| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Archeon
3265 Posts
Imo supply lines and difficulty scaling in battles need a rework to enable more mixed armies. And I've been calling for a rebalancing of archers and monsters for a long time now, these units just are generally broken in PvE. SFO imo has a better unit balance and SFO's strong suit really isn't balance. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8056 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9572 Posts
Just SFO SFO + other flavourful mods Unit balance, economy balance, more complete rosters for every faction, better/harder AI (although still very cheesable if you so desire), better autoresolve (so you don't lose every piece of artillery you have in your army vs 1 lord and 2 peasant mobs) and so much more. It's honestly the reason I am still playing this game to this day. It adds TONNES more replayability. Are you asking about Mortal Empires in general, or just ME in SFO? ME combines the map from 1st the game (Old World) with the Vortex map, into 1 giant campaign. It's really the only way you'll experience fighting all factions and can go for a world domination victory for fun. Some starting positions are adjusted for the sake of balance and a little bit because of map distortion. | ||
|
Archeon
3265 Posts
On July 27 2020 20:37 Biff The Understudy wrote: Do you recommend SFO? What's the difference and how does Mortal Empire play? In terms of AI the AI doesn't pile on you as much, fields more armies and is less buffed on the battlefield in exchange. It also uses spells much better, which is quite spicy on occasion. I had some really harmful vortices hit my backline. Lots of rebalances of units, spells and race mechanics. The big things for me are that archer accuracy is down and especially infantry hp is up, so unit type balance is less one-sided. Battles take a bit longer. Unit complexity is a bit up and most weak vanilla units get their own niche they can perform in, but generally high tier units are a bit stronger. This gets somewhat counterbalanced by lvl ups being more impactful. SFO comes with lower supply lines but a system that otherwise punishes large empires economically. It does a lot of things that are more loreful which just make sense, f.e. vampires are much faster than normal infantry and halberds are better at punishing cav that tries to pull out. LL buffs to certain units tend to be stronger. Not everything is perfect and the feeling is quite a bit different at times, but imo SFO is WH's more complex big brother with better battlefield balance and deeper mechanics. So yes, if you are looking for a fresh experience in wh I 100% recommend trying out SFO. Oh and chaos is a threat. Like fullstack + garrison vs chaos stack fights where you roll over vanilla chaos are pretty tough in SFO, T2+ chaos units are super strong. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8056 Posts
No confed makes the game much more uncertain. You can't expect Couronne to do nothing, confederate everyone around just because and become a superpower. There is much more continuity in who does well and who doesn't. Confederation is a bad mechanics, badly implemented imo. I hope they make it better in wh3 | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17719 Posts
On September 14 2020 23:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: Playing a Karak Kadrin campaign with the no confederation mod. That's so much more fun. Also slayers buffed by Ungrim end up with 90+ Melee attack which is hilarious. No confed makes the game much more uncertain. You can't expect Couronne to do nothing, confederate everyone around just because and become a superpower. There is much more continuity in who does well and who doesn't. Confederation is a bad mechanics, badly implemented imo. I hope they make it better in wh3 Confederation in itself is not that bad. When you're playing a faction that can confederate it can save you a ton of time when you beat someone into submission and they just hand over the rest of their settlements without the need for protracted war. It is however pretty bad when AI does it and some factions just default to insta-confederating after some time has elapsed. I think it has to do with the fact that actual faction power ratings are calculated badly (just like army strength in autoresolve is calculated badly). It generally favors factions that spam a lot of weak stacks as opposed to having a bit more compact empire but with better developed settlements and fewer high quality stacks. If it irks you too much you can always play beastmen or chaos (I hate having to manage a very wide empire, there's a lot of charm in just razing everything to the ground). | ||
|
Latham
9572 Posts
On September 15 2020 00:46 Manit0u wrote: Confederation in itself is not that bad. When you're playing a faction that can confederate it can save you a ton of time when you beat someone into submission and they just hand over the rest of their settlements without the need for protracted war. It is however pretty bad when AI does it and some factions just default to insta-confederating after some time has elapsed. I think it has to do with the fact that actual faction power ratings are calculated badly (just like army strength in autoresolve is calculated badly). It generally favors factions that spam a lot of weak stacks as opposed to having a bit more compact empire but with better developed settlements and fewer high quality stacks. If it irks you too much you can always play beastmen or chaos (I hate having to manage a very wide empire, there's a lot of charm in just razing everything to the ground). I also personally use the no confederation mod. Confederation makes the game super predictable. Ordertide is a thing - Empire always forms, Dwarves muster themselves into a deathball, Britannia confeds, Helfs and sometimes Lizardmen too, then they all get to spanking everybody else. Empire stacks are somehow broken in autoresolve and almost always are at an advantage and wipe vamps or leave them alone, and then absolutely wipe the floor with chaos. Britannia often times goes for a crusade in the North and wipes Norsca. Dwarves shit on greenskins. I've seen it far too many times for it to be entertaining anymore. With no confed mod and SFO Karl still confeds the Empire, but slower and forcefully. That gives Chaos a fighting chance to actually be relevant for a time. Greenskins get a little more breathing space as well with slower Dawi consolidation of power. If you really want a unique and fun experience eveytime you need no confederation mode as well as all random starting positions. Only then you can get a chance to see the usual fodder factions rise to become juggernauts. | ||
|
akatama
Romania982 Posts
Flying monsters still dominate the walls. Unit caps push suboptimal units aside even more. The AI still can't win battles vs a player stack so you just clean two/three armies and then take province capitals; the AI becomes unable to fight back, best they can do is flip flop between a few minor settlements. They still take their sweet time to besiege a city and build siege equipment even if they can easily take the battle without it. I've also been slapped with an event spawning a trashy Empire army a short while after taking Altdorf. They managed to take 2 minor settlements from Reikland before I got an army back to clean them up. It's the strategy game equivalent of a jumpscare. On the topic of confederations, I do agree they let some factions get away from trouble. Still, the AI needs to blob to stand a chance against the player. I think the fundamental problem is that good factions buddy up thanks to diplomacy techs and less aversion. If Dark Elves, Greenskins and Skaven come out on top, you can still use diplomacy to get some allies and not fight everyone. If Empire, Dwarfs and High Elves come out on top they are all good buddies and you either side with them or against them (or you try to sweet talk Karl and Thorgrim only to end up with Karak Hirn declaring war on you and dragging everyone else along). Another thing that should really go away are those Empire techs granting bonuses vs their main enemies. They turn greatswords into unbreakable swordmasters and they trivialize autoresolve, letting Empire mow down city after city with no slowing down. Hell, the only thing that can beat them is Skaven stalk ambushes (which also need toning down, there's no way a unit of skavenslave slingers can kill 40 dwarf warriors in a regular battle). | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
aradii
Iran3 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22209 Posts
On September 23 2020 22:17 aradii wrote: A combination of artillery (Eagleclaw bolt throwers ) of your own to draw the enemy to come forward to attack you and Eagles to attack their artillery once they are vulnerable.Plying as high elves one of my problem is Empire artillery, i want to know what's your strategy against empire and their helstorm rocket battery?? Any suggestion would be helpful. Late-game you have dragons. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17719 Posts
On September 23 2020 22:31 Gorsameth wrote: A combination of artillery (Eagleclaw bolt throwers ) of your own to draw the enemy to come forward to attack you and Eagles to attack their artillery once they are vulnerable. Late-game you have dragons. Bolt throwers are necessary for sieges. Eagles and phoenixes are kinda crap though. Early to mid-game I'm just using cheap cavalry for that (elyrrian reavers or silver helms, reaver archers are always nice since once they've done their job you can set them to skirmish formation and forget about them). | ||
|
aradii
Iran3 Posts
On September 23 2020 22:31 Gorsameth wrote: A combination of artillery (Eagleclaw bolt throwers ) of your own to draw the enemy to come forward to attack you and Eagles to attack their artillery once they are vulnerable. Late-game you have dragons. Thanks, you know the eagle and phoenixes are good recommendations because of their speed but the main problem is most of the time they killed by hand gunners and archers, and they couldn't destroy the whole units of helstorm rocket battery! On September 24 2020 00:54 Manit0u wrote: Bolt throwers are necessary for sieges. Eagles and phoenixes are kinda crap though. Early to mid-game I'm just using cheap cavalry for that (elyrrian reavers or silver helms, reaver archers are always nice since once they've done their job you can set them to skirmish formation and forget about them). Interesting idea for using cheap cavalry and forget about them, I use this one in my next battle, thanks | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17719 Posts
Another perk is that they get vanguard deployment so can already start in better position. Edit: The more I think about it the more perks to fielding like 2 units of them I find really. Since they're so fast and maneuverable you can not just use them for flanking and rear-charging (they have the same melee stats as regular reavers, just less charge bonus) but they're also excellent at chasing fleeing units down and preventing them from reforming and ever coming back. So, in summary, you can either use them the easy way - kill some arty then set to skirmish mode and focus on other stuff, or if you don't mind micromanaging a bit more use them to great effect to support other units and disrupt your enemy where it's needed most. Really versatile unit, just beware of large missile units, skirmish cav have trouble with those (I guess reavers can always just charge those and win against anything that's not super elite like shadow walkers and the like). | ||
|
akatama
Romania982 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17719 Posts
On September 25 2020 20:54 akatama wrote: Empire is one of the hardest factions to face in campaign. Rockets, demis and guns cover each other so well in the hands of the AI. Your best bet would be to deploy as far back as possible and force the enemy to advance with magic, then have some hidden units or fliers tear into unprotected artillery pieces. I've always thought Empire was rather weak as an opponent. Hellstorms are easy to avoid, demis aren't what they used to be. Just need a force that can advance relatively fast but I remember I've had 0 problem with them even with slower armies like Chaos and Vampire Counts (and if you ambush them they can't do shit). | ||
|
akatama
Romania982 Posts
On September 25 2020 21:57 Manit0u wrote: I've always thought Empire was rather weak as an opponent. Hellstorms are easy to avoid, demis aren't what they used to be. Just need a force that can advance relatively fast but I remember I've had 0 problem with them even with slower armies like Chaos and Vampire Counts (and if you ambush them they can't do shit). Hellstorms do some nasty things when they do connect. I had black knights go from full health to crumbling because they ate a single close range rocket volley as they charged the battery. Empire leadership is through the roof since their update. Gold chevron state troops go over 100 leadership and at least on Legendary the AI gets the experience insanely quick. Hell I've seen Greatswords get nuked, only 3 models left alive and they were steady. I have also been slapped with two armies of 46 MA swordsmen on turn 8 as Ghorst. The only thing left to do in campaigns like that is either to restart and pray the AI doesn't get the versus techs too quick or pray the AI does something stupid. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8056 Posts
1- The game is actually very, very well balanced without confederations, and main factions are mostly powerhouses anyway. Empire is super strong. Grimgor wiped out the dwarves of KaK all the same. 2- Ungrim slayers are STUPID good. We are talking 92 melee attack so they melt absolutely everything and everyone in seconds. They don't lose any model until they are below 50% health (journey's end buff) AND regenerate 30% thanks to Ungrim. That means almost every battle ends with your slayer stack having taken 0 loss and perfectly healthy. With lightning strikes you can kill 3 skaven doomstacks in one round without losing one model. It's ridiculous. 3- I am playing on very hard and frankly it's a bit tedious. I fight sooooo many battles that are super repetitive, especially with Ungrim stack. Dwarf rush army is quite bland. 4- Chaos sucks. I was waiting for them with three doomstacks until I realized they were so bad that one was more than enough. Will see when Archaon shows up but geez, those guys are incompetent. | ||
|
Latham
9572 Posts
Word on the street has been for years that Warhammer 3 will focus on completely revamping Chaos (and probably beastmen), add in Chaos Dwarves, Ogre Kingdoms and | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On September 26 2020 03:35 akatama wrote: Hellstorms do some nasty things when they do connect. I had black knights go from full health to crumbling because they ate a single close range rocket volley as they charged the battery. Empire leadership is through the roof since their update. Gold chevron state troops go over 100 leadership and at least on Legendary the AI gets the experience insanely quick. Hell I've seen Greatswords get nuked, only 3 models left alive and they were steady. I have also been slapped with two armies of 46 MA swordsmen on turn 8 as Ghorst. The only thing left to do in campaigns like that is either to restart and pray the AI doesn't get the versus techs too quick or pray the AI does something stupid. Are they that good? Last time I played Empire was Warhammer 1 and I preferred mortars, tanks and arks to the rockets. Even on lower difficulties, Franz can be a time with a doomstack with 4-6 tanks. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
Rogue vs TriGGeR
Maru vs MaxPax
Rogue vs herO
Clem vs herO
Rogue vs Maru
PiGStarcraft522
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
IPSL
Hawk vs TBD
StRyKeR vs TBD
BSL
n0maD vs perroflaco
TerrOr vs ZZZero
MadiNho vs WolFix
DragOn vs LancerX
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Team League
OSC
BSL
Sterling vs Azhi_Dahaki
Napoleon vs Mazur
Jimin vs Nesh
spx vs Strudel
IPSL
Artosis vs TBD
Napoleon vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
