Warhammer Total War: Warhammer 2

[Maculo]

Up to -10 Melee attack -15% ranged damage at max sanity, up to +10 melee attack +15% ranged damaged at max possession?

Also change it back to give -contruction cost rather than +growth of course.

I can make this change and test it soon-ish.

Currently, I still am trying to figure out how to turn off possession per turn. I am toying with the idea of making full possession more powerful army-wise, but you need to complete Tzarkan's Whisper's to reach it. Essentially, a base-builder path (full sanity) vs. a raider (full possession). Granted, it could suck.

Edit: CTT plus Malus mod feels great.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I got a strange urging to play Warhammer TW recently, probably because I tried Vermintide 2 once with colleagues last week. I only own the old TW:WH, at some point I bought the remaining DLCs I didn't yet have when they were 65-75% off and hadn't started the game after buying them.

It looks somewhat more polished than when I last played it in 2018, if I remember right. Started a campaign with the Empire and while looking for guides on youtube... oh no, god, what is happening, what is this.... nooo:

Spoiler

Anyway, I wanted to ask if anyone has observations on whether the AI has improved with time and patching - does it cheat less and is it more reasonable in diplomacy? The campaign AI cheating was my main complaint with the game and with TW in general.

I did one full campaign as Dwarfs back when the game was still new and I hated how the AI would spawn Greenskins when it clearly couldn't have had the money to recruit them. My wife won one full campaign as the Vampire Cunts as well, which seems to be a rare achievement (only 7%). Overall we found we prefer HoMM - may be a Warhammer ripoff, but at least the gameplay is fun for passing the time and the AI plays by the same rules as the human does.

 

[Maculo]

Anyway, I wanted to ask if anyone has observations on whether the AI has improved with time and patching - does it cheat less and is it more reasonable in diplomacy? The campaign AI cheating was my main complaint with the game and with TW in general.

I did one full campaign as Dwarfs back when the game was still new and I hated how the AI would spawn Greenskins when it clearly couldn't have had the money to recruit them. My wife won one full campaign as the Vampire Cunts as well, which seems to be a rare achievement (only 7%). Overall we found we prefer HoMM - may be a Warhammer ripoff, but at least the gameplay is fun for passing the time and the AI plays by the same rules as the human does.

The AI still cheats heavily, although there are mods that improve it. I think it also depends on TW1 vs. TW2 races. CA became more ambitious with the campaign mechanics in TW2, some are easier for the AI to use than others.

On my Malus Mortal Empire campaign, Dwarves and Empire snowballed through confederation. The Dawi churned out max-ranked doomstack after doomstack. It took 80+ to eliminate the dwarves, and that was spamming Shades. I managed a short campaign victory just as the Empire declared war (they were rank #1).

CA just implemented a proving ground beta to experiment with campaign changes. Even if most of the changes never go live, CA is looking at the campaign balance.

 

[AwesomeButton]

This actually makes me more interested in trying TW:WH2. I have a Grudge that says I will never give them another cent just to be constantly cheated by their AI.

I also have very little experience with factions other than Empire, Dwarfs and Vampires. I want to have played at least one campaign with each faction before I go on buying the next game.

 

[Maculo]

This actually makes me more interested in trying TW:WH2. I have a Grudge that says I will never give them another cent just to be constantly cheated by their AI.

I also have very little experience with factions other than Empire, Dwarfs and Vampires. I want to have played at least one campaign with each faction before I go on buying the next game.

TW2 was a leap in terms of campaign mechanics, to the extent CA has incrementally reworked the TW1 races. Dwarves now have oathgold/forge, Empire has the fealty system, and Bretonnia has vows and new tech. Greenskins are next in line to get a touch up. Personally, Bretonnia is my favorite by far.

Beastmen, Chaos, and Wood Elves feel incredibly bare.

With TW2, each race has unique mechanics and subsequent DLC lords added a lord-specific layer. For example, Dark Elves have a slave economy mechanic, lord loyalty levels, and words of power traits. DLC Hellebron degrades over time (ages) and you sacrifice slaves to rejuvenate her.

TW2 has hits and misses, but generally it is more ambitious than TW1.

 

[Average Manatee]

The AI doesn't really cheat much on easy/normal. I think its mainly FoW it cheats on, if your armies are visible then the AI has an idea of where they are. Meaning the AI will never accidentally end up running a weak stack next to one of yours in forced march stance. If you have a settlement with no walls and no army nearby to defend the AI will be absolutely merciless about sacking or razing it. It still doesn't see your armies if you use ambush stance though which is essential for luring AIs into traps.

Aside from that I don't know of any real cheats on easy/normal. On Hard+ campaign it cheats and gets much cheaper buildings, unit construction, more growth, more recruitment slots to use simultaneously, slightly reduced upkeep, and free XP per turn. On the battle map it gets really large melee buffs and leadership buffs.

 

[Danikas]

 

[AwesomeButton]

TW2 was a leap in terms of campaign mechanics, to the extent CA has incrementally reworked the TW1 races. Dwarves now have oathgold/forge, Empire has the fealty system, and Bretonnia has vows and new tech. Greenskins are next in line to get a touch up. Personally, Bretonnia is my favorite by far.

Beastmen, Chaos, and Wood Elves feel incredibly bare.

With TW2, each race has unique mechanics and subsequent DLC lords added a lord-specific layer. For example, Dark Elves have a slave economy mechanic, lord loyalty levels, and words of power traits. DLC Hellebron degrades over time (ages) and you sacrifice slaves to rejuvenate her.

TW2 has hits and misses, but generally it is more ambitious than TW1

This sounds like what it should have been from the start.

About Mortal Empires, how is this going for you? When I looked at it, it seems like an attempt to test how many turns the engine can withstand on a huge map before crumbling under its weight. How are performance, AI turn calculations length, campagin AI decision-making?

 

[Maculo]

TW2 was a leap in terms of campaign mechanics, to the extent CA has incrementally reworked the TW1 races. Dwarves now have oathgold/forge, Empire has the fealty system, and Bretonnia has vows and new tech. Greenskins are next in line to get a touch up. Personally, Bretonnia is my favorite by far.

Beastmen, Chaos, and Wood Elves feel incredibly bare.

With TW2, each race has unique mechanics and subsequent DLC lords added a lord-specific layer. For example, Dark Elves have a slave economy mechanic, lord loyalty levels, and words of power traits. DLC Hellebron degrades over time (ages) and you sacrifice slaves to rejuvenate her.

TW2 has hits and misses, but generally it is more ambitious than TW1

This sounds like what it should have been from the start.

About Mortal Empires, how is this going for you? When I looked at it, it seems like an attempt to test how many turns the engine can withstand on a huge map before crumbling under its weight. How are performance, AI turn calculations length, campagin AI decision-making?

Until recently, the turn times were incredibly long, as in several minutes each, and I had a book or show on the side. CA introduced an update or optimization patch that reduced it to about a minute or less.

Personally, I think the TW1 race victory conditions are more drawn out, with the exception of Bretonnia.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Personally, I think the TW1 race victory conditions are more drawn out, with the exception of Bretonnia.

Sorry, what are "race victory conditions" - is this exterminating another faction/s? I googled it but couldn't find a definition

Other than that, you describe what I was imagining. Pretty long turn times. I don't understand if playing on the grand map brings actual difference to how the campaign progresses in a specific "region" of it, from a geopolitical pov they are independent theaters.

 

[Maculo]

Sorry, what are "race victory conditions" - is this exterminating another faction/s? I googled it but couldn't find a definition

Other than that, you describe what I was imagining. Pretty long turn times. I don't understand if playing on the grand map brings actual difference to how the campaign progresses in a specific "region" of it, from a geopolitical pov they are independent theaters.

Each faction has Short Victory and Long Victory conditions. For example, controlling X number of provinces, eliminating certain factions, winning a final quest battle, etc. Once achieved,you get a victory text and an overview screen of your expansion/battles. The difference is that the requirements are greater for Long Victory. For example, Bretonnia’s short victory is to unite Bretonnia and to win the errantry war.

In my opinion, Mortal Empires just has more variety, or at least the chance of more variety. Due to all the various factions, each game could end up different. Granted, at the moment Order factions (Empire, Dwarves, etc.) end up dominating the maps due to confederation for and AI campaign cheats.

Vortex campaign is more contained, with less factions, more scripted events, and a singular goals for the most part. I liked it, but once you figure out the scripting, it can more easily be gamed.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Each faction has Short Victory and Long Victory conditions. For example, controlling X number of provinces, eliminating certain factions, winning a final quest battle, etc. Once achieved,you get a victory screen and an overview screen of your expansion/battles. The difference is that the requirements are greater for Long Victory. For example, Bretonnia’s short victory is to unite Bretonnia and to win the errantry war

I know this, but what is "race victory"? Aaah, maybe you mean "the short/long victory conditions when you pick a faction and go with it in a regular campaign"?

In my opinion, Mortal Empires just has more variety, or at least the chance of more variety. Due to all the various factions, each game could end up different. Granted, at the moment Order factions (Empire, Dwarves, etc.) end up dominating the maps due to confederation for and AI campaign cheats.

Yeah, no surprises here. My impression about all TW games is that they work in the most plausible way if a campaign map is the size of a region. There is this old mod for RTW - "Rome Total Realism" which eventually switched to making region-sized releases - they would have one campaign which would be only the West Mediterranean for example. They were doing this in order to make the AI behave more sensibly and more realistically. Game devs love to market how big worlds they have, but of course the world size is not the whole picture.

 

[Maculo]

Each faction has Short Victory and Long Victory conditions. For example, controlling X number of provinces, eliminating certain factions, winning a final quest battle, etc. Once achieved,you get a victory screen and an overview screen of your expansion/battles. The difference is that the requirements are greater for Long Victory. For example, Bretonnia’s short victory is to unite Bretonnia and to win the errantry war

I know this, but what is "race victory"? Aaah, maybe you mean "the short/long victory conditions when you pick a faction and go with it in a regular campaign"?

In my opinion, Mortal Empires just has more variety, or at least the chance of more variety. Due to all the various factions, each game could end up different. Granted, at the moment Order factions (Empire, Dwarves, etc.) end up dominating the maps due to confederation for and AI campaign cheats.

Yeah, no surprises here. My impression about all TW games is that they work in the most plausible way if a campaign map is the size of a region. There is this old mod for RTW - "Rome Total Realism" which eventually switched to making region-sized releases - they would have one campaign which would be only the West Mediterranean for example. They were doing this in order to make the AI behave more sensibly and more realistically. Game devs love to market how big worlds they have, but of course the world size is not the whole picture.

Sorry for the confusion, that is what I meant.

I think CA tried region-locked campaigns with Beastmen/Todd Bringer and the Wood Elves, but it never gain much traction. I would have to check...because I never touched it lol.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I have both of those campagins but like I said I hadn't started the game since buying them.

 

[Mazisky]

Guys, i am new to the series. I've found a good discount and bought Warhammer 2, I already have the first but never played.

Should i start with Mortal Empires? Which is a balanced and somehow beginner-friendly faction to start with?

 

[kris]

High elves, tyrion is easy mode. Franz is also simple enough

 

[underground nymph]

W3 when?

 

[Average Manatee]

Any of the Warhammer 2 races are pretty good to start with. The W1 races are hit and miss, the ones that have received significant updates since W2 are good but the rest are trash to meh (Chaos/Beastmen/Wood Elves/Greenskins, arguably Norsca and Dwarves too). For most races the main leader (1st of the list of leaders for each race) is the simplest.

Mortal Empires vs. Vortex is mostly a matter of what map you want. The Vortex stuff is pretty lame but also almost entirely ignorable so long as you can win the battle to stop other races taking the vortex (which shouldn't be that hard).

 

[Maculo]

Guys, i am new to the series. I've found a good discount and bought Warhammer 2, I already have the first but never played.

Should i start with Mortal Empires? Which is a balanced and somehow beginner-friendly faction to start with?

I think Vortex is beginner friendly, because it is heavily scripted, the victory conditions are streamlined, and the map contains fewer factions.

Faction-wise, high elves (Tyrion) or lizardmen (Mazdamundi or Gor-rok?) are straight-forward to start.

 

[Average Manatee]

For Lizardmen I actually recommend Kroq-gar. He starts in a corner and has massive upkeep discounts on Saurus which will plow through everything for a long time if you have a full stack.

 

[Maculo]

For Lizardmen I actually recommend Kroq-gar. He starts in a corner and has massive upkeep discounts on Saurus which will plow through everything for a long time if you have a full stack.

I thought about Kroq-gar, but doesn’t he start surrounded by corruption (vampiric and skaven?). Granted, I don’t remember if the vampire lord to the north was replaced by a tomb king.

I just remember corruption and public order being strange to handle on Kroq-gar(for me at least).

 

[Average Manatee]

There's some skaven in both ME and Vortex but every WH2 start other than tomb kings has skaven somewhere nearby. I don't think its any more than normal and being in a corner should make it much simpler. Saurus armies just autoresolve through early skaven armies like a knife through butter. You also start with a Skink Priest of Heavens which is the best magic type available for them.

 

[AgentFransis]

I played Bretonia (Repanse) to start with. It's a nice and straightforward (literally, you can only expand east into the Tomb Kings unless you fancy going conquistadoring across the ocean, which come to think of it sounds like a fun campaign).

Speaking of which I'm playing Tomb Kings (Khalida) now and it's an just an amazing faction, probably my favorite at this point. The early game resource scarcity is really intense. You feel like a hobo scrounging the desert for spare change so you can afford a barracks. Every building slot and tech is a dilemma. Every unit slot you unlock feels like a treasure, even for units that you wouldn't look twice at in a normal faction. But when you survive the early expansion and start to build and tech up then holy crap your power level just explodes. Your cool units are some of the coolest in the game, both in effectiveness and in style. And finally you assemble your mechs and go stomp over everything (it was pretty funny - I jumped from like strength ranking 7 to 2 after completing my first 6 mechs).

The tech tree is really lovely too. Pretty, thematic and like the rest of the faction mechanics gates your progression while giving you a lot of real choices. Was also quite amused by the twisty and mad Skaven tech "tree".

P.S frankly the fact that this game is incline is nothing short of miraculous. I wrote off CA as lost to the decline more than a decade ago and then suddenly this resurgence. I can't think of one other developer that managed to claw it's way back from the pit of decline.

 

[AwesomeButton]

P.S frankly the fact that this game is incline is nothing short of miraculous. I wrote off CA as lost to the decline more than a decade ago and then suddenly this resurgence. I can't think of one other developer that managed to claw it's way back from the pit of decline.

I didn't plan on joining in the praise, but I just left the game after playing for 4 hours straight.

One recurring theme I notice is how I keep trying to gather the money for some province building or upgrade but there is always something very short-term and pressing which prevents me.

Typical situation TW - my two stacks are tied up sieging Wissenland settlements when a beastmen stack shows up and sieges Helmgart. By the time I can come to help, they've razed it and I am two turns late to prevent it from being resettled by fucking Bretonnia. Like I needed another war. It feels quite balanceed and the AI is not annoying, I find myself liking it again.

 

[AgentFransis]

Sigh. Order tide strikes again.

Spoiler

I just wanted to have a quiet game in the desert. All this shit is because I trespassed a bit against clan Angrund.