3, my gut feeling is that we need to be careful about extrapolating out current gameplay to being a feature of Domination mode as opposed to a product of the factions in the game currently.

    I’m not sure what your “intuiting” about the other factions but even if I play ranged vs ranged faction right now I find melee spam is the way to go.
    So I assume you have played the mod too, right? Just making sure we are talking about the same thing here because the base game 3 factions are extremely barebones atm and the way matchups play with them vs game 1/2 factions is very different.

    And to be fair, ranged vs ranged matchups were generally pretty unfun matchups in game 2.

    If we were to say "ranged" factions are:

    - Dwarfs
    - Empire
    - Vampire Coast
    - Skaven
    - Tomb Kings
    - Wood Elves

    In terms of matchups I'd define as counters, the breakdown would be (faction on left counters faction on right):

    - Dwarfs vs Empire
    - Dwarfs vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Vampire Coast
    - Empire vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Wood Elves
    - Skaven vs Dwarfs
    - Tomb Kings vs Skaven
    - Tomb Kings vs Vampire Coast (the exception being 5 deck dropper builds which really leaned into the flying shooter dodging fun)
    - Wood Elves vs Skaven
    - Wood Elves vs Vampire Coast

    And then even matchups are:

    - Empire vs Skaven
    - Skaven vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Wood Elves (even but very build roulettey)
    - Tomb Kings vs Wood Elves (not too sure about this, it may be TK favoured after nerfs to Orion/Ariel and aspect of the dread knight gave magic damage)

    Some of these are more or less hard than others (and I may have misplaced the odd matchup) but there is certainly a lot of pretty nasty matchups in there that experienced tournament players would try and avoid. But when greater than 2/3 of ranged vs ranged matchups were hard counters in land battles, I think Domination is a big improvement honestly. And ranged still plays an important part in these matchups (I was regularly taking at least 30-40% ranged units in them and theorycrafting has barely scratched the surface on them).
    Thanks for the info. No I haven't played any mods. And i'm not discussed matchup balance; domination could change matchup balance but it's not really my point. My point is whether sitting on caps is so paramount that units (including melee units like melee infantry) are not being used tactically. And then by extension ranged units not being used because killing stuff may not matter enough.

    But it could just be the maps; i'm enjoying dom and ok with not touching what's no longer broken 'til we see more. I'm sure IE will break all sorts of things regardless.

    Separately, re: those matchups, empire tomb kings, empire wood elves, tomb kings skaven, tomb kings coast, even on that list, were even matchups.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,303
    edited June 6
    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:

    The comeback mechanic is too strong. It is deeply counter-intuitive that players would be wanting to get the comeback mechanic as that implies that you are better off getting the additional supplies from the comeback mechanic than getting the victory tickets which are the primary win condition for the game mode. I'd like it to be reduced from 33%/66% additional funds to 25%/50% or roughly thereabouts.

    As for the rest, let's wait until immortal empires brings the old factions back and see if the issues persist. While I can neither confirm nor deny that I have played the illicit mod that let's game 1/2 factions be used in game 3, my gut feeling is that we need to be careful about extrapolating out current gameplay to being a feature of Domination mode as opposed to a product of the factions in the game currently.

    I’m not sure what your “intuiting” about the other factions but even if I play ranged vs ranged faction right now I find melee spam is the way to go.
    So I assume you have played the mod too, right? Just making sure we are talking about the same thing here because the base game 3 factions are extremely barebones atm and the way matchups play with them vs game 1/2 factions is very different.

    And to be fair, ranged vs ranged matchups were generally pretty unfun matchups in game 2.

    If we were to say "ranged" factions are:

    - Dwarfs
    - Empire
    - Vampire Coast
    - Skaven
    - Tomb Kings
    - Wood Elves

    In terms of matchups I'd define as counters, the breakdown would be (faction on left counters faction on right):

    - Dwarfs vs Empire
    - Dwarfs vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Vampire Coast
    - Empire vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Wood Elves
    - Skaven vs Dwarfs
    - Tomb Kings vs Skaven
    - Tomb Kings vs Vampire Coast (the exception being 5 deck dropper builds which really leaned into the flying shooter dodging fun)
    - Wood Elves vs Skaven
    - Wood Elves vs Vampire Coast

    And then even matchups are:

    - Empire vs Skaven
    - Skaven vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Wood Elves (even but very build roulettey)
    - Tomb Kings vs Wood Elves (not too sure about this, it may be TK favoured after nerfs to Orion/Ariel and aspect of the dread knight gave magic damage)

    Some of these are more or less hard than others (and I may have misplaced the odd matchup) but there is certainly a lot of pretty nasty matchups in there that experienced tournament players would try and avoid. But when greater than 2/3 of ranged vs ranged matchups were hard counters in land battles, I think Domination is a big improvement honestly. And ranged still plays an important part in these matchups (I was regularly taking at least 30-40% ranged units in them and theorycrafting has barely scratched the surface on them).
    Thanks for the info. No I haven't played any mods. And i'm not discussed matchup balance; domination could change matchup balance but it's not really my point. My point is whether sitting on caps is so paramount that units (including melee units like melee infantry) are not being used tactically. And then by extension ranged units not being used because killing stuff may not matter enough.

    But it could just be the maps; i'm enjoying dom and ok with not touching what's no longer broken 'til we see more. I'm sure IE will break all sorts of things regardless.

    Separately, re: those matchups, empire tomb kings, empire wood elves, tomb kings skaven, tomb kings coast, even on that list, were even matchups.
    Yea, I think a lot of what we are seeing is based on the factions available and the way those factions interact with the maps. And honestly it is still pretty solid! But there are small things like chokepoints being held by chaos spawn or unbreakable units being much more difficult to play around with current rosters than if the units had leadership, the limited rosters meaning you often don't have the tools to even prepare for some unit combos etc. But faction depth is way better with the old factions so you can really try some crazy maneuvers. Something like Dwarfs vs Skaven plays wildly differently depending on if the map is silver spire vs battle of itza vs mountain of mourn and it is awesome when terrain has a real impact on matchups and is something interesting to see as opposed to being something that is largely minimalised.

    But the comeback mechanic should receive a nerf. A comeback mechanic is compensation for being down to help you scrap back into the game like griffithx said above but currently it is so strong it makes players not want to cap points. And that is a definite flaw.

    re the matchups: yea, we could debate the exact specifics of the list but even if we just assume the 4 you mention are even we still have a 7/8 split between banned/playable matchups. So just under 50% of ranged matchups are never seen. And that is massively problematic for the MP scene imo especially when it includes fan favourite matchups like Dwarfs vs Skaven or Empire vs Vampire Coast.

    P.S. As for the original post about grinding with infantry on points, getting infantry on a point is all well and good.....until out rolls the flame cannon ;)
    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,842
    Remove resummoning and it would be of enormous help to the game mode.


    It's a fundamentally bad mechanic


    And for goodness sakes actually balance the factions
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,723
    One point I haven't seen mentioned but that's worth considering is lowering the capture value of infantry a bit. It's about double the next highest category I think so it could be reduced while still keeping infantry as a favored category. This makes cavalry and other fast movers better capture threats, something they often fail to provide, and makes trickle infantry less necessary for holding points.

    I also think scaling capture weight by cost and adding a time penalty to resummoning increasing for each time the unit is wiped would be a good way to make spamming cheap infantry specifically less effective. Right now cost effectively contesting a point is best done through volume, which naturally encourages extremely wide infantry builds. Making volume less effective seems to be the best solution to reduce the human wave problem.

    The comeback mechanic could be trimmed a bit though I do think something is necessary to keep game competitive.

    Finally I see a lot of comments abiut removing resummoning to address the power of infantry capture weight in Domination, but why do people think that would work? If you have can effectively "run out" of capture weight won't that push people towards greater levels of redundancy, meaning wider, cheaper armies?

    The reinforcement pool works because you don't need to select units if they are ineffective to the situation so you can bring off meta unuts without the risk of build roulette. No resummoning removes that entirely which just encourages the same low risk builds with cheap infantry spam and safe effective damage sources that are meta in land battles. Just replace targeting high value targets to trigger army losses with high capture weight targets to make it impossible for an opponent to hold points.

    This seems like a recipe for polarizing builds in Domination even more towards infantry while importing some of the worst elements of land battles.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 1,842
    Removing resummoning is in two elements

    First Removing the ability of cultists and other units that can summon - noctilus - to be withdrawn and come back and spam away

    Second, it brings a level of tactical value to wiping out units and can allow defeat by elimination effectively. This is particularly so and will be more evident when more races are added. It also aids immersion and player skill. Working hard to eliminate the enemies elite heavy cav or waywatcher blob should not result in those units returning. If they aren't in the reinforcement roster.

    The effort to kill a stone horn, dread saurain, steam tank, 3x blood knight requires skill and tactical ability and if there is a genuine cost to the loss of those units then it adds jeopardy and tactical value to both sides which drastically improves gameplay and enjoyment. As it stands the current domination still favours meat grinder tactics which are inherently boring and tactically unintuitive - why no one enjoys undead vs undead matches as a vague example

  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,219

    eumaies said:

    eumaies said:

    The comeback mechanic is too strong. It is deeply counter-intuitive that players would be wanting to get the comeback mechanic as that implies that you are better off getting the additional supplies from the comeback mechanic than getting the victory tickets which are the primary win condition for the game mode. I'd like it to be reduced from 33%/66% additional funds to 25%/50% or roughly thereabouts.

    As for the rest, let's wait until immortal empires brings the old factions back and see if the issues persist. While I can neither confirm nor deny that I have played the illicit mod that let's game 1/2 factions be used in game 3, my gut feeling is that we need to be careful about extrapolating out current gameplay to being a feature of Domination mode as opposed to a product of the factions in the game currently.

    I’m not sure what your “intuiting” about the other factions but even if I play ranged vs ranged faction right now I find melee spam is the way to go.
    So I assume you have played the mod too, right? Just making sure we are talking about the same thing here because the base game 3 factions are extremely barebones atm and the way matchups play with them vs game 1/2 factions is very different.

    And to be fair, ranged vs ranged matchups were generally pretty unfun matchups in game 2.

    If we were to say "ranged" factions are:

    - Dwarfs
    - Empire
    - Vampire Coast
    - Skaven
    - Tomb Kings
    - Wood Elves

    In terms of matchups I'd define as counters, the breakdown would be (faction on left counters faction on right):

    - Dwarfs vs Empire
    - Dwarfs vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Vampire Coast
    - Empire vs Tomb Kings
    - Empire vs Wood Elves
    - Skaven vs Dwarfs
    - Tomb Kings vs Skaven
    - Tomb Kings vs Vampire Coast (the exception being 5 deck dropper builds which really leaned into the flying shooter dodging fun)
    - Wood Elves vs Skaven
    - Wood Elves vs Vampire Coast

    And then even matchups are:

    - Empire vs Skaven
    - Skaven vs Vampire Coast
    - Dwarfs vs Wood Elves (even but very build roulettey)
    - Tomb Kings vs Wood Elves (not too sure about this, it may be TK favoured after nerfs to Orion/Ariel and aspect of the dread knight gave magic damage)

    Some of these are more or less hard than others (and I may have misplaced the odd matchup) but there is certainly a lot of pretty nasty matchups in there that experienced tournament players would try and avoid. But when greater than 2/3 of ranged vs ranged matchups were hard counters in land battles, I think Domination is a big improvement honestly. And ranged still plays an important part in these matchups (I was regularly taking at least 30-40% ranged units in them and theorycrafting has barely scratched the surface on them).
    Thanks for the info. No I haven't played any mods. And i'm not discussed matchup balance; domination could change matchup balance but it's not really my point. My point is whether sitting on caps is so paramount that units (including melee units like melee infantry) are not being used tactically. And then by extension ranged units not being used because killing stuff may not matter enough.

    But it could just be the maps; i'm enjoying dom and ok with not touching what's no longer broken 'til we see more. I'm sure IE will break all sorts of things regardless.

    Separately, re: those matchups, empire tomb kings, empire wood elves, tomb kings skaven, tomb kings coast, even on that list, were even matchups.
    Yea, I think a lot of what we are seeing is based on the factions available and the way those factions interact with the maps. And honestly it is still pretty solid! But there are small things like chokepoints being held by chaos spawn or unbreakable units being much more difficult to play around with current rosters than if the units had leadership, the limited rosters meaning you often don't have the tools to even prepare for some unit combos etc. But faction depth is way better with the old factions so you can really try some crazy maneuvers. Something like Dwarfs vs Skaven plays wildly differently depending on if the map is silver spire vs battle of itza vs mountain of mourn and it is awesome when terrain has a real impact on matchups and is something interesting to see as opposed to being something that is largely minimalised.

    But the comeback mechanic should receive a nerf. A comeback mechanic is compensation for being down to help you scrap back into the game like griffithx said above but currently it is so strong it makes players not want to cap points. And that is a definite flaw.

    re the matchups: yea, we could debate the exact specifics of the list but even if we just assume the 4 you mention are even we still have a 7/8 split between banned/playable matchups. So just under 50% of ranged matchups are never seen. And that is massively problematic for the MP scene imo especially when it includes fan favourite matchups like Dwarfs vs Skaven or Empire vs Vampire Coast.

    P.S. As for the original post about grinding with infantry on points, getting infantry on a point is all well and good.....until out rolls the flame cannon ;)
    It's a total side point, but really all you showed through example is that dwarfs had a lot of lopsided matchups in one direction or the other. And dwarfs are a ranged faction.

    It's just not the case that this was systematically true for skaven or tomb kings or empire, who had among the most balanced matchups overall. ANd when these bad matchups did occur there as nothing intrinsic about ranged units that made them occur.
  • Omega_WarriorOmega_Warrior Registered Users Posts: 1,386
    I'm really big on maining cathay and experimenting with them and I have to disagree that the issue with missile unit play has to do with domination mechanics specifically and I feel like a lot of people here are trying to tie their pet peeves to this issue that aren't really true.

    The only case in which I can say domination mechanics are the cause of this is with furies. The resummoning mechanic unfairly favors them because they die extremely fast and start recharging quickly so they even a couple will end up coming back multiple times per game.

    Other then that it is all race balance stuff and how literally all the OP units in game at the moment all are OP in the way that they cause an extremely unfair amount of disruption which hurts missile play in particular.

    Take the chaos races. All of them have easy access to free summons through their cultists, but unlike other summon heavy races like the undead who's armies are usually made of slow and weaker units and usually can only summon weak or low damage units. The choas race's units aren't really balanced around being a summoning race and the units they summon are usually high damage and fast.

    Then we have kislev and their 30 seconds of unbreakable. It's thrown on the whole race so recklessly and isn't appropriate in some cases. In particular, I've seen dervishes at only 450 points reach 0 leadership and get half blocked by defending units, but still wrap themselves around and disrupt multiple missile units for a full 30 seconds. There's no way that is a fair thing to expect players to defend against.

    And ogres have their invisible stonehorns just appearing suddenly in your backlines and running over everything.

    So while sure, removing resummoning would definitely help a bit, especially with the monogod races. This is still really a mostly a normal balance issue, then a major problem with domination itself.
  • Spellbound1875Spellbound1875 Registered Users Posts: 1,723
    @The_real_FAUST Meat Grinder tactics are a problem largely because of repeated spamming of cheaper infantry and light cavalry though. You don't see people resummoning stonehorns or really elite infantry because of the time it takes to get enough funds to purchase them, and because usually you'd want multiple cheap units, right? This isn't strictly an issue with resummoning then, it's an issue with cheap units largely.

    Though on the first point yeah that's an issue that should be fixed, but that can be done without removing resummoning. The game needs to remember ability usage over time. We know the game tracks XP gain so the fact that abilities are excluded is strange.

    @Omega_Warrior As of 1.2 I find keeping missile units safe long enough for them to making a meaningful impact on the game is substantially easier in terms of damage value. Furies are often cost ineffective and their tactical utility is pretty variable across games. Summons can be disruptive of melee units but again if you're on your toes it's quite doable to keep a missile unit functional and to get them to pay for themselves even after a summon was used to disrupt them.

    In spite of all of this Cathay can struggle since you don't need your missile units to be cost effective, you need to capture points. The best way to do that is with lots of infantry on points, so that's what you see people moving towards. If the best explanation we can come up with for why something isn't work is that everything else is overpowered in spite of repeated balance changes designed to rectify that we may be missing something.

    The points you highlight as overpowered I'd also note have a large ability to protect captured points which I think is a bigger issue than missile units not being strong enough. Furies, unbreakable kislev units (dervishers are a particular pet peeve), and an unremoved stone horn in your back line can make it difficult as Cathay to get a sufficient volume of infantry to a point. Ogres in particular really benefit from cheap monstrous infantry which gives them very solid capture value at very high speeds which can produce frustrating results for factions with cavalry and war beasts.

    It's an anecdotal example, but one I've seen and had happen to myself repeatedly. Earlier today I ran a Cathay vs Kislev game on Silver Spire. I had a poor start and lost the center capture point. I proceed to win the center engagement and am up by 3-4 k value but I need a triple cap to win at this point and I can't get a sufficent amount of capture value on point three, not because I don't have an infantry advantage, but because chariots and light cav keep running into my infantry and dying. My opponent through away a lot of cavalry trying to compromise my missiles, only succeeding after they'd done their job and I pulled the infantry defending them forward to hold a capture point. In this case the missile units did fine, in fact they performed excellently but the issue was they were unable to remove enough infantry to allow me to capture the center in a sufficient time to win. The only way I could have changed that as Cathay was to bring more infantry, something that would have let me flip the center sooner.

    All of this suggests the issue is infantry are a bit too important in holding or swinging points in time, so any units which hold capture weight very well or which can easily stop a slow opponent from getting onto an infantry point, are going to be powerful. Shooting does neither until a unit routs or crumbles, and is unreliable when combined with Cathay's slow and very removable infantry, at least in the standards of game 3.

    The exact set of changes needed to remedy this is unclear, it's likely going to require multiple system changes rather than a one size fits all approach. But the issue I think is pretty clearly one with the mechanics of domination, not an issue primarily related to unit performance.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,654
    Reinforcements is a stupid bad idea.

    I dont mind 80% main army and 20% reinforcements just so u can cater for some counter against extreme build but thats that.

    How the heck do they even come up with such a horrible idea, domination is perfect then they decided to add some bloody stupid reinforcements element into it, like why in the world would anyone do that
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,303
    @Omega_Warrior the issues Cathay are facing are content issues that will be fixed with DLC. Skaven had the exact same issues in early game 2 before they got their weapon teams where they had virtually no ability to protect their backline from flyers and struggled vs a lot of factions. Replace "furies" with "harpies" and it was the same situation.

    Imo the problem Cathay faces vs Daemons is that furies cost 550 vs Longmas costing 1400. So if you protect the air using your longmas you are thinner on the ground and Daemon infantry trades well into cathay infantry especially when Cathay is already thin on the ground by splitting between ranged units/infantry to protect/longmas to protect in air. And because Longmas aren't good vs lots of different units in Daemons they end up being somewhat wasted funds.

    @Spellbound55 I think the issue of how capture weight is assigned is going to be a core thing to get right for dom. There are already certain SEMs that have infantry capture weight (Snow Leopard and Beast of Nurgle are two I'm aware of) so there is definitely room to play around with it to get the desired gameplay. I do think that infantry need to have the highest capture weight overall but giving some elite cav infantry capture weight or even just making infantry that cost less than 500 have less capture weight compared to elite infantry might be an interesting avenue to explore.

    As an example, I think Bret peasants being better at capturing compared to Bret cav to the extent they will likely be is going to be a bit weird.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,219

    @The_real_FAUST Meat Grinder tactics are a problem largely because of repeated spamming of cheaper infantry and light cavalry though. You don't see people resummoning stonehorns or really elite infantry because of the time it takes to get enough funds to purchase them, and because usually you'd want multiple cheap units, right? This isn't strictly an issue with resummoning then, it's an issue with cheap units largely.

    Though on the first point yeah that's an issue that should be fixed, but that can be done without removing resummoning. The game needs to remember ability usage over time. We know the game tracks XP gain so the fact that abilities are excluded is strange.

    @Omega_Warrior As of 1.2 I find keeping missile units safe long enough for them to making a meaningful impact on the game is substantially easier in terms of damage value. Furies are often cost ineffective and their tactical utility is pretty variable across games. Summons can be disruptive of melee units but again if you're on your toes it's quite doable to keep a missile unit functional and to get them to pay for themselves even after a summon was used to disrupt them.

    In spite of all of this Cathay can struggle since you don't need your missile units to be cost effective, you need to capture points. The best way to do that is with lots of infantry on points, so that's what you see people moving towards. If the best explanation we can come up with for why something isn't work is that everything else is overpowered in spite of repeated balance changes designed to rectify that we may be missing something.

    The points you highlight as overpowered I'd also note have a large ability to protect captured points which I think is a bigger issue than missile units not being strong enough. Furies, unbreakable kislev units (dervishers are a particular pet peeve), and an unremoved stone horn in your back line can make it difficult as Cathay to get a sufficient volume of infantry to a point. Ogres in particular really benefit from cheap monstrous infantry which gives them very solid capture value at very high speeds which can produce frustrating results for factions with cavalry and war beasts.

    It's an anecdotal example, but one I've seen and had happen to myself repeatedly. Earlier today I ran a Cathay vs Kislev game on Silver Spire. I had a poor start and lost the center capture point. I proceed to win the center engagement and am up by 3-4 k value but I need a triple cap to win at this point and I can't get a sufficent amount of capture value on point three, not because I don't have an infantry advantage, but because chariots and light cav keep running into my infantry and dying. My opponent through away a lot of cavalry trying to compromise my missiles, only succeeding after they'd done their job and I pulled the infantry defending them forward to hold a capture point. In this case the missile units did fine, in fact they performed excellently but the issue was they were unable to remove enough infantry to allow me to capture the center in a sufficient time to win. The only way I could have changed that as Cathay was to bring more infantry, something that would have let me flip the center sooner.

    All of this suggests the issue is infantry are a bit too important in holding or swinging points in time, so any units which hold capture weight very well or which can easily stop a slow opponent from getting onto an infantry point, are going to be powerful. Shooting does neither until a unit routs or crumbles, and is unreliable when combined with Cathay's slow and very removable infantry, at least in the standards of game 3.

    The exact set of changes needed to remedy this is unclear, it's likely going to require multiple system changes rather than a one size fits all approach. But the issue I think is pretty clearly one with the mechanics of domination, not an issue primarily related to unit performance.

    Your anecdote is a good illustration of my point but I don’t find it’s about infantry capping.

    I don’t care really if infantry or ranged are stronger (both can perform well) or if Cathay is weak (I find them strong). But I care ALOT that so much blocking and tackling and jamming up enemy movement is taking precedence over things like tactical flanking and using the right units against the right target. I think that happens because caps matter a bit too much relative to killing stuff. It still plays too much like a football game rather than a strategic encounter.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,303
    eumaies said:

    @The_real_FAUST Meat Grinder tactics are a problem largely because of repeated spamming of cheaper infantry and light cavalry though. You don't see people resummoning stonehorns or really elite infantry because of the time it takes to get enough funds to purchase them, and because usually you'd want multiple cheap units, right? This isn't strictly an issue with resummoning then, it's an issue with cheap units largely.

    Though on the first point yeah that's an issue that should be fixed, but that can be done without removing resummoning. The game needs to remember ability usage over time. We know the game tracks XP gain so the fact that abilities are excluded is strange.

    @Omega_Warrior As of 1.2 I find keeping missile units safe long enough for them to making a meaningful impact on the game is substantially easier in terms of damage value. Furies are often cost ineffective and their tactical utility is pretty variable across games. Summons can be disruptive of melee units but again if you're on your toes it's quite doable to keep a missile unit functional and to get them to pay for themselves even after a summon was used to disrupt them.

    In spite of all of this Cathay can struggle since you don't need your missile units to be cost effective, you need to capture points. The best way to do that is with lots of infantry on points, so that's what you see people moving towards. If the best explanation we can come up with for why something isn't work is that everything else is overpowered in spite of repeated balance changes designed to rectify that we may be missing something.

    The points you highlight as overpowered I'd also note have a large ability to protect captured points which I think is a bigger issue than missile units not being strong enough. Furies, unbreakable kislev units (dervishers are a particular pet peeve), and an unremoved stone horn in your back line can make it difficult as Cathay to get a sufficient volume of infantry to a point. Ogres in particular really benefit from cheap monstrous infantry which gives them very solid capture value at very high speeds which can produce frustrating results for factions with cavalry and war beasts.

    It's an anecdotal example, but one I've seen and had happen to myself repeatedly. Earlier today I ran a Cathay vs Kislev game on Silver Spire. I had a poor start and lost the center capture point. I proceed to win the center engagement and am up by 3-4 k value but I need a triple cap to win at this point and I can't get a sufficent amount of capture value on point three, not because I don't have an infantry advantage, but because chariots and light cav keep running into my infantry and dying. My opponent through away a lot of cavalry trying to compromise my missiles, only succeeding after they'd done their job and I pulled the infantry defending them forward to hold a capture point. In this case the missile units did fine, in fact they performed excellently but the issue was they were unable to remove enough infantry to allow me to capture the center in a sufficient time to win. The only way I could have changed that as Cathay was to bring more infantry, something that would have let me flip the center sooner.

    All of this suggests the issue is infantry are a bit too important in holding or swinging points in time, so any units which hold capture weight very well or which can easily stop a slow opponent from getting onto an infantry point, are going to be powerful. Shooting does neither until a unit routs or crumbles, and is unreliable when combined with Cathay's slow and very removable infantry, at least in the standards of game 3.

    The exact set of changes needed to remedy this is unclear, it's likely going to require multiple system changes rather than a one size fits all approach. But the issue I think is pretty clearly one with the mechanics of domination, not an issue primarily related to unit performance.

    Your anecdote is a good illustration of my point but I don’t find it’s about infantry capping.

    I don’t care really if infantry or ranged are stronger (both can perform well) or if Cathay is weak (I find them strong). But I care ALOT that so much blocking and tackling and jamming up enemy movement is taking precedence over things like tactical flanking and using the right units against the right target. I think that happens because caps matter a bit too much relative to killing stuff. It still plays too much like a football game rather than a strategic encounter.
    Tbf there is plenty about land battles that is ""gamey" as well simply because...... it's a game.

    Like why chase a player that is kiting you? Or assault an artillery box on a random piece of dirt on the map? Or throw endless troops at a regenerating Sigvald to try and kill him? Or ride out to meet a Greenskins waagh instead of just avoiding them?

    The reason to engage is because it is a game and that is the rules of the game. If I was fighting with a guy and he started to run away and through eggs at me (and I couldn't catch him) I would just....leave. Why stand and be pelted by eggs for no gain? And ditto for kiting, if someone is shooting me and I have no means of returning fire, the correct strategic decision would be to withdraw and fight another day.

    In the context of a campaign map, then land battles make sense as you are typically trying to take cities or paint the map or whatever. But in isolated battles of any type like in MP, we are just creating fictional justification for the conflict in our heads which is the same if you are doing it for land battles/domination/FFA/whatever.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,219

    eumaies said:

    @The_real_FAUST Meat Grinder tactics are a problem largely because of repeated spamming of cheaper infantry and light cavalry though. You don't see people resummoning stonehorns or really elite infantry because of the time it takes to get enough funds to purchase them, and because usually you'd want multiple cheap units, right? This isn't strictly an issue with resummoning then, it's an issue with cheap units largely.

    Though on the first point yeah that's an issue that should be fixed, but that can be done without removing resummoning. The game needs to remember ability usage over time. We know the game tracks XP gain so the fact that abilities are excluded is strange.

    @Omega_Warrior As of 1.2 I find keeping missile units safe long enough for them to making a meaningful impact on the game is substantially easier in terms of damage value. Furies are often cost ineffective and their tactical utility is pretty variable across games. Summons can be disruptive of melee units but again if you're on your toes it's quite doable to keep a missile unit functional and to get them to pay for themselves even after a summon was used to disrupt them.

    In spite of all of this Cathay can struggle since you don't need your missile units to be cost effective, you need to capture points. The best way to do that is with lots of infantry on points, so that's what you see people moving towards. If the best explanation we can come up with for why something isn't work is that everything else is overpowered in spite of repeated balance changes designed to rectify that we may be missing something.

    The points you highlight as overpowered I'd also note have a large ability to protect captured points which I think is a bigger issue than missile units not being strong enough. Furies, unbreakable kislev units (dervishers are a particular pet peeve), and an unremoved stone horn in your back line can make it difficult as Cathay to get a sufficient volume of infantry to a point. Ogres in particular really benefit from cheap monstrous infantry which gives them very solid capture value at very high speeds which can produce frustrating results for factions with cavalry and war beasts.

    It's an anecdotal example, but one I've seen and had happen to myself repeatedly. Earlier today I ran a Cathay vs Kislev game on Silver Spire. I had a poor start and lost the center capture point. I proceed to win the center engagement and am up by 3-4 k value but I need a triple cap to win at this point and I can't get a sufficent amount of capture value on point three, not because I don't have an infantry advantage, but because chariots and light cav keep running into my infantry and dying. My opponent through away a lot of cavalry trying to compromise my missiles, only succeeding after they'd done their job and I pulled the infantry defending them forward to hold a capture point. In this case the missile units did fine, in fact they performed excellently but the issue was they were unable to remove enough infantry to allow me to capture the center in a sufficient time to win. The only way I could have changed that as Cathay was to bring more infantry, something that would have let me flip the center sooner.

    All of this suggests the issue is infantry are a bit too important in holding or swinging points in time, so any units which hold capture weight very well or which can easily stop a slow opponent from getting onto an infantry point, are going to be powerful. Shooting does neither until a unit routs or crumbles, and is unreliable when combined with Cathay's slow and very removable infantry, at least in the standards of game 3.

    The exact set of changes needed to remedy this is unclear, it's likely going to require multiple system changes rather than a one size fits all approach. But the issue I think is pretty clearly one with the mechanics of domination, not an issue primarily related to unit performance.

    Your anecdote is a good illustration of my point but I don’t find it’s about infantry capping.

    I don’t care really if infantry or ranged are stronger (both can perform well) or if Cathay is weak (I find them strong). But I care ALOT that so much blocking and tackling and jamming up enemy movement is taking precedence over things like tactical flanking and using the right units against the right target. I think that happens because caps matter a bit too much relative to killing stuff. It still plays too much like a football game rather than a strategic encounter.
    Tbf there is plenty about land battles that is ""gamey" as well simply because...... it's a game.

    Like why chase a player that is kiting you? Or assault an artillery box on a random piece of dirt on the map? Or throw endless troops at a regenerating Sigvald to try and kill him? Or ride out to meet a Greenskins waagh instead of just avoiding them?

    The reason to engage is because it is a game and that is the rules of the game. If I was fighting with a guy and he started to run away and through eggs at me (and I couldn't catch him) I would just....leave. Why stand and be pelted by eggs for no gain? And ditto for kiting, if someone is shooting me and I have no means of returning fire, the correct strategic decision would be to withdraw and fight another day.

    In the context of a campaign map, then land battles make sense as you are typically trying to take cities or paint the map or whatever. But in isolated battles of any type like in MP, we are just creating fictional justification for the conflict in our heads which is the same if you are doing it for land battles/domination/FFA/whatever.
    You're describing some artificial tournament rules about attacking.

    If the tie breaker after a 20+ minute battle was the control of the center of the map there would be no gaming. That would just be the tie breaker if somebody wanted to draw kite, so that problem is very easy to solve without impacting the tactical game that is about killing the enemy army.

    Now it's ok for domination to be more aggressive than that and making it a map control game with its own incentives and a win condition that is essentially a more interesting combination of "kill the enemy" and/or "control the map". It's cool that domination tries to make the game deeper by giving you essentially two ways to win.

    I just think they are leaning a little too hard on the cap side of it; and my evidence is the large amount of game time spent doing things with units that are counter to the stats and purposes of the units in a military sense. As a battle simulator rather than a football game simulator I think the balance of those dual win conditions is a little off.
Sign In or Register to comment.