|
People are going to have different opinions on stuff, in multiplayer the spearman is amazing for the cost. In the campaign there's nothing a spearman can't do that a shielded spearman can't do better. So unless you are really hurting for that 25 gold a turn, you can probably just build the shielded guys. The empire campaign can indeed be fiddly, I think Orks and Dwarfs may be solid choices for first playthroughs.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Maybe people can weigh on the campaigns they've played and the flavor they got out of them: 1. Orks. I felt this was the easiest campaign. Throw big boss tents everywhere and revolts stop real quick. You get free waagh armies, the units are all quite beefy if you don't use a billion goblins, and you get the underground movement of the dwarfs. Really big roster, and fun lategame artillery. Cons: The fact that you have to unlock research sucks, the tech tree is super lame, the giant is terrible as all giants are, and orky magic seems underwhelming at the moment so you will probably end up going light on the agents. Also you have to use goblin big bosses as assassins and your agents are underwhelming. Underground movement is a big factor - it helps you avoid all corruption and terrain penalties. Can't trade but can confederate, so you really don't care about the diplo game at all other than killing dudes to confederate orks. 2. Dwarfs. These guys are fiddly at the start, but I didn't feel any fiddlier than the empire. In both cases you start with 1 province, about 5 turns worth of obvious conquests, and then you get a province at the end. Seems about right. You have to deal with grimgor but as long as you understand that quarrelers don't do it against him, the fight can be ok. You just gotta get shots for your thunderers if you picked Thorgrim (you wanna pick Thorgrim). Your dudes are tanky as poo poo and AP is kinda rare at the start of the game, which tends to lead to fun battles. If you get established I feel the dwarves start to steamroll from about turn 40. I could see a new player having difficulties with the first 10 turns though, so maybe Orks would be the easiest choice for that. 3. VC. So people keep suggesting them and I'm a little bit confused. No artillery, so sieges are always the hard way. No ranged units. Flyers are awesome but just a touch fiddly in terms of how to use. Corruption requires work from the building side and agent side, and when you're done applying it you just stop taking penalties. Cities with insufficient corruption take a -8 morale penalty so conquering into uncorrupted / poorly corrupted lands is real tough. Your territory is the balkans of the map and is the crossroads for everyone with some chokepoints dumping armies right into your territory. You have no movement modes other than normal which means your flying undead counts will have to patiently wait a turn to build a raft to ford the river so they can kill an invading army. This pissed me off, a lot. Anywhere you go without corruption you take attrition. During sieges you will typically be taking attrition. Raise dead is bugged for about 50% of players and only displays 0 corpses no matter what happened. Magic is very binary with things like Soul Leech / Fate of Bjuna being amazing and the rest lovely. Necromancers are terrible but vamps are great. As VC you will want to secure your starting two provinces then figure out which human factions to expand against until chaos comes. You can trade, but in a fun quirk nobody wants to trade with you. 4. Empire. Your starting units are fragile but fast. You get some secessionists to take down that will give you your starting province around turn 10. If you declare on the wrong person they'll call in a nearby dwarf hold and wreck your poo poo. You are slightly west of the map balkans so your territory is smack dab in the middle of like 12 human empires, all of them hate you. They start with full stacks and strong garrisons, so your starting army (which is what you can afford) can't really take them. You have units that are kinda papery so its hard to generate the mismatches you need to rack up huge kills. I guess there's the reiksguard, but they don't seem to kill fast enough to swing battles alone. You also will tend to rack up diplomatic penalties if you do that, so it's better to go take VC territory, which will be lovely and corrupted. Also the provinces around the empire SUCK. Empire gets a 4 city province, to the north is a 3 city province, and everything else are two city provinces. Compare that to what the Dwarfs and Orks get and it's ridiculous. The VC do get two nice provinces but then run into the same 2 city province issues that the Empire does. I don't understand that design choice. So I really didn't enjoy the Empire campaign and it felt even worse than the VC one. You still have all the movement bullshit the VC. Enjoy rivers, which you have a ton of. 5. Chaos. IDK, I felt the huns were lovely in Attila and I feel Chaos is lovely here. Someone else can write this up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:The issue is way minimized now that there is no corruption as it existed in the past games, so expansion is always a net sum. I felt the Empire campaign was the most fun as it remained challenging all the way to victory and on. Also that assessment is way wrong. Wissenland and Middenheim both border Reikland and each has three-region provinces. Reikland itself is the only human four-region province, and Marienburg has that unique money making port right next door. I mentioned Middenheim, and I didn't conquer Wissenland so I didn't get to see that it was a 3 city province. Other than those two, all the crap down south by pretend france is two city provinces, all the crap in the east buffering VC is two city provinces, and the north is unappealing for chaos reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I think that's an odd comparison though. You're comparing owning two cities to three, basically. It seems a more valid comparison to me is to note that four cities divided into 2 city provinces is strictly better in a bunch of ways than 1 big four city province. Firstly you get one set of walls for free so you don't have to build as many garrisons. It's also easier to unify because it's less likely that you have a province divided amongst multiple owners. You get use of the factionwide trade income +5% +20 growth commandment per province, so you earn that bonus twice. You have double the number of provincial capitals for you to build high tier buildings in, should you choose. You take a province. You need to establish happy province wide, because its a province wide stat. If you build two +happy buildings, in a two city province that means each city has given up a slot to fix the happiness. If you add a growth building to each, then you have like one slot left on the town and probably the same on the capital. Eventually you'll get another in the capital. Two city provinces will generally be poor choices for either moneymaker provinces because you can't specialize them, or troop producing provinces because of all the buildings required. Some of the lategame troops require 2-3 buildings, which is a real problem if you only have two slots as mentioned above. I find that most two city provinces are self sufficient and do ok. They get garrisons and make a bit of money, like 800-1500 a turn or so. A good 3 city province can make 3k, and a good 4 city province can make almost 5k. Two city provinces are useful lategame around turn 80 when they're done growing and presumably they're secure so now they have useful slots. Two size two cities is really really lovely and I found myself getting that all the time as Empire. Like just do the math, 2 city province = 8 slots, 3 city province = 12, 4 city province = 16. You need two happy buildings, two growth buildings, and presumably some money too. That's 6 out of 8 slots for the 2 city province, 8 out of 12 slots in the 3 city province, and 12 out of 16 slots in the 4 city province. And of course you don't really need to go past 2 of any of the buildings, so the actual math is like: 2 city province = 8 slots, 6 used. 3 city province = 12 slots, 6 used. 4 city province = 16 slots, 6 used.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You seriously do not need a public order building in *every single settlement*. I strongly doubt you need a +growth in every city either, and the number of +growth you need actually scales entirely linearly with the number of cities you have and so the number of settlement upgrades you need to buy. There's no sense in which two +growth is required for a 2 city province and that's somehow also enough for a four city province that has double the number of settlements to build up. Ok, so ignoring the particulars of the build, you do not see a difference between: 2 city province - 3 usable slots at size 3 - 6 slots 3 city province - 3 usable slots at size 3 - 9 slots 4 city province - 3 usable slots at size 3 - 12 slots And how that matters when buildings generally need to be built in the same province to provide effects? Or how you can stack bonuses assuming you have more cities? Like, it's fine if it doesn't bother you or you enjoy two city provinces, but they are far less useful and flexible than the other kind. I don't really know why they made so many size two provinces, I would have expected size three to be the default. It makes the slot shuffling problem worse for little gameplay benefit, from my perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Decus posted:The OP suggests that you move 25% slower with siege gear in your army but I'm just not seeing that in the databases and haven't really noticed it in-game either. I know some of the mods have been changing it so siege lowers your campaign movement but by default this time around CA set the action points for every unit to the same value so nothing should either speed you up (cavalry armies in previous games) or slow you down (siege in previous games) on the campaign map. If I had to guess, this was to encourage actually using siege in normal stacks for the factions that are built around having good siege to force confrontations (dwarves with their low speed, chaos with its lack of foot ranged). At the faction level they likely gave more movement bonus opportunities via heroes in stacks and technologies/time to reach technologies to the ones they felt should be buffed there, leaving everything at the faction level rather than at the stack level. This also encourages more playing around with units than what could have been if they gave each monster its own movement costs on the map. I have been meaning to test this definitively but I keep being lazy about it. Like, have a stack with a siege engine and see how far their movement goes. Disband the siege engine and end turn. Is the movement circle any bigger next turn? If that's the case then that means artillery is way more viable than thought based on the previous information. Unfortunately much of the early game artillery underwhelms in terms of damage against units, I think this is a pretty good argument for the tier 2 stuff. I guess get your doom divers ready boyz.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
GCValentine posted:Creative assembly has a tough job, AI dumb and people complain. AI smart, people complain. Is "ai annoying" not a possibility in this world being described here? Because that's what they accomplished, and that's why people complain.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I believe the big change is that you can go into Force March even if you've moved that turn. I'm pretty sure in Rome 2 you couldn't. The other thing I don't get is that Sacking seems to use few movement points. I don't understand that design decision. Ways to fix the player chases AI bullshit: 1. Can't do force march if you've moved that turn, its a toggle you set at the start 2. If you sack, that ends your turn, much like occupy Finally, force march in general is real awful and I mentioned it as being a huge culprit for crappy fights in Rome 2. It's real neat they brought it back but I guess with underground and all that other stuff they would have felt bad wasting that code.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Like I said, this would be straightforward to demonstrate with a Waargh army. I have never seen it, and so I think you've misinterpreted what you've seen. The reason that people bitch so much is that the AI can be outside of your army range, hit your town, and still end their turn outside of your army range. And if you force march or underground, you can't initiate a fight with them. Sacking seems to take like no movement points, because the AI keeps going afterward. Pay attention how far the stack moves the next time a city is sacked. When you combine that with the fact that they can toggle into force march after sacking, it's completely idiotic. Why do they let the AI force march out after sacking your city? Because that's what happens. In Rome 2 you had to enable force march at the start of your turn - and that was still dogshit, but better than this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
madmac posted:Being able to move (and encamp) after sacking is basically necessary for horde gameplay to even function, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about it. Because it loving sucks to chase AI armies around your territory and not catch them AND have them sack your cities in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
madmac posted:I don't agree that Chaos should be unplayable because you don't build walls, to be quite honest. I don't agree that the 10 lovely neighbors around you should be able to sack your cities at will even though you have a stack trying to kill them for 'horde gameplay.' Is Chaos that important to you to make the campaign lovely for every faction? People do not enjoy chasing whack a mole Sack stacks, there has been no shortage of feedback on that. The second most popular mod is the 10% own territory movement speed mod for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:That's why you build garrisons, agents, or use ambush mode? Or pay the price if you take the risk and don't? If there wasn't a risk of an army going on a rampage through your undefended economic cities, wouldn't garrisons, agents, all those mechanics to defend yourself from sackers, just be for suckers? Isn't that what Armies were used for ,to kill enemy armies? or no? I guess no since they could never catch them, historically?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You can kill them if you use ambush mode. This is reddit.txt stuff. What happens if you don't roll the 50% on that ambush and they move past you? You'll never be able to catch up to them. Is that your fault for not having the perfect defense of agents and garrisons ready for every opportunity even though you're limited on funds, armies, slots, and money for the first 50 turns? Chasing armies around that can keep loving with you and you can't catch sucks. If this is the only way to make Chaos work, I propose finding another way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Well, I'm glad that we've decided that the AI's ability to sack you is great stuff and that people enjoy the CA gameplay as delivered. Hell they've captured the flavor of the mongols and the roman rebels. They're just giving the fans what they want to great critical and financial success. So the next time the AI moves past your defending stack, sacks your city, and ends the turn outside your movement range - remember. People love that poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Adjust your strategy, or download mods to change things bro. It's not a universal problem, and your mad posting isn't going to change it. Exactly, this guy loving loves it. Get good scrubs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Yeah on VH or Legendary I really don't see the AI rout. This is a real issue with the Ork units most of all. The way they rout and either drag units with them or come back 30 seconds later and rear charge the guys you told to go back to position gets quite annoying. I get units breaking and coming back, with this implementation some units of wolf riders will break like 3 times before they finally die and that gets quite tedious if they have 4 units of them which means a lot of breaking and re-engaging micro. I find myself using Guard mode for infantry that is going to deal with these chain rout units, which helps but still - routing should always be a bad thing. Crap like units routing past your wall then reforming on your cap point and starting to cap is super dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:Does this mean microing ranged into melee? Or will the chariots auto charge? In my experience they just kept their distance, or did I have skirmish mode turned on or something? To get them to charge into melee I believe you have to turn off ranged fire and click them to attack. At that point it ends up being kinda like a cav charge. If they can 'bust through' on the charge and keep going, then they kill a bunch of dudes. The scenario you want to avoid is where they get bogged down like in the middle of the unit, that will typically just get them killed. I was not impressed with the ranged damage of wolf chariots and did not get a chance to try the boar chariots. The VC chariots seem underwhelming - sure don't see anyone boasting about black coach kills. So far I'm considering chariots a gimmick more than a real thing in warhammer until someone posts a vid or replay of some ownage, then I'll use them like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:When a Lord gets a skill that gives them +Leadership, that doesn't bleed into the leadership bonus from their aura right? I think those skills are called out specifically. For instance there's a +5 leadership within aura radius skill. So I'd interpret it the same way you do, that it's that unit's leadership and determines when he tries to break and run away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
For anyone considering a VC or Empire campaign, try the conquer anywhere mod. The ability to expand to useful places pretty much fixed their campaigns for me. Interestingly enough I wonder if the decision to yank conquer anywhere was fairly late in the game. As VC when I take over Zufbar it has unique province buildings that buff unit xp when recruited, and that sure looks like a logical expansion spot for VCs. Whether it was or not, the ability to conquer dwarf and ork stuff as humans and vc made things a lot more enjoyable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Decus posted:Also, and this ties in with point 2, at the moment their autoresolve implementation takes like nothing into account, as far as class vs. class matchups go. They c/p'd some of the usual ones from attila but didn't actually add modifier values for them so they're doing nothing at the moment. This is one part of the reason why turn times are so speedy with the other being they've actually kneecapped the AI such that each faction can only consider a maximum of 10 things per turn and in total every faction alive can only consider 300, which is to say that if there are more than 30 factions on the map some don't even get 10 things to consider. Is it possible to raise this limit somehow, or is it hard set? I wouldn't mind increasing turn times by about 30 seconds (although there sure is a lot of turn flipping) if it meant the AI did more stuff. The Conquer Anywhere stuff seemed to greatly increase the pace of AI conquest, since they could attack neighbors. Do you have any suggestions on whether the AI can handle conquering within racial boundaries given how constrained it is in what it can consider?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:This isn't a thing anymore. There is a separate battle difficulty slider in the options menu bro, how did you conclude it's not a thing?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:I still can't believe people actually dislike RO. It's one of their very best ideas, from a gameplay and story perspective. So to reiterate the guy who asked earlier in the thread and didn't get a resposne What the hell is RO? Why are people talking about it like everyone knows what it is?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:RO = Regional Occupation = "Different homes for different folks" So the bold restriction of "You can conquer these holds but not those holds, because otherwise the campaign turns into a messy clusterfuck" is the compelling gameplay that we were lacking to push this series into blockbuster territory, there we go. I find it neat enough but having played 3 different campaigns with it, when I tried another campaign to remove it, it seemed to create more dynamic battles. The border princes conquered a bunch of dwarf poo poo which meant that they started fielding real armies. After playing vanilla it seemed like a fun change.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
madmac posted:One of my test involved Night Gobbo archers slowing a unit of Grave Guard to a crawl as they approached, so yeah heavy armor doesn't matter against poison. Yeah although I'd clarify that poison does no damage to armor / through armor, just slows them down. Poison was ridiculous in charlemagne and got nerfed to gently caress. It's now a 25% speed debuff that lasts 5 seconds. What that means is that a unit that is being shot by spider archers is 25% slower. A charging unit will get there slower, an enemy lord will reposition slower, that sort of thing. In exchange, the spider riders don't do a lot of damage with their projectiles. They won't win missile duels or outgun much of anything. They can't melee arrer boys and win. They are very quick and quite flexible - a huge upgrade to wolf riders in every way. I find that 2-3 units can be great for utility, but I don't think you can use them as a missile core the way you would quarrelers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
madmac posted:It's a 25% penalty to most stats, not just speed. Poisoned units are garbage in melee, it's one of the reason poison hounds are so effective. Ah well that's more decent than I thought. For me to use it more I think it would need to last more than 5 seconds. As it is, you can basically 'counter' an enemy unit with your own poison unit, but only as long as it can keep shooting. If charge bonus lasts 30 seconds, I think I'd like to see this be 15. Or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Going back to this now I'm home and can see the client. As I missing something here? From the campaign menu where you are, you can only select the campaign difficulty. The battle difficulty starts at the same setting. When you are actually in the game, on turn 1, hit escape then options. A setting is now available for the Battle difficulty, which you can adjust to whatever you like regardless of what you just set as your Campaign difficulty. The two are still tracked separately, so Battle difficulty is your in combat buffs etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:lmao Because it's fukken funny m8, the CA way  Why are all your agents blind, retarded, and crippled? See above.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
literally this big posted:So how's the multiplayer for this game? Are the modes fun, and is it easy to get a game? You may as well leave RO on for your first game or two and get a feel for the map gameplay they wanted. Then if you try RO later it will give you a nice comparison to see how it changes things. I'm real interested to see the Better AI mods for Warhammer, since in this case it may actually improve things. And also increase turn times.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
It's cool how the magic system CA came up with is both way too powerful and remarkably boring to use. And I agree with what's being thrown around. A few magic spells are just ridiculously broken, managing to make multiplayer and some campaign battles dumb. In exchange the magic system is at best dull. Lots of time and effort went into that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Or it could be they are stopping things from killing people off thus increasing growth, but there was a priests having sex joke in there and that guy was gonna go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Declare war. That'll stop em! It will make them send you peace offers instead. No you have to sit through every diplomatic offer every turn, since Rome 2. There wasn't enough dev time to fix it / no ROI / didn't show up on focus testing / you're still buying it aren't you. Take your pick.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:That grudge made me give up on my won legendary dwarf campaign Just sack some random city each turn with the engineer in the army and you'll be done 7 turns later.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I had a steam tank the first time I played them but that died something awful. Surely charging Knights into quarellers with great weapons won't go well for the Knights? Why wouldn't it? The knights will slaughter the quarrelers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
I'm gonna reiterate my earlier call for replays, after which exactly 0 have been posted. If you aren't sure about something why not post a replay instead of writing a novel about it. Yes I know you didn't micro stuff perfectly and Yukitsu will make fun of you because that's all he does, who cares. If you care enough about some result to talk about it, maybe you should post a replay about it too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Deified Data posted:I would kill for some sort of function that let you save custom formations, at least on a per army basis. I don't know how swapping out units or losing units would effect that. Or at least some means of automatically entering checkerboard. Do you hold spacebar and then use the arrow keys? It makes a big difference. It will go with whatever spot it's in when you let the arrow key go. Another thing to try for flankers, cav etc is if you hold shift and right click you can outline a path for a unit to take and the game will draw the path. So instead of clicking behind the enemy, then shift clicking into their dudes, just hold down shift and click and draw the route you want your guys to take. When you let go of the click that should be their movement path.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Mazz posted:This is not specifically at you Arch but to everyone in the thread: If it's really easy and you aren't playing on VH, then maybe you need to step up in difficulty. Even then, once you learn the mechanics of the game the AI is not going to compete with you once you're over the early game hump because it simply can't given the number of variables involved. The only way to make it stay competitive is to let it cheat out some of the more complex systems, as they do. Legendary pushes past this into full player disadvantage mode, which is why I don't advocate it for most people. My issue is that both Hard and Very Hard have some issues: Hard: A bit too easy Very Hard: Your dudes lose every single 1:1 fight unless you have leveled the hell out of your general The first 20-30 turns of campaigns are always exciting, I find that the losing equal matchups thing really sucks on Very Hard. As Orks my boyz are gonna lose to enemy Boyz and are gonna be evenly matched with Goblin Spearmen. That's going to last a while until I level Grimgor, get some gear, get some levels, and can make a decent army comp. Empire is brutal, you are charging reiksguard into the back of stuff as your guys melt to equivalent units. It's all doable yet I find it feels lovely somehow. I get giving the AI advantages but the improvements to troop quality with the way melee attack / defense work are a bit unsatisfying.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Change battle difficulty in the campaign options to normal. I usually find Very Hard campaign with Normal battles to be the most fun setting in TW games. Well Hard combat is just fine, however I'm not a fan of the mismatched difficulty thing. On an unrelated note: They changed how merging damaged units works in the campaign. Now it follows two rules: 1. The unit with less guys merges into the unit with more guys 2. The unit with more guys keeps whatever XP it had So if you have a unit of Ork Boyz that has 60 dudes left and some xp, merge them with a 59 ork unit to get 119 dudes that have the same xp the 60 did.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Decus posted:Yeah, I think making the leadership boosts/penalties straight increases and making the other stats %s was a bad decision. If anything, the leadership boosts/penalties should be %-based and they should never have given %-based increases to AI stats over just using their old system of giving them veterancy cheats. Veterancy cheats were fine and served the purpose much better whereas units with 90 or 500 in stats getting 12% boosts upon recruitment just feels absolutely terrible. This all seems spot on and matches my observations. Dwarfs get rolling and feel ok, even on VH. Ranged units really help even the playing field in the early part of the campaign, so if you couldn't abuse VC magic and regen they'd be quite awful to play on vh+. Orks are real tough when both your lords and troops lose 1:1 matchups. Empire is probably ok later in the campaign, those spearmen just made me sad with how fast they were melting on VH. The sack leveling seems absurd. You can gain a level a turn if you do it, powerleveling a bunch of agents in the process if you feel like it. I also don't understand why they assign Decisive Battles to these lovely garrison wins. Feels very easy to 'farm' a settlement to powerlevel a lord. The campaign on VH / Legendary is an odd mix of cheese and railroady. I get what they're going for, I just hope they nail the balance just a bit better for the DLC / xpacks. Fingers crossed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
NT Plus posted:For certain entire provinces is it standard practice to just say "gently caress it, this place isn't for producing soldiers" and just make the whole thing a cash town? Yep. The most famous of these is Mt Gunbad, with 2 gold mines you can build in it, one of which is unique.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
Nasgate posted:On the flip side, sure it takes four turns, but if instead of wasting building slots on units you build say armouries for the empire, you can recruit a half stack in 6 turns max if you somehow need to replace demigryphs. And you can do this in the middle of the badlands 8 turns away from your nearest city. Burning 6 turns with a stack to get 3 units is absolutely awful. With the 2x cost, recruiting a terrorgheist costs like a cool 10k per unit. It's ok for tier 1 stuff but the turn times are just awful for tier 3 units. Even if I have a second stack do the recruiting, 6 turns later I may be pretty far away with the stack that needs it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 23:07
|
|