Warhammer Total War: Warhammer III

[InD_ImaginE]

AoE damage spells are the culprit and basically the only spells worth using besides healing. If magic was extremely limited like in Troy, then fine, have all the AoE damage spells you want, but stacking arcane conduits and spamming them gets old by the second battle. I honestly don't understand why people are so enchanted by this trilogy. Gameplay-wise, it does nothing better than other TW titles and the unique things it has are actively detrimental.

Because fantasy large scale battle is fun. Including OP heroes and magic, yes. No for most people they are not detrimental. I play this precisely because of the theme/setting and OP heroes.

It's not that you can't make unique tactical level layer with OP heroes and magic anyhow. If CA want they definitely could, making every faction on level of Empire for example. Some mods try to do it, but they ended up with Empire getting more anyhow because Warhammer players are fags who like fantasy German too much.

I already had my fill of normal medieval shit when I played Medieval 2 and Shogun 2. Never bother to actually buy new TW games after that. Maybe I should try Troy as it also has magic or 3K with Romance Mode on. But I've had my fill of normal TW.

 

[Lacrymas]

Overpowered magic is because of the players, who cry and whine about "multiplayer balance ruining the game" as soon as CA does anything to tune down magic. People were already complaining about magic being weak in WH3 compared to 2.

And then there are players like Legend who say "Khorne is super powerful, pls don't nerf" and in the same breath exclaim "oh, my Khorne campaign? I'm not going to continue it, it's too easy". Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Galdred]

AoE damage spells are the culprit and basically the only spells worth using besides healing. If magic was extremely limited like in Troy, then fine, have all the AoE damage spells you want, but stacking arcane conduits and spamming them gets old by the second battle. I honestly don't understand why people are so enchanted by this trilogy. Gameplay-wise, it does nothing better than other TW titles and the unique things it has are actively detrimental.

Because it triggers me much less to have fantasy battle be unrealistic, than historical battles that make no sense with units melting a few seconds after being engaged, or catapults being commonly used as battlefield artillery.

 

[Fedora Master]

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT TROY AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[Lacrymas]

Troy is hands down the best contemporary Total War, though, and leaves WH in the dust. It also has surprisingly decent mods.

 

[Fedora Master]

Troy is so great Slavs can't even be assed to crack the latest version because there's 0 interest.

 

[Raghar]

I think I still have legal free version on epic, I didn't play.

 

[Lacrymas]

Troy is so great Slavs can't even be assed to crack the latest version because there's 0 interest.

Troy got memed to death and CA Sofia themselves didn't handle the situation very well either. Troy got good quite a while after its release and it was already too late by then, but that wasn't the only problem. Perhaps it should've been a full-on mythological title from the beginning, even though I like Truth Behind the Myth a lot as well and think it's very creative. However, I understand why they wanted to go this route at first - they didn't want to be accused of aping WH or lacking creativity. That isn't the only factor, though, the gameplay itself isn't like WH and you can't win by letting magic play the game for you even on Mythos mode, so the casuals got filtered very fast. I was hoping that the failure of WH3 would spark some renewed interest in Troy, but it seems like the initial impression stuck and people aren't even thinking of giving it a try. It doesn't help that people are spreading misinformation about it too. Does it have actual problems? Yes, but they are much fewer, less severe and less pervasive than WH and perhaps could've been solved with a few more DLCs or even mods. The biggest problem imo is the whole Greeks vs Trojans thing and how there's little reason to deviate from that. Theoretically, you can declare war on Hector as Paris (and there's even an achievement for that), but it seems like a faux pas. The game needed a third faction to spice things up a little, especially in the late game, perhaps that could've been the sea peoples. Technically, the Amazons are a neutral faction, but they are strongly encouraged to ally with Troy because of Hippolyta's starting position and Penthesilea's quest for revenge against Achilles. This makes each campaign feel the same on a macro level, you always end up with the Trojans against the Greeks. This could've been rectified with DLCs, but alas, there's 0 interest in Troy left. However, the fundamental gameplay is so good that I can easily gloss over the admittedly limited nature of the campaign.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

The Sofia team is great, I'd prefer them making medieval 2 over the UK office.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

More Warhammer II players than III.

Legend ain't streaming it neither until a new patch is out.

 

[Lacrymas]

The overwhelmingly negative reaction to this game online is also fueling the rapid decline in the player base, so I'm not surprised almost nobody is playing it. Even if we don't take that into consideration, this game offers nothing that WH2 doesn't. Except new and severely undercooked factions, I guess.

 

[Fedora Master]

The Steam forums are hilarious. Every few days some idiot makes a thread "wow why is the game rated so low" and a couple of fanboys jump in to go all "NOOO GAEM GOOD DONT WORRY! IS FINE! IM HAVING FUN!!!!"

 

[fizzelopeguss]

The overwhelmingly negative reaction to this game online is also fueling the rapid decline in the player base, so I'm not surprised almost nobody is playing it. Even if we don't take that into consideration, this game offers nothing that WH2 doesn't. Except new and severely undercooked factions, I guess.

I just know all the added features will seriously piss me off. From those stupid fucking towers to the Chaos Realms (beyond retarded idea). That's why I've not bought it. Although modders have removed them now?

I'd like to play nurgle and ogres I guess. But not until it's down to £15-20 at most.

 

[Lacrymas]

I just know all the added features will seriously piss me off. From those stupid fucking towers to the Chaos Realms (beyond retarded idea). That's why I've not bought it. Although modders have removed them now?

I'd like to play nurgle and ogres I guess. But not until it's down to £15-20 at most.

Yeah, the towers and the bullshit Realms of Chaos mechanics have been removed by mods. I managed to complete a campaign with those mods, as opposed to my Cathay run which I abandoned halfway through because I didn't have the patience to click end turn enough times to get the 2 souls I needed.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

That tower shit is absolutely disgraceful, whoever developed and signed off on that bollocks needs to viciously sacked.

 

[Dwarvophile]

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT TROY AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Troy ?

I was pleasantly surprised by Troy. Also, got it for free.
It has a smaller scope but there's a lot to enjoy & it's very well rounded.
That's why I didn't pay much attention for TW3's launch, I knew it would be soy & I already had fun playing a reality behind the myth campaign in Troy.

 

[thesheeep]

That tower shit is absolutely disgraceful, whoever developed and signed off on that bollocks needs to viciously sacked.

Hmmm.... I love the idea of playing defense in my settlements, and especially as Nurgle, the towers are absolutely amazing and allow you to hold off forces that nobody else can.
But you can also create some good roads to funnel the enemy into as other factions, and towers are vital to that.
It's great when it works like that.

That said, as anything CA does, the implementation is just bad most of the time.
Why can you only place towers on predefined spots?
Why are there so extremely few of these points?
Why are they distributed so terribly across the victory points?
Why do some maps block like 80% of the towers field of view, making putting a tower in those spots completely useless?
Why are some tower positions useless to begin with, even if unblocked?
Why are the tower costs so nonsensical - you are almost always better off spamming lvl1 towers, since the next tower costs like 80% more, but only offers a 30% increase in power (some factions have exceptions to this)?
Why does the AI have no timeouts for building towers?
Why do YOU have timeouts for building a new tower after an old one was destroyed?
Why...

When it comes to the other obstacles you can build:
WHY THE FUCK can you only place these on predefined spots (3K was way ahead of this) and then why are they so sparse and make it impossible to cover all entries to certain spots?
It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Lacrymas]

^ Because the supply system is a nonsensical solution to an imaginary problem. If they wanted to spice up the sieges with placeables, they should've used the Rome 2 system. However, it doesn't fix fundamental issues with sieges and it only made them longer and worse.

 

[thesheeep]

However, it doesn't fix fundamental issues with sieges and it only made them longer and worse.

Can't really agree with that. I think it makes them better than they were before - even their shitty improvement is, in the end, an improvement.
Longer, sure, but sieges should be longer than open field battles.

The problem is more that due to the campaign design, 90% of battles you fight are siege battles and that just gets repetitive.

 

[Tyrr]

However, it doesn't fix fundamental issues with sieges and it only made them longer and worse.

Can't really agree with that. I think it makes them better than they were before - even their shitty improvement is, in the end, an improvement.
Longer, sure, but sieges should be longer than open field battles.

The problem is more that due to the campaign design, 90% of battles you fight are siege battles and that just gets repetitive.

Change at least tier 1 minor settlements back into normal land battles.

 

[Lacrymas]

Can't really agree with that. I think it makes them better than they were before - even their shitty improvement is, in the end, an improvement.
Longer, sure, but sieges should be longer than open field battles.

The problem is more that due to the campaign design, 90% of battles you fight are siege battles and that just gets repetitive.

There are two core issues with sieges in WH2: a) The design not only encourages but outright necessitates ranged-heavy armies both as the defender and attacker with some sprinkling of monsters on top and b) CA can't code fighting on walls. Neither of these problems were fixed, they only made the maps bigger and added bells and whistles on top that lead to sieges being even more inhospitable to non-monstrous melee units. What issue does the supply/tower system address? I honestly have no answer to that.

 

[razvedchiki]

anyone remembers the cannons on the walls in a warhammer 1 trailer?

 

[thesheeep]

However, it doesn't fix fundamental issues with sieges and it only made them longer and worse.

Can't really agree with that. I think it makes them better than they were before - even their shitty improvement is, in the end, an improvement.
Longer, sure, but sieges should be longer than open field battles.

The problem is more that due to the campaign design, 90% of battles you fight are siege battles and that just gets repetitive.

Change at least tier 1 minor settlements back into normal land battles.

I wouldn't say normal land battles, but battles in a settlement without placeables (or at least no towers or sth along those lines).
Defenders should always be able to at least use the natural bottlenecks in settlements to their advantage.

a) The design not only encourages but outright necessitates ranged-heavy armies both as the defender and attacker with some sprinkling of monsters on top and b) CA can't code fighting on walls.

a) I don't think I ever had problems with infantry in sieges. It makes sense that monstrous and ranged would do better, though, so I don't mind that.
b) Never ceases to amaze me. They have working battles on any ground, but on walls it just doesn't work. It's like they have two completely different systems for pathing, etc. here instead of just making walls use the normal pathing systems with some portals to transfer between ground and walls. Truly spaghetti code, no doubt.

What issue does the supply/tower system address? I honestly have no answer to that.

The issue was that siege battles sucked horribly due to many reasons.
They improved them with their admittedly crappy implementations. They now suck... less.

 

[Fedora Master]

The towers and supply system exists to appeal to people who play shitty MOBAS. Same way Dawn of War 3 tried to appeal to that crowd. No other reason.

Sieges worked fine in Attila and 3K.

 

[thesheeep]

The towers and supply system exists to appeal to people who play shitty MOBAS. Same way Dawn of War 3 tried to appeal to that crowd. No other reason.

Sieges worked fine in Attila and 3K

Nah. That would be too idiotic, even for CA. That's not even a similar enough genre.
People complained like crazy about siege battles, and that was their solution...

I didn't play Attila, but they definitely worked fine in 3K and CA got lots of praise for how much better the sieges are there.
Why they decided to not pursue that line of sieges but instead went with what they did... who knows.

I'm sure people complaining about sieges is why they also introduced those survival battles - and botched those as well. Instead of a long battle of attrition, you have a drawn-out easier-than-normal battle

 

[AdamReith]

How is 2022 and I still can't put siege weapons on walls.

Is it still like in Medievel 2 where you can't even move siege through the city gates, rendering any low angle siege completely worthless for sally battles?

 

[thesheeep]

Is it still like in Medievel 2 where you can't even move siege through the city gates, rendering any low angle siege completely worthless for sally battles?

I'm 90% sure you can move siege through the gates.
But you generally don't have to, as almost all artillery has high enough angle to be useful in sieges as well.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

The towers and supply system exists to appeal to people who play shitty MOBAS. Same way Dawn of War 3 tried to appeal to that crowd. No other reason.

Sieges worked fine in Attila and 3K

Nah. That would be too idiotic, even for CA. That's not even a similar enough genre.
People complained like crazy about siege battles, and that was their solution...

I didn't play Attila, but they definitely worked fine in 3K and CA got lots of praise for how much better the sieges are there.
Why they decided to not pursue that line of sieges but instead went with what they did... who knows.

I'm sure people complaining about sieges is why they also introduced those survival battles - and botched those as well. Instead of a long battle of attrition, you have a drawn-out easier-than-normal battle

They didn't pursue it because the supposed Warhammer 'a team' are a gaggle of smug twats that will never accept good ideas from the 3k or Sofia studios.

 

[Lacrymas]

The issue was that siege battles sucked horribly due to many reasons.

That doesn't answer the question. What issues did sieges have and how are they fixed/made slightly better with the tower system?

They didn't pursue it because the supposed Warhammer 'a team' are a gaggle of smug twats that will never accept good ideas from the 3k or Sofia studios.

Yeap. A lot of good ideas, especially for the campaign map, in 3K and Troy were outright ignored by the WH team and it made the game worse.

 

[Fedora Master]

(It's gonna be a nothing burger)