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

Major settlements... Worse than minor settlements?

Lord_Drakken#4065Lord_Drakken#4065 Registered Users Posts: 239
edited September 3 in General Discussion
This is not a tower thread...

In my experience, attacking a major or minor settlement has been pretty much the same experience. I only attack from one direction/side so my army is not exposed to extra fire from the towers all over the base. The garrison troops are not buffed like my armies so they tend to be squishy. As I push into the town/city the AI's units move towards my army trying to block me and I kill enough of them forcing army losses on them. In about 100 siege battles, I have yet to win a siege because I captured the town center.

However, on defense, the two experiences have been drastically different.

With minor settlements there are only a few avenues into each town on a certain side. I am often able to defend those avenues and prevent entry into the town proper. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but it feels like I am fighting for the town the way I am supposed to.

To the contrary, the major settlements are so large it would take a full garrison and 2 full armies (which isn't possible) of units to actually prevent the enemy from sneaking units into town. Those units then run around capping areas and it is almost impossible to keep up with activity everywhere. So, to be effective, you have to abandon the walls completely. The result, you can only defend the center area of the large city and you feel like you are fighting another minor settlement battle.

It is absolutely crazy that it is easier to get into a level 5 walled settlement than a level 1 town. How did this happen? Well, minor settlements were designed with walls that you can't climb for one and also that can't be breached either.

Other factors that contribute... Units climb walls with ladders WAY too fast! The outer towers field of fire is so limited that there are HUGE blind spots along the walls. The outer towers firing arc should be 360 degrees just like the rebuildable towers so as long as you have a presence on the wall the towers will fire. There are not enough outer towers on some walls. The walls are also too easy to breach with and can use some more health IMHO. It should take way longer to breach walls than the gates of a city which are the natural soft spot.

The effect of the weak outer defenses and tiny garrison makes abandoning the outer defenses the best strategy. So I defend mostly around the main capture point. This makes defending large iconic cities feel really really bad to me. It is much worse than the minor settlements to me.

If you give me a large cities garrison and let me defend a minor settlement with it I will be able to defend much better than using the same garrison in a major settlement. Minor settlements also have the rebuildable towers in better spots. In large cities the buildings and drastic height changes block a lot of the defense tower

I look forward to mods fixing these issues.

I will take one second to criticize CA for pandering to all of the people who wanted huge sieges where you could attack from all 4 directions. I never wanted this, and expressed as much on these forums. It was easy to see the problem coming when defending a single wall in TWW2 with similar garrisons was hard enough.

Don't get me wrong. The cities are beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. They are a little too winding/mazelike, which makes them look too unrealistic. Perhaps they will be fun for the 1% who will play MP 4 v 4 army sieges. However defending gigantic cities with the small garrisons CA provided in game is futile, and frustrating. Just my opinion.

Otherwise, I am loving the game and can't even name all of the improvements that game 3 has over its predecessor. Great work overall. I hope they find a solution to this problem. Giving the outer towers a 360 degree firing arc would make fighting for the outer walls a priority and help a lot.

What have others experienced?



Post edited by Lord_Drakken#4065 on

Comments

  • Aic#3164Aic#3164 Registered Users Posts: 270
    This and that the AI values Walls hugely in AR. So much so that they'll happily sit and siege down a city with a wall for many turns to weaken the garrison, while often attacking a wall-less settlement directly or after one turn.
    The combination of this and with how much easier the minor settlements are to defend incentivizes you to never upgrade a garrison building to actually add walls the the settlement.
    This could use some re balancing somehow.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,849
    edited August 29
    This is my exact experience.

    After all the new maps, new tower and barrier systems, CA never actually addressed the 3 problems with sieges that everyone hated in the first place.

    The walls are too easy to breach/climb.
    Gates are not actually defensible and actually safer for attackers to approach than walls.
    Towers on the walls have a pointlessly narrow cone of fire, limiting their effectiveness so much that the 1-2 minutes they fire for in the battle is not worth investing in the walls.

    There are walls, gates, and wall towers, and trying to hold them is worse than just letting the attacker breach the walls/gate on purpose, and making your own actual defensive positions were you fight in the city.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • bli-nk#6314bli-nk#6314 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,959
    edited August 29
    I generally agree though I have to say the siege assault of tier 5 Karaz-a-Karak with full garrison + Thorgrimm inside with Tretch was the best siege battle I've ever had in Warhammer TW. It felt suitably epic and the size of the settlement felt appropriate for 40 units contending

    Other than that single siege, 90% of the time, especially on defence, it is exactly as you said. Withdraw to the center 1-2 points and wait for the enemy to advance- the only time I played differently was with Slaanesh due to their unit speeds and wanting the AI to separate its units so could divide and eliminate smaller groups.

    On the other hand, the AI sitting and sieging down a garrison... probably a good idea. There have been a few siege defences I thought for sure I would lose as the AI sieged until my units were half strength but chokes + towers + ranged + spells still led to a win.

    A handful of sieges I thought I would get close victories ended up as extreme pyhrric victories or even a couple loses when the towers sniped my Lord faster than they could cap the victory points (N'kari of course, big target, little armor).

    I find myself occasionally sieging for 4-5 turns to attrition down the AI which I never did in WH2 because attrition took 6+ turns to even activate and it was faster to lose most of an army and recruit a new army than try to attrition.

    Waiting for attrition is half due to attrition actually working within reasonable time frames of the game and half really getting tired of fighting siege assaults that I know I will win, just a matter of managing casualties and having to play on slow and constantly update unit pathing is not fun.
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
  • Itharus#3127Itharus#3127 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,402
    No more ladders out of the arse would help. You used to have to build those things... Remember even in the older games the ladders were carried (instead of Rome 2 style pushed) and it made the unit slow and tired them out if they ran with them? Much better. As a bonus another unit could run up and pick them up and use them if the first unit died.
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,314

    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.
  • Kn_Gars#2718Kn_Gars#2718 Registered Users Posts: 3,275
    I know you want to bash on people who you think wanted the current state of affairs but perhaps you should consider that what people asked for and CA delivered can be two very different things. For one thing as far as I know no one asked CA to nerf the regular towers even further.

    As I understand it what people wanted was good sieges like in Troy or 3K, not what we got.
    The user formerly known as KN_Gars, thanks for the involunatry rename CA.
  • Lord_Drakken#4065Lord_Drakken#4065 Registered Users Posts: 239
    KN_Gars said:

    I know you want to bash on people who you think wanted the current state of affairs but perhaps you should consider that what people asked for and CA delivered can be two very different things. For one thing as far as I know no one asked CA to nerf the regular towers even further.

    As I understand it what people wanted was good sieges like in Troy or 3K, not what we got.

    I certainly didn't mean to bash anyone. All I said was, this problem was easy to see coming. My critique was towards CA, and I think it was balanced with praise overall for their awesome efforts.

    I don't blame people for wanting 360 degree city sieges. Hell, I would love them too. But it has to work properly. It is hard for people's gaming rigs to render all of the units that are needed for defending maps this large. This is the bind the game developers are now in. I doubt they will add huge garrisons, therefore they really need to make changes that allow a much smaller number of units be able to defend the walls well. This will likely require implementing most of the changes I suggested and then some.

    If ladder climbing was slowed exponentially, units that are stretched to be only 2 ranks deep would be able to hold the walls much better, giving your defending troops double the current coverage. This plus the tower arc/wall strength changes would make things quite a bit better.

    If I have a critique of player base, it is this. I doubt CA will implement the changes I suggest because much of the player community does not have the patience to fight out 1-2 hour long sieges which is what it would likely take to make these size maps work properly. I imagine there is a sizable number of players who wanted these 360 degree maps, that also lack the patience to play them the way a siege would play out in a city like these.

    No offense meant, it is OK for the customers to want what they want. But it doesn't mean what people want is a good idea.

    As for me, I would be more than willing to fight out super long siege battles. Auto resolve and attriting the enemy is always there for those who don't have the time for that.


  • GBone#4408GBone#4408 Registered Users Posts: 1,427
    Yeah, pretty much. Walled settlement battles are the same as minor settlement battles, the walls are completely pointless. The problems are the same, AI pathfinding/the overcomplicated maze design, tower spam and blob fighting. They're less fun than WH2's sieges.
  • Guillermidas#6283Guillermidas#6283 MadridRegistered Users Posts: 497
    Aic said:

    This and that the AI values Walls hugely in AR. So much so that they'll happily sit and siege down a city with a wall for many turns to weaken the garrison, while often attacking a wall-less settlement directly or after one turn.
    The combination of this and with how much easier the minor settlements are to defend incentivizes you to never upgrade a garrison building to actually add walls the the settlement.
    This could use some re balancing somehow.

    I find the walls on major settlements for certain factions mandatory. Warriors of Chaos for example, it is way too good to sleep on it. That garrison can fight any doomstack any day. Skaven one is great one, and adds good money on top of that. Those are the two that comes to mind fast, possibly others? havent tried most factions for months, and I believe they made changes to many garrisons.
    "It's small, filthy and noisy. H! Just like a dwarf!"
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,902
    edited August 29
    It's been a problem for a while that walls help the attacker more than the defender.

    Infantry units can bash through gates fairly quickly, why not just get rid of pop up ladders? At least then they'd have to group up at the gate.
  • MalenthusMalenthus Registered Users Posts: 21
    If you look at the Empire forts in WH2, you can see that CA had a template for a walled settlment that actually provided a big advantage to the defenders.

    The Empire forts (and High Elf gates) had choke points, protected platforms for artillery and ranged units to fire from, and forced the attacker to take a relatively long and dangerous pathway to the victory point.

    It's hard to believe that with all the work that CA clearly put into the siege re-work that they still managed to give us (visually beautiful) fortifications that provide no real benefit to the defenders.

    This is my biggest gripe with the WH3 game.

    Hopefully, the modders will fix this.
  • MrSir231MrSir231 Registered Users Posts: 70
    Some of the spacing for major settlement wall towers are weird too. Like the AI will have half their army attack the one wall that only has 2 towers, both on each edge of the wall.
  • Darksteel83#1113Darksteel83#1113 Registered Users Posts: 472
    Malenthus said:

    If you look at the Empire forts in WH2, you can see that CA had a template for a walled settlment that actually provided a big advantage to the defenders.

    The Empire forts (and High Elf gates) had choke points, protected platforms for artillery and ranged units to fire from, and forced the attacker to take a relatively long and dangerous pathway to the victory point.

    It's hard to believe that with all the work that CA clearly put into the siege re-work that they still managed to give us (visually beautiful) fortifications that provide no real benefit to the defenders.

    This is my biggest gripe with the WH3 game.

    Hopefully, the modders will fix this.

    They spend a lot of time on those maps. The also spend some time on the siege towers.
    But the towers you use the most look more like an after tought.
    I hope CA will do a big rework on the (minor) siege system in WH3.
    And a minor rework on the maps.

    When I am done with Tiktaq'to I think I will mod the minor settlement battles out of the game. So I only have field battles.
    Minor settlement battles with Tiktaq'to are not so bad. Otherwise I really don't like them.
  • Zaco#4894Zaco#4894 Registered Users Posts: 39
    Malenthus said:

    If you look at the Empire forts in WH2, you can see that CA had a template for a walled settlment that actually provided a big advantage to the defenders.

    The Empire forts (and High Elf gates) had choke points, protected platforms for artillery and ranged units to fire from, and forced the attacker to take a relatively long and dangerous pathway to the victory point.

    It's hard to believe that with all the work that CA clearly put into the siege re-work that they still managed to give us (visually beautiful) fortifications that provide no real benefit to the defenders.

    This is my biggest gripe with the WH3 game.

    Hopefully, the modders will fix this.

    Exactly! The Empire fort maps were fun to defend and fun to attack. All the new maps feel needlessly complicated
  • JTWJTW Senior Member The empire of DenmarkRegistered Users Posts: 433
    Without doubt my biggest gripe with the games. They had 3 games to find a solution, and they came up woefully short.
    It's never too late to panic!
  • Lord_Drakken#4065Lord_Drakken#4065 Registered Users Posts: 239
    I have no idea why they made the maps like 3D mazes. I don't really remember anyone asking for that. I can't even imagine the amount of development time they had to put in to make something that is not working well. Even if it takes years, I hope they put the resources in to remake the maps and come up with something simpler and more defendable. The empire forts are a good place to look for inspiration.

    Currently, I could spend many hours looking at a single major settlement map trying to figure out the shooting line of sight for the spawning towers. There are so many tall structures/terrain in the way, totally defeating the purpose of the towers in the first place.

    But I will repeat. They are beautiful. The Sartosa map is so cool with all of the ships used for buildings. A work of art... that sadly, doesn't work...
  • Maedrethnir#1968Maedrethnir#1968 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,221
    Siege rework in Game3 leaves much to be desired. Ironically, these mazes could be patched with pre-battle deployable towers and other defences. That being said, sieges shouldn't be a glorified urban warfare.
  • Foromar#5519Foromar#5519 Registered Users Posts: 82
    Malenthus said:


    It's hard to believe that with all the work that CA clearly put into the siege re-work that they still managed to give us (visually beautiful) fortifications that provide no real benefit to the defenders.

    I wouldn't even call them visually beautiful.
    Far too many ground textures are reused countless times, buildings are damaged even if no siege happenend, dwarfs let the surroundings of their settlements fall into disrepair, missing/misplaced textures, etc

    They have some good building models, but otherwise they look like a mediocre and rushed map editor project.

    Let alone how annoyed you get for fighting on 1 of 2 race maps all the time.
  • overtaker40#8926overtaker40#8926 Registered Users Posts: 1,144
    What's the definition of insanity?


    ...this thread.
    I like all the races. Equally. Wood elves are just the first among equals.
  • Tennisgolfboll#5877Tennisgolfboll#5877 Registered Users Posts: 13,314
    edited August 30
    The whole siege rework was a massive failure.

    I agree with mae above that sieges shouldnt be urban warfare.

    So they were wrong as a concept. Bad CA.

    Then their implementation? Absolutely horrible. Instant build trash. Terrible CA.

    And to add insult to injury ai cant play them at all.

    And the cherry on top? They are spammed beyond belief. Even IF they were good field battles should be much more common than sieges (minor and major combined).
    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.
  • XxXScorpionXxX#2310XxXScorpionXxX#2310 Registered Users Posts: 6,022
    Agreed the new walled maps are too large to properly defend with a single army.
    Request scorched body textures, and fire death effects. At least 30% of all damage in this game comes from fire sources. Request Fire for the Fire God DLC.
  • RonNLRonNL Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 807
    I personally think that are some ups and downs to the big siege battles.

    Pros:

    They look great

    You got more place to outmanoeuvre

    You got multiple places to attack which should (if balanced well) give you more tactical options

    Cons:

    The garrisons are to small \ weak and because of this the sieges feel somewhat anticlimactic, especially considering these are suppose to be the most important settlements on the map.

    Rebuildable towers are kinda meh

    The Ai can’t really seem to handle these maps
  • bli-nk#6314bli-nk#6314 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,959
    RonNL said:



    The garrisons are to small \ weak and because of this the sieges feel somewhat anticlimactic, especially considering these are suppose to be the most important settlements on the map.

    There are some big differences in garrisons for the capitols. A few are really really good- almost on the level of Dark Fortress but not quite. Then there are some that are like- wtf, just having straight T3 units would have been better.

    Overall the biggest problem with sieges is pathing. Some of the siege maps look great, even the maze ones would be nearly ok if the unit pathing wasn't bugged. Units constantly dropped orders, stretching into long scraggly lines, going one way, then switching to another route, getting stuck in impassable corners, LoS being blocked when there is nothing apparent that might be blocking it, etc.
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
  • ravonlineravonline Registered Users Posts: 142
    edited September 1
    I can easily explain how this happened:

    Forum+Reddit decided the game needed 360 degree towns and epic maps because that way their thus far hidden skills would come to light and they wouldn't have to suffer a panic attack every time somebody cheesed sieges in WH2. Or so they though. Turns out WH3 is in a different league when it comes to cheesing sieges. People for now think/believe minor sieges are non-cheesable and you have to send in that squishy melee to be chopped up by towers. Boy do I have news for you. But for most players the fundamental issue are major towns being too easy to conquer because somebody at CA had the brilliant brilliant idea of making it impossible to defend.

    Yea the op is right. It's a mess. And I don't see it fixed. Ever.
Sign In or Register to comment.