|
Collapsing Farts posted:Oh man, Xcom Because Firaxis is working on this instead: https://midnightsuns.2k.com/ 
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Double Bill posted:Because Firaxis is working on this instead: https://midnightsuns.2k.com/ This game looks extremely stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 08:16
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I disagree that minor settlements with walls are harder to defend than unwalled settlements: Are you defending the entrances to an unwalled settlement...? Just hole up on one (1) capture point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 09:08
|
|
|
Tzeentch is so ridiculous in campaign Getting the right items and putting like 4 magic heroes in his army suddenly turns Kairos into an infinite magic flying doomsday device. I just took one of the bastion garrisons with him alone. He just flew around inside the walls bombing everything. If the A.I somehow got his shields dangerously low I'd just... fly away and regenerate them. Then continue my bombing runs. I had like 1400 kills on Kairos by the end of it
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 09:16
|
|
|
One thing I want and don't understand why it doesn't exist is some way to give orders that really stick. Even in multiplayer it doesn't look fun for the players to have to spam click to get their lord out of combat. Has no one made a mod that just does the spam clicking for you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 09:53
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:This causes them to take turns sieging the settlement which is both boring and will annihilate your garrison due to contrition. The AI will spend ALL of its build points on siege equipment which means typically they're gonna take 6-8 turns before they will attack. 6-8 turns worth of attrition is not good. It's very not good. One might even call it unideal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 11:14
|
|
|
Yeah if 6-8 turns isn't enough time to either get your main army down there or to get a new relief army then you've messed up bigly and are in a lot more trouble than just losing a single settlement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 11:26
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:If you can't summon a reserve army to be able to beat another army with at minimum 6 to 8 turns of warning, I'm not sure you should be able to hold onto a settlement. Yeah but then this boils down to. Don't build walls: Enemy sends shittier army to attack settlement and they instantly attack because the extreme coward autoresolve based AI doesn't comprehend what 'supply points' are, you win because towers and chokepoints are busted, no extra army needed. Build walls: Enemy sends stronger army to attack settlement, they sit outside because *~*scary walls*~* terrify the extreme coward autoresolve based AI, you either have to make and send over an extra army (which costs money and combined with the supply lines bug is just great) or hope they attack you before the attrition really takes effect so you're not defending with single digit troops. Like all the walls really do for me is make it infinitely less likely the AI will attack your settlement directly, so you start suffering attrition from turn 1, and because you're in this weird situation where the attacker loses in autoresolve either way (early besieger gets clowned by walls or besieged sallies out and gets clowned by lack of walls) I'd rather just not build them. Like if the walls either blocked attrition for a while, gave a way better garrison (like artillery and poo poo) or produced a more favorable map than 'featureless plain' on sallying out (but the siege is only broken if the person sallying out routs/destroys the enemy army, otherwise the siege continues), I'd be more for walls but right now they just feel bad. And then there's also the elephant in the room of "I need a reserve army to reinforce my giant bastion wall because I'm suffering from attrition despite all of Cathay being behind me???? What????? Guh?!?!?" Chucat fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Mar 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 11:49
|
|
|
Also if the settlement has no walls, the AI will generally deploy in 4+ groups encircling the settlement. This lets you crush one part of the enemy (or possibly two) at the beginning of the battle, then fall back to your chosen capture point. Walls make sallying out in force like that more difficult, probably, I haven't actually tried. Though I've only tried this with Khorne, and the vanguard on everything definitely helps with getting out of the settlements without all of your infantry getting stuck on each other in a chokepoint. Also also they were Shadow Legion stacks so they all crumbled instead of running away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 12:15
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:If you can't summon a reserve army to be able to beat another army with at minimum 6 to 8 turns of warning, I'm not sure you should be able to hold onto a settlement. Sure but shouldn't it be fun to play a defensive battle instead of a pain in the rear end?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
Funky See Funky Do posted:Sure but shouldn't it be fun to play a defensive battle instead of a pain in the rear end? AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Mar 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 12:49
|
|
|
concepts like 'winning' are degenerate, elitist, and only for the truly broke-brained gamer. the kind of gamer who leaves toenail clippings in the bath and won't take the dog out for a morning walk. normal gamers don't win or notice any problems. they just Have Fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
For Kislev, walls get me: +100 supplies per turn under siege 3x Spear Kossars 1x Armored Kossar 1x Great Weapon Armored Kossar 1x Dervish That's a pretty good deal on top of walls. 6 additional units more than make up for any supposed difficulties in defending. The extra supply comes into play when you get an extra tower right away for the start of the fight. Some factions also get a significantly better leader unit along with the walls; Cathay will get a horse mounted astromancer that has two spells,i believe. Units docked on walls can focus fire just fine. Slaanesh will do things like have a unit of Daemonettes man a battering ram and a couple of archer units will shred them to ribbons. Without walls those Daemonettes are definitely getting into melee with something. Some maps have particularly nice wall arrangements, like Cathay which gets a zig zag section allowing each section to support the other very effectively..
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
A lot of people have complained about the lack of responsiveness in commands. I'm sure mods are going to address this but I thought of a neat idea to with it into leadership: Units have an arbitrary rate of turning around, getting up, and accelerating. Some of these things seem to be affected by mass, but leadership can also play a factor. This can represent how disciplined a unit is. So at high leadership, your guys will turn around faster, get in firing position more easily, and start actually moving at their max speed sooner. As an example, leadership can determine how quickly an archer unit can turn completely around and start firing at a target. It can help get a melee unit to engage as quickly as possible. Shock cavalry can have an easier time disengaging after rear charging a unit. This could also help with the 'stickiness' of a unit. So a braced spear unit with high ld will be better at clogging up cavalry or monsters. They'll get up and return to formation sooner and make it harder for the enemy to get out of melee contact. For fearless units they just assign an arbitrary ld value to balance the role and theme of the unit - many fearless units are simply too stupid to run away which doesn't necessarily translate to a disciplined brick of infantry. So some of these units might not rout but will still be a little chaotic about repositioning in spite of that, which helps to balance them. Right now I don't think leadership scales with anything, and it can feel like a rather binary factor. Sometimes a high ld unit is too valuable to fight to nearly the death and its not always easy to disengage them manually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:A lot of people have complained about the lack of responsiveness in commands. I'm sure mods are going to address this but I thought of a neat idea to with it into leadership: And like other people I'm getting fed up with orders not being "sticky" in that if you give a unit an order, if the wind blows or a stray arrow catches a model in the unit, it just stops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
goblins and skaven would be funny to play since they would never turn around fast
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:29
|
|
|
The issue with walls is not that the AI will siege, deplete your garrison, which gives the player time to come with a relief army if they wish. The issue is that the AI can be flagrant about it in your core cities while it actually speeds up the pace of the game and confers the player several advantages over the AI to fight with just a garrison vs fighting with walls. Even if the player is outnumbered. adding more and better troops doesn't necessarily matter because the AI is going to either be sieging you with a much stronger army due to the advantage the walls confer in autoresolve or depleting your garrison. Again, archers on walls perform worse than archers off of walls. There are more choke points on minor settlements without walls, which allows for focus-fire from ranged units and artillery which is superior to damage distribution, even compared to focus-fire that can be gotten from walls. Also, defending one point instead of two. Also, potentially causing the enemy to divide their forces allowing for some to be killed off or focused while still bunched because the AI's advanced is not simultaneous and their forces go through choke points. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This might be interesting if it was done as a deliberate design decision. Right now it just seems like the game is broke, though. it doesn't feel like a coherent design philosophy to me. Also infantry mass is crap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
I have asked these question a lot, but do people not sally out when under siege with the garrison for a field fight or put units in front of walls so archers and towers can shoot down on the attacker?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:37
|
|
|
LOL So Legend has soft-endorsed the Total War union idea. And the total war reddit has banned discussion of the union. Warning: Video from Volound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tym5DKVLA4k As much as I love Legend, I hope he loses his mind and goes down this rabbit hole because it would be entertaining as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Third World Reagan posted:I have asked these question a lot, but do people not sally out when under siege with the garrison for a field fight or put units in front of walls so archers and towers can shoot down on the attacker? if you sally out you lose any advantage walls purport to give you except extra/stronger units (which might be good for your play style).You lose towers and you lose choke points. The AI tends to have a much stronger army sieging you when you have walls. On the other hand, if you can win and it's more fun for you, then go for it. Putting units outside the walls probably helps to increase focus-fire a bit. I prefer choke points, but that's obvious by now. I'm not saying TWWH2 defensive sieges were better, but they were shorter on defense and there seemed to be less of them in the core regions/provinces (if you prepared for vortex rituals properly, anyway). Walls were more useful and worth building, imo. To me, CA seem to have gone an adjacent route except units get stuck or bump stuff way too much + pathfinding is worse and there are more of them (in my experience). If people enjoy them then that's okay, too. Dramicus posted:LOL lol. I hope he starts pro-union rants and Turin tries to unite the TW youtubers and their union eventually joins an alliance of mid-seized youtuber unions (gently caress the celebrities, giant-sized and RIAA/VIAA channels. Also gently caress those scam companies that take a cut of the income but provide no real support to channels).
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
Legend of TotalWar is Kathy Bates in Misery lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
The wall towers in WH3 are much much more powerful than in Wh2 and the garrisons are as strong. Assuming no preponderance of fast flyers, nothing prevents you from fighting a walled settlement battle like you do Empire forts (hold up defensively and use infantry to man the walls, then have them fall back to your prepared position). Or, if they are durable enough, now it might actually be worth delaying on the walls for as long as possible to get more supply to build more towers. I agree that the value of walls in autoresolve does need to be turned down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:if you sally out you lose any advantage walls purport to give you except extra/stronger units (which might be good for your play style).You lose towers and you lose choke points. The AI tends to have a much stronger army sieging you when you have walls. On the other hand, if you can win and it's more fun for you, then go for it. I mean my fave sally thing so far has been Medieval 2 but then part of that was down to just how extremely cheesable they were as well. But I did just like fighting by using my own fortifications as a weapon. Unironically waiting for LotW to give me tier lists on the best unions to join and "Saving your disaster strikes" Chucat fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
He'd try and run the union on legendary difficulty though so it would be owned by the mafia somehow and they broke his legs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This might be interesting if it was done as a deliberate design decision. Right now it just seems like the game is broke, though. Third World Reagan posted:goblins and skaven would be funny to play since they would never turn around fast We could set the baseline to how things are now. It makes more sense for low ld chaff like those units to be a disorganized mob of guys instead of a hyper synched block of infantry. Ravenfood posted:The wall towers in WH3 are much much more powerful than in Wh2 and the garrisons are as strong. Assuming no preponderance of fast flyers, nothing prevents you from fighting a walled settlement battle like you do Empire forts (hold up defensively and use infantry to man the walls, then have them fall back to your prepared position). Or, if they are durable enough, now it might actually be worth delaying on the walls for as long as possible to get more supply to build more towers. This. Look at Cathay wall towers, which are rocket batteries for example. They're amazing. And walls are going to be a solid choice for factions that take a lot of cavalry and Chariots because they hard counter them. In an unwalled settlement these units will bulldoze past defenders and start capping supply points. In these battles you're typically going to be up against more /stronger enemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Carcer posted:He'd try and run the union on legendary difficulty though so it would be owned by the mafia somehow and they broke his legs. Legendary difficulty: CA runs the union and all the members aside from Legend are scabs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
strikes are loving garbage man i use an all work slowdown stack and focus collective bargaining because hello it's the only way to keep the bank account replenishing during a siege
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
Look, we can sustain this -10,000 income per turn by constantly raiding and sacking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Legend of Total Class WarChucat posted:I mean my fave sally thing so far has been Medieval 2 but then part of that was down to just how extremely cheesable they were as well. But I did just like fighting by using my own fortifications as a weapon. In reality they were super exploitable and the awful pathfinding made them very clunky. But it's still something I'd love to see return in the next spearmanii game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
I got an email saying they were putting Medieval 2 on my phone and jesus I'd have to hire a child to manipulate it for me but wow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Kanos posted:That's almost literally what they did to fix it. They made it so the enemies might open fire instead of scattering wildly and getting mowed down by your trap, so overwatch traps were risky but potentially rewarding. The pre-fix playstyle could have been solved by... not doing it. Nobody needed to creep forward one tile at a time in xcom1, I managed a classic ironman game without it. People just get broken on absolute efficiency and then wonder why they're not having fun. It's baffling. Cranappleberry posted:if you sally out you lose any advantage walls purport to give you except extra/stronger units (which might be good for your play style).You lose towers and you lose choke points. The AI tends to have a much stronger army sieging you when you have walls. On the other hand, if you can win and it's more fun for you, then go for it. You also get units sat in front of your ridiculous towers for longer. An elemental bear in front of your walls won't break very quickly and you'll absolutely trade one unit for several of those. If it's a garrison army, you take that trade every time. There's absolutely no way not having walls makes it easier. If you really don't want to use them you can just pull back to your victory point and fight there instead. If the AI has to stop and siege for several turns and you can't get an army there in time, you've overexpanded or hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
dogstile posted:The pre-fix playstyle could have been solved by... not doing it. It has been proven over and over and over again that players, to some extent, need to be protected from themselves, especially in games with long term consequences and losses. If you can play a fast and loose strategy that has a 20% chance of losses or failure or an incredibly slow and boring strategy that has a 0% chance of losses or failure, the majority of players will take the latter every time and will howl about how the game sucks poo poo. The answer to the problem isn't to yell at those people for being stupid, it's to make sure that the optimal way to play and the fun way to play are relatively closely aligned. re: garrisons: My time in TWW3 so far(on VH campaign difficulty, for reference) has put me in the "never build walls" camp. Building walls means that you'll pretty much never get to use them, because the AI will never, ever assault your walls before depleting your garrison so thoroughly with attrition that the fight is hopeless even with the dumbass siege AI, meaning you're inevitably forced to either send a reinforcement army or you're forced to sally out for an open field battle with a garrison stack against a real stack(and the garrison stack is already depleted by 10% because the siege attrition applies immediately). Meanwhile they'll happily feed themselves into wall-less minor settlement meat grinders. I just build whatever the first level of garrison building is in my minors for additional troops and leave it there rather than upgrading it to the T3 walls variant. Kanos fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Mar 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
My strategy with walled minor settlements is to sacrifice my cavalry to clog up enemy siege towers while I focus fire on them. If they have any cavalry they'll typically rush them over which just exacerbates the problem for the towers. If you can knock out 2+ towers this way you're likely to win due to delaying the enemy and heavily damaging those units. Feral mammoths can now damage walls but the AI seldom does this, and it's easy to get units like that to trigger 'out of control' which disrupts them even further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Also, I'm not sure what exactly causes a mass rout sometimes. I've had siege battles I was sure I was gonna lose yet the AI just seemed to give up even though they had quite a few units left. I think perhaps if the AI fights with 2 moderately small armies and you quickly kill the lord from the starting army it screws up the reinforcing army in spite of having a lord of their own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
dogstile posted:The pre-fix playstyle could have been solved by... not doing it. if the game is well designed then trying to play it well is fun. especially games like xcom which are defined by their difficulty and the consequences of failure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:Oh man, Xcom Don't worry, XCOM 40k is on its way!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Kanos posted:It has been proven over and over and over again that players, to some extent, need to be protected from themselves, especially in games with long term consequences and losses. If you can play a fast and loose strategy that has a 20% chance of losses or failure or an incredibly slow and boring strategy that has a 0% chance of losses or failure, the majority of players will take the latter every time and will howl about how the game sucks poo poo. The answer to the problem isn't to yell at those people for being stupid, it's to make sure that the optimal way to play and the fun way to play are relatively closely aligned. Majority of people and "people on their forums" aren't even remotely close in number. They went from "hey you can choose" to "play like this, always" and I think that kinda sucks. Preferred the meld method, i just think they should have made it more meaningful. Terrible Opinions posted:Generally a game is better for guiding the player to more fun modes of play, rather than pretending unfun modes are valid. Yeah, I agree with that. Hence the above post lol. I really do prefer the "reward the player for taking a risk" strategy rather than the "force the player" idea. I get that's a YMMV thing though. dogstile fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Mar 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
dogstile posted:The pre-fix playstyle could have been solved by... not doing it. Xcom 2 is significantly better than xcom 1. Haven't played the DLC so can't really compare that bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Kanos posted:It has been proven over and over and over again that players, to some extent, need to be protected from themselves, especially in games with long term consequences and losses. If you can play a fast and loose strategy that has a 20% chance of losses or failure or an incredibly slow and boring strategy that has a 0% chance of losses or failure, the majority of players will take the latter every time and will howl about how the game sucks poo poo. The answer to the problem isn't to yell at those people for being stupid, it's to make sure that the optimal way to play and the fun way to play are relatively closely aligned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Generally a game is better for guiding the player to more fun modes of play, rather than pretending unfun modes are valid. The DLC is a significantly more fun experience in about every way. You should really try it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2022 16:47
|
|
