1664

I’ve never found Skaven too tough. Their weakness it their horrible morale. Just try to form up and give them a reasonable fight, even in an ambush, and they’ll go running.

1665

I just watched a tier list video from LegendofTotalWar and he put Skaven and Tzeetch up at the top of most difficult AI to battle against because of their unparalleled ability to ambush. However, I’m like @Tortilla and have never really had difficulty with Skaven, though playing as Kislev I had endless trouble with Tzeetch, who got waaaay too powerful.

For me, Lizardmen are always just a pain every time. I didn’t feel particularly effective in my Mazdamundi campaign in War2 (haven’t played them in War3 yet), mainly because I never had enough money to field enough armies (can there ever be enough though?).

1666

FLC is Ulrika Magdova, recruitable by Empire and Kislev as a Legendary Hero.
No details other than that.

1667

Skaven have terrible autoresolve, which explains why they struggle in the campaign, and why a player can usually ignore skavens.

1668

I think part of it is I’m at the stage where I only have one army of good troops and a second army of mid tier and a third army of trash, and the Skaven keep ambushing my trash troop stacks.

But man Ratling gunners can cut a unit in half in one volley, completely nuts. I’m kind of afraid of Skaven as well, they have so many crazy troops that are all better than they should be - Stormvermin ect are all better than any Empire unit aside from a handful of tier 3 elites. Any time you have an army that relies on positioning and ranged units against an ambush army like Skaven, it’s going to be pain. The secret weapon the Empire has are those Grenade cavalry … just got to get them out of the ambush to put them in a good spot.

1669

Standard Okoii stuff, but something about watching 19 Infernal Gateways drop at once gets me.

1670

Umm, any explanation for all the winds of magic? I know Kyross has cheap spells, but not that cheap.

1671

Lords of Change have bound spells that expand to every Tzeentch spell with tech. Double bound spells even (which I think he flashes up there for a second at one point).

So 18 of them should have 2 casts of every Tzeentch spell for free. And Kairos is Kairos.

Edit:
image

1672

Never heard of Okoii before but he did a good job with that video ;). There’s so many races and heroes now in Warhammer 3 i’m pretty sure it’s close to impossible to play them all in a lifetime if you do anything else other than play Warhammer.

I thought i’d like Tzeentch but horrors are so ugly. I thought i’d like Slannesh but the beautiful people really aren’t. Nurglings are cute but not a big fan of giant plagues. Do i end up with Khorne? Nah, not a melee guy, but i respect that Khorne likes symmetry. I guess i have to stick with the chapless dude himself if i’m playing Chaos.

1673

Mechanically Dawi-Zharr are the most complex and unique faction we’ve seen.

1674

Is this going to be the norm for the WH3 DLC? Looks cool, but $25 a pop is going add up.

1675

It’s not just another faction, but also fills in a chunk of the empty “India” part of the Immortal Empires map.

I suspect the future DLCs comprising the usual New faction with new LL will be cheaper…

1676
1677

I have WH1 and 2 on Steam and played WH3 on Gamepass. Is WH3 at it’s best when you have all 3 on the same platform and is that version the best of all Total War Warhammers?

1678

That’s a loaded question. I still think 2 is better than 3 in almost every way except graphics. But if you want to play a huge campaign with everything together all at once then 3 is the way to go.

1679

Ooh, man, I just dropped in (to see what my condition my condition was in), so would you mind elaborating on this a little? My impression was that most things were kinda the same (except for siege battles, etc.) between them except for graphics, so what is better about 2? The Vortex Campaign, obviously…but what else?

1680

On Steam, owning 1 and 2 and any of their DLC will unlock those factions to play in 3.

1681

I can’t really explain to you why I liked Warhammer 3 less. Maybe it’s because I really burned out hard on 2 after a bazillion hours played and 3 is pretty much the same thing with some terrible minor settlement battles added in and weird spawning towers throughout sieges (which were already terrible enough in 2, and even worse now) so you need a couple mods to disable that nonsense.

It probably doesn’t help that the new factions feel very bare bones without years and years of DLC and updates that the other factions have had. The game 3 factions all feel like playing Norsca in the sense that it’s a pretty bare bones roster.

I’ll still get the Chaos Dwarf DLC though, hopefully the break I’ve had will increase my enthusiasm.

1682

I get where @MisterMourning is coming from, but I think WH3 isn’t that different (with Immortal Empires, not talking about the campaign that shipped with it) from WH2 overall. I like the massiveness of the world and the new factions, even at this early stage. But I also played a lot of WH2, and so it hasn’t grabbed me like it did before. That’s not really due to anything about the game, though, it’s just the familiarity of it all.

1683

I think the strategic AI in WH3 is much worse than it was in WH2. I do not consider myself a great player. I play on hard/hard difficulty and the AI is just a joke. It just makes stupid decision after stupid decision. The extreme anti-player bias makes the AI make even worse decisions. In fact the anti-player bias makes the game easier, not harder, although Ill admit it is far more annoying to deal with the AI throwing stacks at you instead of defending or taking nearby territory.

Overall the UI in WH3 is much better, but other than that, most things are better in WH2 with the exception of the new factions. Also city sieges suck.