Print

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

[Tack]

I feel like Vlad is more politically savvy than Mannfreid though.
Is interesting though that due to bloodlines and such, the Von-carsteins have a stronger claim to the throne than Franz.

Konrad von Carstein who isn't capable with magic enough to command undead

Konrad didn't have any problem with commanding undead, having even lead the VCs in the lore after Vlad got himself killed. Manny only took over after Konrad himself died.

Yeah the only reason he lost was because the necromancers all got sick of his bullying and walked off, handing him the reigns to some hundred-thousand undeadsies.

[Grim Portent]

Vlad was probably the greatest general and statesman of the Vampires, Konrad was as good as if not better in personal combat, but was also a blithering idiot with no people skills, and Mannfred is a better mage, but less adept at fighting and politics, though he does seem better at the scheming side of things as well as smart enough to know that it was best to let Konrad run things and be away at the time.

[Mech#4]

I like Konrad because he's a crazy, bloodlust fueled melee whirlwind, dead or undead status of any characters aside I would rather see them than not. The hero rather than lord reasoning was also more going off the characters positions in the army books where Krell, Konrad, Isabella von Carstein and Mannfred the Acolyte are all listed as heroes.

[Neonivek]

Well No Man's Sky is a bust

But if I can play Co-op with this it might be a improvement.

But I hear Co-op is "you both play a separate race" yet there is a mod that lets you play as the same race. Yet I can only find this for Chaos.

edit: I think I found it... and since there is a separate mod for Co-op with chaos AND a mod for doing co-op with races that hurt eachother...

*sigh*

Edit: Nevermind....

[Teneb]

Well No Man's Sky is a bust

But if I can play Co-op with this it might be a improvement.

But I hear Co-op is "you both play a separate race" yet there is a mod that lets you play as the same race. Yet I can only find this for Chaos.

edit: I think I found it... and since there is a separate mod for Co-op with chaos AND a mod for doing co-op with races that hurt eachother...

*sigh*

Edit: Nevermind....

The Legendary Lord start positions mod is a bad mod. Basically, it often sets the capital of a Lord's side as a minor settlement instead of a province capital. Azhag's is probably the worst as he is in a position that can be overwhelmed before turn 10.

For Co-op you want Dwarfs + Empire, VCs + Dwarfs, VCs + Greenskins, or Chaos + Beastmen. Or, y'know, play competitively.

[Neonivek]

For Co-op you want Dwarfs + Empire, VCs + Dwarfs, VCs + Greenskins, or Chaos + Beastmen.

Those mods are just there to stop co-op members from harming eachother indirectly.

Or, y'know, play competitively

Ok instead of a sarcastic or joking response I'll just lay it down.

I have absolutely no interest in this... AND it wouldn't be fun for me.

Co-op is pretty much the only thing that can make it fun for me.

[Teneb]

For Co-op you want Dwarfs + Empire, VCs + Dwarfs, VCs + Greenskins, or Chaos + Beastmen.

Those mods are just there to stop co-op members from harming eachother indirectly.

Or, y'know, play competitively

Ok instead of a sarcastic or joking response I'll just lay it down.

I have absolutely no interest in this... AND it wouldn't be fun for me.

Co-op is pretty much the only thing that can make it fun for me.

It was an actual honest suggestion, but let me say this outright: based on your various posts previously that you tried the game, multiple times, and didn't like it, I find it unlikely that coop will be enjoyable for you.

But I'll reiterate again that the legendary lord starting position mod is crap, poorly balanced, and breaks other mods.

[Neonivek]

Ohh no I know the starting lord position mod is terrible...

It is why I sighed.

It was an actual honest suggestion

Ohh I know it was. I am just saying I REALLY don't want to play this game competitively, and I wouldn't have fun with it.

Just usually I'd do a joke and this time I don't want any confusion.

[debvon]

Holy shit dwarfs are strong. I just barely captured a stronghold using early game units (1 grudge thrower) and Grudgebearer with rally. I had to distract the AI by sending a few sacrificial dwarves up onto the ramparts, bust through the gate with miners, make a path and hold it so I could send forces through to the victory point. My dwarfs were fighting to the death because of rally and the orcs were routing constantly due to no legendary lords, but even then holding that point brought me down to roughly 15 dwarfs plus Grudgebearer. I stayed alive at the end by chasing down a bunch of arrer boyz which the AI could have just sent into me and won.

The AI is kind of janky, at least on hard mode, I hope they improve it

[Tack]

Dwarfs are great early on, but you notice their deficits later in the game when heavy cavalry and monsters come out to play.

[Empty]

Holy shit dwarfs are strong. I just barely captured a stronghold using early game units (1 grudge thrower) and Grudgebearer with rally. I had to distract the AI by sending a few sacrificial dwarves up onto the ramparts, bust through the gate with miners, make a path and hold it so I could send forces through to the victory point. My dwarfs were fighting to the death because of rally and the orcs were routing constantly due to no legendary lords, but even then holding that point brought me down to roughly 15 dwarfs plus Grudgebearer. I stayed alive at the end by chasing down a bunch of arrer boyz which the AI could have just sent into me and won.

The AI is kind of janky, at least on hard mode, I hope they improve it

From all the games in the series I've always noticed the AI being "wanky". I think it's probably an afterthought for them in a game with the amount of tactical possibilities there are.

[Mech#4]

My current greenskins playthrough I've been annoyed at the dwarfen predilection to making armies made up of around 6 quarrelers, 2 grudgethrowers and everything else longbeards. I know they're better units than the warriors but... thematically I feel they shouldn't completely replace basic infantry with elites. I could make an army of big 'uns, black orcs and so on to counter it but that's gives me the same thematically wrong problem now on my end.


I also think the A.I. should be a bit more aggressive, I suppose. I get frustrated at the A.I. avoiding combat. Send army with backup against enemy army, enemy army retreats to a point where you can't attack with both armies again means you have to wait till next turn at which point they'll have force marched out of your reach or used the underway.
It's the idea that the A.I. is playing smart by avoiding my armies and attacking where I am weakest which is nice but having the A.I. attack only when it is sure it will win I feel leaves me with only one sided fights. I think it was mentioned in some article that a game A.I. should idealy be strategically dumb.
Example: I hold a bridge with an army. The A.I. wants to attack my city behind my army. A smart A.I. will go around the bridge, avoiding the battle and making my defence useless. A dumb A.I. will attack my army on the bridge even though it's at a disadvantage. I would find the second outcome more enjoyable because I used the terrain to my advantage and got a nice stomp-the-A.I. battle out of it. The only response to the first scenario is for my army to be in the city, which would probably mean the A.I. wouldn't attack there and they'd go off and attack another of my cities where I don't have an army.

[umiman]

My current greenskins playthrough I've been annoyed at the dwarfen predilection to making armies made up of around 6 quarrelers, 2 grudgethrowers and everything else longbeards. I know they're better units than the warriors but... thematically I feel they shouldn't completely replace basic infantry with elites. I could make an army of big 'uns, black orcs and so on to counter it but that's gives me the same thematically wrong problem now on my end.


I also think the A.I. should be a bit more aggressive, I suppose. I get frustrated at the A.I. avoiding combat. Send army with backup against enemy army, enemy army retreats to a point where you can't attack with both armies again means you have to wait till next turn at which point they'll have force marched out of your reach or used the underway.
It's the idea that the A.I. is playing smart by avoiding my armies and attacking where I am weakest which is nice but having the A.I. attack only when it is sure it will win I feel leaves me with only one sided fights. I think it was mentioned in some article that a game A.I. should idealy be strategically dumb.
Example: I hold a bridge with an army. The A.I. wants to attack my city behind my army. A smart A.I. will go around the bridge, avoiding the battle and making my defence useless. A dumb A.I. will attack my army on the bridge even though it's at a disadvantage. I would find the second outcome more enjoyable because I used the terrain to my advantage and got a nice stomp-the-A.I. battle out of it. The only response to the first scenario is for my army to be in the city, which would probably mean the A.I. wouldn't attack there and they'd go off and attack another of my cities where I don't have an army.

1. Longbeards aren't elites. Dwarfen elites are hammerers and ironbreakers. Longbeards are middle tier infantry, despite what the description might lead you to believe.

2. Use ambush stance. If the AI can't see you they'll walk right into you. And if they detect you at the last second, they can't get away in time. Ambush stance in general will make the AI do things you want it to do, like attack a supposedly unguarded settlement or attack a supposedly small army (aka, what ambushing means).

3. Even if you block a bridge, there's no actual bridge maps or terrain advantage. You won't get a tactical advantage for doing so.

[Teneb]

3. Even if you block a bridge, there's no actual bridge maps or terrain advantage. You won't get a tactical advantage for doing so.

The only advantage of holding bridges in this game is that it'll force the enemy army to either go through you or waste lot of move points crossing the river elsewhere.

Also I'm loving playing as the beastmen so far. I've completed An Eye For An Eye and it's just really fun to play as them. Also Minotaurs and Gorebulls roll into enemies when they charge.

[Mech#4]

Well of course. With bridges I was referring to Medieval 2 more than Warhammer. You generally understand what I'm getting at though, yes? Ambushing is all well and good but that leads to an ambush fight rather than a field fight. I would like if the A.I. didn't avoid unfair battles quite so much. Though, blocking a bridge or narrow pass I've found not very useful in Warhammer as the A.I. has gone through my zone of control.

Longbeards in the tabletop are an upgrade to warriors. I feel though, that they shouldn't completely replace the base infantry. T'would help keep at least the appearence that the A.I. has to pay upkeep.

Beastmen are neat fun. I had a Gorebull during my game with an item called "seed of renewel" that gave it regeneration. On something already as powerful as a gorebull that was really good.


What over items have I found; Armour of Mork. In one game I found a Runefang that had a stat buff ability on use.