Warhammer Total War: Warhammer III

[underground nymph]

I mean you played this game already for 500h it's okay if you are bored with a base version without DLC wait for mortal empires.

Not sure I am getting your point. Anyway I am not a fan of Mortal Empires, I liked Vortex. And I think this type of campaigns is a step in right direction, but implemented poorly. Campaign goals must not be scripted and isolated from the main strategic layer. In Vortex I was trying to shut down rituals by means that are available in the same campaign map (yes, there’s also a script to prevent the final ritual, but I tried not to use it, because it’s retarded). What we have now is basically a separate mini game, that every faction plays alone and there are no means to effectively shut their progress down except eliminating all factions which I believe is anti what this campaign’s design intended to achieve.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Factions mechanics are well-designed and diverse in general.

Why do you so shamelessly shill for this game which obviously has failed in so many aspects that even the reddit fanboys are unable to effectively cope anymore?

'Prophet of the Dumpsterfire'

 

[FreeKaner]

Yes, and this makes it so there's no strategic reason to expand. Why pick fights on the campaign map against an AI that can hire 10 armies while you can only hire 2 (which means that with your lord in the chaos realm you are hopelessly unable to defend a large empire), when instead you can just rush through the chaos realm to pick up the victory tokens?

There is a strategic reason to expand, it is called income. The game has simple economic function, you earn money by doing battles and especially attacking settlements, which you then use to build income buildings to increase your income. You will have more money thus more armies if you control more settlements since you'll earn more money by taking them and use that money to build quantitively more income buildings.

If you expand too much, you'll have more enemies and more internal issues to deal with however the chaos one in particular can be dealt with by using heroes to close rifts. Hell this is actually a good thing. Very few strategy games even properly deal with outcomes of overextension, in games like EU4 you can endlessly expand and only ever get linearly more powerful. Larger realm requiring more intensive management and there being a breaking point is something only very few games represent. Another game like this was Attila. In every other Total War (And Paradox) game expansion is always just snowballing with no negatives whatsoever.

Moreover in immortal empires this won't be an issue, since you can't win the campaign with scripted battles in chaos realms alone. If you do want that experience it is coming, again why would chaos campaign be exactly same?

 

[Sunri]

I mean you played this game already for 500h it's okay if you are bored with a base version without DLC wait for mortal empires.

Not sure I am getting your point. Anyway I am not a fan of Mortal Empires, I liked Vortex. And I think this type of campaigns is a step in right direction, but implemented poorly. Campaign goals must not be scripted and isolated from the main strategic layer. In Vortex I was trying to shut down rituals by means that are available in the same campaign map (yes, there’s also a script to prevent the final ritual, but I tried not to use it, because it’s retarded). What we have now is basically a separate mini game, that every faction plays alone and there are no means to effectively shut their progress down except eliminating all factions which I believe is anti what this campaign’s design intended to achieve.

My point is that WH II and III are basically the same game and III has less content and power creep right now, so it's normal that you got bored

 

[fizzelopeguss]

There is a strategic reason to expand, it is called income. The game has simple economic function, you earn money by doing battles and especially attacking settlements, which you then use to build income buildings to increase your income. You will have more money thus more armies if you control more settlements since you'll earn more money by taking them and use that money to build quantitively more income buildings.

If you expand too much, you'll have more enemies and more internal issues to deal with however the chaos one in particular can be dealt with by using heroes to close rifts. Hell this is actually a good thing. Very few strategy games even properly deal with outcomes of overextension, in games like EU4 you can endlessly expand and only ever get linearly more powerful. Larger realm requiring more intensive management and there being a breaking point is something only very few games represent. Another game like this was Attila. In every other Total War (And Paradox) game expansion is always just snowballing with no negatives whatsoever.

Moreover in immortal empires this won't be an issue, since you can't win the campaign with scripted battles in chaos realms alone. If you do want that experience it is coming, again why would chaos campaign be exactly same?

Mongols/GH/New world in the Medievals. Realm divide/Kyoto. Civil war/politics in Rome 2?

As for Paradox, the CK titles are entirely you gaming around the systems designed to rein your power in.

For WH1 it should have been Archaon, but it never worked properly (big surprise).

 

[Average Manatee]

Yes, and this makes it so there's no strategic reason to expand. Why pick fights on the campaign map against an AI that can hire 10 armies while you can only hire 2 (which means that with your lord in the chaos realm you are hopelessly unable to defend a large empire), when instead you can just rush through the chaos realm to pick up the victory tokens?

There is a strategic reason to expand, it is called income. The game has simple economic function, you earn money by doing battles and especially attacking settlements, which you then use to build income buildings to increase your income. You will have more money thus more armies if you control more settlements since you'll earn more money by taking them and use that money to build quantitively more income buildings.

If you expand too much, you'll have more enemies and more internal issues to deal with however the chaos one in particular can be dealt with by using heroes to close rifts. Hell this is actually a good thing. Very few strategy games even properly deal with outcomes of overextension, in games like EU4 you can endlessly expand and only ever get linearly more powerful. Larger realm requiring more intensive management and there being a breaking point is something only very few games represent. Another game like this was Attila. In every other Total War (And Paradox) game expansion is always just snowballing with no negatives whatsoever.

Income has never scaled well enough to defend on multiple fronts in warhammer. A decent army costs ~4000-5000 cash. Most races will take at least 3 provinces fully built up to level 5 to provide that, and that's not something that you can get in less than ~60 turns of relative peace.

All you need to be 100% impenetrable defensively as a small nation is to have one stack in ambush next to a fortified province. No reason to expand because then you need to move around and defend more with relatively less. As soon as you get multiple settlements with a wide front you'll have more AI armies running around than you have armies that can contest them.

 

[FreeKaner]

Income has never scaled well enough to defend on multiple fronts in warhammer. A decent army costs ~4000-5000 cash. Most races will take at least 3 provinces fully built up to level 5 to provide that, and that's not something that you can get in less than ~60 turns of relative peace.

All you need to be 100% impenetrable defensively as a small nation is to have one stack in ambush next to a fortified province. No reason to expand because then you need to move around and defend more with relatively less. As soon as you get multiple settlements with a wide front you'll have more AI armies running around than you have armies that can contest them.

This is not true at any of the higher difficulties. In my ogre campaign I expanded to 5 provinces to sustain armies I needed to defend the territory. The idea that expanding doesn't pay off is simply not true, especially when unique buildings are concerned, you will simply not have enough armies to face the amount of armies you will face later in game. This is obviously not as true in the chaos campaign as you need 1 good stack to beat the campaign and rest are auxiliaries to defend but in the grand campaign you need more provinces to sustain more armies which you need to fight and defeat more enemies.

This is what the income from the provinces looked like when I was about to finish the campaign and I wasn't maximizing this income as much as I could at all. Not to mention the fact that capturing settlements and sacking them is how you get any amount of gold necessary to build some more expensive infrastructure. Sure in the chaos campaign I sacked & razed more instead of expanding but that's because the problems it brings particular to the events of this game.

It's easily disprovable also by people like LegendofTotalWar who cheese the game as much as they can to get most power out of it and they never stop expanding if they are able to. If it wasn't ideal to expand beyond couple core provinces they wouldn't do it. Formula for more income thus more armies is very basic.

 

[Average Manatee]

It's easily disprovable also by people like LegendofTotalWar who cheese the game as much as they can to get most power out of it and they never stop expanding if they are able to. If it wasn't ideal to expand beyond couple core provinces they wouldn't do it. Formula for more income thus more armies is very basic.

It's not ideal because you are 100% defensively secure while small and you only need 1 army to do the chaos realm. Why do anything more?

Yes I conquered half the chaos wastes as skarbrand before turn 30 in my game, but the problem is there's no actual reason to do so

 

[FreeKaner]

In the chaos campaign specifically expansion is more tempered by the fact the campaign victory objective only needs 1 good army and everything else is simply problems you have deal with temporarily. The fact that blobbing isn't be all end all of this campaign isn't a negative to me, for that there will be immortal empires.

 

[KateMicucci]

I'm the only one liking art? I don't know why people were expecting edgy 90 stuff when GW left it long ago.

It looks like World of Warcraft now.

 

[Fedora Master]

They obviously implemented none of the lessons learned from 3K and Troy here. It's almost as if the teams didn't communicate with each other.

 

[AwesomeButton]

This took me maybe 7-8 hours.

 

[Sunri]

I'm the only one liking art? I don't know why people were expecting edgy 90 stuff when GW left it long ago.

It looks like World of Warcraft now.

If you look at aos models thats how they look.

 

[Average Manatee]

They obviously implemented none of the lessons learned from 3K and Troy here. It's almost as if the teams didn't communicate with each other.

They did upgrade the diplomacy features. It's easy to not notice if you're playing demons or cathay but it will improve things for TW3 mortal empires a lot.

 

[Fedora Master]

They obviously implemented none of the lessons learned from 3K and Troy here. It's almost as if the teams didn't communicate with each other.

They did upgrade the diplomacy features. It's easy to not notice if you're playing demons or cathay but it will improve things for TW3 mortal empires a lot.

Not really. Diplomacy is still largely useless because the AI will fight you to the bitter end. 3K had much more reasonable AI that was able to take multi-front wars into consideration and cut its losses, or settle for certain gains.

 

[Agame]

They obviously implemented none of the lessons learned from 3K and Troy here. It's almost as if the teams didn't communicate with each other.

They know the TW:WH fanboys will buy literally anything they shit out onto the market and beg for more. And yes I am one of those people, I will probably buy alll the DLC. So we are our own worst enemy.

What is it, like 10 years since first game of trilogy? Core game mechanics are largely unchanged, with some minor window dressing of faction mechanics as a fresh coat of paint on the rotting collapsed framework. But good to see we have a dumbfuck shill in this thread hyping up every part of this game and licking the CA boot.

 

[Delterius]

CONGRATULATIONS

YOU HAVE CHANNELED EXTRA MAGICS

FROM 5 TO 5

HAVE FUN SHITHEAD

i hate this game

 

[Fedora Master]

I say again: There is 0 reason to buy the DLC.

 

[underground nymph]

Unsurprisingly multiplayer coop is unplayable due to crashes. Mine crashes after turn 7 whenever I am trying to interact with an interface prompts or initiate a battle. So CA, such Total War.

 

[Jaedar]

Unsurprisingly multiplayer coop is unplayable due to crashes. Mine crashes after turn 7 whenever I am trying to interact with an interface prompts or initiate a battle. So CA, such Total War.

That's a shame. Playing the campaign in coop (or versus, or 2v2), was one of the few actual improvements I saw in tw3.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Doesn't it get even more extremely easy if you are allied with another human?

 

[underground nymph]

Doesn't it get even more extremely easy if you are allied with another human?

Yes, that’s why we play on maximum available difficulty settings.

Now there’re a dedicated coop mini campaigns with short term goals and reduced times for building, training and research.

 

[Lacrymas]

The battle difficulty settings just limit the type of units you are going to be using, it doesn't increase the challenge at all.

 

[Average Manatee]

The coop campaign is not a normal campaign. You'll have a dozen full enemy stacks in vision of the 3 kislev players by turn 10 on very hard.

 

[underground nymph]

The battle difficulty settings just limit the type of units you are going to be using, it doesn't increase the challenge at all.

That’s like saying “any difficulty setting just limit a type of tactic you are going to use, it doesn’t increase challenge at all”

The coop campaign is not a normal campaign. You'll have a dozen full enemy stacks in vision of the 3 kislev players by turn 10 on very hard.

Lightning strike is a must.

 

[Fedora Master]

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/c.../?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

 

[Average Manatee]

Have to wonder if the player is the only one at war with them. What's more impressive is the amount of AI cheats going on to let them afford that army. I count at least 10 full stacks worth of stuff. Then you realize Cathay also has that much shit hanging around the wall.