Warhammer Total War: Warhammer 2

[CthuluIsSpy]

Yeah, boar-pig hybrid is a pretty stupid term, as boars and pigs are the same species.
I'm more interested in the radioactive aspect.

 

[Raghar]

A dangerous radioactive substance was at 300x higher level than permitted level. Not that horrible. As long as you will not eat the boar.

 

[Funposter]

And isn't Norsca crap as well?

Norsca are bad on higher difficulties where supply lines cripple them. They're perfectly fine to play on Normal difficulty and even very good, definitely not as in need of a massive overhaul as the Beastmen were and Warriors of Chaos are.

 

[Average Manatee]

Supply lines don't cripple Norsca any more than anyone else. What cripples them is not having walls anywhere along with having awful sparsely populated home terrain that will be razed to hell and back by everything on the sea. Having a single enemy stack walk/sail in and raze half your nation and you basically can't catch them in time is the ultimate hell.

 

[Parabalus]

Supply lines don't cripple Norsca any more than anyone else. What cripples them is not having walls anywhere along with having awful sparsely populated home terrain that will be razed to hell and back by everything on the sea. Having a single enemy stack walk/sail in and raze half your nation and you basically can't catch them in time is the ultimate hell.

I'd say it's more noticeable with Norsca, since their income from buildings is nonexistent. So later on you'd have >-10k deficit per turn, which is sustainable through sacking.

 

[Jaedar]

Supply lines don't cripple Norsca any more than anyone else. What cripples them is not having walls anywhere along with having awful sparsely populated home terrain that will be razed to hell and back by everything on the sea. Having a single enemy stack walk/sail in and raze half your nation and you basically can't catch them in time is the ultimate hell.

I'd say it's more noticeable with Norsca, since their income from buildings is nonexistent. So later on you'd have >-10k deficit per turn, which is sustainable through sacking.

Yeah, norsca basically don't get any settlements outside of the northern wasteland right? There's a decent amount of settlements there, but as you say, completely impossible to defend as there are too many fronts and they are too accessible.

I've tried to play norsca once or twice but it is too painful, the start is just horrible, their lords are super generic, their public order is awful (I guess it might be fine with recent updates). Having to spend 4 turns force marching so you can reach the settlement your starting enemy is holed up in is just absurd.

 

[Fedora Master]

Norsca is fine as long as you cripple the Bretonnia and Reikland AIs early. For some reason they are obsessed with sending stacks deep into Norsca constantly if left alone.

 

[Parabalus]

Supply lines don't cripple Norsca any more than anyone else. What cripples them is not having walls anywhere along with having awful sparsely populated home terrain that will be razed to hell and back by everything on the sea. Having a single enemy stack walk/sail in and raze half your nation and you basically can't catch them in time is the ultimate hell.

I'd say it's more noticeable with Norsca, since their income from buildings is nonexistent. So later on you'd have >-10k deficit per turn, which is sustainable through sacking.

Yeah, norsca basically don't get any settlements outside of the northern wasteland right? There's a decent amount of settlements there, but as you say, completely impossible to defend as there are too many fronts and they are too accessible.

I've tried to play norsca once or twice but it is too painful, the start is just horrible, their lords are super generic, their public order is awful (I guess it might be fine with recent updates). Having to spend 4 turns force marching so you can reach the settlement your starting enemy is holed up in is just absurd.

I had to restart a bit to get Surtha Ek's mammoth, otherwise the start's way too slow and you get zerged by the humans.

You get enemy faction capitals which give a decent amount of gold, but have no garrisons so hard to keep.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Supply lines don't cripple Norsca any more than anyone else. What cripples them is not having walls anywhere along with having awful sparsely populated home terrain that will be razed to hell and back by everything on the sea. Having a single enemy stack walk/sail in and raze half your nation and you basically can't catch them in time is the ultimate hell.

Yeah, I really don't understand why no one in Total Warhammer has at least a palisade. That's a design choice by CA I never liked and it doesn't make fucking sense from a lore or gameplay standpoint.
You know what players ended up doing? They ended up using up a slot to build walls everywhere, because the alternative is losing a minor settlement to a raiding party because the wallness settlement defense map and garrison is shit.
There's not even a chokepoint, it's just an open field. What the fuck CA?

 

[Fedora Master]

The AI is also laser focused on attacking anything without walls.
Some of the map mods at least help with the wide open field battles when you don't have walls.

 

[Parabalus]

But these are good things, makes building a wall or not a choice.

Outside of the teleporting Ritual armies, but that has other problems.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

The AI is also laser focused on attacking anything without walls.
Some of the map mods at least help with the wide open field battles when you don't have walls.

Yeah, hence why players build walls everywhere. You'd think CA, a company who's been around for 20 years, would at least understand player psychology.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

But these are good things, makes building a wall or not a choice.

Outside of the teleporting Ritual armies, but that has other problems.

Except it's not actually a choice, because the alternative to a wall is a lost settlement to a surprise trash stack.
If they wanted to make it a choice they should have gone with the Bretonnian route by default - you can have walls for free, but your garrison will be weak.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be proper walls, just a chokepoint and a couple of arrow towers would probably be enough of a force multiplier to deter raiding armies.

 

[Parabalus]

But these are good things, makes building a wall or not a choice.

Outside of the teleporting Ritual armies, but that has other problems.

Except it's not actually a choice, because the alternative to a wall is a lost settlement to a surprise trash stack.
If they wanted to make it a choice they should have gone with the Bretonnian route by default - you can have walls for free, but your garrison will be weak.

But plenty of provinces aren't susceptible to a surprise attack, especially once you start expanding.

I disagree, since sieges are annoying, imagine having to siege every enemy settlement. And the player is also much better at defending than the AI, so it would be another advantage.

 

[Fedora Master]

It would make sense to fortify your frontier and fatten up the core provinces for economy and military use. It worked in all other TW titles. But this time the AI will walk straight past your fortified towns and find the most inconvenient targets possible.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

But these are good things, makes building a wall or not a choice.

Outside of the teleporting Ritual armies, but that has other problems.

Except it's not actually a choice, because the alternative to a wall is a lost settlement to a surprise trash stack.
If they wanted to make it a choice they should have gone with the Bretonnian route by default - you can have walls for free, but your garrison will be weak.

But plenty of provinces aren't susceptible to a surprise attack, especially once you start expanding.

I disagree, since sieges are annoying, imagine having to siege every enemy settlement. And the player is also much better at defending than the AI, so it would be another advantage.

Except Beastmen hordes will literally spawn in your territory, the AI will land on your coast and enemy stacks will walk past your fortifications to attack your unwalled settlements deep in your territory. Settlements are always susceptible to attack.
Sieges in Warhammer are pretty crap to play, but that's what autoresolve is for. I manually defended, both in losing battles and winning, a lot more times than attacking.

 

[Parabalus]

But these are good things, makes building a wall or not a choice.

Outside of the teleporting Ritual armies, but that has other problems.

Except it's not actually a choice, because the alternative to a wall is a lost settlement to a surprise trash stack.
If they wanted to make it a choice they should have gone with the Bretonnian route by default - you can have walls for free, but your garrison will be weak.

But plenty of provinces aren't susceptible to a surprise attack, especially once you start expanding.

I disagree, since sieges are annoying, imagine having to siege every enemy settlement. And the player is also much better at defending than the AI, so it would be another advantage.

Except Beastmen hordes will literally spawn in your territory, the AI will land on your coast and enemy stacks will walk past your fortifications to attack your unwalled settlements deep in your territory. Settlements are always susceptible to attack.
Sieges in Warhammer are pretty crap to play, but that's what autoresolve is for. I manually defended, both in losing battles and winning, a lot more times than attacking.

But that's exactly what I meant, sieges give a huge advantage to the player. The less of them the better.

If they walk past your settlements you can either spawn a new lord or defend with an existing one. T3 walls quickly aren't enough to defend against a stack anyway, outside of some races.

 

[Dwarvophile]

So I'd like n try some new factions, actually I'm thinking about the Tomb Kings which I never played, maybe Ikit Claw, some say it's a fun campaign, maybe the sisters of Twilight (if they bring something more on top of the usual WE factions). I don't own those DLCs, and I don't want to spend blindly when it comes to CA, summoning the Dex advice...

Also about the beastmen : for somebody who doesn't own Call of the Beastmen, would you buy it now (I can get it half price) or just go directly for the Silence and the Fury ?

 

[_V_]

AFAIK, you need the race to play the DLC Lord.
If I hadn't spent >500h of playtime on WH I + II, I'd be really angry with pricing and lack of good bundle deals for WH on Steam.

 

[Dwarvophile]

Yeah, exactly what I feared, altough on the silence & the fury's steam page is only written : "This content requires the base game Total War: WARHAMMER II on Steam in order to play."

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Yeah, exactly what I feared, altough on the silence & the fury's steam page is only written : "This content requires the base game Total War: WARHAMMER II on Steam in order to play."

If you get Silence of the Fury you'll be able to play Taurox. The other beastmen lords won't be available unless you have Call of the Beastmen.
Not even CA is greedy and stupid enough to charge you full price for half a DLC lol.

 

[Jaedar]

If I hadn't spent >500h of playtime on WH I + II, I'd be really angry with pricing and lack of good bundle deals for WH on Steam.

All the dlc and the base games are on sale often enough that they're basically permanently 50% off.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

If I hadn't spent >500h of playtime on WH I + II, I'd be really angry with pricing and lack of good bundle deals for WH on Steam.

All the dlc and the base games are on sale often enough that they're basically permanently 50% off.

Not entirely true.
The more recent DLCs have a smaller discount. Warden and the paunch was only 20% off, iirc.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

But these are good things, makes building a wall or not a choice.

Outside of the teleporting Ritual armies, but that has other problems.

Except it's not actually a choice, because the alternative to a wall is a lost settlement to a surprise trash stack.
If they wanted to make it a choice they should have gone with the Bretonnian route by default - you can have walls for free, but your garrison will be weak.

But plenty of provinces aren't susceptible to a surprise attack, especially once you start expanding.

I disagree, since sieges are annoying, imagine having to siege every enemy settlement. And the player is also much better at defending than the AI, so it would be another advantage.

Except Beastmen hordes will literally spawn in your territory, the AI will land on your coast and enemy stacks will walk past your fortifications to attack your unwalled settlements deep in your territory. Settlements are always susceptible to attack.
Sieges in Warhammer are pretty crap to play, but that's what autoresolve is for. I manually defended, both in losing battles and winning, a lot more times than attacking.

But that's exactly what I meant, sieges give a huge advantage to the player. The less of them the better.

If they walk past your settlements you can either spawn a new lord or defend with an existing one. T3 walls quickly aren't enough to defend against a stack anyway, outside of some races.

But T3 walls are enough to buy you enough time to get your lord to that settlement.
It takes about 2 turns to make a decent stack, potentially more if you don't have enough recruitment slots.
That's plenty of time for an enemy army to force march into your territory and nuke a settlement, and that's assuming they don't just spawn out of nothing like Beastmen event stacks can do. Skaven and Beastmen also have a tendency to spam ambush stance when on the move, so even if they do invade from outside your territory you won't know about it because the detection mechanics are silly.

 

[_V_]

If I hadn't spent >500h of playtime on WH I + II, I'd be really angry with pricing and lack of good bundle deals for WH on Steam.

All the dlc and the base games are on sale often enough that they're basically permanently 50% off.

True. Your point?
I'd expect "Gold" versions of WH I by now. Instead the base game costs 60€ (just checked. WTF?!? I bought it for 45€ at release, IIRC. Definately not 60€.)
DLCs cost 76€ all combined.
That's 136€ for a complete five year old game. I think the base game is on sale for more than 50% every once in a while. So every once in a while you might be able to snag it for ~50€.
I'd "expect" a gold version for 40€ with extra sales every once in a while. Or the possibility to buy missing DLCs for similar bundle prices.
Similar for WH II.

If I still sailed the high seas, this'd be definately a game that I like but still pirate. Purely due to pricing policy.
If you don't mind the pricing scheme, good for you. I still think it's ridiculous.