Click this link sponsr.is/bootdev_zerkovich and use my code ZERKOVICH to get 25% off your first payment for boot.dev. That’s 25% your first month or your first year, depending on the subscription you choose.
Could I ask why do you hate elves ( I just wanna say if I can I kill them as well but malekith is just imposible to beat ) because I don't think I ever seen you explained
Not everyone wants to fight constantly on open battlefields, I much prefer different battlefields, which include fighting in forests/water or around a big mountain for example. The only thing I agree with you about is the random bits of trees scattered around the maps.
What about the synced movement of units? Did you see how all units move their shields and weapons at the same time when marching? Looks hideous. There must be a 0.1 delay between previous and next unit when executing orders or something like that. Also, Jesus loves you. Read the Bible, friend. If you seek Jesus with all of your heart you will have a supernatural encounter with God.
What is annoying is that the smaller scale campaigns often have more lore, and special goals for DLC lords. And then you switch to IEE and everyone gets "Conquer 70 settlements, destroy three factions".
One problem I'd like to point out with sieges that I never hear anyone mention, The gateways have no boiling oil or murder holes, Inside the enemies gateway is actually a very safe place for your whole army so the strategy of just rushing the gate with your whole army is very effective, If they could like pour boiling oil out of murder holes in the gateway and stuff like that it would force you to consider not cramming your entire army into the gateway where they cant be hit by enemy archers on the walls or the towers.
And even if the ladder is removed, walls are still pretty much useless against almost all late game unit like flying unit, big monsters or attilery. Also it's hard to balance but characters (especially spell casters) are just way too powerful in sieges. 20 men can siege a castle better than a full army and is almost always the superior option since the wall is actually helping the the attacking side to pick and choose their fight.
@@rency1803 yup sieges are just beyond broken the AI can't even fathom what to do they just stand around letting you fight small bits of their army at a time. Theres just too many problems to even mention the whole system is fucked.
@@saltiney8578it is strange that everyone believes it would be oil. Irl it would have been boiling water since oil is expensive and it would be very wasteful and unecessary
@@manofculture4938 Its not really strange at all, because Oil can be lit on fire so its a better spectacle for movies and video games and most people dont know anything about historical sieges and only know from movies and video games generally. But I do understand your sentiment.
@@Musicwave986 Honestly there's not much to kill, every Black Ark has at most 1 or 2 units and most not even that, the shame of it is I was playing as Karl and hadn't moved much towards the Dark Elves so even though I've taken out 20 odd there are enough hidden in the non-visible part of the map to kill the game if I even try and quick save at this point.
@@simonnachreiner8380 I know there is a mod to basically kill off factions at the start of the game that are outside of a radius of your start. It was like faster turns or something like that. It's even adjustable I believe Just be prepared to never encounter that race. With franz you would probably still get at least one of the dark elf races, but it won't be naggarond and I'd bet he's the bastard building all of them.
I don't mind trees in the center, not every battle map should be perfectly designed for convenient play, and some factions actually would prefer to be having a battle in the thick of it. The issue is the perfect little circles of them. Too small to make significant use of in many cases and unbelieavably artificial seeming.
Yeah I want a big chunk of trees in one section of the map that I either need to play around or lure the enemy into, not little spots dotted everywhere.
There should be a nice mix of open field and trees on the middle right now there's tooany trees on the middle. Like show me a time when two armies decided to deploy across a battlefield like that like we do in game. You'd be camped a few hundred metres from the field you could move to the side of the trees or one side would stay in them to draw the other but never with a random tiny grove in the middle of the map
@@tunencio7288Yes, not being attacked on 3 random locations, by a bunch of random armies. Before ME and was forced to play Vortwx, i use to conquer as much as possible and fortify in the early to mid game, and the just rush the vortex mechanic when the enemy was getting close to finishing it. That campaign was crap and very few people actually liked it.
@@tunencio7288 They didn't tell you where the armies would randomly spawn. Was pretty common to have them arrive right next to settlements and raze them before my one army could get there. I've also had situations where if I spawn it one turn, then reload and move my army to where they had spawned closest to one of my settlements they'd just spawn somewhere else instead. If there was a way of seeing where they'd be invading from, that wasn't communicated by the game well. Contrast that to the RoC campaign, where for all the complaining about it you could absolutely control the spawning of armies even on release (eg, by scattering heroes and closing rifts as they opened). That one was much more clear to me how I can control that threat.
@@tunencio7288 Yeah, no. It specifically spawns them away from your armies to blow up a settlement or two a lot of the times. The worst for me though was the Markus Wolfhart campaign lizardman armies popping up. W3 toned it down but damn it was lame having to spawn armies in the middle of nowhere just because a full stack popped up to nuke a city.
In release version Skarbrand (before nerf) you could basically destroy everything before portals even showed up and if they did, well more blood for the blood god.
You're so right about the intel mode, adding all those modifiers to campaigns would be so incredibly fun also fk ass ladders. This video is a banger, so many good takes
And there would be a swarm of children on the forum crying about how setting everything to +200% is lagging their game and crashing and CA pls fix! I know that. you know that. CA knows that. That's why they don't do it.
You know, I never really thought much about why I hate sieges so much in the Warhammer games. But now that you mention it, of course it's the ass ladders negating the wall completely. That's why the sieges feel/are completely pointless, and just tedious. They don't feel like sieges at all. That and the units can't navigate streets at all...
I find in large sieges all the units just get clumped up fighting on the walls and it's extremely annoying and un-fun regardless on what side you're playing on. The only other option seems to be send some monstorous unit or whatever to bash down the gate and just fall asleep until it finishes then try to push through with something high mass.
The seige maps are so cluttered I have trouble seeing what I'm doing. Either clear the maps of clutter or give us an option to remove it. No ass ladders and make ladders extremely bad to fight from. The truth though is in Warhammer we have flying units, and how we need to think about defense really needs to change.
Using ladders have penalties. Your forces arrive few models at a time and they take a massive -10000 stamina penalty. They exist because of 3 reasons: 1) Warhammer have much more diverse factions, and not all have early access to artillery or fliers, while others do. The ladders help even out the balance. 2) Pacing. The campaign maps are huge, with a lot of settlements. There is a reason why siege time requirements were changed(used to be that you needed to siege for at least 4 turns before you caused attrition as well), and ladders also help speed up the process. The majority of players are not interested in being stuck at one location with an army for several turns, just to build ladders. 3) AI. It allows the AI to be more aggressive and decisive, when it can actually, potentially, complete a meaningful siege, even if most of its forces are infantry. Basically, ladders solve a lot of issues. If we were to remove them, the entire game would have to be restructured. More sieges would take longer to complete on the campaign map, certain factions would struggle in the early game, and the AI will overall find it difficult to do aggressive siege warfare(it would just have a lot of infantry standing there, getting shot at). So what you are asking for would make sieges even more tedious.
@@fendelphi Warhammer as a fantasy setting has many ways to negate walls. If a race lacks them then they should not just make walls useless, instead that race either needs to go around with creatures to do this, or a baggage train of gear. Instead, now the player can build fantastic fortifications, but they get blown down by a chump with 20 units of spears. Now I have to have 1 army in march range of each important settlement as otherwise its undefendable. It would slow progression in the early game, this would be quite healthy. Ladders should take a turn to make, or instead they should be deathtraps. CA seem to be ignoring realism 'because its boring'. But instead the over simplification of the game makes the game boring, one example is gunpowder - gun units generally beat bows, yet you can set them on fire and they do not explode ever, no risk - no fun.
if you really think the walls in warhammer feel like they're 'negated' ... don't play shogun. i mean, you're wrong anyway, but still, you won't like shogun if armies being prepared for sieges is too hard.
I just remembered the 6 layers of protections of citadels in "Medieval 2" 3 maximum walls and 2 layers of protections from each, why ? Because a unit needs to climb the wall first... and after that it needs to get down. When you lose a wall in medieval 2, you put the units at the end of the wall stairs and you can still stop enemies that took your walls and towels
@@darko-man8549 F-Yeah! this would have to be balanced somehow, like higher upkeep on each army to compensate that the Realms are almost impossible to conquer from the regular world.
realms of chaos should be implemented in IE for the chaos monogod factions and daniel. They have their seperate armies in the realms and they are able to invade each other, the more damage you do, the more your side becomes ascended on the world map for added bonuses, while the other faction loses power. Daniel could be like a wildcard, helping whoever he wants en receive blessings from that god, like armor, weapons demonic blessings, units, etc.
Just have units with a trait to climb walls like spiders or have magic that makes a wall climbable like nature magic that places vines on the wall your units can then climb. or have siege units like the skaven drill or have units that just walk throu walls like ghosts. or have dwarfs dig under walls or have flying units who let down ropes if they land on a wall maybe have huge mounted units like the dinos sent their infantry on walls like a boarding attack. Or instead of building siege units have your mages prepare a ritual that gives you a single cast spell that breaks down a wall segment. Every faction could have a unique way to interact with sieges. Nurgle plagues the defenders and has more attrition during siege turns. Skaven could infiltrate with ninjarats and you get a couple of units that you can place inside the walls. Orks yould get a sone free units the longer you siege because the boys heard there is a mighty fight brewing here. Undead could get zombie units in the walls equivalent to the amount of attrision lost of the defenders. they could have done so much.
All of this is great. A “wall climber” trait would be really cool for spiders and some other units. You would instantly be able to siege walls like you already had ladders. Ents…err Treemen could cause vines to come up and undermine walls or gates.
For Skaven drills and Dwaf miners, my ideal would be if the game let you split them and a small number of other non-flying units off into a reinforcement army when deploying. That reinforcement army would then enter the map like a Menace Below spawn at the location you chose during deployment. So for a siege you could have a chunk of your army pop up behind the enemy walls a couple of minutes into the battle.
@@aurtosebaelheim5942 yeah maybe you could have heroes who get siege units as talents that you get when the hero is in your army. Like master engineers.
The ass ladders wouldn't be so bad if your dudes on the walls dropped rocks and stuff on them, or if you HAD to take or destroy a gate to capture the victory locations behind it.
A better defense would be great, I don't mind having having the ladders as much as how useless the defenders are on the wall. Like just kick the ladder down and cause splash damage would be realistic. The real problem though is the ai, they will still get abused by the player in both attack and defense. The ai would just lose a lot of units trying to scale the wall over and over again, and if you programed them to never scale walls that are manned then it will always be the gate. If you got a spell caster and spears they never had a chance.
I just don't see it. Being able to get over walls is pretty much the one thing that melee units have going for them. Without them being able to do that, or only able to do it after pressing end turn a couple of times which ooh that sounds super fun and engaging gameplay, you're going back to WH2 where people would take 20 ranged units, burn a tower down with artillery, or not even bother with that in that one Lustria map, and then swept the walls clean with bullets, arrows or whatever while taking zero casualties every siege. Given that was already optimal for regular battles too you can see what people went with. The ass ladders just seems like accepted dogma to me aided by players who resent having to make more balanced armies, and players who don't realise that you can't just apply what worked in Rome 2/Medieval thinking when you also have flying units, magic, and monsters.
@@stryke-jn3kvWH2 already had ass ladders, in fact ass ladders were already present in WH1. About your comment on taking the tower down with siege and murdering everything with ranged, you can stil do it, in fact I do it quite a lot when i outrange the opponent, or worse, I murder half the garrison with magic. All the shitty parts of sieges are still present, and ass ladders don't improve it one bit. In fact, ass ladders only bring the immersion of the game down, which is already hard to keep up because the game exists in a fantasy world with magic and dragons... The ass ladders only exist to make the game more arcady, so that siege battles are faster but killing away a strategic aspect of the game in the process.
Truth. The apologia that people engage in to justify is dumb. The fact magic exists makes ass ladders worse. The non-magic things do magic things and the magic flying fucking ghosts need ladders that they pull from their non-existent asses.
I agree with you on the random tree patches but they also remind me a lot of the terrain setups we played with on tabletop back in the day. Random rocks and tiny bits of forest scattered around to try and break each other's line of sight.
That works on tabletop but it both looks and plays terribly in the game. You generally end up just ignoring them anyway, leaving them as nothing more than just eyesores.
How cool would it be to have the different regions of the Ruinous Powers in the IE map, and maybe even start the campaign in them as the original four Demonic Legendary Lords? the map could have known, and secret, Chaos Gates from which you could travel to the Realms of Chaos
I miss the graphs from Rome1 where you could see each factions line on how well they are doing in terms of economy and military, maybe I'm just autistic but those were nearly my favorite part of the OG game!
I think using the poll as an argument against Timed Campaign is a bit misleading. since I assume most people (me included) voted for IE because i have a lot more options of factions etc that I can play, let alone mod support.
Timed campaign are at least an existential threat to you. Immortal Empires is just a case of surviving the first thirty turns. There needs to be some real challenge to you that isn't X amount of stacks from suddenly resurgent faction. Also a siege rework would be great but doubt we'll see it. A wheeled ladder siege engine would be an improvement, though.
Timed campaigns also telegraph to you that you're falling behind. In an untimed campaign you can quite easily think you're doing fine only to have a big alliance show up on your doorstep and absolutely roll you.
May I ask on what difficulty did you play? I feel these extra overarching objectives are fun if you're just cruising through the campaign, much better than "just steamrolling the world I guess", but if the game is trying to make your life miserable in unfairly fashion and your existence is fragile, then piling on more artificial pressure or compelling the player to commit resources (they don't even have) to a campaign mechanic is distracting at best. Not to mention seeing your rivals do way better at the start is just discouraging.
@@lief3414 It's quite the opposite for me TBH... In these campaigns especially on legendary difficulty I feel like I finally have some goal. Without the ''story driven'' campaign and higher particular achievement I keep asking myself ''why am I doing this'', and campaign victory is super anticlimatic
Yeah I preferred Nagaroth in the Vortex compared to the scrunched up version we get in Immortal and Mortal Empires, at least Lustria is properly sized in Game 3.
Also with the ass ladders, I'm always frustrated that despite all my units having ladders, and being able to destroy the gate, if I don't have monsters or artillery, I cant storm a palce. I know, it's logical, you need siege equipment to storm a fort... except that no, even if I bring it, I can leave it in a corner, and still take the palce, so why should i bother with it? XD
Those map issues are really killer. Especially when people play large unit scales, or even molded oversized ones, everything turns into a big blob around the over cramped terrain features.
Suggestion 5B, related to ladders. Add some strategy to sieges themselves. Undermining was a major method of breeching walls. Make sieging armies think more in how they use their time, either building stuff like ladders or picking areas to undermine with a percentage chance of success. Give defenders options in how to spend coffers, like hiring agents with a percentage chance of smuggling in supplies to avoid losses.
The ass ladders sort of feel like the Shogun 2 seiges, were the troops just climbed the walls, or fell off trying. I do realise/know that Japanese castles had different wall designs to western ones, which seem to be the predominant design of all races in TWW3
Except that in Shogun 2 you would lose a significant amount of entities when climbing, in contrast to losing absolutely none in Warhammer, and the climbing in Shogun 2 being slow enough that even bow ashigaru can seriously damage samurai units in melee when the samurai are still just gathering entities on top. In Warhammer most archers aren't any threat to even early melee units in melee and the units gather entities on top of the walls fast enough that they barely have to suffer from being outnumbered at all. On top of this, in Shogun 2 you can easily get multi-layered walls to defend and earlier historical titles you had specific points on the walls that can be used to get down. Both of these are absent in Warhammer, being able to get down from the walls literally anywhere makes the problem of the ass ladders even worse. In actual fortifications the stairs down from the walls are usually located in the towers exactly because it allows outnumbered defenders to create choke points on the walls that strip the attackers of their numbers advantage.
@@houndofculann1793 Yeah I doubt Shogun 2 is what people have an issue with, as that has major downsides to just climbing the wall, and thanks to the castles fitting scaling the wall.
@@anvos658 people had a lot of beef with Shogun 2 sieges, they were compared to Med2 sieges and players in general were not happy about the wall climbing. The common theme was the same as it was with WH2, just auto resolve or kill them from outside the castle with range. Obviously today, none has major problems with Shogun 2 sieges, it's been 13 years, if you still play the game, you probably accepted them for what they are. People still playing WH3 in 2037 will have forgiven the ass ladder. So how about instead of forgive and forget, we get some actually good siege battles for a change in this game franchise and stop defending these meme mechanics.
@@bambae7669 Compared to Medieval 2 the Shogun 2 sieges are better, as Medieval 2 you spend as much time fighting your own units and that cavalry bugs out. My only real complaint about Shogun 2 sieges is burning the gate should take longer, and the defender should get to deploy after the attacker, given there is no reason not to just blob in the center and respond to where the enemy is.
@@Shmandalf Just replaying Mazdamundi, legendary difficulty+norm battle and a couple of minor mods to add flavour units. Great battles and often campaign is on a tight wire between success and failure, failed three times now but fourth times going well - damn good fun.
I would love to see ways around sieges that fit the faction's style and lore and make it more creative than ass laders. For instance ghost units with Etheral should just pass through siege walls, Vampire counts can sacrifice a unit of zombies or skeletons to produce a ramp out of their bodies allowing other vampire count units to walk onto the walls, Skaven gutter runners, goblin nasty skulkers and spider riders should just climb over walls like in shogun 2. Wood Elves would use magic to quickly grow a massive tree that goes over the wall. Dwarfs will user their miners to tunnel under the walls.
For any these to be fair. The ghost units should be temporearly weakend after having done so. The Corpse bridge should be destroyable. Spiders and any other unit that can climb the wall should be extra weak against spear units when doing so. The Tree should be weak to fire. The Dwarven one is too dumb. For them to digg that much it would take too long and it just wouldn't be feasable without also just taking the wall with it. For the walls to collapse under the sudden lack of support from the ground would be too OP. Basically each type of unit capable of getting passed the walls that easily would need to be counterable. Otherwise we just go back to square one, of walls basically being obsolete
@@LT_Silver or just give units on the wall something to do like dropping oil or boulder. The main issue with walls currently is unit on the wall have nothing to do aside from activating towers (which are not that good to begin with) and there's almost no benefit to stand on the wall. The most effective siege army right now for many factions are often monsters or flying unit army that just bypass wall entirely anyway.
@@rency1803 With how sieges currently work, ALL units bypass walls. That's the problem. Ground units can just pull ladders out of their asses and put them on the walls. Such ladders should be inefficent to use as ladder small enough for such units to just carry wouldn't be large enough for the units to easily trickle onto the wall with. Meaning the defenders should easily be able to kill them as the trickle in. Hell they in reality would be so easy to counter that they shouldn't be a thing. Let's also not forget that these ladders aren't counterable. What we should have instead are the massive ladders from Rome 2. Of which needs preparations to make and can be destroyed. Your point that they should be able to use oil or boulders doesn't work, because their units can just scale the walls regardless of what you do. The towers are decent with damage overtime, which is their purpose. So they are fine.
@@LT_Silver yea i know what you're trying to say and the ladder is a very big problem but the thing is if they don't fix the core problem of unit on the wall being useless then removing ladder won't help that much. It's basically make infantry always the worse choice for siege (which they already are by default). The main difference between this game and Rome 2 is EVERYTHING is better than melee infantry so removing ladder alone won't fix siege, it will just give people less incentive to use infantry and hurts faction with melee infantry focus like greenskins. And wdym letting units on the wall drop boulders and oil won't work, it can do massive damage if the enemies blob up below.
@@rency1803 That may be true, but all units being able to drop unlimited rocks and oil that would do the necessary damage you are implying would be broken. The rock and oil strategy generally only happened at doors. And would have to be limited to that for it to be balanced Removing the randomly appearing ladders would make sieges actual SIEGES. I do not care that infantry focused factions suffer for it. Not because I don't play them. Hell I generally play Helman Ghorst Which is also infantry heavy. The walls are meant to be good at stopping infantry, because that's the whole point of the walls... No people will not use infantry less. Because If they did they would be very exposed if the enemy decides to leave the walls. The ladders are the whole reason why Sieges are boring and bad. The Walls are useless.
i think a good fix to the ladders would make them in the siege screen make them as craftable banners (kinda like in the old games where you have to build ladders) for that siege so when you attack. you place which unit gets the ladder so that way it can place value on units for both the attackers and defenders
Do people not remember that almost all the older historical total wars had timed campaigns, with a date to have curtain settlements/provinces and factions to destroy
In case of timed campaigns, at least the Vortex Campaign gave you a ton of leeway to do it in your own pace. RoC however is just plain horrible here. They should've instead had the player's chosen LL go into the realm and explore it for various reasons. Kislev for Ursun, Cathay for one of the dragon siblings and so on. Everything in their own pace. The lab stuff could've been fun if you could use all those wacky options in the campaign and in usual multiplayer too. Agreed. We need more naturally placed trees on battle maps. Honestly? We should remove short and long victory conditions and replace them with a list of victory conditions. Ticking off a certain number of them unlocks unique rewards and global bonuses that aren't just increase of the amount of heroes you can get (not to mention certain victory conditions unlocking those global bonuses that would be of the most use for you). Ladders should be a unit upgrade for infantry you pay for with gold. Edit: For me if there is one thing that I don't want to see in future Warhammer games then it's how provinces are currently done. Screw that. I want it back to pre-Empire times where you had one province, no regions and could build literally every single damn thing there because suddenly building a smithy, stables and a farm and nothing else in a minor settlement all of a sudden and nothing else is beyond unrealistic when in reality the damn province has enough place and size for hundreds of these each. And to hell with everyone who justifies it with MUH VARIETY and MUH STRATEGIC THINKING. And if they had to do slots for buildings, then they should've instead expanded the damn Empire Total War province system for Pete's sake.
I think there were a couple main things behind the build slot system. 1) It’s easier on the AI having less possible combinations to account for 2) Minor settlements with fewer slots was an outgrowth of Empire’s system of having buildings on the campaign map that are attackable. They are a replacement for those, not the major cities.
I actually loved Vortex for playing the WH2 factions, Ulthuan and Naggarond area was much nicer to play in for size as well as the Desert campaign. Much prefer Vortex over RoC from 3 though.
Related to #3 (call it 3a) is no more random reinforcement army spawn points. It used to be in Total War that where a reinforcement army entered the battlefield was always from its relative location on the campaign map, which made the army's location on the campaign map actually *mean* something. But at some point it just became randomized because I guess that's more "fun" to people whose brains are entirely free of wrinkles. Also related: the battles maps should at least *somewhat* resemble the specific campaign area that they're in. If my army's standing on a bridge and is attacked, then I better see my army defending that goddam bridge, and not when the random number generator for the battle maps rings up "bridge battle".
Thumbnail made me think it was just going to be various races of elves... could've been dawi approved content 😂 Edit: 10:20 My man came through! Khazukan Kazakit-ha!
Mine would be "give the player and the AI elite units every 10-20 turns" or something like that. Early game, you kill the main army and if you don't, or can't finish the faction you just end up fighting against hordes of trash (or just 1). It sure is fun to fight an interesting chaos dwarf army once, then end up fighting gobbo hordes the rest of the time. Like, we all remember that one Norscan with the elephant right? That's the feeling I wish AI would get with their armies. Even if it's technically cheating, I don't care. On the other hand, the moment we get a cool unit means we can spam it. Which means that until then, we have nothing cool or fun to play with. Except what was given at the start, which also works against us as if we lose the unit, we are back to basic troops. Honestly, it might be the reason why I love playing as vampire counts... send a huge trash army, lose it all, then get a single varghulf to have fun with. Playing with restocking RoR increased my enjoyment by A LOT. I'm sure they could balance it.
Trees one definitely is a big issue do to vision in game. Most major engagements in history happened in open fields. Ladders, I never thought about it but you are 100% right it takes out the need for siege equipment and kind of diminishes the fact that you have walls.
ROC enjoyer here. I play this game-mode for 3 reasons, its the best way to get achievements(imo), 2, its the fastest meaning you get to try each faction within a timely manner, and 3, i personally just really like each factions story cutscenes.
The biggest problem with the timed campaigns is that the player has such a massive economic and recruiting disadvantage. Sending off your legendary lord army that you can barely afford becomes a death sentence for your settlements. It's always ridiculous that confederation puts you at a huge economic deficient when the faction should have been able to support their own forces.
Agreed. The main campaign should be put on pause as soon as you enter the realms until you get out. And yeah, sometimes you end up in situations like: why would I wanna confederate with that minor faction. I have no armies near that area, and I can't really afford to keep theirs to protect the area.
I actually like the Vortex campaign because it avoided the overly long victory conditions you mentioned. The vortex felt like just the right amount of time for me to pick up a new faction, have fun learning how they play, and get out before I'm bogged down in turns that never seem to end.
The tree acne isn't a rushed job issue; it's a balance issue. They want to make it harder to use missile units/artillery especially, and balance toward melee units, hence weirdly bumpy terrain and tree acne providing LOS issues. This is partly due to the focus on PVP play, but carries over to the single player campaign
RoC campaign is actually fun for most of the DLC lords since it doesn't have the RoC mechanics for them. From the older campaigns, Norsca had one of the better victory conditions of just going on a nice lore-friendly rampage.
"We don't want no gravity or oversized characters in our campaigns" Speak for yourself. I'd be ok with them being there for the times that I want to be silly with my Total War campaign.
Fun fact with the Laborartory things, CA actually uses them to stress test the game on different systems via players and uses the data they gather that to optimize and refine how the game runs. IIRC it was instrumental in some of the optimization WHII got later in its life.
What I want to see: I totally agree with the ladders but while were at it make it so climbing up ladders takes longer while making the units tired because they are climbing up them in ALL their gear. Make wall towers active on their own without needing to park a unit onto it so they are always firing and are actually useful like the capture points inside the city. Add some way to be able to attack whoever is assaulting the gate so we cant get through the walls safely with a single lord. Make it so that towers got a wider firing angle and can hit whoever is attacking the gate while also making it so the gates are not hidden under the wall making whoever is there safe from attack by the defenders........................ Remove victory point and tickets bullshit and make it so we only lose when all the units refuse to fight. Make it so that the capture points in the settlements only provide buffs. Ammo depot replenishes ammo. First aid/hospital point heals units slowly etc. Add shit that gives the defensive player a bigger and bigger advantage the longer the battle lasts because they got more supplies than the opponent. Remove tower defense bullshit that was added in WH3. Instead add what I think was in rome where we could build fortifications, drop down caltrops or whatever. Ages since I played it so dont quite remember. Make it so that if we are in defensive stance and gets attacked then we got some small defensive fortifications. Maybe something that can be upgraded further with research.
I’d like if the smaller campaign win conditions were in ie. Pretend you are high elves when you go into ie you still have short long total win conditions - the default - but you also can pursue the vortex win condition if you are so inclined. The decision to go for one or the other could be something you decide in game as a player or could be a setting you toggle during game set up. This will allow the designs to retain cool fun ideas while improving/expanding the sandbox nature of ie.
The trees placement in battle is like tabletop were each players would take turn drop a terrain feature. The result would be similar to does map. But it does suck. Frankly, I hate the unclear terrain limits a lot more and the strange unit placement next to an invisible barrier
Not everyone wants to fight constantly on open battlefields, I much prefer different battlefields, which include fighting in forests/water or around a big mountain for example. The only thing I agree with you about is the random bits of trees scattered around the maps.
Victory conditions are absolutely daunting. I’m trying to 100% TWW3 by next year at the latest: I pick a faction, learn its “thing”, restart in legendary difficulty, and just absolutely chunk away for hundreds of turns. It’s absolutely mind numbing how I’ve gotten 4 completed because after you do the story related OBJs, you then have to sack or occupy way more territory than you want. I’ve always justified it as “now that my great enemy is felled I set my army loose upon the world.“ but dude…75 settlements on legendary difficulty is a bit much to ask of both my patience and the game’s knack for turning into monster battles post turn 150; it stops being fun to play because it just turns into a task of clicking the mouse 800 times.
In regards to the timed component in the third game, you don't actually have to rush against the AI when they get to the final phase you get the option to intercept them and get rid of all their souls. If you just go about your business and build your empire and they smack whatever AI are going for the win you can then reset their "timers" and go for the win at your own pace. I liked having something better than just kill everything like in immortal empires but it does suck that you can't use all the factions in it.
Big reason why nobody got those achievements for campaign victories with the immortal empire exclusive races is that CA only just recently changed the requirements for them to trigger with the latest DLC. Now you can get them with the long campaign victory while before that you had to go full map completion or beat the ultimate crisis I believe.
I was hoping that, CA would implement a system in the defense structure that at a certain tier; you could get burning oil cauldrons, whether it be on walls or even at the gate to allow the defenders to punish ladder spam
You punish ladder spam by putting a unit there. Because climbing gives the unit horrendous debuff and the models trickle in slowly, it's basically a free kill.
I think it would be cool if there was a sort of depo in your deployment zone, where you have to send infantry to pick up a ladder and take it to the wall you want to scale. Make these depo's destructible, so that a defender could risk a raid on it to burn it down and take away their ladders.
Honestly, removing the ass ladders would help some other units shine. We have miners, monsters, and skaven drillers who can knock down walls. Flying units bypass walls. You could even give units like spiders the ability to climb walls unaided.
Man I must have missed a golden age where units couldn’t just climb walls. I remember in Shogun 2 when it looked like a legion of zombies would scale the walls of a castle. And the only ones that could do it quick or without casualties were the ninja’s which were really cool
pre Warhammer 1 used to have maps generated based on campaign map location, especially the older games. No tree acne, because a forest battle had a randomly generated forest. Rivers had fords and bridges, mountains had slopes and rocks, coasts had beaches, and these even combined based on specific campaign map location. The modern ones are just dull template junk where a desert is the same as a volcano as a farm
* The problem with 1st point is the wasted amount of work time that could have gone into improving the sieges for example, work that most people no longer if at all experienced (entire maps that are no longer used for example). * I wouldn't bother mentioning the second point when talk about my top 5, it was just easy cash for CA, nothing to be bothered about. * The 3rd point is semi ok, because it isn't bad to have some maps with trees on the middle its that there are to many, if anything the problems with maps are far bigger than the trees - or to be précises - they are smaller XD the maps are, they are just to small and two few in number I hate playing in the same maps again and again its so repetitive - 3K generated maps are so much better. * Victory conditions are nonsense, TW used to be sandbox game, it doesn't need those, what it needs is just more sandboxy design to comeback (look at paradox) which is why again I wouldn't bother placing it on the top 5, if anything I would write important stuff like removing lightning strike/control large armies features that just are complete bullshit and should be in TW. * And finally number 5, this should be number 1 with more requests along side of it such as gate defenses (oil/rocks/flames), farther deployment zone of the attacker (its stupid to start so close to the walls), if you mentioned maps a few more of those could have been great, tools to handle SEU at the moment sieges are made easy by spamming those, and more - which CA CAN CHANGE but its up to the players to keep banging about this - cause they will if they will even for a second think it will lose them customers on the next product if they won't fix those.
why is no one talking about the fact that small entities get constantly pushed around and knocked to the floor which makes them taking no damage, which makes it hard to kill them quickly with bigger entities such as cavalry or monsters. For instance: In Napoleon you could bet on it, that if you ordered a cavalry unit to attack a lower tier infantry unit, they would cut them to mince meat in a few seconds
I loved Rome 2s objectives that gave you rewards like "own 3 provinces" as the main one then 4 or 5 side objectives. I find that so cool if you need an immediate surplus of income or you can hold off and go for all of them
I remember in warhammer 2 my first campaign was with queek, and I spent more than 350 turns because I was always conquering new territories and the victory conditions were at least 50% of skaven corruption in all the regions controlled, and as I kept expanding more it was impossible. After turn 300 I was already bored and stopped all of my armies for 50 turns just to reach the objective and win
My main gripe with the Realms of Chaos campaign is how it's so unrelated to everything else that's happening on the campaign map. I could keep conquering territory or just hit end turn in-between the roars and it doesn't change a thing. I'll get to the campaign victory in around 120 turns and then be like "I guess that's that". I'd much prefer it if they instead gave you a resource to accumulate that allowed you to send one of your Lords into one of the Chaos Realms on your own time.
Imagine if we had defensive terrain. Like being able to have a group of archers and a melee infantry group stationed into those rock out cropping, giving archers increased range and missile protection etc
That Victory Conditions Overhaul mod is basically mandatory at this point imo. Makes it so much more fun to play and go for those achievements. It's the only reason why I bothered getting 100% achievement completion.
When the best strategy for defending castles is, “abandon the wall because defending walls is inherently bad for the defender,” something is seriously wrong with the game. That revelation should have put the team in to crisis mode from day one. The fact that they haven’t fixed this yet is horrifying.
For me I wouldn't mind the Ass ladders as much if the negatives it brings (massive Fatigue to the unit) ((Same as with Force march which the AI is very fond off to swarm you)) would be more noticeble in combat so that any units scaling a wall with ladders really need to overpower the defenders on the wall, and that if you do have infantry on the wall they could damage the units climbing while they are coming up instead of waiting for them to be able to fight back. Also they need to do something about the Accuracy of the towers themselfs, I just finished a Malakai campaign where I had one of the Fort settlements and it got attacked by Wood Elves on Forest dragons, I had 4 towers fire on them and over the course of a full siege (20 ish minutes) they barely did 30% of it's HP.
Settlements from another race looking exactly the same after you've taken it, i.e if orcs take a high elf settlement put some orcy decorations over the existing settlement model or replace it with an orc settlement
think the worst part about thoses timed campaigns is when you get told to move your unit's across the battle and you got artillery, all while a new horde of enemies just teleport out of no where and flanks you. Like the final fight in twwh3 has you moving your units so far its such a slog. i just wanna have my armies clash into other armies without having most of my units on the other side of the map cause they got 20 speed.
Has anyone seen those high elves that are in the southeast coast book it to Ulthuan and try to occupy the ruins there? lol, it reminded me in the times of Warhammer 2 when Vlad would go down into the badlands for some reason lol.
I hear “victory conditions” and I’m reminded that Khatep has the same victory conditions as other Tomb Kings of conquering Nehekara an building all pyramids. Khatep is in Naggaroth.
I never minded the timed aspect of historical campaigns. Where an extra challenge was to achieve a certain victory by whatever year/month. Attila or Shogun 2’s forests were the best (for their respective environments/eras)
For me the worst part of the ass ladders is how long it takes for a unit to climb them. The unit turns completely unresponsive and then you just have to sit there and wait to use your army for the next 10 minutes.
I only played the WH2 campaign once and never did the WH3 one. I didn't know they were timed but i simply wanted to play with friends on the world map.
There's a mod I started playing with that removes the short and long victory conditions from the game and replaces them with three sort of medium length victory conditions that give you various bonuses once you complete them and they still count as a campaign victory. They haven't given every faction this treatment yet, but peobably about half of the factions have these new conditions with tangible rewards. I highly recommend giving it a shot
I agree the short victory for tyrion makes no sense. Make dreadfleet and cult of pleasure. Also, the other issue with ladders/walls is that there seems to be no bonus to defending walls. Units are supposedly exhausted after climbing a wall, had been shot at, and yet seem to always win over any defending unit (even of a higher tier).
Those ladders are the reason why I will usually auto resolve sieges. If the attacker has more units then they are getting over the walls. Full stop. It makes walls pretty much worthless.
Another thing about units in sieges... I noticed placing my troops there DOESN'T BLOCK THE ENEMY! What the AI will do is simply continually push any of its units (whether they're ladder-ing or using siege towers) THROUGH my units until they get past them, and then they head straight for capturing gates or capture points. The unit only stops doing so when I issue SPECIFIC ATTACK ORDERS on the enemy units on my walls... otherwise they just push right through my men and, while usually emerging heavily damaged from individual models defending themselves, they can get half to two thirds of the unit past my men and down off the wall, and manning the walls has become much harder and almost useless on certain maps. Why, CA? Why is the AI obsessed with capture points?!
I thought the "Bad maps" one was going to mention the map in the snowy areas that had ludicrous bloom saturation, to the point that it gave me migraines to try and enjoy a Kislev campaign. I also found a few where the deployment zones were just fucked, including deploying inside the enemy's deployment zone because it got borked on terrain.
Maybe ass ladders could be an equipable item pre battle, you get 1 per 5 units and that way only a handful of units can cheese the walls, increasing their value.
I don't really mind the tree acne maps that much, I just wish the tree were more naturally spaced out. The maps that REALLY such are the Lustria ones with one gigantic mountain in the middle and 90000 trees which basically makes ranged factions impossible to use.
Click this link sponsr.is/bootdev_zerkovich and use my code ZERKOVICH to get 25% off your first payment for boot.dev. That’s 25% your first month or your first year, depending on the subscription you choose.
Could I ask why do you hate elves ( I just wanna say if I can I kill them as well but malekith is just imposible to beat ) because I don't think I ever seen you explained
Elves are the worst
Not everyone wants to fight constantly on open battlefields, I much prefer different battlefields, which include fighting in forests/water or around a big mountain for example. The only thing I agree with you about is the random bits of trees scattered around the maps.
What about the synced movement of units? Did you see how all units move their shields and weapons at the same time when marching? Looks hideous. There must be a 0.1 delay between previous and next unit when executing orders or something like that. Also, Jesus loves you. Read the Bible, friend. If you seek Jesus with all of your heart you will have a supernatural encounter with God.
What is annoying is that the smaller scale campaigns often have more lore, and special goals for DLC lords. And then you switch to IEE and everyone gets "Conquer 70 settlements, destroy three factions".
full map conquest is the only campaign goal
Victory Conditions Overhaul mod people! tell your friends!
Its why I actually like Vortex in 2, had set objectives for each faction and made it super fun
@@sydalg95 Thank you!
@@realenewThat’s disgusting, the greatest digital chore to ever exist 😂
One problem I'd like to point out with sieges that I never hear anyone mention, The gateways have no boiling oil or murder holes, Inside the enemies gateway is actually a very safe place for your whole army so the strategy of just rushing the gate with your whole army is very effective, If they could like pour boiling oil out of murder holes in the gateway and stuff like that it would force you to consider not cramming your entire army into the gateway where they cant be hit by enemy archers on the walls or the towers.
And even if the ladder is removed, walls are still pretty much useless against almost all late game unit like flying unit, big monsters or attilery. Also it's hard to balance but characters (especially spell casters) are just way too powerful in sieges. 20 men can siege a castle better than a full army and is almost always the superior option since the wall is actually helping the the attacking side to pick and choose their fight.
@@rency1803 yup sieges are just beyond broken the AI can't even fathom what to do they just stand around letting you fight small bits of their army at a time. Theres just too many problems to even mention the whole system is fucked.
@@saltiney8578it is strange that everyone believes it would be oil. Irl it would have been boiling water since oil is expensive and it would be very wasteful and unecessary
@@manofculture4938 Its not really strange at all, because Oil can be lit on fire so its a better spectacle for movies and video games and most people dont know anything about historical sieges and only know from movies and video games generally. But I do understand your sentiment.
@@saltiney8578 I think boiling liquid is demoralizing enough for most cases but fair.
Right now I'd just settle for Dark Elves not building a million Black Ark's and lagging my campaign to Oblivion
i want your dark elves in my campaign
@@Musicwave986 Honestly there's not much to kill, every Black Ark has at most 1 or 2 units and most not even that, the shame of it is I was playing as Karl and hadn't moved much towards the Dark Elves so even though I've taken out 20 odd there are enough hidden in the non-visible part of the map to kill the game if I even try and quick save at this point.
THIS! I just had a Franz campaign hit the modded end game crisis. Little did I know it was the Druchi bricking my save that was the real crisis.
@@simonnachreiner8380 I know there is a mod to basically kill off factions at the start of the game that are outside of a radius of your start. It was like faster turns or something like that. It's even adjustable I believe Just be prepared to never encounter that race. With franz you would probably still get at least one of the dark elf races, but it won't be naggarond and I'd bet he's the bastard building all of them.
@@maddlarkin i see, yea that sounds like a bother alright
I don't mind trees in the center, not every battle map should be perfectly designed for convenient play, and some factions actually would prefer to be having a battle in the thick of it.
The issue is the perfect little circles of them. Too small to make significant use of in many cases and unbelieavably artificial seeming.
Yeah, those perfect circles of trees everywhere are horribly immersion breaking. Fighting around trees, fine, but that? No.
Yeah I want a big chunk of trees in one section of the map that I either need to play around or lure the enemy into, not little spots dotted everywhere.
Sad wood elf noises
I kinda figured that they were kinda for those units with the “Woodsman” trait to take advantage of
There should be a nice mix of open field and trees on the middle right now there's tooany trees on the middle. Like show me a time when two armies decided to deploy across a battlefield like that like we do in game. You'd be camped a few hundred metres from the field you could move to the side of the trees or one side would stay in them to draw the other but never with a random tiny grove in the middle of the map
I didn't mind the timer on Vortex campaign, I just minded getting jumped by invasion armies that I had no way to predict.
they told you that you will be attacked, sometimes you even have map clue for the attack...you wanted more help?
@@tunencio7288Yes, not being attacked on 3 random locations, by a bunch of random armies.
Before ME and was forced to play Vortwx, i use to conquer as much as possible and fortify in the early to mid game, and the just rush the vortex mechanic when the enemy was getting close to finishing it.
That campaign was crap and very few people actually liked it.
@@tunencio7288 They didn't tell you where the armies would randomly spawn. Was pretty common to have them arrive right next to settlements and raze them before my one army could get there. I've also had situations where if I spawn it one turn, then reload and move my army to where they had spawned closest to one of my settlements they'd just spawn somewhere else instead. If there was a way of seeing where they'd be invading from, that wasn't communicated by the game well.
Contrast that to the RoC campaign, where for all the complaining about it you could absolutely control the spawning of armies even on release (eg, by scattering heroes and closing rifts as they opened). That one was much more clear to me how I can control that threat.
@@tunencio7288 Yeah, no. It specifically spawns them away from your armies to blow up a settlement or two a lot of the times. The worst for me though was the Markus Wolfhart campaign lizardman armies popping up. W3 toned it down but damn it was lame having to spawn armies in the middle of nowhere just because a full stack popped up to nuke a city.
you can close the portals with agents, just spawn them when the portals first open and you can close em all in two to three turns
When playing skarbrand in the realm of chaos campaign, I fixed the time issue by killing all the legendary lords
Same!
that is very khorne of you
lore-friendly campaign
In release version Skarbrand (before nerf) you could basically destroy everything before portals even showed up and if they did, well more blood for the blood god.
@@JakubZN in release you could kill every faction turn 1 as Skarbrand.
You're so right about the intel mode, adding all those modifiers to campaigns would be so incredibly fun also fk ass ladders. This video is a banger, so many good takes
The loathsome!!!
And there would be a swarm of children on the forum crying about how setting everything to +200% is lagging their game and crashing and CA pls fix!
I know that. you know that. CA knows that. That's why they don't do it.
You know, I never really thought much about why I hate sieges so much in the Warhammer games. But now that you mention it, of course it's the ass ladders negating the wall completely. That's why the sieges feel/are completely pointless, and just tedious. They don't feel like sieges at all.
That and the units can't navigate streets at all...
I find in large sieges all the units just get clumped up fighting on the walls and it's extremely annoying and un-fun regardless on what side you're playing on. The only other option seems to be send some monstorous unit or whatever to bash down the gate and just fall asleep until it finishes then try to push through with something high mass.
The seige maps are so cluttered I have trouble seeing what I'm doing. Either clear the maps of clutter or give us an option to remove it. No ass ladders and make ladders extremely bad to fight from.
The truth though is in Warhammer we have flying units, and how we need to think about defense really needs to change.
Using ladders have penalties. Your forces arrive few models at a time and they take a massive -10000 stamina penalty.
They exist because of 3 reasons:
1) Warhammer have much more diverse factions, and not all have early access to artillery or fliers, while others do. The ladders help even out the balance.
2) Pacing. The campaign maps are huge, with a lot of settlements. There is a reason why siege time requirements were changed(used to be that you needed to siege for at least 4 turns before you caused attrition as well), and ladders also help speed up the process. The majority of players are not interested in being stuck at one location with an army for several turns, just to build ladders.
3) AI. It allows the AI to be more aggressive and decisive, when it can actually, potentially, complete a meaningful siege, even if most of its forces are infantry.
Basically, ladders solve a lot of issues. If we were to remove them, the entire game would have to be restructured. More sieges would take longer to complete on the campaign map, certain factions would struggle in the early game, and the AI will overall find it difficult to do aggressive siege warfare(it would just have a lot of infantry standing there, getting shot at).
So what you are asking for would make sieges even more tedious.
@@fendelphi Warhammer as a fantasy setting has many ways to negate walls.
If a race lacks them then they should not just make walls useless, instead that race either needs to go around with creatures to do this, or a baggage train of gear.
Instead, now the player can build fantastic fortifications, but they get blown down by a chump with 20 units of spears. Now I have to have 1 army in march range of each important settlement as otherwise its undefendable.
It would slow progression in the early game, this would be quite healthy.
Ladders should take a turn to make, or instead they should be deathtraps. CA seem to be ignoring realism 'because its boring'. But instead the over simplification of the game makes the game boring, one example is gunpowder - gun units generally beat bows, yet you can set them on fire and they do not explode ever, no risk - no fun.
if you really think the walls in warhammer feel like they're 'negated' ... don't play shogun.
i mean, you're wrong anyway, but still, you won't like shogun if armies being prepared for sieges is too hard.
I just remembered the 6 layers of protections of citadels in "Medieval 2"
3 maximum walls and 2 layers of protections from each, why ?
Because a unit needs to climb the wall first... and after that it needs to get down.
When you lose a wall in medieval 2, you put the units at the end of the wall stairs and you can still stop enemies that took your walls and towels
Always hate those enemies that take my towels, the bastards.
@@xenophon1999 After a shower especially
@@xenophon1999 Nice one
This is the type of protection dwarf settlements should have but on steroids
Nice and historical, the way we want it that game execs hate!
If we got access to Realms of Chaos IN immortal Empires....oh boy...THAT would be awesome!! iv'e wanted that since day one of IE
Realms of Chaos are being added to the Old World mod if you are interested
how cool it would be to Start the campaign as a Demonic Legendary lord from each Realm?
@@Psychosofi full sandbox: take control of your realm, then teleport to any gate on IE and conquer from there
@@darko-man8549 F-Yeah! this would have to be balanced somehow, like higher upkeep on each army to compensate that the Realms are almost impossible to conquer from the regular world.
Some guy was working on it with a mod (chaosrobbie), so it should be coming. the great book of grudges had a video on it
realms of chaos should be implemented in IE for the chaos monogod factions and daniel. They have their seperate armies in the realms and they are able to invade each other, the more damage you do, the more your side becomes ascended on the world map for added bonuses, while the other faction loses power. Daniel could be like a wildcard, helping whoever he wants en receive blessings from that god, like armor, weapons demonic blessings, units, etc.
Just have units with a trait to climb walls like spiders or have magic that makes a wall climbable like nature magic that places vines on the wall your units can then climb. or have siege units like the skaven drill or have units that just walk throu walls like ghosts. or have dwarfs dig under walls or have flying units who let down ropes if they land on a wall maybe have huge mounted units like the dinos sent their infantry on walls like a boarding attack. Or instead of building siege units have your mages prepare a ritual that gives you a single cast spell that breaks down a wall segment. Every faction could have a unique way to interact with sieges. Nurgle plagues the defenders and has more attrition during siege turns. Skaven could infiltrate with ninjarats and you get a couple of units that you can place inside the walls. Orks yould get a sone free units the longer you siege because the boys heard there is a mighty fight brewing here. Undead could get zombie units in the walls equivalent to the amount of attrision lost of the defenders. they could have done so much.
All of this is great. A “wall climber” trait would be really cool for spiders and some other units. You would instantly be able to siege walls like you already had ladders.
Ents…err Treemen could cause vines to come up and undermine walls or gates.
Some very good ideas here, I like it.
For Skaven drills and Dwaf miners, my ideal would be if the game let you split them and a small number of other non-flying units off into a reinforcement army when deploying. That reinforcement army would then enter the map like a Menace Below spawn at the location you chose during deployment.
So for a siege you could have a chunk of your army pop up behind the enemy walls a couple of minutes into the battle.
@@aurtosebaelheim5942 yeah maybe you could have heroes who get siege units as talents that you get when the hero is in your army. Like master engineers.
I think in one of the historical games you could have a hero sabotage the gates so they were open when you arrived
The ass ladders wouldn't be so bad if your dudes on the walls dropped rocks and stuff on them, or if you HAD to take or destroy a gate to capture the victory locations behind it.
Fr. It's like the races of Warhammer somehow never invented machicolations...
A better defense would be great, I don't mind having having the ladders as much as how useless the defenders are on the wall. Like just kick the ladder down and cause splash damage would be realistic. The real problem though is the ai, they will still get abused by the player in both attack and defense. The ai would just lose a lot of units trying to scale the wall over and over again, and if you programed them to never scale walls that are manned then it will always be the gate. If you got a spell caster and spears they never had a chance.
Also rats and dwarves should have another siege equipment that digs tunnels, they had it in older total war games.
If they just removed ass ladders....my god would that be an improvement
I just don't see it. Being able to get over walls is pretty much the one thing that melee units have going for them. Without them being able to do that, or only able to do it after pressing end turn a couple of times which ooh that sounds super fun and engaging gameplay, you're going back to WH2 where people would take 20 ranged units, burn a tower down with artillery, or not even bother with that in that one Lustria map, and then swept the walls clean with bullets, arrows or whatever while taking zero casualties every siege. Given that was already optimal for regular battles too you can see what people went with.
The ass ladders just seems like accepted dogma to me aided by players who resent having to make more balanced armies, and players who don't realise that you can't just apply what worked in Rome 2/Medieval thinking when you also have flying units, magic, and monsters.
You mean even less reason to bring infantry instead of op monsters and hero spam?
@stryke-jn3kv just give the models some ladders to hold before they reach the walls and a slight speed debuff before reaching the walls.
@@stryke-jn3kvWH2 already had ass ladders, in fact ass ladders were already present in WH1.
About your comment on taking the tower down with siege and murdering everything with ranged, you can stil do it, in fact I do it quite a lot when i outrange the opponent, or worse, I murder half the garrison with magic.
All the shitty parts of sieges are still present, and ass ladders don't improve it one bit. In fact, ass ladders only bring the immersion of the game down, which is already hard to keep up because the game exists in a fantasy world with magic and dragons...
The ass ladders only exist to make the game more arcady, so that siege battles are faster but killing away a strategic aspect of the game in the process.
Truth. The apologia that people engage in to justify is dumb. The fact magic exists makes ass ladders worse. The non-magic things do magic things and the magic flying fucking ghosts need ladders that they pull from their non-existent asses.
I agree with you on the random tree patches but they also remind me a lot of the terrain setups we played with on tabletop back in the day. Random rocks and tiny bits of forest scattered around to try and break each other's line of sight.
That works on tabletop but it both looks and plays terribly in the game. You generally end up just ignoring them anyway, leaving them as nothing more than just eyesores.
Fighting in trees is a pain in the ass though ,you cant see shit
How cool would it be to have the different regions of the Ruinous Powers in the IE map, and maybe even start the campaign in them as the original four Demonic Legendary Lords? the map could have known, and secret, Chaos Gates from which you could travel to the Realms of Chaos
I think/hope soon. The old world seems like a beta test to work out the kinks and bugs to add it into IE.
@@joshmilner4864 Cool! gonna download that mod now!
I miss the graphs from Rome1 where you could see each factions line on how well they are doing in terms of economy and military, maybe I'm just autistic but those were nearly my favorite part of the OG game!
Nah you're just weird. I'm autistic and couldn't give a shit about that stuff.
🤓
also, i agree :D
I think using the poll as an argument against Timed Campaign is a bit misleading. since I assume most people (me included) voted for IE because i have a lot more options of factions etc that I can play, let alone mod support.
Timed campaign are at least an existential threat to you. Immortal Empires is just a case of surviving the first thirty turns. There needs to be some real challenge to you that isn't X amount of stacks from suddenly resurgent faction. Also a siege rework would be great but doubt we'll see it. A wheeled ladder siege engine would be an improvement, though.
Timed campaigns also telegraph to you that you're falling behind. In an untimed campaign you can quite easily think you're doing fine only to have a big alliance show up on your doorstep and absolutely roll you.
… I actually liked the vortex campaign.
And after the update that didn’t make it obnoxiously frustrating, I liked the Chaos Realms campaign.
Yeah loved Vortex campaign. Felt you had something to accomplish, not just "own these settlements" for every faction lol
May I ask on what difficulty did you play?
I feel these extra overarching objectives are fun if you're just cruising through the campaign, much better than "just steamrolling the world I guess", but if the game is trying to make your life miserable in unfairly fashion and your existence is fragile, then piling on more artificial pressure or compelling the player to commit resources (they don't even have) to a campaign mechanic is distracting at best. Not to mention seeing your rivals do way better at the start is just discouraging.
@@lief3414 It's quite the opposite for me TBH... In these campaigns especially on legendary difficulty I feel like I finally have some goal.
Without the ''story driven'' campaign and higher particular achievement I keep asking myself ''why am I doing this'', and campaign victory is super anticlimatic
I really liked the scale of the Vortex campaign and was disappointed that it wasn't applied to the scope of Mortal Empires
Yeah I preferred Nagaroth in the Vortex compared to the scrunched up version we get in Immortal and Mortal Empires, at least Lustria is properly sized in Game 3.
Also with the ass ladders, I'm always frustrated that despite all my units having ladders, and being able to destroy the gate, if I don't have monsters or artillery, I cant storm a palce.
I know, it's logical, you need siege equipment to storm a fort... except that no, even if I bring it, I can leave it in a corner, and still take the palce, so why should i bother with it? XD
Those map issues are really killer.
Especially when people play large unit scales, or even molded oversized ones, everything turns into a big blob around the over cramped terrain features.
Suggestion 5B, related to ladders. Add some strategy to sieges themselves. Undermining was a major method of breeching walls. Make sieging armies think more in how they use their time, either building stuff like ladders or picking areas to undermine with a percentage chance of success. Give defenders options in how to spend coffers, like hiring agents with a percentage chance of smuggling in supplies to avoid losses.
The ass ladders sort of feel like the Shogun 2 seiges, were the troops just climbed the walls, or fell off trying. I do realise/know that Japanese castles had different wall designs to western ones, which seem to be the predominant design of all races in TWW3
Except that in Shogun 2 you would lose a significant amount of entities when climbing, in contrast to losing absolutely none in Warhammer, and the climbing in Shogun 2 being slow enough that even bow ashigaru can seriously damage samurai units in melee when the samurai are still just gathering entities on top. In Warhammer most archers aren't any threat to even early melee units in melee and the units gather entities on top of the walls fast enough that they barely have to suffer from being outnumbered at all.
On top of this, in Shogun 2 you can easily get multi-layered walls to defend and earlier historical titles you had specific points on the walls that can be used to get down. Both of these are absent in Warhammer, being able to get down from the walls literally anywhere makes the problem of the ass ladders even worse. In actual fortifications the stairs down from the walls are usually located in the towers exactly because it allows outnumbered defenders to create choke points on the walls that strip the attackers of their numbers advantage.
@@houndofculann1793 Yeah I doubt Shogun 2 is what people have an issue with, as that has major downsides to just climbing the wall, and thanks to the castles fitting scaling the wall.
@@anvos658 people had a lot of beef with Shogun 2 sieges, they were compared to Med2 sieges and players in general were not happy about the wall climbing. The common theme was the same as it was with WH2, just auto resolve or kill them from outside the castle with range.
Obviously today, none has major problems with Shogun 2 sieges, it's been 13 years, if you still play the game, you probably accepted them for what they are. People still playing WH3 in 2037 will have forgiven the ass ladder.
So how about instead of forgive and forget, we get some actually good siege battles for a change in this game franchise and stop defending these meme mechanics.
@@bambae7669 Compared to Medieval 2 the Shogun 2 sieges are better, as Medieval 2 you spend as much time fighting your own units and that cavalry bugs out. My only real complaint about Shogun 2 sieges is burning the gate should take longer, and the defender should get to deploy after the attacker, given there is no reason not to just blob in the center and respond to where the enemy is.
The timed campaign was kind of fun for etharion but no one else
I didn't mind it for Throt either
I like it for lizardmen.
Only eye of the vortex I've finished was with Imrik. The dragons were cool and high elves have a good enough variety of units to keep it interesting
@@Shmandalf Just replaying Mazdamundi, legendary difficulty+norm battle and a couple of minor mods to add flavour units. Great battles and often campaign is on a tight wire between success and failure, failed three times now but fourth times going well - damn good fun.
I wish there was more unit mounting points during seiges. Like on bridges being able to shoot down
I would love to see ways around sieges that fit the faction's style and lore and make it more creative than ass laders. For instance ghost units with Etheral should just pass through siege walls, Vampire counts can sacrifice a unit of zombies or skeletons to produce a ramp out of their bodies allowing other vampire count units to walk onto the walls, Skaven gutter runners, goblin nasty skulkers and spider riders should just climb over walls like in shogun 2. Wood Elves would use magic to quickly grow a massive tree that goes over the wall. Dwarfs will user their miners to tunnel under the walls.
For any these to be fair. The ghost units should be temporearly weakend after having done so. The Corpse bridge should be destroyable. Spiders and any other unit that can climb the wall should be extra weak against spear units when doing so. The Tree should be weak to fire. The Dwarven one is too dumb. For them to digg that much it would take too long and it just wouldn't be feasable without also just taking the wall with it. For the walls to collapse under the sudden lack of support from the ground would be too OP. Basically each type of unit capable of getting passed the walls that easily would need to be counterable. Otherwise we just go back to square one, of walls basically being obsolete
@@LT_Silver or just give units on the wall something to do like dropping oil or boulder. The main issue with walls currently is unit on the wall have nothing to do aside from activating towers (which are not that good to begin with) and there's almost no benefit to stand on the wall. The most effective siege army right now for many factions are often monsters or flying unit army that just bypass wall entirely anyway.
@@rency1803 With how sieges currently work, ALL units bypass walls. That's the problem. Ground units can just pull ladders out of their asses and put them on the walls. Such ladders should be inefficent to use as ladder small enough for such units to just carry wouldn't be large enough for the units to easily trickle onto the wall with. Meaning the defenders should easily be able to kill them as the trickle in. Hell they in reality would be so easy to counter that they shouldn't be a thing. Let's also not forget that these ladders aren't counterable. What we should have instead are the massive ladders from Rome 2. Of which needs preparations to make and can be destroyed.
Your point that they should be able to use oil or boulders doesn't work, because their units can just scale the walls regardless of what you do.
The towers are decent with damage overtime, which is their purpose. So they are fine.
@@LT_Silver yea i know what you're trying to say and the ladder is a very big problem but the thing is if they don't fix the core problem of unit on the wall being useless then removing ladder won't help that much. It's basically make infantry always the worse choice for siege (which they already are by default). The main difference between this game and Rome 2 is EVERYTHING is better than melee infantry so removing ladder alone won't fix siege, it will just give people less incentive to use infantry and hurts faction with melee infantry focus like greenskins. And wdym letting units on the wall drop boulders and oil won't work, it can do massive damage if the enemies blob up below.
@@rency1803 That may be true, but all units being able to drop unlimited rocks and oil that would do the necessary damage you are implying would be broken. The rock and oil strategy generally only happened at doors. And would have to be limited to that for it to be balanced
Removing the randomly appearing ladders would make sieges actual SIEGES. I do not care that infantry focused factions suffer for it. Not because I don't play them. Hell I generally play Helman Ghorst Which is also infantry heavy. The walls are meant to be good at stopping infantry, because that's the whole point of the walls...
No people will not use infantry less. Because If they did they would be very exposed if the enemy decides to leave the walls.
The ladders are the whole reason why Sieges are boring and bad. The Walls are useless.
1-5. Butt ladders.... The whole game would be infinitely better without butt ladders.
Pharaoh doesn't have them.
i think a good fix to the ladders would make them in the siege screen make them as craftable banners (kinda like in the old games where you have to build ladders) for that siege so when you attack. you place which unit gets the ladder so that way it can place value on units for both the attackers and defenders
Elves. No Elves. Unless it's heaps of dead Elves I'll not be happy
Classic Dwarf L, cope and seethe, loser.
Do people not remember that almost all the older historical total wars had timed campaigns, with a date to have curtain settlements/provinces and factions to destroy
In case of timed campaigns, at least the Vortex Campaign gave you a ton of leeway to do it in your own pace. RoC however is just plain horrible here. They should've instead had the player's chosen LL go into the realm and explore it for various reasons. Kislev for Ursun, Cathay for one of the dragon siblings and so on. Everything in their own pace.
The lab stuff could've been fun if you could use all those wacky options in the campaign and in usual multiplayer too.
Agreed. We need more naturally placed trees on battle maps.
Honestly? We should remove short and long victory conditions and replace them with a list of victory conditions. Ticking off a certain number of them unlocks unique rewards and global bonuses that aren't just increase of the amount of heroes you can get (not to mention certain victory conditions unlocking those global bonuses that would be of the most use for you).
Ladders should be a unit upgrade for infantry you pay for with gold.
Edit: For me if there is one thing that I don't want to see in future Warhammer games then it's how provinces are currently done. Screw that. I want it back to pre-Empire times where you had one province, no regions and could build literally every single damn thing there because suddenly building a smithy, stables and a farm and nothing else in a minor settlement all of a sudden and nothing else is beyond unrealistic when in reality the damn province has enough place and size for hundreds of these each. And to hell with everyone who justifies it with MUH VARIETY and MUH STRATEGIC THINKING. And if they had to do slots for buildings, then they should've instead expanded the damn Empire Total War province system for Pete's sake.
I think there were a couple main things behind the build slot system.
1) It’s easier on the AI having less possible combinations to account for
2) Minor settlements with fewer slots was an outgrowth of Empire’s system of having buildings on the campaign map that are attackable. They are a replacement for those, not the major cities.
the trees are made for the woodelf buff otherwise it would not make sense
I actually loved Vortex for playing the WH2 factions, Ulthuan and Naggarond area was much nicer to play in for size as well as the Desert campaign. Much prefer Vortex over RoC from 3 though.
Related to #3 (call it 3a) is no more random reinforcement army spawn points. It used to be in Total War that where a reinforcement army entered the battlefield was always from its relative location on the campaign map, which made the army's location on the campaign map actually *mean* something. But at some point it just became randomized because I guess that's more "fun" to people whose brains are entirely free of wrinkles.
Also related: the battles maps should at least *somewhat* resemble the specific campaign area that they're in. If my army's standing on a bridge and is attacked, then I better see my army defending that goddam bridge, and not when the random number generator for the battle maps rings up "bridge battle".
Thumbnail made me think it was just going to be various races of elves... could've been dawi approved content 😂
Edit: 10:20 My man came through! Khazukan Kazakit-ha!
Mine would be "give the player and the AI elite units every 10-20 turns" or something like that. Early game, you kill the main army and if you don't, or can't finish the faction you just end up fighting against hordes of trash (or just 1). It sure is fun to fight an interesting chaos dwarf army once, then end up fighting gobbo hordes the rest of the time. Like, we all remember that one Norscan with the elephant right? That's the feeling I wish AI would get with their armies. Even if it's technically cheating, I don't care.
On the other hand, the moment we get a cool unit means we can spam it. Which means that until then, we have nothing cool or fun to play with. Except what was given at the start, which also works against us as if we lose the unit, we are back to basic troops. Honestly, it might be the reason why I love playing as vampire counts... send a huge trash army, lose it all, then get a single varghulf to have fun with.
Playing with restocking RoR increased my enjoyment by A LOT. I'm sure they could balance it.
There is a mod on the workshop that fixes victory conditions: Victory Condition Overhaul. It's really good.
Trees one definitely is a big issue do to vision in game. Most major engagements in history happened in open fields.
Ladders, I never thought about it but you are 100% right it takes out the need for siege equipment and kind of diminishes the fact that you have walls.
ROC enjoyer here. I play this game-mode for 3 reasons, its the best way to get achievements(imo), 2, its the fastest meaning you get to try each faction within a timely manner, and 3, i personally just really like each factions story cutscenes.
The biggest problem with the timed campaigns is that the player has such a massive economic and recruiting disadvantage. Sending off your legendary lord army that you can barely afford becomes a death sentence for your settlements.
It's always ridiculous that confederation puts you at a huge economic deficient when the faction should have been able to support their own forces.
Agreed. The main campaign should be put on pause as soon as you enter the realms until you get out. And yeah, sometimes you end up in situations like: why would I wanna confederate with that minor faction. I have no armies near that area, and I can't really afford to keep theirs to protect the area.
Elves?
Elves
@@narxes Ha! Who would kill them then?
I actually like the Vortex campaign because it avoided the overly long victory conditions you mentioned. The vortex felt like just the right amount of time for me to pick up a new faction, have fun learning how they play, and get out before I'm bogged down in turns that never seem to end.
The tree acne isn't a rushed job issue; it's a balance issue. They want to make it harder to use missile units/artillery especially, and balance toward melee units, hence weirdly bumpy terrain and tree acne providing LOS issues.
This is partly due to the focus on PVP play, but carries over to the single player campaign
RoC campaign is actually fun for most of the DLC lords since it doesn't have the RoC mechanics for them.
From the older campaigns, Norsca had one of the better victory conditions of just going on a nice lore-friendly rampage.
"We don't want no gravity or oversized characters in our campaigns"
Speak for yourself. I'd be ok with them being there for the times that I want to be silly with my Total War campaign.
Fun fact with the Laborartory things, CA actually uses them to stress test the game on different systems via players and uses the data they gather that to optimize and refine how the game runs. IIRC it was instrumental in some of the optimization WHII got later in its life.
What I want to see:
I totally agree with the ladders but while were at it make it so climbing up ladders takes longer while making the units tired because they are climbing up them in ALL their gear.
Make wall towers active on their own without needing to park a unit onto it so they are always firing and are actually useful like the capture points inside the city.
Add some way to be able to attack whoever is assaulting the gate so we cant get through the walls safely with a single lord. Make it so that towers got a wider firing angle and can hit whoever is attacking the gate while also making it so the gates are not hidden under the wall making whoever is there safe from attack by the defenders........................
Remove victory point and tickets bullshit and make it so we only lose when all the units refuse to fight.
Make it so that the capture points in the settlements only provide buffs. Ammo depot replenishes ammo. First aid/hospital point heals units slowly etc. Add shit that gives the defensive player a bigger and bigger advantage the longer the battle lasts because they got more supplies than the opponent.
Remove tower defense bullshit that was added in WH3. Instead add what I think was in rome where we could build fortifications, drop down caltrops or whatever. Ages since I played it so dont quite remember.
Make it so that if we are in defensive stance and gets attacked then we got some small defensive fortifications. Maybe something that can be upgraded further with research.
I’d like if the smaller campaign win conditions were in ie. Pretend you are high elves when you go into ie you still have short long total win conditions - the default - but you also can pursue the vortex win condition if you are so inclined. The decision to go for one or the other could be something you decide in game as a player or could be a setting you toggle during game set up. This will allow the designs to retain cool fun ideas while improving/expanding the sandbox nature of ie.
The trees placement in battle is like tabletop were each players would take turn drop a terrain feature. The result would be similar to does map. But it does suck. Frankly, I hate the unclear terrain limits a lot more and the strange unit placement next to an invisible barrier
Not everyone wants to fight constantly on open battlefields, I much prefer different battlefields, which include fighting in forests/water or around a big mountain for example. The only thing I agree with you about is the random bits of trees scattered around the maps.
They could use trees in the landscape to construct as ladders. It could be a usable resource solution to its existence
Victory conditions are absolutely daunting. I’m trying to 100% TWW3 by next year at the latest: I pick a faction, learn its “thing”, restart in legendary difficulty, and just absolutely chunk away for hundreds of turns.
It’s absolutely mind numbing how I’ve gotten 4 completed because after you do the story related OBJs, you then have to sack or occupy way more territory than you want.
I’ve always justified it as “now that my great enemy is felled I set my army loose upon the world.“ but dude…75 settlements on legendary difficulty is a bit much to ask of both my patience and the game’s knack for turning into monster battles post turn 150; it stops being fun to play because it just turns into a task of clicking the mouse 800 times.
In regards to the timed component in the third game, you don't actually have to rush against the AI when they get to the final phase you get the option to intercept them and get rid of all their souls. If you just go about your business and build your empire and they smack whatever AI are going for the win you can then reset their "timers" and go for the win at your own pace. I liked having something better than just kill everything like in immortal empires but it does suck that you can't use all the factions in it.
Big reason why nobody got those achievements for campaign victories with the immortal empire exclusive races is that CA only just recently changed the requirements for them to trigger with the latest DLC. Now you can get them with the long campaign victory while before that you had to go full map completion or beat the ultimate crisis I believe.
I was hoping that, CA would implement a system in the defense structure that at a certain tier; you could get burning oil cauldrons, whether it be on walls or even at the gate to allow the defenders to punish ladder spam
You punish ladder spam by putting a unit there. Because climbing gives the unit horrendous debuff and the models trickle in slowly, it's basically a free kill.
4:27 'slides damage bar all the way up'
American Civil War mode unlocked
I love the lab, if i can make crazy ass sliders in campaign i would have a great time
I think it would be cool if there was a sort of depo in your deployment zone, where you have to send infantry to pick up a ladder and take it to the wall you want to scale. Make these depo's destructible, so that a defender could risk a raid on it to burn it down and take away their ladders.
In Empire Total War the infantry had grappling hooks which seems to make more sense than magic ladders
Honestly, removing the ass ladders would help some other units shine. We have miners, monsters, and skaven drillers who can knock down walls. Flying units bypass walls. You could even give units like spiders the ability to climb walls unaided.
Man I must have missed a golden age where units couldn’t just climb walls. I remember in Shogun 2 when it looked like a legion of zombies would scale the walls of a castle. And the only ones that could do it quick or without casualties were the ninja’s which were really cool
THEY HAVE SLIDERS IN THAT MODE!??!
WHY NOT THE FREAKING CAMPAIGNS??!?!
pre Warhammer 1 used to have maps generated based on campaign map location, especially the older games. No tree acne, because a forest battle had a randomly generated forest. Rivers had fords and bridges, mountains had slopes and rocks, coasts had beaches, and these even combined based on specific campaign map location.
The modern ones are just dull template junk where a desert is the same as a volcano as a farm
* The problem with 1st point is the wasted amount of work time that could have gone into improving the sieges for example, work that most people no longer if at all experienced (entire maps that are no longer used for example).
* I wouldn't bother mentioning the second point when talk about my top 5, it was just easy cash for CA, nothing to be bothered about.
* The 3rd point is semi ok, because it isn't bad to have some maps with trees on the middle its that there are to many, if anything the problems with maps are far bigger than the trees - or to be précises - they are smaller XD the maps are, they are just to small and two few in number I hate playing in the same maps again and again its so repetitive - 3K generated maps are so much better.
* Victory conditions are nonsense, TW used to be sandbox game, it doesn't need those, what it needs is just more sandboxy design to comeback (look at paradox) which is why again I wouldn't bother placing it on the top 5, if anything I would write important stuff like removing lightning strike/control large armies features that just are complete bullshit and should be in TW.
* And finally number 5, this should be number 1 with more requests along side of it such as gate defenses (oil/rocks/flames), farther deployment zone of the attacker (its stupid to start so close to the walls), if you mentioned maps a few more of those could have been great, tools to handle SEU at the moment sieges are made easy by spamming those, and more - which CA CAN CHANGE but its up to the players to keep banging about this - cause they will if they will even for a second think it will lose them customers on the next product if they won't fix those.
why is no one talking about the fact that small entities get constantly pushed around and knocked to the floor which makes them taking no damage, which makes it hard to kill them quickly with bigger entities such as cavalry or monsters. For instance: In Napoleon you could bet on it, that if you ordered a cavalry unit to attack a lower tier infantry unit, they would cut them to mince meat in a few seconds
I loved Rome 2s objectives that gave you rewards like "own 3 provinces" as the main one then 4 or 5 side objectives. I find that so cool if you need an immediate surplus of income or you can hold off and go for all of them
Hey, the lab/portal/sandbox is a great mode to test out new stuff. I like it.
I remember in warhammer 2 my first campaign was with queek, and I spent more than 350 turns because I was always conquering new territories and the victory conditions were at least 50% of skaven corruption in all the regions controlled, and as I kept expanding more it was impossible. After turn 300 I was already bored and stopped all of my armies for 50 turns just to reach the objective and win
My main gripe with the Realms of Chaos campaign is how it's so unrelated to everything else that's happening on the campaign map. I could keep conquering territory or just hit end turn in-between the roars and it doesn't change a thing. I'll get to the campaign victory in around 120 turns and then be like "I guess that's that".
I'd much prefer it if they instead gave you a resource to accumulate that allowed you to send one of your Lords into one of the Chaos Realms on your own time.
Imagine if we had defensive terrain. Like being able to have a group of archers and a melee infantry group stationed into those rock out cropping, giving archers increased range and missile protection etc
That Victory Conditions Overhaul mod is basically mandatory at this point imo. Makes it so much more fun to play and go for those achievements. It's the only reason why I bothered getting 100% achievement completion.
When the best strategy for defending castles is, “abandon the wall because defending walls is inherently bad for the defender,” something is seriously wrong with the game. That revelation should have put the team in to crisis mode from day one. The fact that they haven’t fixed this yet is horrifying.
For me I wouldn't mind the Ass ladders as much if the negatives it brings (massive Fatigue to the unit) ((Same as with Force march which the AI is very fond off to swarm you)) would be more noticeble in combat so that any units scaling a wall with ladders really need to overpower the defenders on the wall, and that if you do have infantry on the wall they could damage the units climbing while they are coming up instead of waiting for them to be able to fight back. Also they need to do something about the Accuracy of the towers themselfs, I just finished a Malakai campaign where I had one of the Fort settlements and it got attacked by Wood Elves on Forest dragons, I had 4 towers fire on them and over the course of a full siege (20 ish minutes) they barely did 30% of it's HP.
And when you climb those ladders enemies run off from the walls and rarely come back to fight on the walls only in streets.
Settlements from another race looking exactly the same after you've taken it, i.e if orcs take a high elf settlement put some orcy decorations over the existing settlement model or replace it with an orc settlement
There’s some mods that do that I think.
@05:07 Devs: "hey you know what would be cool in WH3! Flying Orc Donuts!"
"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHH!!!"
think the worst part about thoses timed campaigns is when you get told to move your unit's across the battle and you got artillery, all while a new horde of enemies just teleport out of no where and flanks you. Like the final fight in twwh3 has you moving your units so far its such a slog. i just wanna have my armies clash into other armies without having most of my units on the other side of the map cause they got 20 speed.
I can tell you, if labratory was available for campains I would 100% fuck around with that, those launches just look great
I never minded the timed aspect of historical campaigns. Where an extra challenge was to achieve a certain victory by whatever year/month.
Has anyone seen those high elves that are in the southeast coast book it to Ulthuan and try to occupy the ruins there? lol, it reminded me in the times of Warhammer 2 when Vlad would go down into the badlands for some reason lol.
Trees in TW usually confer bonuses to infantry against cavalry and projectiles, so I think they're meant as a feature.
#6 - attackers retreat inside the castle #7 build towers etc in siege #8 end turn notice
I hear “victory conditions” and I’m reminded that Khatep has the same victory conditions as other Tomb Kings of conquering Nehekara an building all pyramids. Khatep is in Naggaroth.
I never minded the timed aspect of historical campaigns. Where an extra challenge was to achieve a certain victory by whatever year/month.
Attila or Shogun 2’s forests were the best (for their respective environments/eras)
For me the worst part of the ass ladders is how long it takes for a unit to climb them. The unit turns completely unresponsive and then you just have to sit there and wait to use your army for the next 10 minutes.
In the Vortex campaign you at least got the chance to stop whatever faction reached the goal, so you did not just get a instant game over.
In Total War Pharaoh they got rid of the pocket ladders. You have to build them now before the battle.
I only played the WH2 campaign once and never did the WH3 one. I didn't know they were timed but i simply wanted to play with friends on the world map.
There's a mod I started playing with that removes the short and long victory conditions from the game and replaces them with three sort of medium length victory conditions that give you various bonuses once you complete them and they still count as a campaign victory. They haven't given every faction this treatment yet, but peobably about half of the factions have these new conditions with tangible rewards. I highly recommend giving it a shot
Shoutout to all my fellows who also use Victory Condition Overhaul. It allows us to actually get those victory achievements.
I agree the short victory for tyrion makes no sense. Make dreadfleet and cult of pleasure.
Also, the other issue with ladders/walls is that there seems to be no bonus to defending walls. Units are supposedly exhausted after climbing a wall, had been shot at, and yet seem to always win over any defending unit (even of a higher tier).
Those ladders are the reason why I will usually auto resolve sieges. If the attacker has more units then they are getting over the walls. Full stop. It makes walls pretty much worthless.
Another thing about units in sieges... I noticed placing my troops there DOESN'T BLOCK THE ENEMY! What the AI will do is simply continually push any of its units (whether they're ladder-ing or using siege towers) THROUGH my units until they get past them, and then they head straight for capturing gates or capture points. The unit only stops doing so when I issue SPECIFIC ATTACK ORDERS on the enemy units on my walls... otherwise they just push right through my men and, while usually emerging heavily damaged from individual models defending themselves, they can get half to two thirds of the unit past my men and down off the wall, and manning the walls has become much harder and almost useless on certain maps. Why, CA? Why is the AI obsessed with capture points?!
I thought the "Bad maps" one was going to mention the map in the snowy areas that had ludicrous bloom saturation, to the point that it gave me migraines to try and enjoy a Kislev campaign. I also found a few where the deployment zones were just fucked, including deploying inside the enemy's deployment zone because it got borked on terrain.
Louen: Just clear out that haunted castle and we are cool.
Tyrion: I don't know, just take over half the US, LMAO!
Maybe ass ladders could be an equipable item pre battle, you get 1 per 5 units and that way only a handful of units can cheese the walls, increasing their value.
I don't really mind the tree acne maps that much, I just wish the tree were more naturally spaced out.
The maps that REALLY such are the Lustria ones with one gigantic mountain in the middle and 90000 trees which basically makes ranged factions impossible to use.