Yeah they play badly compared to anything new here, it's sad because I love Vampire Counts new Nosferatu is making me want to play them, but they're so lame in game, outdated mechanics, Tech Tree, Lord/Hero Skills, animations... Everything! I mean I'd love Terrorgheist and Varghulf getting new animations, they just look sad compared to new units
@@addisonchambers9256 I think there are a handful of early techs that are nice to pick up, but after that it is a chore. Getting all skink units poison attacks and vanguard is my fav.
@shorewall i did kinda forget that one, that one is a game changer especially for Tehenhauin who i play the most. Some of the economic ones are good too, but compared to others it's so taxing without much reward
lizards feel so friggen bad. Have they even had any updates since warhammer 2? The faction mechanic is so stupid too, 0 interaction, boring and minimal bonuses. also cant even get benefits for forever. God please CA fix some of the forgotten races.
Powercreep has a simple solution, it’s not glamorous or immediately profitable but going back and sprucing up old content and factions as free updates will buy huge amounts of longevity and good will
A lot of factions could really use it too. Lizardmen, Tomb Kings, Vampire Coast, elves could use some tweaking. Old content is being left in the dust and its getting very noticeable.
@@AkaRystik I think the high elves are fine, but the wood and dark elves need work. Tomb kings likewise feels.... fine? They lack anything special compared to the newer DLC legendary lords, but they're at least on par with the base race lords.
You can also do like me when playing Skulltaker, do not take the trait that spawn Bloodhosts. He is still broken but at least you do not get swamped under 200+ Hosts this way. When i had the trait in my first campaign every turn took ages to do the host stuff. I gave up on it when i had 216 Bloodhosts running around. (I achieved all victory conditions but tried to take the entire map but...) And yes i prefer to play this game like a Civilization game where i auto resolve most stuff, because i am garbage at the actual battles. Give me a Victory on auto resolve that only a dead monkey would lose in the battle and i would lose it.
The ai being so scared to fight is what usually gives me the most campaign fatigue. I feel like once I have a decent army the ai just refuses to fight and makes me spend multiple turns chasing their armies around unless they outnumber me 2-3 stacks to 1
I usually have to recruit three armies and box one AI army into a triangle slowly so it cant run away from me. And then the AI just gives up and leaves the army standing there, forcing me to waste another turn walking at them with 1 or 2 of my armies, instead of taking its best shot at fighting one of my armies and maybe escaping afterward. The campaign map army movement AI is designed just to waste the players time instead of trying to take good fights. The AI in WH2 would occasionally team up with 2 or 3 stacks and send those at you but in WH3 it doesnt even do that anymore. It just runs around with single stacks trying to sack minor settlements and runs away when you send an army to fight them.
@ “it just runs around with single stacks trying to sack minor settlements” brother I actually despise this. I was chasing queek around with my back up army for 3-4 turns while just runs away and sacks the same 2 settlements. Another thing I’m sick of ai doing is standing just outside of my attack range then forcemarching half the map if I approach even in ambush stance
The game is just a race against the clock. You have to destroy your enemies before the next one shows up. In the meantime they refuse to actually fight. Unlike in AoW and CIV there are no rival empires, there are just whac-a-moles.
The ai ruins the game not power creep. I have seen repeatedly a faction will get like 20 settlements then send all its armies to stand around their capital and they will stay there as you take all their settlements. I have had factions declare war on me, have armies in move range of my cities, I will have no armies anywhere near them, and for 20 turns they will not attack. The ai is way to passive. Or like I watched thorek and ungrim send like 20 armies to wipe out clan more who has 5 settlements and it will take them like 40 turns, they are absurdly bad at the game. Even when they do attack they just sack and siege, they seldom actually take a settlement. Powercreep can't even compete. Also agree that early game greenskins is miserable now.
Completely incompetent AI that does not play the game and needs to cheat to put up any kind of fight(ignore FOV and FOW, the AI can see your ambush on the map and your stealthed units on the battlefield) is probably my #1 problem. The AI is either god tier in a way that feels bad (Cavalry use and spell dodging) or completely and totally incompetent in a way that feels worse (What's wrong with sending 20 units through the space of one? What's a vortex?) Obviously, a perfect AI wouldn't be fun either(for most people anyhow ;) ), but starting from there and disabling or slowing down behaviors to dial back the difficulty is a much better approach than whatever hodgepodge they've got. A perfect AI dodges immediately, on very hard give a bit of random delay to how fast it reacts to represent a spectrum of good human reactions, it only misses the dodge like 10% of the time and is usually very quick about it, but it's not instant. On easy mode, they only see the spell to dodge it maybe 20% of the time, and if they do dodge, they start several seconds later. Stat boosts are not **difficulty** modifiers.
Problem is the mediocre AI is made worse by giving the player so much power that it can't cope with. Like what's the AI gonna do against dozens of bloodhosts and new lords that can solo armies?
@RoulicisThe I wish they would gang up on me, I long for the 70+ settlement fully confederate dark elf/skaven attacks from all sides like from warhammer 2
I honestly think the pacing of campaigns in 3 is the main issue. Being unbeatable by Turn 30 without any late-game units is just ridiculous. This is the fault of the cowardly AI giving no serious opposition. I don't see an issue with powercreep really because most faction mechanics are turned off or toned down when the player is playing another faction.
Hit the nail on the head there, I think. An overtuned faction where you struggle at turn 10, break through at turn 20, are super overpowered by turn 40 and you just mop up the entire rest of the objectives by turn 50 is actually a really tightly paced campaign, if a short one. Not all campaigns need to be long. I enjoyed my Taurox campaign because it didn't overstay its welcome. I also enjoyed my Boris campaign. It took until turn ~70 to be truly safe, and by that time I needed to scramble to get ready for the endgame crisis. It's those campaigns where you're in no danger of losing whatsoever by turn 30 but the steamroll still takes until turn 120 to get your victory screen that are the source of campaign fatigue.
The AI in general is either way too passive or solely focused on the player, and that has everything to do with suboptimal AI design. The AI would benefit hugely if it was encouraged to push out a bit more when the player isn't looking, more so even if the AI is encouraged to make slightly more risky moves at times. That causes either staggering victories or crushing defeats, which in turn allows factions to take advantage of the power vaccuum.
I’ve definitely noticed this, even using tons of mods to affect the campaign and battle difficulty to my liking, I’ve found that I quit campaigns a lot sooner than in 2. In warhammer 2 it was common for my campaigns to go 100+ turns before I get burnt out. But in 3 I usually start to get bored before turn 50. Because as you said you just get way too powerful too quickly.
@@katiexxii7578 same bro in wh2 there was one faction which was strong and you have to fight it plus you had less army due to that upkeep which helps in us not being able to snowball the game now we can snowball it like literally
I’ll be honest, I think that how the autoresolve calculations let me win outrageously without having to earn it does more damage than the power creep. Edit: I do actually like auto resolve, I’m not hating on the game I just wish that it wasn’t obviously absurdly winnable or not based on very specific stats.
When I started playing WH 3 I thought I was so bad at the game because autoresolve could carry me way better than it could in WH 2. In WH 2 I rarely used autoresolve and I could comfortably win battles with low odds.
Yeah this needs to stop. I now play battles i could win with Auto if i see them as being fun / a challenge! i have lost a number i have fought instead of an easy Auto resolve. I do not think Auto resolve calculates reinforcements correctly.
@@whereswaldo6396If you play an armor-heavy faction, autoresolve should just let you win. For example, Aarbal's campaign is easy if you buy Chaos Warriors because their armor is so high that you can autoresolve every fight. However, if you play as an Ork faction, you have to fight manually because your units have almost no armor.
My entire problem with Total war warhammer is that AI doesn't do things that benefit it but it does things just to fuck the player over. If you somehow manage to not be in a war with a faction you have 110% certainty that someone will declare war on you even if it doesn't make sense for them to do it. Game is plenty of fun but this pisses me off immensely. I can play underpowered factions just fine and try to make them work if their units and lord look cool but this is inexcusable in a strategy game imho.
The AI is designed to lose to the player and just drag out their death animation as long as possible instead of going for its best shot at beating you.
Just as bad is the AI's desire to drag you into unfavorable wars by targeting your allies. Your faction could be #1 in power and all of your allies will be targeted. Makes having anything beyond a non aggression pact worthless.
YES this is the real issue here. The AI is cowardly, dishonourable and stupid; no matter what faction it is. Decaring war, sacking, then running when you show up and requesting peace. Standard procedure for the AI. They should spend more time making the AI immersive and believable (not necesarily "harder", though it might be a side effect of improving the AI).
This is a major issue for me. I love playing somewhat diplomatic, in particular things like vassalization and confederations, and in particular I love playing factions against each other. TW has allowed players to do this before, for example with the pope's crusades in Medieval 2 or with Cao Cao's mechanics in Three Kingdoms. Warhammer 3 has zero incentive to play factions against each other, nor to vassalize factions outside of the factions that kind of have to vassalize factions like the WoC, and they mostly get vassals by smashing stuff like regular. A defensive ally is pretty much as reliable as a vassal lord in terms of what it can do, and much more potent. I'm fairly sure the AI for vassal faction gets dumbed down even further, especially on legendary lords. If WH3 is put down, I really hope they touch up the AI to make it more interesting, and maybe even spruce up the diplomacy a bit, give it a bit more flourish, perhaps add more options like tributary states giving you a big sum of money per turn but still being independent from you, or puppet states that you basically control in all but name: they have a seperate income that you as a player can use to build up their lands, the player can recruit troops for them to complement their own weaknesses and they cannot do any diplomacy at all, automatically following the player in anything they do.
I started up a legendary Arbaal campaign last night and went for a little over 20 turns. In that time I ended up with 4 solid legendary lord traits (Belekor, Sigvald, Crone and Malus), multiple powerful blue items (Talisman of Preservation, Armor of destiny, etc.), tens of thousands of gold with a positive income, every hero on the roster with all the legendary heroes just around the corner and to top it off an army of Chosen and Skullreapers, which for some gods forsaken reason you get at tier 3 (with turn 1 global recruitment because why not). I fought like 2 battles manually and only because they wanted to kill like a single unit. For a faction called the "Challengers of Khorne" there is ironically absolutely no challenge. You just teleport directly on top of some half-dead marching army and that's that. I've done a Skulltaker and Golg campaign and had pretty much the same results. What happened to earning things in games? Everything is just handed to you like you're a child and I honestly don't know how you can enjoy these campaigns beyond turn 20 if you're not a child. The characters are so cool and the faction mechanics are pretty interesting but without anything to really unlock or earn it all feels totally pointless. Why can't the legendary heroes be something you have to really work towards? To unlock Skar Bloodwrath it says I had to recruit ONE Skullreaper and get some kills with it... like what? And the funniest part is I recruited chosen instead and still completed it lol. The game is just so stupidly easy with nothing meaningful or interesting to work towards, it's a real shame. I imagine older total war games were actually about strategy, so I can sympathize better with the historical folks now.
Arbaals teleporting needs to have some improvements considering its power. As it is, you can teleport to a Legendary Lord, declare war, kill him, blow up the nearby city to give yourself a Blood Host ally and as you have an ally the AI will not attack you 1v2. Next turn you teleport out leaving the Blood Host to continue the assault. My first campaign deleted Sylvania before turn 10 - my second deleted most of their territory in 4 turns, and I chased their last army for the next 10 to end it.
I think biggest Warhammer flaw is destroying great feature from Rome II and Attila. Strategy on strategic map. There was road for armys, right? You had corridors, like dense forests and mountains was walls, or you were forced to stick to the roads on desert, etc. Cities sometimes had stronghold feautre, liek Milan - you can`t go around, you must take it, or spend 10 turns more to move around it. Warhammer has what, 3 empire forts and Catay gates. Thats all from strategy positioning. I want that back, cause now, even mountains are useless when some factions can go "underground".
@youtubedeletedmynamewhybother im sure theres a way to balance game and fun without destroying half of game by taking away strategy from strategy-tactic game.
I like how you presented your evidence. For me personally, I really hate it when you’re able to end your campaign like 20 turns in. Typically in total war the beginning of the game is the hardest part and it only gets easier the more you play, which should be the exact opposite. The bigger issue in my opinion is this stupid fucking reverse difficulty curve that really builds up your campaign fatigue. I don’t like to struggle for 30 turns then become god and challenge the rest of the braindead ai trying to convince them to convince them to stop existing.
Yea one of the biggest problem with this game is everything they throw at you at the late game is not any harder than the early game, it's just more tedious. With most campaign, what you see in the first 20 turn will likely be what you see for the rest of the campaign. If you get through the early game smoothly then at around midgame you just know you can't lose anymore and the victory objective become more of a grind than a challenge.
They need to allow the comps to empire build and form powerful blocks again like the did in WH2. It would go a long way to making post turn 30 campaigns not feel like a cake walk.
That's why they need a longer term campaign objective, like WH2 had in the Eye of the Vortex. I'd actually love to see that refreshed and added to IE as an optional objective (like end game crises). If not that, then hopefully we'll get a proper narrated chaos endgame (End Times, with the chaos realms added to the map and portal travel/invasions?) and a sort of realm divide mechanic between order and chaos. Some big scripted battles and perma-death for defeated LLs as the scenario progresses...
i don't think skulltaker or golgfag are meant to be power creep , it's just that skulltaker's cape was more likely than not designed before the bloodhost changes (which, poor planning but makes sense) and golg's rewards are either too much by accident or because of a bug, because he does get resources insanely faster than the other ogres
And it looks like the patch coming tomorrow they are adjusting Golg's contracts and other stuff so they are adjusting him. Not much on Skulltaker yet maybe the next patch. 🤷
Another thing to look at are the actual reviews themselves. Most of the negative reviews for the new DLC (all lords) are about the splash attack bug, which has skewed all of the reviews downward. If CA was trying to earn more money back with this DLC, they absolutely screwed themselves over by pushing the unnecessary (and broken) splash attack change with the DLC.
I think it's realistically impossible to find a satisfying balance between "underwhelming" and "overpowered" insofar as new content goes and, honestly, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of powercreep. Personally, I don't think powercreep is all that impactful as far as quality is concerned, what is important is that the content is designed in such a way that the player wants to take advantage of the full roster and the entire range of mechanics made available to them, the true loss is when the player is funnelled into playing a hyper-optimised game while ignoring 90% of what the faction has to offer.
Part of that has to be put on the player though. I feel like people are sometimes too focused on always doing the most optimal thing, on always making things too easy on themselves by seeking out the most overpowered builds that it would take gigantic effort to counter. You know the saying, given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game.
I would say that this is not entirely true. Imrik wasn't underwhelming on release and could get very powerful during the campaign, but his start was still difficult. I will add that repeating these kinds of starting scenarios is difficult, but definitely not impossible.
@@Tseims I think it's important to note that Imrik was / is free. It's much more difficult to convince people to pay for a difficult faction - if Belegar dropped today I think it'd get slammed for railroading the player into rushing Karak 8 Peaks (not to mention the lame unit additions)
The reason i think OoD wasn't as well received as ToD is because, both what legend said, but also because it may have had the same amount of content on paper, but it wasn't as much MEANINGFUL content. Most of the faction rework stuff came down to a slight adjustments (ogrehaul), a fresh coat of paint (scrap), and stat changes (wurzag/skarsnik).
I agree but to be fair that's still a lot. I mean ToD was a beautiful release, but imo we gotta stop comparing everything going forward now with it. OoD is still a very solid DLC and I would never go as far as to call it bad( like a lot of other players). I mean we should expect more of these free race updates etc, but not everything has to be as fantastic and gamechangin as Thrones of Decay
@@giorgaras1851 I don't think the unit strength is the issue as much as it is what they do for the faction. Adding a shield to Blorcs is a fucking modded unit. Wrathmongers and skullreapers are just the same elite infantry khorne already has. It's boring as shit.
I spent a decade on the World of Warcraft forums, 25,000 posts deep before I grasped sanity and quit posting years ago, and that post was absolutely 100% correct about negative feedback loops, and happy posters don't saying anything. People will polish CAs nob as a reflex to the nonstop negativity found on the forums. Hyperbolic negative reactions encourage hyperbolic positive reactions fueled by frustration at the incessant onslaught of the former. It is almost NEVER the opposite in any gaming community I've ever observed. The negative posters fail to see that and always think they're speaking truth to power, thus fueling the lopsided cyclical hate to love war you see all across the entirety of the internet concerning any beloved fantasy setting.
That being said, love your content! lmao It continuously brings me back to TW and WH after thousands of hours playing casually This is just a pet peeve topic of mine
typically though i find the bootlickers to be much worse ppl than the ones complaining about factual issues in the game. Yes there are lunatics on the negative side too. But if you ever want to have a disingenuous honey suckle go and hang around bootlickers for Any company. Theyll rot your brain rapidly.
@@masondouglas99 not really like elspeth is strong but she isn't broken, and people really like her. I don't think the audience wants skulltaker to be the new standard(though every now and then it's fun) they just want the campaign to not be totally miserable(like wulfhart or wh2 norsca).
They probably complain because the Lord is either a copy of another better one or that said Lord comes with 3 units for the price of a full game and those units are more powerful than the Lord they come with, and the fact that the AI uses all the broken units while you can't unless you buy them which was a huge issue while I was playing where the skaven would come at me with snipers, nukes and mini guns yet when I play skaven I get hamsters with daggers and bows, the main issue for me personally was that the DLCs felt patched on and could/should have been there day 1 but instead they "fix" broken units by adding more broken units while neglecting the other stuff which no-one uses, my personal favourite was the orcs but explain why my orc has a dragon yet I have to buy a DLC to get dragons, or why that the orc who specialises in abominations like idols and trolls doesn't get them without paying but a dude like grimgore being played by a AI avoids the one thing he's build around just to shove in my face "haha I got idols and you don't" Edit - if I didn't explain my point well then TLDR = why add copies of other Lords/units with Better stats when they couod take the time to make unique ones which synergies with their respective lord and not so much with others, it would make stuff feel unique, grimgore invading with stacks of black orcs and heavy weapons, skarsnik with a swarm of beasts and spiders and the mountain orcs coming with monsters and abominations, but instead they all feel the exact same and every faction just copies the others of the same type, orcs all get black orcs because the rest suck, the empire just rush steam tanks why use anything else, skaven? Just spam the absolutely broken sniper and mortars, there's no exception where the best unit for this lord isn't the best unit in general, I haven't played since WH2 since I no longer have a PC but I put a lot of time into it even if it wasnt my favourite but I also really enjoyed Rome 2 as much as people love to hate it factions felt unique in that and each had their strengths and weaknesses and it was the patching of those weaknesses that made it so fun to me
clearly this isn't true, thrones of decay was very well received and as shown in the video had very good reviews. the lords in thrones all felt incredibly powerful but skulltaker is just too far in this dlc and they did undercook gorbad relative to most other lords. it goes to show that people aren't annoyed at having powerful lords like in thrones, but they need the quality of campaign mechanics on top of that
Powercreep would be a problem if AI could pull it off. And regarding DLС in general, my opinion is that the Empire and Dwarves are more popular than Ogres, Orcs and Demons... It’s so simple and banal - I personally played with them for 400+ hours for a total of 10 hours.
One of reasons why on IME release Katarin was my longest campaign was because it was challanging even on Hard/Normal difficulty. (Or was it VH/Normal? I don't remember anymore). But point is, it was difficult and me playing relativelly slow with ballanced armies didn't cause me having OP armies. I played 220 turns of that campaign and there was still challange, but it was on other side of the map. Somehow Slaneesh managed to vasalize entire ulthuan. Insane. But I got bored of the campaign because the ulthuan was only good challange on the map, but it was far away.
If it's busted and fun, there isn't a problem. If it's busted and boring, then it needs fixing immediately. I think Skulltaker is incredibly boring. His entire campaign just becomes a grindy mess. Yes, it is a steamroll, but if it take 15 minutes to tap auto resolve, them it's just boring. Golg is fine because it's just strong but you still need to play the game. The economy is stupid strong, but he can't fart out infinite armies.
Yea for example espelt is a legendary lord that is very strong but require you to play the game to some extend. Khorne is just a braindead faction by default and having a legendary lord that heavily lean toward that just make every single battle you fight become the same thing. Even if you don't cheese skulltaker you still basically can't loose with him, he's good if you want to have a power trip campaign and smashing things but it does gets old really fast, even taurox need more thinking than him.
Thrones of Delay featured Empire and Dwarfs, on top of that it was long-anticipated Malakai, with a bonus of a Gotrek and Felix rework, making Malakai's campaign one of the most lore-friendly ones. Whilst Elspeth was literally equipped to kill Vlad, something many people (somehow, despite him having nothing but crapstacks for 30 turns) struggle with. Lets not forget about Gelt and Franz rework either. There was no way that dlc wont sell like hot cakes, and it was actually good, great even. There was also no way this dlc will sell as well, or any other that follows, simply because nothing is half as popular, even put together, as Franzman and Dörfs. Not even Nagash will sell this well, unless it'll be paired with Boris Todbringer full-fledged LL. Or maybe-maybe if that 'super-dlc' plan is still a thing and they will rework all undead and give out like a dozen characters including Thanqoul to finish off the game. Expect next dlc to have even less sales, because aside Nathan (Great Book of Grudges), very few people care about Slaanesh. By far the least popular and least represented Chaos God. Nkari's IE campaign start being what it is also didnt help. And if it'll be paired with elves, or even Cathay... I dont expect those to sell like hotcakes either. But who knows, maybe my impression of ppl being tired of Cathay and not wanting to play elves, just kill them, is wrong. Maybe China market and Wukong hype for Monkey King would save that dlc.
@@kakaomilch5905 Some people play for a power trip campaign. There's nothing wrong with that. The power creep just means there should be better difficulty settings to allow challenge for people, even on strong lords.
@@squashiejoshie200000 The settings should mean CA balances the game for the middle ground of players and powercreep enjoyers can get their mindless power trip by adjusting the settings rather than having it baked in courtesy of CA. Then, the rest of us can enjoy a modicum of strategy in our strategy game.
I think the game is just too easy. Plain and simple. I've been playing every Total War game at the maximum difficulty possible since OG Rome and the point where we came is just pathetic. Empire, Attila, WH2 I loved these games because they were really challenging. I miss them
To be honest there was a dude that beat Skarbrand's campaign on Legendary at turn 8. In a single turn he burnt from lustria all the way to Naggaroth all the way to the chaos wastes stopping close to the badlands. That is just what Khorny boys do.
I wish campaigns had more direction. I get that its a sandbox and you can make your own goals, but for me, I like to feel like I'm working towards something instead of an arbitary number of settlements taken and then you can stop playing. Would like to see more faction-specific quests and final battles
I would like to see factions spawn in their lore-accurate locations next to their lore-accurate enemies so that you can actually pick a fight with someone and design your armies to fight that faction, instead of being dumped in a mosh pit of 20 different factions no matter where you start.
@ Thats what I'm saying the victory conditions often feel arbitrary and boring. It would help if they were more thematic and contained more quests instead of "30 more cities and I stop playing"
@@gonkdroid9325 there's a REALLY AWESOME mod out there worth looking into; it adds multiple new victory conditions for each legendary lord unique to their own motives/goals, with several 'short victory' conditions and a long victory one where each gives some kind of significant buff for the rest of the run so you have a reason to do them all beyond "I was told to"
Decided to give Karl Franz a shoot last week. Got a Long Victory out of nowhere by turn 60. Having short campaigns take 30 turns and long ones 60-80 is ridiculous. By turn 60 you are barely seeing T4 stuff running around.
Personally I have never ended a campaign before turn 100-120 unless I genuinely dislike the faction or some mechanic of the campaign. But I have no idea what the norm is.
@@axeljoelsson2245 In Coop we also play like 100+ turns. Endgame crisis and if we beat that we call it a victory. Because nothing could win anymore at that point.
Skulltaker, the end game threat we've been waiting for and Gorbad being out of Black Crag ruins his campaign cause its Grimgor 2.0 and nothing truly new
Tbh i think it depends on the individual, i like TWW as a casual game and dunking on the ai with some overpowered shit is super fun to me (Also i don't know enough about the game mechanics to snowball within 30 turns but i imagine abusing those would make the game boring)
Completely removing the upkeep cost for blood hosts was a mistake. It's still way too easy to get a massive collection of skulls with not enough things to spend them on. Golgfag's contract rewards need to be severely reduced. In my campaign his army is walking around with 30k meat and I have about 2mil gold. Havent even completed short campaign victory yet
As someone who didn't play any of these three factions prior to this DLC, I was excited for it to give me an excuse to check them out. So far I've only messed with Gorbad but he's pretty fun and it doesn't seem like they did a bad job from that perspective even if the balance is a bit off.
A small point, DLCs do pay for the rework, but minor reworks are not always paired with a DLC for their faction. Case in point : The Silence and the Fury that came with a minor dwarf rework and free LL, but had literally nothing related to them in the DLC itself.
That's a good thing. You should look at some campaigns and have a breeze with them and others feel like they really challenge you by having to engage in every mechanic to survive. Do you want to turn your brain off or or think every piece of action carefully? The choice is nice.
I play hardcore on every game... expect Total War. Me, and I think a lot of people, just don't like how blatantly the AI cheats. It's immersion breaking.
get the mod where it gives you +5 public order penalty and set the combat cheats to 0 for AI. That way you can play on very hard an it is really okay. Sometimes the start is hard. But if you handle that you will manage the rest. Most factions have a pretty good start. But some are crazy hard... But thats more because of the position than the difficulty.
i dont think they expected you to cheese Skull taker's mechanic in the way that you did. i think they expected you to wipe stuff out and move on. i think the solution would be to nerf the amount of skulls they you get from lords after killing them or whatever
@@khankhomrad8855 QA can't test for things they don't think to test. I was watching Enticity's Skulltaker stream and nobody thought of farming lords. We all just thought that Skulltaker's cloak should only apply on Skulltaker's army instead of all armies.
@@squashiejoshie200000 If you have a mechanic that incentivises killing lords, and you know that Legendary Lords respawn indefinetly, you have to account for this case. Like someone else said, if no one at QA thought about this then they aren't doing a good job as testers.
It does. Factions that were left alone and didn't received reworks/dlcs are now so below the curve, it's ridiculous. Beastmen were everyone's punchbag, but almost every dlc brought something to them EVEN IF IT WASN'T DIRECTLY FOR THEM, and now they are much better off than Vampire Coasts, for example.
beastmen already got their rework, it made them a million times better than before, the main problem is that the ai cant utilize the faction the same as the player can. taurox gets killed in every campaign i ever played, yet when playing yourself he can kill pretty much anyone, he was basically the prototype to skarbrand in gameplay
@@biowiener7825 Beastmen cant recruit new armies from their 'camp cities', (aside their LL) nor are able to make any new ones afaik. Its a bug and they havent fixed it since Wh2.
Yet to watch through the whole thing, but I think power creep is a serious issue in many games that have active development during their lifespan. You see this in twwh3, but also games like league of legends, where each champion is released overtuned and packed with more and more tools. I draw that compariaon because both games use the same approach - release new content stronger than existing content to make it more enticing for players to interact with and spend money on, and update existing content to the power level of new content over time through reworks. This works as an immediate solution to the power disparity between content pieces, but introduces a different issue. Before I continue on whqt that issue is and why it is, I would like to contrast this approach with helldivers 2, which went the opposite direction of nerfing everything to an intended power level, causing a lot of issues for that game - partially because ganers have been conditioned to expect power creep, but also because the intended power level wasn't in the right spot which was exacerbated by bugs affecting player powerthat took a long time to fix. Now, the issue with the rolling increase of power over time in games like twwh3 and lol is that, while the relative power level between content pieces is roughly in line, the overall power level increases, which fundamentally alters the game experience. And that's why I brought up helldivers 2, because the community outrage, review bombing and dwindling player numbers, the developer ended up caving and increased player power level accross rhe board by a huge amount in one go. And this fundamentally altered the game's experience, just like in games like twwh3 that increase player power through powercreep over a longer period. Just in this case the contrast showed how impactful this increase in power level actually is on the game experience. And that is the core issue with powercreep in my opinion. Not that new content is stronger than existing content, that can be corrected in a reasonable manner through reworks. But rather that the overall power increase changes the game fundamentally. The longer this goes on, the more a game plays different from the original release you bought. And the game's design decisions that made sense back then, make less and less sense for the game as the game changes more and more. I believe it is possible to stick to the intended power level, and keeping the game's design coherent with it. I believe a game will be much better as a result if it manages to do this. And I believe the cornerstone required for succeeding in this is a proper definition of the player's intended power level, that then all content can be tuned to. I think games 'evolving' over time (the powercreep component of that, not the content richness) is a bad thing, as they rarely evolve with a clear, intentional design behind it and instead just lose their coherence. Okay, now I'm ready to watch the video :p
I don’t have a problem with powerful lords. I have a problem with them not doing anything to old races and them just falling behind. I also have a problem with them deciding to cut out realms of chaos content but then giving the same amount of content in the IE campaign. If you don’t have to do a bunch of crap but the dlc still takes the same amount of time and then you get the same content you would have got minus the ROC crap. I’m glad they stopped worrying about ROC but that was because I thought they would put more effort into IE. CA just aren’t a good company. That’s the part that needs to be accepted.
Once I got an understanding of Golgs mechanics, it's unbelievably easy to steam roll on Very Hard. First 15 turns I didn't even realize camp units were free upkeep. That's insane. After I figure that out it's just a game of pumping out camps and running around the map obliterating anyone everyone with tier 4 plus stacks despite running a deficit. It's definitely noticeable how powerful DLC factions are.
To me the biggest problem is the combination of player power creep and AI factions being completely passive to the point they’re just waiting for the player to come conquer them For me a power fantasy is being in a bad situation but having so many tools at my disposal that I can resolve the situation however i want. If i can win with so little effort that i dont even need to use my OP abilities, then i get blno enjoyment out of using them. Why use your Ikit nuke if the AI will walk into rattling gun fire and you win the battle just as quickly I think the changeling is the worst Total War campaign ever created. As soon as you start the campaign you’ve won, the AI will never be able to eliminate all of your armies and cults because the faction is so OP. But that is only if you’re playing as the changeling. If the AI is in control of the changeling it will simply sit there and do nothing because the AI is not capable of using the faction mechanics
Really happy and appreciative of these more discussion based videos and content explorations you’ve been doing the last few weeks. Hope you keep up with them and continue to enjoy it!
My preference would be for new lords to introduce new and significantly interesting mechanics. However, most mechanics introduced with new lords are just reskins or slight modifications - not particularly interesting. Unfortunately, it is very much easier to make flashy and numerically more powerful mechanics than it is to make interesting ones. Furthermore, if people are buying the DLC it is likely either because they enjoy the race, lore about the lord, or the flashy mechanics/units shown. Interesting mechanics are more difficult to show and therefore sell.
I did an Arbaal campaign after a year of not playing and after turn 35 I got tired how passive the AI was. Yet Skulltaker still snatched up a quarter of Lustria. I added a mod to make the AI more aggressive and by turn 65 I got a notification that he gained a hegemony over the Island. It’s turn 105 and he’s in an intercontinental conflict with the Cult of Pleasure and N’Kari who has taken all of the High Elf island with Be’lakor’s help. It’s fucking insane and I love it
I think that the problem is Older factions have no interesting and interactive campaign mechanics, for example - high elves, dark elves, Lizardmen, Bretonnia, Norsca(xD) and even new ones - Cathay, Kislev.(imo) I would've put Dwarfs there as well, but The new updates made them feel fresh again, but still they lack any lord to lord unique mechanics. apart from Malakai and Thorek? Of course Skulltaker is absolutely stupid broken OP and needs a nerf, but again will the average player be able to exploit the bounty/skull mechanic? Being a single player only enjoyer I do not really care about lords nerfs since Im not going up against a level 50 lord on turn 30, nor will the AI make doomstacks. I prefer the game on Hard - hard difficulty with no stat boosts. But coming back to the main point. I believe that older factions getting much needed reworks, tweaks, additions will make the newer factions look and feel less power creeped.
I tend to just play on normal all around because higher difficulty usually doesn't mean smarter AI. It's just arbitrary buffs and detriments. To your other point, sometimes we want to be Taurox or Skarbrand and run wild. Sometimes we want to build a massive faction with diversity in our armies. And yes, sometimes we want to start off in a bad way and test ourselves. So we need some factions that are overwhelming and some that are underwhelming. Personally, I think letting players choosing horde factions start wherever they want would be amazing for both solo and multi-player games.
i don't worry too much about powercreep, i care more about each faction having something special that makes them interesting to play. outside of SFO which does wonders for this, many factions i don't even consider playing because it's far better to just play my favourite of that race and confed the other lords, a good example of this is High Elves where i never even consider playing anyone but Alith and Eltharion because their faction mechanics are really cool and i can just get the other lords under a far better faction than their own, like who doesn't want stalk and teleport stance on every army.
Concerning the rushed stuff, there are a few cities where they forgot to implement the maps (the new region south of cathay, you can go there fast with Gold Order). If you attack the city it s just a flat empty map.
I play on the same settings as you (L/VH/Max AI cheats/No end game crisis), and with never have playing Khorne before I finished a Skulltaker campaign victory on turn 50 with controlling half of the map. I feel like the power creep is a little out of control with certain faction lords compared to others. I would like to see forgotten lords brought up to some of the more powerful lords. My favorite factions are wood elves and vampire coast, with vampire coast needing a rework more than anything. Where is the love for Aranessa? Maybe a campaign mechanic like Golg's could bring some new life to the vampires and let us play more like pirates. Why does a dark elf lord have a better pirate campaign than the actual pirates? To make it clear I am happy with the state of warhammer 3, I just personally would like to see some of the forgotten lords/factions get something new.
Or factions brought closer to their lore. The Vampire Counts as a classic example, their factions should focus more on the gentleman Vampire(diplomacy) or the bloodstarved beast(lost to the blood lust) aspects rather than how they currently are.
Im a normal/normal player and my fav campaign in the game is Katarin. Enemies on all sides but some room to make allies and some variation in enemies depending how Drycha acts or how Azag progresses. And after an initial struggle you're in position to snowball. I think the problem with a guy like Skulltaker (to me) is you're pretty much snowballing from turn one and the exploits for his mechanics are almost -too- obvious. Legend took it to the extreme for his Skulltaker save(as we would expect him to!) but even i who tends to avoid that stuff kept a couple guys alive to farm. In regards to people mentioning how bad the AI is now one problem thats risen up is its almost like there's too many LL on the map now. Back in 2 you had AI factions like Grimgor who would generally get really strong cause he had a bunch of jobbers to beat up or confederate, but now so many factions have LL's with strong initial armies or the ability to quickly recover that you end up with a bunch of smaller guys that the player just rolls over when you get to them.
Personally, I don't enjoy campaigns like Skulltaker's, but it doesn't spoil my enjoyment of other, more challenging campaigns - and why would it? It's a sandbox game, play it the way you like, if you want to tryhard Belegar, great, if you want to cheese it with Skulltaker, great, I don't get what's the issue. It seems like this whole discussion is centered around people who don't like it when others are having fun in a different way.
problem is, there are more and more campaigns that are braindead easy like skulltaker, and fewer campaigns that are like belegar. hell, even belegar isn't all that difficult anymore. that is thhe problem, we have like 5 difficult campaigns left in this game
@@Dr.AvenVon There are difficult campaigns in the game? I am not so sure. I think the Warhammer Total War is stupid brain dead even on very hard difficulty. I've had way more of a challenge with older Total War Games like Medieval 2 Total War, personally it feels like more "modern" Total Wars are stupid brain dead easy that I just don't feel any challenge with any of the AI. They really need to rework the AI.
Regarding the DLC being less successful, it's not only the matter of the races being less popular, but also quite similar to each other. In Thrones of Decay we had an Empire faction focussed on magic and war machines, a dwarf faction focused on war machines and slayers, and a demon faction. In this DLC we got 3 factions focusing on... smashing things. Which is appealing to some poeple, while not appealing at all to others.
An experiment. Pick any faction and go against the Chaos Dwarfs and then fight Bretonnia.Which of the two are you most likely to try next? Yeah, exactly. And I'm not even talking about replayablility. You get sick of playing an outdated faction so fast you are not touching it for a couple of months.
Honestly, Markus Wulfharts campaign on release was my favourite WH campaign of all time. It was actually challenging, starting from the very first battle you had to fight, which was basically impossible without cheesing (kiting with war wagons).
I don't care about powercreep. Played as Gorbad and I really enjoyed the challenge of it. Had no clue which way to expand towards first and now I'm playing Skulltaker and just enjoying the Khorne playstyle of hyper aggression. I've seen some people complain about the imbalance of factions and needing to ban factions from a head to head campaign, but not every game needs to be balanced to fit a competitive playstyle. And as you say, there are variety of lords with different power levels, just choose the one that fits ur preferred difficulty.
My biggest problem is that a ton of campaigns offer no more challenge by turn 15-20… instead of pushing it back, CA made it so you can recruit everything earlier. AI is a spectator in this world, it does not expand, it does not confederate, it just waits for the player to kill it.
Are you playing on legendary? If not, and the game is too easy, try turning up your difficulty. Otherwise, you can look into mods if you want to keep playing.
@ I play in Very hard, I don’t like the limitations on saves and camera that legendary has but the few times I tried it it didn’t change anything to the passive AI. AI was still the same I was just more nerfed as a player, it didn’t make it smarter.
I just want to have fair and competitive multiplayer campaign with my friends with any faction I will choose :(. If they make a faction at least close in power to each other, this game will be a blast to play with friends. Now, If your skill is similar, just the more powerful faction dominates.
It’s less power creep and more “we’re finalizing all races to be viable, but can’t rework 10 years of content all at once, so we’re starting with the Warhammer 1 races, and working our way forward.” Let’s just be patient and let them work their way through them all.
Agreed, buffing what sucks is always better than nerfing what's strong. Warhammer 3 is a single-player game first and foremost. The majority of players have always been single player campaign not multi-player
Man all these races were “viable”. They just weren’t interesting in what they were doing on the campaign map. Now they’re more interesting but destroy literally any adversity and challenge on the campaign map. What’s the point in playing a 4x strategy game if none of your decisions actually matter and it’s more just fighting battles, collecting a resource, and making future battles even easier to win? It’s a boring game loop, and leads to what is supposed to be a grand strategy game feeling effectively over a few hours in.
In my opinion there are 2 major problems in the game right now... First: The most of the factions from warhammer 1 and 2 are falling behind the newer factions extremly. For example Norsca, Vampire Counts/Cost, Bretonnia, and Tomb Kings are a joke to Khorne. Khorne was overpowered before this update and now they are even stronger. They have 3 different LLs and everyone of them is vibing the floor with all of the other LLs... The second: We wait like 9 to 10 months for a new DLC and it feels like they didn't play it more than half an hour to test it... The game never ever made any problems for me and now its constantly crashing. I played it with around 20 mods at once and it never crashed. Now I am playing without any mods and it keeps crashing all the time. A friend of mine has the exact same problem. We allways played multiplayer together and now no one of us can play the game at all and the steam discussions are full oh crash reports. Some factions lost there ambush stands completly, the chaos dwarfs are fucked up because when ever you try to start the last battle the game is crashing, splash attacks were fucked up, a lot of people can not even load the game, there are a lot of bugs and some mechanics like the one of skulltaker are completly broken. Some other conditions like the victory conditions are not well designed. For example Arbaal can win his campaign in absolut easy mode very quickly. Golgfag on the other hand has to complete 25 contracts, if you are lucky and you just need around 8 turns to fullfill a contract and you never skip a turn without a contract, you need 200 turns just to complete this part of your victory conditions...
Skulltaker is just plain broken, after a few upgrades it's an endless unstoppable cycle of bloodhosts. Skarbrand is ironically the most sane Khorne experience right now. I'm a fellow cheese enjoyer but I like it when it's earned.
@@clamclosia How is Arbaal overpowered? I have only played Skulltaker so far, and yeah, he's super broken lol...stopped playing after getting the bloodhost spawing bonus.
@@KorsAir1987 Homie is a UNIT haha he’s insanely powerful especially with some defeat traits. Great bonuses to non daemon units. His teleport mechanic lets him farm skulls easy and keep his rage up. Khorne in general is very strong. Skulltaker is by far the most broken in comparison though.
I agree with legend This dlc + patch needed a bit more time in the oven The powercreep is player powercreep and doesn't matter for the players that dobt want to play that way
I'd rather have campaign AI that doesn't turtle in garrison-having capitals and actively avoid field battles 90% of the time than power creep, but if I have to smash my head against virtual brick wall, I want a helmet, so I'd say that in my case, my enjoyment of the power creep comes from that.
I really enjoyed marcus wulfharts campaign its a shame Im in the minority. Factions that are weaker like belegar and marcus are very fun and interesting. Mind you they're not my cup of tea every time but thats why you have nearly 100 legendary lords to play as.
@@theonlyexclusive4295 yeah man I believe it .. I created a bunch of 'blood host factories' by just constantly stacking settlements every turn/other turn and I'm guessing you probably did the same, if I tried harder I could probably make 60+ per turn it's just exhausting to keep track of at that point lol
Arbal is nuts honestly, I managed to brute force my way to confederating skarbrand and skulltaker by turn twenty three on my first campaign with him. Granted it was only normal difficulty cause I was just casually playing his campaign but still. Arbal can just show up basically wherever he wants and tear things up.
So we have had a new DLC. Legend has declared himself happy (happier) with the current status of TWWH3. I’ve been waiting for the usual Legend Total War live stream. It has not happened. From this, I conclude that Legend: • Is making enough from disaster videos to keep him happy (looks like your average is back up to 80K?) • Does not need Superchats • Has found a way to have a great balance between being a new dad and having a RUclips account Hope those are true, happy Xmas
I can't imagine running all night streams is great when you have a kid, it might occasionally be convenient to have a parent up all night, but Legend being in Oz means he streams at absurd times locally to get the best global reach. I imagine previously it was basically that disasters were his "day job" and streams were his "night job".
The anti player bias is way too strong still, I get that on higher difficulties they should be challenging, but the ai makes such illogical decisions just to sabotage / randomly ruin your game it is way too frustrating I can be 4 provinces away and none of my armies nearby, yet they’d still think I’m their “main threat”, trespass their armies for 5 turns straight just to suddenly declare war and burn down a random level one settlement, then immediately leave after my armies show up, cowardly and more annoying than challenging. Especially on higher difficulties they just beeline towards the player for absolutely no reason I have a campaign that I might send to legend because the new (really strong) DLC lords are so unfun and brutal to play against it feels like a punishment just for playing the game….. I do hope others are enjoying the new DLC and lords, because playing any other faction in the old world right now is like legendary+ difficulty
I like powercreep when the other Lords of that faction are also reworked and buffed, as then you have an interesting decision. When Elsbeth came out with a Gelt and Franz rework, choosing one of the trio meant giving up major gameplay differences and buffs from the other two. Once Yuan Bo came out (for example), the other Cathay factions became redundant, because picking them gave up so much and gained nothing. With Yuan Bo you get: 1) Better research 2) Higher hero caps and levels 3) Choices in campaign location 4) Unique faction-wide buffs in the compas 5) The ability to eventually befriend every faction in the game (through Merchant towns) 6) The ability to borrow neutral armies, then steal their heroes (through the immortal characters ability) 7) Faction-wide army buffs (through Fortress towns) 8) Higher level mage lords for quick defensive army recruitment with better magic 10) Super heroes With other Cathay lords you get..........healing magic on one Lord a little earlier.........a small dipolomacy buff on a faction you'll probably need to kill to expand anyway..........a feeling of depression thinking of everything you gave up not picking Yuan Bo.
I like the new campaigns and would rather patiently wait to have the old races/factions be buffed up and reworked to modern standards rather than crabs in a bucket nerfing everything. I believe in the COD:MW2 philosophy of "if everything is overpowered, then nothing is!" 👍
Honestly, its a fantasy game so I really don't mind the power creep. Unless it's something where when you face the AI and it's a bad experience, then personally I think it's fine. I find it confusing too when taurox was heavily nerfed but then they introduce skulltaker (and skarbrand before that)?
I have always had this philosophy in games as I play them, watch dev cycles, read feedback. The problem isn't power creep and more what I will colloquially refer to as weakness creep. Characters/champions/factions/etc. Like Skulltaker are not that common in games, just look at SoC and ToD. Instead what people see is these new lords with new fun mechanics and compare them to other lords and realize the older lords suck. They perceive these new changes as power creep because they are new and don't think too critically about it. The primary issue I see (and one I feel) is that companies accidently or inevitably make older campaigns bad as they introduce new and cool things making it seem like there is creep when in actuality there may be little to none. Also the AI is bad so it doesn't even matter.
Regarding the decision you talk about starting around 26:00, I would argue that it was a decision to yet again sacrifice any kind of long-term strategy for the benefits of the financial quarter. Releasing an unpolished product undermines their efforts to repair their reputation and suppresses initial sales. Even if they do pick up more of the people who are interested in this content once it works properly over time, the people who were willing to wait that long will wait for a discount, sacrificing the profitability of the DLC over its lifetime.
What it's really funny is that some people want "balance" or "realism" in a game that's it's about FANTASY, hell they are nerfing Golg just when the ogres were fun! I mean, c'mon! This game has characters that supposedly can kill entire armies by themselves in the lore, how the hell they can expect "balance"? This is a game about monsters, little humans and creatures that don't exist, if you want realism then play historical (that it's a big if) or change your franchise, but please don't remove FUN. And also, we must keep in mind that we still have a lot of bugs that remain in the game, even exported from the other Warhammers. Thank you Legend for the video.
equating balance and realism is a false premise, your entire post after that is nonsense. This video is about balance. Realism is an entirely different story. In Starcraft lore Protoss space ships are so big they can take on an entire zerg swarm by themselves, the game still has to be balanced so that you cant win the campaign or a multiplayer match by A-moving a single void ray. The same applies to warhammer. Just because the lore says something, doesnt mean its a good idea to make an unbalanced game. Many lords in the game are already way too strong, to the point where its easier to kill the entire army around them and win by army losses, because they are practically invulnerable and will beat an entire army by themselves. This is not fun to play with or against. So if your goal is fun, then you should agree there should be a reasonable amount of balance. Now, you can argue that in single player campaigns, its not bad if the player gets some overpowered functionality, but the AI can also get them, and it makes multiplayer campaigns unplayable when you cant beat the other guys army with anything you can make.
@@TheSuperappelflap The Power creep it's addressed in the comment as "balance". Many, of the people that play the game, don't want balance. That's the point, and I can argue that many players want even more overpower stuff, just check the amount of mods that offer a lot of overpowered units and you will see. I can understand your take about balance because of the issues you pointed out, or the game mechanics that can be frustrating, but in this case, I don't care about that. I want to build nonsensical units, I want to build doomswarms or doomstacks, and many players also want that. Like I wrote, this is a game in which magic exists, and you can annihilate entire armies of perfectly balanced troops with one character, where's the balance in that? We should remove it then? Put limits in the power level?. And also, who will determine what it's overpowered or not? The lore? the community feedback? ourselves?. It's very easy to say "ugh imbalance it's not fun this and that" but it's an futile exercise because there are different opinions and different playstyles, but when CA always try to balance something it removes all the fun, and excuse me, it's a game to have fun not save lives or to solve the meaning of life.. That's my two cents. Peace.
@@TheSuperappelflap You missed the entire point then, it's a game to have FUN no to have another job to play a game. But it doesn't matter you will never change my mind or myself change yours, so keep to your niche.
I personally only play LEs that I consider fun or interesting. Power is not the issue to me. However some leaders feel weak and their campaigns feel botched. Like balthazar gelt is a roll of the dice if you try to go to the empire. I tried it once and there was NOWHERE I COULD INVADE without declaring war on the empire.
I nearly sent a comment, mainly complaining about the overall quality of WH3 and it's DLC. Generally being 1 dimensional and not adding much to the game that already exists. Thrones of decay looked ok (I didn't buy it), and chaos dwarfs was good. This genuinely felt like an original faction, although, they could have (and should have) done more. Regardless, they're all way too expensive for what you get. Compare this DLC to rim world or stellaris, for example. You just get better quality material, in these games. Factorio is another example. Also Dwarf fortress provided essentially no "DLC", ever. I'd rather play that, and give Tarn some money instead. Obviously, I haven't bought this DLC. I've just made a judgement on what I've read or seen. If I want to play as skulltaker, I'll just play dwarfs. If I want to play ogres, well I have that (although I don't want to play them). To me orgres should have left as a neutral non-player faction, which can act as mercenaries, through diplomacy. I already have a bunch of greenskin legendary lords, so this is uninspiring. So I'd rather pay for a new game, which has new and improved mechanics, rather than an old game, which is charging for churning out the same old thing, over and over. I have to think hard about how I spend my money these days, even if just 10-30 dollars. So power creep is an issue, with poor design and play testing, but I think there are bigger issues with WH3 in general, which are reflected in this DLC. I'm only voicing my opinion, because I'm disappointed. I've given CA/Sega enough of my cash. This is a shame, because I believe the developers/designers genuinely care about this game.
I completely agree with you Legend. I looked forward to buy at least Skulltaker's dlc but I want a decent challange campaign so I really happy you made the tier list about the campaigns. :)
Maybe I'm in the minority. But I love the power creep lol. It has literally no effect on MP as they have their own balance, and lords are locked at like level 6 or whatever with zero talents points. And in single player the AI ain't doing any of the power creep cheese with sack farming or 100 blood hosts. I've played numerous campaigns now and Demons are all still getting smashed into the dirt. They are not abusing blood hosts, they are not abusing demon reforged tech plus lord traits and talents for permanent auto resolve armies. Power creep is there yes. But it's for the player to take advantage of and abuse or not. Don't like the demon reforged power? Don't tech into it and don't use lord traits for it. Then it stays meh and only get maybe 1-3 units revived. I'd like to add. That I am definitely a Normal/Normal enjoyer. Furthest I have gone is Hard/Hard and I am able to comfortably play there. But I love Normal/Normal lol
the point is, you like it but a lot of people want a challenge in their campaigns instead of steam rolling at turn 80. and that's hardly possible even on legendary for most factions. the mp community is also affected by such power creep when a +8 or -6 buff/debuff isn't enogh anymore and you have abilities on lords with +24 or -20 on 3 stats, summoning AND healing. it just breaks the game. and units also had to be banned or limited on mp tournaments for just beeing broken. same with the stupid magic system in the game where banning spells isn't a thing and the AI rediculously doesn't know how to use spells properly, while the player can whipe out all armies with a hero wizard.
@HomerJSimpson999 I totally get where you are coming from and I see all your points. I watch Legend for the single player and tons of Turin for the MP. So I know about all the player made bans he runs for MP. I know it isn't a fix people like, and people are either happy to do it. Or want the developers to do it. But it's almost like WoW to me. People wanted a challenge so they made self imposed rules for the game. If you don't want to Wizard cheese then don't? Don't want to abuse the Demon reforged mechanics? Skip all the techs and lord talents? I know it's not what everyone wants. Especially if you want the challenge. I don't always cheese every game. In fact I hardly use any cheese. And while yes I've won plenty of seige battles just using a wizard. I definitely use regular tactics most of the time and the wizard is just there tossing out random spells. Maybe this game needs something akin to a Hardcore mode similar to WoW or something I don't know. I just know some times I feel like super rofl stomping AI or using cheese every now and then. But I'd say 90% of the time I just play regularly without cheese or doomstscks ect. But I do enjoy having the option of just a good Old Comp Stomp fest
I agree, but I also understand were at the end of the trilogy. Theyre literally running out of stuff to implement. Bloodthirser lords are now truly unstoppable once they get the shield for all demons perk and a doomstack. I love that so much. Weve had so many nerfs. Just enjoy the game while it lives, I say!
The skulltaker thing is whatever, he's not so broken you can't play him normally, just don't do the infinite bloodhost thing. Honestly I found Golg worse because you can't play his mechanic without it being overturned, but that's being quickly fixed
Thats probably why its being fixed, now that you mention it. For all the op-ness and cheese, 'just dont do it' is a really effective tactic. But not doing contracts with Golgfang would kinda defeat the whole purpose of playing him.
I think race popularity have the massive impact on sale as people are saying theirs alot of other factors at play imo like the fact the dev talks showed off 90% of the units before the trailer so the hype to see those units buffered out, Or the fact the trailer was also poor and wasn't really cinematic at all, and then there's the fact they cut realms of chaos but added Zero narrative to OoD for example skulltaker there's nothing to do narratively other than his quest battle they focused or the wrong aspects of the characters, imagine if skull takers campaign was about his origin, the story from blood for the blood god, the Champion who got impaled on a spear and left to die but finds the strength to pull his mangled body off it and crawls into north into the realm of the gods then gets blessed by khorne to take his revenge on the descendants of the 8th Norscan tribes of Teiyogtei Khagan, and this is when hes a dark knight like character all black chaos armor shrouded in darkness, and then after you kill all 8 chieftains Khorne acends him to U'zhul skulltaker the bloodletter we all no, there's none of the, and even if they didn't wanna go all out like that they could've make the characters on the skull cloak generic characters you have to go hunt down but nope you already have their skulls smh thats the problem the lack of narrative story telling. And the same can be said for gorbad his campaign could've been about one of his many adventures but it isn't from what ive heard i'm not sure i've only tried khorne so far, and then you have the bugs and the unfinished animations SOC and TOD has more sync kills and unique animations than this dlc imagine that SoC smh imo that's why the central dlc isn't as well received.
3:00 the obvious solution was to make them the same building and cut the gold income in half. The greenskins have too many buildings competing for position in their minor settlements. They are basically all viable but the income building is always best so the raiding one can only ever be a mistake or a buff to an out of control winning campaign.
The good factions are the factions that do something differently. Golgfag's campaign is fun not because its easy/hard, but because it's different in a substantial way and can provide replayability. The reason why low-tier lord packs (such as grim/grave) aren't popular is because I feel adding a lord and like 3 units is basically the minimum. And with certain factions/certain lords there's clearly an attempt at depth. Chaos Dwarves are a great example IMO, of resource complexity adding another layer. Give the player more options to interact with the gameworld in meaningful ways beyond painting the map. Imagine if Grim/Grave brought with it a cult religious system alongside vampiric politics, or if K8P was just the beginning of a campaign, elevating belegar to be able to become high king or Skarsnik to do something crazy, like plant secret Goblin tunnels to every Karak. Just stuff that changes the world in tangible ways beyond conquest that give replayability and depth is what i want.
IMO the AI is ruining the game, at least for me, vassals and allies are useless, the enemy armies are just running through their territory, wasting multiple turns just to flank me, and after they lose some battles, they will just retreat to a major settlement and sitting there with 2 or 3 full stacks waiting for you to attack him, and when you are waging war on 2-3 fronts (because AI is hating you in general and attacking you in the same time from multiple angles). You must play every single battle, because you are outnumbered heavily, causing campaign fatigue early on
Some of my favorite campaigns include Belegar, Skarsnik, Orion, and Durthu (old school versions). They don’t have fancy mechanics or features, they just require us to play around certain limitations, resulting in interesting campaigns. Similarly, Wood Elves, Bretonnia, and the Vampire are some of my favorite factions, specifically because they have obvious holes in their rosters. You need to lean into those factions’ strengths to do well. This goes to show that sometimes limitations lead to a more interesting game. I’m not a fan of the recent trend of giving (newer) factions and lords strengths without obvious drawbacks. Ironically, it makes campaigns samey.
I've had an absolute blast playing Gorbad's campaign. I think the best way to fix powercreep is to make Legendary HARD. Like in WH2. Back then, if you were playing on Legendary you had like 20 dwarf stacks coming at you if you got the order tide mad. It was like end game crisis non-stop from about turn 100. On a lot of these campaigns in WH3, it feels like you can't lose no matter how hard you tried.
The teams never work on a singular release at a time. While working on this DLC, the team also allocate developers to future DLCs and patches and projects in general.
18:16 Those nerfs were at the start of Warhammer 3. There is always a chance CA has made a pivot in the design decision and now support power creeping. The nerfs were merely before that pivot happened.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I really wish they'd just buff some of the older "secondary" factions like Tomb Kings, Norsca, Vampire Coast/Counts/Wood Elves, Bretonnia, etc.
Updating older factions would be great.
Even just adjustments. Even a few more tech nodes.
New items maybe. Touched up skill trees.
HE need a boost too
Yeah they play badly compared to anything new here, it's sad because I love Vampire Counts new Nosferatu is making me want to play them, but they're so lame in game, outdated mechanics, Tech Tree, Lord/Hero Skills, animations... Everything! I mean I'd love Terrorgheist and Varghulf getting new animations, they just look sad compared to new units
The Vampire Counts are very strong. No buff needed. 💪 And you can use mods to buff fractions with new units and gameplay.
@giovannigio3764 they're strong because of old outdated mechanics, they need rework like yesterday
undoubtedly, meanwhile I need 15 turns to research a +3 control technology as lizardmen
so true.
As a fellow lizardmen player, man technology does not feel impactful in the faction. Especially considering how many techs they have
@@addisonchambers9256 I think there are a handful of early techs that are nice to pick up, but after that it is a chore. Getting all skink units poison attacks and vanguard is my fav.
@shorewall i did kinda forget that one, that one is a game changer especially for Tehenhauin who i play the most. Some of the economic ones are good too, but compared to others it's so taxing without much reward
lizards feel so friggen bad. Have they even had any updates since warhammer 2? The faction mechanic is so stupid too, 0 interaction, boring and minimal bonuses. also cant even get benefits for forever. God please CA fix some of the forgotten races.
Powercreep has a simple solution, it’s not glamorous or immediately profitable but going back and sprucing up old content and factions as free updates will buy huge amounts of longevity and good will
True. I prefer enriching the rest as opposed to nerfing.
A lot of factions could really use it too. Lizardmen, Tomb Kings, Vampire Coast, elves could use some tweaking. Old content is being left in the dust and its getting very noticeable.
"not immediately profitable"
Shareholders: then we want more powercreep please
@@AkaRystik I think the high elves are fine, but the wood and dark elves need work.
Tomb kings likewise feels.... fine?
They lack anything special compared to the newer DLC legendary lords, but they're at least on par with the base race lords.
You can also do like me when playing Skulltaker, do not take the trait that spawn Bloodhosts. He is still broken but at least you do not get swamped under 200+ Hosts this way.
When i had the trait in my first campaign every turn took ages to do the host stuff. I gave up on it when i had 216 Bloodhosts running around. (I achieved all victory conditions but tried to take the entire map but...)
And yes i prefer to play this game like a Civilization game where i auto resolve most stuff, because i am garbage at the actual battles. Give me a Victory on auto resolve that only a dead monkey would lose in the battle and i would lose it.
The ai being so scared to fight is what usually gives me the most campaign fatigue. I feel like once I have a decent army the ai just refuses to fight and makes me spend multiple turns chasing their armies around unless they outnumber me 2-3 stacks to 1
I usually have to recruit three armies and box one AI army into a triangle slowly so it cant run away from me. And then the AI just gives up and leaves the army standing there, forcing me to waste another turn walking at them with 1 or 2 of my armies, instead of taking its best shot at fighting one of my armies and maybe escaping afterward.
The campaign map army movement AI is designed just to waste the players time instead of trying to take good fights.
The AI in WH2 would occasionally team up with 2 or 3 stacks and send those at you but in WH3 it doesnt even do that anymore. It just runs around with single stacks trying to sack minor settlements and runs away when you send an army to fight them.
@ “it just runs around with single stacks trying to sack minor settlements” brother I actually despise this. I was chasing queek around with my back up army for 3-4 turns while just runs away and sacks the same 2 settlements. Another thing I’m sick of ai doing is standing just outside of my attack range then forcemarching half the map if I approach even in ambush stance
The game is just a race against the clock. You have to destroy your enemies before the next one shows up. In the meantime they refuse to actually fight. Unlike in AoW and CIV there are no rival empires, there are just whac-a-moles.
This is why I miss road construction from previous historical titles. We need a home territory movement buff to chase down sacking weasels.
I use lord baits
The ai ruins the game not power creep. I have seen repeatedly a faction will get like 20 settlements then send all its armies to stand around their capital and they will stay there as you take all their settlements. I have had factions declare war on me, have armies in move range of my cities, I will have no armies anywhere near them, and for 20 turns they will not attack. The ai is way to passive. Or like I watched thorek and ungrim send like 20 armies to wipe out clan more who has 5 settlements and it will take them like 40 turns, they are absurdly bad at the game. Even when they do attack they just sack and siege, they seldom actually take a settlement. Powercreep can't even compete. Also agree that early game greenskins is miserable now.
Completely incompetent AI that does not play the game and needs to cheat to put up any kind of fight(ignore FOV and FOW, the AI can see your ambush on the map and your stealthed units on the battlefield) is probably my #1 problem. The AI is either god tier in a way that feels bad (Cavalry use and spell dodging) or completely and totally incompetent in a way that feels worse (What's wrong with sending 20 units through the space of one? What's a vortex?)
Obviously, a perfect AI wouldn't be fun either(for most people anyhow ;) ), but starting from there and disabling or slowing down behaviors to dial back the difficulty is a much better approach than whatever hodgepodge they've got. A perfect AI dodges immediately, on very hard give a bit of random delay to how fast it reacts to represent a spectrum of good human reactions, it only misses the dodge like 10% of the time and is usually very quick about it, but it's not instant. On easy mode, they only see the spell to dodge it maybe 20% of the time, and if they do dodge, they start several seconds later.
Stat boosts are not **difficulty** modifiers.
It's either "too passive" or everyone just gangs up on you like you're a rabid dog needing to be put down.
No in-between with that AI
Problem is the mediocre AI is made worse by giving the player so much power that it can't cope with.
Like what's the AI gonna do against dozens of bloodhosts and new lords that can solo armies?
@RoulicisThe I wish they would gang up on me, I long for the 70+ settlement fully confederate dark elf/skaven attacks from all sides like from warhammer 2
Mods and setting the difficulty higher with end game crisis helps.
I honestly think the pacing of campaigns in 3 is the main issue.
Being unbeatable by Turn 30 without any late-game units is just ridiculous. This is the fault of the cowardly AI giving no serious opposition.
I don't see an issue with powercreep really because most faction mechanics are turned off or toned down when the player is playing another faction.
Hit the nail on the head there, I think. An overtuned faction where you struggle at turn 10, break through at turn 20, are super overpowered by turn 40 and you just mop up the entire rest of the objectives by turn 50 is actually a really tightly paced campaign, if a short one. Not all campaigns need to be long. I enjoyed my Taurox campaign because it didn't overstay its welcome.
I also enjoyed my Boris campaign. It took until turn ~70 to be truly safe, and by that time I needed to scramble to get ready for the endgame crisis.
It's those campaigns where you're in no danger of losing whatsoever by turn 30 but the steamroll still takes until turn 120 to get your victory screen that are the source of campaign fatigue.
The AI in general is either way too passive or solely focused on the player, and that has everything to do with suboptimal AI design. The AI would benefit hugely if it was encouraged to push out a bit more when the player isn't looking, more so even if the AI is encouraged to make slightly more risky moves at times. That causes either staggering victories or crushing defeats, which in turn allows factions to take advantage of the power vaccuum.
What happened to his live streams ?
I’ve definitely noticed this, even using tons of mods to affect the campaign and battle difficulty to my liking, I’ve found that I quit campaigns a lot sooner than in 2.
In warhammer 2 it was common for my campaigns to go 100+ turns before I get burnt out. But in 3 I usually start to get bored before turn 50. Because as you said you just get way too powerful too quickly.
@@katiexxii7578 same bro in wh2 there was one faction which was strong and you have to fight it plus you had less army due to that upkeep which helps in us not being able to snowball the game now we can snowball it like literally
I’ll be honest, I think that how the autoresolve calculations let me win outrageously without having to earn it does more damage than the power creep.
Edit: I do actually like auto resolve, I’m not hating on the game I just wish that it wasn’t obviously absurdly winnable or not based on very specific stats.
When I started playing WH 3 I thought I was so bad at the game because autoresolve could carry me way better than it could in WH 2. In WH 2 I rarely used autoresolve and I could comfortably win battles with low odds.
Yeah this needs to stop. I now play battles i could win with Auto if i see them as being fun / a challenge! i have lost a number i have fought instead of an easy Auto resolve. I do not think Auto resolve calculates reinforcements correctly.
What difficulty to you guys play on? This is the main reason I play on hard or very hard
@@whereswaldo6396 i play VH/H and this DLC is the first one ever I refunded bc it was just boring.
@@whereswaldo6396If you play an armor-heavy faction, autoresolve should just let you win. For example, Aarbal's campaign is easy if you buy Chaos Warriors because their armor is so high that you can autoresolve every fight. However, if you play as an Ork faction, you have to fight manually because your units have almost no armor.
My entire problem with Total war warhammer is that AI doesn't do things that benefit it but it does things just to fuck the player over.
If you somehow manage to not be in a war with a faction you have 110% certainty that someone will declare war on you even if it doesn't make sense for them to do it. Game is plenty of fun but this pisses me off immensely. I can play underpowered factions just fine and try to make them work if their units and lord look cool but this is inexcusable in a strategy game imho.
The AI is designed to lose to the player and just drag out their death animation as long as possible instead of going for its best shot at beating you.
This is kind of what makes Zeentch a bit unappealing to me. If the AI was a bit more ambitious themselves it would be fun to manipulate the AI.
Just as bad is the AI's desire to drag you into unfavorable wars by targeting your allies. Your faction could be #1 in power and all of your allies will be targeted. Makes having anything beyond a non aggression pact worthless.
YES this is the real issue here. The AI is cowardly, dishonourable and stupid; no matter what faction it is. Decaring war, sacking, then running when you show up and requesting peace. Standard procedure for the AI.
They should spend more time making the AI immersive and believable (not necesarily "harder", though it might be a side effect of improving the AI).
This is a major issue for me. I love playing somewhat diplomatic, in particular things like vassalization and confederations, and in particular I love playing factions against each other. TW has allowed players to do this before, for example with the pope's crusades in Medieval 2 or with Cao Cao's mechanics in Three Kingdoms. Warhammer 3 has zero incentive to play factions against each other, nor to vassalize factions outside of the factions that kind of have to vassalize factions like the WoC, and they mostly get vassals by smashing stuff like regular. A defensive ally is pretty much as reliable as a vassal lord in terms of what it can do, and much more potent. I'm fairly sure the AI for vassal faction gets dumbed down even further, especially on legendary lords.
If WH3 is put down, I really hope they touch up the AI to make it more interesting, and maybe even spruce up the diplomacy a bit, give it a bit more flourish, perhaps add more options like tributary states giving you a big sum of money per turn but still being independent from you, or puppet states that you basically control in all but name: they have a seperate income that you as a player can use to build up their lands, the player can recruit troops for them to complement their own weaknesses and they cannot do any diplomacy at all, automatically following the player in anything they do.
I started up a legendary Arbaal campaign last night and went for a little over 20 turns. In that time I ended up with 4 solid legendary lord traits (Belekor, Sigvald, Crone and Malus), multiple powerful blue items (Talisman of Preservation, Armor of destiny, etc.), tens of thousands of gold with a positive income, every hero on the roster with all the legendary heroes just around the corner and to top it off an army of Chosen and Skullreapers, which for some gods forsaken reason you get at tier 3 (with turn 1 global recruitment because why not).
I fought like 2 battles manually and only because they wanted to kill like a single unit. For a faction called the "Challengers of Khorne" there is ironically absolutely no challenge. You just teleport directly on top of some half-dead marching army and that's that. I've done a Skulltaker and Golg campaign and had pretty much the same results. What happened to earning things in games? Everything is just handed to you like you're a child and I honestly don't know how you can enjoy these campaigns beyond turn 20 if you're not a child.
The characters are so cool and the faction mechanics are pretty interesting but without anything to really unlock or earn it all feels totally pointless. Why can't the legendary heroes be something you have to really work towards? To unlock Skar Bloodwrath it says I had to recruit ONE Skullreaper and get some kills with it... like what? And the funniest part is I recruited chosen instead and still completed it lol. The game is just so stupidly easy with nothing meaningful or interesting to work towards, it's a real shame. I imagine older total war games were actually about strategy, so I can sympathize better with the historical folks now.
Arbaals teleporting needs to have some improvements considering its power. As it is, you can teleport to a Legendary Lord, declare war, kill him, blow up the nearby city to give yourself a Blood Host ally and as you have an ally the AI will not attack you 1v2. Next turn you teleport out leaving the Blood Host to continue the assault. My first campaign deleted Sylvania before turn 10 - my second deleted most of their territory in 4 turns, and I chased their last army for the next 10 to end it.
I think biggest Warhammer flaw is destroying great feature from Rome II and Attila. Strategy on strategic map. There was road for armys, right? You had corridors, like dense forests and mountains was walls, or you were forced to stick to the roads on desert, etc. Cities sometimes had stronghold feautre, liek Milan - you can`t go around, you must take it, or spend 10 turns more to move around it. Warhammer has what, 3 empire forts and Catay gates. Thats all from strategy positioning. I want that back, cause now, even mountains are useless when some factions can go "underground".
imagine playing those factions if they couldnt go underground though. They would be inherently gimped and anti-fun to play...
@youtubedeletedmynamewhybother im sure theres a way to balance game and fun without destroying half of game by taking away strategy from strategy-tactic game.
I like how you presented your evidence. For me personally, I really hate it when you’re able to end your campaign like 20 turns in. Typically in total war the beginning of the game is the hardest part and it only gets easier the more you play, which should be the exact opposite. The bigger issue in my opinion is this stupid fucking reverse difficulty curve that really builds up your campaign fatigue. I don’t like to struggle for 30 turns then become god and challenge the rest of the braindead ai trying to convince them to convince them to stop existing.
It would be great if the ai got smarter when the game gets boring.
Yea one of the biggest problem with this game is everything they throw at you at the late game is not any harder than the early game, it's just more tedious. With most campaign, what you see in the first 20 turn will likely be what you see for the rest of the campaign. If you get through the early game smoothly then at around midgame you just know you can't lose anymore and the victory objective become more of a grind than a challenge.
They need to allow the comps to empire build and form powerful blocks again like the did in WH2. It would go a long way to making post turn 30 campaigns not feel like a cake walk.
@@CareerKnight Yes, but remember that there was alot of whining about AI empires.
That's why they need a longer term campaign objective, like WH2 had in the Eye of the Vortex. I'd actually love to see that refreshed and added to IE as an optional objective (like end game crises). If not that, then hopefully we'll get a proper narrated chaos endgame (End Times, with the chaos realms added to the map and portal travel/invasions?) and a sort of realm divide mechanic between order and chaos. Some big scripted battles and perma-death for defeated LLs as the scenario progresses...
i don't think skulltaker or golgfag are meant to be power creep , it's just that skulltaker's cape was more likely than not designed before the bloodhost changes (which, poor planning but makes sense) and golg's rewards are either too much by accident or because of a bug, because he does get resources insanely faster than the other ogres
And it looks like the patch coming tomorrow they are adjusting Golg's contracts and other stuff so they are adjusting him. Not much on Skulltaker yet maybe the next patch. 🤷
Another thing to look at are the actual reviews themselves. Most of the negative reviews for the new DLC (all lords) are about the splash attack bug, which has skewed all of the reviews downward. If CA was trying to earn more money back with this DLC, they absolutely screwed themselves over by pushing the unnecessary (and broken) splash attack change with the DLC.
I think it's realistically impossible to find a satisfying balance between "underwhelming" and "overpowered" insofar as new content goes and, honestly, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of powercreep.
Personally, I don't think powercreep is all that impactful as far as quality is concerned, what is important is that the content is designed in such a way that the player wants to take advantage of the full roster and the entire range of mechanics made available to them, the true loss is when the player is funnelled into playing a hyper-optimised game while ignoring 90% of what the faction has to offer.
Part of that has to be put on the player though. I feel like people are sometimes too focused on always doing the most optimal thing, on always making things too easy on themselves by seeking out the most overpowered builds that it would take gigantic effort to counter.
You know the saying, given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game.
@@resileaf9501the disgusting vocal minority
I would say that this is not entirely true. Imrik wasn't underwhelming on release and could get very powerful during the campaign, but his start was still difficult.
I will add that repeating these kinds of starting scenarios is difficult, but definitely not impossible.
@@Tseims I think it's important to note that Imrik was / is free. It's much more difficult to convince people to pay for a difficult faction - if Belegar dropped today I think it'd get slammed for railroading the player into rushing Karak 8 Peaks (not to mention the lame unit additions)
The reason i think OoD wasn't as well received as ToD is because, both what legend said, but also because it may have had the same amount of content on paper, but it wasn't as much MEANINGFUL content. Most of the faction rework stuff came down to a slight adjustments (ogrehaul), a fresh coat of paint (scrap), and stat changes (wurzag/skarsnik).
I agree but to be fair that's still a lot. I mean ToD was a beautiful release, but imo we gotta stop comparing everything going forward now with it. OoD is still a very solid DLC and I would never go as far as to call it bad( like a lot of other players). I mean we should expect more of these free race updates etc, but not everything has to be as fantastic and gamechangin as Thrones of Decay
My main problem with this dlc is the fact that most of the units we got are complete garbage.
@@giorgaras1851 I don't think the unit strength is the issue as much as it is what they do for the faction.
Adding a shield to Blorcs is a fucking modded unit. Wrathmongers and skullreapers are just the same elite infantry khorne already has. It's boring as shit.
I spent a decade on the World of Warcraft forums, 25,000 posts deep before I grasped sanity and quit posting years ago, and that post was absolutely 100% correct about negative feedback loops, and happy posters don't saying anything.
People will polish CAs nob as a reflex to the nonstop negativity found on the forums. Hyperbolic negative reactions encourage hyperbolic positive reactions fueled by frustration at the incessant onslaught of the former. It is almost NEVER the opposite in any gaming community I've ever observed.
The negative posters fail to see that and always think they're speaking truth to power, thus fueling the lopsided cyclical hate to love war you see all across the entirety of the internet concerning any beloved fantasy setting.
That being said, love your content! lmao It continuously brings me back to TW and WH after thousands of hours playing casually
This is just a pet peeve topic of mine
typically though i find the bootlickers to be much worse ppl than the ones complaining about factual issues in the game. Yes there are lunatics on the negative side too.
But if you ever want to have a disingenuous honey suckle go and hang around bootlickers for Any company. Theyll rot your brain rapidly.
People complain wayyyyy to much if a lord isnt super good and broken. Its a lose lose situation
Just make everyone equally broken I suppose, Its why I enjoy SFO.
@@masondouglas99 not really like elspeth is strong but she isn't broken, and people really like her. I don't think the audience wants skulltaker to be the new standard(though every now and then it's fun) they just want the campaign to not be totally miserable(like wulfhart or wh2 norsca).
They probably complain because the Lord is either a copy of another better one or that said Lord comes with 3 units for the price of a full game and those units are more powerful than the Lord they come with, and the fact that the AI uses all the broken units while you can't unless you buy them which was a huge issue while I was playing where the skaven would come at me with snipers, nukes and mini guns yet when I play skaven I get hamsters with daggers and bows, the main issue for me personally was that the DLCs felt patched on and could/should have been there day 1 but instead they "fix" broken units by adding more broken units while neglecting the other stuff which no-one uses, my personal favourite was the orcs but explain why my orc has a dragon yet I have to buy a DLC to get dragons, or why that the orc who specialises in abominations like idols and trolls doesn't get them without paying but a dude like grimgore being played by a AI avoids the one thing he's build around just to shove in my face "haha I got idols and you don't"
Edit - if I didn't explain my point well then TLDR = why add copies of other Lords/units with Better stats when they couod take the time to make unique ones which synergies with their respective lord and not so much with others, it would make stuff feel unique, grimgore invading with stacks of black orcs and heavy weapons, skarsnik with a swarm of beasts and spiders and the mountain orcs coming with monsters and abominations, but instead they all feel the exact same and every faction just copies the others of the same type, orcs all get black orcs because the rest suck, the empire just rush steam tanks why use anything else, skaven? Just spam the absolutely broken sniper and mortars, there's no exception where the best unit for this lord isn't the best unit in general, I haven't played since WH2 since I no longer have a PC but I put a lot of time into it even if it wasnt my favourite but I also really enjoyed Rome 2 as much as people love to hate it factions felt unique in that and each had their strengths and weaknesses and it was the patching of those weaknesses that made it so fun to me
clearly this isn't true, thrones of decay was very well received and as shown in the video had very good reviews. the lords in thrones all felt incredibly powerful but skulltaker is just too far in this dlc and they did undercook gorbad relative to most other lords. it goes to show that people aren't annoyed at having powerful lords like in thrones, but they need the quality of campaign mechanics on top of that
Powercreep would be a problem if AI could pull it off.
And regarding DLС in general, my opinion is that the Empire and Dwarves are more popular than Ogres, Orcs and Demons... It’s so simple and banal - I personally played with them for 400+ hours for a total of 10 hours.
Biggest problems is the small map, the AI is not building large powerful empires and sieges are painful
I was genuinely surprised that they didn't address skulltakers issues in the beta fix.
Nah they want to wait until everyone buys it first lol
One of reasons why on IME release Katarin was my longest campaign was because it was challanging even on Hard/Normal difficulty. (Or was it VH/Normal? I don't remember anymore). But point is, it was difficult and me playing relativelly slow with ballanced armies didn't cause me having OP armies. I played 220 turns of that campaign and there was still challange, but it was on other side of the map. Somehow Slaneesh managed to vasalize entire ulthuan. Insane. But I got bored of the campaign because the ulthuan was only good challange on the map, but it was far away.
I think the AI being ass is the bigger issue
Also the fact that they never test anything is annoying
If it's busted and fun, there isn't a problem. If it's busted and boring, then it needs fixing immediately.
I think Skulltaker is incredibly boring. His entire campaign just becomes a grindy mess. Yes, it is a steamroll, but if it take 15 minutes to tap auto resolve, them it's just boring.
Golg is fine because it's just strong but you still need to play the game. The economy is stupid strong, but he can't fart out infinite armies.
Yea for example espelt is a legendary lord that is very strong but require you to play the game to some extend. Khorne is just a braindead faction by default and having a legendary lord that heavily lean toward that just make every single battle you fight become the same thing. Even if you don't cheese skulltaker you still basically can't loose with him, he's good if you want to have a power trip campaign and smashing things but it does gets old really fast, even taurox need more thinking than him.
Thrones of Delay featured Empire and Dwarfs, on top of that it was long-anticipated Malakai, with a bonus of a Gotrek and Felix rework, making Malakai's campaign one of the most lore-friendly ones. Whilst Elspeth was literally equipped to kill Vlad, something many people (somehow, despite him having nothing but crapstacks for 30 turns) struggle with. Lets not forget about Gelt and Franz rework either. There was no way that dlc wont sell like hot cakes, and it was actually good, great even.
There was also no way this dlc will sell as well, or any other that follows, simply because nothing is half as popular, even put together, as Franzman and Dörfs. Not even Nagash will sell this well, unless it'll be paired with Boris Todbringer full-fledged LL. Or maybe-maybe if that 'super-dlc' plan is still a thing and they will rework all undead and give out like a dozen characters including Thanqoul to finish off the game.
Expect next dlc to have even less sales, because aside Nathan (Great Book of Grudges), very few people care about Slaanesh. By far the least popular and least represented Chaos God. Nkari's IE campaign start being what it is also didnt help. And if it'll be paired with elves, or even Cathay... I dont expect those to sell like hotcakes either. But who knows, maybe my impression of ppl being tired of Cathay and not wanting to play elves, just kill them, is wrong. Maybe China market and Wukong hype for Monkey King would save that dlc.
I like the new campaigns, honestly, and i wish that OTHER older campaigns would get brought to the same level.
Ok next time just don't play the game and win automatically
@@kakaomilch5905 thanks, I'll try it :)
@@kakaomilch5905 Some people play for a power trip campaign. There's nothing wrong with that. The power creep just means there should be better difficulty settings to allow challenge for people, even on strong lords.
@@squashiejoshie200000 The settings should mean CA balances the game for the middle ground of players and powercreep enjoyers can get their mindless power trip by adjusting the settings rather than having it baked in courtesy of CA. Then, the rest of us can enjoy a modicum of strategy in our strategy game.
I think the game is just too easy. Plain and simple. I've been playing every Total War game at the maximum difficulty possible since OG Rome and the point where we came is just pathetic. Empire, Attila, WH2 I loved these games because they were really challenging. I miss them
To be honest there was a dude that beat Skarbrand's campaign on Legendary at turn 8. In a single turn he burnt from lustria all the way to Naggaroth all the way to the chaos wastes stopping close to the badlands. That is just what Khorny boys do.
I wish campaigns had more direction. I get that its a sandbox and you can make your own goals, but for me, I like to feel like I'm working towards something instead of an arbitary number of settlements taken and then you can stop playing. Would like to see more faction-specific quests and final battles
I would like to see factions spawn in their lore-accurate locations next to their lore-accurate enemies so that you can actually pick a fight with someone and design your armies to fight that faction, instead of being dumped in a mosh pit of 20 different factions no matter where you start.
People wanted only sanbox campaigns and know people are unhappy again. Its a toxic feedback cycle right now.
you can follow the victory conditions
@ Thats what I'm saying the victory conditions often feel arbitrary and boring. It would help if they were more thematic and contained more quests instead of "30 more cities and I stop playing"
@@gonkdroid9325 there's a REALLY AWESOME mod out there worth looking into; it adds multiple new victory conditions for each legendary lord unique to their own motives/goals, with several 'short victory' conditions and a long victory one where each gives some kind of significant buff for the rest of the run so you have a reason to do them all beyond "I was told to"
Why we even have more than 50 turns when most campaigns end before that?
Decided to give Karl Franz a shoot last week. Got a Long Victory out of nowhere by turn 60. Having short campaigns take 30 turns and long ones 60-80 is ridiculous. By turn 60 you are barely seeing T4 stuff running around.
Personally I have never ended a campaign before turn 100-120 unless I genuinely dislike the faction or some mechanic of the campaign. But I have no idea what the norm is.
game is just too easy
@@axeljoelsson2245 In Coop we also play like 100+ turns. Endgame crisis and if we beat that we call it a victory. Because nothing could win anymore at that point.
@@axeljoelsson2245personally i just get bored 30-40 turns in and dont finish almost any campaign
Skulltaker, the end game threat we've been waiting for
and Gorbad being out of Black Crag ruins his campaign cause its Grimgor 2.0 and nothing truly new
Tbh i think it depends on the individual, i like TWW as a casual game and dunking on the ai with some overpowered shit is super fun to me
(Also i don't know enough about the game mechanics to snowball within 30 turns but i imagine abusing those would make the game boring)
Completely removing the upkeep cost for blood hosts was a mistake. It's still way too easy to get a massive collection of skulls with not enough things to spend them on. Golgfag's contract rewards need to be severely reduced. In my campaign his army is walking around with 30k meat and I have about 2mil gold. Havent even completed short campaign victory yet
As someone who didn't play any of these three factions prior to this DLC, I was excited for it to give me an excuse to check them out. So far I've only messed with Gorbad but he's pretty fun and it doesn't seem like they did a bad job from that perspective even if the balance is a bit off.
Thanks for your videos
8:13 where have i heard this before? This is such a good point to highlight and it applies to a lot more than videogames.
A small point, DLCs do pay for the rework, but minor reworks are not always paired with a DLC for their faction. Case in point : The Silence and the Fury that came with a minor dwarf rework and free LL, but had literally nothing related to them in the DLC itself.
I was thinking the same thing
Can not overstate how uninteresting Skulltaker looks. Just looks absurdly easy
That's a good thing. You should look at some campaigns and have a breeze with them and others feel like they really challenge you by having to engage in every mechanic to survive. Do you want to turn your brain off or or think every piece of action carefully? The choice is nice.
I play hardcore on every game... expect Total War.
Me, and I think a lot of people, just don't like how blatantly the AI cheats. It's immersion breaking.
get the mod where it gives you +5 public order penalty and set the combat cheats to 0 for AI. That way you can play on very hard an it is really okay. Sometimes the start is hard. But if you handle that you will manage the rest.
Most factions have a pretty good start. But some are crazy hard... But thats more because of the position than the difficulty.
i dont think they expected you to cheese Skull taker's mechanic in the way that you did. i think they expected you to wipe stuff out and move on. i think the solution would be to nerf the amount of skulls they you get from lords after killing them or whatever
QA is there to stress test mechanics. The devs might not have thought about players playing like that, but QA should. That's their job after all.
@@khankhomrad8855 QA can't test for things they don't think to test. I was watching Enticity's Skulltaker stream and nobody thought of farming lords. We all just thought that Skulltaker's cloak should only apply on Skulltaker's army instead of all armies.
I think it’s easily fixed by making the skulls a lord gives reset when they die
@@squashiejoshie200000 That makes them bad QA testers
@@squashiejoshie200000 If you have a mechanic that incentivises killing lords, and you know that Legendary Lords respawn indefinetly, you have to account for this case. Like someone else said, if no one at QA thought about this then they aren't doing a good job as testers.
If anything WH3 really shows the cracks and flaws the greater total war series has to deal with.
It does. Factions that were left alone and didn't received reworks/dlcs are now so below the curve, it's ridiculous. Beastmen were everyone's punchbag, but almost every dlc brought something to them EVEN IF IT WASN'T DIRECTLY FOR THEM, and now they are much better off than Vampire Coasts, for example.
Ca said they will be getting around to every faction eventually
I don’t mind a hard campaign
beastmen already got their rework, it made them a million times better than before, the main problem is that the ai cant utilize the faction the same as the player can. taurox gets killed in every campaign i ever played, yet when playing yourself he can kill pretty much anyone, he was basically the prototype to skarbrand in gameplay
@@biowiener7825 coincidentally they also received new units in almost every dlc, new variants of gors, that elemental incarnation of beasts, whatever.
@@biowiener7825 Beastmen cant recruit new armies from their 'camp cities', (aside their LL) nor are able to make any new ones afaik. Its a bug and they havent fixed it since Wh2.
Yet to watch through the whole thing, but I think power creep is a serious issue in many games that have active development during their lifespan.
You see this in twwh3, but also games like league of legends, where each champion is released overtuned and packed with more and more tools. I draw that compariaon because both games use the same approach - release new content stronger than existing content to make it more enticing for players to interact with and spend money on, and update existing content to the power level of new content over time through reworks.
This works as an immediate solution to the power disparity between content pieces, but introduces a different issue.
Before I continue on whqt that issue is and why it is, I would like to contrast this approach with helldivers 2, which went the opposite direction of nerfing everything to an intended power level, causing a lot of issues for that game - partially because ganers have been conditioned to expect power creep, but also because the intended power level wasn't in the right spot which was exacerbated by bugs affecting player powerthat took a long time to fix.
Now, the issue with the rolling increase of power over time in games like twwh3 and lol is that, while the relative power level between content pieces is roughly in line, the overall power level increases, which fundamentally alters the game experience.
And that's why I brought up helldivers 2, because the community outrage, review bombing and dwindling player numbers, the developer ended up caving and increased player power level accross rhe board by a huge amount in one go. And this fundamentally altered the game's experience, just like in games like twwh3 that increase player power through powercreep over a longer period. Just in this case the contrast showed how impactful this increase in power level actually is on the game experience.
And that is the core issue with powercreep in my opinion. Not that new content is stronger than existing content, that can be corrected in a reasonable manner through reworks. But rather that the overall power increase changes the game fundamentally. The longer this goes on, the more a game plays different from the original release you bought. And the game's design decisions that made sense back then, make less and less sense for the game as the game changes more and more.
I believe it is possible to stick to the intended power level, and keeping the game's design coherent with it. I believe a game will be much better as a result if it manages to do this. And I believe the cornerstone required for succeeding in this is a proper definition of the player's intended power level, that then all content can be tuned to. I think games 'evolving' over time (the powercreep component of that, not the content richness) is a bad thing, as they rarely evolve with a clear, intentional design behind it and instead just lose their coherence.
Okay, now I'm ready to watch the video :p
I hope we get another king in the warlord style dlc. Some challenge campaigns would be nice change of pace
I don’t have a problem with powerful lords. I have a problem with them not doing anything to old races and them just falling behind. I also have a problem with them deciding to cut out realms of chaos content but then giving the same amount of content in the IE campaign. If you don’t have to do a bunch of crap but the dlc still takes the same amount of time and then you get the same content you would have got minus the ROC crap. I’m glad they stopped worrying about ROC but that was because I thought they would put more effort into IE. CA just aren’t a good company. That’s the part that needs to be accepted.
Once I got an understanding of Golgs mechanics, it's unbelievably easy to steam roll on Very Hard. First 15 turns I didn't even realize camp units were free upkeep. That's insane. After I figure that out it's just a game of pumping out camps and running around the map obliterating anyone everyone with tier 4 plus stacks despite running a deficit. It's definitely noticeable how powerful DLC factions are.
To be fair I think they accidentally overtuned the rewards and they are nerfing them
To me the biggest problem is the combination of player power creep and AI factions being completely passive to the point they’re just waiting for the player to come conquer them
For me a power fantasy is being in a bad situation but having so many tools at my disposal that I can resolve the situation however i want. If i can win with so little effort that i dont even need to use my OP abilities, then i get blno enjoyment out of using them. Why use your Ikit nuke if the AI will walk into rattling gun fire and you win the battle just as quickly
I think the changeling is the worst Total War campaign ever created. As soon as you start the campaign you’ve won, the AI will never be able to eliminate all of your armies and cults because the faction is so OP. But that is only if you’re playing as the changeling. If the AI is in control of the changeling it will simply sit there and do nothing because the AI is not capable of using the faction mechanics
Really happy and appreciative of these more discussion based videos and content explorations you’ve been doing the last few weeks. Hope you keep up with them and continue to enjoy it!
My preference would be for new lords to introduce new and significantly interesting mechanics.
However, most mechanics introduced with new lords are just reskins or slight modifications - not particularly interesting.
Unfortunately, it is very much easier to make flashy and numerically more powerful mechanics than it is to make interesting ones.
Furthermore, if people are buying the DLC it is likely either because they enjoy the race, lore about the lord, or the flashy mechanics/units shown.
Interesting mechanics are more difficult to show and therefore sell.
I did an Arbaal campaign after a year of not playing and after turn 35 I got tired how passive the AI was. Yet Skulltaker still snatched up a quarter of Lustria. I added a mod to make the AI more aggressive and by turn 65 I got a notification that he gained a hegemony over the Island. It’s turn 105 and he’s in an intercontinental conflict with the Cult of Pleasure and N’Kari who has taken all of the High Elf island with Be’lakor’s help. It’s fucking insane and I love it
I think that the problem is Older factions have no interesting and interactive campaign mechanics, for example - high elves, dark elves, Lizardmen, Bretonnia, Norsca(xD) and even new ones - Cathay, Kislev.(imo)
I would've put Dwarfs there as well, but The new updates made them feel fresh again, but still they lack any lord to lord unique mechanics. apart from Malakai and Thorek?
Of course Skulltaker is absolutely stupid broken OP and needs a nerf, but again will the average player be able to exploit the bounty/skull mechanic?
Being a single player only enjoyer I do not really care about lords nerfs since Im not going up against a level 50 lord on turn 30, nor will the AI make doomstacks.
I prefer the game on Hard - hard difficulty with no stat boosts.
But coming back to the main point. I believe that older factions getting much needed reworks, tweaks, additions will make the newer factions look and feel less power creeped.
I tend to just play on normal all around because higher difficulty usually doesn't mean smarter AI. It's just arbitrary buffs and detriments. To your other point, sometimes we want to be Taurox or Skarbrand and run wild. Sometimes we want to build a massive faction with diversity in our armies. And yes, sometimes we want to start off in a bad way and test ourselves. So we need some factions that are overwhelming and some that are underwhelming.
Personally, I think letting players choosing horde factions start wherever they want would be amazing for both solo and multi-player games.
i don't worry too much about powercreep, i care more about each faction having something special that makes them interesting to play.
outside of SFO which does wonders for this, many factions i don't even consider playing because it's far better to just play my favourite of that race and confed the other lords, a good example of this is High Elves where i never even consider playing anyone but Alith and Eltharion because their faction mechanics are really cool and i can just get the other lords under a far better faction than their own, like who doesn't want stalk and teleport stance on every army.
Concerning the rushed stuff, there are a few cities where they forgot to implement the maps (the new region south of cathay, you can go there fast with Gold Order).
If you attack the city it s just a flat empty map.
I play on the same settings as you (L/VH/Max AI cheats/No end game crisis), and with never have playing Khorne before I finished a Skulltaker campaign victory on turn 50 with controlling half of the map. I feel like the power creep is a little out of control with certain faction lords compared to others. I would like to see forgotten lords brought up to some of the more powerful lords. My favorite factions are wood elves and vampire coast, with vampire coast needing a rework more than anything. Where is the love for Aranessa? Maybe a campaign mechanic like Golg's could bring some new life to the vampires and let us play more like pirates. Why does a dark elf lord have a better pirate campaign than the actual pirates? To make it clear I am happy with the state of warhammer 3, I just personally would like to see some of the forgotten lords/factions get something new.
Or factions brought closer to their lore. The Vampire Counts as a classic example, their factions should focus more on the gentleman Vampire(diplomacy) or the bloodstarved beast(lost to the blood lust) aspects rather than how they currently are.
Im a normal/normal player and my fav campaign in the game is Katarin. Enemies on all sides but some room to make allies and some variation in enemies depending how Drycha acts or how Azag progresses. And after an initial struggle you're in position to snowball. I think the problem with a guy like Skulltaker (to me) is you're pretty much snowballing from turn one and the exploits for his mechanics are almost -too- obvious. Legend took it to the extreme for his Skulltaker save(as we would expect him to!) but even i who tends to avoid that stuff kept a couple guys alive to farm.
In regards to people mentioning how bad the AI is now one problem thats risen up is its almost like there's too many LL on the map now. Back in 2 you had AI factions like Grimgor who would generally get really strong cause he had a bunch of jobbers to beat up or confederate, but now so many factions have LL's with strong initial armies or the ability to quickly recover that you end up with a bunch of smaller guys that the player just rolls over when you get to them.
I guess I am somewhere in the middle playing on VH/VH with no AI Cheats and I very much do enjoy to just paint the map
Ayyyy, me too.
i hate painting the map i wanna get my achievement for beating the faction and move on so i had to get mods
@@Kevalanium Why do you need mods for that?
@@Tuboshi0815 probably because he sucks at the game.
@@Kevalanium L
Personally, I don't enjoy campaigns like Skulltaker's, but it doesn't spoil my enjoyment of other, more challenging campaigns - and why would it? It's a sandbox game, play it the way you like, if you want to tryhard Belegar, great, if you want to cheese it with Skulltaker, great, I don't get what's the issue. It seems like this whole discussion is centered around people who don't like it when others are having fun in a different way.
problem is, there are more and more campaigns that are braindead easy like skulltaker, and fewer campaigns that are like belegar. hell, even belegar isn't all that difficult anymore.
that is thhe problem, we have like 5 difficult campaigns left in this game
@@Dr.AvenVon There are difficult campaigns in the game? I am not so sure. I think the Warhammer Total War is stupid brain dead even on very hard difficulty. I've had way more of a challenge with older Total War Games like Medieval 2 Total War, personally it feels like more "modern" Total Wars are stupid brain dead easy that I just don't feel any challenge with any of the AI. They really need to rework the AI.
Regarding the DLC being less successful, it's not only the matter of the races being less popular, but also quite similar to each other. In Thrones of Decay we had an Empire faction focussed on magic and war machines, a dwarf faction focused on war machines and slayers, and a demon faction. In this DLC we got 3 factions focusing on... smashing things. Which is appealing to some poeple, while not appealing at all to others.
An experiment. Pick any faction and go against the Chaos Dwarfs and then fight Bretonnia.Which of the two are you most likely to try next?
Yeah, exactly. And I'm not even talking about replayablility. You get sick of playing an outdated faction so fast you are not touching it for a couple of months.
Early to early mid game? Bretonnia easily. mid to late game? chorfs, no competition.
Yeah...but that's Lore Accurate and Tabletop Accurate. Nobody likes to play the French Version of King Arthur's Knights.
Its like a Paradox game where the game costs over $1,000 because they feel the need to sell every update.
Honestly, Markus Wulfharts campaign on release was my favourite WH campaign of all time. It was actually challenging, starting from the very first battle you had to fight, which was basically impossible without cheesing (kiting with war wagons).
I don't care about powercreep. Played as Gorbad and I really enjoyed the challenge of it. Had no clue which way to expand towards first and now I'm playing Skulltaker and just enjoying the Khorne playstyle of hyper aggression. I've seen some people complain about the imbalance of factions and needing to ban factions from a head to head campaign, but not every game needs to be balanced to fit a competitive playstyle. And as you say, there are variety of lords with different power levels, just choose the one that fits ur preferred difficulty.
that is because gorbad is the only one in this dlc that is not completly OP
Huge yes, they need to do a balanced mode for us who want it
My biggest problem is that a ton of campaigns offer no more challenge by turn 15-20… instead of pushing it back, CA made it so you can recruit everything earlier. AI is a spectator in this world, it does not expand, it does not confederate, it just waits for the player to kill it.
Are you playing on legendary? If not, and the game is too easy, try turning up your difficulty. Otherwise, you can look into mods if you want to keep playing.
@ I play in Very hard, I don’t like the limitations on saves and camera that legendary has but the few times I tried it it didn’t change anything to the passive AI. AI was still the same I was just more nerfed as a player, it didn’t make it smarter.
I just want to have fair and competitive multiplayer campaign with my friends with any faction I will choose :(. If they make a faction at least close in power to each other, this game will be a blast to play with friends. Now, If your skill is similar, just the more powerful faction dominates.
It’s less power creep and more “we’re finalizing all races to be viable, but can’t rework 10 years of content all at once, so we’re starting with the Warhammer 1 races, and working our way forward.”
Let’s just be patient and let them work their way through them all.
more like "the newest DLC is going to be broken, and then we'll nerf it when the next one comes out"
Agreed, buffing what sucks is always better than nerfing what's strong. Warhammer 3 is a single-player game first and foremost. The majority of players have always been single player campaign not multi-player
I agree, even thought I think they are going a bit overboard with it. But its probably intentional
Man all these races were “viable”. They just weren’t interesting in what they were doing on the campaign map.
Now they’re more interesting but destroy literally any adversity and challenge on the campaign map. What’s the point in playing a 4x strategy game if none of your decisions actually matter and it’s more just fighting battles, collecting a resource, and making future battles even easier to win? It’s a boring game loop, and leads to what is supposed to be a grand strategy game feeling effectively over a few hours in.
glazer spotted
In my opinion there are 2 major problems in the game right now...
First: The most of the factions from warhammer 1 and 2 are falling behind the newer factions extremly. For example Norsca, Vampire Counts/Cost, Bretonnia, and Tomb Kings are a joke to Khorne.
Khorne was overpowered before this update and now they are even stronger. They have 3 different LLs and everyone of them is vibing the floor with all of the other LLs...
The second: We wait like 9 to 10 months for a new DLC and it feels like they didn't play it more than half an hour to test it...
The game never ever made any problems for me and now its constantly crashing. I played it with around 20 mods at once and it never crashed. Now I am playing without any mods and it keeps crashing all the time. A friend of mine has the exact same problem. We allways played multiplayer together and now no one of us can play the game at all and the steam discussions are full oh crash reports. Some factions lost there ambush stands completly, the chaos dwarfs are fucked up because when ever you try to start the last battle the game is crashing, splash attacks were fucked up, a lot of people can not even load the game, there are a lot of bugs and some mechanics like the one of skulltaker are completly broken. Some other conditions like the victory conditions are not well designed. For example Arbaal can win his campaign in absolut easy mode very quickly. Golgfag on the other hand has to complete 25 contracts, if you are lucky and you just need around 8 turns to fullfill a contract and you never skip a turn without a contract, you need 200 turns just to complete this part of your victory conditions...
Skulltaker is just plain broken, after a few upgrades it's an endless unstoppable cycle of bloodhosts. Skarbrand is ironically the most sane Khorne experience right now. I'm a fellow cheese enjoyer but I like it when it's earned.
Yea the undefeated boi is also pretty insane
Exploiting the game is not earned
@@clamclosia How is Arbaal overpowered? I have only played Skulltaker so far, and yeah, he's super broken lol...stopped playing after getting the bloodhost spawing bonus.
@@KorsAir1987 Homie is a UNIT haha he’s insanely powerful especially with some defeat traits. Great bonuses to non daemon units. His teleport mechanic lets him farm skulls easy and keep his rage up. Khorne in general is very strong. Skulltaker is by far the most broken in comparison though.
One thing i dont understand is how they missed the raiding stance issue for ogre camps. It happened to me on my first playthrough.
They dont have devs that playtest their own game
I agree with legend
This dlc + patch needed a bit more time in the oven
The powercreep is player powercreep and doesn't matter for the players that dobt want to play that way
I'd rather have campaign AI that doesn't turtle in garrison-having capitals and actively avoid field battles 90% of the time than power creep, but if I have to smash my head against virtual brick wall, I want a helmet, so I'd say that in my case, my enjoyment of the power creep comes from that.
I don't think powercreep ruins the game.
I think older units or factions not being able to keep up with powercreep is what can ruin games.
I really enjoyed marcus wulfharts campaign its a shame Im in the minority. Factions that are weaker like belegar and marcus are very fun and interesting. Mind you they're not my cup of tea every time but thats why you have nearly 100 legendary lords to play as.
I finished my skull taker campaign with 155 active armies on like turn 49 lol
Sheesh... I am trying to finish my first Snikch campaign (All victories) and I am on turn 320
Full map completion turn 111 with 697 armies. Yes I’m being serious.
@@theonlyexclusive4295 yeah man I believe it .. I created a bunch of 'blood host factories' by just constantly stacking settlements every turn/other turn and I'm guessing you probably did the same, if I tried harder I could probably make 60+ per turn it's just exhausting to keep track of at that point lol
@@PlayerSlotAvailable skull taker is just incredibly broken at the moment
Arbal is nuts honestly, I managed to brute force my way to confederating skarbrand and skulltaker by turn twenty three on my first campaign with him. Granted it was only normal difficulty cause I was just casually playing his campaign but still. Arbal can just show up basically wherever he wants and tear things up.
So we have had a new DLC. Legend has declared himself happy (happier) with the current status of TWWH3. I’ve been waiting for the usual Legend Total War live stream. It has not happened. From this, I conclude that Legend:
• Is making enough from disaster videos to keep him happy (looks like your average is back up to 80K?)
• Does not need Superchats
• Has found a way to have a great balance between being a new dad and having a RUclips account
Hope those are true, happy Xmas
I can't imagine running all night streams is great when you have a kid, it might occasionally be convenient to have a parent up all night, but Legend being in Oz means he streams at absurd times locally to get the best global reach. I imagine previously it was basically that disasters were his "day job" and streams were his "night job".
Im just in the high elf buff waiting room
The anti player bias is way too strong still, I get that on higher difficulties they should be challenging, but the ai makes such illogical decisions just to sabotage / randomly ruin your game it is way too frustrating
I can be 4 provinces away and none of my armies nearby, yet they’d still think I’m their “main threat”, trespass their armies for 5 turns straight just to suddenly declare war and burn down a random level one settlement, then immediately leave after my armies show up, cowardly and more annoying than challenging. Especially on higher difficulties they just beeline towards the player for absolutely no reason
I have a campaign that I might send to legend because the new (really strong) DLC lords are so unfun and brutal to play against it feels like a punishment just for playing the game…..
I do hope others are enjoying the new DLC and lords, because playing any other faction in the old world right now is like legendary+ difficulty
you can play any old world faction on any difficulty only with autoresolve and win.
I like powercreep when the other Lords of that faction are also reworked and buffed, as then you have an interesting decision. When Elsbeth came out with a Gelt and Franz rework, choosing one of the trio meant giving up major gameplay differences and buffs from the other two.
Once Yuan Bo came out (for example), the other Cathay factions became redundant, because picking them gave up so much and gained nothing. With Yuan Bo you get:
1) Better research
2) Higher hero caps and levels
3) Choices in campaign location
4) Unique faction-wide buffs in the compas
5) The ability to eventually befriend every faction in the game (through Merchant towns)
6) The ability to borrow neutral armies, then steal their heroes (through the immortal characters ability)
7) Faction-wide army buffs (through Fortress towns)
8) Higher level mage lords for quick defensive army recruitment with better magic
10) Super heroes
With other Cathay lords you get..........healing magic on one Lord a little earlier.........a small dipolomacy buff on a faction you'll probably need to kill to expand anyway..........a feeling of depression thinking of everything you gave up not picking Yuan Bo.
I like the new campaigns and would rather patiently wait to have the old races/factions be buffed up and reworked to modern standards rather than crabs in a bucket nerfing everything. I believe in the COD:MW2 philosophy of "if everything is overpowered, then nothing is!" 👍
Honestly, its a fantasy game so I really don't mind the power creep. Unless it's something where when you face the AI and it's a bad experience, then personally I think it's fine. I find it confusing too when taurox was heavily nerfed but then they introduce skulltaker (and skarbrand before that)?
I have always had this philosophy in games as I play them, watch dev cycles, read feedback. The problem isn't power creep and more what I will colloquially refer to as weakness creep. Characters/champions/factions/etc. Like Skulltaker are not that common in games, just look at SoC and ToD. Instead what people see is these new lords with new fun mechanics and compare them to other lords and realize the older lords suck. They perceive these new changes as power creep because they are new and don't think too critically about it. The primary issue I see (and one I feel) is that companies accidently or inevitably make older campaigns bad as they introduce new and cool things making it seem like there is creep when in actuality there may be little to none.
Also the AI is bad so it doesn't even matter.
Regarding the decision you talk about starting around 26:00, I would argue that it was a decision to yet again sacrifice any kind of long-term strategy for the benefits of the financial quarter. Releasing an unpolished product undermines their efforts to repair their reputation and suppresses initial sales. Even if they do pick up more of the people who are interested in this content once it works properly over time, the people who were willing to wait that long will wait for a discount, sacrificing the profitability of the DLC over its lifetime.
What it's really funny is that some people want "balance" or "realism" in a game that's it's about FANTASY, hell they are nerfing Golg just when the ogres were fun! I mean, c'mon! This game has characters that supposedly can kill entire armies by themselves in the lore, how the hell they can expect "balance"? This is a game about monsters, little humans and creatures that don't exist, if you want realism then play historical (that it's a big if) or change your franchise, but please don't remove FUN. And also, we must keep in mind that we still have a lot of bugs that remain in the game, even exported from the other Warhammers. Thank you Legend for the video.
equating balance and realism is a false premise, your entire post after that is nonsense.
This video is about balance. Realism is an entirely different story.
In Starcraft lore Protoss space ships are so big they can take on an entire zerg swarm by themselves, the game still has to be balanced so that you cant win the campaign or a multiplayer match by A-moving a single void ray.
The same applies to warhammer. Just because the lore says something, doesnt mean its a good idea to make an unbalanced game.
Many lords in the game are already way too strong, to the point where its easier to kill the entire army around them and win by army losses, because they are practically invulnerable and will beat an entire army by themselves.
This is not fun to play with or against.
So if your goal is fun, then you should agree there should be a reasonable amount of balance.
Now, you can argue that in single player campaigns, its not bad if the player gets some overpowered functionality, but the AI can also get them, and it makes multiplayer campaigns unplayable when you cant beat the other guys army with anything you can make.
@@TheSuperappelflap The Power creep it's addressed in the comment as "balance". Many, of the people that play the game, don't want balance. That's the point, and I can argue that many players want even more overpower stuff, just check the amount of mods that offer a lot of overpowered units and you will see. I can understand your take about balance because of the issues you pointed out, or the game mechanics that can be frustrating, but in this case, I don't care about that. I want to build nonsensical units, I want to build doomswarms or doomstacks, and many players also want that. Like I wrote, this is a game in which magic exists, and you can annihilate entire armies of perfectly balanced troops with one character, where's the balance in that? We should remove it then? Put limits in the power level?. And also, who will determine what it's overpowered or not? The lore? the community feedback? ourselves?. It's very easy to say "ugh imbalance it's not fun this and that" but it's an futile exercise because there are different opinions and different playstyles, but when CA always try to balance something it removes all the fun, and excuse me, it's a game to have fun not save lives or to solve the meaning of life.. That's my two cents. Peace.
@ronaldramirez5601 if you want to play game where you just press button to win, you can play cookie clicker.
@@TheSuperappelflap You missed the entire point then, it's a game to have FUN no to have another job to play a game. But it doesn't matter you will never change my mind or myself change yours, so keep to your niche.
@@ronaldramirez5601 it's more fun when I can't just win the game by pressing random buttons without paying attention. Go watch a movie.
I personally only play LEs that I consider fun or interesting. Power is not the issue to me.
However some leaders feel weak and their campaigns feel botched. Like balthazar gelt is a roll of the dice if you try to go to the empire.
I tried it once and there was NOWHERE I COULD INVADE without declaring war on the empire.
powercreep is fun in singleplayer
Not really because then it feels garbage to play other characters
very subjective; i personally prefer balanced gameplay and winning cuz of knowledge instaed of op stuff
@yukiko6137 not really. Just. Makes those campaigns harder
@@yukiko6137 + it makes too many campaings wayy too easy, boring and straight up short
Agreed. Wish people would stop complaining about being able to abuse a single player game. Play how you want
I nearly sent a comment, mainly complaining about the overall quality of WH3 and it's DLC. Generally being 1 dimensional and not adding much to the game that already exists. Thrones of decay looked ok (I didn't buy it), and chaos dwarfs was good. This genuinely felt like an original faction, although, they could have (and should have) done more. Regardless, they're all way too expensive for what you get. Compare this DLC to rim world or stellaris, for example. You just get better quality material, in these games. Factorio is another example. Also Dwarf fortress provided essentially no "DLC", ever. I'd rather play that, and give Tarn some money instead.
Obviously, I haven't bought this DLC. I've just made a judgement on what I've read or seen. If I want to play as skulltaker, I'll just play dwarfs. If I want to play ogres, well I have that (although I don't want to play them). To me orgres should have left as a neutral non-player faction, which can act as mercenaries, through diplomacy. I already have a bunch of greenskin legendary lords, so this is uninspiring.
So I'd rather pay for a new game, which has new and improved mechanics, rather than an old game, which is charging for churning out the same old thing, over and over. I have to think hard about how I spend my money these days, even if just 10-30 dollars.
So power creep is an issue, with poor design and play testing, but I think there are bigger issues with WH3 in general, which are reflected in this DLC.
I'm only voicing my opinion, because I'm disappointed. I've given CA/Sega enough of my cash. This is a shame, because I believe the developers/designers genuinely care about this game.
I can't believe Redditors have terrible takes
RUclipsrs and Redditors have a lot in common then.
I completely agree with you Legend. I looked forward to buy at least Skulltaker's dlc but I want a decent challange campaign so I really happy you made the tier list about the campaigns. :)
Maybe I'm in the minority. But I love the power creep lol. It has literally no effect on MP as they have their own balance, and lords are locked at like level 6 or whatever with zero talents points.
And in single player the AI ain't doing any of the power creep cheese with sack farming or 100 blood hosts. I've played numerous campaigns now and Demons are all still getting smashed into the dirt.
They are not abusing blood hosts, they are not abusing demon reforged tech plus lord traits and talents for permanent auto resolve armies.
Power creep is there yes. But it's for the player to take advantage of and abuse or not. Don't like the demon reforged power? Don't tech into it and don't use lord traits for it. Then it stays meh and only get maybe 1-3 units revived.
I'd like to add. That I am definitely a Normal/Normal enjoyer. Furthest I have gone is Hard/Hard and I am able to comfortably play there. But I love Normal/Normal lol
the point is, you like it but a lot of people want a challenge in their campaigns instead of steam rolling at turn 80. and that's hardly possible even on legendary for most factions. the mp community is also affected by such power creep when a +8 or -6 buff/debuff isn't enogh anymore and you have abilities on lords with +24 or -20 on 3 stats, summoning AND healing. it just breaks the game. and units also had to be banned or limited on mp tournaments for just beeing broken. same with the stupid magic system in the game where banning spells isn't a thing and the AI rediculously doesn't know how to use spells properly, while the player can whipe out all armies with a hero wizard.
@HomerJSimpson999 I totally get where you are coming from and I see all your points. I watch Legend for the single player and tons of Turin for the MP. So I know about all the player made bans he runs for MP. I know it isn't a fix people like, and people are either happy to do it. Or want the developers to do it. But it's almost like WoW to me. People wanted a challenge so they made self imposed rules for the game. If you don't want to Wizard cheese then don't? Don't want to abuse the Demon reforged mechanics? Skip all the techs and lord talents? I know it's not what everyone wants. Especially if you want the challenge. I don't always cheese every game. In fact I hardly use any cheese. And while yes I've won plenty of seige battles just using a wizard. I definitely use regular tactics most of the time and the wizard is just there tossing out random spells.
Maybe this game needs something akin to a Hardcore mode similar to WoW or something I don't know. I just know some times I feel like super rofl stomping AI or using cheese every now and then. But I'd say 90% of the time I just play regularly without cheese or doomstscks ect. But I do enjoy having the option of just a good Old Comp Stomp fest
I agree, but I also understand were at the end of the trilogy. Theyre literally running out of stuff to implement. Bloodthirser lords are now truly unstoppable once they get the shield for all demons perk and a doomstack. I love that so much. Weve had so many nerfs. Just enjoy the game while it lives, I say!
The skulltaker thing is whatever, he's not so broken you can't play him normally, just don't do the infinite bloodhost thing.
Honestly I found Golg worse because you can't play his mechanic without it being overturned, but that's being quickly fixed
Thats probably why its being fixed, now that you mention it. For all the op-ness and cheese, 'just dont do it' is a really effective tactic. But not doing contracts with Golgfang would kinda defeat the whole purpose of playing him.
I think race popularity have the massive impact on sale as people are saying theirs alot of other factors at play imo like the fact the dev talks showed off 90% of the units before the trailer so the hype to see those units buffered out,
Or the fact the trailer was also poor and wasn't really cinematic at all, and then there's the fact they cut realms of chaos but added Zero narrative to OoD for example skulltaker there's nothing to do narratively other than his quest battle they focused or the wrong aspects of the characters, imagine if skull takers campaign was about his origin, the story from blood for the blood god, the Champion who got impaled on a spear and left to die but finds the strength to pull his mangled body off it and crawls into north into the realm of the gods then gets blessed by khorne to take his revenge on the descendants of the 8th Norscan tribes of Teiyogtei Khagan, and this is when hes a dark knight like character all black chaos armor shrouded in darkness, and then after you kill all 8 chieftains Khorne acends him to U'zhul skulltaker the bloodletter we all no, there's none of the, and even if they didn't wanna go all out like that they could've make the characters on the skull cloak generic characters you have to go hunt down but nope you already have their skulls smh thats the problem the lack of narrative story telling.
And the same can be said for gorbad his campaign could've been about one of his many adventures but it isn't from what ive heard i'm not sure i've only tried khorne so far, and then you have the bugs and the unfinished animations SOC and TOD has more sync kills and unique animations than this dlc imagine that SoC smh imo that's why the central dlc isn't as well received.
3:00 the obvious solution was to make them the same building and cut the gold income in half. The greenskins have too many buildings competing for position in their minor settlements. They are basically all viable but the income building is always best so the raiding one can only ever be a mistake or a buff to an out of control winning campaign.
They can be a little op, but i definitely wouldn't say its ruining the game
The good factions are the factions that do something differently. Golgfag's campaign is fun not because its easy/hard, but because it's different in a substantial way and can provide replayability. The reason why low-tier lord packs (such as grim/grave) aren't popular is because I feel adding a lord and like 3 units is basically the minimum. And with certain factions/certain lords there's clearly an attempt at depth. Chaos Dwarves are a great example IMO, of resource complexity adding another layer. Give the player more options to interact with the gameworld in meaningful ways beyond painting the map. Imagine if Grim/Grave brought with it a cult religious system alongside vampiric politics, or if K8P was just the beginning of a campaign, elevating belegar to be able to become high king or Skarsnik to do something crazy, like plant secret Goblin tunnels to every Karak.
Just stuff that changes the world in tangible ways beyond conquest that give replayability and depth is what i want.
IMO the AI is ruining the game, at least for me, vassals and allies are useless, the enemy armies are just running through their territory, wasting multiple turns just to flank me, and after they lose some battles, they will just retreat to a major settlement and sitting there with 2 or 3 full stacks waiting for you to attack him, and when you are waging war on 2-3 fronts (because AI is hating you in general and attacking you in the same time from multiple angles). You must play every single battle, because you are outnumbered heavily, causing campaign fatigue early on
Some of my favorite campaigns include Belegar, Skarsnik, Orion, and Durthu (old school versions). They don’t have fancy mechanics or features, they just require us to play around certain limitations, resulting in interesting campaigns.
Similarly, Wood Elves, Bretonnia, and the Vampire are some of my favorite factions, specifically because they have obvious holes in their rosters. You need to lean into those factions’ strengths to do well.
This goes to show that sometimes limitations lead to a more interesting game. I’m not a fan of the recent trend of giving (newer) factions and lords strengths without obvious drawbacks. Ironically, it makes campaigns samey.
I've had an absolute blast playing Gorbad's campaign. I think the best way to fix powercreep is to make Legendary HARD. Like in WH2. Back then, if you were playing on Legendary you had like 20 dwarf stacks coming at you if you got the order tide mad. It was like end game crisis non-stop from about turn 100. On a lot of these campaigns in WH3, it feels like you can't lose no matter how hard you tried.
The teams never work on a singular release at a time. While working on this DLC, the team also allocate developers to future DLCs and patches and projects in general.
18:16 Those nerfs were at the start of Warhammer 3. There is always a chance CA has made a pivot in the design decision and now support power creeping. The nerfs were merely before that pivot happened.