Should dwarf settlements/karaks have the same defensive strength/layout as the rest?

[Efix]

Honestly the dwarves city design seems average at best.... A big cavern with a settlement in it protected by walls.... Like everyone is saying its basically a human underground settlement. The way I see it it should be a bit like the lonely mountain in the hobbit movies. A big wall with a huge reinforced gate leading under the mountain and from there you could have a great hall, hallways, bridges, etc. leading to the victory point or whatever layout they feel like doing. They could also put some smaller barricade/checkpoint after the main wall/gate is breached if they implement (I hope so) layered city defense like they should! All in all the siege maps look very very blend right now for every races not only the dwarves.

[CK23]

I think the maps look beautiful, art wise. I will admit, despite my first initial positive reaction to the Siege AI blog, I am a little disappointed.

Karaks should definitely be more complex defensively then an Imperial city, do I kind of see why re-skinning it and making it "Imperial city underground" is a thing? Yeah, I do but I even disagree with that. If the Dwarfs get love, the Empire, VC and Greenskins should too when it comes to their settlements (Do Greenskins even really have settlements outside of Dwarven Karaks?)

While at launch I get it, but otherwise I want to see the awesome historical maps we've seen at Roma, Carthage, Ctesiphon for the cities in the Old World. Lets be honest, the Empire only has a handful of cities that could be made and honestly, theyre unique as hell. Even if your generic settlement was the one or two walls drawn from a variety but the major settlements likes Altorf or Middenheim were unique that'd be dope as hell.

[DavidtheDuke]

https://forums.totalwar.com/discussi...siege-q-and-a/ So looks like CA skirted the issue with their typical political speak. They didn't even address how *Altdorf* is literally the same as Zhufbar apart from aesthetics, only addressing the issue in that dwarfs and Empire will play the map differently. Um, duh. They don'te ven speak about karaks despite the fact there is a huge thread on the official forums right now. This might mean they're mulling over something about them but I'd like to know some sort of intentions with regard to it.

Bleh.

[Bust Nak]

Gameplay wise, it's better if dwarf settlements have the same defensive strength/layout as the rest. Lore wise, dwarf settlements should be much harder to attack than an orc settlement.

[DavidtheDuke]

Gameplay wise, it's better if dwarf settlements have the same defensive strength/layout as the rest. Lore wise, dwarf settlements should be much harder to attack than an orc settlement.

I don't see why it has to be that way gameplay wise. I've talked alot about this issue, and it could easily be balanced in the campaign. The same templates gameplay wise is even worse, and CA think saying "well just play it different with different races lol" is good enough.

[Derpy Hooves]

The Q and A just makes me even more pissed off about the sieges

It also means that when playing against an attacking AI or other player, the defender has the advantage of picking off those troops carrying ladders when there’s little the assaulting side can do to mitigate that. Yes, it would be more realistic, but we don’t believe that there’s enjoyable gameplay there on the whole.

This quote in particular is absolutely retarded. The whole point of the siege is that the defenders have the advantage.

[KAM 2150]

Whaaaaat? What an absolute BS on an excuse is that? They just don't want to add those ladders from the start since it is more convinent for them at this point of developement, not due to gameplay reasons, but they won't admit it.


Here is my full reaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtcOC1G84MA

[CK23]

The defender still does have the advantage in reality, your units + towers have the drop on the enemy units who more or less cannot defend themselves unless using siege weapons. I don't see how thats not an advantage?

[Derpy Hooves]

But you cannot target enemy units with ladders like you could in Attila, Rome II, Medieval II, and Rome.

[CK23]

But you cannot target enemy units with ladders like you could in Attila, Rome II, Medieval II, and Rome.

I mean, technically you can because every infantry unit (I assume its every infantry unit carries a magical ladder) carries a ladder or you can act offensively and go after them outside the walls if you so choose.

[WarsmithGorehowl]

I want to see karaks like in the dwarf trailer, dawn of war 1 was awesome because it made a kick ass game and THEN worried about the balance, not the other way around. Right now sieges are absolute garbage.

[Ichon]

Gameplay wise, it's better if dwarf settlements have the same defensive strength/layout as the rest. Lore wise, dwarf settlements should be much harder to attack than an orc settlement.

I am not sure that makes any sense. If TW were a multiplayer game that wouldn't even necessarily make sense if there were other balancing factors for Dwarves such as smaller garrisons, longer build times, smaller garrison units, etc. For a mostly single player game gameplay is ENHANCED if there are differences between the playable races. That is in fact CA's entire marketing premise- "Deep, not wide" along with unique playstyles between the races, etc.

[PeonKing]

I am not sure that makes any sense. If TW were a multiplayer game that wouldn't even necessarily make sense if there were other balancing factors for Dwarves such as smaller garrisons, longer build times, smaller garrison units, etc. For a mostly single player game gameplay is ENHANCED if there are differences between the playable races. That is in fact CA's entire marketing premise- "Deep, not wide" along with unique playstyles between the races, etc.

I mean, even to go further, I don't exactly understand why multiplayer MUST be balanced. It shouldn't be that dwarfs will always win sieges no matter what, but if they have a significant advantage at it, that brings a new facet to the game. Every game isn't an E-Sport, it doesn't have to be a fair competition, it can be a lot of fun winning against the odds, or even preforming admirably. Make it so you can select which race you want to face off against, so if you think dwarfs are too OP in sieges, select no dwarfs. Boom solved. Granted, this isn't a huge issue, since I'm pretty sure TW is mostly a single player game anyway. I just don't think the premise that 'multiplayer must be balanced' really holds true. It's not like we are talking about making dwarfs all powerful, I don't know much about Warhammer lore, but I know they aren't supposed to be particularly good with magic, so that can be a big weakness. Couple that with no cav and no large units, I think giving the dwarfs a defense bonus sounds pretty fair. They certainly sound like a faction that if you get them out of formation, they're screwed.


I have maintained as I said earlier, I think it's due to the AI just flat out being too dumb to understand a complex siege, so they're just making easy sieges and trying to make it so the AI might actually be a threat. But the more I think about it, I'm really sad that they don't have grander dwarf sieges. One thing about dwarfs, they're supposed to be grand and fastidious builders, it's really sad that it's just like 'oh... they made a 1 walled grid city. Great craftsmanship, fellas.'

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I mean, technically you can because every infantry unit (I assume its every infantry unit carries a magical ladder) carries a ladder or you can act offensively and go after them outside the walls if you so choose.

What's the point of a siege, then? You could have that exact same gameplay if you fought on a hill.

[Tankbustaz]

Cmon CA, all you have to do is create an AI that can navigate the most complex of settlements easily without getting stuck, attacking from all 4 sides at once, cast magic as intelligently as a human player, and use the most complicated of siege weapons effectively.

I mean, if Deep blue could defeat Gary Kasparov at chess, why can't you make a Total War AI that defeats a bunch of Arch Warhammer fanbois in a game of total war.
FFS CA
Just create a new AI that thinks like your average total war player and learns from it's mistakes.

[Markas]

I mean, if Deep blue could defeat Gary Kasparov at chess, why can't you make a Total War AI that defeats a bunch of Arch Warhammer fanbois in a game of total war.
FFS CA

[craziii]

The Q and A just makes me even more pissed off about the sieges

This quote in particular is absolutely retarded. The whole point of the siege is that the defenders have the advantage.

that ladder answer reads like they don't want to spend resources on the animations require for all races carrying the ladder and hoisting animations. that is kinda sad. everything else in the answer is just camouflage.

I was actually a defender of magic torches, I mean why not? it was one of the tactics of old, you burn down the gates to breach a settlement. this magic ladders just appearing out of thin air is kinda super jaring.

I hope to whatever power that be at CA allow it to be moddable.

[Derpy Hooves]

that ladder answer reads like they don't want to spend resources on the animations require for all races carrying the ladder and hoisting animations. that is kinda sad. everything else in the answer is just camouflage.

I was actually a defender of magic torches, I mean why not? it was one of the tactics of old, you burn down the gates to breach a settlement. this magic ladders just appearing out of thin air is kinda super jaring.

I hope to whatever power that be at CA allow it to be moddable.

I agree. Magic torches never bothered me. Spidermen line infantry never bothered me (TBF, it was my first TW game), Japanese climbers never bothered me (especially since the taller the climb, the more people fall off). But nearly everything about the sieges bothers me

[Bust Nak]

The Dwarfs already have a huge advantage in defence unit wise. Extra bonus would be OP.

[DavidtheDuke]

The Dwarfs already have a huge advantage in defence unit wise. Extra bonus would be OP.

This would be balanced on the campaign map with fewer numbers and/or higher upkeep etc, and fits the lore anyway, and also assuming it would actually be that difficult, since we don't even know how good defensively they're going to be in the actual game.