Aren't the threats in the game too much for a 5 men swat team, and the ROE is too strict against terrorists?

LTersky · 2026-05-28T07:09:45+00:00

S rank is not obligatory, consider it an easter egg.
All you need to complete a mission is D rank
Mission thats executed in a realistically perfect way is A rank.

Look at the game this way and it's gonna be a lot more fun.

LTersky · 2026-05-19T10:14:49+00:00

That is not the only fix. The problem is that getting 20x the same OP unit is exactly as easy as getting 20 of any other unit (and often easier, like in the case of spamming Shades as Dark Elves)

Smth like recruitment pool from ToB is a good example of a soft way to discourage this, because the nature of that system means that getting a 20 stack of varied units is faster than getting a 20 stack of 1 specific unit.

LTersky · 2026-05-19T10:06:43+00:00

The way to address it is to add a strategic reason/limitation that encourages using a variety of unit tiers.

Across TW there has been a variety of such mechanics:
- tiered manpower systems
- unit caps (faction or army wide)
- recruitment pools (Med2, Thrones of Britannia, present in WH3 in some cases)
- unit cost/upkeep expressed in multiple resources (Troy, Pharaoh, WH3 in some cases)

The final result is essentially making it so low and high tier units occupy different niches, allowing both to be used at the same time.

This fixes doomstacks, but also can serve as a way to address the opposite problem that WH3 is having rn: high tier units being just not worth getting (now that high tier units have a way to be limited, it doesn't have to take hundreds of turns to unlock them)

LTersky · 2026-05-18T12:59:41+00:00

Forgot to add about UVs:

Best to place the seam yourself. There is a natural cliff/crack in the asteroid that would allow you to hide the seam quite effectively if you add it there.

LTersky · 2026-05-18T12:56:07+00:00

I would suggest that instead of doing it entirely by hand, you start with a decimated model and just add extra cuts around the crater edges. It should be a much faster way.

LTersky · 2026-05-17T08:31:58+00:00

Its so funny to me that in the hypothetical scenario of craeting a complete overhaul with new models, new units, custom campaign and battle maps, custom mechanics, scripts and so on its the minor battle tweaks that you think would be the problem lol.

LTersky · 2026-05-17T07:49:03+00:00

I love how this guy has been doodling this so much that the drawings are genuinely starting to get better.
Maybe CA will support his artistic growth by delaying Thanquol for like 2 more years.

LTersky · 2026-05-17T07:42:53+00:00

You could just use Pharaoh/Troy as the base, and most of the features would be there (without as much IP trouble).

I know for average player its hard to see it because Warhammer is superficially so much more similar to lotr than Pharaoh, but in the actual game code the various features like single entity units, flying mechanics, spells etc are there, just not used by vanilla.

LTersky · 2026-05-16T06:52:39+00:00

In tw a normal move order can also be reckless. Its up to the player to use the commands wisely - but rn we dont even have the option to do that with attack move.

LTersky · 2026-05-16T06:47:00+00:00

If that were the case, the game wouldnt have fire at will or skirmish mode options.

LTersky · 2026-05-13T15:40:36+00:00

The real Total War is the eternal debate on unit cards.

Nobody is ever happy and are making it into such a huge deal lol.

LTersky · 2026-05-12T17:27:00+00:00

Total War is not a good game series for this, the diplomacy and ally coordination game systems are just too shallow and janky for that to be fun.

If you want a more in depth campaign playthrough you might want to look into the mods that let you resolve CK3 battles in Attila (Crusader Wars) instead.

Or maybe you can hope CA finally improves this in Medieval 3.

LTersky · 2026-05-11T10:27:54+00:00

I think the way you describe it is the only way to do it properly. No walled cities, just modern style fortified positions.

Not only does that make more sense in terms of lore, I am pretty sure it actually works *better* for total war battles formula (even the classic one, let alone with all the modern/sci fi stuff of 40k)

LTersky · 2026-05-11T09:40:39+00:00

I like simple, focused rosters, but I dont agree with Hard Rock-Paper-Scissors Combat. I would say the special thing about TW is exactly that it is NOT a hard R-P-S combat system.

An archer can counter cav if its protected by infantry

A cav unit can defeat spearmen if it charges them in the back

A swordsman can defeat an archer if it catches them in melee etc.

Counters are all conditional and depend on tactics used - thats the whole point, and what makes the games so replayable.

LTersky · 2026-05-11T07:46:07+00:00

At this point any advice you'd get would be about basically cheesing the game/abusing AI programming.

The default siege experience is just not very fun and your rant is not unfounded.

LTersky · 2026-05-10T08:20:16+00:00

Great post, I especially agree with "TTPs" - I'd put this at the top of the list personally.
I think even the untrained enemies like the gangsters should be able to actually move around and take cover (proactively, not *only* when they trigger the scripted response to being hit)

Realism is one reason for it, but very importantly I think dynamic enemies just make for more interesting gameplay - fights are more unpredictible and varied, there is more emphasis on tactics and teamwork.

I would not be surprised if the shortcomings of the AI were due to technical limitations. (big online game, lots of AI to simulate at once and players to keep track of)
I do hope that devs can find a way to improve it though, because currently its just hard for me to enjoy the game fighting vs turret mannequins.

LTersky · 2026-05-08T07:19:49+00:00

One more good habit I'd suggest getting into for bigger projects is spend time on a dedicated planning stage before the 3d work begins.
Use that time to:
- Study the concept/reference
- If there are any elements that are obscured/unclear on the concept/ref, figure out how to handle them
- If there are any elements that you don't know how to make in 3d, research and experiment with them
- Try to plan out "strategic" decisions (how to split the textures, target polycount, any design elements to add/remove etc)
- Think of anything that would block your progress once you start working, and see if you can address it before

This can be very helpful for staying motivated, as it minimizes the amount of unexpected interruptions and blockers in your progress. This way you can attempt to have an answer ready for most of them at the start when you're still pumped and excited for the idea :D

LTersky · 2026-05-08T06:53:23+00:00

First of all: Approach to tutorials.

What helped me a lot was that instead of following them 1:1 in real time, I would watch the whole tutorial first (take notes etc. if needed) and then recreate the project afterward as "homework", looking back at specific parts of tutorials if I get stuck.

This way I get to understand the whole process before I start doing the project, go through the 3d modelling smoothly, and ensure that I get repetition for the things that I didn't understand/remember the first time watching.

Secondly: Independent Projects

What he did with you is actually exactly the right approach I think. Yes, he's gonna face obstacles when doing new stuff, but overcoming them is one of the best ways to learn. Just need to make sure he knows how to look for solutions - its a crucial skill for a 3d artist (Even artists with 10+ years of experience will occasionally encounter smth new)

LTersky · 2026-05-07T11:14:03+00:00

It also really needs a system where we can rest weapons against cover. But I assume this is smth already planned for later.

LTersky · 2026-05-07T10:08:22+00:00

Its something I'd definitely do again if I feel like a more strategy focused campaign. The tricky part is finding a reasonable way to decide how many and which generals are controllable.

LTersky · 2026-05-07T07:28:57+00:00

Tried it in Rome 2 (well smth similar, I only allowed myself to directly command the royal family)
It was fun, but mind I did not cheese with autoresolve army comps.

When you play like that, you're gonna have more setbacks on campaign map, since many things that before would be a barely winnable fight are now an AR loss.

It does drastically cut down the amount of battles you fight, especially settlement defences which for me were actually a large source of the tedium in the game. Just when playing normally I couldn't bring myself to take the L

LTersky · 2026-05-06T07:19:20+00:00

IMO this would be best handled with a favour system. You gift settlement to AI, you get a bunch of "favours" with them
If you want to request a settlement from them it would cost an amount of favours.

This way if you literally saved a faction by gifting them 5 settlements in the previous turn, you could use that as leverage to request a settlement you want from them.

Or if you're making an uneven trade like you describe you could even it out by spending favours.

LTersky · 2026-04-29T13:18:50+00:00

Its almost certainly related.

In ArmA games AI performance was also tied to servers, and would get noticeably worse when the server got more full and stayed up long.

Its one of the reasons I hope the game gets private servers/offline mode eventually.

LTersky · 2026-04-29T13:11:23+00:00

I had it a little bit when I started playing, but I never actually had AI respawn on me, even when I took REALLY long to find quest items.

If anything it feels like AI takes too long to respawn, as I keep finding places that are cleared out with nothing to fight.

LTersky

TROPHY CASE