Stormfiends are too cheap and vermin lords are far too OP

I remember seeing the ai art they made for medieval 3 and thinking that was off but now seeing how they did shogun 2 remake I know that Med 3 is gonna be shit, I'm basically just waiting for a new company to make similar historical strategy at this point, I heard strategos is good?

I know people missed the big upgrade button at the top right, but I did not realize you can actually assign their skill points...

Hey,

i just realized with the mess around shogun 2 that DLC are no longer available to buy separatly from the base game. (the dlc page only shows the blood dlc)

I always had this idea that i had to buy one day the RoS DLC for the past decade and never did because my Game backlog just grew bigger everyday.

Now that i reinstalled it, and launching it, i realised that i now own the RoS campaign (as well as every other DLC like the ikki campaign). I don't seem to see an older update that they included DLC in the base game and also delivered them for free for past owners.

So is it a mishaps from The delisting/relisting of the game (since CE was supposed to include everything) or was it something that happened in the past ?

This is a rant really. I really want to enjoy Warhammer 3. It should be my favourite game. But I end up giving up after around 30 turns as every faction is way too easy.

I play on legendary/ very hard for reference and there's maybe one battle that will be slightly challenging near the beginning of the campaign. Once you're past that you start to steamroll immediately.

Legendary/ very hard difficulty feels like it would be normal difficulty on any other TW game. I can't remember the last time the autoresolve said I would lose a battle apart from settlement battles where the enemy attacks a settlement that doesn't have any defensive buildings in it.

I want some difficulty in this game. There's an easy mode for people that need it but no true difficulty for anybody that wants a challenge. I'm praying this changes at some point.

My opinion, they ruined the game, why pretorians should have the same hp as some hastats?

They ruined charge cavalry one of the most interesting unit types in the game, why cataphracts can be stopped with some eastern spearmen

they made archers too strong, why archers can kill even some elite Sparta hoplites that have 110+ armor

Is it me or is the Skaven faction heavily underrated by the game bot?

It seems, especially in late game, that the game auto-fight rates pretty much anyone higher than my armies in a fight, even when I have a bunch of Pit and jezails in the army?

I dont get this issue with someone like the lizards.

i just really want to be able to do that. Nagash has that but he's got a lot of other stuff going on too

Before anyone downvotes me based on their personal/political/philosophical views on the current state of artificial intelligence and what it means for our lives and the world, please know that this is just a stray thought that crossed my mind and is not intended to express any opinion about AI more broadly.

Ok, with that disclaimer stated, I often see (and experience) the performance of the current in-game computer player during single player campaigns. Play enough and watch enough of Legend's save your disaster battle videos and you can predict computer player behavior pretty reliably. I've also seen (and experienced) the complaints about the game's "AI"; how smart or dumb it is, how it is programmed, etc. Experienced players often complain that it is too easy and the options for "boosting" the AI only makes marginal differences.

So that made me wonder, since the current in-game AI is a computer program created by the devs, what it would be like if one of the current AI models from a frontier lab wrote and iterated that program. I know there's a big difference between models from just a few years ago and the current bleeding edge. I've read that there's a famous game theory estimation for chess that there are roughly 10¹²⁰ possible unique chess games. Given the range of factions, units, abilities, terrain, etc., I would think there are even more than that in TW, or even in any one TW title.

I also wonder what training approach would be "best." I know that some people let computer programs loose on things like racing games and just let the program run millions or billions of trial runs until it hits the pixel-optimal play through. But would it be "better" to have a AI that plays like, well, a regular human player? Could it be trained on replays of actual multiplayer games so that it doesn't become the "optimal" TW player, but rather more like a "real" player, warts and all?

And, of course, I realize that I was just thinking about battles. There's also the campaign side of things...

after all these years I still wonder what's their point. They share the same unit cap as the great bow variant yet the bow variant is almost a perfect upgrade because they only trade a few points of ws for the bows.

i Reckon CA should Drop All Content Creators That have Association With Ai.

So, I played a campaign of Nagash realizing that post battle loot rewards far too much money. I declared war on everyone and after smacking the army in my province sat in the pyramid. I let the AI throw themselves at the walls with a stack of skeletons. Kept bias at a neutral 100 in settings.

By turn 36 I had far more money and souls than if I tried to take settlements. Souls remind you can be turned into a lot of sigils. 130,000 money from battles and one settlement. 35,000 souls.

Often Mannfred would attack you with 3 whole stacks of units 3 times a turn with all 3 reviving to full health.

If your skeletons get weak, merge them and necromancer up new ones at full hp. They usually don't siege you over end turns anyways.

I collected most my mortarchs this way and managed to claim the entire south continent after finally having to move Nagash out who isn't even that stock, but has a powerful army to mostly auto resolve the end times. Even in manual fights you afk a blob at the final point after setting up your units.

I could then subjugate Arkhon who has been loyally attacking me for economic reasons and use his generals to quickly retake the lands after dismissing their armies. I had nearly 300k money even with 3 stacks two which just sat around the pyramid not fighting anything for income.

Note this is not an Nagash op thing. Most of Nagash's power doesn't help you auto resolve and I had a lot of sigils, but not that many sigils. 90% of the blue skull bar was filled from just sitting in one settlement and auto resolving my neighbors.

I can't believe they buffed his post battle loot and didn't reduce the amount you got last patch. Everyone makes too much money from battles as it is for pretty much all factions.

I wish we had a slider to reduce our battle income by half or more or a mod that does that. It's more efficient to not play Nagash and win his campaign than it is to play.

Unrelated, but I think this is one of the video that best show how an ancient battle would have happened, albeit with more discipline and tactics developing over a long period of time. I think current total war prediction, especially the charge is still not realistic enough, people would simply not overlap themselves as in the current frontline of total war, they would make damn sure to avoid direct close combat confrontation. And when lines are actually overlapping as in total war, then a general rout maybe happening soon, one side will have to break soon, as casualties from that point on will be increasing very quickly (although not massive until the general withdrawal).

But this is just a guess, would be fascinating to learn more about this from historian well-versed in this subject. Or maybe re-enactors who have experience with this.

The video: https://fb.watch/v/azgsGEK2V/

Been using them a little bit in Nagash's campaign, but they don't seem to be penetrating units. I could have sworn they used to, and if they don't then they should considering the size of the projectiles they fire. I could just be hallucinating, but I feel like they used to pull WAY more weight in my armies.

Remember last week when I made the post saying that I wasn't gonna buy the Shogun 2 re-release because it was a mediocre product and not worth anyone's money, and now everyone has vindicated what I said. Overwhelming negative reviews on steam, and every Total War YouTuber is making videos about how terrible it was. So yeah. Makes me feel less shitty about everyone here dogpiling me and then getting the last post deleted, because I was right. :)

i remember every other total war game have seasons , why warhammer 3 dont have seasons is there any logic behind this, or is it just out of laziness?

I know I’ve seen it somewhere but I can’t find it for the life of me

During Vlad's first quest, I noticed that he charged at the empire general on horseback, who maybe moved for a second or two before some mad charge bonus triggered. Vlad went flying, I lol'd, then thought about how ridiculous that would look to my Isabella led air force of vampires.

Vlad feels heavy to control, gets bogged down in trash, and makes it difficult to actually duel enemy lords. He doesn't seem like a "cloud of horror", and more like a Choo Choo train designed to 1v1 other foot lords if you're lucky.

Can we speed his old ass up, give the Von Carstien bloodline the mist form ability (as his historically theirs), and have a rethink about how footlords are holding up in general? Grimgor got a mass increase to help with this awhile ago, and I think with the siege rework, his "bonus" of siege attacker, and it being removed was never really replaced.

P.S: elector count Vlad/Isabella mechanics would be amazing, also flavour wise, vassals should pay in blood, not dark magic.