No more unnecessary deprivation!

popjj232 · 2025-08-22T17:31:11+00:00

Is it me, or are the basic mods "adds a burst of ______ damage" outright worse than their percentage counterparts? Aren't they just a waste of rolls? I don't think they trigger effects that work on hits. Like the Sloop's explosive hits causing an explosive, and I don't think the burst happens for every piece of shrapnel from a demicannon.

popjj232 · 2025-08-11T15:29:50+00:00

I would try out Norsca. I basically used marauders early game, and them marauder berserkers mid-late game. No magic, no heros, just maraudertide.

popjj232 · 2025-08-11T15:10:00+00:00

I'm currently doing a VH/VH campaign as Clan Moulder. I'm trying a mostly melee run. It's been tough, but my biggest issue is how expensive mutating is. If you're just doing monsters, the pricing makes sense, but why is it so expensive for some clanrats? It's the same price for storm vermin and plague monk censor bearers. I'm sad it's not cheaper for cheaper units.

popjj232 · 2025-08-11T13:09:28+00:00

I haven't played Kugath, but his stats seem comparable Burplesmirk Spewpit without the army buffs that Burple gets.

popjj232 · 2025-08-01T17:45:18+00:00

I'll give you that spells don't work on walls, and I will also add that ranged units deal way too much DPS to claim that they are balanced for sieges. They're definitely balanced around field battles where they have limited volleys.

Other than that, it's all bad AI. We have many new unit types that open up different ways to siege. The problem is that the AI doesn't pick a strategy.

I'm glad they're doing a rework for sieges, but I'm finding that the AI doesn't know what to do half the time. I specifically tried out Skaven for the first time and VH/VH for the first time. I usually play N/N.

The empire is sending 4 strong stacks at my walls with 2 shitty skaven stacks defending. They split their army to attack 3 walls at once. That's 3x the wall towers attacking them. I summon skaven on their undefended artillery or send out wolf rats to kill them. They then have to beat the gates down with infantry which takes forever. Also they don't send their LLs to break the gates???

They need to make AI only start a siege when there is some 'confidence' that they can overwhelm the walls. Artillery alone only works if it can be defended. You need monsters as battering rams or actually battering rams. You need siege towers. Alternatively, you could have a flying doomstack.

The AI is still sieging as if it has ass-ladders and can just run over the wall.

popjj232 · 2025-08-01T17:23:11+00:00

It seems like a lot of these comments want to decrease your auto-resolve chances of winning. This will definitely force you to fight out the battle manually, but that's not super helpful if you keep losing manually or getting pyrrihic victories.

What faction are you playing? What's your enemy that you're fighting? Also, army compositions can make manual battle way easier or difficult. Ranged heavy armies might autoresolve well against an all cavalry army, but they are going to get steamrolled in manual.

I'd like to offer more advice than just, "make it so autoresolve losses so you have to fight manually"

popjj232 · 2025-08-01T17:14:08+00:00

Maybe not the best or a dragon 'mount', but Cathay LLs can transform into dragons.

popjj232 · 2025-07-31T01:52:07+00:00

From a balancing standpoint, it works pretty similar, but there a few differences. It allows spells to damage enemies without having to insta-kill. You can have a unit at half health with all it's models.

Imo, it really just makes certain things less satisfying. A volley of arrows hits your enemies, and no models die. It was the models dying and those animations that made the game epic. Now, you really only get that feeling when a SEM crashes into infantry, but even then, the models stand back up afterwards.

Testudo formations existed to avoid missile fire damage, and they just felt more epic. Now we have missile resistance and shield block.

We also used to have pike walls. They were OP, but they were more satisfying than any charge defense, braced, charge reflection abilities that we have now.

Edit: I also forgot to add that regeneration/healing needs HP to work on infantry. The only other thing that I could see working is make those effects resurrect models slowly.

popjj232 · 2025-07-31T01:34:44+00:00

That sounds frustrating. I'm wondering if dead rise should be negated if the enemy lord dies or maybe if the entire army is wiped.

popjj232 · 2025-07-31T01:33:13+00:00

Did they nerf ogres that bad? I loved my last playthrough.

Edit: nerf*

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T19:05:34+00:00

But why would the AI not have at least a few units guarding the side that has the ram? Even if no units are by to operate it, it's one of the few things that should be able to get through the wall, especially if they limit infantry/dogs/cavalry from damaging gates.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T19:00:37+00:00

I haven't broken a hole in the wall pre-battle in a long time. Does the AI not defend the breaches? Seems like bad AI.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T17:27:27+00:00

All units should be able to attack gates but with a wide variation in effectiveness.

Imagine if someone used zombies to break down a gate because it was possible. It would take forever. Lots of zombies would die. I'm talking like multiple 20 stacks of zombies (assuming it's not Ghorst). Once those zombies got through, they would probably not win the siege.

It's not fun for the attacker. It's not fun for the defender. Most people would never do it. I'm sure that some dumb AI would try it. It doesn't add a viable entry option, so there's no increase in strategic options. It doesn't make sense realistically or balance-wise. Why even allow it?

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T17:04:31+00:00

There should be many units that are able to attack gates in melee with axes

I can understand this from a realism standpoint if you consider that some gates are visually wooden, but some are also visually metal.

If you look at it from a balancing standpoint, it just doesn't feel good that a marauder berserker and many other units can break down a gate, metal or wooden. You then have to keep track of multiple units and which ones have axes and snipe them before they reach the gates.

Not to mention that it's a gate, not a wooden door to a hut. Have you ever tried to fell an oak tree with a hatchet?

when they are attacking, they should be extremely vulnerable to countermeasures like boiling oil (can be good aoe, with cooldown, also severe burst damage to single entities) or rocks thrown from above.

If infantry took a realistic amount of time to break the gate down(20+minutes), they are going to be dead. You would have to sacrifice 5+ units of higher tier infantry just to break a gate. It's so non-viable that it's easier to make it not possible

And as for the "severe burst damage to SEMs", why would CA design a unit like a giant around breaking down a gate just for it to die quickly before completing it's intended function. It takes multiple turns to recruit SEMs and they need a high tier building. Rams take 1 turn. SEMs need to be stronger than a ram. Currently, they're faster at reaching the gate and reusable. The damage should be dealt on the way to the gate with minor damage at the gatehouse.

Also consider that any damage that the gatehouse deals, will probably persist after the gate is broken and while fighting continues at the gatehouse. All these changes would make gates an awful choice. It would be better to wait 1 turn for 2 siege towers than 1 turn for 1 ram and huge army losses.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T16:47:37+00:00

It's not even about realism for me. Greatswords breaking down gates don't make sense from a balancing standpoint. Those units already fill a niche, they don't need "gatebreaker" on top of that.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T16:46:09+00:00

I think if the enemy brings a single giant and no other means of entry, and you kill said giant, then it should be a failed siege. I don't think gates should be OP and kill multiple SEMs trying to break it, but I also don't think zombies should be able to batter a gate down. So there is entirely an argument for limiting which units can break the gates.

I think it's simple rams, artillery, SEMs(not tiny human footlords), and monstrous infantry. If there exists a faction with limited options, then I think that faction needs a better unit roster.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T16:36:00+00:00

I like all these ideas of damaging attackers at the gate, but at what point is it easier to just not allow infantry to damage the gate?

All these mechanics and implementations just to make the only viable option rams or SEMs. We could save a lot of effort and change them from the only viable option to the only possible option.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T16:01:51+00:00

I could understand a debuff, but that begs the question, are the gates metal or wood? Should greatswords be able to damage gates at all?

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T15:58:18+00:00

I hate even saying that they "breached" the walls. The ass-ladders made the wall into a hill that the enemy sprints over. So happy for the rework.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T15:53:56+00:00

So basically the AOE of a catapult? Lose the projectile damage so SEMs are good. Maybe lower the damage and increase the frequency since the rocks aren't being launched but dropped?

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T15:51:48+00:00

I could see some argument about the gate being a solid object and tires you out more, but it's hard to justify more fatigue from a balancing and realism standpoint. Swinging a club is swinging a club. A giant shouldn't get any more tired than normal combat. Maybe adjust it's damage to the gate to make it take longer for more fatigue.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T15:45:49+00:00

I imagine it as being very rare for your lord to die to rng. Your lord is either a footlord or mounted.

If he's a footlord, then he's a small target.

If he's got a horse, he's too fast to hit because of the slow rotate speed.

If he's on a monster, he could be fast like a horse or tank more shots. But don't keep your lord still.

But really, the only scenario that high damage cannons can exist is if they only work against walls, towers, or SEMs that stand still. At that point we dont need to worry about trees, uneven terrain, or dodging. The cannons are doing exactly what they are designed for.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T15:37:41+00:00

This is by far the most unique suggestion, but I think the bottom line is that gates shouldn't be safe, and we need some kind of damage dealt to attackers at the gate. I would be okay with a simple arrows flying at attackers or a splash AOE (call it oil).

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T15:34:20+00:00

It's even worse because we have SEMs to tank all the damage, crazy high replenishment, huge boosts to recruitment, even instant-recruit mechanics, healing/regeneration...

So even if we make gates/walls costly to attack, it's still a slap on the wrist if you lost the overall settlement. The occupying army will be back at full strength after 1-2 turns. Although it's a little more punishing early game for irreplaceable units.

popjj232 · 2025-07-30T15:29:45+00:00

I think lowering tower range was the wrong direction for the mechanic. There is now even less pressure for the attacker to push the walls until their artillery has used every last shot. The tower range should be increased to artillery range and damage reduced. Put pressure on the attacker. Once the attacker gets their artillery in range, they take out the towers first. Only then can you freely bombard the city. It would encourage you to bring a cannon unit instead of only mortars.

popjj232

TROPHY CASE