The conclave system is what the empire, bretonnians, chaos lords and cathay should have, period. Confederation being made easier would solve SO many issues with early game and mid game, and would give an actual reason to build tall instead of the game being army conquest simulator. I've noticed that almost without fail, whenever someone builds up a settlement or city or capital, it's entirely related to the military. If there was a purpose to building one's economy; becoming more prominent and being given more regional power, making neighboring lords more reason to confederate, then good. Finally you don't have to play map painter where you have to march-fight-siege over and over. There's actual diplomacy, there's actual *purpose.*
The only diplomacy in a total war Game i need is, do i Go to war with you now or do i Go to war with you later. It worked perfectly in Medieval 2 and thats how how a total war Game should be. Just make Battles more fun and impactful and lower the god damn loading Times. You can Mod the Rest of the Game to your Personal liking after that. But Putting more interesting campaign Features into the Game is never a Bad Thing.
I also use the Ultimate Warband Upgrade Mod, I get a kick out of my starting units of Dwarf Warriors becoming Longbeards and ending up as Ironbreakers instead of being disbanded as obsolete. It's a bit broken with missile troops due to how quickly they gain levels, enabling upgrades before you can build the necessary buildings but it's fun. You could see the same in the Empire with a lowly unit of spearmen ending up as Greatswords after 45 turns or basic archers becoming Huntsmen.......
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about embracing instant construction. I appreciate your point about pacing, but I think CA's been really screwing up their pacing bad and I think instant construction is hurting overall pace concerns. There is a massive disconnect where half of the game is set up for 100 turns and half is set up for 30 turns, but I'm not convinced faster is the way to go, I'd rather have a game that's enjoyable to play after 100 turns. I just heard something about the Civ 7 devs playing Civ 6 and realizing the endgame of Civ 6 was very unfun and... well... yeah lol
More like half the factions are set up for 30 turns. We got some of the factions that recently got dlc readily unlocking all they need on tier2 and tier3, like Empire and Dwarfs, or using raise dead like Vampires. Meanwhile the cream de la cream is locked behind tier4 and tier5 for others, such as High elves, Bretonnia or Lizardmen. Some of the worst outliers being Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs and Warriors of Chaos, which need *extra* time and effort to get lategame units. Which most ppl just wont put into the game apparently. Not when they can confed half the Old World as Franz in 25 turns.
@@Costin_Gaming I get it, and to each their own, but I think short IE campaigns have completely missed the mark on what the core concept of Immortal Empires was. I would rather the endgame is also fun, because without it, Immortal Empires is completely not delivering on its promise. It'd be nice if the "short campaign mode" (Realms of chaos) was also fun. but IE needs to deliver as well.
@@Grivehn Yeah, there's really quite a few pacing mismatches. The lack of uniformity makes some civs look bad by comparison; I actually really enjoy warriors of chaos because I like building empires, and Chaos is the empire building faction, but I have to completely forget the fast pace other civs are capable of and just enjoy that civ for what it is. 100 turns is a medium campaign at best, that any IE campaigns are completable in 30 turns is a travesty. There are several hundred settlements on a map and if you're blowing through multiple per turn, that's not strategy, that's "click forward button." A "proper" IE campaign should be several hundred turns; This is unimaginable right now because of how unfun the late game is, but the pacing has just kept creeping faster and faster and faster and it's a real problem.
@@patrickdaly1088I totally agree with this point but i think fundamentally the balancing of an ai IE campaign can never keep up with a player who has 5 full tier 4-5 armies, there can never be a faction who could combat it without those bs legendary endgame crisis. I think the point is that instant construction would help some factions like the lizard men or dwarves or even empire who yeah their best units aren’t at tier 4-5 but their most fun units are
The only thing I’d want for every campaign is more exciting thematic rewards for every faction. Khorne getting the chain sword for short objective is a great start.
I love using the campaign configurator. Having better growth and income really speeds up a lot of the dull segments of early game. I also use dynamic disasters for customized challenge scenarios.
A video on what needs to return to total war to make it better would be dope. Kislev can benefit from a Deeps system like the Dwarves, the cities are know to be impressive.
I think it'd be better if more factions started with level 2 cities. In a lot of Rome 2's DEI starts for example you have cities ready to be built up early and quite a few units ready to be recruited so long as you have the pops for them. For Warhammer, especially if you lack some DLCs, you might only be able to recruit spearmen or goblins and squigs, which really limits recruiting early. For an example, with the Empire my buddy would need a level 2 city to get crossbowmen as he doesnt have the Wulfhart DLC. He simply has no ranged units available to him at start. It painfully limits his options.
Honestly, I think they need to completely overhaul how provinces work. 1) Give maintenance costs to non civilian buildings that would generate no wealth and only ever be a drag on economy: military/security, race/culture depending of course. 2) Get rid of the simplistic public order and create a more robust and intricate system of: Security, Prosperity, Support. They are fairly self-explanatory. Prosperity is a measure of economic health, it will be impacted by raiding/sacking/etc but grow during times of peace and with economic buildings. Having lower prosperity gives economic penalties and increases provinces grievances. Grievances lower Support, which will be tied to building and recruitment times as well as provincial stability. Newly conquered areas would naturally have low support and need to be integrated over time, so it will be more difficult to build up newer areas, while also allowing a more dynamic interaction in conquest. Does it make sense that your heartland is UPSET that you reoccupied land that you just lost to the hated enemy a few turns ago? No! If you have a high enough level of support in a region, you could get a prompt to have the settlement peacefully surrender. You could gain support using heroes, certain character traits/skills, and lands that share your culture or are more similar are more quickly integrated. Low support would negatively impact security. Lower security could spawn small/weak "bandit"/beastmen/orc/chaos/etc armies that won't be strong enough to conquer and won't try but rather will raid and be a general nuisance that you can get rid of to garner support. Say max 6 to 8 units. If a lot of grievances accumulate, there's low support, a more curious situation may occur: Rebellion as is tradition in total war. 3) Take a page out of Pharaoh and use a more dynamic victory point system. Allow the presence of more cultural buildings that can add victory points when support and prosperity are high. Allowing a reason to play tall as it were. 4) In this world of heroes, allow agents to create adventuring parties where other heroes can join in. These would have agent movement speeds and be good at dealing with bandits and other misc ideas that might be too ambitious. But it leads into the next idea. 5) Have unit actions, such as assaulting garrisons, assassinations, stealing tech(or maybe even books of nagash? eh eh?), etc be played out. Have a manual way of sorting them via the prior mentioned parties. Little mini games, much smaller in scale, more narrative driven. Kind of like those campaign missions in old RTSs. You could even have full on adventuring factions (Gotrek and Felix anyone?). These could also be more dynamic ways to spread/clean corruption rather than the current boring system. 6) Corruption needs a rework. There should be a more dynamic system with caps to max corruption. Statically you could get to 50%, but everything higher needs a building. This would of course come with a rework on attrition from lack of corruption so as to not be too punishing. Massively decrease the spread or cleansing of corruption from mere battles. 7) Dear lord, Diplomacy needs to be touched up bad. Perhaps by using a more dynamic system than the current Happy vs Angry dynamic. Penalties should have caps for accumulating, there should be a unique trust between factions that's separate and is weighed in consideration with prior interactions. Factions should plan their conquests more along the lines of geopolitics, where threats are assessed and objective established. Each AI faction should have goals it has. Lands it wants to conquer; causes it wants to support. There could be a campaign slider to determine how strong or randomized these are so people could choose to make it a non-factor for them as the concept gets fleshed out. Wars need to have war goals introduced as well. To help the AI know when to tap out, or the player understand how to better give in. 8) Allies need to have a mechanic similar to Golgfgs contracts where they can cede lands that their allies have claims to or support in. Bordergore NEEDS to be addressed. Factions should aim to control full regions, there should be diplomatic options to resolve it peacefully. 9) At least the AI should have access to the ability to convert any building to any building for a similar tier. The AI seems to really struggle with region management.
OH GOD NO! Don't implement Pharaoh campaign customisation in Warhammer! This robs factions of their identities. Don't implement "resource upkeep for resources, you only get through battles" for more factions. This is why I never play Dark Elves or Chaos Dwarfs after a initial first Try
wish more factions have options from other factions. I know it will make them feel lest unique but at the same time why not let all "good" faction or for example empire, trade like cathay
I think certain Order factions should get access to limited Caravan systems after fulfilling minor objectives, like Belegar taking 8 peaks of the Elf dude with the port city upgrading it to tier 3, maybe Markus when he defeats 1-2 dino factions, and make it loreful. Markus is conquering the new world for resources, conquistador style, so his trade would go to Matienburg as well as the other "great ports." Tyrael also would get naval transport, perhaps focusing more on Elven settlements like the Eastern Colonies and the tips of each continent, with extras in naggarond being unlocked through conquest. Belegar, after grabbing 8 peaks, would be able to trade kind of using the underway mechanic the dwarves have - and the more holds are in Dwarfen hands, the more options to send caravans to.
@4dealliance598 also maybe dwarfs or cathay could have something like elector counts Or dwarfs something like pirate thing with setting crew they could set kings for specific mountain idk
The conclave system is what the empire, bretonnians, chaos lords and cathay should have, period.
Confederation being made easier would solve SO many issues with early game and mid game, and would give an actual reason to build tall instead of the game being army conquest simulator.
I've noticed that almost without fail, whenever someone builds up a settlement or city or capital, it's entirely related to the military.
If there was a purpose to building one's economy; becoming more prominent and being given more regional power, making neighboring lords more reason to confederate, then good.
Finally you don't have to play map painter where you have to march-fight-siege over and over.
There's actual diplomacy, there's actual *purpose.*
The only diplomacy in a total war Game i need is, do i Go to war with you now or do i Go to war with you later.
It worked perfectly in Medieval 2 and thats how how a total war Game should be.
Just make Battles more fun and impactful and lower the god damn loading Times.
You can Mod the Rest of the Game to your Personal liking after that.
But Putting more interesting campaign Features into the Game is never a Bad Thing.
I also use the Ultimate Warband Upgrade Mod, I get a kick out of my starting units of Dwarf Warriors becoming Longbeards and ending up as Ironbreakers instead of being disbanded as obsolete. It's a bit broken with missile troops due to how quickly they gain levels, enabling upgrades before you can build the necessary buildings but it's fun. You could see the same in the Empire with a lowly unit of spearmen ending up as Greatswords after 45 turns or basic archers becoming Huntsmen.......
Honestly, I don't know how I feel about embracing instant construction. I appreciate your point about pacing, but I think CA's been really screwing up their pacing bad and I think instant construction is hurting overall pace concerns. There is a massive disconnect where half of the game is set up for 100 turns and half is set up for 30 turns, but I'm not convinced faster is the way to go, I'd rather have a game that's enjoyable to play after 100 turns. I just heard something about the Civ 7 devs playing Civ 6 and realizing the endgame of Civ 6 was very unfun and... well... yeah lol
More like half the factions are set up for 30 turns. We got some of the factions that recently got dlc readily unlocking all they need on tier2 and tier3, like Empire and Dwarfs, or using raise dead like Vampires.
Meanwhile the cream de la cream is locked behind tier4 and tier5 for others, such as High elves, Bretonnia or Lizardmen. Some of the worst outliers being Tomb Kings, Chaos Dwarfs and Warriors of Chaos, which need *extra* time and effort to get lategame units. Which most ppl just wont put into the game apparently. Not when they can confed half the Old World as Franz in 25 turns.
I would rather play 50 good fast paced campaigns of 30 turns vs 5 of 100 turns
@@Costin_Gaming I get it, and to each their own, but I think short IE campaigns have completely missed the mark on what the core concept of Immortal Empires was. I would rather the endgame is also fun, because without it, Immortal Empires is completely not delivering on its promise.
It'd be nice if the "short campaign mode" (Realms of chaos) was also fun. but IE needs to deliver as well.
@@Grivehn Yeah, there's really quite a few pacing mismatches. The lack of uniformity makes some civs look bad by comparison; I actually really enjoy warriors of chaos because I like building empires, and Chaos is the empire building faction, but I have to completely forget the fast pace other civs are capable of and just enjoy that civ for what it is.
100 turns is a medium campaign at best, that any IE campaigns are completable in 30 turns is a travesty. There are several hundred settlements on a map and if you're blowing through multiple per turn, that's not strategy, that's "click forward button." A "proper" IE campaign should be several hundred turns; This is unimaginable right now because of how unfun the late game is, but the pacing has just kept creeping faster and faster and faster and it's a real problem.
@@patrickdaly1088I totally agree with this point but i think fundamentally the balancing of an ai IE campaign can never keep up with a player who has 5 full tier 4-5 armies, there can never be a faction who could combat it without those bs legendary endgame crisis. I think the point is that instant construction would help some factions like the lizard men or dwarves or even empire who yeah their best units aren’t at tier 4-5 but their most fun units are
The only thing I’d want for every campaign is more exciting thematic rewards for every faction.
Khorne getting the chain sword for short objective is a great start.
I love using the campaign configurator. Having better growth and income really speeds up a lot of the dull segments of early game. I also use dynamic disasters for customized challenge scenarios.
A video on what needs to return to total war to make it better would be dope. Kislev can benefit from a Deeps system like the Dwarves, the cities are know to be impressive.
I think it'd be better if more factions started with level 2 cities. In a lot of Rome 2's DEI starts for example you have cities ready to be built up early and quite a few units ready to be recruited so long as you have the pops for them. For Warhammer, especially if you lack some DLCs, you might only be able to recruit spearmen or goblins and squigs, which really limits recruiting early.
For an example, with the Empire my buddy would need a level 2 city to get crossbowmen as he doesnt have the Wulfhart DLC. He simply has no ranged units available to him at start. It painfully limits his options.
Honestly, I think they need to completely overhaul how provinces work.
1) Give maintenance costs to non civilian buildings that would generate no wealth and only ever be a drag on economy: military/security, race/culture depending of course.
2) Get rid of the simplistic public order and create a more robust and intricate system of: Security, Prosperity, Support.
They are fairly self-explanatory. Prosperity is a measure of economic health, it will be impacted by raiding/sacking/etc but grow during times of peace and with economic buildings.
Having lower prosperity gives economic penalties and increases provinces grievances.
Grievances lower Support, which will be tied to building and recruitment times as well as provincial stability.
Newly conquered areas would naturally have low support and need to be integrated over time, so it will be more difficult to build up newer areas, while also allowing a more dynamic interaction in conquest. Does it make sense that your heartland is UPSET that you reoccupied land that you just lost to the hated enemy a few turns ago? No!
If you have a high enough level of support in a region, you could get a prompt to have the settlement peacefully surrender.
You could gain support using heroes, certain character traits/skills, and lands that share your culture or are more similar are more quickly integrated.
Low support would negatively impact security. Lower security could spawn small/weak "bandit"/beastmen/orc/chaos/etc armies that won't be strong enough to conquer and won't try but rather will raid and be a general nuisance that you can get rid of to garner support. Say max 6 to 8 units.
If a lot of grievances accumulate, there's low support, a more curious situation may occur: Rebellion as is tradition in total war.
3) Take a page out of Pharaoh and use a more dynamic victory point system. Allow the presence of more cultural buildings that can add victory points when support and prosperity are high. Allowing a reason to play tall as it were.
4) In this world of heroes, allow agents to create adventuring parties where other heroes can join in. These would have agent movement speeds and be good at dealing with bandits and other misc ideas that might be too ambitious. But it leads into the next idea.
5) Have unit actions, such as assaulting garrisons, assassinations, stealing tech(or maybe even books of nagash? eh eh?), etc be played out. Have a manual way of sorting them via the prior mentioned parties. Little mini games, much smaller in scale, more narrative driven. Kind of like those campaign missions in old RTSs. You could even have full on adventuring factions (Gotrek and Felix anyone?). These could also be more dynamic ways to spread/clean corruption rather than the current boring system.
6) Corruption needs a rework. There should be a more dynamic system with caps to max corruption. Statically you could get to 50%, but everything higher needs a building. This would of course come with a rework on attrition from lack of corruption so as to not be too punishing. Massively decrease the spread or cleansing of corruption from mere battles.
7) Dear lord, Diplomacy needs to be touched up bad. Perhaps by using a more dynamic system than the current Happy vs Angry dynamic. Penalties should have caps for accumulating, there should be a unique trust between factions that's separate and is weighed in consideration with prior interactions. Factions should plan their conquests more along the lines of geopolitics, where threats are assessed and objective established.
Each AI faction should have goals it has. Lands it wants to conquer; causes it wants to support. There could be a campaign slider to determine how strong or randomized these are so people could choose to make it a non-factor for them as the concept gets fleshed out. Wars need to have war goals introduced as well. To help the AI know when to tap out, or the player understand how to better give in.
8) Allies need to have a mechanic similar to Golgfgs contracts where they can cede lands that their allies have claims to or support in. Bordergore NEEDS to be addressed. Factions should aim to control full regions, there should be diplomatic options to resolve it peacefully.
9) At least the AI should have access to the ability to convert any building to any building for a similar tier. The AI seems to really struggle with region management.
Totally agree with these
OH GOD NO!
Don't implement Pharaoh campaign customisation in Warhammer! This robs factions of their identities.
Don't implement "resource upkeep for resources, you only get through battles" for more factions. This is why I never play Dark Elves or Chaos Dwarfs after a initial first Try
wish more factions have options from other factions.
I know it will make them feel lest unique but at the same time why not let all "good" faction or for example empire, trade like cathay
I think certain Order factions should get access to limited Caravan systems after fulfilling minor objectives, like Belegar taking 8 peaks of the Elf dude with the port city upgrading it to tier 3, maybe Markus when he defeats 1-2 dino factions, and make it loreful. Markus is conquering the new world for resources, conquistador style, so his trade would go to Matienburg as well as the other "great ports." Tyrael also would get naval transport, perhaps focusing more on Elven settlements like the Eastern Colonies and the tips of each continent, with extras in naggarond being unlocked through conquest. Belegar, after grabbing 8 peaks, would be able to trade kind of using the underway mechanic the dwarves have - and the more holds are in Dwarfen hands, the more options to send caravans to.
@4dealliance598 also maybe dwarfs or cathay could have something like elector counts
Or dwarfs something like pirate thing with setting crew they could set kings for specific mountain idk
Ah yes, another instance where CA needs to implement ALL of their existing fun things instead of balancing, in a frucking SINGLE PLAYER game
How about balancing and fun features.
How dare all factions have melee units and settlements. I get your point, but your being a bit crass, don't you think?