EPTTheir non-greatswords infantry sucked ass though. I just teched out of them ASAP.
Total War: Warhammer - Page 55
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
Their non-greatswords infantry sucked ass though. I just teched out of them ASAP. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
Contrast them to Skaven or Lizardmen, who are really interesting... or Bretonnia or Elves, who are going for a specific classic aesthetic/playstyle. It'll be interesting to see how much you can Dwarf-style-corner-camp in the new game. Kroq-Gar's position in Madagascar has him quite safe from most angles, except the sea. I wonder if such positions will be safe, or if there'll always be High Elves showing up asking if you have a flag. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
In the end I had super high level lords and heroes, good artillery and alot of low tier infantry to defend the costy stuff. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 20 2017 23:25 ahswtini wrote: what would be the general purpose late game empire army composition? 4 tanks, 4 greatswords, 4 handgunners, 4 demigryphs with halberds should be the basis of every late game army. The tanks and greatswords will be your main line. Handgunners are your killers. Demigryphs with halberds own the the flanks. You can fill the remaining 3 slots with whatever you want. I usually use another another 2 handgunners (did I mention that they're awesome?) and either a wizard (light and bright are the best) or a warrior priest (for armies with Gelt). EDIT: This army is well-suited to crushing Chaos, Orcs, Vampires, and Bretonnians. It is decent against Dwarves and Norsca. It is not very effective against Wood Elves. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
That said, I'm totally going Durthu-crusading against the Dark Elves and Skaven if the map allows it. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17640 Posts
On September 21 2017 00:18 xDaunt wrote: CA has finally dropped some information on the combined map -- which is now known as the Mortal Empires Campaign. It is a brand new map that will incorporate elements of the Old World and New World. It is not the two maps just stitched together. It will have 295 settlements and 117 starting factions. For comparison, the Old World map has 142 settlements and 66 starting factions. I need better computer  | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Damn, I love this game. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
Also, being unable to shut down hellcannons is the worst feeling :-/ You'll do everything perfect except get to them and the hellcannons will get hundreds of kills. Luckily, the unbreakability means you get to end each fight zoomed in as your mustered forces tear the helpless heresy stunties limb from limb. Which is so very satisfying. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7958 Posts
On September 21 2017 00:06 xDaunt wrote: 4 tanks, 4 greatswords, 4 handgunners, 4 demigryphs with halberds should be the basis of every late game army. The tanks and greatswords will be your main line. Handgunners are your killers. Demigryphs with halberds own the the flanks. You can fill the remaining 3 slots with whatever you want. I usually use another another 2 handgunners (did I mention that they're awesome?) and either a wizard (light and bright are the best) or a warrior priest (for armies with Gelt). EDIT: This army is well-suited to crushing Chaos, Orcs, Vampires, and Bretonnians. It is decent against Dwarves and Norsca. It is not very effective against Wood Elves. For the price of one of those armies, you can have two stacks with ideally balanced troops that become much more cost effective. Halleberd are a fantastic unit against monsters and cavalry. Flagellant work wonder against certain factions. Reiksguard are excellent against skirmishers. Great cannon or hellstorm can be fab in certain situations. Etc. Also you don't need the same army against, say, the orcs or against the dwarfs or even against chaos. Why bring a full anti armour army if you are up against the wood elves? Actually swordmen do actually pretty well against eternal guards. And against wood elves, two armies with a swordmen core is a much better deal than one with greatswords that happen to cost just twice their price. I think your compo is optimal in itself if you want to make an uber costly stack that works against everything, but suboptimal costwise in a campaign setup. I'd rather have eight stacks with cleverly composed lineups than four with only uber expensive super elite troops. It's also more fun to play in my opinion. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10137 Posts
I am on Biff's camp. Most of the time you can get more than 2 stacks aswell and having more stacks gives a lot of flexibility on how to navigate the world. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7958 Posts
On September 21 2017 23:10 Godwrath wrote: Yeah, sometimes playing those full red battles generate the best moments on total war. I am on Biff's camp. Most of the time you can get more than 2 stacks aswell and having more stacks gives a lot of flexibility on how to navigate the world. I mean i say that, but my last dwarf run ended with full ironbreakers/organ guns/thunderers stacks. But then again, anyway by the point you can even get that, the game is dead boring. They really need to do something about late game monotony. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 21 2017 20:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: For the price of one of those armies, you can have two stacks with ideally balanced troops that become much more cost effective. Halleberd are a fantastic unit against monsters and cavalry. Flagellant work wonder against certain factions. Reiksguard are excellent against skirmishers. Great cannon or hellstorm can be fab in certain situations. Etc. Also you don't need the same army against, say, the orcs or against the dwarfs or even against chaos. Why bring a full anti armour army if you are up against the wood elves? Actually swordmen do actually pretty well against eternal guards. And against wood elves, two armies with a swordmen core is a much better deal than one with greatswords that happen to cost just twice their price. I think your compo is optimal in itself if you want to make an uber costly stack that works against everything, but suboptimal costwise in a campaign setup. I'd rather have eight stacks with cleverly composed lineups than four with only uber expensive super elite troops. It's also more fun to play in my opinion. Well, the question was what should a late game Empire stack look like. When you're playing Empire, you have to have an eye on the Chaos invasion, which means you're going to need a lot of elite and armor piercing troops given the stacks you'll be facing. This is particularly true on VH/Legendary campaign difficulties where you have to overcome unit stat advantages that the AI gets. The basic "honest steel" Empire troops (swordsmen, spearmen, halberdiers) just don't cut it against hordes of chaos warriors and chosen. Also, given recent patches to the AI that have improved their basebuilding and army behaviors, you're going to be up against elite troops very often now. The Empire factions will be running around with stacks of greatswords by turn 40. The other races will have similarly elite stacks by that time as well. Add in the extra considerations of troop leveling, research priorities, lord skill point scarcity, and army maintenance penalties for each army that you have, slot efficiency rapidly becomes more important than overall cost efficiency for your main armies. Consider the strategic situation in my current Empire campaign. I own Reikland, the Wastelands, Middenland, Wissenland, Stirland, Talabecland, Ostermark, and parts of Hochland and Ostland. Norsca own Nordland and have 3 stacks threatening Middenheim. Everything northeast of me has been razed to the ground by Chaos. There are 4-5 chaos stacks, 2-3 wintertooth stacks, 2 random Norsca tribe stacks, and 4 warherd of chaos stacks in Kislev/Southern Oblast. A random chaos army is also sieging Pfeildorf in Wissenland. Shield of Civilization hasn't kicked in yet, so I'm basically standing alone against the full might of Chaos and and the Norsca tribes. The only way to survive something like is to mow through enemy armies as efficiently as possible. Considering that a "more balanced stack" is going to cost 60-80% of the cost of one of my doomstacks (depending upon how many elite units you put in there), I have a hard time seeing how you can get away with not having super elite stacks. So what I have are 3 of my doomstacks (all camped at Bechafen), a balanced stack (though mostly elite) supporting in the North, 2 tier 2 stacks comprised mostly of handgunners and honest steel infantry with some mortars and outriders in support, and a half stack of handgunners and halberdiers. Now, if you wanted to pare down on the elite units and have more armies of cheaper troops, you can do a lot of work with handgunner-heavy armies in the open field. Basically, your stack would be something like 8 handgunners, 4 halberdiers, 3 swordsmen, 2 outriders and 2 mortars. This kind of stack will cost roughly 60% of a doomstack. With two of these stacks deployed together, you will reach such a critical mass of ranged firepower that you'll mow be able to mow down most anything before your front lines are seriously threatened. I had a battle where I flattened a bunch of orc armies totaling roughly 4500 troops with this kind of set up, and only lost about 200 men. You can probably do something similar against Chaos, but it's going to get dicey if they hit you with a bunch of stacks all at once. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22071 Posts
On September 21 2017 23:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: I mean i say that, but my last dwarf run ended with full ironbreakers/organ guns/thunderers stacks. But then again, anyway by the point you can even get that, the game is dead boring. They really need to do something about late game monotony. Its something almost all empire building games suffer from. At some point your far enough ahead that no one can stop you and your just waiting to win. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 22 2017 00:58 Gorsameth wrote: Its something almost all empire building games suffer from. At some point your far enough ahead that no one can stop you and your just waiting to win. See, I love the shit out of Shogun 2's Realm Divide mechanic. Once you have ~30% of the territory the Shogun decides he's had enough of your shit and most or all of the petty squabbling lords joins him in declaring war on you. Your allies might wait a bit, but they'll join in pretty soon. 30% of the map puts you in striking distance of Kyoto with almost every faction, so it means that you'll have a final push that sees you heavily outnumbered, trying to push through to end the game without getting destroyed or worn down. That said, lots of people couldn't stand it. Felt "artificial" or whatever. But I gotta say, if a real country/empire were growing the way your faction tends to grow in Total War, you'd better believe everybody else would start lining up to fight them (as the *sorta* do with Chaos). If I were implementing it, it would probably be a little more gradual than Realm Divide, but just be sharply ramping "Great Power" diplo malus combined with everybody else getting friendlier with each other. Basically, if you are getting there on unifying the High Elves, it makes logical and gameplay sense that the Dark Elves would unify up and try to take you on. Maybe Skaven lay off the Dark Elves a little bit and maybe take aim at you a bit. On harder difficulties, your factions traditional rivals should probably even get some extra cheats to allow them to take on a lategame player. And when the ball is really rolling for you, maybe even factions that don't like each other at all (e.g. Orcs and Vamps) but share you as a rival, or just feel kinda meh about you in general (e.g. Wood Elves) would try to take you on. Anything to get the ramp up toward the end really going. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On September 22 2017 00:58 Gorsameth wrote: Its something almost all empire building games suffer from. At some point your far enough ahead that no one can stop you and your just waiting to win. That's why people gg in BW/SC2. I'm pretty sure some empire building games have tried to make the AI factions do precisely that but many players like to finish their empire building games doing whatever they please instead of accepting the surrender. I'm just not fond of rubberband mechanics that I feel drag the end game out. It reminds me of those Risk games where people gang up on the winning player because he won the last game too and we should have a different winner this time. It feels too gamey. I lean towards solutions that reduce the waiting to win part. That's why short campaign goals exist but I feel people want to go for the long campaign goals anyway even if they feel the late game is getting boring. Previous games had you choose whether the win conditions are conquering, for example, 67%, 50% or 33% of the entire campaign map. If you think the late game is boring, go for the 33% and call yourself the victor. There's no need to go for the 67% and ask for artificial mechanics that hit once you are past 50%. You shouldn't be challenged at that point and the game should be over. The long campaigns are really for the people who want some RP in their sandbox games. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
| ||
