|
On January 20 2018 01:05 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:
I think the restrictions could be fine in single player if the legendary lords had exceptions. Half the fun of the table top game is trying to build the armies with those restrictions. The same with other army construction games like Flames of War(Russian infantry for life). They don’t need to be too limiting, but I would like a little more pressure in my army construction than just building weird doom stacks. It can be an optional setting to adjust the difficulty for players. But why? Unless you lack the determination to follow your own rules I just cant see anything good in forcing this. Optional settings would be fine, but it just seems like something that would straight up be a waste of developmentresources. I admit that I might be a bit ignorant on the subject. I am used to often play my own game inside the game by making up restrictions and whatnot, making my own story, bringing in RPG elements and all that. So I might just lack the perspective to understand that someone NEEDS these restriction to not be completely made up for them to work for his immersion. It just doesn't feel very believeable to me, but again I am so used to using my own rules that I might have gotten used to it to a point where I no longer remember if it ever was any different.
It is like magic the gathering, where there are limits on the number of cards and minimum deck size. And it depends on the event, which all have different rules It makes it so people can predict is in a deck and not rely on the same trick over and over in their own.
In reality, many armies are made up of rank an file troops with a few elite troops/leaders. The reason for that army make up in reality isn’t modeled in the game. And there is no reason to do it. So the design choice exists for people who want to have the game limit them without them having to create their own rules that they could break at any time. This game is a sandbox, so I like having lots of switches to set how I want my sandbox to work.
|
Restrictions often lead to more interesting decision making choices in army building. Sometimes it feels counterintuitive but spamming the best unit unit will be done if it's the most efficient choice, especially if it is easier to use.
|
I'm generally on board with the idea of including more restrictions for the SP campaign. My biggest complaint about the SP setup is how it forces the player to prioritize slot efficiency in his armies over other considerations due to the stupid upkeep system. Forcing the player to use less "elite" units would help counteract that. But frankly, they just need to get rid of the upkeep system.
|
The upkeep system is in place of “supply” that limits the number of units in RTS games. I would be happy if they just gave you a number of lords your current income/infrastructure could support and left it at that. Otherwise I end up hiring lords to pick up sea treasure, hire some elite units for another army and then fire him. It is a silly system.
And let agents pick up sea treasure, for the love of god.
|
On January 20 2018 01:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:05 Artesimo wrote:On January 20 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:
I think the restrictions could be fine in single player if the legendary lords had exceptions. Half the fun of the table top game is trying to build the armies with those restrictions. The same with other army construction games like Flames of War(Russian infantry for life). They don’t need to be too limiting, but I would like a little more pressure in my army construction than just building weird doom stacks. It can be an optional setting to adjust the difficulty for players. But why? Unless you lack the determination to follow your own rules I just cant see anything good in forcing this. Optional settings would be fine, but it just seems like something that would straight up be a waste of developmentresources. I admit that I might be a bit ignorant on the subject. I am used to often play my own game inside the game by making up restrictions and whatnot, making my own story, bringing in RPG elements and all that. So I might just lack the perspective to understand that someone NEEDS these restriction to not be completely made up for them to work for his immersion. It just doesn't feel very believeable to me, but again I am so used to using my own rules that I might have gotten used to it to a point where I no longer remember if it ever was any different. It is like magic the gathering, where there are limits on the number of cards and minimum deck size. And it depends on the event, which all have different rules It makes it so people can predict is in a deck and not rely on the same trick over and over in their own. In reality, many armies are made up of rank an file troops with a few elite troops/leaders. The reason for that army make up in reality isn’t modeled in the game. And there is no reason to do it. So the design choice exists for people who want to have the game limit them without them having to create their own rules that they could break at any time. This game is a sandbox, so I like having lots of switches to set how I want my sandbox to work.
I don't think the comparrison to MTG works here since they are fundamentally different games, especially if you factor in that TW:Warhammer is mainly focussed of PvE with Head-to-Head and Quick battle being less of a priority (in terms of priority I would guess campaign->quick battle->coop->head-to-head, just judging by efforts for balancing/features and QoL stuff that gets added, stability etc). I also never spoke against restrictions on the quick battle part. Also the balancing and ruling of MTG is waaaaay more complicated and also factors in economic reasons as well as balancing across a much bigger scale of opportunities. In general I would say this is a bad analogy to adress my criticism on imposing theese restrictions on the campaign part of the game
It is also not like there arent any restrictions in the game, right now unit upkeep and supply lines is what keeps army compositions and number of armies in check, I dont know how many people even play head-to-head but from my experience it also is well balanced in that regard since you are either late game where both can easily field multiple elite stacks, or you have to decide between only having one elite stack and no / few other stacks and are vulnerable to getting attacked at multiple positions with cheaper armies. I have only played 6 head-to-head campaings so far though.
And again, just voluntarly force those restrictions on yourself? As I said, I am not opposed to those restrictions in themselves, I am opposed to forcing everyone to follow them (implementing them in singleplayer/coop/head to head) and/or wasting the developers time on including this feature (even if its optional) if there is already and solution.
I still fail to see the need for having a special implementation of this, other that people just cant be bothered to think on their own / cant follow through on their own. So far I only heard good arguments for playing with some restrictions, which I never objected to, but none that adress my issue that I don't see any need to not just leave it up to the player.
|
On January 20 2018 02:19 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:12 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 01:05 Artesimo wrote:On January 20 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:
I think the restrictions could be fine in single player if the legendary lords had exceptions. Half the fun of the table top game is trying to build the armies with those restrictions. The same with other army construction games like Flames of War(Russian infantry for life). They don’t need to be too limiting, but I would like a little more pressure in my army construction than just building weird doom stacks. It can be an optional setting to adjust the difficulty for players. But why? Unless you lack the determination to follow your own rules I just cant see anything good in forcing this. Optional settings would be fine, but it just seems like something that would straight up be a waste of developmentresources. I admit that I might be a bit ignorant on the subject. I am used to often play my own game inside the game by making up restrictions and whatnot, making my own story, bringing in RPG elements and all that. So I might just lack the perspective to understand that someone NEEDS these restriction to not be completely made up for them to work for his immersion. It just doesn't feel very believeable to me, but again I am so used to using my own rules that I might have gotten used to it to a point where I no longer remember if it ever was any different. It is like magic the gathering, where there are limits on the number of cards and minimum deck size. And it depends on the event, which all have different rules It makes it so people can predict is in a deck and not rely on the same trick over and over in their own. In reality, many armies are made up of rank an file troops with a few elite troops/leaders. The reason for that army make up in reality isn’t modeled in the game. And there is no reason to do it. So the design choice exists for people who want to have the game limit them without them having to create their own rules that they could break at any time. This game is a sandbox, so I like having lots of switches to set how I want my sandbox to work. I don't think the comparrison to MTG works here since they are fundamentally different games, especially if you factor in that TW:Warhammer is mainly focussed of PvE with Head-to-Head and Quick battle being less of a priority (in terms of priority I would guess campaign->quick battle->coop->head-to-head, just judging by efforts for balancing/features and QoL stuff that gets added, stability etc). I also never spoke against restrictions on the quick battle part. Also the balancing and ruling of MTG is waaaaay more complicated and also factors in economic reasons as well as balancing across a much bigger scale of opportunities. In general I would say this is a bad analogy to adress my criticism on imposing theese restrictions on the campaign part of the game It is also not like there arent any restrictions in the game, right now unit upkeep and supply lines is what keeps army compositions and number of armies in check, I dont know how many people even play head-to-head but from my experience it also is well balanced in that regard since you are either late game where both can easily field multiple elite stacks, or you have to decide between only having one elite stack and no / few other stacks and are vulnerable to getting attacked at multiple positions with cheaper armies. I have only played 6 head-to-head campaings so far though. And again, just voluntarly force those restrictions on yourself? As I said, I am not opposed to those restrictions in themselves, I am opposed to forcing everyone to follow them (implementing them in singleplayer/coop/head to head) and/or wasting the developers time on including this feature (even if its optional) if there is already and solution. I still fail to see the need for having a special implementation of this, other that people just cant be bothered to think on their own / cant follow through on their own. So far I only heard good arguments for playing with some restrictions, which I never objected to, but none that adress my issue that I don't see any need to not just leave it up to the player.
I can play the game with one hand and the sound off too, if I want. Or high on cold medicine/drunk. All these things are possible, so why does the game have difficulty levels at all? That question is rhetorical, because we all know why they exist. But if your argument is that the restrictions can be self imposed is sufficient, I don't agree, but don't see any point in arguing further on the subject.
|
Many of the extra rank bonuses in the game are province specific and can only be gotten by local recruitment. I use an extra leader or two to ferry troops to the front lines as well. The way I normally do it is to make an entire army and transfer it to the leader in the front line before disbanding the old units.
|
On January 20 2018 02:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 02:19 Artesimo wrote:On January 20 2018 01:12 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 01:05 Artesimo wrote:On January 20 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:
I think the restrictions could be fine in single player if the legendary lords had exceptions. Half the fun of the table top game is trying to build the armies with those restrictions. The same with other army construction games like Flames of War(Russian infantry for life). They don’t need to be too limiting, but I would like a little more pressure in my army construction than just building weird doom stacks. It can be an optional setting to adjust the difficulty for players. But why? Unless you lack the determination to follow your own rules I just cant see anything good in forcing this. Optional settings would be fine, but it just seems like something that would straight up be a waste of developmentresources. I admit that I might be a bit ignorant on the subject. I am used to often play my own game inside the game by making up restrictions and whatnot, making my own story, bringing in RPG elements and all that. So I might just lack the perspective to understand that someone NEEDS these restriction to not be completely made up for them to work for his immersion. It just doesn't feel very believeable to me, but again I am so used to using my own rules that I might have gotten used to it to a point where I no longer remember if it ever was any different. It is like magic the gathering, where there are limits on the number of cards and minimum deck size. And it depends on the event, which all have different rules It makes it so people can predict is in a deck and not rely on the same trick over and over in their own. In reality, many armies are made up of rank an file troops with a few elite troops/leaders. The reason for that army make up in reality isn’t modeled in the game. And there is no reason to do it. So the design choice exists for people who want to have the game limit them without them having to create their own rules that they could break at any time. This game is a sandbox, so I like having lots of switches to set how I want my sandbox to work. I don't think the comparrison to MTG works here since they are fundamentally different games, especially if you factor in that TW:Warhammer is mainly focussed of PvE with Head-to-Head and Quick battle being less of a priority (in terms of priority I would guess campaign->quick battle->coop->head-to-head, just judging by efforts for balancing/features and QoL stuff that gets added, stability etc). I also never spoke against restrictions on the quick battle part. Also the balancing and ruling of MTG is waaaaay more complicated and also factors in economic reasons as well as balancing across a much bigger scale of opportunities. In general I would say this is a bad analogy to adress my criticism on imposing theese restrictions on the campaign part of the game It is also not like there arent any restrictions in the game, right now unit upkeep and supply lines is what keeps army compositions and number of armies in check, I dont know how many people even play head-to-head but from my experience it also is well balanced in that regard since you are either late game where both can easily field multiple elite stacks, or you have to decide between only having one elite stack and no / few other stacks and are vulnerable to getting attacked at multiple positions with cheaper armies. I have only played 6 head-to-head campaings so far though. And again, just voluntarly force those restrictions on yourself? As I said, I am not opposed to those restrictions in themselves, I am opposed to forcing everyone to follow them (implementing them in singleplayer/coop/head to head) and/or wasting the developers time on including this feature (even if its optional) if there is already and solution. I still fail to see the need for having a special implementation of this, other that people just cant be bothered to think on their own / cant follow through on their own. So far I only heard good arguments for playing with some restrictions, which I never objected to, but none that adress my issue that I don't see any need to not just leave it up to the player. I can play the game with one hand and the sound off too, if I want. Or high on cold medicine/drunk. All these things are possible, so why does the game have difficulty levels at all? That question is rhetorical, because we all know why they exist. But if your argument is that the restrictions can be self imposed is sufficient, I don't agree, but don't see any point in arguing further on the subject.
I think the argument is that the game already provides enough of optional restrictions to be fully functional and fully supporting the proposed limitations to army compositions without taking away development time that could be used on fixes / features that aren't. You rhetorical question is just as misplaced as the Magic: The Gathering comparison since the difficulty levels are features that you can’t emulate yourself, if you ignore modding. You seem to miss each other’s points / are having 2 different arguments. You argue WHY certain restrictions are an interesting idea (which for the record, I actually agree on since I especially miss the tabletop component of army building in this game sometimes), while he talks about HOW it should be implemented while keeping in mind that development time is a limited resource.
I have to admit I initially was thrilled by the idea of restrictions for armies because of tabletop nostalgia ( having elites, standards, core…) and I still am, but now I am very torn if I really want to have the developers waste time on this, since at least on my end it is already doable with ease. The only argument I see for your (and formerly my side) is the AI. I haven’t tried mods that change the AIs recruitment so far so I don’t know if you can do more than just change which units they prioritize. If that isn’t doable with mods we got an argument for optional restrictions to army compositions (anything but optional seems just not defendable though. Never ruin someone else’s fun) HOWEVER since this would then require tweaking on the AI which is additional work I am once again turned if that is really worth it. Depending on the restriction it could even force you to rework some garrisons.
So a clear and definite “maybe(?)” from me for the idea 
|
Tomb Kings look pretty cool. They seem to be designed around a few super-elite monster units supporting hordes of shit-troops. They definitely look fun to play against, and the animations are totally badass.
|
On January 20 2018 04:00 waffelz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 02:44 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 02:19 Artesimo wrote:On January 20 2018 01:12 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 01:05 Artesimo wrote:On January 20 2018 00:40 Plansix wrote:
I think the restrictions could be fine in single player if the legendary lords had exceptions. Half the fun of the table top game is trying to build the armies with those restrictions. The same with other army construction games like Flames of War(Russian infantry for life). They don’t need to be too limiting, but I would like a little more pressure in my army construction than just building weird doom stacks. It can be an optional setting to adjust the difficulty for players. But why? Unless you lack the determination to follow your own rules I just cant see anything good in forcing this. Optional settings would be fine, but it just seems like something that would straight up be a waste of developmentresources. I admit that I might be a bit ignorant on the subject. I am used to often play my own game inside the game by making up restrictions and whatnot, making my own story, bringing in RPG elements and all that. So I might just lack the perspective to understand that someone NEEDS these restriction to not be completely made up for them to work for his immersion. It just doesn't feel very believeable to me, but again I am so used to using my own rules that I might have gotten used to it to a point where I no longer remember if it ever was any different. It is like magic the gathering, where there are limits on the number of cards and minimum deck size. And it depends on the event, which all have different rules It makes it so people can predict is in a deck and not rely on the same trick over and over in their own. In reality, many armies are made up of rank an file troops with a few elite troops/leaders. The reason for that army make up in reality isn’t modeled in the game. And there is no reason to do it. So the design choice exists for people who want to have the game limit them without them having to create their own rules that they could break at any time. This game is a sandbox, so I like having lots of switches to set how I want my sandbox to work. I don't think the comparrison to MTG works here since they are fundamentally different games, especially if you factor in that TW:Warhammer is mainly focussed of PvE with Head-to-Head and Quick battle being less of a priority (in terms of priority I would guess campaign->quick battle->coop->head-to-head, just judging by efforts for balancing/features and QoL stuff that gets added, stability etc). I also never spoke against restrictions on the quick battle part. Also the balancing and ruling of MTG is waaaaay more complicated and also factors in economic reasons as well as balancing across a much bigger scale of opportunities. In general I would say this is a bad analogy to adress my criticism on imposing theese restrictions on the campaign part of the game It is also not like there arent any restrictions in the game, right now unit upkeep and supply lines is what keeps army compositions and number of armies in check, I dont know how many people even play head-to-head but from my experience it also is well balanced in that regard since you are either late game where both can easily field multiple elite stacks, or you have to decide between only having one elite stack and no / few other stacks and are vulnerable to getting attacked at multiple positions with cheaper armies. I have only played 6 head-to-head campaings so far though. And again, just voluntarly force those restrictions on yourself? As I said, I am not opposed to those restrictions in themselves, I am opposed to forcing everyone to follow them (implementing them in singleplayer/coop/head to head) and/or wasting the developers time on including this feature (even if its optional) if there is already and solution. I still fail to see the need for having a special implementation of this, other that people just cant be bothered to think on their own / cant follow through on their own. So far I only heard good arguments for playing with some restrictions, which I never objected to, but none that adress my issue that I don't see any need to not just leave it up to the player. I can play the game with one hand and the sound off too, if I want. Or high on cold medicine/drunk. All these things are possible, so why does the game have difficulty levels at all? That question is rhetorical, because we all know why they exist. But if your argument is that the restrictions can be self imposed is sufficient, I don't agree, but don't see any point in arguing further on the subject. I think the argument is that the game already provides enough of optional restrictions to be fully functional and fully supporting the proposed limitations to army compositions without taking away development time that could be used on fixes / features that aren't. You rhetorical question is just as misplaced as the Magic: The Gathering comparison since the difficulty levels are features that you can’t emulate yourself, if you ignore modding. You seem to miss each other’s points / are having 2 different arguments. You argue WHY certain restrictions are an interesting idea (which for the record, I actually agree on since I especially miss the tabletop component of army building in this game sometimes), while he talks about HOW it should be implemented while keeping in mind that development time is a limited resource. I have to admit I initially was thrilled by the idea of restrictions for armies because of tabletop nostalgia ( having elites, standards, core…) and I still am, but now I am very torn if I really want to have the developers waste time on this, since at least on my end it is already doable with ease. The only argument I see for your (and formerly my side) is the AI. I haven’t tried mods that change the AIs recruitment so far so I don’t know if you can do more than just change which units they prioritize. If that isn’t doable with mods we got an argument for optional restrictions to army compositions (anything but optional seems just not defendable though. Never ruin someone else’s fun) HOWEVER since this would then require tweaking on the AI which is additional work I am once again turned if that is really worth it. Depending on the restriction it could even force you to rework some garrisons. So a clear and definite “maybe(?)” from me for the idea
To be clear, I wouldn’t’ want them to spend a ton of time on it or have to do any crazy AI coding. I just think it would be a nice feature. I like games that give you a lot of options on difficulty(Invisible Inc.) to keep it fresh. Like I enjoy the Hard difficulty, but sort of hate the -2 to public order. Given the option, I would turn that off and maybe ramp up the upkeep or random events.
|
|
|
From that campaign, it looks like Chaos invasion implementation is still bullshit. I totally burnt out on fighting Chaos in 3 campaigns in WH1 so I'm taking a break before playing WH2. I was really hoping Mortal Empires campaign would be more sandbox and less scripted bullshit.
That campaign probably wouldn't be doable without that kind of cheese, something which I am very loathe to do.
|
On January 20 2018 07:16 andrewlt wrote:
From that campaign, it looks like Chaos invasion implementation is still bullshit. I totally burnt out on fighting Chaos in 3 campaigns in WH1 so I'm taking a break before playing WH2. I was really hoping Mortal Empires campaign would be more sandbox and less scripted bullshit.
That campaign probably wouldn't be doable without that kind of cheese, something which I am very loathe to do.
Yeah I got tired of chaos from WH:1 so I play ME with a mod that disables the chaos invasion.
|
I don't think that the Chaos invasion is that bad in ME anymore. It's about a 40-turn commitment, and you get plenty of help from allies.
|
I would like if they randomized the Chaos invasion with a couple of the other evil factions just exploding onto the map. I like the pressure in the game and that it comes from outside the sandbox. But it could use more variety. But like everything else, I just want a level that lets me turn up the chaos invasion/other bullshit to whatever level I want.
They really need a skaven invasion.
|
Yes, there definitely needs to be more Skaven. They're really fun to fight against. Hopefully the rebalancing of autoresolve will make them more of a threat on the campaign map.
|
I don't think it's that bad for one campaign, but it really hurts the replayability of the game for me. I just don't want to do it again after the first time I dealt with it, even the WH1 version. One campaign dealing with them is enough. For me, the appeal of the sandbox game with multiple starting positions is having to deal with different factions every game. Spending a huge chunk of time dealing with the same mechanics time and time again is just boring.
The guy totally cheesed the campaign and still had to spend 37 (or was it 47?) out of 109 turns dealing with their bullshit. He had to deal with some of the most infuriating aspects of the Total War experience, the whack-a-mole chase and the AI just bypassing a lot of supposedly hostile lands to beeline the player.
|
Idk, by the time you start fighting the chaos invasion you are usually dominant enough that the game is pretty much over. This guy needs 13 turns to finish his campaign after dealing with chaos. So no, the campaign would definitely be doable without that kind of eco-cheese and he didn't take 40 turns to deal with chaos because chaos was an actual threat, but because they keep coming and you can't ignore them.
The different starts are very different in terms of enemies and strats and if you are playing for the challenge it's usually gone long before chaos invades (in fact I'd argue that chaos is supposed to be the lategame challenge à là stellaris endgame crisis).
All things considered the chaos waves are pretty disappointing and I'd rather see Chaos actually run over the north than just beeline 6 annoying armies to your outer provinces. I'd rather have an actual wave that forces you to make a last stand for 10 turns and then win a quest battle that possibly ends the campaign than what it's now tbh.
And yes, diplomacy is still bad, not as bad as at the start, but prepare to lead shitloads of wars against factions that are far away, have no reason to hate you or did get invited by people they hate on VH.
|
Chaos is actually easier to deal with in Mortal Empires than it was in WH1 given how they changed the trigger mechanics. In WH1, Chaos was coming starting around turn 50 or so, regardless of what you did. Typically that meant that the Norsca assholes and Chaos hordes were all-but-guaranteed to raze everything north of the Reik to the ground before you could do much about it. In ME, Chaos doesn't spawn until you hit a fairly high imperium level. While you're going to have more to deal with when Chaos comes, you're also going to be much stronger. In my Empire campaigns, I've been able to fairly easily field 2-3 armies at every point of attack from the Chaos armies. This kinda trivializes the invasion and turns it more into a chore than a real fight for survival. I think that part of the problem is that Norsca still haven't been fully implemented. They really made the North more dangerous and interesting than it currently is.
|
Chaos feels like a "don't expand too fast" penalty to me. It would be a lot better if you were actually rewarded for fending off stacks, or better yet, rewards for attacking Chaos that is not in your lands (i.e. you seek to protect others and not just turtle it out). The bonus to relations is nice, sure, but after a while everyone has three digit relations with everyone and trying to attack someone at that point is just going to make everyone hate you.
I'd make the first wave of Chaos have some nice items as battle loot. Next, starting with the second wave, killing Chaos while in another faction's lands should give you a permanent relations boost (persisting even after Chaos is gone). This would let you overcome natural aversion, distrust and whatnot, providing some stable allies for the late game. Finally, make Archaon & co drop some followers with faction-wide bonuses the first time they die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
