Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
iirc it's because routing is not instant, low morale must be kept for something like 12 seconds and then the game checks again and if it's still low then the unit breaks. something like that. pretty sad if you ask me. i wish weak armies with strong morale manipulators were viable.
Start Exiles of Nehek, and go into war early without farming desert for rebellions.
There are actually interesting starting decisions. Would you:
1. Break non-agression pact and wait until you can declare war without additional penalty for declaring war too early after breaking non aggression. (It can really hurt to wait when you want fight early.)
2. Break non-agression pact and declare war. (You'd be hated by everyone, but perhaps you survive, and perhaps you'd meet possible allies who would at least not trying to kill you until bad renomee would calm somewhat down.)
3. Keep non-agression pact, and KILL NAGAROTH. Perhaps these will not backstab you when you'd be fighting one of the biggest badasses in the area. Perhaps he will not confederate them and create IMMENSE problem in your back, causing you to move your capital into Nagaroth, and keep Nagaroth and surrounding areas as your lands until you conquer whole north.
I heard some people were playing Exiles of Nehek by farming rebellions on desert to have money. I wonder why when alternative is doable with skill and sufficient insanity to do that.
-
Pirate the game, and play pirates. Enjoy your piracy. Do pirate stuff and do roleplaying or pirate comments, and try to not get yourself killed when you play suboptimally to have proper pirate fun.
--
Play NICE VAMPIRE COUNTS. Your goal isn't just conquering empire, that happens naturally, your goal is allying WOOD ELVES and stay allied.
---
I found when I play Siegvald the magnificent, campaign tends to gets fucked somehow, and difficulty rises to difficulty level Asian.
----
Play Beastmen, typically Chaos invasion ends with whimper when you play as Beastmen, and you have to conquer everyone yourself.
-----
RAZE EVERY CONQUERED SETTLEMENT THAT YOU DIDN'T RAZE BEFORE. You can re-conquer settlement you razed already and colonized, it if you lose a settlement.
(This really kills Vampire lords timing schedule and make RAZING AND RECOLONIZING Altdorf, quite difficult.)
------
Don't use confederations when it doesn't make a sense. (Not confederating until they have one last settlement, and then confederating to at least get legendary lords, can turn trivial campaigns into enjoyable campaigns full of political intrigue.)
It's pointless to argue about morale if the combat is so out of whack that you can't even do envelopment properly. Either it's over before that, or the enemy just presses another AWESOME button.
But I'm conflicted about the awesome buttons. Each race having something unfair and absurd is good in a way, you can't just execute the same strategy every single time, like in Rome 2 and Attila (except against the Huns and Iazygies, obviously).
When you look at ballance of force after battle starts, you see quite accurate description. But, autoresolve was supposed to be used only for easy battles when opponent has next to zero chance to inflict significant damage or win or both.
Are you sure it's not accurate?
Tretch craventail would backstab Hellborne, DE army would devolve into fights over leadership, and that third from the left unit would fight the rest of skaven army for fun. While crossbows would take potshots at Skaven to prevent them to come close, and kidnap them.
It's a toss.
(Sadly WH doesn't simulate to this level of detail.)
Possibly, even then its like 4 skavenslaves which would make it an even fight in numbers. Even on VH, anything mops up skavenslaves
I'm pretty sure it's just the autoresolve bar being broken though. Every once in a while it gives awful odds for a fight you'll actually win easily in autoseolve.
Isn't fighting the battles the point of the game? It's a pretty big failure that this is even an option. I don't remember many other tactical wargames (Graviteam, SoW, Takeda, etc.) having a skip battle button, certainly not one the players rely on to TW's degree, and they're usually better games than the mess CA churns out.
I'm not faulting you when the problem is the battles aren't worth fighting from an entertainment perspective. It's just frustrating that 16+ years later we're still having the same auto-resolve discussions because CA can't see the problem to try and address it.
I think one possible solution is to make losing armies actually worth a damn for both the AI and the player.
Usually when you lose an army late game, in any total war game, it doesn't matter as you can just build a new one pretty quickly.
I think if it were harder to recruit and rally soldiers, then there would be fewer "trash" battles, more decisive ones and that would allow CA to get rid of auto-resolve, as that mechanic is really just a means to avoid fighting pointless battles the player has no interest in.
Its why I think population should come back as a requirement for recruiting forces, as that was a way of limiting how
many soldiers you can recruit at once. Granted, it didn't really matter as you still saw shit like stacks of urban cohorts, but with some refinement I think that mechanic could work.
I'm not faulting you when the problem is the battles aren't worth fighting from an entertainment perspective. It's just frustrating that 16+ years later we're still having the same auto-resolve discussions because CA can't see the problem to try and address it.
I think one possible solution is to make losing armies actually worth a damn for both the AI and the player.
Usually when you lose an army late game, in any total war game, it doesn't matter as you can just build a new one pretty quickly.
I think if it were harder to recruit and rally soldiers, then there would be fewer "trash" battles, more decisive ones and that would allow CA to get rid of auto-resolve, as that mechanic is really just a means to avoid fighting pointless battles the player has no interest in.
Its why I think population should come back as a requirement for recruiting forces, as that was a way of limiting how
many soldiers you can recruit at once. Granted, it didn't really matter as you still saw shit like stacks of urban cohorts, but with some refinement I think that mechanic could work.
It's all about resources and logistics. An army's upkeep should be "held" with it on the campaign map and ideally on the tactical map so it's a gamble as to how long the campaign can be financed and where the gold is coming from and going to. So launching a campaign is more involved than just moving troops. That dovetails with your idea and when a force is crushed you're potentially losing experienced troops, manpower, and wealth. That raises the stakes and gets the player invested in the outcome. So if the opponent's force is possibly shepherding the last of their nation's gold reserves you might want to see that get captured rather than be told it through the auto-resolve screen. Likewise, if your stack of 3 cavalry units is ferrying a wagon of gold to fund the next stage of the campaign - and to fend off a potential mutiny - you're probably going to enjoy seeing your men make a mad dash away from a horde of mooks emerging from the woods.
I'm not faulting you when the problem is the battles aren't worth fighting from an entertainment perspective. It's just frustrating that 16+ years later we're still having the same auto-resolve discussions because CA can't see the problem to try and address it.
It makes sense for pitched battles to be rarer but there should be ambushes*, raids, etc. happening as smaller nations adapt to the situation. As it is you never have to deal with diversionary attacks whilst cavalry swoop in and raid your baggage train, or a political aspect forcing (or delaying) a battle. It's also way too easy to maintain a large empire and field large standing armies, but that's another of the smaller issues that snowballs with the others and makes large parts of the games uninteresting.
*I know they're in TW but they're basically the same old battles with different deployment zones. They're where morale should be a deciding factor as getting caught out of formation should be crushing to inexperienced troops.
I'm not faulting you when the problem is the battles aren't worth fighting from an entertainment perspective. It's just frustrating that 16+ years later we're still having the same auto-resolve discussions because CA can't see the problem to try and address it.
Their solution last time was to fuck with the siege attacker autoresolve so that Warhammer players would be forced to fight the shitty siege battles everyone hated. Can't wait to see their "solution" in the next game.
