Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mech#4]

It's been quite quiet on the news front for Warhammer 2: Total War. What with Creative Assembly focusing on getting Norsca release later on in May, as well as the 30th anniversary units.

However, a post has been made sharing a new unit planned for the Dwarfs, this being Giant Slayers. Essentially Slayers armed with great weapons, comparing the two units Giant Slayers have higher Melee Attack at 50 and Charge Bonus at 33 but lower Melee Defense at 30 and Weapon Strength at 43.
It seems a little odd, since both units currently would fufill the same role of anti-large. However, perhaps Slayers are being changed to anti-infantry?


Creative Assembly mention that there's some more changes planned for Dwarfs and I believe they said there would be a Lord pack coming around the release of Norsca, "late May".

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Hey, do we know if W2 is coming to mac like the original?

[Tack]

Giant Slayers.

Besides a Dragon Slayer hero, Great weapon slayers feel like the one thing which was missing.
My guesses are they’ll both be anti-large, just that one will be armor piercing.
Because war machines are Everywhere now, i’m Sure.

[umiman]

Oooo... stuff for Dwarfs. That's always fun!

[Burnt Pies]

Giant Slayers feel like a counter for things like Lizardmen Dinos or any decent cav faction's heavy cav. A lot of those units could almost ignore Slayers, as their relative lack of AP meant they simply didn't dish out enough damage to really threaten a 100+ armour unit. With the Giant Slayer's AP, those armoured fast movers can't afford to get caught anymore, immediately placing more pressure on the cavalry player.

Amusingly, I suspect the regular Slayers will be better against Giants than the Giant Slayers are. Giants are a low armour unit, and it's quite possible that normal Slayers will be able to avoid damage more effectively while still dishing out similar damage numbers due to their higher weapon damage.

[Tack]

“More changes coming” makes me expectant though.

If Ungrim Ironfist gets transferred over to be the LL of Karak Kadrin, i’ll be giddy.

[Mech#4]

Some more information has been announced on Tuesday, this time about a planned redoing of the Skaven Food mechanic. The short video mentions that food will be available by research, rites and buildings.


While, personally, I haven't had major problems with it. I have seen other people remarking on the limited access Skaven have to aquiring more food, ending with their games spent mostly in the red/starvation. The only steady increase is from pasture buildings while other methods are from raiding and defeating armies. Indeed, a method I used frequently was to raid my own provinces, gaining three food each turn and then killing off the rebel armies that spawned for about 12-15 more food.

I suppose a big part of it depends on how Creative Assembly meant for the Skaven to play. Myself, because of the limited food, I would only take specific regions around the map, ending up in lots of provinces of which I only hold one region within. This meant I wasn't gaining access to the provincal declaration or the full benefits of Skaven buildings like the generator. Though I must say the scattered nature of my strongholds, as well as the spreading of corruption because of this, felt quite Skaven-like.

[nenjin]

Just about done with my Beastman playthrough.

Really enjoyed it, even though I had to buy it as DLC. I loved all the flavorful little mechanics and events, that really expressed how the Warherd operates.

Sadly I feel like the end of the campaign is a bit of an anti-climax. My biggest foes the whole game were teh Greenskins (who were in my way as I had to rampage my way up from the Southern Badlands to the Border Princes and eventually the Empire) and the Dwarves, who were the first of the factions I needed to kill that I encountered.

The Dwarves didn't put up much of a fight, other than repeatedly confederating to try to stay in the game and annoy me. The Orks however just harrassed me the entire game, chasing me with up to 6 20 stacks across every domain and province until I was forced to turn and slay almost everyone of them.

After....230 turns of this, I'd finally eliminated the dwarves.....and there's exactly one Empire province remaining about a turn away, since the Vampire Counts took over literally the entirety of the Empire.

Maybe it's just the curse of the 4x game but the ride there was way, way more engrossing than the destination.

If I have one major gripe about the game as a SP 4x campaign....it's that reclaiming razed settlements in a single turn is kind of BS, especially when you're playing a raider race. Sure the villages and outposts aren't a big deal but major capitals like Karaz-A-Karak are insanely valueable and get a full garrison the instant you reclaim in. I spent a good portion of my game just trying to keep the dwarves and the orks from reclaiming settlements as soon as I'd razed them. Half of the expansion of the Greenskins was directly due to my successes, as they'd just hoover up new settlements in the wake of the warherd, then spawn new guys from those settlements to come attack me.

If you get a settlement and a free garrison, it should take longer than the however many movement points it took you to get there. The time it takes to reclaim the settlement should be based on your army size, the size of the settlement and any other appropriate modifiers. Because yes, it should take far less time to destroy something than to rebuild it.

[Folly]

I never got TW:Warhammer 2, partly because it was released like a week after the first game. But also because the first game had a lot of poorly explained and counter-intuitive mechanics that left me save-scumming a lot and spending hours just to pass a single turn. Is the sequel any better in these regards?

[Teneb]

I never got TW:Warhammer 2, partly because it was released like a week after the first game. But also because the first game had a lot of poorly explained and counter-intuitive mechanics that left me save-scumming a lot and spending hours just to pass a single turn. Is the sequel any better in these regards?

(bolding mine)
It was released slightly over a year after the first, though. As for your question, you'll need to be more specific as to which mechanics.

[Tack]

Yeah, after going back to Attila for a bit, you don’t even know counter-intuitive.

[nenjin]

I did find some stuff counter intuitive in TW2, and did a lot of save scumming to get the "right turn."

Most of my save scumming came from movement issues. I had to do some playing around to get the right positioning to get the reinforced battle I wanted. Other times you'd be *just* too short to initiate a fight because the AI knows your movement range and would sit just outside of it. Other times it was getting intercepted at really inopportune times when trying to use Beast Path movement.

Or not being able to start a siege because the army that initiated didn't have a siege weapon available (which for Beastmen is apparently just Giants.) (Why you need siege engines when your heroes and regular units can just beat down the front door is beyond me. Battering Rams are completely worthless from what I can see.)

And then there are plenty of reloads when auto-resolve, even modded, nukes the weakest units that you probably could have kept alive playing the battle normally.

Finally, a lot of save scumming happened due to the AI, that would make very specific choices based on what you do or don't do. For example, I tried to blockade Karaz-a-Karak so the orks couldn't take it after I'd razed it, choked up the pass with 5 armies....and watched an ork lord just waltz through ALL my zones of control to go straight to the city and retake it. Reloaded, moved my blockade around slightly and next turn they didn't bother.

So yeah. Some issues for sure. But having played both TW1 and 2 in about a month.....TW2 does seem the better game overall.

[Levi]

Is there enough different in TW2 from TW1 to make it worth buying you think?  I had fun with TW1, but I'm not sure of getting TW2 in case its pretty much the exact same game.

Is the map at least different?

[nenjin]

The map is the same. The real difference IMO is that all the races are represented, even if you didn't pay for the DLC. (They are race in the world you can play against, but not as.)

Other than that there are differences but I didn't play TW1 deep enough to notice what they were compared to 2.

FWIW the only reason I started in on TW2 is because a friend bought me both, and after a couple hours with TW1 to get my bearings I went to 2. And I see no reason to go back.

[Persus13]

Is there enough different in TW2 from TW1 to make it worth buying you think?  I had fun with TW1, but I'm not sure of getting TW2 in case its pretty much the exact same game.

Is the map at least different?

TW2 takes place on a different set of continents with a different set of races, so if that's what you meant by a different map, then yes. If you own both games there's an option to play with the combined maps of the first game and the second game, which I think is what nenjin is referring to.

The playable races are also completely different. Instead of having Humans, Orcs, Dwarfs, and Undead playable like in Warhammer 1 you have Ratmen, High Elves, Dark Elves, and Lizardmen.