They could make something like armies without a lord can’t attack anyone nor reinforce anyone, so that way they could be sure they are only used to move them from army to army or from army to a city or similar.
Another change I like in TW Warhammer is the settlement conquest. In TW you always had several options like sacking or razing but… seriously, did anyone use them?? Because I always occupied the city, the bigger my empire, the better, you know?
On the long run at least it’s always the best option, so it was pretty rare to use any other. But now here raiding brings the BIG BUCKS, and not only for Greenskins or Chaos armies who really are supposed to do it, so it’s always a viable option. And with the new settlement system (not everyone can settle in all regions) there are reasons for using raze, for once.
LIke your army idea, basically just a nod to game logistics allowing reinforcements.
Yes, the options when you take a province are meaningful now whereas in the past in older TWs I did for the most part just occupy them (although that said, after realm divide in Shogun 2 I often vassalized because that meant no upkeep, no repair, no morale issue and it counted towards the province count for the victory condition). It seems in warhammer it works better because it often fits one of the unique characteristics of the race you’re playing (something CA was already toying with in Attila w/ nomadic races).
Still not sure I’m entirely sold on the way provinces work, the game design they first introduced in Rome 2. But it has grown on me.
P.S. Trying to finish Brettonnia campaign, I’ve hit the magic number some time ago for chivalry, I now have to troop across the map for some final battle. While the variety of win conditions are cool as they change from race to race, some of them I find a tad annoying (like this one that requires I head to the very absolute corner of the map in an area that causes heavy attrition for an arbitrary final battle).
I like all the detail you can see in the diplomacy relations, you can see in a very transparent manner all the green/red factors that are affecting their opinion, the total number which represents how good/bad they have an opinion of you, AND also the number is trending to (which could be higher or lower). In fact it’s a good idea the relationship changes are progressive, that even if you make a trade deal and a military deal and gave them a gift in a single turn so you pass from 70 to 130 relationship score, the relationship score need a few turns to ‘catch up’ with the new status. It makes it feel a bit less gamey (an entire society need time to change opinion) and in a way it’s an anti-rush mechanic, the fact that you have to wait some turns until the full effects are applied.
Same with things like the public order penalty when conquering something, or the confederation penalty with factions of the same race, or the province corruption, they are both transparent, progressive, and helps avoid rushes.
OK, if an enemy army keeps running away from you across the map, how do you pin it down to fight? I’ve got a greenskin army with a leader who’s listed in my book 'o grudges but his army is a small stack against Grombrimbal’s 20, so he runs. I swear I’ve chased him across two provinces and back. Do I have to get lucky with an ambush stance or what?
Some agents can limit an armies range, one of the skill options for just about all generals is increase movement range by 10%, going into ambush mode along a path they are likely to go works (leave open a province to lure them helps), and if all else fails I brute force it and use two stacks to box them in (I do this fairly regularly because I’ve no patience for kiting armies lowering my happiness by raiding me and running off over and over).
I was looking today at how damage and armor works. I know that units with AP damage usually have 80% of their damage being AP, and 20% normal damage, while ‘normal’ units is usually the other way around (80% normal dmg, 20% AP component). AP units on the other hand are:
-clearly more expensive, or
-slightly more expensive but with lacking on something (less melee defense, no shields, no anti-large charge perk, looking at the example of the basic dwarf unit, which have both normal and ‘AP versions’). Another example, In case of archers vs musketeers they have slightly longer recharging times, less range and a bit more of price.
So clearly you are supposed to use the normal units against unarmored targets as it will be more cost effective and the AP version of the unit against armored target. But I had a question. How much armor exactly counts for a unit to be ‘armored enough’ that AP units are better against it? any armor? (>0), or something like >15, >35, >70?? Etc
I searched a bit on Internet and finally took paper and calc, and I have now an answer. This is super rule of thumb as it will depend of each specific matchup (every unit has a damage, armor stats and more, each one has a different cost, etc), but I think the answer is 50. Or close enough to 50 to take that as it is easy to remember. 50 or more armor is enough for AP units to be worth it
By turn 98 I’d fully upgraded my starting province’s capital, unlocking basically every dwarven unit since I wanted it to be a military-focused hub for my expanding empire. And some of those units are just f’n amazing. I’ve fought several battles now where my longbeards take double union breaks while my ranged units decimate the opposing army. It’s incredibly fun and satisfying, and I don’t miss cavalry at all. In fact, I prefer these battles without them, they require an additional level of micro managing that I enjoy doing without.
I only have two trade partners and I’m raking in close to 8k per turn now, over 60k in the bank. I guess if chaos reaches my borders I’ll just use that to quickly raise a 4th army. I’m rated as #3 for overall strength, though I’m playing on Easy.
Interesting, I’ll admit I’m so sloppy about such things in this TW and don’t take much close notice of individual unit stats. I’m not a terribly great general on the battlefield, just not that great or crazy about RTS battles. As a result I tend to focus on the economy and use numerical advantage to win battles, I rarely show up to fights anyone w/o reinforcements.
Which is why the final quest battle to win the game that you have to fight yourself in the Bretonnia campaign was a bit of a scary thing for me, you get one army, no reinforcements (that you control) and the enemy gets like 4 waves of them. First time I fought it I made it through 3 of the 4 waves and got rolled by the last one.
Second time I fought it I brought a better army composition that included the green knight, a level 25 King Louen Leoncoeur and the piece de resistance was two units of Royal Hippogryph Knights who with gorgeous fiery blades in hand flew out and took out single-handily the artillery and cavalry of Chaos. Victory!
Like every campaign I’ve played in Warhammer, it was good fun and each one different from the last.
Unless you wander over into the Vamp and empire territory in your expansion you’re not likely to run into Chaos. But you’ll certainly know if you do, haha.
P.S. Dwarves were my first campaign, I loved playing them, as I said above I’m not great at RTS, so they are a perfect fit for me in that they are more defensive and a more tank like army.
Nope, all my expansion has been southward against greenskins, just feels right removing them from the map. There is a dwarf faction north of me that screams every other turn for an alliance and declaration of war against the undead. I ignore them, no easy way to march enemies up there to help even if I wanted to (there’s a big lake to go around that’s larger than the range of underground movement).
The thing about armor piercing units is essentially to know how many you ought to bring against each faction. In general, against Dwarves and Chaos you may as well just load up because most of their core units have a metric ton of armor. The more mid-armored stuff like Empire greatswords you can kind of go either way and be successful. I mean, obviously armor-piercing units will kill them faster, but I don’t think from an efficiency standpoint it makes a huge difference. Savage orcs for example do mostly non-AP damage but trade very cost effectively against most Empire infantry. In fact, I think Flagellants are actually the most cost-efficient counter to savage orcs (if you want to fight them with empire infantry).
Of course cost efficient trades are way more important in MP. In SP you are almost never in a situation where your army costs the exact same as the enemy force. Still, it’s good to think about those things and makes you a better player.
If that’s the case it’s something fairly recent, because it didn’t used to be like that. Hence the pages and pages of people bitching about Angrund’s trade issues.
From the wiki:
That page hasn’t been updated since August, so maybe it got tweaked since then. I rarely play Angrund or live long enough to see if that’s the case (or have the relations with everyone around to me to tell).
Should be… fairly easy to test though. Need to get a military alliance with the Border Princes and see if the eastern Dwarf factions lose their can’t trade icon. Too bad the Border Princes are such dicks. Maybe on Easy or with a mod it could be done fairly quickly.
Maybe what happened was this. I gained a military alliance with kingdom A, which gave me ‘sight’ to other provinces with other kingdoms (B), and then I could trade with said kingdoms, even if I didn’t have physical contact with them, only through that other kingdom A which I had a military alliance with. BUT, it could be the trade route itself just went through a harbor in a province of kingdom B I still can’t see.
The difference between ‘short victory campaign’ and ‘long victory campaign’ is almost negligible, unlike in previous TW where one was much longer than the other.
I was aiming for the Dwarft short campaign, and the long campaign goals is almost the same but capturing 6 more provinces from the orcs. But because one of the goals of the short campaign is to eliminate the greenskins, I already have four of the six provinces. It feels silly.
Yep. I’ve now hit the southern edge of the map and I’m now moving west. My biggest impediment? My fellow dwarf clans. Do I turn on them despite our alliances and shared blood or do I hit the border states? Or worse do I go north and run into the undead and chaos?
Well, why do you want to move west? Do you have some specific goal in mind?
The diplo in my game has been easy, I did all the pacts and trades I could, specially with the other dwarf nations, while I focused on slowly capturing all Orc settlements. After dozens of turns, the positive relations of several dwarf factions were high enough to ask a confederation. I just did my fourth one.
I still have two capture 1 goblin city and 2 orc cities in the South, I will do it in 3 turns or so, but meanwhile I’m also sending up one full stack to help fight against the Chaos, before it starts reaching my northern provinces.
Turn 120, greenskins eliminated. Of course their fate was sealed since a dozen turns ago, but I needed time to reach their last settlements and eliminate their last two armies.
Turn 129, Chaos leader eliminated. The fool attacked my full stack who was in that moment (by pure chance, actually) together two imperial armies. Between the three we beat him. Funny thing, the most dangerous thing of chaos armies for me is their infernal cannon. One of them got 450!! kills.
