Warhammer Total War: Warhammer III

[Parabalus]

because the most beloved feature of vortex campaign was exactly randomly spawning enemies inside your borders.

That's the only thing which kept longer campaigns interesting.

 

[Lacrymas]

Game is complete shit, and all these reviewers are falling over themselves to not come outright and admit it.

The average review:

Bugs up the butt, the siege rework is a sidegrade at best and a significant downgrade at worst, faction mechanics are bland and pointless, unit rosters feel limited, the AI is shockingly incompetent, they didn't port the best features of Troy and Three Kingdoms over, the meta is still range-heavy, the campaign is meh. 9.5/10 Best Game of the Year in the History of Mankind, buy it now.

 

[Bohrain]

I preordered it because I don't want to dole up extra for Ogres once Mortal Empires is patched in. From what I gather from the reviews that changes as mostly good and the major issues are probably going to be patched out, though it will take months if not years for deeper issues like pathfinding. I played 2 with the no-walls mod because I absolutely couldn't stand sieges and the minor settlement changes are the single most important change for me.

 

[Jaedar]

Game is complete shit, and all these reviewers are falling over themselves to not come outright and admit it.

The average review:

Bugs up the butt, the siege rework is a sidegrade at best and a significant downgrade at worst, faction mechanics are bland and pointless, unit rosters feel limited, the AI is shockingly incompetent, they didn't port the best features of Troy and Three Kingdoms over, the meta is still range-heavy, the campaign is meh. 9.5/10 Best Game of the Year in the History of Mankind, buy it now.

Sieges were always bad, WH2 was always buggy and the ai was always incompetent.
So WH3 is more of the same, except none of the factions have any dlc yet to flesh them out.

It does suck that they didn't take the chance to do it properly this time. I'll likely do as I have done with all the wh1/wh2 stuff which is buy at 50% or better sale.

 

[Lacrymas]

Those things "always" being terrible somehow excuses this super profitable AAA game that has supposedly been in development for like 10 years? Those things were the first aspects they should've concentrated on before starting to work on the map and factions. Hopefully, it's more moddable this time and we can get proper gameplay at one point.

 

[underground nymph]

It does suck that they didn't take the chance to do it properly this time.

There was no chance actually. Most of the development budget is being spent on visual assets; it sells good so why even bother.

 

[Lacrymas]

It gets spent on visual assets that don't see the light of day because 90% of the roster doesn't get used. Quite a circus they've got going on there.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

It gets spent on visual assets that don't see the light of day because 90% of the roster doesn't get used. Quite a circus they've got going on there.

Art assets that get drowned in a sea of jaggies because their AA implementation is shit in Faggotmallet 2.

Did this even get an engine upgrade like Troy did?

 

[FreeKaner]

Game looks good gonna enjoy it when the combined map comes.

 

[Tyrr]

I never used mods for WH2, but that new red-on-red UI in WH3 looks so bad I might try at least an UI mod this time.

 

[Jaedar]

It does suck that they didn't take the chance to do it properly this time.

There was no chance actually. Most of the development budget is being spent on visual assets; it sells good so why even bother.

And yet they have done a siege rework that is pretty extensive. So they're clearly willing to spend money on it, they're just not spending money to fix the real issue (the ai is dogshit).

 

[Tyrr]

It does suck that they didn't take the chance to do it properly this time.

There was no chance actually. Most of the development budget is being spent on visual assets; it sells good so why even bother.

And yet they have done a siege rework that is pretty extensive. So they're clearly willing to spend money on it, they're just not spending money to fix the real issue (the ai is dogshit).

Why do you think they push MP so much? Paradox does the same because their AI is also shit.

 

[Jaedar]

It does suck that they didn't take the chance to do it properly this time.

There was no chance actually. Most of the development budget is being spent on visual assets; it sells good so why even bother.

And yet they have done a siege rework that is pretty extensive. So they're clearly willing to spend money on it, they're just not spending money to fix the real issue (the ai is dogshit).

Why do you think they push MP so much? Paradox does the same because their AI is also shit.

Good point. Simultaneous turns might actually make the MP good for some kind of 1v1 or 2v2 campaign thing. Of course finding people to play a 50 hour campaign with can be pretty tough.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

Nothing better than calm single playing.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Those things "always" being terrible somehow excuses this super profitable AAA game that has supposedly been in development for like 10 years? Those things were the first aspects they should've concentrated on before starting to work on the map and factions. Hopefully, it's more moddable this time and we can get proper gameplay at one point.

Yeah, there's no excuses. This is the second re-heated release of the same game released in 2016, with the exact same back end technology. There's been nothing majorly new added to these games other than cosmetic shit, stat tweaks and half finished story beats that never play out properly.

 

[Fedora Master]

It does suck that they didn't take the chance to do it properly this time.

There was no chance actually. Most of the development budget is being spent on visual assets; it sells good so why even bother.

And yet they have done a siege rework that is pretty extensive. So they're clearly willing to spend money on it, they're just not spending money to fix the real issue (the ai is dogshit).

Why do you think they push MP so much? Paradox does the same because their AI is also shit.

But nobody plays the campaigns in MP, so at least half the shit AI can't be circumvented.

To be completely honest I wouldn't even call the AI "bad", just very very annoying yet also predictable. The campaign AI is designed to fuck with the player as much as possible. It does try some advanced maneuvers though, like setting ambushes. It is also extremely good at micro on the battlefield, again to the annoyance of the player.

 

[Lacrymas]

It does suck that they didn't take the chance to do it properly this time.

There was no chance actually. Most of the development budget is being spent on visual assets; it sells good so why even bother.

And yet they have done a siege rework that is pretty extensive. So they're clearly willing to spend money on it, they're just not spending money to fix the real issue (the ai is dogshit).

Where are you seeing extensive reworks? As the attacker, nothing has really changed, while that is what you are doing the majority of siege battles. There's still only rams, siege towers, and buttladders. As the defender, there's only pointless busywork added, it's still more advantageous to leave the walls and fight in the streets.

 

[FreeKaner]

What are you supposed to do in siege battles? The reality is that non-arcade siege battles would just be tedious, are you gonna bring in sappers to dig trenches, have the soldiers build field fortifications, have miners undermine enemy walls and artillery barrage enemy walls in a 3 month siege, essentially just waiting around? If you want "realistic" sieges just sit outside of settlement for 8 turns or whatever it is, that's the real siege.

Sieges just don't translate well to strategy video games, simply because the "fun" parts of siege, like fights at breaches, walls, or streets is not something that can be simulated at this level but requires somewhat smaller scale. Warhammer 2 sieges were especially terrible because the maps were claustrophobic, the main thing they could change was just making the maps bigger and adding more directions and some roadblocks. That's what they did, to my surprise they not only reworked all siege maps and but also added minor settlement sieges without walls which all seem interesting and very diverse. That's tremendous amount of work and there is no laziness involved. Also no, I don't know the nostalgia people have for Medieval II or Shogun 2 (probably my favorite in the series) but they don't have good sieges. Shogun 2's "sieges" are basically just an empty map with a small fort in the middle that you just throw men into grinder, while your archers shoot and AI does stupid moves like sending their cavalry to attack your archers through 3 yari walls. At least Warhammer AI tries to avoid melee and actually flank your archers.

As for the missile units being dominant, that's just reality of stats of the game being simulated, range is a massive advantage both in reality and in games, melees are never going to be more than anvil or at best shock without giving them arbitrary bonuses. The gameplay of some sort of slow melee grind as main event being desirable is also just preference, for that gameplay the appropriate title and with correct setting is attila: total war. The era warhammer takes place in and units it uses simply means that melee is in auxiliary role to archers, cavalry and on top of magic and monsters because of fantasy setting.

Still, when you play multiplayer, melee units are valuable exactly because they do their job as anvil or shock, while players are able to better use mobility of their units to try to shut down enemy ranged units. AI can't do this as well because AI cannot move for your ranged units. There is simply no example of this being done better in any game so far. Right now strategy game with best AI in the market is AOE2: DE and even that cannot properly focus high value units despite being able to keep up with and use player strategies and especially outcompete a player on macro level without cheating because there are way too many variables for AI to consider at any given engagement.

I don't get the doomerism going on here or what you expected? There are three main and true complaints for this game, one is that it looks buggy again with bugs from previous games still not fixed which is not excusable, the other is that UI is garbage and last and most important one is they are not able to do well with campaign AI (battle AI is okay as discussed above, predictable but serviceable and certainly something they have been improving over the course of the series).

One addition to sieges that I can see that could improve the gameplay is removing automatic ladders so using siege towers, rams and artillery becomes more important.

 

[Fedora Master]

People seem to forget how great sieges in Rome and Medieval 2 worked. The only major differences are the assladders and burnable gates.

 

[FreeKaner]

Really what people want for good sieges is if Bannerlord was good, could handle very large battles and wasn't haphazardly stuffed spaghetti code.

 

[Lacrymas]

Still, when you play multiplayer, melee units are valuable exactly because they do their job as anvil or shock, while players are able to better use mobility of their units to try to shut down enemy ranged units. AI can't do this as well because AI cannot move for your ranged units. There is simply no example of this being done better in any game so far.

Do you mean any strategy game or any Total War game? Because it's untrue in both cases. From contemporary Total Wars, enemies in Troy try to shut down your ranged units mercilessly. Harpies (and any flier really) will beeline towards them and lock them down for the entire duration of the fight. You can't have an all-ranged army in Troy on basically any difficulty. Ranged units just aren't as statistically strong as in WH, there are no Sisters of Avelorn in Troy. Older Total War titles have much better AI too and all-ranged armies don't dominate the meta. Warhammer has one of the worst examples of battle gameplay and AI in any TW title.

 

[FreeKaner]

Do you mean any strategy game or any Total War game? Because it's untrue in both cases. From contemporary Total Wars, enemies in Troy try to shut down your ranged units mercilessly. Harpies (and any flier really) will beeline towards them and lock them down for the entire duration of the fight. You can't have an all-ranged army in Troy on basically any difficulty. Older Total War titles have much better AI too and all-ranged armies don't dominate the meta. Warhammer has one of the worst examples of battle gameplay and AI in any TW title.

No, AI in older total wars is not better. I recently played Shogun, Medieval II and Empire & Napoleon. All of them have worse AI with it linearly getting better newer the game is, that's including the fact that the AI has an easier job when magic isn't involved. Saying battle AI in older titles is better is just nonsense doomerism. One thing that has been consistently improving in Total War is the battle AI, Troy probably has a better AI because of this same rule, it came after Warhammer 2.

In warhammer 2 too the enemy flying units go for your ranged units & cavalry try to flank. The reason you can have an all-ranged army in total war is because of the way difficulty works. It is NOT optimal to have all ranged army for most factions if you are playing on normal difficulty except for factions whose missile units are their strongest units. You watching some thot on youtube playing beastmen with all raider army is not evidence otherwise.

 

[Mitleser2020]

One addition to sieges that I can see that could improve the gameplay is removing automatic ladders so using siege towers, rams and artillery becomes more important.

Or at least make them less effective.

Climbing speed has also been reduced by 40%, making siege towers much more important! Especially when your generals remember that uncovered troops on ladders can still be shot by towers...

Towers should be better against units near the walls, but worse against artillery.

All towers' firing arcs are increased to 180 degrees, making them much more deadly and important to capture or destroy. However, their range has been substantially decreased at the lower levels. This means you can siege them from safety if you bring artillery without resorting to "cheese" strats. Even the Lvl 3 towers can be outranged by the best artillery units. However, the Lvl 4 towers will match or outrange all units in the game. As it says in the Bible, God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery.

 

[tabacila]

Besides basic shit like buildable ladders instead of ass ladders and adding a second/third layer of walls and gates there are a lot of way to improve sieges and most should also involve the strategic layer.
Sieges almost always involved more planning and waiting around than just charging in so they mostly aren't fun(TM), but can still make fun mechanics.

How about the attacker having options on how intense the siege should be? Current sieges with increased holdout time would be the norm. You sit outside the walls and wait for the enemy to die of hunger/old age.
Choose a more aggressive stance and have your troops make small, constant attacks against the walls. You get less holdout time and more attrition for the defender, but you also take attrition yourself.

How about the defender having the option to sally out in raid like battles. The besieged army would have a retreat zone like in the new ambushes. Snipe some artillery or some isolated archers with some fast troops and then GTFO. Have an option on what units get to actually make the attack instead of bringing the whole army and choose what units you want to target. Depending on what you choose the enemy has more or less 'time' to react. If you choose fast/stealthy units the enemy doesn't get to place any of his troop and they are spread out, or most of the army comes in as delayed reinforcements. If you choose slow/lumbering units the enemy gets to deploy more of his army in the traditional way simulating reactions from the besiegers.
Have the attackers be able to counter the effect of the sallies by spending money on building a siege camp and keeping more of the army together.

 

[Lacrymas]

No, AI in older total wars is not better. I recently played Shogun, Medieval II and Empire & Napoleon. All of them have worse AI with it linearly getting better newer the game is, that's including the fact that the AI has an easier job when magic isn't involved. Saying battle AI in older titles is better is just nonsense doomerism. One thing that has been consistently improving in Total War is the battle AI, Troy probably has a better AI because of this same rule, it came after Warhammer 2.

In warhammer 2 too the enemy flying units go for your ranged units & cavalry try to flank. The reason you can have an all-ranged army in total war is because of the way difficulty works. It is NOT optimal to have all ranged army for most factions if you are playing on normal difficulty except for factions whose missile units are their strongest units. You watching some thot on youtube playing beastmen with all raider army is not evidence otherwise.

It's not only the AI, it's about unit stats and how the battles work too. Archers in WH can do everything, you can have an all-ranged army with at least half the factions because archers can tank. You should really try out Troy and get back at me with an opinion. It feels like I'm the only one who has played it.

 

[FreeKaner]

They could definitely add more options to besieging a settlement without attacking with some sort of rock-paper-scissors format between attacker and defender. That would be a good way to improve and definitely add a strategic layer. However that's beyond improving the siege battle itself but the campaign, which definitely can use improvements. Warhammer series have the most simple map in total war series, there are no minor objectives, there are no smaller building slots in provinces that are unique to provinces, it is all streamlined to settlements. Province diversity is entirely limited to settlements and their unique buildings & resources. Arguably warhammer should be the opposite, with many small building slots for resources & buildings for factions. Not to mention of potential of adding HOMM3 features to map like dwellings to capture & clear.

 

[Fedora Master]

They tried that with the Chaos Rifts and its annoying as shit.