On November 27 2018 01:28 xDaunt wrote: I always found having a few high quality stacks to be more effective on legendary given the need to abuse lightning strike. Chaos invasions pretty much force you into this anyway given the need for AP damage. Unless you're the Dark Elves, good AP damage is in short supply at Tier 1/2.
It depends on the faction really.
The Upkeep penalties on some of the factions get to be so insane that it's pretty much impossible to roam around with more than one high quality stack.
On November 27 2018 01:28 xDaunt wrote: I always found having a few high quality stacks to be more effective on legendary given the need to abuse lightning strike. Chaos invasions pretty much force you into this anyway given the need for AP damage. Unless you're the Dark Elves, good AP damage is in short supply at Tier 1/2.
I don't use lightning strike, really don't like it. Also trashy stacks allow me to expand much faster.
Usually I start mixing a bit in my doom stacks once I've got 3-4 armies, getting a cheap trash line with some higher tier AP support. Empire can run shielded spears/halbs with handgunners and t4 arty, VC can run zombies/spear skels supported by some GGs with GW, heavy cav and Vargeists. DE can just run around with mass shards/shades, spears, eaglebolts. Skaven can play trash+arty, Dwarves can play trash+arty.
All of those armies will beat average t4 stacks including Chaos. The impact of well skilled lords and high lvl mages is so large that it mostly doesn't matter whether your frontline is trash or not as long as your backline is dealing damage. And it gets really silly if SoK is part of the equation.
My advice to anyone losing cities but winning all their battles is you're building your armies too "tall." Just because you can get at an elite unit doesn't mean you should. I try to upgrade just enough to keep up with the enemy... any more and you're gimping your ability to keep pushing on other fronts (which is really the best way to avoid defending and losing cities).
Speaking of low-level trash, I just started my first beastmen campaign. I want to say I enjoy the campaign style but dislike the roster... except that I've played Noctilus, who has the same fun playstyle, but can actually replenish and grow his horde, with a more fun roster to boot.
That said, I do love the cinematic cam for Gorebull and the Minotaurs busting through a gate. Get that LOTR feeling real good.
I mean, I think there's just an element of greed and frustration that you may have a flank that doesn't need any defense for 20 turns then suddenly the second you leave an enemy stack comes out of nowhere. I think people also don't want stacks just sitting around but running around conquering, which only accelerates the problem.
At legendary it's still really boring for some races since you only take a couple of unit types really. Take HE for example: Early-mid game stacks = spearmen + archers + bolt throwers (bolts for sieges mostly) Late-game stacks = phoenix guard + archers + bolt throwers
You're basically using 4 units out of your roster during the game... Technically you can mix and match, but that just prolongs the game as your stacks are not optimized.
Personally I hate this kind of play style so I'm always running non-optimal stuff just for fun.
I liked that video, but, re-watching it, he has a rather formulaic approach. He basically picked the "tip of the spear" for each faction. All factions have to kill the enemy units, but how they kill them varies greatly from race to race. Saying what is the unit that does the killing isn't actually that interesting, actually. I'd have liked for a little more variety in how he selected them. A few "this is a very efficient unit that lets the rest of the army function" or "this isn't the most efficient unit but fills a very specific weakness" choices would have been cool. There was a bit of that, but not much.
-Ranged: HE Archers, Rangers, Deckdroppers, Centaur -Monsters- Carnosaurs, Fimir, Scorpion, Rat Ogres -Cavalry- Grail Knights, Blood Knights, Gryphon Knights -Infantry- Sisters of Slaughter, Black Orcs, Chaos Warriors
Was a good list, a lot of that doesn't really apply for the campaign though (which tbf he mentioned). Sisters are imo one of the worst units of the DEs for the relevant part of the campaign for all Lords but the Krakenlord.
Deckdroppers with HG are also insanely good in all the matchups you don't get to play until very late in the game (Chaos and Norsca mainly). GW CW are a decent unit, but with Chosen around the corner they aren't mandatory either.
I don't really have a problem with the list as it pertains to MP considerations. MP is mostly about value efficiency. Campaign is a very different animal given that you aren't facing any kind of hard cap on your army composition other than the number of units. For that reason, slot efficiency becomes the paramount consideration. This necessarily makes elite/high tier units inherently more valuable given that they can do the most things for your army, though there are some exceptions where lower tier units can be the best campaign units for their respective factions (handgunners for Empire immediately come to mind).
I still don't think upgrading armies past t3 is worth it until later in the game (turn 100+). Like maybe for some of the artillery factions want t4 for mixing said arty with their trash. But I still highly doubt pure t4/5 doom stacks are anywhere near cost efficient even with legendary upkeep penalty for any non-horde faction.
On November 29 2018 09:12 Archeon wrote: I still don't think upgrading armies past t3 is worth it until later in the game (turn 100+). Like maybe for some of the artillery factions want t4 for mixing said arty with their trash. But I still highly doubt pure t4/5 doom stacks are anywhere near cost efficient even with legendary upkeep penalty for any non-horde faction.
I've done it both ways. For the most part, I find the upkeep penalties for additional armies to be prohibitively expensive at the higher difficulties, so I'd rather go fairly tall with my stacks such that I can more easily handle 1v2 and 1v3 engagements. I find the most efficient way to conquer the map on legendary anyway is to let your military allies do most of the dirty work for you. All you really need to do as the player is serve as the vanguard that crushes the AI's initial stacks. Once you do that, your allies will steam roll the enemy territory more efficiently than you would be able to do on your own simply because they can field more armies. This is most easily accomplished with a doomstack.
On November 29 2018 09:12 Archeon wrote: I still don't think upgrading armies past t3 is worth it until later in the game (turn 100+). Like maybe for some of the artillery factions want t4 for mixing said arty with their trash. But I still highly doubt pure t4/5 doom stacks are anywhere near cost efficient even with legendary upkeep penalty for any non-horde faction.
I've done it both ways. For the most part, I find the upkeep penalties for additional armies to be prohibitively expensive at the higher difficulties, so I'd rather go fairly tall with my stacks such that I can more easily handle 1v2 and 1v3 engagements. I find the most efficient way to conquer the map on legendary anyway is to let your military allies do most of the dirty work for you. All you really need to do as the player is serve as the vanguard that crushes the AI's initial stacks. Once you do that, your allies will steam roll the enemy territory more efficiently than you would be able to do on your own simply because they can field more armies. This is most easily accomplished with a doomstack.
I love it when I get a proper working alliance going.
My greatest Total War experience of all time was in Shogun 2 when I made a megapowers alliance that lasted through thick and thin from turn 10 I think to the very end. We married into each other's families, helped each other out, and conquered Japan. They became Shogun and I didn't even care. Then the game made them turn on me and I was sad
I was perfectly happy being the loyal friend who crushes all opposition to the rightful Shogun.
A rat pope? To nerf the already worst campaign faction for the AI? They already get annihilated so quickly because everybody hates the skaven, even other skaven as someone said a few pages back. I'd dig it personally because it would be funny as hell, but you'd have to do something for the skaven on the campaign/auto-resolve front so they wouldn't all be auto-eliminated by turn 100.
On November 29 2018 09:12 Archeon wrote: I still don't think upgrading armies past t3 is worth it until later in the game (turn 100+). Like maybe for some of the artillery factions want t4 for mixing said arty with their trash. But I still highly doubt pure t4/5 doom stacks are anywhere near cost efficient even with legendary upkeep penalty for any non-horde faction.
I've done it both ways. For the most part, I find the upkeep penalties for additional armies to be prohibitively expensive at the higher difficulties, so I'd rather go fairly tall with my stacks such that I can more easily handle 1v2 and 1v3 engagements. I find the most efficient way to conquer the map on legendary anyway is to let your military allies do most of the dirty work for you. All you really need to do as the player is serve as the vanguard that crushes the AI's initial stacks. Once you do that, your allies will steam roll the enemy territory more efficiently than you would be able to do on your own simply because they can field more armies. This is most easily accomplished with a doomstack.
Wont just your allies blobb then? It's the main thing that annoys me with allies (other then them disregarding your alliances and vassals and forcing you to break them), they can field more stacks and once I've dealt with the troubling ones they'll just take the land I want so I can't ever get the full provinces.
On November 29 2018 09:12 Archeon wrote: I still don't think upgrading armies past t3 is worth it until later in the game (turn 100+). Like maybe for some of the artillery factions want t4 for mixing said arty with their trash. But I still highly doubt pure t4/5 doom stacks are anywhere near cost efficient even with legendary upkeep penalty for any non-horde faction.
I've done it both ways. For the most part, I find the upkeep penalties for additional armies to be prohibitively expensive at the higher difficulties, so I'd rather go fairly tall with my stacks such that I can more easily handle 1v2 and 1v3 engagements. I find the most efficient way to conquer the map on legendary anyway is to let your military allies do most of the dirty work for you. All you really need to do as the player is serve as the vanguard that crushes the AI's initial stacks. Once you do that, your allies will steam roll the enemy territory more efficiently than you would be able to do on your own simply because they can field more armies. This is most easily accomplished with a doomstack.
Wont just your allies blobb then? It's the main thing that annoys me with allies, they can field more stacks and once I've dealt with the troubling ones they'll just take the land I want so I can't ever get the full provinces.
That's the idea. It is hugely inefficient for the player to control large amounts of territory on the higher difficulties. It is far more efficient to let the AI control the territory for you.
On November 29 2018 09:12 Archeon wrote: I still don't think upgrading armies past t3 is worth it until later in the game (turn 100+). Like maybe for some of the artillery factions want t4 for mixing said arty with their trash. But I still highly doubt pure t4/5 doom stacks are anywhere near cost efficient even with legendary upkeep penalty for any non-horde faction.
I've done it both ways. For the most part, I find the upkeep penalties for additional armies to be prohibitively expensive at the higher difficulties, so I'd rather go fairly tall with my stacks such that I can more easily handle 1v2 and 1v3 engagements. I find the most efficient way to conquer the map on legendary anyway is to let your military allies do most of the dirty work for you. All you really need to do as the player is serve as the vanguard that crushes the AI's initial stacks. Once you do that, your allies will steam roll the enemy territory more efficiently than you would be able to do on your own simply because they can field more armies. This is most easily accomplished with a doomstack.
Wont just your allies blobb then? It's the main thing that annoys me with allies, they can field more stacks and once I've dealt with the troubling ones they'll just take the land I want so I can't ever get the full provinces.
That's the idea. It is hugely inefficient for the player to control large amounts of territory on the higher difficulties. It is far more efficient to let the AI control the territory for you.
I don't get stuff from the AI and they'll backstab me eventually though. Like I'd dig it in EU where i can feed my vassals and then absorb them later, but it's not like I gain anything from feeding the AI outside of maybe a stronger lategame rival. I guess I can spread the spoils a bit, but the alliance will fall apart eventually, ruining my credibility ranking and forcing me to deal with the boosted AIs.
I guess the argument is that they'll remain more peaceful for longer than the enemies I conquer, giving me more freedom eventually?
On November 29 2018 09:12 Archeon wrote: I still don't think upgrading armies past t3 is worth it until later in the game (turn 100+). Like maybe for some of the artillery factions want t4 for mixing said arty with their trash. But I still highly doubt pure t4/5 doom stacks are anywhere near cost efficient even with legendary upkeep penalty for any non-horde faction.
I've done it both ways. For the most part, I find the upkeep penalties for additional armies to be prohibitively expensive at the higher difficulties, so I'd rather go fairly tall with my stacks such that I can more easily handle 1v2 and 1v3 engagements. I find the most efficient way to conquer the map on legendary anyway is to let your military allies do most of the dirty work for you. All you really need to do as the player is serve as the vanguard that crushes the AI's initial stacks. Once you do that, your allies will steam roll the enemy territory more efficiently than you would be able to do on your own simply because they can field more armies. This is most easily accomplished with a doomstack.
Wont just your allies blobb then? It's the main thing that annoys me with allies, they can field more stacks and once I've dealt with the troubling ones they'll just take the land I want so I can't ever get the full provinces.
That's the idea. It is hugely inefficient for the player to control large amounts of territory on the higher difficulties. It is far more efficient to let the AI control the territory for you.
I don't get stuff from the AI and they'll backstab me eventually though. Like I'd dig it in EU where i can feed my vassals and then absorb them later, but it's not like I gain anything from feeding the AI outside of maybe a stronger lategame rival. I guess I can spread the spoils a bit, but the alliance will fall apart eventually, ruining my credibility ranking and forcing me to deal with the boosted AIs.
I guess the argument is that they'll remain more peaceful for longer than the enemies I conquer, giving me more freedom eventually?
Your military allies will never turn on you as long as you keep joint declaring war and conquering people. If all that's left on the map are your military allies, you've triggered all of the victory conditions anyway.
Wait you guys give people military alliances or defensive alliances? I thought it was like the 1st rule of TW games not to get dragged into other peoples' wars? Or is it just me? I know you want to eventually confederate them, but I personally always aim for them 1 at a time and don't care which NPC nation eats an other NPC nation as long as I get the LL and cities.
I get non-agression, pay if i have to for trade and then leave it at that.
On November 30 2018 07:15 Jerubaal wrote: Yeah, but what if your military allies start turning against each other and force you to choose? Granted it was a much bigger deal in WHI.
They won’t turn on each other when they are perpetually warring together against common enemies.
EPT
