|
On February 04 2021 06:42 Cleomin wrote:
Didnt they release DLC for Warhammer 2 every couple of month? And now they are going to release a new game with an DLC already purchasable. They are truly milking their fanbase Total War games are always chuck full of DLC.
But its limit to just factions, not gameplay improvements so meh. I'm fine with it.
This is how they can justify working on the game the entire time, rather then dumping after launch and working on something else.
|
|
|
Yah, I'm not a fan of release date DLC. Don't mind the DLC releases afterwards because those are equivalent to mini-expansions. It's nice that they continue working on the game afterwards. I play around 1-2 campaigns a year of Warhammer 2.
Btw, the paid DLCs for Warhammer 2 usually come with a free DLC that has a new lord with less significant gameplay changes than the paid DLC. The DLC system sucked when they first introduced it. Definitely felt like they were milking the hell out of their customers when they started doing it (I think it was Rome 2 that started it). Warhammer 2 struck a better balance of making certain DLCs worth it if you're the type who wants to play the new factions or new lords that come with the new DLC.
|
On February 04 2021 06:29 Archeon wrote:Yeah very happy that they split up Demons. Release date is supposed to be this year too and we'll get more info about the free race dlc "in a few months", so a release in summer/fall isn't out of the picture. (I'm getting ready for a planned release in winter and eventual release in fall next year though.) The feature I'm most hyped about is actually the siege rework they promised a while ago on reddit, but everything else sounds pretty cool, including a possible chaos realm. Wish we got an archer rework, but I guess Venris will eventually put them into a place that doesn't make spamming slinger slaves or bretonian peasant archers a viable strategy. Trailer is also quite literally cool as hell  9 LLs announced, if we assume that's 1 each for DoC and 2 for Kislev/Cathay we have 1 remaining. The steam page might hint that Be'lakor might play a role and it'd be cool to play a chaos undivided faction where you need to subjugate the other chaos factions, but a third Lord for either of the human factions or a second Lord for one of the DoC might very well be a possibility.
The 2 features I want the most are:
1. Siege battle rework. I don't want more difficulty. I just want siege battles to be fun. They currently aren't. I don't care about "realism" or "defender's advantage" or any of that. I prefer fighting regular open field battles 100% of the time. Siege battles are annoying and they comprise too many of the battles during the course of a game. And no, magically spawning AI enemy stacks is not a good way of forcing more open field battles.
2. More open ended mortal empires style campaign. The chaos invasion event is fun for the first campaign. It gets really monotonous starting from the second. Would be nice not to have an endgame event the focus of every single campaign in the sandbox mode for a game I want to play numerous times over the years.
|
The thing I most want is an archer rebalancing. Mass archer simply doesn't have a cost effective counter and every time I have to fight elves for more than 2 battles I want to kill myself because my t4 chariots and t5 speedy monsters get annihilated by Bretonian peasants or skaven slaves with slings. Like I have a 200 ton sphinx made of sandstone and obsidian and it melts when shot with xbows.
Most larger overhauls nerf archers quite a bit and even then they remain potent, because vanilla balancing is supposed to make archers strong in PvP while ignoring that ranged units are massively superior on the campaign map.
For sieges I've mostly deactivated them nowadays, so they don't bother me as much anymore But yes they are in dire need of a rework.
I don't care that much about lategame because lategame is always whack in 4x titles. Although I wouldn't mind some growth buffs that enable me to play lategame units before I've snowballed, which I deem more realistic than a company actually getting 4x mid-lategame right.
On February 04 2021 06:54 Cleomin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 06:46 Gorsameth wrote:On February 04 2021 06:42 Cleomin wrote:
Didnt they release DLC for Warhammer 2 every couple of month? And now they are going to release a new game with an DLC already purchasable. They are truly milking their fanbase Total War games are always chuck full of DLC. But its limit to just factions, not gameplay improvements so meh. I'm fine with it. This is how they can justify working on the game the entire time, rather then dumping after launch and working on something else. The fact that Total War games are loaded with DLC doesnt make it any better. And factions are gameplay as well. Imagine EA would do that. "OMG EA SO GREEDY FUCK THAT SHIT". Full Price title with release DLC. Seems like everyone is cool with that kind of business. Remember when Blizzard released an Addon for Starcraft 2 every 2-3 years? HOW DARE THEY
The fundamental problem about DLCs is the content per prize ratio is way off in most cases. Paying 10 bucks for a map pack with 3-4 maps is just fairly ridiculous. Paying 1-2 € for a custom skin is absurd when you compare it to the content per prize of base games. EA isn't greedy because they release additional content for games, they are greedy because their dlcs are way overprized.
Blizz also took the full price for the Sc2 add-ons. Getting a new race for 10 bucks on the other hand is getting a fairly large part of the original game for a somewhat adequate cost. Hero packs are somewhat overpriced, but they still mostly come with race overhauls and custom features.
And DLCs are way more accepted for 4x titles where you can upgrade/refine your base game more easily. To boot these titles often get played for 100s if not 1000s of hours, so even if you pay a hundred bucks for the full package it's not like you don't get a lot of value for your money.
Also CA gets flag pretty much every time they release a first day DLC, ppl just don't make a huge deal about it anymore because they have come to expect it. You either buy it on release day and get the free dlc full package for the full price, or you wait for one of the regular sales.
|
On February 04 2021 10:46 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2021 06:29 Archeon wrote:Yeah very happy that they split up Demons. Release date is supposed to be this year too and we'll get more info about the free race dlc "in a few months", so a release in summer/fall isn't out of the picture. (I'm getting ready for a planned release in winter and eventual release in fall next year though.) The feature I'm most hyped about is actually the siege rework they promised a while ago on reddit, but everything else sounds pretty cool, including a possible chaos realm. Wish we got an archer rework, but I guess Venris will eventually put them into a place that doesn't make spamming slinger slaves or bretonian peasant archers a viable strategy. Trailer is also quite literally cool as hell 9 LLs announced, if we assume that's 1 each for DoC and 2 for Kislev/Cathay we have 1 remaining. The steam page might hint that Be'lakor might play a role and it'd be cool to play a chaos undivided faction where you need to subjugate the other chaos factions, but a third Lord for either of the human factions or a second Lord for one of the DoC might very well be a possibility. The 2 features I want the most are: 1. Siege battle rework. I don't want more difficulty. I just want siege battles to be fun. They currently aren't. I don't care about "realism" or "defender's advantage" or any of that. I prefer fighting regular open field battles 100% of the time. Siege battles are annoying and they comprise too many of the battles during the course of a game. And no, magically spawning AI enemy stacks is not a good way of forcing more open field battles. 2. More open ended mortal empires style campaign. The chaos invasion event is fun for the first campaign. It gets really monotonous starting from the second. Would be nice not to have an endgame event the focus of every single campaign in the sandbox mode for a game I want to play numerous times over the years.
You can disable the chaos invasion. I agree that it makes the game boring, mostly because of the "shield of civilisation" that makes order roflstomp the rest of the factions.
You can easily abuse the IA to make their archers useless tho.
|
Yeah i can run in circles with my lord for 5 minutes on speed x4 until the enemy doesn't have ammo anymore, but that's equally as dumb as the current balance state and possibly even less fun. Spending most of my battle time doing cheesy ai abuse is not why I play TW :/
I wished vanilla battles and campaigns would just work on higher diffs, but playing battles like historical ones instead of parking your pure ranged stack on a hill or in a corner feels like a larger handicap than the actual difficulty penalties. I'm not the biggest fan of hard counter systems, but WH really could use some hard counters to ranged units and single entities.
|
Oh yeah, playing against archers without any kind of dogs/cavalry is very annoying. But that's why you need them.
Also single entities will get destroyed by an anti large infantry unit + hard hitter like a hero. The infantry unit is here to soak dps while the hero dps
|
Even with cav elven AIs (and sometimes others too, against Bretonia I have more trouble with the peasant archer spam than their shock cav) just tend to spam a shitload of archers and enough of these shut down their counters. Like on average dogs/light cav win against 1.5x as many archers, but it's so much more viable to spam archers than light cav and that ignores that some of the hybrid units like LSG or shadow warriors beat the shit out of most light cav/dogs.
Also in some MUs you have both the cav as well as the ranged disadvantage. This would still be somewhat fine if you assume a 1v1 basis where who wins the battle wins the war because often you can push forward with your shielded infantry and eventually overwhelm the archers with high losses, but against AIs with recruitment boni, income boni, replenishment boni and upkeep reduction taking high losses is often catastrophic because you can't recover before getting overwhelmed especially early on.
The problem with monsters usually isn't countering small amounts where you can either kite or focus fire, it's that turn 12 rite of primeval glory or the super early dragon stacks among the HE spam. Also monsters are counterable if you go by cost, but per slot they are very strong and the AI doesn't care about costs. Since they push through everything monsters also create very boring gameplay where your only options are kiting or tarpit, making fights against mass monsters incredibly tedious. Early monster stacks are basically the only armies I autoresolve because AR still waaay underestimates how badly monsters pummel infantry.
With 15% upkeep increase per army slots matter a lot for the player too, making pure monster stacks often the goto past midgame. If monsters and archers had counters they couldn't easily overcome there'd be incentives to build mixed armies instead of pure mass ranged or mass monster stacks which are currently so much more efficient than any amy that actually fields melee infantry.
|
|
|
I don't get the complains about DLCs. AAA+ games like each of the TWWH should cost 200 dollars. The price that was fixed 20 years ago of 60 dollars is wayyyy too little for having huge teams developing games for years and years and years.
So you simply wouldn't get all those extra races, additional lords and all of that if there were not an economic mechanism to sustain the people making this content.
Paid DLCs are great. It allows people with more modest means to play the game for a reasonable price, and people who want to invest to have the extra goodies. And the people who don't buy them benefit from the DLCs since the content is added anyway as non playable factions and lords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
