Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

  1. #1

    Default Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    From Karl Franz Biography
    "In Total War: WARHAMMER, Lords lead your armies into battle; without them an army cannot exist. They are your generals, and are split into two categories: Lords and Legendary Lords."

    What I get from this statement; Army limits are back, you are getting them whether you like em or not, we didn't listen to them we know better.

    Now, you could argue that this doesn't limit army size. I argue it does, otherwise I will just have 20 or more lords and combine them into an army (or CA will artificially force me to have only 1 in an army). This is dumb on so many levels.

    I predict the features we've lost from this single blow so far are;
    Being able to reinforce armies from a settlements garrison, no you need to waste a lord to do that.
    Being able to begin to recruit an army while your lords are currently elsewhere, no you need to wait for a lord to return and you can only recruit in one region (might be a province, but that's only like 1-3 units per turn at most)
    Being able to send a small elite army to hold a chokepoint (like a bridge or idk, a carrack in this game?)
    Skirmish definition; an episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets.
    Skirmishes removed, again.

    And if you're talking about Warhammer authenticity here, I doubt every battle ever fought in warhammer lore was between an elector count and a equally prestigious officer, there had to be border skirmishes and skirmishes in general (Brettonia and the Empire?)

    And what offends me most is that the penalty of not having a lord would be enough to compell players to use lords in battle. Assuming empire lords are other elector counts, having a general ontop of a griffin throwing lightning bolts or some crazy thing (I think Elector counts can use magic, and griffins can transport mages and agents!), a single super powered unit like that is something most people would want to take with them on the offensive. A army without a hero is vulnerable, because now if they fight a pitched battle they really have no counter to the enemy lord who could be very powerful and wreck havoc... No CA thinks you're either stupid, or is imposing this stupid rule on you and the AI so the AI isn't as bad as it otherwise would be spamming small armies like all other warscape games...

    /Rant.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frost-Byte View Post
    And what offends me most is that the penalty of not having a lord would be enough to compell players to use lords in battle. Assuming empire lords are other elector counts, having a general ontop of a griffin throwing lightning bolts or some crazy thing (I think Elector counts can use magic, and griffins can transport mages and agents!), a single super powered unit like that is something most people would want to take with them on the offensive. A army without a hero is vulnerable, because now if they fight a pitched battle they really have no counter to the enemy lord who could be very powerful and wreck havoc... No CA thinks you're either stupid, or is imposing this stupid rule on you and the AI so the AI isn't as bad as it otherwise would be spamming small armies like all other warscape games...

    /Rant.
    Thing is they also took out seasons willy nilly. It must be hard to implement in the TW3 engine, since it seemed a problem even in Rome 2 where they got it working better a few months into release. Seemed Shogun 2 worked, but go figure.

    So we don't have seasons and armies have to be chaperoned at all times since the AI would just build 200 1 unit stacks. They didn't do this in Medieval or even Shogun 2 that much, but I'm guessing, once again, it's much easier for the AI programmers so this is what we're getting. I guess the best fix could be no army limit with fairly cheap low level lords available. The AI probably won't be made for this though and act pretty haphazardly however.

    Combine that with that AI seems to be getting less moddable (in practical, skill-ceiling terms and no campaign map overhaul mods anyway) and that Warhammer is officially unsupported wrt to mods we might not see much change ever in that.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    I think army limit is a good game design.
    1st, it simplifies the process of recruitment and unit management.
    2nd,it makes sense. Instead of magically producing soldiers from the air, you have a general to summon and recruit local residents to assemble an army. Not that it makes more sense, but it at least makes the same level of sense.
    3rd,it prevents snowballing in a way. Back in M2TW, when your empire grows enough, you just produce more units everywhere you want, and attack anywhere you want. AI won't be able to stop you. At least now, you have to carefully position your army, make alliances.
    4th,you have agents for skirmishing purposes.

    So, basically, I think this is an advance in game design.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    I totaly agree with you. I don't see why we couldn't have captains for example, leading small regiments or garrisons. The captains we had in medieval 2.

    There could be a system which determines the number of units an individual can have under his command, and as he progresses with his rank, his army increases in size. Would that be so difficult to make? I really don't think so.

    So I am also dissapointed with this decision. I hope there might be a way around this, in terms of moding.

    2nd,it makes sense. Instead of magically producing soldiers from the air, you have a general to summon and recruit local residents to assemble an army.
    I don't quite agree. Do you think that generals had to be present at all times while the armies were being trained? Do you think it is like that today? No, it's not, and it never was. Generals sit in their offices discusing strategies, not training troops. So I think that is not a reason why they did that, it at least shouldn't be, if they know anything about how the military works (I personaly don't know much and I don't claim that I know a lot, but I am pretty sure about this here).

    3rd,it prevents snowballing in a way. Back in M2TW, when your empire grows enough, you just produce more units everywhere you want, and attack anywhere you want.
    This can also be solved with a little bit of thinking I believe. E.g. the level of the city determines the number of troops it can produce, and of course the size of its garrison. This is no radical way of thinking, wouldn't you agree? You can also limit the number of captains, as it is with generals in rome 2 (I don't know for attila). That is completely doable. If we can cap the number of units and the number of generals, I simply see no reason whatsoever why we can't have a limit on captains.
    Last edited by Collateral_dmg; July 16, 2015 at 01:31 PM.

  5. #5
    HigoChumbo's Avatar Definitely not Jom.
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Granada, Spain.
    Posts
    3,204
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    I actually like the leader system (I don't care whether the leader is a general or a petty captain, but the system itself is actually nice).

    It's definately not a perfect system, but it's not "dumb" either. In any case there are in my opinion more pressing issues to fix in TW.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by HigoChumbo View Post
    I actually like the leader system (I don't care whether the leader is a general or a petty captain, but the system itself is actually nice).

    It's definately not a perfect system, but it's not "dumb" either. In any case there are in my opinion more pressing issues to fix in TW.
    But you see, he can't be a captain, that's the point. Only lords can lead armies. It is a very limiting system, and I believe it is a big part of TW games. If the system as such was expanded on captains etc., then it would be a decent system.

    So I think that the system I already described is pretty reasonable and doable.

  7. #7
    paradamed's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Brasília, Brasil
    Posts
    5,806

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    To tell you the truth, the whole army concept introduced in Rome 2 was actually something I liked very much. Not a problem for me but I think it was actually something they made just right. Im glad they are sticking to it. The big problem in Total War was leaving behind succesful features and it was something that always bothered me and I hope this is not left out.

  8. #8
    LordInvictus's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    In California in the USA on Earth in the Solar System in the Milky Way
    Posts
    438

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Given that there is no mention of an army limit like in Rome 2 and Attila, I assume that we can have as many armies as we want; the only requirement is a general to lead it. Besides, the system is essential (lorewise) for two out of four races: the Vampire Counts need a general to animate the undead soldiers, and the Greenskins need a powerful leader or else the army would devolve into infighting. I believe the tabletop game also requires players to field a general unit for each army so it's not exactly surprising it shows up in this game.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    I'm generally against any form of hard caps in game, this one included. If your empire has the financial resources and the food required to raise a new army, then why on earth introduce an arbitrary "15 armies max" cap? It doesn't make sense, it breaks immersion and causes frustration for the player.
    The argument that it prevents the AI from spawning 100 small armies is pure bollocks. I've messed a bit with the game files in Rome 2, even with a 60 army hard cap, the AI does just fine.
    And the argument that it's for game balancing purposes doesn't make any more sense. If you want to prevent the player from drowning the AI with armies in late games, then rebalance upkeep costs in late games. A hard cap is lazy and cheap.

    And the fact that armies can't be recruited from heroes is another huge bad news for me. I hated this system in Rome 2. With this system, you can't reinforce garrisons with a few select regiments. You can't send individual units deal with small threats or join another army or reinforce the front-line. If you want to send one unit to another army, then you have to move the entire stack together just to transfer that one unit. Once again, it's dumb, rigid, frustrating, unrealistic and breaks immersion. Any kind of flexibility and strategic management is gone, apparently never to return.

    I don't want to jump on the hate train here, but I struggle to see how army hard caps and no army without generals can even provide the slightest added value to this game and the player.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by frenchyvinnie View Post
    I'm generally against any form of hard caps in game, this one included. If your empire has the financial resources and the food required to raise a new army, then why on earth introduce an arbitrary "15 armies max" cap? It doesn't make sense, it breaks immersion and causes frustration for the player.
    The argument that it prevents the AI from spawning 100 small armies is pure bollocks. I've messed a bit with the game files in Rome 2, even with a 60 army hard cap, the AI does just fine.
    And the argument that it's for game balancing purposes doesn't make any more sense. If you want to prevent the player from drowning the AI with armies in late games, then rebalance upkeep costs in late games. A hard cap is lazy and cheap.

    And the fact that armies can't be recruited from heroes is another huge bad news for me. I hated this system in Rome 2. With this system, you can't reinforce garrisons with a few select regiments. You can't send individual units deal with small threats or join another army or reinforce the front-line. If you want to send one unit to another army, then you have to move the entire stack together just to transfer that one unit. Once again, it's dumb, rigid, frustrating, unrealistic and breaks immersion. Any kind of flexibility and strategic management is gone, apparently never to return.

    I don't want to jump on the hate train here, but I struggle to see how army hard caps and no army without generals can even provide the slightest added value to this game and the player.
    Exactly on point.
    Wanna play as minor clans from expanded Japan by unamie5? Now you can: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=428505886

    Shogun 2 in a new light - Historical Shogun 2 Mod

  11. #11

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by frenchyvinnie View Post
    I'm generally against any form of hard caps in game, this one included. If your empire has the financial resources and the food required to raise a new army, then why on earth introduce an arbitrary "15 armies max" cap? It doesn't make sense, it breaks immersion and causes frustration for the player.
    The argument that it prevents the AI from spawning 100 small armies is pure bollocks. I've messed a bit with the game files in Rome 2, even with a 60 army hard cap, the AI does just fine.
    And the argument that it's for game balancing purposes doesn't make any more sense. If you want to prevent the player from drowning the AI with armies in late games, then rebalance upkeep costs in late games. A hard cap is lazy and cheap.

    And the fact that armies can't be recruited from heroes is another huge bad news for me. I hated this system in Rome 2. With this system, you can't reinforce garrisons with a few select regiments. You can't send individual units deal with small threats or join another army or reinforce the front-line. If you want to send one unit to another army, then you have to move the entire stack together just to transfer that one unit. Once again, it's dumb, rigid, frustrating, unrealistic and breaks immersion. Any kind of flexibility and strategic management is gone, apparently never to return.

    I don't want to jump on the hate train here, but I struggle to see how army hard caps and no army without generals can even provide the slightest added value to this game and the player.
    Best explanation I've heard so far.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    No return to Spam armies goddamit. It was one of the worst things about Rome 1 and Med 2. Will never for the life of me understand the 'breaking immersion' argument; it's probably the most bizarrely selective thing I hear people complain about.

    Playing as a giant order-giving disembodied eye floating 1000's of feet in the sky- Fine
    Limited armies- RIDICULOUS!! (See also- ahistorical sandals)

    For the love of god keep the Lord/General requirement for armies.
    'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '

    -Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)

    Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    No return to Spam armies goddamit. It was one of the worst things about Rome 1 and Med 2. Will never for the life of me understand the 'breaking immersion' argument; it's probably the most bizarrely selective thing I hear people complain about.
    I'll say it again, if you want to avoid spamming armies, especially in late games when you are swimming in money, then introduce "soft caps". Like gradually increasing individual unit upkeep the more units you own. The DeI mod for Rome 2 introduces "empire maintenance". This works by deducing from your profits/turn a fee proportionate to your Imperium Level. So the bigger your empire, the more expensive it becomes. This is meant to reflect the increased bureaucracy and corruption that go with a large empire. Therefore, the player can't spam armies in late games, but can still field a large military if he manages his economy properly. This system is challenging, rewarding, and well thought out.

    In Rome 2 vanilla, I ended with 1 000 000 denarii in my treasury, and nothing to spend it on, all the while desperately trying to hold my empire together from countless little rebellions and having to constantly micromanage the movements of 15 armies all over the map. This system is watered down, moronic and just plainly unimaginative.

    Now tell me if that doesn't ruin your game experience.
    Last edited by frenchyvinnie; July 16, 2015 at 06:00 PM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by frenchyvinnie View Post
    I'll say it again, if you want to avoid spamming armies, especially in late games when you are swimming in money, then introduce "soft caps". Like gradually increasing individual unit upkeep the more units you own. The DeI mod for Rome 2 introduces "empire maintenance". This works by deducing from your profits/turn a fee proportionate to your Imperium Level. So the bigger your empire, the more expensive it becomes. This is meant to reflect the increased bureaucracy and corruption that go with a large empire. Therefore, the player can't spam armies in late games, but can still field a large military if he manages his economy properly. This system is challenging, rewarding, and well thought out.
    Well that sounds nice but in the likely scenario they don't add this I'll have hard caps happily over spam armies. I hated them. You ended up fighting pointless battles against forces a fraction your size and even taking auto-calc casualties when any leaderless force would melt away. Also new/re-emerging factions don't stand a chance if you have a large number of armies swarming around. Rather ironically too much war ruins total war games.

    In Rome 2 vanilla, I ended with 1 000 000 denarii in my treasury, and nothing to spend it on, all the while desperately trying to hold my empire together from countless little rebellions and having to constantly micromanage the movements of 15 armies all over the map. This system is watered down, moronic and just plainly unimaginative.
    I don't think I ever got near 15 armies at the height of my campaigns. Anyway, I'd prefer the system whereby you have a finite pool of potential candidates to draw from, after all, the ruling aristocracy(or equivalent) trusted, influential or wealthy enough to lead forces in battle is tiny compared to the peasant classes.

    Now tell me if that doesn't ruin your game experience.
    Okay- it doesn't ruin my game experience, and if it did, it'd be about number 348 on the list. Rome 2's problems went way beyond army caps.
    'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '

    -Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)

    Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    edot scratch

  16. #16
    Evan MF's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,575

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Manpower has always been the answer to this problem, but they continually ignore this simple solution that would fit into their games easily.

  17. #17
    ♘Top Hat Zebra's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    That place you go to when the world becomes too much? I'm in the world. I'm why it's too much.
    Posts
    5,659

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Rome 1 had manpower, basically. Population of each city would reduce by the amount of men in each unit you recruited.

    I do not know why they don't just add that system back in.
    "Rajadharma! The Duty of Kings. Know you: Kingship is a Trust. The King is the most exalted and conscientious servant of the people."

  18. #18

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by ♘Top Hat Zebra View Post
    Rome 1 had manpower, basically. Population of each city would reduce by the amount of men in each unit you recruited.

    I do not know why they don't just add that system back in.
    Yeah I liked that, though generally it only really affected your low-pop frontier towns (as I recall you could boost their pop by disbanding units in them as well). Med 2's system I really liked- you had a finite pool of units that refreshed according to their tier. You essentially went to war with whatever you could scrape together- it made things more medieval. Pity that system wasn't kept.
    'When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything. '

    -Emile Cammaerts' book The Laughing Prophets (1937)

    Under the patronage of Nihil. So there.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Yeah I liked that, though generally it only really affected your low-pop frontier towns (as I recall you could boost their pop by disbanding units in them as well). Med 2's system I really liked- you had a finite pool of units that refreshed according to their tier. You essentially went to war with whatever you could scrape together- it made things more medieval. Pity that system wasn't kept.
    I liked the Med 2 system as well. And actually, the Call of Warhammer mod expanded on it nicely. In the mod, you still had a refreshing pool of units, but the refreshing time for elite units like knightly orders was extremely long. This meant that theoretically, you could field as many armies as you wanted, but in practice, you could only field a few at a time.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Warhammer requires armies to be lead by lords - assuming lords are limited, army limit again.

    Quote Originally Posted by frenchyvinnie View Post
    I'll say it again, if you want to avoid spamming armies, especially in late games when you are swimming in money, then introduce "soft caps". Like gradually increasing individual unit upkeep the more units you own. The DeI mod for Rome 2 introduces "empire maintenance". This works by deducing from your profits/turn a fee proportionate to your Imperium Level. So the bigger your empire, the more expensive it becomes. This is meant to reflect the increased bureaucracy and corruption that go with a large empire. Therefore, the player can't spam armies in late games, but can still field a large military if he manages his economy properly. This system is challenging, rewarding, and well thought out.

    In Rome 2 vanilla, I ended with 1 000 000 denarii in my treasury, and nothing to spend it on, all the while desperately trying to hold my empire together from countless little rebellions and having to constantly micromanage the movements of 15 armies all over the map. This system is watered down, moronic and just plainly unimaginative.

    Now tell me if that doesn't ruin your game experience.
    That is how they make you to actually focus on building you empire instead of just your army and treasury. That is a good game design. I have conquered the world many times too, and I always carefully plan my attacks and build my cities at the same time. I have earned 10k per turn while maintaining high level of public order in all my cities. That is fun and balanced.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •