This entire list can be summarized as: the AI's only goal in this game is to harass you, not win or wipe you out. Not surprising, as it turns out when playing as Tzeentch, if you use "show faction intentions" on enemy AI factions, it turns out they're only targeting the weakest settlement in your empire, and always through the fog of war. Even better is if you also use show faction intentions on factions they are at war with it will show they intentionally ignore armies that go to harass you.
@@shmekelfreckles8157 You're confusing ally and vassal or have a mod. And on that note: Vassals and allies refuse to trade settlements, even if it is a major advantage to both of you. Vassal got that Dark Fortress settlement? *Break the vassal treaty / Declare War / Capture settlement / Defeat Vassal / Vassalize again* _Because _*_I_*_ am the boss, you Norscan b-tch._
In addition to these, I dislike the unresponsive controls. One of the classic examples is that you give a move order out of combat, then have to repeatedly click again and again and again until they actually really leave combat. You tell mounted archers to shoot at enemy X, move the horses around the enemy to keep your distance, they forget the shooting order. A lot of small annoyances that are so common that I guess most are already jaded to them.
That's a very good point. Having to click multiple times for a unit to respond to an order has been a part of Total War games for so long that almost come to expect it as a feature, rather than an annoyance. But it is definitely an annoyance.
AI armies just care about out minor settlements and wasting our time to chase its weak armies. If there are more than 2 enemy factions due to antiplayer bias, game becomes cancer.
Don’t chase enemy armies unless you absolutely sure you can catch them after they retreat. Have a weak lord following your main army and use him as bait, works on any difficulty.
Recruit a hero with the block army ability. Either that, or drag another army over to pincer them. Or if you don't feel like doing either of those, try using a settlement as bait so they're forced to stop marching for a turn. Playing as the TK rn and all i have is armies running away from me :(
@@shmekelfreckles8157 Your weak army doesnt work when you get attack from: -north(grimgor) -west(tretch) -south(ghorst) It is more annoying if you know they supposed to deal with their main enemy factions but only care players
I have to agree with this. On the historic total war games “ except Troy “ I’ve never seen anti player bias. Everything the ai did made sense to me. In this one they send all their armies to you even though you’re only 1 guy invading them out of 7
Yeeeeah, I played a Noctilus campaign awhile back and was at war with random factions, The Gallion's Graveyard was almost attacked by Itza, Clan Skyre, Bordeaux Entrant, Bel'akor, Itza wasn't able to attack cause I force marched there to defend, so they decided to go and occupy Lothern! On around turn 30 something! Like what the fuck?
@@thedonkey6704have you not played Atilla? Those damn Huns love the player. Haven’t experienced much in Troy. They barely make it to my lands. My Alliances usually hold them up.
I can understand a very minor anti-player bias to try and keep the player challenged/incheck to an extent. But TW:WH is blatant beyond the pale. I swear to Khorne if I see the lizardmen join the skaven just to kill me as volkmar one more time I'm gonna abassinate myself.
When playing as Taurox when you raze a settlement you have the choice to gain extra movement. If you choose this option your army will first randomly move almost 50% of a full movement in the opposite direction you wish to travel in first before giving you back control. Thus negating the bonus movement.
I think what frustrates me the most about Warhammer 3 is that they made this totally overhauled siege battle system, and I've used it maybe 3 times in campaigns because the AI either attacks settlements with 4 units or 4 quintillion and no in between
I really hate the new garrisons. It just feels so terrible to build the garrison building, max it, then realize you've got 8 dudes total and most of them are tier 1 units. You don't even get walls now, just the settlement map that honestly doesn't help defend much because the tower defense mode is crap.
the biggest feature i wish to have in a tw game is when i press retreat on the campaign map i control where my army is going to go, 9/10 when you try to bait the Ai to like that you guy retreat to the worst possible spot away from your lands and forces or closer to the enemy or what not. But the anti player bias is just absurd, the ai will throw everything they have against you while in the same time that 1 city minor faction they have been at war with for the past 50 turns get to gobble up there lands for free. as far as vortex spells go i use em only when i blob up the ai around my hero/lord so how ever it swings there is only enemys around
I swear the enemy lords are cheating with winds of magic, sometimes i´ll try waiting em out a bit and they just keep blasting spells they never stop. cooldowns seems shorter too and range longer
This. And the fact that the AI somehow knows how to dodge your spells perfectly. I swear I rarely hit the AI with warp lightning as they start spreading out as soon as the lightning animation start coming out its just stupid. The only time I hit them with it is when I use my melee units to hold them down and prevent them from moving away.
the "surprise" ambushes on several armies that have set up camp right next to each other and see each other, and suddenly the army that was just in their camp to be defended is on the way to nowhere and is "ambushed" yeah... i especially hate vilitch
Im surprised there isnt a mention of AI cheats. Its really baffling when a lower speed unit can catch up to a higher speed one just because its in the AIs hands.
This. Add also to the fact that AIs with one settlement left can somehow pump a full stack of army in just 2 or 3 turns. I remember how nightmare-ish it was back in WH2 when Grimgor used to do that. It was such a headache trying to get rid of him back then.
Sometimes, the information you're fed is wrong (the stat you see is incorrect, there's an obvious case in the Chaos Dwarf army, I can't recall it's name), sometimes troop fatigue plays a role.
Some of these are just annoying but some of them are totally avoidable. For example, #4 will never be an issue if you use a hero to scout ahead of your armies. Most factions have either a hero that is extremely easy to increase the cap on or a hero that isn't worth using a slot in your army for, so use one of those guys. It's worth 200 gold a turn to make informed decisions. #1 isn't a problem if you end your turn in encampment stance any time you are near Skaven armies. And hey, you'll know those armies are there if you use that hero to scout from the earlier example. Problems with enemy armies running? Use a decoy army with very little autoresolve power and have your main army standing right next to them in ambush stance, the AI falls for it every time. Failing that, don't engage them if you are at the end of your range, just end your turn right next to them, half the time they just sit there and wait to die.
I’d also argue #9 was way more prevalent in Warhammer 2. I can’t even count how many times I’d be close to wiping out an AI faction, only for it to confederate with another faction. #3 isn’t a probably if you use hero’s, a general, or low entity count troops to aggro a few units. Won’t hurt your own units.
Can totally agree with the enemy running away from you. It wouldn't hurt your economy if you create a lord with no army stand in between your army and the enemy while your main army is in ambush stance. I've baited so many Ais with that strat so many times. Then after you got rid of them with that ambush strat you can just kick out that temporary lord army you hire to gain back your upkeep.
I had to quit two campaigns, one after the other, because multiple factions declared war on me in the first 20turns. Anti-player bias gets ridiculous on multiple occasions!
Tried my first sisters of twilight campaign in 3 and by turn 15 nearly all of my neighbors had declared war on me. 2 dark elves, a skaven, taurox and the vampire coast one I can't recall the name of. I tried to push through but when 4 full stack armies started coming at my single province outside the tree I just scrapped it.
@@NimmelTheGreatwood elves can handle multiple wars and you also have great tools for diplomacy since you don’t need settlements. Just trade them for treaties.
Mannfred campaign was abysmal. I was pretty defensive on my playthrough, going to war with the tomb Kings and chaos, occasionally dwarves. For some reason despite me being the bulwark against factions everyone hated they used it as an opportunity to gang up on me rather than fight the main game's enemy with me. In TW2, even enemy factions will band together to stop chaos invasion event. And yes I understand vampires are stinky and leave corruption so aren't good allies but then both chaos and order factions declared on me, and I got an endgame crisis in middle of my border (the pyramid one) meaning I got eaten from the inside out OR had borders chipped away. It was disgusting bad luck or deliberately player bias.
God I hate anti player bias, I’ve had so many campaigns where a faction which is decently friendly (plus 10 relations) just decides to declare war on me preventing any future treaties and forcing me to go deal with them
@@shmekelfreckles8157 yea I kinda get why it happens but I think more things need to be taken into account, I would be fine if a greenskin faction declared war on me if my faction strength dropped but when the dawi decide to do the same, I feel like all factions act the same, just general frustrations I guess
Its absolutely shocking. Playing as settra and getting ku'gath declare war on me from the fucking dragon isles and sending multiple stacks across the ocean while I'm simultaneously fighting invasions from lustria is ridiculous. The AI doesn't seem to understand any sense of distance or geography of the map. They're literally travelling to the other side of the Warhammer world just to get at me. I'm sick to the back teeth of having any ai faction I encounter decide to attack me while I'm already fighting multiple fronts and focusing all their effort on me. Let me have periods of peace I beg
@@jjotomo3908 Ku’gath sending multiple stacks? What difficulty are you on? I don’t even remember when was the last time he survived this long in my campaigns.
I think the faction climate restrictions are the most stifling mechanic in the game. While I applaud the idea it no longer works in IE. It stifles campaign creativity and flat out stunts some LL's campaigns. LOS issues and Siege pathing also plague the game.
@@shmekelfreckles8157 The most popular campaigns in IE are the ones with the fewest climate restrictions. That's not coincidental. People don't like obtuse limitations in a sandbox. Like the other commenter said about Mazdamundi being stunted in one entire direction. Why would his lizardmen be so climate restricted but Oxyotl's lizardmen can live anywhere? It makes no sense.
@@CalDoggyDaddu For climate issue guys, pick the mod " Climate Adaptation " alongside " Z's English Submod ". This will make any unfavorable settlement getting acclimated progressively, reducing the malus of climate until it drops to 0. A must have imo
Agree with all except 3 and 1. Randomly moving spells are an interesting feature. Magic is already OP, so there needs to be some situational factors to apply, such as moving vortexs' Not many factions can ambush attack, but factions like the skaven are built on it.
Those spells have absolutely nothing on the wind type spells on killing power. They never get touched because there's spells that are _much_ more stable that do significantly more damage. Almost every spellcaster isn't going to be casting as though they're a wild mage, and that's _especially_ true for those who have been around since the vortex was created.
For the "randomly moving spell" I've found that it looks to randomly move from unit blob to unit blob, but does so indiscriminately. The only way I've found to reliably use it and stay safe is to throw it into enemy back lines, or if they're attacking to use it on then before they get to my lines. I pretty much never get roaming spells unless i have to or have nothing else to put points into because they're so limited in use
survivorship bias. you only notice the movement when it does something dramatic on either side of the pendulum. the movement is semi-random and is not affected by units on the map. it was confirmed that it used to move away from the caster but i think they patched that, or at least they said they fixed that problem
@spanner5940 I should've added that it's a more recent thing I've noticed since the Chaos Dwarfs were added. Since they were added I've watched a lot of those roaming spells randomly move between units but almost always going for a unit. It's why I ever even use it currently (used to be a complete waste of magic before imo) but that habit roaming spells have for pulling to friendly units makes them still very limited to use
I have the opposite experience: so many random spells hit the unit i cast it on and then immediately take the most obtuse route possible to narrowly dodge every single unit on its way to the middle of nowhere. I'd honestly rather it hit me than hit nothing....
I’ve gotten great use out of vortex spells simply by using low entity count units, a lord, or SEM units aggro a few units around them. It is very effective. I’ll also use expendable units in chokepoints.
@@emanuelalfred1565this is exactly the way to do it. Load up some magic resist items, have them blob up a bunch of lower-tier infantry, and then throw down vortex spell. Very effective with chaos sorc on manticore
I never get a chance to use up all my ammo😩. The enemy is usually dead and gone before then. I would’ve never known this was a problem if I didn’t occasionally check forums or RUclips.
11) random enemy army marches into your undefended land, sacks a couple settlements each turn, you eventually send in an army to deal with them only for them to run away from your superior army, while they flee, they decide it will be a good idea to go for a marathon, they run past 3-4 of your settlements and conveniently park themselves next to a fully developed town, then they proceed to economically cripple you while your army spends several turns trying to catch up to them (cant recruit any more armies because they have crippled you) several turns later you have caught up and they have sacked half your empire....
Couldn't agree more. This happened to me with my campaign with Malekith once on IE. Was busy taking care of business on the north east side of Naggarond when all of a sudden Grombrindal decided to have a little fieldtrip on my land. He started sacking and razing my settlements, and by the time my main army comes back, he crippled me to the point in where I'm going broke just trying to chase him. And when I finally got to him, and he knows he's in trouble, he did the most cowardly move against me. He wanted peace treaty with me. Now I've been playing this game for god knows how long and I know the AIs will backstab me again so I got rid of him quickly rather than wait for him to get strong again and start repeating the process again. But boy that chase I did with him was annoying as fuck. I legit ALMOST went negative on upkeep cuz he keep razing and sacking what ever settlement of mine he walks pass by and its the most annoying thing ever.
I mean some of these issues can be fixed with mods, and the votex one is just kinda weird. You know it's a vortex spell that will randomly move around, so if you use it very close to your own units you're kinda taking a 50/50 if it will hit your unit or not.
Here's the issue with mods. We paid how much money for this game? Including even part of the dlc and if you bought one or 2. All that money and we can't get quality of life.
There are legit hateful mechanics in this videos but there are also things that are just contrived. #4 for example. It's not the AI's fault that you ran into an ambuscade. You never scouted ahead. #3 ... (sigh) It's not the AI's fault that you used the wrong spell in that situation. Edit: I'm surprised rebuildable towers aren't here, despite seeing all "polls" mention it.
I had an anti player bias moment the other day playing Shimazu in Shogun 2. After I had conquered Kyushu and the smaller surrounding islands (expanded Japan + other mods) I decided to just sit back and avoid conquest for a while, and build up my provinces and research tech. I had converted to Christianity and so was beginning to recruit a lot of strong gunpowder units alongside my regular units. This tiny 1 province, 1 army clan in a small province just north of Kyoto decided that they just had to teach me a lesson, and so took their 1 army with their daimyo and sail all the way to Kyushu to land their army in one of my provinces and fight me. Promptly won the following defensive siege battle and sunk their one crappy ship with my fleet of Nanban trade ships + one Black Ship. Total War is something else, lol
10 - army running away. Just use a second lord without any units present, put your main army in front of him in an ambush stance , preferably in a forest, end your turn and let the AI take the bait. In general it's great to move around with multiple lords in a pack (one having an army) if you are skilled enough to protect them from ambushes. They can quadruple your battle loot.
There are 4 things that are killing the enjoyment of WH3 for me: 1- Siege Battles, having to deal with troops while my army gets nuked by magical towers that pop up and this point capture nonsense. 2- Armies running away just like you mentioned. 3- Not being able to customize the Auto-assign skill points, random auto is a mess and manual in the end game its a chore. 4- Not having interactive trading like Cathay without mods.
Oh I got one, you're into the mid/late campaign, you work your way down the character list, making sure to move every single one of your lords and heroes, you move one into a city, the list resets, back to the top of the list, you move one out of the city, the list resets, you have to now scroll all the way back down, you perform a hero action, the list switches to events, the amount of times I've forgotten a army and clicked end turn for it to move a single inch I've lost count.
The Alliance Wars don't bother me, I did choose to become their ally after all. Similarly, anything putting my army in a bad spot is usually down to me not scouting ahead with heroes (agents) which is how I plan for doomstacks marching. As for Skaven ambushes, I'd generally like a rework of how they move on the map. They're not too well known for marching on the surface as far as I am aware. Something tied to their Under-Empire could be cool. Perhaps if an underway is established or they're in their own territory, ambushes can be launched in that way. An Under-Empire building called something like Hiding Pits could be used as a buff to said chance. Add some more depth to that system and incentivize larger networks. Could be terrible in practice granted.
Personally 5 is one of my biggest pet peeves, actually had my first campaign loss ever recently on turn 20 cuz the lizards to my south, dwarves to my east and skaven to my west decided to all wage war on me and me alone on turn 15. Comical timing cuz they unironically all did it on the same turn. needless to say they ran me into the dirt in about 5 turns. PS: i was playing as Court of Lybaras from the Tomb Kings
What I hate the most is the pass finding in siège battle, the gate are broken but my infantry go on the wall with the leader and go down instead of simply going trow the gate
I really don't mind the anti player bias as long as it makes sense. I'm likely going to be the biggest threat so it would make sense that the ai would try to fight me, but when they march through 2 territories of people they're at war with only to get at me...? yeah fuck that. (looking at you Rakarth)
All pretty fair dislikes, thankfully a few mods that I know of can fix about half of them. I’ll add number 11 myself: When two allies declare war on each other and you’re force to pick a side only to take a hit on your reputation regardless. It’s so dumb and leaves me never wanting to make any alliances as they really are more of a hinderance above Trade deal.
Can't quite agree with the entire list, love ambushing with Skaven and being on the lookout for them adds that extra threat of entering their domain. And the times I've attacked a settlement to stop them from getting an upgrade on it seems just fair as is reloading to fix it. The random moving spells are just about risk for reward, but I do also prefer using the more reliable ones. The rest I can get behind, it happens to often a faction much weaker than me declares war on me while not being even close to care is just weird.
Can agree with you about the Skaven ambushing actually. I love their ambush mechanic. It's cuz Skaven infantry are complete garbage, ( except for their weapons team I guess) so you really need to play dirty with Skaven(atleast that's what i learned from playing them).
The amount of times I’ve had bozos far away from me declare war on me when they’re already in multiple wars bypassing them just to attack me…like straight pea brain decision making.
I think with Ambush stance changes, maybe if you were out of LOS and undetected, you could launch an ambush but if you were visible before, you would have to come out of ambush stance to launch a conventional attack
I will be honest, the Skaven/Beastmen Ambush thing is a minor inconvinience. Its just a faction mechanic you need to remember and play accordingly. The only thing that annoys me, is, that the ambushed army is 'marching'. It should be just a different ambush map type, where the enemy has only a very small area for deployment in the middle and you have a surround you can deploy your troops in. No, rather than that, what should have been on the list would be the extremly bad vassal system. 'oh, my vassal took the city I wanted. Aaaaand it won't give it to me. It also brooke the Trade Agreement, and .... look how much other Chaos factions are hating me because the HE are my vassals!' The vassal system is horrid and needs to be redone. They have too much free reign, can decide too many things on their own - if they capture a city, I want to have a say in what happens to the city, either to claim it or let them have it. If I want something, they are not to refuse. And other factions should not care about what alignment the original faction had, they are now vassalized to a Chaos faction and ought to be treated alignment-wise as chaos now!
This. *"Release Vassal / Declare War / Capture Dark Fortress / Eliminate ex-vassal / Re-Vassalize him"* happens every time I play my favorite factions: Warriors of Chaos. At the very least, threatening a vassal should be consequence-free on your reputation. At best, they accept deals that have a negative chance to happen, but in the process they get disgruntled a bit and, on the long run, risk seceding.
to be fair, 6 and 4 can be prevented. Don't build buildings in settlements that enemy armies can reach. Start developing them when the front line has moved to a settlement or two further away. 4, vision is a part of the game. Send agents ahead to scout the enemy lands, don't just charge in with no knowledge.
I wish they'd expand the trade, economy, amd diplomacy mechanics, being able manage these and have a variety of options would be awesome. Add a little. Anno 1800 and some CK3 to the campaign map CA ffs
#6 is not a thing the AI does, its a confirmation bias. #4 is just stupid, scout with whatever your weaker heroes are or using your mechanics. #3 yeah, it IS actually random that's why is screws you over sometimes.
god i feel number 5 i started up my first playthrough in immortal empires to have some fun trying out the Demon Prince faction(i enjoy it) and not only was i pushing east because constant wars there but Malus decided to say hi and start poking me. and being chaos i have expensive armies and a shitty economy so i have to spend 3 turns force marching my demon prince back to my western border to take back the land Malus took and eradicate him which pushes me closer to you guessed it. more dark elves who go to war with me. but i still do love it as it does feel thematic, plus more battles means more skulls for the skull throne and more khorne favor.
My biggest hate is the AI cheats, Economy cheats.. they can instantly buy full stacks armies when they are meant to be poor.. and that when your in a stance you can't retreat but the AI can? It's absolutely BS!
Number 3 hit hard considering I once had a bright mage both figuratively and literally friendly fire 3000 of my men in a pivotal battle against chaos Thankfully I had a bunch more reinforcements so I won but it still pissed me off
(10) I agree I really hate when this is happening I can remember once I had caught an army up against a mountain with two armies and somehow they slipped through and run a marathon away from me, (7) I cannot count how many times this happened to me in minor and wall settlement battles and I have encountered the same on the campaign map luckily not that many times, (5) I cannot describe the lunacy and the pure annoyance anti-player bias have been in TWW3 like there was one time in the early days in TWW3, I was Zhao Ming in realm of Chaos and was at war with N'Kari and Tzarina Katarin and N'Kari was at war with Tzarina Katarin they ignored each other and send armies to attack me over several province pure lunacy, but anti-player bias has gotten better over time but it is still a big issue still, (4) I know the pain, (3) I mostly use that type of Spells in settlement battles but very rarely, (2) non-aggression and trade that's it for me, (1) I know the pain and when I know there is a Skaven army near or the enemy army has disappeared I placed my army in camp stand and pretty much able to avoid that.
I don't mind that feature #10 in tww2: because the winning against rats in open field with marching army (3/4 of them is rangers and artillery) is more easily. You just set up a lines, and shoot them down, while 1/4 of your army are holding them. Once they are cleared, it's just a short rest before the rest of their army will go and die. Which can deal you little to zero damage rather then fighting them in open field. Defeat in details, with some twists.
Totally agree, except for No.4 is a bit meh. I just want to be able to decline diplomacy by pressing escape key, and to be able to queue buildings and skills. Give me that and "time played" will drop by 50-75%.
I hate how AI armies do everything they can to avoid battles unless the balance of power is comfortably in their favour. I've seen AI armies running away from their own settlements, allowing them to get conquered. I also very rarely get to enjoy massive defensive siege battles because the AI won't commit to offensive sieges unless it can easily win. By far, the most annoying thing though is defending a coastline. Say you can see an enemy army sailing towards one of your coastal settlements. So, you move an army to it to defend it. And how does the AI react? Changes course to avoid having to fight the strong player army. And likely deciding to sail further down the coast to try and go for another undefended settlement instead. So the player's defending army needs to keep moving, and you up in an endless cat and mouse cycle unless you use ambush stance to bait the cowards in.
I really don’t understand this criticism of the AI. Isn’t it a smart thing to avoid battles unless you’re certain you can win? Especially since it’s working out good for the AI. I had plenty sieges on legendary by just trying to move my extra army to lift the siege. Enemies will see it and either retreat, attack your supporting army if it’s weak or launch the siege battle if they think they have a chance. And they often just start the battle. And I hate siege battles.
Hi. Mostly yes, but I can't agree about the spells. Lets clarify: vortex spells. They are great. I didn't think so and only used pit of shades in the first part. Then, in WTW2 I started a dark elf campaign (very hard) and had a battle like: my half full army against 2 enemy (elf) armies (one full). I had a fire mage on a flying mount. The enemy were passing an impossible rock/mountain and clumped up. I put down 2 flamestorms and later a few burning heads. A few salvos from my dark shards (crossbowmen) finished them off. The vortex spells did most of the damage. There are ways to really use them well, like: 1. Hide your army and clump the enemy up with a lord, then place a vortex on top of him. He will take very little damage. 2. Put it in front of an attacking enemy formation - they won't usually stop. 3. Pin some enemy units with something resistant to that spell (like fire res to a flame storm, or a big creature) and hit them. 4. Hit a unit shooting your troops. It won't usually get out of the way. If there are several , put the vortex in the middle - maximize the chance it will hit more. 5. Start going through a city gate as the attacker. This will usually cause several units to try to counter this. Start cooking .. or whatever a particular vortex does :)
my absolute hated bug os the victory screen not coming up against the barrow legion. destroys everygame if u face him. especially in legendary. some of these bugs are game breaking and never get fixed.
In WH2 at least AI targetting non-walled cities can be ridiculous. One time I had the AI walk past several of my cities that had walls, through another factions land to reach the one city "nearby" that didn't have their walls build yet. If it was the least defended city in the current province I would understand, but when they are running through half of Lustria...
*Intro / 7 / 8:* You nailed it. Crashing AND such a loading time, F*CK!? (Bonus: Retreat reaching a specific point even if it means half a turn's worth of detour because river/swamp/coastline) *10:* Ambush stance change their actions as they don't see you anymore. It's not just for the ambushes themselves. Also: Bait Lords. *1:* Skaven literally pop out of the ground into your archery line as you fight. They can create advantageous circumstances for themselves. *3 / 4 / 5 / 6 :* Git Gud.
A good change for the skaven is that stalk instead has a chance to put you In the ambush position at the end of your turn. Like a 30 percent chance to change your current position to ambush no matter the movement range used In the the stalk stance.
Idk for anyone else, but the most annoying thing for me is when a greenskin approaches a town that you have an army in, but do a tunnel battle just to 1v1 you and not your garrison, like is the whole army standing in one spot
A lot of the time i set up an ambush in a path where the ai should obviously go, and then the ai goes somewhere else, so i reload and ambush at that location, so the ai then goes on the other path i ambushed before. And its not like they detected me or anything, theyre just ombisxient
OMG like im playing an ice court campaign and all of chaos from the chaos dwarves to sigvald have all teamed up like armies next to eachother only to wage wars on me. And when i check who they are at war with they ended there prevoius wars and are only fighting me so im fighting 10 chaos armies on my own and archeon is soon to follow 😢 send help plz
Yeah, I can't deny how annoying these are. Mods can fix many of these, but the fact they exist and always plague all of your campaigns is very very irritating.
I just got the game a week ago. Tried three separate Kislev campaigns and not only is it impossible to load the dam game with 5-10 minute loading screens,Valkia around turn 30 slams into your settlements from the north and you literally cannot stop the chaos forces its ridiculous.
Kislev is possibly the worst faction in terms of geography, start position, starting forces, INCOME, and underpowered (and over-costed) hybrid units.... we all expect them to get reworked and beefed up in the upcoming patches.
@@lordpappanqui I imagine that’s why the shadows of change is focusing on them partially cause their start is so frustrating it’s not fun it’s rage worthy.
@@EvanE988 Correct. Kislev just isn't 'working right' when compared to other factions, and even more so when compared to their Empire cousins... Furthermore, Cathay will hopefully be given the same attention, as it also needs several additions to their roster, a power boost with their effectiveness vs Large targets, and certainly additional tweaks here and there to solidify their cohesion. (yin/yang needs to be adjusted with its range umbrella and warrants a reworking, imo)
@@lordpappanqui for my case they need to fricking nerf Valkia on realm of chaos omg. It is ridiculous early game she just heads towards you and slaughters you with her army power ups and armor around turn 30. It ruined both my kislev and Nurgle camping.
On the subject of ai confederations, during a Grimgor campaign on WH2, I was reigning terror across the mountainside as he does. I thought it was time to wage war on the Skaven, so I had two options. Either go for Eshin or Mors. Neither of them were in an alliance, so I could attack either at my leisure. I chose to attack Eshin since they had roughly 5 or 6 settlements versus Mors 20 or so (to my recollection). Maybe 3 or 4 turns into my war and confederation occurs. Mors should be very happy with their new settlements, I hear you comment. No. Mors, a nation that was 4, maybe 5 times larger than Eshin, decided they would rather be confederated by them. Instantaneously, a faction with half a dozen settlements turned into war with an under empire. This might also have been the same campaign I got a defensive alliance with Thorgrim because I had raided Eshin for so long. Very curious events indeed.
I had a blood thirsty army and even valkia, the person with rules that punish others for running away, run away from me multiple times in a row. I feel like khorne wouldve smited them for that heresy xD
The biggest mistake you can make is accepting a peace treaty with a faction that spent several turns being at war with you, do not accept these treaties, crush them to history.
Enemies in your territory should be able to retreat and vice versa. Enemies attacking you in your own region should allow you to retreat far whilst also punishing the enemies movement range by 10-20%. Ridiculous.
number 3: player uses gamble like mechanic, player loses, player complains, sounds like a big case of be smarter lol Tho I think it brings up a good point; since they are gambley, I wish they lasted longer, where more unpredictable, but in exchange dirt cheap to use winds of magic wise. But honestly some of these sound like polling carebears about mechanics they dislike, something that's a horrible idea. Number 1 point is totally 100% spot on.
Honestly i don't mind the skaven ambush because it's kind of one of their core mechanics, and it helps compensate for their mostly shit infantry and since you can see them coming it gives you a chance of using encampment stance to lower the ods of their success by 75% and if they ambush you, you can always reload if you want to, now what is truly busted is the tzeench teleport stance, he can use like 30 winds of magic to teleport into you and get a 100% ambush, doesnt matter if you are encamped or not it always ambushes
Anti player bias, declared wars for no tactical or strategic reasons, including not even sharing a border with the faction. The retreat mechanic favors the AI. My armies will almost consistently retreat a tiny fraction of a spec of movement and the stupidest direction possible, and the AI can sometimes retreat across rough terrain for a quarter of full movement back in the direction of their allies. Civilization multiplayer solved. The diplomacy halting turns issue by letting you look at diplomatic messages at the end of the turn. It might cause some issues but it really should be an option because it's plagued these games for years.
i disagree with no.9, I love it when the ai confeds because i can grab more settlements without having to do some political manoeuvring for my expansion. double goes for fighting empire since they are just so weak its crazy. I've never lost a 1v1 vs empire only random settlements. no.6 is just straight up a skill issue, never invest money into settlements in danger of being lost. no.4 is a skill issue too and the few times I've jeopardised an army its because i sent it on a suicide mission into red territory. perhaps i would replace some of those with the casualty replenishment problem, which has the current band aid of hero replenishment but in turn forces you to always use that hero in an army. I shouldn't have to be forced to use any unit i don't want to and you ALWAYS need a replenishment hero. it would be less of a problem if the ai didn't focus down singular units (usually heavy cav) at the cost of losing a fair 1v1 which forces lopsided damage. the rest is fair though i enjoyed the video, ty for the good content.
I find the confederation one worse when it's the faction I'm at war with that gets confederated into a larger faction. I only just started 3 but it happened to me a lot in 2, I would be about to take the last settlement in a province and finish off a faction and then suddenly it gets confederated by an enormous faction I have no relationship with who is now sharing my lands starts off disliking me and is blocking my expansion. So it's either eternal war with a faction half the map away for one settlement or being boxed in.
i was so frustrated by the anti player bias that i downloaded a consol command on WHIII just to stop loading saves and wasting my time in loading screen, now i just teleport away the beastman army that attacked my capital out of nowhere because i think its kinda unfair that the only thing the developpers did for stoping player to roll over everything is giving stupid all see through vision or stupid buff over the top of damages or moral
#5 pisses me off bad enough that it causes me to abandon campaigns entirely and quit playing the game for weeks at a time. When dwarfs, vampires, chaos dwarfs, ogres, and skaven all avoid or ignore one another to team up on you, it's not only bullshit anti player bias, but it completely breaks any aspect of lore immersion. There is zero scenarios in WH Fantasy in which Dwarfs will aid skaven or vampires against humans or high elves. I can't get through a Greasus campaign for instance because Imrik, Drazoath, Ghorst, and Kugath all band together to take me out. 4 factions that would absolutely have nothing to do with one another in the lore all working together and even forming alliances! just to take out the player. #3 I don't even put skill points into those spells for this reason. They ALWAYS "randomly" shoot right into my own lines. Every damn time without fail, meaning it isn't random at all but bad programming or a troll on the devs part.
Some are a stretch... To me, it seems you don't accept the risks of diplomacy and criticize the consequences. For the ambush attacks, it's lore related to the skavens. It encourages you to always play safe because their goal is to crawl out of their tunnels to ambush you.
All of these are pretty fair execpt for the last one. When I started playing wh2 I was seething as empire having to fight skaven because I would keep on having 3 skaven armies ”ambushing” one of the 5 armies I would Walk in close formation to deal with them. I then realised I could just enter encampment stance and I can count the number of times I have been ambushed by skaven since on one hand. Only fair imo with weak skaven AI is.
The only thing here that actually annoys me is the anti-player bias. Playing as Settra and Karl Franz marched an army all the way down, whilst he's also at war with the orcs and undead on the way, taking attrition constantly, just so he could attack Khemri and die with his massively attritioned army. I mean, it didn't matter, but it's just like wtf, I don't understand how it's so much worse in 3 than it was in 2
The games so easy that I don't see why point number five is a thing, but I'm wondering if it's confirmation bias, if it's happened a few times doesn't mean it's an issue, it's just something that can happen. if it's a neighbour that's friendly with you then sure, that's weird af tho oppertunist in a cool way. But like the last thing we need is to find more ways to make this stuff easier, campaign is really really really too easy as is.
This is so true. I've only been playing for one week and tick 6/10 of those boxes. The biggest frustration with AI is that it is not really "intelligent" when it knows all your internal upgrades of buildings etc (would it not make us more "intelligent" if we had the exact same info about everyone on the map)..The AI needs to be more human in it's strategic decisions in order to truly improve the game. This also means the AI could be more unpredictable as they may take bigger risks etc..Swings both ways
I hate that difficult means more units and better units for the opppnent and it doesn't make me play any better or use the mechanics more. Also: Ikit Claw should be allowed to blow up the world it's my choice...
anti player bias was never an issue for me because i never play anything above normal or hard , some factions however are programmed to be obnoxious and agressive
Nothing pisses me off more than when a faction suicides all of their armies directly at you, all to raze the minor settlement you just took. Especially when they screw themselves over to do it. In my most recent campaign, I've seen three seperate factions lose wars against other enemies because they've decided to attack me instead of relieving their besieged capital. It ruins my emersion, it's frustrating to have them act so illogically, and it does the opposite of what it is supposed to do: it makes the game easier. Now, whenever I need to conquer an AI, I just capture a nearby minor settlement, and have my armies leave. 9/10 times, their massive army that would normally be defending their capital, or invading my territory goes to the middle of nowhere trying to screw me over, and I capture Altdorf, or Skavenblight, or Naggarond (what should be the epic conclusion of a hard-fought campaign) in an easy auto-resolve.
The amount of times I've gotten up right after ending my turn only to come back to a diplomacy offer from tirion or alariel. I really do wish you could just auto decline everything lol
No. 10 is an atomic skill issue. I don't understand why so many players of a strategy game have trouble with basic strategy. This happened to me the first few times playing TWW, and that's it. You can't just chase people around like a zombie, you need to have a strategy to lure them to you.
I don't know if this happens a lot or just me problem, but I hate how the game says I have 100% ambush chance, in a turn enemy doesn't spot me and yet the AI knows I am there. 6 turns in ambush and setlement open for attacks and nothing. The turn I break the ambush or move the ambush to another location, the enemy attacks.
If your army was spotted there one turn and then you put it in an ambush in the same spot AI will suspect an ambush most of the time. And if you move away they will obviously see your lord pop up in another place.
In real life an inferior army would run away, they don't want to die. I can understand the AI running away from a battle it can't win. You just have to bait them into a trap. The Ai loves a juicy small army recruiting or in forced march stance. Just throw that beefy army of yours into ambush stance and watch as you massacre their army when they fall for the bait.
For me its ass ladders... Sieges are one of the most important parts of the game, especially major settlement battles. I know its heresy, but I kind of like minor settlement battles. They are not perfect, but quite okay. Garrisons could use a big overhaul, but thats a different topic, there are mods for that. But walls being utterly useless due ass ladders is just bugs me soooo much and totally killing the feeling of attacking a big settlement.
This entire list can be summarized as: the AI's only goal in this game is to harass you, not win or wipe you out.
Not surprising, as it turns out when playing as Tzeentch, if you use "show faction intentions" on enemy AI factions, it turns out they're only targeting the weakest settlement in your empire, and always through the fog of war. Even better is if you also use show faction intentions on factions they are at war with it will show they intentionally ignore armies that go to harass you.
"Changing of Ways:* _See Code._
I'm really surprised that having an ally take a settlement in one of your provinces didn't make the list.
Never found that annoying in 3 because it still counts as having a full province
@@shmekelfreckles8157 You're confusing ally and vassal or have a mod. And on that note: Vassals and allies refuse to trade settlements, even if it is a major advantage to both of you. Vassal got that Dark Fortress settlement? *Break the vassal treaty / Declare War / Capture settlement / Defeat Vassal / Vassalize again*
_Because _*_I_*_ am the boss, you Norscan b-tch._
In addition to these, I dislike the unresponsive controls.
One of the classic examples is that you give a move order out of combat, then have to repeatedly click again and again and again until they actually really leave combat.
You tell mounted archers to shoot at enemy X, move the horses around the enemy to keep your distance, they forget the shooting order.
A lot of small annoyances that are so common that I guess most are already jaded to them.
so aggravating
This has been a thing in every single TW game.
The horses one always annoyed me, but I do think they remember there target until they move out of range, but I might ne wrong.
Like everytime I tell a unit to chase something down, and I look 40 seconds later and yell, wtf did you stop?!
That's a very good point. Having to click multiple times for a unit to respond to an order has been a part of Total War games for so long that almost come to expect it as a feature, rather than an annoyance. But it is definitely an annoyance.
The enemy army moving away from you is a pain. Only counter I've found is going into ambush and hoping they come back.
AI armies just care about out minor settlements and wasting our time to chase its weak armies. If there are more than 2 enemy factions due to antiplayer bias, game becomes cancer.
Don’t chase enemy armies unless you absolutely sure you can catch them after they retreat. Have a weak lord following your main army and use him as bait, works on any difficulty.
Recruit a hero with the block army ability. Either that, or drag another army over to pincer them. Or if you don't feel like doing either of those, try using a settlement as bait so they're forced to stop marching for a turn. Playing as the TK rn and all i have is armies running away from me :(
@@shmekelfreckles8157 Your weak army doesnt work when you get attack from:
-north(grimgor)
-west(tretch)
-south(ghorst)
It is more annoying if you know they supposed to deal with their main enemy factions but only care players
@@jjgunes8938 you’re playing Greasus, I assume? God bless you.
Anti-player bias single-handedly killed this game for me. I remember being able to pull all kinds of different routes for campaigns...
This plus the mod to fix it doesn;t seem to be working
I have to agree with this. On the historic total war games “ except Troy “ I’ve never seen anti player bias. Everything the ai did made sense to me. In this one they send all their armies to you even though you’re only 1 guy invading them out of 7
Yeeeeah, I played a Noctilus campaign awhile back and was at war with random factions, The Gallion's Graveyard was almost attacked by Itza, Clan Skyre, Bordeaux Entrant, Bel'akor, Itza wasn't able to attack cause I force marched there to defend, so they decided to go and occupy Lothern! On around turn 30 something! Like what the fuck?
@@thedonkey6704have you not played Atilla? Those damn Huns love the player. Haven’t experienced much in Troy. They barely make it to my lands. My Alliances usually hold them up.
I can understand a very minor anti-player bias to try and keep the player challenged/incheck to an extent. But TW:WH is blatant beyond the pale. I swear to Khorne if I see the lizardmen join the skaven just to kill me as volkmar one more time I'm gonna abassinate myself.
When playing as Taurox when you raze a settlement you have the choice to gain extra movement. If you choose this option your army will first randomly move almost 50% of a full movement in the opposite direction you wish to travel in first before giving you back control. Thus negating the bonus movement.
I think what frustrates me the most about Warhammer 3 is that they made this totally overhauled siege battle system, and I've used it maybe 3 times in campaigns because the AI either attacks settlements with 4 units or 4 quintillion and no in between
I really hate the new garrisons. It just feels so terrible to build the garrison building, max it, then realize you've got 8 dudes total and most of them are tier 1 units. You don't even get walls now, just the settlement map that honestly doesn't help defend much because the tower defense mode is crap.
the biggest feature i wish to have in a tw game is when i press retreat on the campaign map i control where my army is going to go, 9/10 when you try to bait the Ai to like that you guy retreat to the worst possible spot away from your lands and forces or closer to the enemy or what not. But the anti player bias is just absurd, the ai will throw everything they have against you while in the same time that 1 city minor faction they have been at war with for the past 50 turns get to gobble up there lands for free. as far as vortex spells go i use em only when i blob up the ai around my hero/lord so how ever it swings there is only enemys around
I swear the enemy lords are cheating with winds of magic, sometimes i´ll try waiting em out a bit and they just keep blasting spells they never stop. cooldowns seems shorter too and range longer
This. And the fact that the AI somehow knows how to dodge your spells perfectly. I swear I rarely hit the AI with warp lightning as they start spreading out as soon as the lightning animation start coming out its just stupid. The only time I hit them with it is when I use my melee units to hold them down and prevent them from moving away.
the "surprise" ambushes on several armies that have set up camp right next to each other and see each other, and suddenly the army that was just in their camp to be defended is on the way to nowhere and is "ambushed"
yeah... i especially hate vilitch
Im surprised there isnt a mention of AI cheats. Its really baffling when a lower speed unit can catch up to a higher speed one just because its in the AIs hands.
This. Add also to the fact that AIs with one settlement left can somehow pump a full stack of army in just 2 or 3 turns. I remember how nightmare-ish it was back in WH2 when Grimgor used to do that. It was such a headache trying to get rid of him back then.
Sometimes, the information you're fed is wrong (the stat you see is incorrect, there's an obvious case in the Chaos Dwarf army, I can't recall it's name), sometimes troop fatigue plays a role.
Some of these are just annoying but some of them are totally avoidable. For example, #4 will never be an issue if you use a hero to scout ahead of your armies. Most factions have either a hero that is extremely easy to increase the cap on or a hero that isn't worth using a slot in your army for, so use one of those guys. It's worth 200 gold a turn to make informed decisions. #1 isn't a problem if you end your turn in encampment stance any time you are near Skaven armies. And hey, you'll know those armies are there if you use that hero to scout from the earlier example. Problems with enemy armies running? Use a decoy army with very little autoresolve power and have your main army standing right next to them in ambush stance, the AI falls for it every time. Failing that, don't engage them if you are at the end of your range, just end your turn right next to them, half the time they just sit there and wait to die.
I’d also argue #9 was way more prevalent in Warhammer 2. I can’t even count how many times I’d be close to wiping out an AI faction, only for it to confederate with another faction. #3 isn’t a probably if you use hero’s, a general, or low entity count troops to aggro a few units. Won’t hurt your own units.
#3 in particular struck me as a player problem. It *is* a randomly moving AoE, of course it's gonna backfire if you cast it next to your own army.
Agreed. Careful movement, scouting and stances to avoid ambush can solve half this list.
Can totally agree with the enemy running away from you. It wouldn't hurt your economy if you create a lord with no army stand in between your army and the enemy while your main army is in ambush stance. I've baited so many Ais with that strat so many times. Then after you got rid of them with that ambush strat you can just kick out that temporary lord army you hire to gain back your upkeep.
I was thinking exactly this. Most of these are being a lazy player rather than the games fault
I had to quit two campaigns, one after the other, because multiple factions declared war on me in the first 20turns.
Anti-player bias gets ridiculous on multiple occasions!
Tried my first sisters of twilight campaign in 3 and by turn 15 nearly all of my neighbors had declared war on me. 2 dark elves, a skaven, taurox and the vampire coast one I can't recall the name of. I tried to push through but when 4 full stack armies started coming at my single province outside the tree I just scrapped it.
@@NimmelTheGreatwood elves can handle multiple wars and you also have great tools for diplomacy since you don’t need settlements. Just trade them for treaties.
Mannfred campaign was abysmal. I was pretty defensive on my playthrough, going to war with the tomb Kings and chaos, occasionally dwarves. For some reason despite me being the bulwark against factions everyone hated they used it as an opportunity to gang up on me rather than fight the main game's enemy with me. In TW2, even enemy factions will band together to stop chaos invasion event.
And yes I understand vampires are stinky and leave corruption so aren't good allies but then both chaos and order factions declared on me, and I got an endgame crisis in middle of my border (the pyramid one) meaning I got eaten from the inside out OR had borders chipped away.
It was disgusting bad luck or deliberately player bias.
God I hate anti player bias, I’ve had so many campaigns where a faction which is decently friendly (plus 10 relations) just decides to declare war on me preventing any future treaties and forcing me to go deal with them
Most of the time there is a reason why they declared war. Most likely they want your land and your faction is weaker than theirs.
@@shmekelfreckles8157 yea I kinda get why it happens but I think more things need to be taken into account, I would be fine if a greenskin faction declared war on me if my faction strength dropped but when the dawi decide to do the same, I feel like all factions act the same, just general frustrations I guess
Its absolutely shocking. Playing as settra and getting ku'gath declare war on me from the fucking dragon isles and sending multiple stacks across the ocean while I'm simultaneously fighting invasions from lustria is ridiculous. The AI doesn't seem to understand any sense of distance or geography of the map. They're literally travelling to the other side of the Warhammer world just to get at me. I'm sick to the back teeth of having any ai faction I encounter decide to attack me while I'm already fighting multiple fronts and focusing all their effort on me. Let me have periods of peace I beg
@@jjotomo3908 Ku’gath sending multiple stacks? What difficulty are you on? I don’t even remember when was the last time he survived this long in my campaigns.
I think the faction climate restrictions are the most stifling mechanic in the game. While I applaud the idea it no longer works in IE. It stifles campaign creativity and flat out stunts some LL's campaigns. LOS issues and Siege pathing also plague the game.
Mazdamundi is one of the worst lords because of this. Half his nearby territory is uninhabitable for him.
Not all campaigns are meant for map painting. And I don’t remember any campaign in IE that screws you over with climate limitations in the early game.
@@shmekelfreckles8157 The most popular campaigns in IE are the ones with the fewest climate restrictions. That's not coincidental. People don't like obtuse limitations in a sandbox. Like the other commenter said about Mazdamundi being stunted in one entire direction. Why would his lizardmen be so climate restricted but Oxyotl's lizardmen can live anywhere? It makes no sense.
@@shmekelfreckles8157 Fairly certain all the Bretonnian grasslands is orange suitability for Grom in his campaign
@@CalDoggyDaddu For climate issue guys, pick the mod " Climate Adaptation " alongside " Z's English Submod ". This will make any unfavorable settlement getting acclimated progressively, reducing the malus of climate until it drops to 0.
A must have imo
Agree with all except 3 and 1.
Randomly moving spells are an interesting feature. Magic is already OP, so there needs to be some situational factors to apply, such as moving vortexs'
Not many factions can ambush attack, but factions like the skaven are built on it.
I agree on the magic front. It should be wild and uncontrolled. That is kind of the whole point.
for the skaven it makes since but why the hell is a tzeentch army able to walk up and ambush me it also happens way to often.
You can choose the general direction of the spell by sliding
@@edouardlorge4059 you could do that in the older parts, its gone in this one
Those spells have absolutely nothing on the wind type spells on killing power. They never get touched because there's spells that are _much_ more stable that do significantly more damage. Almost every spellcaster isn't going to be casting as though they're a wild mage, and that's _especially_ true for those who have been around since the vortex was created.
For the "randomly moving spell" I've found that it looks to randomly move from unit blob to unit blob, but does so indiscriminately. The only way I've found to reliably use it and stay safe is to throw it into enemy back lines, or if they're attacking to use it on then before they get to my lines. I pretty much never get roaming spells unless i have to or have nothing else to put points into because they're so limited in use
survivorship bias. you only notice the movement when it does something dramatic on either side of the pendulum. the movement is semi-random and is not affected by units on the map. it was confirmed that it used to move away from the caster but i think they patched that, or at least they said they fixed that problem
@spanner5940 I should've added that it's a more recent thing I've noticed since the Chaos Dwarfs were added. Since they were added I've watched a lot of those roaming spells randomly move between units but almost always going for a unit. It's why I ever even use it currently (used to be a complete waste of magic before imo) but that habit roaming spells have for pulling to friendly units makes them still very limited to use
I have the opposite experience: so many random spells hit the unit i cast it on and then immediately take the most obtuse route possible to narrowly dodge every single unit on its way to the middle of nowhere. I'd honestly rather it hit me than hit nothing....
I’ve gotten great use out of vortex spells simply by using low entity count units, a lord, or SEM units aggro a few units around them. It is very effective. I’ll also use expendable units in chokepoints.
@@emanuelalfred1565this is exactly the way to do it. Load up some magic resist items, have them blob up a bunch of lower-tier infantry, and then throw down vortex spell. Very effective with chaos sorc on manticore
Idk man, ranged units going mele when using up all ammo, despite being in guard mode, is still a thing. And I cant get over it.
I never get a chance to use up all my ammo😩. The enemy is usually dead and gone before then. I would’ve never known this was a problem if I didn’t occasionally check forums or RUclips.
Maybe watch your ranged units and just disengage them when they’re out of ammo, no?
11) random enemy army marches into your undefended land, sacks a couple settlements each turn, you eventually send in an army to deal with them only for them to run away from your superior army, while they flee, they decide it will be a good idea to go for a marathon, they run past 3-4 of your settlements and conveniently park themselves next to a fully developed town, then they proceed to economically cripple you while your army spends several turns trying to catch up to
them (cant recruit any more armies because they have crippled you) several turns later you have caught up and they have sacked half your empire....
Couldn't agree more. This happened to me with my campaign with Malekith once on IE. Was busy taking care of business on the north east side of Naggarond when all of a sudden Grombrindal decided to have a little fieldtrip on my land. He started sacking and razing my settlements, and by the time my main army comes back, he crippled me to the point in where I'm going broke just trying to chase him. And when I finally got to him, and he knows he's in trouble, he did the most cowardly move against me. He wanted peace treaty with me. Now I've been playing this game for god knows how long and I know the AIs will backstab me again so I got rid of him quickly rather than wait for him to get strong again and start repeating the process again. But boy that chase I did with him was annoying as fuck. I legit ALMOST went negative on upkeep cuz he keep razing and sacking what ever settlement of mine he walks pass by and its the most annoying thing ever.
Angering yes but I think that’s actually pretty smart strategy to use against someone
I mean some of these issues can be fixed with mods, and the votex one is just kinda weird. You know it's a vortex spell that will randomly move around, so if you use it very close to your own units you're kinda taking a 50/50 if it will hit your unit or not.
Here's the issue with mods. We paid how much money for this game? Including even part of the dlc and if you bought one or 2. All that money and we can't get quality of life.
There are legit hateful mechanics in this videos but there are also things that are just contrived. #4 for example. It's not the AI's fault that you ran into an ambuscade. You never scouted ahead.
#3 ... (sigh) It's not the AI's fault that you used the wrong spell in that situation.
Edit: I'm surprised rebuildable towers aren't here, despite seeing all "polls" mention it.
I had an anti player bias moment the other day playing Shimazu in Shogun 2. After I had conquered Kyushu and the smaller surrounding islands (expanded Japan + other mods) I decided to just sit back and avoid conquest for a while, and build up my provinces and research tech. I had converted to Christianity and so was beginning to recruit a lot of strong gunpowder units alongside my regular units. This tiny 1 province, 1 army clan in a small province just north of Kyoto decided that they just had to teach me a lesson, and so took their 1 army with their daimyo and sail all the way to Kyushu to land their army in one of my provinces and fight me. Promptly won the following defensive siege battle and sunk their one crappy ship with my fleet of Nanban trade ships + one Black Ship. Total War is something else, lol
10 - army running away. Just use a second lord without any units present, put your main army in front of him in an ambush stance , preferably in a forest, end your turn and let the AI take the bait.
In general it's great to move around with multiple lords in a pack (one having an army) if you are skilled enough to protect them from ambushes. They can quadruple your battle loot.
Skaven’s stalk stance is fine
There are 4 things that are killing the enjoyment of WH3 for me:
1- Siege Battles, having to deal with troops while my army gets nuked by magical towers that pop up and this point capture nonsense.
2- Armies running away just like you mentioned.
3- Not being able to customize the Auto-assign skill points, random auto is a mess and manual in the end game its a chore.
4- Not having interactive trading like Cathay without mods.
3 one, ++
I want #3 so bad.
Oh I got one, you're into the mid/late campaign, you work your way down the character list, making sure to move every single one of your lords and heroes, you move one into a city, the list resets, back to the top of the list, you move one out of the city, the list resets, you have to now scroll all the way back down, you perform a hero action, the list switches to events, the amount of times I've forgotten a army and clicked end turn for it to move a single inch I've lost count.
The Alliance Wars don't bother me, I did choose to become their ally after all. Similarly, anything putting my army in a bad spot is usually down to me not scouting ahead with heroes (agents) which is how I plan for doomstacks marching.
As for Skaven ambushes, I'd generally like a rework of how they move on the map. They're not too well known for marching on the surface as far as I am aware. Something tied to their Under-Empire could be cool. Perhaps if an underway is established or they're in their own territory, ambushes can be launched in that way. An Under-Empire building called something like Hiding Pits could be used as a buff to said chance. Add some more depth to that system and incentivize larger networks. Could be terrible in practice granted.
Personally 5 is one of my biggest pet peeves, actually had my first campaign loss ever recently on turn 20 cuz the lizards to my south, dwarves to my east and skaven to my west decided to all wage war on me and me alone on turn 15. Comical timing cuz they unironically all did it on the same turn. needless to say they ran me into the dirt in about 5 turns.
PS: i was playing as Court of Lybaras from the Tomb Kings
What I hate the most is the pass finding in siège battle, the gate are broken but my infantry go on the wall with the leader and go down instead of simply going trow the gate
I really don't mind the anti player bias as long as it makes sense. I'm likely going to be the biggest threat so it would make sense that the ai would try to fight me, but when they march through 2 territories of people they're at war with only to get at me...? yeah fuck that. (looking at you Rakarth)
All pretty fair dislikes, thankfully a few mods that I know of can fix about half of them.
I’ll add number 11 myself:
When two allies declare war on each other and you’re force to pick a side only to take a hit on your reputation regardless. It’s so dumb and leaves me never wanting to make any alliances as they really are more of a hinderance above Trade deal.
Maybe don’t make alliances with people who hate each other? I literally never had this problem.
My biggest gripe is probably alliances making the allied faction weaker and have worse ai
Can't quite agree with the entire list, love ambushing with Skaven and being on the lookout for them adds that extra threat of entering their domain. And the times I've attacked a settlement to stop them from getting an upgrade on it seems just fair as is reloading to fix it. The random moving spells are just about risk for reward, but I do also prefer using the more reliable ones.
The rest I can get behind, it happens to often a faction much weaker than me declares war on me while not being even close to care is just weird.
Can agree with you about the Skaven ambushing actually. I love their ambush mechanic. It's cuz Skaven infantry are complete garbage, ( except for their weapons team I guess) so you really need to play dirty with Skaven(atleast that's what i learned from playing them).
The amount of times I’ve had bozos far away from me declare war on me when they’re already in multiple wars bypassing them just to attack me…like straight pea brain decision making.
I think with Ambush stance changes, maybe if you were out of LOS and undetected, you could launch an ambush but if you were visible before, you would have to come out of ambush stance to launch a conventional attack
I will be honest, the Skaven/Beastmen Ambush thing is a minor inconvinience. Its just a faction mechanic you need to remember and play accordingly. The only thing that annoys me, is, that the ambushed army is 'marching'. It should be just a different ambush map type, where the enemy has only a very small area for deployment in the middle and you have a surround you can deploy your troops in.
No, rather than that, what should have been on the list would be the extremly bad vassal system. 'oh, my vassal took the city I wanted. Aaaaand it won't give it to me. It also brooke the Trade Agreement, and .... look how much other Chaos factions are hating me because the HE are my vassals!'
The vassal system is horrid and needs to be redone. They have too much free reign, can decide too many things on their own - if they capture a city, I want to have a say in what happens to the city, either to claim it or let them have it. If I want something, they are not to refuse. And other factions should not care about what alignment the original faction had, they are now vassalized to a Chaos faction and ought to be treated alignment-wise as chaos now!
This. *"Release Vassal / Declare War / Capture Dark Fortress / Eliminate ex-vassal / Re-Vassalize him"* happens every time I play my favorite factions: Warriors of Chaos. At the very least, threatening a vassal should be consequence-free on your reputation. At best, they accept deals that have a negative chance to happen, but in the process they get disgruntled a bit and, on the long run, risk seceding.
to be fair, 6 and 4 can be prevented. Don't build buildings in settlements that enemy armies can reach. Start developing them when the front line has moved to a settlement or two further away. 4, vision is a part of the game. Send agents ahead to scout the enemy lands, don't just charge in with no knowledge.
How about the un-counterable Teleport stance that I can't belive ever got the green light
Settlement/Siege battles are #0 problem ^^
What? you dont like the backcap cheese method?
Nothing is more immersion breaking then skarbrand running from my army.
I wish they'd expand the trade, economy, amd diplomacy mechanics, being able manage these and have a variety of options would be awesome. Add a little. Anno 1800 and some CK3 to the campaign map CA ffs
#6 is not a thing the AI does, its a confirmation bias.
#4 is just stupid, scout with whatever your weaker heroes are or using your mechanics.
#3 yeah, it IS actually random that's why is screws you over sometimes.
god i feel number 5
i started up my first playthrough in immortal empires to have some fun trying out the Demon Prince faction(i enjoy it) and not only was i pushing east because constant wars there but Malus decided to say hi and start poking me. and being chaos i have expensive armies and a shitty economy so i have to spend 3 turns force marching my demon prince back to my western border to take back the land Malus took and eradicate him which pushes me closer to you guessed it. more dark elves who go to war with me.
but i still do love it as it does feel thematic, plus more battles means more skulls for the skull throne and more khorne favor.
My biggest hate is the AI cheats, Economy cheats.. they can instantly buy full stacks armies when they are meant to be poor.. and that when your in a stance you can't retreat but the AI can? It's absolutely BS!
The AI only wants ONE thing. And it's fucking disgusting.
I’m convinced point 5 is why the “initial difficulty” thing was scrapped
Number 3 hit hard considering I once had a bright mage both figuratively and literally friendly fire 3000 of my men in a pivotal battle against chaos
Thankfully I had a bunch more reinforcements so I won but it still pissed me off
(10) I agree I really hate when this is happening I can remember once I had caught an army up against a mountain with two armies and somehow they slipped through and run a marathon away from me, (7) I cannot count how many times this happened to me in minor and wall settlement battles and I have encountered the same on the campaign map luckily not that many times, (5) I cannot describe the lunacy and the pure annoyance anti-player bias have been in TWW3 like there was one time in the early days in TWW3, I was Zhao Ming in realm of Chaos and was at war with N'Kari and Tzarina Katarin and N'Kari was at war with Tzarina Katarin they ignored each other and send armies to attack me over several province pure lunacy, but anti-player bias has gotten better over time but it is still a big issue still, (4) I know the pain, (3) I mostly use that type of Spells in settlement battles but very rarely, (2) non-aggression and trade that's it for me, (1) I know the pain and when I know there is a Skaven army near or the enemy army has disappeared I placed my army in camp stand and pretty much able to avoid that.
SFO handles some of these problems quite nicely :)
Which ones?
I don't mind that feature #10 in tww2: because the winning against rats in open field with marching army (3/4 of them is rangers and artillery) is more easily. You just set up a lines, and shoot them down, while 1/4 of your army are holding them. Once they are cleared, it's just a short rest before the rest of their army will go and die. Which can deal you little to zero damage rather then fighting them in open field. Defeat in details, with some twists.
Totally agree, except for No.4 is a bit meh. I just want to be able to decline diplomacy by pressing escape key, and to be able to queue buildings and skills. Give me that and "time played" will drop by 50-75%.
I hate how AI armies do everything they can to avoid battles unless the balance of power is comfortably in their favour. I've seen AI armies running away from their own settlements, allowing them to get conquered. I also very rarely get to enjoy massive defensive siege battles because the AI won't commit to offensive sieges unless it can easily win.
By far, the most annoying thing though is defending a coastline. Say you can see an enemy army sailing towards one of your coastal settlements. So, you move an army to it to defend it. And how does the AI react? Changes course to avoid having to fight the strong player army. And likely deciding to sail further down the coast to try and go for another undefended settlement instead. So the player's defending army needs to keep moving, and you up in an endless cat and mouse cycle unless you use ambush stance to bait the cowards in.
I really don’t understand this criticism of the AI. Isn’t it a smart thing to avoid battles unless you’re certain you can win? Especially since it’s working out good for the AI. I had plenty sieges on legendary by just trying to move my extra army to lift the siege. Enemies will see it and either retreat, attack your supporting army if it’s weak or launch the siege battle if they think they have a chance. And they often just start the battle. And I hate siege battles.
Hi. Mostly yes, but I can't agree about the spells. Lets clarify: vortex spells. They are great. I didn't think so and only used pit of shades in the first part. Then, in WTW2 I started a dark elf campaign (very hard) and had a battle like: my half full army against 2 enemy (elf) armies (one full). I had a fire mage on a flying mount. The enemy were passing an impossible rock/mountain and clumped up. I put down 2 flamestorms and later a few burning heads. A few salvos from my dark shards (crossbowmen) finished them off. The vortex spells did most of the damage. There are ways to really use them well, like: 1. Hide your army and clump the enemy up with a lord, then place a vortex on top of him. He will take very little damage. 2. Put it in front of an attacking enemy formation - they won't usually stop. 3. Pin some enemy units with something resistant to that spell (like fire res to a flame storm, or a big creature) and hit them. 4. Hit a unit shooting your troops. It won't usually get out of the way. If there are several , put the vortex in the middle - maximize the chance it will hit more. 5. Start going through a city gate as the attacker. This will usually cause several units to try to counter this. Start cooking .. or whatever a particular vortex does :)
My most hated things in warhammer 3 is loadings (turns, battles), it becomes waiting game later in the campain
my absolute hated bug os the victory screen not coming up against the barrow legion. destroys everygame if u face him. especially in legendary. some of these bugs are game breaking and never get fixed.
force march perhaps should not put your units into tired but half your movement range next turn
In WH2 at least AI targetting non-walled cities can be ridiculous. One time I had the AI walk past several of my cities that had walls, through another factions land to reach the one city "nearby" that didn't have their walls build yet. If it was the least defended city in the current province I would understand, but when they are running through half of Lustria...
*Intro / 7 / 8:* You nailed it. Crashing AND such a loading time, F*CK!? (Bonus: Retreat reaching a specific point even if it means half a turn's worth of detour because river/swamp/coastline)
*10:* Ambush stance change their actions as they don't see you anymore. It's not just for the ambushes themselves. Also: Bait Lords.
*1:* Skaven literally pop out of the ground into your archery line as you fight. They can create advantageous circumstances for themselves.
*3 / 4 / 5 / 6 :* Git Gud.
A good change for the skaven is that stalk instead has a chance to put you In the ambush position at the end of your turn. Like a 30 percent chance to change your current position to ambush no matter the movement range used In the the stalk stance.
(Like a base 10 percent but in the endgame that kind of level)
Idk for anyone else, but the most annoying thing for me is when a greenskin approaches a town that you have an army in, but do a tunnel battle just to 1v1 you and not your garrison, like is the whole army standing in one spot
A lot of the time i set up an ambush in a path where the ai should obviously go, and then the ai goes somewhere else, so i reload and ambush at that location, so the ai then goes on the other path i ambushed before. And its not like they detected me or anything, theyre just ombisxient
Agree with some of these, but man, Damneders is so bad at this game which contributes to his frustrations
the fighting on all sides is one of the reasons i only like to play co-op. cant attack my rear when i am back to back with a friend
What makes me rage is getting surrounded by land corrupted by chaos so basicly nice army you got there here have some attrition
for number 10 out your army in ambush stance your army will be invisible unless an enemy army discovers you
OMG like im playing an ice court campaign and all of chaos from the chaos dwarves to sigvald have all teamed up like armies next to eachother only to wage wars on me. And when i check who they are at war with they ended there prevoius wars and are only fighting me so im fighting 10 chaos armies on my own and archeon is soon to follow 😢 send help plz
Yeah, I can't deny how annoying these are. Mods can fix many of these, but the fact they exist and always plague all of your campaigns is very very irritating.
Nb 10 bafingly 3k had a fix for it by giving forces sitting in enemy territory a move penalty
I just got the game a week ago. Tried three separate Kislev campaigns and not only is it impossible to load the dam game with 5-10 minute loading screens,Valkia around turn 30 slams into your settlements from the north and you literally cannot stop the chaos forces its ridiculous.
Kislev is possibly the worst faction in terms of geography, start position, starting forces, INCOME, and underpowered (and over-costed) hybrid units.... we all expect them to get reworked and beefed up in the upcoming patches.
@@lordpappanqui I imagine that’s why the shadows of change is focusing on them partially cause their start is so frustrating it’s not fun it’s rage worthy.
@@EvanE988 Correct.
Kislev just isn't 'working right' when compared to other factions, and even more so when compared to their Empire cousins...
Furthermore, Cathay will hopefully be given the same attention, as it also needs several additions to their roster, a power boost with their effectiveness vs Large targets, and certainly additional tweaks here and there to solidify their cohesion. (yin/yang needs to be adjusted with its range umbrella and warrants a reworking, imo)
@@lordpappanqui for my case they need to fricking nerf Valkia on realm of chaos omg. It is ridiculous early game she just heads towards you and slaughters you with her army power ups and armor around turn 30. It ruined both my kislev and Nurgle camping.
On the subject of ai confederations, during a Grimgor campaign on WH2, I was reigning terror across the mountainside as he does. I thought it was time to wage war on the Skaven, so I had two options. Either go for Eshin or Mors. Neither of them were in an alliance, so I could attack either at my leisure. I chose to attack Eshin since they had roughly 5 or 6 settlements versus Mors 20 or so (to my recollection). Maybe 3 or 4 turns into my war and confederation occurs. Mors should be very happy with their new settlements, I hear you comment. No. Mors, a nation that was 4, maybe 5 times larger than Eshin, decided they would rather be confederated by them. Instantaneously, a faction with half a dozen settlements turned into war with an under empire.
This might also have been the same campaign I got a defensive alliance with Thorgrim because I had raided Eshin for so long. Very curious events indeed.
I had a blood thirsty army and even valkia, the person with rules that punish others for running away, run away from me multiple times in a row. I feel like khorne wouldve smited them for that heresy xD
The biggest mistake you can make is accepting a peace treaty with a faction that spent several turns being at war with you, do not accept these treaties, crush them to history.
Enemies in your territory should be able to retreat and vice versa. Enemies attacking you in your own region should allow you to retreat far whilst also punishing the enemies movement range by 10-20%. Ridiculous.
number 3: player uses gamble like mechanic, player loses, player complains, sounds like a big case of be smarter lol
Tho I think it brings up a good point; since they are gambley, I wish they lasted longer, where more unpredictable, but in exchange dirt cheap to use winds of magic wise.
But honestly some of these sound like polling carebears about mechanics they dislike, something that's a horrible idea.
Number 1 point is totally 100% spot on.
Honestly i don't mind the skaven ambush because it's kind of one of their core mechanics, and it helps compensate for their mostly shit infantry and since you can see them coming it gives you a chance of using encampment stance to lower the ods of their success by 75% and if they ambush you, you can always reload if you want to, now what is truly busted is the tzeench teleport stance, he can use like 30 winds of magic to teleport into you and get a 100% ambush, doesnt matter if you are encamped or not it always ambushes
i had an ambush on a army before that was at the settlement recruiting like the army was fresh from the factory next to the settlement not moved
Anti player bias, declared wars for no tactical or strategic reasons, including not even sharing a border with the faction.
The retreat mechanic favors the AI. My armies will almost consistently retreat a tiny fraction of a spec of movement and the stupidest direction possible, and the AI can sometimes retreat across rough terrain for a quarter of full movement back in the direction of their allies.
Civilization multiplayer solved. The diplomacy halting turns issue by letting you look at diplomatic messages at the end of the turn. It might cause some issues but it really should be an option because it's plagued these games for years.
i disagree with no.9, I love it when the ai confeds because i can grab more settlements without having to do some political manoeuvring for my expansion. double goes for fighting empire since they are just so weak its crazy. I've never lost a 1v1 vs empire only random settlements. no.6 is just straight up a skill issue, never invest money into settlements in danger of being lost. no.4 is a skill issue too and the few times I've jeopardised an army its because i sent it on a suicide mission into red territory. perhaps i would replace some of those with the casualty replenishment problem, which has the current band aid of hero replenishment but in turn forces you to always use that hero in an army. I shouldn't have to be forced to use any unit i don't want to and you ALWAYS need a replenishment hero. it would be less of a problem if the ai didn't focus down singular units (usually heavy cav) at the cost of losing a fair 1v1 which forces lopsided damage. the rest is fair though i enjoyed the video, ty for the good content.
I find the confederation one worse when it's the faction I'm at war with that gets confederated into a larger faction. I only just started 3 but it happened to me a lot in 2, I would be about to take the last settlement in a province and finish off a faction and then suddenly it gets confederated by an enormous faction I have no relationship with who is now sharing my lands starts off disliking me and is blocking my expansion. So it's either eternal war with a faction half the map away for one settlement or being boxed in.
i was so frustrated by the anti player bias that i downloaded a consol command on WHIII just to stop loading saves and wasting my time in loading screen, now i just teleport away the beastman army that attacked my capital out of nowhere because i think its kinda unfair that the only thing the developpers did for stoping player to roll over everything is giving stupid all see through vision or stupid buff over the top of damages or moral
#5 pisses me off bad enough that it causes me to abandon campaigns entirely and quit playing the game for weeks at a time. When dwarfs, vampires, chaos dwarfs, ogres, and skaven all avoid or ignore one another to team up on you, it's not only bullshit anti player bias, but it completely breaks any aspect of lore immersion. There is zero scenarios in WH Fantasy in which Dwarfs will aid skaven or vampires against humans or high elves. I can't get through a Greasus campaign for instance because Imrik, Drazoath, Ghorst, and Kugath all band together to take me out. 4 factions that would absolutely have nothing to do with one another in the lore all working together and even forming alliances! just to take out the player.
#3 I don't even put skill points into those spells for this reason. They ALWAYS "randomly" shoot right into my own lines. Every damn time without fail, meaning it isn't random at all but bad programming or a troll on the devs part.
Some are a stretch...
To me, it seems you don't accept the risks of diplomacy and criticize the consequences.
For the ambush attacks, it's lore related to the skavens. It encourages you to always play safe because their goal is to crawl out of their tunnels to ambush you.
All of these are pretty fair execpt for the last one. When I started playing wh2 I was seething as empire having to fight skaven because I would keep on having 3 skaven armies ”ambushing” one of the 5 armies I would Walk in close formation to deal with them. I then realised I could just enter encampment stance and I can count the number of times I have been ambushed by skaven since on one hand. Only fair imo with weak skaven AI is.
The only thing here that actually annoys me is the anti-player bias. Playing as Settra and Karl Franz marched an army all the way down, whilst he's also at war with the orcs and undead on the way, taking attrition constantly, just so he could attack Khemri and die with his massively attritioned army. I mean, it didn't matter, but it's just like wtf, I don't understand how it's so much worse in 3 than it was in 2
The times went the ia go all aroun mi defences on the campane map for 50 turns just to f@ck mi back
Turn timers take a few minutes in the late game? Sounds like you need to upgrade your rig.
When i chase a forced march army running away constantly i called the game GTA total war
I hate it how fast the AI can sometimes spawn in high tier armys with litlle land to teir name.
The games so easy that I don't see why point number five is a thing, but I'm wondering if it's confirmation bias, if it's happened a few times doesn't mean it's an issue, it's just something that can happen. if it's a neighbour that's friendly with you then sure, that's weird af tho oppertunist in a cool way.
But like the last thing we need is to find more ways to make this stuff easier, campaign is really really really too easy as is.
This sounded like a game journalist guide lol
This is so true. I've only been playing for one week and tick 6/10 of those boxes. The biggest frustration with AI is that it is not really "intelligent" when it knows all your internal upgrades of buildings etc (would it not make us more "intelligent" if we had the exact same info about everyone on the map)..The AI needs to be more human in it's strategic decisions in order to truly improve the game. This also means the AI could be more unpredictable as they may take bigger risks etc..Swings both ways
For #10 I try to take 2 army's so when they retreat try to catch them with another army
Isn't the player also able to see what the ai builds tough? Also you definitely shouldn't be building in settlements that has an army in range.
I hate that difficult means more units and better units for the opppnent and it doesn't make me play any better or use the mechanics more.
Also: Ikit Claw should be allowed to blow up the world it's my choice...
anti player bias was never an issue for me because i never play anything above normal or hard , some factions however are programmed to be obnoxious and agressive
Nothing pisses me off more than when a faction suicides all of their armies directly at you, all to raze the minor settlement you just took. Especially when they screw themselves over to do it. In my most recent campaign, I've seen three seperate factions lose wars against other enemies because they've decided to attack me instead of relieving their besieged capital. It ruins my emersion, it's frustrating to have them act so illogically, and it does the opposite of what it is supposed to do: it makes the game easier. Now, whenever I need to conquer an AI, I just capture a nearby minor settlement, and have my armies leave. 9/10 times, their massive army that would normally be defending their capital, or invading my territory goes to the middle of nowhere trying to screw me over, and I capture Altdorf, or Skavenblight, or Naggarond (what should be the epic conclusion of a hard-fought campaign) in an easy auto-resolve.
The amount of times I've gotten up right after ending my turn only to come back to a diplomacy offer from tirion or alariel. I really do wish you could just auto decline everything lol
No. 10 is an atomic skill issue. I don't understand why so many players of a strategy game have trouble with basic strategy. This happened to me the first few times playing TWW, and that's it. You can't just chase people around like a zombie, you need to have a strategy to lure them to you.
almost all of these are a skill issue
@@redcrown5154 Maybe. There's a huge swathe of players who think that the AI should march into your guns no matter how outnumbered they are.
@@InternetMameluq yeah, then they will complain the AI is awful
@@redcrown5154 Yep.
I don't know if this happens a lot or just me problem, but I hate how the game says I have 100% ambush chance, in a turn enemy doesn't spot me and yet the AI knows I am there. 6 turns in ambush and setlement open for attacks and nothing. The turn I break the ambush or move the ambush to another location, the enemy attacks.
If your army was spotted there one turn and then you put it in an ambush in the same spot AI will suspect an ambush most of the time. And if you move away they will obviously see your lord pop up in another place.
In real life an inferior army would run away, they don't want to die. I can understand the AI running away from a battle it can't win. You just have to bait them into a trap. The Ai loves a juicy small army recruiting or in forced march stance. Just throw that beefy army of yours into ambush stance and watch as you massacre their army when they fall for the bait.
For me its ass ladders... Sieges are one of the most important parts of the game, especially major settlement battles. I know its heresy, but I kind of like minor settlement battles. They are not perfect, but quite okay. Garrisons could use a big overhaul, but thats a different topic, there are mods for that.
But walls being utterly useless due ass ladders is just bugs me soooo much and totally killing the feeling of attacking a big settlement.