|
DaysBefore posted:It's a real shame the AI couldn't handle so many of GCCMs maps because they had a lot of fun variety Pathing starts to rear its head on many of them. Also, while some were huge and beautifully detailed, it would grind your FPS to a halt from having to render everything. I remember Marienberg being this neat series of canals and bridges but it took ages for an army to traverse the map.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Holy crap I just heard a hilarious way to capture Altdorf on turn 1 with Skrag: 1.) Use Come and Get it Maw offering at start 2.) Force March as close as possible to Altdorf. When not at war you can get much closer to cities on the map. 3.) Swap Skrag for another lord, which let's you switch out of force March. So long as you are directly adjacent to the city you can attack it immediately. 4.) In the battle, hold your entire army back on one side save for a unit of gorgers. Take those gorgers on the opposite side. AI will camp nearly their entire army in the very back corner. Use your siege ability to knock down walls and barricades. Gorgers have stalk and can capture control points and eventually one of the two main objectives (that will be unguarded). This let's you win the battle with ZERO CASUALTIES. This is the most egregious example, but it occurred to me several other elements could be applied elsewhere (force March+war dec+immediate siege a risk, and/or effortlessly ganking major settlement with stalk). I'm sure they'll eventually get around to nerfing it, so enjoy it while you can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
DaysBefore posted:It's a real shame the AI couldn't handle so many of GCCMs maps because they had a lot of fun variety GCCM could come up with some "okay" looking settlements, but very few of them ever stopped to consider "how would this actually play out and would it be fun" while they made their x5 larger city map with tiny streets with blocked line of sight that would take 10+ minutes to march infantry from one end to the other on x3 speed. If they focused on function first and molded form around it, the GCCM maps would of been much improved. The AI isn't much better on any CA map that isn't a open field however, the AI's main tactic in every siege is dividing up it's army across the entire map which you pick apart piecemeal by your concentrated blobs and then the last group of leaders and elite units routes off the main capture point due to army losses. Ra Ra Rasputin fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Yeah my experience with GCCM was that the majority of the maps were designed to look cool first and play well as an extremely distant second, even the ones that didn't completely break the AI on a foundational level. The AI in this game is basic enough in sieges that it can't handle the relatively simplistic siege maps of TWW1 and 2, let alone the labyrinthine nightmares some of the GCCM city maps were. (Which makes it extra funny that one of their biggest additions to TWW3 was to complicate the siege maps enormously, because the AI wasn't even handling the basic maps.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
There's one of the WH3 dwarf maps that is almost just the GCCM map where there is a big dwarf city in a corner under a giant overhang, makes me wonder if they didn't look at the GCCM maps when designing them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There's one of the WH3 dwarf maps that is almost just the GCCM map where there is a big dwarf city in a corner under a giant overhang, makes me wonder if they didn't look at the GCCM maps when designing them. The marienburg TW3 map is lawsuit levels of similar to the GCCM version haha. It's good though they should be copying them because the GCCM maps are beautiful and i always fight them manually. Panfilo posted:Holy crap I just heard a hilarious way to capture Altdorf on turn 1 with Skrag: The best GCCM maps are the small one like the helmgart map before it become a fortress was loving amazing. The problem is the AI simply can't get much better so they should be figuring out the best map design for the AI then using that as a template while adding the extra poo poo purely for the player.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
I was gonna mention Helmgart was friggin amazing to defend because it was set up that you could rain absolute hell on attackers. One thing I observed is that I never saw any maps that had multiple layers of walls and gates. I'm wondering if there's some limitations in how things are coded to prevent this, or it's just a balance thing. A Minas Tirith type fortress would be loving awesome and I always wanted Karak 8 Peaks mission to be a scripted 3 way free for all between Skarsnik, Belegar, and Queek.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
The southern karak, azul i think it was had 2 layers of walls but no gates for the 2nd layer because the AI would try to bring rams and towers if you did. It's amazing to defend because it has a raised corner that can shoot at either section of the wall and you can station missile troops on the 2nd layer shooting over your melee troops holding the gates it's awesome. It's a map that plays to dawi strength and it loving should like that's why most maps suck rear end because they're all copy and pasted. The old Helmgart was so loving awesome because you'd stick mortars by the church of sigmar then have blocks of halberds in the narrow streets--it's how men would defend their cities not some weird flat section with no LoS for a faction that relies on gunpowder. The tiered fortress maps addressed it somewhat but going forward that needs to be done for every map.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I was gonna mention Helmgart was friggin amazing to defend because it was set up that you could rain absolute hell on attackers. They used to do that in Medieval 2. You'd never really lose those battles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Layered castles in Medieval II was a really cool idea but as usual it barely worked
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
I mean, it was like the proto Ikit experience
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
I actually really liked the forts, both attacking and defending. I think they need dockable ports on the wall sections further back overlooking the main ramp and the initial courtyard but it's a good set of maps. They're relatively open but still have some enclosed areas to make them different from field battles and definitely favor the defenders but not obnoxiously. I'd hoped the settlement battles would take note from them more: they are just a touch too complicated, imo, and don't really allow for much defense in depth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
hopefully with the new map kroq-gar won't be stuck spawning in the corner in the middle of nowhere. want to play as a dino riding an even bigger dino
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Slider posted:hopefully with the new map kroq-gar won't be stuck spawning in the corner in the middle of nowhere. want to play as a dino riding an even bigger dino Krog-gar took me all the way to ME i love him
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Once dawizhar gets added all sieges are gonna need a rework anyways because they'll have enough firepower to obliterate anything. They should add 2 maps to every settlement, hold the walls or fall back to the keep. The first map is more open and you'll get access to the wall towers being intended for you to fight them as they try to scale the walls. The second map is smaller and basically all choke points but very limited tower options intended for smaller armies defending against a superior force. You have to choose once the siege starts, holding the walls means you'll use up resources and will suffer attrition at the normal rate. Falling back is a pure defensive siege so that means reduced attrition and you'll hold out for longer. This way you can choose some tactics and the garrison should be customizable to reflect this. Do you want a border city that will hold the walls and is basically a fort or do you want an interior city that relies on local armies to come to it's aid so it's designed to hold out in a siege. Generic garrisons are dumb and should be thrown in the bin, use a gold cost like in MP to build an army for each city tailoring it to that map. Using my fav dawi as an example, an interior city would be melee grinders with no powder units intended to fight in ranks. An exterior city would be great weapon and offensive infantry designed to hold walls with artillery for counter battery fire. Add an option for big settlements where you can fight on both maps if you want giving you the option to wear down the enemy army then make a desperate stand on the keep map.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
smug jeebus posted:This is pretty clever and I'm looking forward to trying this out tonight: Well, that was pretty underwhelming. I'm tired of this campaign at two souls in, and all I've got are single unit of Minotaurs and a Cygor. DeadFatDuckFat posted:I've tried that. They blue
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
Arghy posted:Once dawizhar gets added all sieges are gonna need a rework anyways because they'll have enough firepower to obliterate anything. They should add 2 maps to every settlement, hold the walls or fall back to the keep. The first map is more open and you'll get access to the wall towers being intended for you to fight them as they try to scale the walls. The second map is smaller and basically all choke points but very limited tower options intended for smaller armies defending against a superior force. You have to choose once the siege starts, holding the walls means you'll use up resources and will suffer attrition at the normal rate. Falling back is a pure defensive siege so that means reduced attrition and you'll hold out for longer. What if they expanded on that, by giving you 3 or 4 different options which came with different city configurations? They could follow a few basic templates-An "open" config emphasizing cavalry and fast units (with special forest patches that only conceal defenders), a "melee" config that is a city like you described with lots of winding choke points, a "ranged" config with lots of wall sections, and an "artillery" config with towers and good platforms for artillery. This could be especially interesting with unwalled factions where one map might be a quasai ambush scenario for attackers. Also along with what you said about fixed garrisons you gave me an alternate idea: a resource (probably simplest to just roll it all into supply points and recruit units from a province-wide pool of supply) and let you set up the garrison yourself. Instead of requiring specific recruitment buildings it just requires a particular tier of settlement/garrison building. The points don't build up over time in battle, rather whatever leftover points you might have go towards barricades/towers/attrition mitigation. This would favor 4 settlement provinces since they'd have a potentially greater pool of supply to recruit the garrison. Instead of 4 settlements with middling garrisons you could focus resources on a settlement most likely to get attacked (which means even a new tier 1 garrison could have a hefty garrison). This also makes it easier to build up garrisons in heavy corruption/bad climate since you're not reliant on growth/settlement tier to build it up if other settlements are already established. They could make the recruitment or changes very time consuming (2-6 turns to recruit a particular unit and taking up normal recruitment capacity slots) so you'd need to plan ahead and couldn't just magically have a super garrison right before getting attacked. This would give much greater flexibility in terms of what is defending the settlement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
Ideally the best design would be the make the capital garrison a literal army that's not on the battle map and make it so minor settlements can't be destroyed only abandoned. You can also salvage the growth from it to as the refugees flee back to the main city. Make it so it takes 2-3 turns to ransack it if you got defensive buildings and you can decide to muster the province garrison to lift the siege or defend the map. Minor settlements could literally just be defensive maps so you'd have an option of fighting or letting it go to fight the army at a more defensive area. Taking over a province would be you ransacking 1 minor settlement after another and the AI deciding whether or not it wants to initiate a battle. Instead of say 4 boring repetitive fights it would be 2 maybe 3 pitched battles then that's it. You could enforce biomes way more by only having the option to occupy the settlement for a few turns while you ransack it if you couldn't occupy it. No more weird sprawling empires you'd just have ruins where your race can't colonize. It doesn't make sense that orks for example would colonize the northern wastes they loot and pillage then move on. I'm likely gonna get into TW3 modding once IE comes out haha good implement my goddamn vision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 05:45
|
|
|
And I will laud it
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
“Do you use SFO? Radious?” “No, man. I use Arghy’s Vision.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Every single battlemap has dwarven artillery placed on giant walls at the edges that fire on everything that isn't dwarven, even if there aren't dwarves in the battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
one battlemap is a nightmare hellscape that is just a gigantic grimgrog bound and naked roaring into the void as dwarven armies maneuver upon his pocked flesh e: have i invented a new kink? Twigand Berries fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Apr 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Grimgrog replaced with a shieldless goblin spearmen so his stats accurately compare to a level two Dwarf thane with no items
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Twigand Berries posted:one battlemap is a nightmare hellscape that is just a gigantic grimgrog bound and naked roaring into the void as dwarven armies maneuver upon his pocked flesh lmao holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
I am unironically curious about Arghy Vision mod and would play the hell out of it.
Lt. Lizard fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Apr 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Province armies should be customizable with a governor with it's own traits and loyalty meter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Growth in anywhere but the main settlement isn't fun, granted some factions that are fast growing it makes sense like the empire and skaven but old and slow races should be reliant on main settlements. You'd still have growth but the main settlement would be the only thing that grew and the minor settlements would be upgraded depending on the main settlement. You could either have a system where you could spent growth points to upgrade minors or it's pure currency but the cap is the main settlement level. It doesn't make sense that the old races are building new things, they're just maintaining old things that they've built and lost. It's not fun losing a minor settlement you've spent 10 turns growing because you stepped away. They should cost money true but they should be fun set pieces for battles rather than a nuisance and sacking them should be a more invested affair. If you wanted to burn a city to the ground it should take multiple turns otherwise it should just slowly damage the buildings. There's already a raiding stance so quick forays into enemy territory is a thing, sacking and looting should be more time investment because 1 turn sacks are loving dumb. The simple fact is the AI is best in open field maps so you either redesign all the siege maps to work well with the AI or you only focus on the main settlements and turn the minor battles into defensive open field battles. Building cities is a huge part of a lot of races play styles just as destroying them is for others. The time investment is not balanced at all so you have this half rear end fix of making minor settlement sieges which can become very repetitive. Make minor settlements unique maps and major settlements really awesome siege maps but use the garrison from the major settlement for these maps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
*hoots, hollers* Tell it like it is, Arghy!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Arghy posted:It's not fun losing a minor settlement you've spent 10 turns growing because you stepped away. They should cost money true but they should be fun set pieces for battles rather than a nuisance and sacking them should be a more invested affair. If you wanted to burn a city to the ground it should take multiple turns otherwise it should just slowly damage the buildings. There's already a raiding stance so quick forays into enemy territory is a thing, sacking and looting should be more time investment because 1 turn sacks are loving dumb. Skarbrand routinely razes multiple settlements a turn with just the LL stack, this would completely cripple the whole faction
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Skarbrand routinely razes multiple settlements a turn with just the LL stack, this would completely cripple the whole faction Not dwarves, doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
"Dwarves"? Do you mean dawi?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
I played tabletop back before they changed the names, I don't think I'll ever remember to call them dawi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
Just put defensive siege battles as either open fields with towers or a single choke point (like a river) with towers. Please stop trying, CA
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Carcer posted:I played tabletop back before they changed the names, I don't think I'll ever remember to call them dawi. The joke was that Arghy always calls them dawi, he even called chorfs dawizhar a couple days ago. I'm pretty sure that was the first time I ever saw that word
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Skarbrand routinely razes multiple settlements a turn with just the LL stack, this would completely cripple the whole faction The skarbrand and taurox campaigns are not balanced at all this would be a great fix for that. I remember just destroying an entire DE faction in a single turn as taurox because the AI was dumb and i'd have to routinely hold back just to get fun fights instead of auto resolving minor settlement battles. Waiting a turn to convert a settlement into ruins or 2 if they have defensive buildings wouldn't cripple a campaign. You'd need to wait for troops to heal anyways so you could defeat the army then replenish while you burn down a minor settlement. I'd much rather fight big fleshed out province armies than the same boring minor settlement garrison that's if the AI even bothered to build walls otherwise you just auto resolve anyways. You'd have less auto resolve and less tedium with better and bigger set piece battles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
Staltran posted:The joke was that Arghy always calls them dawi, he even called chorfs dawizhar a couple days ago. I'm pretty sure that was the first time I ever saw that word https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV8eF2LGVFg Listen to the expert bardin to learn true dwarvish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gssDOu7xyN4 Here's thorgrim also using dawi, clearly everyones abuncha knife ear players to not know what dawi means!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Dawi has been the name dwarfs use ever since like what, 5th ed? It's been in use since the late 90s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
dwarf-things, but i will also accept stunties
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
Arghy posted:The skarbrand and taurox campaigns are not balanced at all this would be a great fix for that. I remember just destroying an entire DE faction in a single turn as taurox because the AI was dumb and i'd have to routinely hold back just to get fun fights instead of auto resolving minor settlement battles. Waiting a turn to convert a settlement into ruins or 2 if they have defensive buildings wouldn't cripple a campaign. You'd need to wait for troops to heal anyways so you could defeat the army then replenish while you burn down a minor settlement. Skarbrand's whole faction gets movement back on raze. Making razing take multiple turns would if not cripple, then severely nerf them. Khorne also has excellent replenishment, and replenish in enemy territory, so you don't really need to wait around. Plus you often don't really take meaningful damage in fights with your real armies, and even with blood hosts you can often win with summons + blood shrines and skull cannons, which regen in melee. Now obviously this isn't balanced, but the AI doesn't do it so who cares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Staltran posted:The joke was that Arghy always calls them dawi, he even called chorfs dawizhar a couple days ago. I'm pretty sure that was the first time I ever saw that word lol I didn't catch that. On looking it up, dawi is the dwarven word for dwarf. So really, if you're human you should be calling them dwarf. Arghy is a grey area since he's probably some sort of scrunt, so we can't be sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 00:14
|
|