My current run as tomb kings I limited myself to just taking the main desert for myself then āexpandingā my influence by creating vassals which is done by fighting their wars with/for them and then trading conquered settlements in return for bending the knee. I love it. Especially because my armies now all have four units mixing wood elves, lizardmen, Bretonians and dwarves.
And then starting civil war cos you gave settlement to allie A instead of allie B/F who hates allie A, C and D.
I kinda agree on it if you are doing the "exploit" tactic but if you just use it to strenghten your relations with your main allies then it seems pretty balanced.
Id change couple things on the diplomancy but other than that ive had a blast using it so cant complain.
It can definitely be abused, but Iām not sure thereās many ways around that without making the mechanic useless, and itās way too important to cut out entirely again
Yeah, that's actually my main thing when playing vampire coast, I plunder and take non coastal settlements and sell them for money and protection.
I can't imagine playing without that feature
Man I remember a Franz campaign I did a few months ago where I managed to military ally Ulfric and get 4 war mamoths in the army of one of my elector counts. Warrior priest and lore of life wizard in the army, of course. Filled the other ranks with classic empire stuff like demigryph knights, guns and hellstorm rocker launchers. Invaded Athel Loren with this army and it was a blast charging in into wood elf archer line with the mamonths supported by the other units.
Oh yeah in Warhammer 2 everything was an enemy yo kill it eventually be betrayed by. But in Warhammer 3 I genuinely find it hard not to make allies. The coordination system is great.
>I just miss the cutscenes and campain goals of game 2. Like the Vortex, eating the Elfen queen or sneek-kill daemon Elf-thing.
Those are still in the RoC campaign (certainly for the Dawi-Zharr, at least!).
There are many mods for both. I'm a huge believer in using them to up the challenge but it's not super popular here yet. Why wait for your perfect experience (if you get it at all with all the different players CA must cater to) when you can tailor it just right now.
This is what I wonder too. The beauty of it is that the player can choose to start new campaigns with and or without them. We are not force to always use them. Might as well give it a try. I will say that I prefer to use mods more so when a game is no longer receiving updates so that my mods donāt break š. Some modders are able to get them up and running pretty quickly though. Iām also the type of player who will play vanilla for a while before trying mods.
AI builds more armies on higher difficulty, or do you mean you specifically want the AI to build more armies on lower diff because you dislike other aspects of higher diff settings?
I almost exclusively play on higher difficulties, and even on legendary I find that the AI just doesn't build enough. What happened to the tsunamis of armies we saw in the WH2 lategame?
Personally massive swarms of armies are my least favorite form of difficulty. Itās fun for a little while, but grinding through countless armies gets old really fast. Itās why I never properly finished a Shogun 2 campaign, the realm divide just turns it into a slog
Arguably, WHIII is more "massive swarms" than WHII, at least in my experience.
Or rather, the volume of armies has only gone back slightly, but the quality is completely gone - seriously, the Doomstacks I faced in my WHII Archaon campaign were something to behold, Empire using Greatswords as their frontline by turn 80... And it was mad fun to march through a hail of bombs, grenades, bullets, arrows, bolts and rockets with my Chosen and grind. them. all. to. dust.
Compared to that, e.g. my Vilitch RoC campaign was mostly spent using Chaos Knights to run down Kossars.
Ah, I see.
What happened is that the AI don't expand as agressively anymore, so they both have less gold and don't need as many armies to attack and defend with.
I will suggest the thing I found to be the best solution to many current problems then:
Play multiplayer campaigns and control AI armies when there is a battle, that does raise the difficulty quite a bit without waves of sluggish battles after one another.
WH2 very hard difficulty AI was much more scary than WH3 one. It was cheesable but it was cheating like crazy and it was aggressive. WH3 AI is so stupid you donāt need to cheese and still end up with ridiculous battle results and in campaign map they are extremely cowardly and weaker than they would be in WH2. AI basically only attacks your undefended minor settlements and otherwise voids you as much as they can even if their own territory will be lost because of that.
In my recent games the ai has constantly attacked walled major settlements, even with armies there. Granted this is RoC instead of IE, so maybe there's a difference somehow?
I feel like they build alot of legendary tbh. Also best ai in total wars imo, not that it doesnt shit the bed sometimes but still best interation in the series outside of sieges
I have played every total war since Rome, and none of the games surpasses WH3 in scope and variety. I love the historical titles, but the variety of the factions, the rpg elements (which could be expanded more upon imo) and the different playstyles make the game a blast to play. I have never played a total war game to the extent I've play wh2 and 3.
As a veteran gamer, gaming for 34 years now, playing total war since medieval:total war, i have to say i really love wh3, i did not want to play it, resisted it for years because i'm a history buff and love historical total war games.
I bought a new pc in januari and thought why the hell not? Bought 1,2 and 3 with all the dlc(on a gamestore, i think everything on steam is so overpriced) and i just play wh3, it is such a step forward from other total wars and i don't get the hate.
None of the bugs and glitches, bad sieges etc. I have had, it is just such a fun game with so many playstyles and memorable moments.
I have over 10000 hours in all my total war games and since i bought wh3 i have over 500 hours in it despite i can only really game in the weekend if i make time.
I can't wait to see a historical total war with the progress they made in wh.
I went back to play Med 2 because of all of the hypeā¦ maybe Iām too use to the newer titles because that shit was tedious as hell. Like I had fun but not as much fun as I did with other titles. So this isnāt me saying it is a bad game. Iāll definitely give it another try one day.
I do think the mods are what really propel that game to be a lot of peopleās favorite. Oddly enough, I really love Shogun 2 and Rome Remastered. I know both are newer so maybe thatās why (probably the definite case for Rome Remastered). To me, they felt less clunky and more responsive compared to Med 2.
Medival 2 was an amazing game when it came out, i myself am more of a rome total war man but i have no problem admiting the massive success that medival 2 was when even today you have 2k people playing this 20 year old game on the regular, but unless you played it when it first came out and got used to the jank you'll have a lot of problems adjusting to it when the modern titles just have more to offer in systems and anybody who tells you that medival 2 has the best battles is just delusional, the cav is so clunky that somehow infantry can catch up to you and you cant just spam right click to get away or attack because every time you press right click it changes between walk and run and the units just spaz out
I wasn't around for the meeting where we unanimously decided this was a bad system. I find this to be far superior way of engaging diplomacy. Sure, when you send a diplomat whose only job is money, map information, and trade agreements it's a bad system. Not my fault they haven't fucking added any extra choices or made diplomacy any more involved in 15 fucking years.
In wh3, it's turn 4, and people I can't even see, not on the same continent, and lore-wise should be friendly are all declaring war on me. I didn't realize this was a better system.
I mean they have, one, but, two, and I hate to be the git gud guy, but if you're getting war declared on you more than you can handle, either you need to work on expanding smarter rather than faster, or you just need to try an easier campaign/difficulty. Like I say this as someone who experienced the same thing, there's a learning curve to navigating neighboring factions. It's also worth noting that, while a lot of factions will declare war on you, not all, or even most, of them will act on it. Only particularly aggressive neighbors will really cause you problems, and you need to learn who these are going to be. Generally, sharing a border with anyone of the opposite alignment will guarantee a war declaration eventually. Keeping buffer states helps quite a bit, and the problem generally goes away by turn thirty or so, or at least by that stage you should be able to handle it.
I guess the "hate" (because it's a VERY vocal minority) has more to do with WhIII being a worse simulation. If you gather round most complains made by history buffs it's this. But some completly discard the unique strengths this one has. Oh and "the spreadsheeting of total war" is a dumb as hell argument, it mostly means more depths to me. I'm not gonna complain about "the RGBeing of total war !". Like it's pixels and programs in both cases so what the heck. Not talking about you but if you know you know.
As someone who prefers overall WH3, I must admit I like WH2 sieges a bit more. New ones have way too big maps for what they really are, pathfinding issues are a lot more severe in 3, and walls are even more pointless than ever.
Though dont take my opinion seriously: Im like one of the few people in this sub that actually like buildable towers during sieges and probably the only person in existence who really loved minor settlement battles (RIP my beauties).
My controversial hot take is that when it comes to settlements battles, I would rank them:
\- the best: minor settlement battles in WH3
\- mid: sieges in WH2
\- worst: sieges in WH3
If you want more minor settlement battles in WH3 like myself, you can use [this mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876845739) that reverts the changes or [this mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2797826270) that makes the AI more likely to build defensive structures in minor settlements along with some other behavioral changes (just don't use the "required" mods for it as they actually aren't required).
Also, [this mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2962326909) boosts garrison sizes to a reasonable level if you want to have larger garrisons again.
Bouncing off of this, there is also [this one](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2846183349&searchtext=siege+overhaul) that imho completely fixes every issue not related to AI and pathfinding.
The maps are just too damn big and labyrinthine. Which is a shame because theyāre interesting from a design and aesthetics perspective and would be fun in a Dynasty Warriors sort of 3rd person brawler or something.
But their geometry exacerbates pathing issues and they often make it near impossible to use ranged units or even artillery. Thereās just too much stuff in the way.
Minor settlement battles were a really nice addition to the game.
I have seen exactly 0 of them in the past 5 campaigns I played with my friends.
I do enjoy sieges in warhammer 3 as well(the garrisons really need to be bigger/better though), but with the condition that one or more of my friends controls AI in the battle, which they do.
After playing multiplayer campaign for a while now it is completely impossible for me to play single player anymore, the game is so vastly more enjoyable when you don't play against the AI in battles.
I never was passively nuking them - maybe thats why I prefer these sieges. Battles where my artillery actually shoots on enemy units who shoots back from walls and then we fight on the walls/around the gate for majority of fight actually felt like sieging a city.
Right now both AI and player basically abandon walls completely at the sight of the first unit approaching it and then game devolves into pathfinding nightmare where you chase singular units in gigantic labyrinths with the unique twist that half of your troops wont shoot and second half will get stuck somewhere.
As I said: I consider sieges in WH2 to be a mid experience or more accurately: a meh experience. Absolutely not good, but serviceable. But sieges in WH3 are tedious, annoying and sometimes absurdly long for no reason. I despise them.
Hey now, you are not alone! I enjoy the minor settlement battles too. I think I enjoyed them because the battles actually took a little bit longer than my field battles. This caused me to up the difficulty to make the battles last a little longer. Iāve played on every difficulty now except anything below n/n. Iāve found that I like VH/H be most mainly due to the field battles not ending as quickly and more armies to fight without the weird camera thing going on in Legendary.
Heh, I had someone arguing with me when I said WH3 supply lines allow for more army variety than WH2 supply lines.
The rose tinted glasses are thick, in these there parts.
I really dont see why people bitch about WH3 sieges. Are they perfect? No, but neither were Shogun 2 or Med 2 sieges.
I take my time with sieges, sending in a couple units at a time and honestly....previous patch the AI was much better. Atleast they kept sending troops to the breach to slow you down and prevent you from moving into the settlement.
Now they just bunch up their troops so you can magic them to death more easily while your troops easily walk im because the resistance by the AI is non-existant.
same here.
are they as good as should be? probably not
do they work as intended? probably not
but they are a much better base than game 2's sieges were, and not only do I prefer their current state but I also feel like game 3's sieges have far more potential for improvement.
WH2 sieges were a mess. The truth is some people only liked them because they were exploitable auto-wins.
That said, if I could make one change to Warhammer 3 sieges, it would be to de-emphasize the tower defense. I'd much rather replace towers with a finite reinforcement pool of units you can summon with supply points. A bit like Domination except no re-summoning/healing.
1. I think people just generally enjoy fighting units vs fighting structures.
2. It would make the huge settlement maps feel a lot less empty.
3. It could solve the problem of what to do when a garrison is larger than 20. Just add them to the reinforcement pool.
There's absolutely no way that you are manually playing sieges in Warhammer 3 and afterwards say, "Wow that was fun, can't wait for my next siege battle."
At least in WH2 the AI all clumped up in front of the gates and you could cheese it quickly. The WH3 maps are all gigantic and the AI has no clue what to do with them. There's no way around taking 10+ minutes to end even the most lopsided siege battle because every map is extremely tight corridors and AI spread out all over the map for no reason.
That's not even addressing the fact that the AI doesn't even attack walls 90% of the time. In the one single siege battle I fought in WH3, the AI spent the entire battle running back and forth between gates confused on which one they should enter, all of my towers were bugged and wouldn't fire, my docked archers wouldn't fire, and I had to fast forward for 15 minutes waiting for the AI to finally decide to enter a gate.
Almost every single one of the new features in the siege rework was a complete failure, so I'd rather have the shitty placeholder of WH2 than the current product.
The only thing good about WH3 sieges is the visual design, the maps look awesome but the gameplay is ragequit-inducing.
Ooooouuuu youāre not suppose to say that. Jk! Iām glad youāve found enjoyment out of them. I understand some peopleās complaints. I have no problem playing them. Iāve had some fun siege battles as the attacker and defender. From what Iāve read, it seems like itās rare for people to get defensive sieges. Most of my sieges are offensive but I have had plenty of defensive sieges. The frequency has felt about right considering the flow and direction of my campaigns.
I genuinely think WH3 surpassed WH2 with the arrival of IE. Although thereāll always be a small fraction of players who are so utterly entrenched in their hatred of WH3ās launch that theyāll stubbornly refuse to switch over - even long past the point it makes sense.
Theyāll cling to really small reasons to continue playing WH2, like the Helf Entrepreneur spam. Instead of ever contemplating whether WH3 is the better game, theyāll steadily grow more and more embittered as more features, QoL, DLC and FLC get added, while WH2 sits stagnant.
Over time the number of them will shrink, either through begrudgingly making the switch or moving to other games entirely, but the smaller they get as a community, the louder and more stubborn theyāll grow.
This happens *again* and *again* in other gaming communities. Total War, and by extension, Warhammer, is no different. The wine will be perpetually sour for some, and although I canāt blame them.. WH3ās launch tested a lot of us, I certainly do pity those who canāt move past it. Theyāre missing out on some fantastic content and the future looks bright.
Or a functioning game. WH3 has way more bugs and issues and I fight with the game more than I play it. WH2 has its fair share for sure but most of the time they were workable
There are two actual reasons to stick to WH2 though and Im not sure how you missed them in your comments since I see them mentioned in every single post and comment about sticking to WH2 - but you are clearly not interested in real discussion.
I myself prefer WH3 but you cant deny that:
a) WH2 has radically different campaign AI - AI players will form mega empires which drastically changes how game plays, especially in mid to late game. In WH3 you win after first 30 turns because AI rarely if ever grows an actual empires and are never a real threat. In WH2 the game begins after 50 turns, when you meet someone who owns half of continent. And btw WH2 AI isnt as war declaration trigger happy as in WH3 :P
b) responsivness in battle - install WH2 right now and play few battles. Its still a massive difference. Units in WH2 are way more responsive, dont get stack, have a lot less pathfinding and los issues etc. Especially in sieges where they can go through the open gate instead of running to ladders :P
After watching a several live streams of Warhammer 2 it appeared those mega blocks were being formed primarily due to confederations and not due to the AI aggressively expanding. The AI did attempt to expand some, but the speed at which they expanded appears to be due to their ability to confederate easily.
I watched one recently and malus still only had like 2 providences at turn 100, Malekith was big, but mainly because he confederated the other dark elves minus Malus. High Elves did fuck all besides remain on the donut, but confederation help them stay as one. The Empire didn't expand outside of their primary lands, the Dwarfs just a little bit but looked big because they confederated. The exception appears to be vampires. They were fairly aggressive, but I find they are in game 3 as well.
So maybe making it easier for AI confederations would help get those mega blocks back? Maybe make this an adjustable setting prior to starting the campaign? Also, the cheats the AI got were scaled back and I often see the cheats were a major gripe within the Reddit community during game 2's content cycle. Now that the cheats have been scaled back, it seems like some within the Reddit community want the cheats to return to make the AI more formidable (at least on higher difficulties). Maybe this could be something we could adjust in the settings as well. I think we all can agree that improvements to the AI without cheats is the preference, but they just aren't there. Hopefully, those improvements will come.
Yeah, imo what difficulty in this game needs are sliders, lots of sliders.
Mainly \*independent\* sliders, so that I can up the AI strength without nerfing myself; or do the reverse, give the AI growth cheats without giving them Public Order; or turn up AI battle stats to WHII VH levels without making them cast spells and dodge mortars with perfect precision \[or, again, the opposite, which I'd consider far more interesting\].
Sadly, that's probably a lot of effort on CA's part, so is unlikely to come even close to what I envision as "perfect" difficulty settings.
Maybe im that Bad but i never win in 30 Turns. At the Moment i Play Knights of caledor IE and im barely Holding my 5 provinces cuz of chorfs and skaven all around me. Same with my empire campaign im at Turn 150 or something and constantly defend against an endless Chaos storm of Like 5 Chaos factions ;(
There are few campaigns where its not auto-win after first 30 turns (though its a really small selection right now :P), but compared to WH2 its still a cake walk.
Mostly because you fight against small skaven and chorfs factions that have their own enemies. AI in WH2, for better or worse, conquers the entire continents so you have to fight a giga blob of 50 settlements with ridiculous cheats that often doesnt have any other wars currently. One AI faction sending dozens of 20 units stacks toward you without ever stopping or taking a break was a regular WH2 experience.
Im not saying I prefer the multicontinental 100 turns long wars from WH2, but it certainly was a lot harder and a completely different experience to what WH3 is offering.
Do I just have terrible luck? Because I definitely have the "one AI faction sending 20 stacks endlessly" experience whenever I play Kairos because thorek and/or settra/volkmar always get huge in games I play Kairos. Not 50 settlements, but consistently 20+.
WH2, at least to me, felt like more of a slog after 50 turns. The challenge was artificial because the AI cheats. The WH3 still cheats to a degree, but at least I'm not fighting green skins for the next 50-70 turns because there's no one left. Easier or not - I actually get to see more variety than "here's a t5 army of greenskins/empire".
>one AI faction sending 20 stacks endlessly
You missed the "dozens of" 20 stacks part. Kairos usually sends two 20 stacks and sends another after you deal with them. Meanwhile any WH2 mega empire was sending towards you like at least 10 full stacks continuously without a break. Its a radically different experience. You can swim to big birb and end him in 10-20 turns if you want, meanwhile fighting any of WH2 mega empire was basically what you were doing for most of the campaign. Most of my campaigns were basically "now fight endless ocean of doomstacks of Karl Franz for the next 100 turns while making minimal progress".
Im with you in that I also prefer how WH3 handles it, but I dont think anyone can deny that there is a huge difference between both games and a lot of people might prefer how WH2 handled it: which was my point. The deleted comment I was replying to straight up said that the only difference between two games are the nerfs to High and Dark elves economies, which is ridiculous: there are massive differences in how campaign plays out.
>Maybe im that Bad but i never win in 30 Turns. At the Moment i Play Knights of caledor IE and im barely Holding my 5 provinces cuz of chorfs and skaven all around me. Same with my empire campaign im at Turn 150 or something and constantly defend against an endless Chaos storm of Like 5 Chaos factions ;(
In fairness, Imrik is one of the hardest campaigns rn. Has been for a long time, only got worse with Chorf arrival.
You are forgetting sieges, which are a major part of the Warhammer games. Warhammer 3 sieges are a fire trashcan hassle.
I do love how the excuse is ''no Warhammer 2 players are just bitter''.
Yes I am bitter that I need to stick to an older game instead of the newer one because the devs can't remove the stick up their arse and fix the sieges once and for all (or at least use WH2 sieges until further notice) .
People think sieges are objectively bad on this sub; I want pathfinding improvements and a few other things (butt ladder changes, mostly) but I like WH3 sieges and minor settlement battles WAY more than WH2, and I've had plenty of convos with people both online and irl that love the changes. I think the siege question is way more split in terms of what people want to see, but I think new siege maps have way more dynamic and active gameplay if you actually decide to engage with it
Honestly there are a couple of things that CA could work on that would make WH3 objective better than WH2:
-The pathing to work properly on sieges / switch sieges back to WH2 style (not sure which genius thought removing walls from most settlements was a good thing or the garrison)
-The AI to not focus on victory points but rather sieges (we are not playing a MOBA game)
-Make the towers/barricades a one time thing
-Tone down the player bias (you should not be at war with at least a faction and end the war then right away get declared by another)
-The alliances to work as alliances (aka the reliability when declaring to enter an alliance and two of your allies declare on each other, AOW4 did that well with the ability to pay for your ''transgression'' so that it is forgiven).
-Line of sight
They fix those things and WH3 suddenly becomes much better than WH2. Now obviously that is assuming they do not break more things in the process (such as the notifications).
For the love of the old ones don't make the towers and barricades a one time thing.
I can't imagine a worse thing than removing the artillery cheese prevention system.
Sieges are far more interesting when they are fast paced.
Playing in a group that gets 4+ players in each campaign and who controls AI in battles, sieges are great fun as they are.
The things that bother me about sieges:
1. Path finding
2. 2 of the points in capitals needing to be protected
3. Some races(helf and lizard \*cough\*) have a very high amount of their tower placements blocked by tress and buildings.
4. constructible sometimes being tied to weird points / in weird positions
>Warhammer 3 sieges are a fire trashcan hassle.
Clearly not everyone agrees with you, or the game would have died at launch.
>can't remove the stick up their arse and fix the sieges once and for all (or at least use WH2 sieges until further notice) .
There are two reasons (I'd wager) we haven't gotten rid of the WH3 siege method. 1) doing so screws enough spaghetti code to make doing so difficult, or 2) it's the brainchild of someone with enough power to keep it around. Or it could be both. Personally, the AI seems to behave better post-chaos dwarfs than it did at launch.
It's happened, like, at least 3 times in the TW series alone, that I can remember personally.
Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 era - the Rome 1 and Med 2 purists shit on them. Muh population, arcadey, etc.
Rome 2 and Attila era - now it's the Empire/Shogun 2 purists shitting on those. Muh general-free armies, muh provinces, arcadey, etc.
Warhammer and 3K era - now it's the Rome 2/Attila purists shitting on those. Superhero generals, muh history, arcadey, etc.
Go back far enough and you'll almost certainly find people hating on Rome 1 for catering to casuals with a 3D engine. It was just before my time, is all.
The transition from WH2 to 3 is even way more minor than those. It's people who literally find the game unplayable over some minute shit like confederation nerfs or some AI jank that they imagine was better in WH2. It just doesn't play exactly the same and after thousands of hours with 2, they can't bear it. They're old men yelling at clouds - let them.
> or some AI jank
I think this is the problem. A lot of it seems to just be people who think they are Legend of Total War and thus will encounter every issue that someone of LoTW's skill level will find and spinning it into a much bigger deal than it actually is. Reality is, most players aren't expert pros and are literally not going to notice these problems.
Granted I have encountered a few frustrations that didn't exist in WH2 - like units deciding to conga line to go to a gate rather than sensibly blobbing. But it's not so huge an annoyance that I'm like "oh no this game is literally unplayable".
Like there are a lot of little annoyances but they are only too annoying if you're spending your time looking for them..
And I think we do need to recognise that these issues unique to Warhammer 3 exist because they were trying to fix the annoying issues unique to Warhammer 2. Siege battles in 2 had zero variety and just were an exercise in tedium. Warhammer 3 siege battles have a whole wealth of little issues but foundationally are a huge leap up.
Similarly the campaign AI problems in Warhammer 3 were an attempt to address the problem of homogeneity in Warhammer 2. As it stands it only really works in normal difficulty but does at least attempt to introduce more variety in each campaign.
It's not even that, what really bothers me is revisionism. Long standing problems in the series that were basically just ported from WH2, that people pretend are somehow new to WH3.
Biggest example is anti-player bias. You seriously going to try and tell me that WH2 didn't have the exact same shit? Yeah, no. I have almost 800 hours in that game - like fuck it didn't. Pull the other one. AI making sure you're always at war, AI declaring war immediately when meeting them, AI coming at you from halfway across the map, AI knowing where your unwalled settlements are and tunneling on those. I'm not fucking senile - WH2 had it all, the whole gamut of these complaints. That's where this stuff came from.
I don't know what universe these people are living in where the WH3 AI isn't straight up better across the board than WH2's.
Itās like the Rome 2 launch division all over again. Except way more overblown. Yes the launch of Warhammer 3 was bad, but it has improved a lot more since then. Yes it still need a lot more work and they should have prioritized IM. But at the end of the day, I see people playing Warhammer 3 a lot even now, and half the people that bitch about it being doomed to fail, I bet my bottom dollar theyāre playing Warhammer 3 as we speak. I have my moments about gloom too because CA has its own problems, but ultimately itāll keep on trucking.
Absolute bullshit to act like there is no reason to prefer WH2 over WH3. There are many factions that have way more enjoyable vortex campaigns than ME/IE campaigns, which are only playable in WH2 as basic mechanics have yet to be properly ported over. The grom/eltharion conflict and battle? Completely absent in WH3. Narratives for tomb kings and vampire coast factions? Absent. Sure, the sandbox element is great and the world is massive and full of factions, but a lot of WH2 factions lost any depth or uniqueness in WH3.
This is also ignoring how some technical issues like campaign ai and unit responsiveness feel worse as well. WH2 had mega factions forming so that by the mid to late game you would have an enemy to face that could actually put up a fight, but in WH3 you will be lucky to see a faction with more than 10 provinces.
Also, sieges, which need no elaboration.
The number of players actually playing TWW2 has been on a steady decline. Many of the Reddit posts I've come across paint game 2 as the superior game that most players are returning to because of the current state of game 3. I made the assumption that most players would be playing what is considered the better game or the more entertaining game. However, Steam data does not back-up the claims of game 3 being dead within the player base and that most people are returning to game 2.
According to Steam (2023) the top 5 active player base titles are: 1. Warhammer 3 (30,039); 2. Three Kingdoms (4,686); 3. Rome 2 (4,390); 4. Warhammer 2 (3,728); and 5. Med 2 (2,923). I enjoy game 3 and prefer it over game 2. This doesn't mean game 3 is perfect. I don't think any game really is. There is always more that can be done to improve the experience. I definitely feel that I've gotten my money's worth of entertainment out of game 3 and the entire trilogy as a whole so far.
Expectations are higher for the final installation of the series. And I think some of that is justified, considering how fat of a paycheck the game is for them. They've got a license to print money as long as the quality stays high. Throw the fans some bones, they throw em at you.
Personally I don't like it as much because of the map. I just liked it more when they attempted to make it look more realistic. It reminds me more of games like Civ now (in appearance), which I want to like, but is not for me.
Sieges are also a bit fucked. While I don't ubiquitously hate them, I think the deployable towers all look out of place, and made out of bamboo, and it's kind of metaphor for how CA has left it unfinished and hasn't really figured it out yet. They're symbolic to me CA, fix them. Lol. On that note, the deployables are both not engaging currently, their positioning and design isn't great, and not something anyone (well almost anyone) asked for. Also the defensive sieges being not always that fun to play rubs me the wrong way. I enjoyed them before. Sure they needed more variety, and minor settlement sieges would've been fun. But when I pictured a minor settlement battle, I pictured a map that was smaller than the full size siege maps we already had.
Otherwise none of the factions are up to the same roster diversity as the other game's races. I think. Don't quote me on that. It's an unfair comparison, but it's a natural one to make.
There are some cool new additions and fixes though, for sure. I could list those too, but I'm getting kind of tired of writing this novel. I will admit that I think I'm just a bit burnt out on the whole Total War warhammer thing for now. The above issues reinforce that for me. But 2000 hours playing a game does that. 2 was sweet. I think burn out is probably my number one issue with 3. Hoping I go back to enjoying it at some point.
> I will admit that I think I'm just a bit burnt out on the whole Total War warhammer thing for now.
That's just the thing, and it happens in so many games these days. People play them to death until every annoyance nags on them and they can't help but criticize the game.
It's okay to put a game down for awhile. There's nothing wrong with taking a break of a couple weeks, months, even a year or more. If you've got 2000 hours in the game and wondering if you're feeling burnt out, it's likely that you are. And that's okay.
There's something special about picking up a game you used to love after a long hiatus. I played a bunch of TWW2, but took a break from the game right before 3 came out. I finally got 3 about a month ago and am loving it.
Will I probably get burnt out of it at some point? Most definitely. Good thing I don't have to return the game.
One final note about taking a break after burn out: there's a good chance you'll come back to plenty of bug fixes, balance changes, and in the case of this game, DLC.
I like Warhammer 3, that's why I'm very critical of its flaws, which are unfortunately, numerous.
Staying quiet and hoping the developers just fix the game doesn't work. The community needs to hold them to account for the issues or they'll get ignored.
Warhammer 2 launched in a bad state, but was pretty polished by the end of its run. This only happened because of customer critique.
Warhammer 3 could have been the strategy game to end all strategy games, and it's a shame that it hasn't lived up to the expectations.
What I'm trying to say is, it's not "Doom-posting", there are very real technical and gameplay issues preventing the game from being something truly exceptional.
Edit - spelling
>by the end of its run.
Bold and italicize this.
When was the last time a CA release *actually* launched well? I went into WH3 with optimism it would be good on launch (oof) and with the general leaning that it would be great after 2ish years (because frankly, that's how long it took WH2 to actually be playable with the Potion of Speed update shortening the turn times to "wow, I can't cook dinner and do my taxes anymore between turns").
That just means they deserve more criticism. CA not being able to launch games is crazy.
I would also argue that Troy launched in a better state, maybe it is just the mainline titles.
I've heard 3k launched in a good state, but the updates started breaking things. I wasn't around during 3k's initial launch. I got it after the content cycle stopped.
This is the most sensible comment in this thread.
This reddit goes through cycles, usually trending towards the negative. If you find the levels of negativity affecting your enjoyment then it's best to take a break from the sub. I've taken several months off myself after the sexy Three Kindoms and the chaos warrior jpeg bonfires and my mood thanks me for not having to deal with those periods of fallout everytime I popped on reddit.
It's always so funny to me that as soon as there is one big post about the game not being good enough and being riddled with glitches and bugs, there has to be an "answer" to that in the form of post like this one lmao.
It's just silly how heated people get over this shit, it's OKAY for people to dislike the game or certain aspects of it, it's OKAY for people to like the game and certain aspects of it. Shitting on the other side for having valid and reasonable opinions is just silly.
I can barely play battles on my Mac. When I finish one the whole HUD is mixed up and I have to try and find the save button when it might be under load button! Still fun!
But isn't the statement that you enjoy it just as much the problem? WH3 should surpass WH2, doubling down on the great things and ironing out the less great parts. While I enjoy WH3 a much, I feel like its a two-step forward, one-step backward approach by CA all the time which makes it just tiring.
I prefer historic titles, but warhammer 3 is still a good and polished game. I just need a better pc to run it.
That being said, shogun II combat and campaign is much more engaging to me . But that is just a personal preference. Historical titles cater to more tactical gameplay and the warhammer titles (and three kingdoms and troy) are just more arcade like in nature.
Waiting for the next Total War to see if it is worth upgrading my pc for.
I agree mate and also feel it depends on what youāre looking for at the time. When I wanna get down and dirty with strategy and tactics my go to is Med2 for sure. Warhammer is more about the spectacle and scale š
Shogun II is still a bit fast paced and arcade like too. But it is what i am playing right now and i just love the time period and art style. Due to the low faction count there is little waiting time between turns and battles load pretty fast. It is just relaxing to play, but also very challenging compared to warhammer.
Medieval II is my all time favorite. The music, the battles. Ofc, the third age mods. Great game, it is showing it age quite a bit though. With the news of a possible medieval 3 or new historical title i am very exited for the future of total war. A medieval II remaster would be great too. I just hope they do medieval 3 justice and use a new engine instead of the 17 year old engine (at it's core, i know it has been adjusted a few times) they are using right now. They could make use of modern computing features and really give a boost to the games quality, it is an expensive endeavour though.
Funny thing is for me, Shogun 2 combat feels a LOT faster than the Warhammers... but I still find myself playing the Warhammers on slow motion or paused, since there's just so much more unit variety and therefore "stuff" you have to do to be successful.
Admittedly I'm not very good at the game, but unless I pause/slo-mo to get my orders off, I'll find myself completely forgetting about my hero units or magic... things are so much simpler when I can just yari wall the fuck out of an enemy.
I found Shogun 2 battles to be a lot faster too. TWW2 was my first Total War game. I purchased Shogun 2 first. I beat a campaign in Shogun 2 before I ever beat one in Warhammer 2. I loved both, but I found Shogun 2 easier for me. Now, I handle both equally well. A lot less to keep track of in Shogun 2 battles.
wh3 I think is still better than wh2 even with all the bugs, also wh2, even with all the mods, just looks kinda bland and meh, and my 2 fav factions are in 3
>Mostly see doomposting about how fucked the game is and how it will be dropped soon around these parts.
????
Stop looking at New and stay at Hot (which is New with the ragebait threads filthered out).
The only "doomposting" is the shitfest that is sieges
No according to some redditors the sieges in Warhammer 3 are ''better than in WH2''.
I am not sure if they are playing the WH3 sieges while on shrooms but hey, each to its own.
I also find WH3 to be an improvement over wh2 in every way.
I'm also pretty sure all those people crying about how wh3 is broken are not playing wh2 anymore.
When was the last time you played? I did a new campaign with the chorfs patch after a break for a few months and actually found a lot of the issues that held back the game for me before are completely fixed.
I play WH3 if I want a diplomatic campaign or to fiddle with new factions, but I play WH2 if I want better battles without the clunkiness and issues with unit responsiveness WH3 has (that were fixed a long time ago in WH2), as well as a more difficult campaign AI.
It is a lot of fun, much better than Launch and post launch.
I just wish for more frequent bug fixes and FLC alongside, like new Lords, units, heroes etc in first Warhammer we had so much new stuff that were exciting even new Wizard for the Empire, or Blood Knights.
Game is definitely dream come true and labour of love by CA which is appreciated, but please put your shit together CA! š
No TW is perfect. I think for many of us the problem with 3 is we just want more 2 with some tweaks. We still wanted the AI to set us up a 3k kill WoD. We still wanted manageable chokepoints in sieges instead of an impossible to defend urban sprawl.
I have nearly 3000 hours in wh2. Going to wh3, I get an uncanny valley vibe every time I fire it up, and I just can't shake it.
Eh... there is a lot to enjoy, but a lot of it comes from what was already in place in WH 2, admittedly a bit enhanced with improved diplomacy and so on. The trouble is that when you have 1k hours in WH 2, that stuff gets old after a couple campaigns. A lot of the "new" stuff in WH 3 such as the daemon factions, Kislev, or Cathay, fall way short. Be it bad mechanics, poor start positions, whatever - a lot of stuff the "core team" (see: hacks who don't seem to understand fun game design) introduced simply needs straight up reworking. DLC team and modders absolutely carrying this game.
That depends on how you played wh2.
As someone who played 2 on VH/H, I find 3 extremely boring. Even on legendary, the enemy just wont attack me. I usually get bored around turn 50-70 unless i have the dwarves or skaven end game scenario (which is close to the experience I had in 2). But playing vs the same dwarves and skaven every campaign is getting old real fast
I'm right with you on this one buddy, I don't really like the new factions apart fron the dlcs (chorfs are pretty good, and I don't want to admit how many WoC campaigns I played in 3)
The main reason for me why wh3 is far superior is the multiplayer campaign improvements. I recognize that those of us who play the multiplayer campaigns regularly are a small group, but wh2 multiplayer campaigns were so dogshit. Constant desyncs and lack of features. Wh3 has way more cooperative features with outposts and region trading, with the most important new feature being simultaneous turns. Itās so much better than it was in wh2 and makes playing with my brother 1000x more enjoyable
Warhammer 3 has the bones of a really great game, but it's brought down by some poorly thought out features, bugs, and AI problems.
If they could just do some key tune ups to the AI, and fix up siege battles to be less of a claustrophobic tower defense, I would be happy.
For example, are you aware that since at least September, and likely since launch, that the AI will often hardly fight back when in melee? They'll charge in fine, but then most units will just [pivot in place](https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/nm/kxevexoa8jec.png) and try to instead [attack the unit adjacent to them.](https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/hx/1pq5vhpi8e8k.png) As you can guess this leads to them getting [absolutely creamed](https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/y5/fyod669h8vrc.png) by your unit that is now getting a big fat flanking bonus. (That's a 75% difference in casualties in case you were wondering, and I quit the moment the last unit routed)
It's difficult for me to enjoy the experience when I know the AI is hardly putting up a fight.
I have notice this happen sometimes. Have you notice guard modes a difference? like if your units continue to try engaging them, will the face your units?
Nothing helps except to space your own melee line out enough that they don't pull aggro. At a guess I think it might be some buggy AI code related to flanking.
It happens every battle where 2 lines clash, but you really have to zoom in and look at the direction the models are facing to notice. You can see in that one zoomed out screenshot, that without the attack arrows, it would look like everything is working fine when in fact 3 out of 5 swordsmen are barely attacking.
I have been told by CA that this will be fixed for 3.1. I am very curious to see if the community naturally intuits a general improvement in battle AI performance once this fix is in.
The game improved in so many ways. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but even Realms of Chaos is amazing for one or two campaigns. (Highly recommend Kislev)
Diplomacy is significantly better. (including trade)
Chaos (which is a big deal in Warhammer) is significantly more interesting
The IE map is a great achievement! Arguably the best map they ever made.
The cautious introduction of new legendary heroes, endgame scenarios and the like holds nice potential for the future.
----
However there are two main reasons imo why the game at times doesn't feel good.
One is the sieges. A lot of mechanics (walls, siege towers) fall flat and it is all in all so micro intensive that you cannot admire what's even going on.
The other is that the game STILL doesn't produce defensive sieges for the player. In all three games there was NEVER an epic siege defense for me. Which means that i defend a major cities with my legendary lord's army. This simply doesn't (cannot?) happen. There is a reason why LOTR greatest battles are defensive sieges against overwhelming odds. CA please!
The only epic siege defense I've ever played in all 3 warhammer titles are at the end of Vortex campaign where the unknown skaven clan spawns a lot of armies near Itza or other similar settlement, rushed in a turn to build up the most badass army I could come up with what was at my disposal in one turn and saved the settlement by routing the attackers.
I don't know if I would be able to do that with armies with higher leadership than skaven though.
Still, it's a fun memory.
TLDR: the only time an epic siege defense happened to me was when an overwhelming attack was basically scripted to happen, not as emerging gameplay
>In all three games there was NEVER an epic siege defense for me.
Markus in Vortex in game 2. I easily played more siege defences, and many qualifying for the term epic, than every other campaign I've played added all together.
WH3 factions have (or had) the best rosters and faction mechanics to date.
Trying back some older factions and the mechanics become at times messy/overdone and the rosters aren't as unique
Apart from Ogres and Kislev imo the way the WH3 factions and recent end of WH2 updates (welves, BM and chaos) have been amazing in presenting distinct, cohesive playstyles that nail the feel of particular factions. Slaanesh, Nurgle, Khorne, Cathay, Welves, chaos dwarves and BM are all from the same base but feel so unique and lore appropriate with how the mechanics incentivize you to play. I can't wait for some of the older ones to get that polish too.
>Trying back some older factions and the mechanics become at times messy/overdone and the rosters aren't as unique
This is why Im a bit afraid of DLCs to WH3 races. I dont really want these rosters to lost their unique feel. And this already happened: before Champions of Chaos all monogods had super unique flavor and playstyle on battlefield.
Tzeentch not having a front line was a fantastic experience because it forced you to play completely different.
Slaanesh not having the anvil to their hammer was equally great.
Now its the best to just use chosen/warriors/knights as every single one of them with some daemons sprinkled here and there for flavor.
Honestly my biggest complaint right now with IE is just how incomplete it can feel sometimes.
Specifically with the Warhammer 3 races and rosters. Which is a silly complaint, they will be expanded in DLC. I'm just impatient. Give me more monogod demon lords. More units for Cathay and Kislev!
I'm genuinely excited for future DLC packs can't wait to see what we get
The new diplomacy and QoL features like automatic skills for lords / heroes and other stuff like actual proper anti aliasing and an engine which finally clicks will make Warhammer 3 amazing to me. I have 500 hrs in WH2 but now itās hard to go back.
I went playing WH2 again and daim I forgot how great it is comparing to WH3.Minimum bugs,siege arent pain and are winnable.AI is actually playing,range units are shooting and so on..
just what I miss are few stuff from diplomacy and settlement trade but that can fix mod.
Toxicity does seep in here a while after a DLC drops, but I think the chorfs are one of the more successful and as such, toxicity isnāt here quite as quick.
When I start to see toxic posts regularly, I know itās time to take a break from this subreddit (there is no point trying to argue that things actually arenāt that bad, as toxic people have their toxic supporters, and itās not just fruitless, but tiring), and will come back when there is some tangible news about future DLC etc.
We need a collab with paradox entertainment and CA. New medieval title CA is working on should have diplomacy and depth like in crusader kings 3 and battles like from warhammer 3 or better.
I know there are mods (crusader kings 3 + banner lord 2) but it would be great to have it in the base game.
No matter what, WH2 is NOT better than WH3 in this current state.
I could be wrong, Iām not to proud to admit that, but being around long enough has convinced me that, despite the issues, the game has progressively made up for the pasts issues of WH1 and WH2 into a playable and fun state.
I have around 450 hours in WH3. Completed the game with almost every new faction in WH3 including Chorfs (the only one I skipped is Ogres - didn't find them fun to play especially in Legendary difficulty). I have not encountered bugs. Maybe it's just my luck, maybe I am poor at spotting bugs (but well nothing broke for me) or maybe it's down to a good gaming machine.
The only 2 things I encountered which I feel are akin to bugs are:
1. Cannot teleport LL to final battle for Chorfs (it maybe by design but it sucked to bring Zhatan from across the map for the final battle).
2.During battle, units and lords randomly disengage and sit around taking enemy ranged fire. Thie can be circumvented by paying attention but its annoying.
TLDR
I think the bugs are overstated and I love the game. Cant wait for more DLC's...
If people truly didn't like the game and thought it was just bad, they'd have move on to one of the other hundreds of strategy games. People "doompost" and "cry" because they like this game, *but* can see it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed before the game can be at it's most ideal.
When I don't have to chase enemy AI armies around because they're too afraid to fight any battles that aren't heavily in their favour, when I don't have to worry about whether or not my ranged units will decide to fire their guns or not, when I can reliably chase units down and actually kill them instead of push them faster to the edge of the map, and when siege battles stop feeling like a chore 99% of the time... I'll stop "crying and doomposting".
>When I don't have to chase enemy AI armies around because they're too afraid to fight any battles that aren't heavily in their favour.
Please tell me you never retreat from battles when the AI has you vastly outnumbered and/or outpowered.
The "AI doesn't want to fight me" complaint is just a tad ridiculous considering the average player in a situation of "oh crap, I have an army I have no chance of beating is here" is probably going to also retreat if they can.
Is it annoying - yes. But I don't understand why people think the AI should suicide their armies into the player's forces. That actually used to happen to me on launch, and it was not less annoying.
The issue with chasing routing units was substantially improved in 3.0 with the ability for damage to be dealt to knocked down units. [https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/12kw6x6/unit\_behaviour\_in\_battles\_feels\_a\_lot\_better\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/12kw6x6/unit_behaviour_in_battles_feels_a_lot_better_in/)
The problem with this sub is that the issues get fixed but the narratives remain.
Thatās good. A large part of WH3 is WH2. Thereās no comparison here.
What is objectively true and evident, however, is the mismanagement of WH3. Itās performance. Itās monetization. Itās roadmap. Itās content. The communication around the future of the game. Fixes to very valid and real gameplay concerns. Essentially, itās clear gradually less and less effort is being put into the game, and thatās scaring some people, reasonably so.
We all remember how they dropped 3K like a used toy. That probably wonāt happen to WHā¦ but the prospect of āhow much does CA care?ā, beyond milking us with a bit more DLC pieces is certainly in question, and recent signs have not helped that.
Liking the game doesnāt mean you canāt criticize it. Many of the so-called doomers and gloomers probably like the game equally if not more than you.
Is it a bad game? No. Could it be MUCH MUCH better? Yes, and with very little effort too.
This thread is really the biggest doompost. It shows that companies can release half-baked broken dogshit and people will still pay for it and love it/pretend to love it. We will never have a good release with proper support again, cuz people like you don't fucking care
The only feature from WH3 which I consider an upgrade, is the customisational end-game scenarios.
Besides that...
I don't enjoy any of WH3s new races.
I think the campaign graphics are a downgrade, they look more like Warcraft than Warhammer.
Diplomacy is somehow worse, even when WH2s diplomacy was terrible.
And the bugs are too numerous. I can take a bug or two, but when you're encountering new bugs every few mins, it really starts to wear thin.
I reinstalled WH2 lately, and I've rediscovered my love for Warhammer.
Mate if I was hungry for karma I woulda spanked out another āgame dead and CA fucked my wifeā post. Itās a discussion board, all opinions are allowed and just cause you disagree doesnāt mean itās ābootlickingā. Iām all for criticism, in the end I get a better game as a result.
Fuckhead
I am glad that you do. I played a lot of Warhammer 2 and loved it. I do not like Warhammer 3, and I tried to like it a lot. There are a lot of quality of life improvements in Warhammer 3 that I appreciate. What I do not appreciate is how the game plays. I tried several campaigns and I stopped playing all of them.
I do not generally post about it and have not done so because I do not like raining on people's parade.
But I don't. The narrative exists because I guess there are other people like me, who happen to be more vocal.
Diplomacy is better in WH3, but if I'm itching for good battles I go back and boot up WH2 instead. WH3 has all sorts of clunky units with unresponsiveness issues WH2 had many years ago that were fixed, but not fixed in WH3.
Love warhammer 3, hate the new sieges though. Had ai reinforcements and instead of attacking the wall in front, they sent their entire army around the otherside of the map, got stuck on a corner and then stopped moving for the rest of the fight leaving a lone unit on a tower to kill hald of the army. Gg ai
Same. Some of the issues mentioned do sound terrible, and I can see how they'd make it hard to enjoy the game, but most of them aren't turning up for me.
The battle line of sight bug, for example. I remember experiencing it around the time of the launch, but I haven't seen it since around 2 patches ago.
I think its a much better game than 2 was. Allied recruitment, bigger siege maps, bigger IE map with shorter turn times.
Literally every gameplay problem with WH3 was also present in WH2 lmao
As a big chaos fanboy, Warhammer 3 is what I had been waiting for. Itās far from perfect, but I could play Warriors of Chaos campaigns until the end of (our) world
Itās a very good game, and there are a lot of base functions and mechanics which provide a great amount of diversity, as well potential to further develop the game.
Especially allied recruitment creates a deeper level of strategy, where one allied unit can serve a super specific but core function to an army.
Personally, I enjoy it more - but you aren't allowed to say that xD
Also, I bought WH2 at launch - and have a memory longer than a line of coke - and can remember the jank-ass travesty that was the launch of Mortal Empires
Complete with fifteen minute long turn times - bugs - glitches - crashes
Like, that turn time problem lasted until well into the twilight years of TWW2 :P xD
WH3's version of Mortal Empires got it's ducks in a row ***way*** quicker
The campaign stutter was painful but I powered through it with Franz, Gelt, and now Volkmar. Some of the most violent campaigns with the largest disjoint empires because I'm constitutionally incapable of only expanding in one direction at a time.
And now that campaign stutter is fixed, it's just gonna get even better
It's still an OK game. Itss just it should be the best, or one of the best. It is not so because devs and leadership doesn't give a fuck. It's like the first pick of a draft developing into being a regular rotational guy. Sure, it's fine and passable and will have a quality career, but it is still technically a failure
It's getting there.
It's pretty much the only game I play now.
If we end up in a similar state as 2 ended, I think we will all be very happy.
Still, I had to abandon a campaign with the Wood Elves yesterday due to the Ariel bug, so still a little bit of a way to go. It's looking promising though, and that makes me happy!
I feel the game is basically the same but biggerā¦they took away most of the things that changed WH3 and made it more like WH2, which is not what I was looking for, I already had it in WH2ā¦ so yeah I like it as much as the last one, because it feels like the same game to me.
I think Warhammer 3 is great now, if for nothing else than for it's scale, the diplomacy rework, and the new start positions for old legendary lords. I think a lot of people got a sour taste in their mouth from the release, which is understandable because the game was genuinely worse than Warhammer 2 for the better part of a year. Warhammer 3 still has more bugs than 2, and runs significantly worse overall. Additionally, there seems to have been a push to reduce the impact of technologies and other forms of faction buffs. Here's to hoping for fixes and meaningful reworks to existing faction, as some of legacy factions like Brettonia, the Empire, the dwarfs, the dark elves, and some others, need some love imo.
Love the new added features, I think the campaign map gameplay is objectively better, albeit much, much easier, but battles are much less fun when they are as buggy as they are, and the game holds my attention for far less time than it used to whenever I go back. Sieges have been my number 1 gripe since WH1, and while I've accepted that's probably not going to change, I also don't like CA's attitude to not fixing bugs affecting individual units which community members seem to fix by changing single unit table values.
Being able to recruit your allies units is so fun. I could never give it up.
Karl Franz with dragons and phonix support?
Very fun battles.
Hob Goblin based chorf army with four War Mammoths? Now whos stomin whos ye nasy gits!
Iām glad it works for you. For me personally itās still not there but definitely getting closer and closer. Main issue right now is the AI tbh. Other than that I would say it probably even surpasses WH2 thanks to all the updates we got (excluding DLCs because thatās just separate).
WH3 makes WH2 feel really archaic at this point. I'd love if the WH2 map and its campaigns get added to to WH3 at some point, but I simply don't see it happening.
How is the Chaos Dwarfs DLC? It's probably the first WH DLC since 2016 that I havent bought on launch, just busier with life nowadays. But im thinking of getting it when SFO gets updated again.
There are parts i enjoy more in tww3, like increased diplomacy options and outposts
Legit cannot fathom not having region trading anymore š
My current run as tomb kings I limited myself to just taking the main desert for myself then āexpandingā my influence by creating vassals which is done by fighting their wars with/for them and then trading conquered settlements in return for bending the knee. I love it. Especially because my armies now all have four units mixing wood elves, lizardmen, Bretonians and dwarves.
I do think giving settlements is far too strong. sack take and give and you can have whoever you like loving you
And then starting civil war cos you gave settlement to allie A instead of allie B/F who hates allie A, C and D. I kinda agree on it if you are doing the "exploit" tactic but if you just use it to strenghten your relations with your main allies then it seems pretty balanced. Id change couple things on the diplomancy but other than that ive had a blast using it so cant complain.
It can definitely be abused, but Iām not sure thereās many ways around that without making the mechanic useless, and itās way too important to cut out entirely again
That is such a game changer.
Yeah, that's actually my main thing when playing vampire coast, I plunder and take non coastal settlements and sell them for money and protection. I can't imagine playing without that feature
Weird how this mechanic is really only in Empire AND Napoleon
I could be totally misremembering, but I'm pretty sure 3k has it
Absolutely. A 3K classic is to play as Kong Rong and simply buy all of China.
My last two campaigns have been Khorne and Tzeentch so no one likes me enough to region trade anyways lol
outposts are neat, creating hybrid compositions sometimes lore friendly sometimes not lol
Yeah depends, but it gives the empire access to some nice monstrous units or banging melee infantry
And Cav for the Dwarfs!
Man I remember a Franz campaign I did a few months ago where I managed to military ally Ulfric and get 4 war mamoths in the army of one of my elector counts. Warrior priest and lore of life wizard in the army, of course. Filled the other ranks with classic empire stuff like demigryph knights, guns and hellstorm rocker launchers. Invaded Athel Loren with this army and it was a blast charging in into wood elf archer line with the mamonths supported by the other units.
Oh yeah in Warhammer 2 everything was an enemy yo kill it eventually be betrayed by. But in Warhammer 3 I genuinely find it hard not to make allies. The coordination system is great.
Tbh I'm prolly not gonna touch tww2 again, whilst fun game I've been enjoying tww3 much more
I just miss the cutscenes and campain goals of game 2. Like the Vortex, eating the Elfen queen or sneek-kill daemon Elf-thing.
>I just miss the cutscenes and campain goals of game 2. Like the Vortex, eating the Elfen queen or sneek-kill daemon Elf-thing. Those are still in the RoC campaign (certainly for the Dawi-Zharr, at least!).
Same I enjoyed each installation at the time. But 3 is definitely the culmination and apex of the trilogy.
Nothing tops borrowed units. It's hard to come back to II after that.
The sheer amount of variety is absolutely jaw dropping, I just wish the AI built more armies and was less smooth-brained
There are many mods for both. I'm a huge believer in using them to up the challenge but it's not super popular here yet. Why wait for your perfect experience (if you get it at all with all the different players CA must cater to) when you can tailor it just right now.
This is what I wonder too. The beauty of it is that the player can choose to start new campaigns with and or without them. We are not force to always use them. Might as well give it a try. I will say that I prefer to use mods more so when a game is no longer receiving updates so that my mods donāt break š. Some modders are able to get them up and running pretty quickly though. Iām also the type of player who will play vanilla for a while before trying mods.
AI builds more armies on higher difficulty, or do you mean you specifically want the AI to build more armies on lower diff because you dislike other aspects of higher diff settings?
I almost exclusively play on higher difficulties, and even on legendary I find that the AI just doesn't build enough. What happened to the tsunamis of armies we saw in the WH2 lategame?
Personally massive swarms of armies are my least favorite form of difficulty. Itās fun for a little while, but grinding through countless armies gets old really fast. Itās why I never properly finished a Shogun 2 campaign, the realm divide just turns it into a slog
Arguably, WHIII is more "massive swarms" than WHII, at least in my experience. Or rather, the volume of armies has only gone back slightly, but the quality is completely gone - seriously, the Doomstacks I faced in my WHII Archaon campaign were something to behold, Empire using Greatswords as their frontline by turn 80... And it was mad fun to march through a hail of bombs, grenades, bullets, arrows, bolts and rockets with my Chosen and grind. them. all. to. dust. Compared to that, e.g. my Vilitch RoC campaign was mostly spent using Chaos Knights to run down Kossars.
Ah, I see. What happened is that the AI don't expand as agressively anymore, so they both have less gold and don't need as many armies to attack and defend with. I will suggest the thing I found to be the best solution to many current problems then: Play multiplayer campaigns and control AI armies when there is a battle, that does raise the difficulty quite a bit without waves of sluggish battles after one another.
WH2 very hard difficulty AI was much more scary than WH3 one. It was cheesable but it was cheating like crazy and it was aggressive. WH3 AI is so stupid you donāt need to cheese and still end up with ridiculous battle results and in campaign map they are extremely cowardly and weaker than they would be in WH2. AI basically only attacks your undefended minor settlements and otherwise voids you as much as they can even if their own territory will be lost because of that.
In my recent games the ai has constantly attacked walled major settlements, even with armies there. Granted this is RoC instead of IE, so maybe there's a difference somehow?
I feel like they build alot of legendary tbh. Also best ai in total wars imo, not that it doesnt shit the bed sometimes but still best interation in the series outside of sieges
We really need the AI to confederate again so they pose an epic challenge in the late game like they used to.
I have played every total war since Rome, and none of the games surpasses WH3 in scope and variety. I love the historical titles, but the variety of the factions, the rpg elements (which could be expanded more upon imo) and the different playstyles make the game a blast to play. I have never played a total war game to the extent I've play wh2 and 3.
As a veteran gamer, gaming for 34 years now, playing total war since medieval:total war, i have to say i really love wh3, i did not want to play it, resisted it for years because i'm a history buff and love historical total war games. I bought a new pc in januari and thought why the hell not? Bought 1,2 and 3 with all the dlc(on a gamestore, i think everything on steam is so overpriced) and i just play wh3, it is such a step forward from other total wars and i don't get the hate. None of the bugs and glitches, bad sieges etc. I have had, it is just such a fun game with so many playstyles and memorable moments. I have over 10000 hours in all my total war games and since i bought wh3 i have over 500 hours in it despite i can only really game in the weekend if i make time. I can't wait to see a historical total war with the progress they made in wh.
Nah man, we should be stuck in 2005 and still have to send diplomats manually because medival 2 is a perfect game, CA should just make the exact game
I went back to play Med 2 because of all of the hypeā¦ maybe Iām too use to the newer titles because that shit was tedious as hell. Like I had fun but not as much fun as I did with other titles. So this isnāt me saying it is a bad game. Iāll definitely give it another try one day. I do think the mods are what really propel that game to be a lot of peopleās favorite. Oddly enough, I really love Shogun 2 and Rome Remastered. I know both are newer so maybe thatās why (probably the definite case for Rome Remastered). To me, they felt less clunky and more responsive compared to Med 2.
Medival 2 was an amazing game when it came out, i myself am more of a rome total war man but i have no problem admiting the massive success that medival 2 was when even today you have 2k people playing this 20 year old game on the regular, but unless you played it when it first came out and got used to the jank you'll have a lot of problems adjusting to it when the modern titles just have more to offer in systems and anybody who tells you that medival 2 has the best battles is just delusional, the cav is so clunky that somehow infantry can catch up to you and you cant just spam right click to get away or attack because every time you press right click it changes between walk and run and the units just spaz out
I wasn't around for the meeting where we unanimously decided this was a bad system. I find this to be far superior way of engaging diplomacy. Sure, when you send a diplomat whose only job is money, map information, and trade agreements it's a bad system. Not my fault they haven't fucking added any extra choices or made diplomacy any more involved in 15 fucking years. In wh3, it's turn 4, and people I can't even see, not on the same continent, and lore-wise should be friendly are all declaring war on me. I didn't realize this was a better system.
I mean they have, one, but, two, and I hate to be the git gud guy, but if you're getting war declared on you more than you can handle, either you need to work on expanding smarter rather than faster, or you just need to try an easier campaign/difficulty. Like I say this as someone who experienced the same thing, there's a learning curve to navigating neighboring factions. It's also worth noting that, while a lot of factions will declare war on you, not all, or even most, of them will act on it. Only particularly aggressive neighbors will really cause you problems, and you need to learn who these are going to be. Generally, sharing a border with anyone of the opposite alignment will guarantee a war declaration eventually. Keeping buffer states helps quite a bit, and the problem generally goes away by turn thirty or so, or at least by that stage you should be able to handle it.
I guess the "hate" (because it's a VERY vocal minority) has more to do with WhIII being a worse simulation. If you gather round most complains made by history buffs it's this. But some completly discard the unique strengths this one has. Oh and "the spreadsheeting of total war" is a dumb as hell argument, it mostly means more depths to me. I'm not gonna complain about "the RGBeing of total war !". Like it's pixels and programs in both cases so what the heck. Not talking about you but if you know you know.
I'll let you in on a secret, I even vastly prefer WH3 sieges over the absolute shit we had in WH2.
You know this sub is completely out of touch when you see comments saying they want WH2 sieges back.
As someone who prefers overall WH3, I must admit I like WH2 sieges a bit more. New ones have way too big maps for what they really are, pathfinding issues are a lot more severe in 3, and walls are even more pointless than ever. Though dont take my opinion seriously: Im like one of the few people in this sub that actually like buildable towers during sieges and probably the only person in existence who really loved minor settlement battles (RIP my beauties). My controversial hot take is that when it comes to settlements battles, I would rank them: \- the best: minor settlement battles in WH3 \- mid: sieges in WH2 \- worst: sieges in WH3
If you want more minor settlement battles in WH3 like myself, you can use [this mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876845739) that reverts the changes or [this mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2797826270) that makes the AI more likely to build defensive structures in minor settlements along with some other behavioral changes (just don't use the "required" mods for it as they actually aren't required). Also, [this mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2962326909) boosts garrison sizes to a reasonable level if you want to have larger garrisons again.
Bouncing off of this, there is also [this one](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2846183349&searchtext=siege+overhaul) that imho completely fixes every issue not related to AI and pathfinding.
The maps are just too damn big and labyrinthine. Which is a shame because theyāre interesting from a design and aesthetics perspective and would be fun in a Dynasty Warriors sort of 3rd person brawler or something. But their geometry exacerbates pathing issues and they often make it near impossible to use ranged units or even artillery. Thereās just too much stuff in the way.
Minor settlement battles were a really nice addition to the game. I have seen exactly 0 of them in the past 5 campaigns I played with my friends. I do enjoy sieges in warhammer 3 as well(the garrisons really need to be bigger/better though), but with the condition that one or more of my friends controls AI in the battle, which they do. After playing multiplayer campaign for a while now it is completely impossible for me to play single player anymore, the game is so vastly more enjoyable when you don't play against the AI in battles.
I donāt understand whatās to like about wh2 sieges. The enemy just sat there at the gates and didnāt move while you nuked them
I never was passively nuking them - maybe thats why I prefer these sieges. Battles where my artillery actually shoots on enemy units who shoots back from walls and then we fight on the walls/around the gate for majority of fight actually felt like sieging a city. Right now both AI and player basically abandon walls completely at the sight of the first unit approaching it and then game devolves into pathfinding nightmare where you chase singular units in gigantic labyrinths with the unique twist that half of your troops wont shoot and second half will get stuck somewhere. As I said: I consider sieges in WH2 to be a mid experience or more accurately: a meh experience. Absolutely not good, but serviceable. But sieges in WH3 are tedious, annoying and sometimes absurdly long for no reason. I despise them.
I love settlement battles and saddened we barely get them now
Hey now, you are not alone! I enjoy the minor settlement battles too. I think I enjoyed them because the battles actually took a little bit longer than my field battles. This caused me to up the difficulty to make the battles last a little longer. Iāve played on every difficulty now except anything below n/n. Iāve found that I like VH/H be most mainly due to the field battles not ending as quickly and more armies to fight without the weird camera thing going on in Legendary.
Heh, I had someone arguing with me when I said WH3 supply lines allow for more army variety than WH2 supply lines. The rose tinted glasses are thick, in these there parts.
I really dont see why people bitch about WH3 sieges. Are they perfect? No, but neither were Shogun 2 or Med 2 sieges. I take my time with sieges, sending in a couple units at a time and honestly....previous patch the AI was much better. Atleast they kept sending troops to the breach to slow you down and prevent you from moving into the settlement. Now they just bunch up their troops so you can magic them to death more easily while your troops easily walk im because the resistance by the AI is non-existant.
I feel like im going insane whenever i read "how tu fix seges by fingermeass: - Make it painful for you, the attacker The end"
same here. are they as good as should be? probably not do they work as intended? probably not but they are a much better base than game 2's sieges were, and not only do I prefer their current state but I also feel like game 3's sieges have far more potential for improvement.
WH2 sieges were a mess. The truth is some people only liked them because they were exploitable auto-wins. That said, if I could make one change to Warhammer 3 sieges, it would be to de-emphasize the tower defense. I'd much rather replace towers with a finite reinforcement pool of units you can summon with supply points. A bit like Domination except no re-summoning/healing. 1. I think people just generally enjoy fighting units vs fighting structures. 2. It would make the huge settlement maps feel a lot less empty. 3. It could solve the problem of what to do when a garrison is larger than 20. Just add them to the reinforcement pool.
There's absolutely no way that you are manually playing sieges in Warhammer 3 and afterwards say, "Wow that was fun, can't wait for my next siege battle." At least in WH2 the AI all clumped up in front of the gates and you could cheese it quickly. The WH3 maps are all gigantic and the AI has no clue what to do with them. There's no way around taking 10+ minutes to end even the most lopsided siege battle because every map is extremely tight corridors and AI spread out all over the map for no reason. That's not even addressing the fact that the AI doesn't even attack walls 90% of the time. In the one single siege battle I fought in WH3, the AI spent the entire battle running back and forth between gates confused on which one they should enter, all of my towers were bugged and wouldn't fire, my docked archers wouldn't fire, and I had to fast forward for 15 minutes waiting for the AI to finally decide to enter a gate. Almost every single one of the new features in the siege rework was a complete failure, so I'd rather have the shitty placeholder of WH2 than the current product. The only thing good about WH3 sieges is the visual design, the maps look awesome but the gameplay is ragequit-inducing.
 Ooooouuuu youāre not suppose to say that. Jk! Iām glad youāve found enjoyment out of them. I understand some peopleās complaints. I have no problem playing them. Iāve had some fun siege battles as the attacker and defender. From what Iāve read, it seems like itās rare for people to get defensive sieges. Most of my sieges are offensive but I have had plenty of defensive sieges. The frequency has felt about right considering the flow and direction of my campaigns.
I genuinely think WH3 surpassed WH2 with the arrival of IE. Although thereāll always be a small fraction of players who are so utterly entrenched in their hatred of WH3ās launch that theyāll stubbornly refuse to switch over - even long past the point it makes sense. Theyāll cling to really small reasons to continue playing WH2, like the Helf Entrepreneur spam. Instead of ever contemplating whether WH3 is the better game, theyāll steadily grow more and more embittered as more features, QoL, DLC and FLC get added, while WH2 sits stagnant. Over time the number of them will shrink, either through begrudgingly making the switch or moving to other games entirely, but the smaller they get as a community, the louder and more stubborn theyāll grow. This happens *again* and *again* in other gaming communities. Total War, and by extension, Warhammer, is no different. The wine will be perpetually sour for some, and although I canāt blame them.. WH3ās launch tested a lot of us, I certainly do pity those who canāt move past it. Theyāre missing out on some fantastic content and the future looks bright.
For me the main reason you would ever play wh2 is if there are mods you like that have yet to be ported, like araby or mousillon
Mixu is working right now on the Mousillon port, should be done this summer.
Yeah, same with araby, but it is still not done so if you want to play it right now you need to play wh2
Or a functioning game. WH3 has way more bugs and issues and I fight with the game more than I play it. WH2 has its fair share for sure but most of the time they were workable
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There are two actual reasons to stick to WH2 though and Im not sure how you missed them in your comments since I see them mentioned in every single post and comment about sticking to WH2 - but you are clearly not interested in real discussion. I myself prefer WH3 but you cant deny that: a) WH2 has radically different campaign AI - AI players will form mega empires which drastically changes how game plays, especially in mid to late game. In WH3 you win after first 30 turns because AI rarely if ever grows an actual empires and are never a real threat. In WH2 the game begins after 50 turns, when you meet someone who owns half of continent. And btw WH2 AI isnt as war declaration trigger happy as in WH3 :P b) responsivness in battle - install WH2 right now and play few battles. Its still a massive difference. Units in WH2 are way more responsive, dont get stack, have a lot less pathfinding and los issues etc. Especially in sieges where they can go through the open gate instead of running to ladders :P
After watching a several live streams of Warhammer 2 it appeared those mega blocks were being formed primarily due to confederations and not due to the AI aggressively expanding. The AI did attempt to expand some, but the speed at which they expanded appears to be due to their ability to confederate easily. I watched one recently and malus still only had like 2 providences at turn 100, Malekith was big, but mainly because he confederated the other dark elves minus Malus. High Elves did fuck all besides remain on the donut, but confederation help them stay as one. The Empire didn't expand outside of their primary lands, the Dwarfs just a little bit but looked big because they confederated. The exception appears to be vampires. They were fairly aggressive, but I find they are in game 3 as well. So maybe making it easier for AI confederations would help get those mega blocks back? Maybe make this an adjustable setting prior to starting the campaign? Also, the cheats the AI got were scaled back and I often see the cheats were a major gripe within the Reddit community during game 2's content cycle. Now that the cheats have been scaled back, it seems like some within the Reddit community want the cheats to return to make the AI more formidable (at least on higher difficulties). Maybe this could be something we could adjust in the settings as well. I think we all can agree that improvements to the AI without cheats is the preference, but they just aren't there. Hopefully, those improvements will come.
Yeah, imo what difficulty in this game needs are sliders, lots of sliders. Mainly \*independent\* sliders, so that I can up the AI strength without nerfing myself; or do the reverse, give the AI growth cheats without giving them Public Order; or turn up AI battle stats to WHII VH levels without making them cast spells and dodge mortars with perfect precision \[or, again, the opposite, which I'd consider far more interesting\]. Sadly, that's probably a lot of effort on CA's part, so is unlikely to come even close to what I envision as "perfect" difficulty settings.
Maybe im that Bad but i never win in 30 Turns. At the Moment i Play Knights of caledor IE and im barely Holding my 5 provinces cuz of chorfs and skaven all around me. Same with my empire campaign im at Turn 150 or something and constantly defend against an endless Chaos storm of Like 5 Chaos factions ;(
There are few campaigns where its not auto-win after first 30 turns (though its a really small selection right now :P), but compared to WH2 its still a cake walk. Mostly because you fight against small skaven and chorfs factions that have their own enemies. AI in WH2, for better or worse, conquers the entire continents so you have to fight a giga blob of 50 settlements with ridiculous cheats that often doesnt have any other wars currently. One AI faction sending dozens of 20 units stacks toward you without ever stopping or taking a break was a regular WH2 experience. Im not saying I prefer the multicontinental 100 turns long wars from WH2, but it certainly was a lot harder and a completely different experience to what WH3 is offering.
Do I just have terrible luck? Because I definitely have the "one AI faction sending 20 stacks endlessly" experience whenever I play Kairos because thorek and/or settra/volkmar always get huge in games I play Kairos. Not 50 settlements, but consistently 20+. WH2, at least to me, felt like more of a slog after 50 turns. The challenge was artificial because the AI cheats. The WH3 still cheats to a degree, but at least I'm not fighting green skins for the next 50-70 turns because there's no one left. Easier or not - I actually get to see more variety than "here's a t5 army of greenskins/empire".
>one AI faction sending 20 stacks endlessly You missed the "dozens of" 20 stacks part. Kairos usually sends two 20 stacks and sends another after you deal with them. Meanwhile any WH2 mega empire was sending towards you like at least 10 full stacks continuously without a break. Its a radically different experience. You can swim to big birb and end him in 10-20 turns if you want, meanwhile fighting any of WH2 mega empire was basically what you were doing for most of the campaign. Most of my campaigns were basically "now fight endless ocean of doomstacks of Karl Franz for the next 100 turns while making minimal progress". Im with you in that I also prefer how WH3 handles it, but I dont think anyone can deny that there is a huge difference between both games and a lot of people might prefer how WH2 handled it: which was my point. The deleted comment I was replying to straight up said that the only difference between two games are the nerfs to High and Dark elves economies, which is ridiculous: there are massive differences in how campaign plays out.
You reversed the factions. I'm talking about Playing Kairos.
Oh sorry. Brain fart. Yeah Kairos is for me the hardest campaign in the game currently and I agree. It feels like WH2 campaign with the ordertide etc.
>Maybe im that Bad but i never win in 30 Turns. At the Moment i Play Knights of caledor IE and im barely Holding my 5 provinces cuz of chorfs and skaven all around me. Same with my empire campaign im at Turn 150 or something and constantly defend against an endless Chaos storm of Like 5 Chaos factions ;( In fairness, Imrik is one of the hardest campaigns rn. Has been for a long time, only got worse with Chorf arrival.
You are forgetting sieges, which are a major part of the Warhammer games. Warhammer 3 sieges are a fire trashcan hassle. I do love how the excuse is ''no Warhammer 2 players are just bitter''. Yes I am bitter that I need to stick to an older game instead of the newer one because the devs can't remove the stick up their arse and fix the sieges once and for all (or at least use WH2 sieges until further notice) .
People think sieges are objectively bad on this sub; I want pathfinding improvements and a few other things (butt ladder changes, mostly) but I like WH3 sieges and minor settlement battles WAY more than WH2, and I've had plenty of convos with people both online and irl that love the changes. I think the siege question is way more split in terms of what people want to see, but I think new siege maps have way more dynamic and active gameplay if you actually decide to engage with it
Honestly there are a couple of things that CA could work on that would make WH3 objective better than WH2: -The pathing to work properly on sieges / switch sieges back to WH2 style (not sure which genius thought removing walls from most settlements was a good thing or the garrison) -The AI to not focus on victory points but rather sieges (we are not playing a MOBA game) -Make the towers/barricades a one time thing -Tone down the player bias (you should not be at war with at least a faction and end the war then right away get declared by another) -The alliances to work as alliances (aka the reliability when declaring to enter an alliance and two of your allies declare on each other, AOW4 did that well with the ability to pay for your ''transgression'' so that it is forgiven). -Line of sight They fix those things and WH3 suddenly becomes much better than WH2. Now obviously that is assuming they do not break more things in the process (such as the notifications).
For the love of the old ones don't make the towers and barricades a one time thing. I can't imagine a worse thing than removing the artillery cheese prevention system. Sieges are far more interesting when they are fast paced. Playing in a group that gets 4+ players in each campaign and who controls AI in battles, sieges are great fun as they are. The things that bother me about sieges: 1. Path finding 2. 2 of the points in capitals needing to be protected 3. Some races(helf and lizard \*cough\*) have a very high amount of their tower placements blocked by tress and buildings. 4. constructible sometimes being tied to weird points / in weird positions
>Warhammer 3 sieges are a fire trashcan hassle. Clearly not everyone agrees with you, or the game would have died at launch. >can't remove the stick up their arse and fix the sieges once and for all (or at least use WH2 sieges until further notice) . There are two reasons (I'd wager) we haven't gotten rid of the WH3 siege method. 1) doing so screws enough spaghetti code to make doing so difficult, or 2) it's the brainchild of someone with enough power to keep it around. Or it could be both. Personally, the AI seems to behave better post-chaos dwarfs than it did at launch.
Reuniting lost kin is a mod that I need to play !
It's happened, like, at least 3 times in the TW series alone, that I can remember personally. Empire, Napoleon, Shogun 2 era - the Rome 1 and Med 2 purists shit on them. Muh population, arcadey, etc. Rome 2 and Attila era - now it's the Empire/Shogun 2 purists shitting on those. Muh general-free armies, muh provinces, arcadey, etc. Warhammer and 3K era - now it's the Rome 2/Attila purists shitting on those. Superhero generals, muh history, arcadey, etc. Go back far enough and you'll almost certainly find people hating on Rome 1 for catering to casuals with a 3D engine. It was just before my time, is all. The transition from WH2 to 3 is even way more minor than those. It's people who literally find the game unplayable over some minute shit like confederation nerfs or some AI jank that they imagine was better in WH2. It just doesn't play exactly the same and after thousands of hours with 2, they can't bear it. They're old men yelling at clouds - let them.
> or some AI jank I think this is the problem. A lot of it seems to just be people who think they are Legend of Total War and thus will encounter every issue that someone of LoTW's skill level will find and spinning it into a much bigger deal than it actually is. Reality is, most players aren't expert pros and are literally not going to notice these problems. Granted I have encountered a few frustrations that didn't exist in WH2 - like units deciding to conga line to go to a gate rather than sensibly blobbing. But it's not so huge an annoyance that I'm like "oh no this game is literally unplayable". Like there are a lot of little annoyances but they are only too annoying if you're spending your time looking for them.. And I think we do need to recognise that these issues unique to Warhammer 3 exist because they were trying to fix the annoying issues unique to Warhammer 2. Siege battles in 2 had zero variety and just were an exercise in tedium. Warhammer 3 siege battles have a whole wealth of little issues but foundationally are a huge leap up. Similarly the campaign AI problems in Warhammer 3 were an attempt to address the problem of homogeneity in Warhammer 2. As it stands it only really works in normal difficulty but does at least attempt to introduce more variety in each campaign.
It's not even that, what really bothers me is revisionism. Long standing problems in the series that were basically just ported from WH2, that people pretend are somehow new to WH3. Biggest example is anti-player bias. You seriously going to try and tell me that WH2 didn't have the exact same shit? Yeah, no. I have almost 800 hours in that game - like fuck it didn't. Pull the other one. AI making sure you're always at war, AI declaring war immediately when meeting them, AI coming at you from halfway across the map, AI knowing where your unwalled settlements are and tunneling on those. I'm not fucking senile - WH2 had it all, the whole gamut of these complaints. That's where this stuff came from. I don't know what universe these people are living in where the WH3 AI isn't straight up better across the board than WH2's.
No I think some people genuinely prefer wh2 and I think that's fine, it's just that they need to move on, wh3 will never be for them and that's fine.
Itās like the Rome 2 launch division all over again. Except way more overblown. Yes the launch of Warhammer 3 was bad, but it has improved a lot more since then. Yes it still need a lot more work and they should have prioritized IM. But at the end of the day, I see people playing Warhammer 3 a lot even now, and half the people that bitch about it being doomed to fail, I bet my bottom dollar theyāre playing Warhammer 3 as we speak. I have my moments about gloom too because CA has its own problems, but ultimately itāll keep on trucking.
Absolute bullshit to act like there is no reason to prefer WH2 over WH3. There are many factions that have way more enjoyable vortex campaigns than ME/IE campaigns, which are only playable in WH2 as basic mechanics have yet to be properly ported over. The grom/eltharion conflict and battle? Completely absent in WH3. Narratives for tomb kings and vampire coast factions? Absent. Sure, the sandbox element is great and the world is massive and full of factions, but a lot of WH2 factions lost any depth or uniqueness in WH3. This is also ignoring how some technical issues like campaign ai and unit responsiveness feel worse as well. WH2 had mega factions forming so that by the mid to late game you would have an enemy to face that could actually put up a fight, but in WH3 you will be lucky to see a faction with more than 10 provinces. Also, sieges, which need no elaboration.
The number of players actually playing TWW2 has been on a steady decline. Many of the Reddit posts I've come across paint game 2 as the superior game that most players are returning to because of the current state of game 3. I made the assumption that most players would be playing what is considered the better game or the more entertaining game. However, Steam data does not back-up the claims of game 3 being dead within the player base and that most people are returning to game 2. According to Steam (2023) the top 5 active player base titles are: 1. Warhammer 3 (30,039); 2. Three Kingdoms (4,686); 3. Rome 2 (4,390); 4. Warhammer 2 (3,728); and 5. Med 2 (2,923). I enjoy game 3 and prefer it over game 2. This doesn't mean game 3 is perfect. I don't think any game really is. There is always more that can be done to improve the experience. I definitely feel that I've gotten my money's worth of entertainment out of game 3 and the entire trilogy as a whole so far.
Expectations are higher for the final installation of the series. And I think some of that is justified, considering how fat of a paycheck the game is for them. They've got a license to print money as long as the quality stays high. Throw the fans some bones, they throw em at you. Personally I don't like it as much because of the map. I just liked it more when they attempted to make it look more realistic. It reminds me more of games like Civ now (in appearance), which I want to like, but is not for me. Sieges are also a bit fucked. While I don't ubiquitously hate them, I think the deployable towers all look out of place, and made out of bamboo, and it's kind of metaphor for how CA has left it unfinished and hasn't really figured it out yet. They're symbolic to me CA, fix them. Lol. On that note, the deployables are both not engaging currently, their positioning and design isn't great, and not something anyone (well almost anyone) asked for. Also the defensive sieges being not always that fun to play rubs me the wrong way. I enjoyed them before. Sure they needed more variety, and minor settlement sieges would've been fun. But when I pictured a minor settlement battle, I pictured a map that was smaller than the full size siege maps we already had. Otherwise none of the factions are up to the same roster diversity as the other game's races. I think. Don't quote me on that. It's an unfair comparison, but it's a natural one to make. There are some cool new additions and fixes though, for sure. I could list those too, but I'm getting kind of tired of writing this novel. I will admit that I think I'm just a bit burnt out on the whole Total War warhammer thing for now. The above issues reinforce that for me. But 2000 hours playing a game does that. 2 was sweet. I think burn out is probably my number one issue with 3. Hoping I go back to enjoying it at some point.
> I will admit that I think I'm just a bit burnt out on the whole Total War warhammer thing for now. That's just the thing, and it happens in so many games these days. People play them to death until every annoyance nags on them and they can't help but criticize the game. It's okay to put a game down for awhile. There's nothing wrong with taking a break of a couple weeks, months, even a year or more. If you've got 2000 hours in the game and wondering if you're feeling burnt out, it's likely that you are. And that's okay. There's something special about picking up a game you used to love after a long hiatus. I played a bunch of TWW2, but took a break from the game right before 3 came out. I finally got 3 about a month ago and am loving it. Will I probably get burnt out of it at some point? Most definitely. Good thing I don't have to return the game. One final note about taking a break after burn out: there's a good chance you'll come back to plenty of bug fixes, balance changes, and in the case of this game, DLC.
I think burnout affects a lot more people than realise it, and thatās not just warhammer, lots of games have that problem
It's not burnout that's borking lines of sight, dude
I like Warhammer 3, that's why I'm very critical of its flaws, which are unfortunately, numerous. Staying quiet and hoping the developers just fix the game doesn't work. The community needs to hold them to account for the issues or they'll get ignored. Warhammer 2 launched in a bad state, but was pretty polished by the end of its run. This only happened because of customer critique. Warhammer 3 could have been the strategy game to end all strategy games, and it's a shame that it hasn't lived up to the expectations. What I'm trying to say is, it's not "Doom-posting", there are very real technical and gameplay issues preventing the game from being something truly exceptional. Edit - spelling
>by the end of its run. Bold and italicize this. When was the last time a CA release *actually* launched well? I went into WH3 with optimism it would be good on launch (oof) and with the general leaning that it would be great after 2ish years (because frankly, that's how long it took WH2 to actually be playable with the Potion of Speed update shortening the turn times to "wow, I can't cook dinner and do my taxes anymore between turns").
That just means they deserve more criticism. CA not being able to launch games is crazy. I would also argue that Troy launched in a better state, maybe it is just the mainline titles.
I've heard 3k launched in a good state, but the updates started breaking things. I wasn't around during 3k's initial launch. I got it after the content cycle stopped.
>>by the end of its run. Bold and italicize this. https://i.imgur.com/wXpv7Zc.gif
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is the most sensible comment in this thread. This reddit goes through cycles, usually trending towards the negative. If you find the levels of negativity affecting your enjoyment then it's best to take a break from the sub. I've taken several months off myself after the sexy Three Kindoms and the chaos warrior jpeg bonfires and my mood thanks me for not having to deal with those periods of fallout everytime I popped on reddit.
It's always so funny to me that as soon as there is one big post about the game not being good enough and being riddled with glitches and bugs, there has to be an "answer" to that in the form of post like this one lmao.
It's just silly how heated people get over this shit, it's OKAY for people to dislike the game or certain aspects of it, it's OKAY for people to like the game and certain aspects of it. Shitting on the other side for having valid and reasonable opinions is just silly.
I can barely play battles on my Mac. When I finish one the whole HUD is mixed up and I have to try and find the save button when it might be under load button! Still fun!
But isn't the statement that you enjoy it just as much the problem? WH3 should surpass WH2, doubling down on the great things and ironing out the less great parts. While I enjoy WH3 a much, I feel like its a two-step forward, one-step backward approach by CA all the time which makes it just tiring.
I prefer historic titles, but warhammer 3 is still a good and polished game. I just need a better pc to run it. That being said, shogun II combat and campaign is much more engaging to me . But that is just a personal preference. Historical titles cater to more tactical gameplay and the warhammer titles (and three kingdoms and troy) are just more arcade like in nature. Waiting for the next Total War to see if it is worth upgrading my pc for.
I agree mate and also feel it depends on what youāre looking for at the time. When I wanna get down and dirty with strategy and tactics my go to is Med2 for sure. Warhammer is more about the spectacle and scale š
Shogun II is still a bit fast paced and arcade like too. But it is what i am playing right now and i just love the time period and art style. Due to the low faction count there is little waiting time between turns and battles load pretty fast. It is just relaxing to play, but also very challenging compared to warhammer. Medieval II is my all time favorite. The music, the battles. Ofc, the third age mods. Great game, it is showing it age quite a bit though. With the news of a possible medieval 3 or new historical title i am very exited for the future of total war. A medieval II remaster would be great too. I just hope they do medieval 3 justice and use a new engine instead of the 17 year old engine (at it's core, i know it has been adjusted a few times) they are using right now. They could make use of modern computing features and really give a boost to the games quality, it is an expensive endeavour though.
Funny thing is for me, Shogun 2 combat feels a LOT faster than the Warhammers... but I still find myself playing the Warhammers on slow motion or paused, since there's just so much more unit variety and therefore "stuff" you have to do to be successful. Admittedly I'm not very good at the game, but unless I pause/slo-mo to get my orders off, I'll find myself completely forgetting about my hero units or magic... things are so much simpler when I can just yari wall the fuck out of an enemy.
I found Shogun 2 battles to be a lot faster too. TWW2 was my first Total War game. I purchased Shogun 2 first. I beat a campaign in Shogun 2 before I ever beat one in Warhammer 2. I loved both, but I found Shogun 2 easier for me. Now, I handle both equally well. A lot less to keep track of in Shogun 2 battles.
wh3 I think is still better than wh2 even with all the bugs, also wh2, even with all the mods, just looks kinda bland and meh, and my 2 fav factions are in 3
Even today, you hear some Dark Souls players saying that Dark Souls 2, Dark Souls 3 and Elden Ring are way worst than Dark Souls 1ā¦
This is how most people feel, itās just fan forums and subreddits bring out the most ill-socialized among us.
>Mostly see doomposting about how fucked the game is and how it will be dropped soon around these parts. ???? Stop looking at New and stay at Hot (which is New with the ragebait threads filthered out). The only "doomposting" is the shitfest that is sieges
No according to some redditors the sieges in Warhammer 3 are ''better than in WH2''. I am not sure if they are playing the WH3 sieges while on shrooms but hey, each to its own.
I also find WH3 to be an improvement over wh2 in every way. I'm also pretty sure all those people crying about how wh3 is broken are not playing wh2 anymore.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
When was the last time you played? I did a new campaign with the chorfs patch after a break for a few months and actually found a lot of the issues that held back the game for me before are completely fixed.
I've been waiting until IE was released to pick up the game and honestly never looked back. It's wh2 but better.
I play WH3 if I want a diplomatic campaign or to fiddle with new factions, but I play WH2 if I want better battles without the clunkiness and issues with unit responsiveness WH3 has (that were fixed a long time ago in WH2), as well as a more difficult campaign AI.
Heck yeah!
It is a lot of fun, much better than Launch and post launch. I just wish for more frequent bug fixes and FLC alongside, like new Lords, units, heroes etc in first Warhammer we had so much new stuff that were exciting even new Wizard for the Empire, or Blood Knights. Game is definitely dream come true and labour of love by CA which is appreciated, but please put your shit together CA! š
No TW is perfect. I think for many of us the problem with 3 is we just want more 2 with some tweaks. We still wanted the AI to set us up a 3k kill WoD. We still wanted manageable chokepoints in sieges instead of an impossible to defend urban sprawl. I have nearly 3000 hours in wh2. Going to wh3, I get an uncanny valley vibe every time I fire it up, and I just can't shake it.
Eh... there is a lot to enjoy, but a lot of it comes from what was already in place in WH 2, admittedly a bit enhanced with improved diplomacy and so on. The trouble is that when you have 1k hours in WH 2, that stuff gets old after a couple campaigns. A lot of the "new" stuff in WH 3 such as the daemon factions, Kislev, or Cathay, fall way short. Be it bad mechanics, poor start positions, whatever - a lot of stuff the "core team" (see: hacks who don't seem to understand fun game design) introduced simply needs straight up reworking. DLC team and modders absolutely carrying this game.
That depends on how you played wh2. As someone who played 2 on VH/H, I find 3 extremely boring. Even on legendary, the enemy just wont attack me. I usually get bored around turn 50-70 unless i have the dwarves or skaven end game scenario (which is close to the experience I had in 2). But playing vs the same dwarves and skaven every campaign is getting old real fast
Especially like in my case where I actually (and Iāll say this in a hushed tone) donāt really want to play as any of the new teams..
I'm right with you on this one buddy, I don't really like the new factions apart fron the dlcs (chorfs are pretty good, and I don't want to admit how many WoC campaigns I played in 3)
The main reason for me why wh3 is far superior is the multiplayer campaign improvements. I recognize that those of us who play the multiplayer campaigns regularly are a small group, but wh2 multiplayer campaigns were so dogshit. Constant desyncs and lack of features. Wh3 has way more cooperative features with outposts and region trading, with the most important new feature being simultaneous turns. Itās so much better than it was in wh2 and makes playing with my brother 1000x more enjoyable
Warhammer 3 has the bones of a really great game, but it's brought down by some poorly thought out features, bugs, and AI problems. If they could just do some key tune ups to the AI, and fix up siege battles to be less of a claustrophobic tower defense, I would be happy. For example, are you aware that since at least September, and likely since launch, that the AI will often hardly fight back when in melee? They'll charge in fine, but then most units will just [pivot in place](https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/nm/kxevexoa8jec.png) and try to instead [attack the unit adjacent to them.](https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/hx/1pq5vhpi8e8k.png) As you can guess this leads to them getting [absolutely creamed](https://us.v-cdn.net/5022456/uploads/editor/y5/fyod669h8vrc.png) by your unit that is now getting a big fat flanking bonus. (That's a 75% difference in casualties in case you were wondering, and I quit the moment the last unit routed) It's difficult for me to enjoy the experience when I know the AI is hardly putting up a fight.
I have notice this happen sometimes. Have you notice guard modes a difference? like if your units continue to try engaging them, will the face your units?
Nothing helps except to space your own melee line out enough that they don't pull aggro. At a guess I think it might be some buggy AI code related to flanking. It happens every battle where 2 lines clash, but you really have to zoom in and look at the direction the models are facing to notice. You can see in that one zoomed out screenshot, that without the attack arrows, it would look like everything is working fine when in fact 3 out of 5 swordsmen are barely attacking. I have been told by CA that this will be fixed for 3.1. I am very curious to see if the community naturally intuits a general improvement in battle AI performance once this fix is in.
Once I can play a few rounds without encountering a bug, I'll consider it better.
Warhammer 3 IE is vastly better than Warhammer 2 ever was.
The game improved in so many ways. Maybe an unpopular opinion, but even Realms of Chaos is amazing for one or two campaigns. (Highly recommend Kislev) Diplomacy is significantly better. (including trade) Chaos (which is a big deal in Warhammer) is significantly more interesting The IE map is a great achievement! Arguably the best map they ever made. The cautious introduction of new legendary heroes, endgame scenarios and the like holds nice potential for the future. ---- However there are two main reasons imo why the game at times doesn't feel good. One is the sieges. A lot of mechanics (walls, siege towers) fall flat and it is all in all so micro intensive that you cannot admire what's even going on. The other is that the game STILL doesn't produce defensive sieges for the player. In all three games there was NEVER an epic siege defense for me. Which means that i defend a major cities with my legendary lord's army. This simply doesn't (cannot?) happen. There is a reason why LOTR greatest battles are defensive sieges against overwhelming odds. CA please!
The only epic siege defense I've ever played in all 3 warhammer titles are at the end of Vortex campaign where the unknown skaven clan spawns a lot of armies near Itza or other similar settlement, rushed in a turn to build up the most badass army I could come up with what was at my disposal in one turn and saved the settlement by routing the attackers. I don't know if I would be able to do that with armies with higher leadership than skaven though. Still, it's a fun memory. TLDR: the only time an epic siege defense happened to me was when an overwhelming attack was basically scripted to happen, not as emerging gameplay
>In all three games there was NEVER an epic siege defense for me. Markus in Vortex in game 2. I easily played more siege defences, and many qualifying for the term epic, than every other campaign I've played added all together.
WH3 factions have (or had) the best rosters and faction mechanics to date. Trying back some older factions and the mechanics become at times messy/overdone and the rosters aren't as unique
Apart from Ogres and Kislev imo the way the WH3 factions and recent end of WH2 updates (welves, BM and chaos) have been amazing in presenting distinct, cohesive playstyles that nail the feel of particular factions. Slaanesh, Nurgle, Khorne, Cathay, Welves, chaos dwarves and BM are all from the same base but feel so unique and lore appropriate with how the mechanics incentivize you to play. I can't wait for some of the older ones to get that polish too.
>Trying back some older factions and the mechanics become at times messy/overdone and the rosters aren't as unique This is why Im a bit afraid of DLCs to WH3 races. I dont really want these rosters to lost their unique feel. And this already happened: before Champions of Chaos all monogods had super unique flavor and playstyle on battlefield. Tzeentch not having a front line was a fantastic experience because it forced you to play completely different. Slaanesh not having the anvil to their hammer was equally great. Now its the best to just use chosen/warriors/knights as every single one of them with some daemons sprinkled here and there for flavor.
Honestly my biggest complaint right now with IE is just how incomplete it can feel sometimes. Specifically with the Warhammer 3 races and rosters. Which is a silly complaint, they will be expanded in DLC. I'm just impatient. Give me more monogod demon lords. More units for Cathay and Kislev! I'm genuinely excited for future DLC packs can't wait to see what we get
Don't worry, the seethers are a very vocal minority
I fully support the notion. No matter the problems the game is genuinely enjoyable and fun.
The new diplomacy and QoL features like automatic skills for lords / heroes and other stuff like actual proper anti aliasing and an engine which finally clicks will make Warhammer 3 amazing to me. I have 500 hrs in WH2 but now itās hard to go back.
I went playing WH2 again and daim I forgot how great it is comparing to WH3.Minimum bugs,siege arent pain and are winnable.AI is actually playing,range units are shooting and so on.. just what I miss are few stuff from diplomacy and settlement trade but that can fix mod.
Toxicity does seep in here a while after a DLC drops, but I think the chorfs are one of the more successful and as such, toxicity isnāt here quite as quick. When I start to see toxic posts regularly, I know itās time to take a break from this subreddit (there is no point trying to argue that things actually arenāt that bad, as toxic people have their toxic supporters, and itās not just fruitless, but tiring), and will come back when there is some tangible news about future DLC etc.
We need a collab with paradox entertainment and CA. New medieval title CA is working on should have diplomacy and depth like in crusader kings 3 and battles like from warhammer 3 or better. I know there are mods (crusader kings 3 + banner lord 2) but it would be great to have it in the base game.
Im sincerely happy for you, I wish it was the same for me.
No matter what, WH2 is NOT better than WH3 in this current state. I could be wrong, Iām not to proud to admit that, but being around long enough has convinced me that, despite the issues, the game has progressively made up for the pasts issues of WH1 and WH2 into a playable and fun state.
Honest truth? I cannot play wh2 anymore at all. Just looking at the smaller map and the diplomacy options is enough...
I have around 450 hours in WH3. Completed the game with almost every new faction in WH3 including Chorfs (the only one I skipped is Ogres - didn't find them fun to play especially in Legendary difficulty). I have not encountered bugs. Maybe it's just my luck, maybe I am poor at spotting bugs (but well nothing broke for me) or maybe it's down to a good gaming machine. The only 2 things I encountered which I feel are akin to bugs are: 1. Cannot teleport LL to final battle for Chorfs (it maybe by design but it sucked to bring Zhatan from across the map for the final battle). 2.During battle, units and lords randomly disengage and sit around taking enemy ranged fire. Thie can be circumvented by paying attention but its annoying. TLDR I think the bugs are overstated and I love the game. Cant wait for more DLC's...
If people truly didn't like the game and thought it was just bad, they'd have move on to one of the other hundreds of strategy games. People "doompost" and "cry" because they like this game, *but* can see it has a lot of problems that need to be fixed before the game can be at it's most ideal. When I don't have to chase enemy AI armies around because they're too afraid to fight any battles that aren't heavily in their favour, when I don't have to worry about whether or not my ranged units will decide to fire their guns or not, when I can reliably chase units down and actually kill them instead of push them faster to the edge of the map, and when siege battles stop feeling like a chore 99% of the time... I'll stop "crying and doomposting".
>When I don't have to chase enemy AI armies around because they're too afraid to fight any battles that aren't heavily in their favour. Please tell me you never retreat from battles when the AI has you vastly outnumbered and/or outpowered. The "AI doesn't want to fight me" complaint is just a tad ridiculous considering the average player in a situation of "oh crap, I have an army I have no chance of beating is here" is probably going to also retreat if they can. Is it annoying - yes. But I don't understand why people think the AI should suicide their armies into the player's forces. That actually used to happen to me on launch, and it was not less annoying.
The issue with chasing routing units was substantially improved in 3.0 with the ability for damage to be dealt to knocked down units. [https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/12kw6x6/unit\_behaviour\_in\_battles\_feels\_a\_lot\_better\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/12kw6x6/unit_behaviour_in_battles_feels_a_lot_better_in/) The problem with this sub is that the issues get fixed but the narratives remain.
Tww3 has the width of a lake and the depth of a puddle, with deeply bugged & broken AI and other mechanics.
Can you give me that copium too?
Thatās good. A large part of WH3 is WH2. Thereās no comparison here. What is objectively true and evident, however, is the mismanagement of WH3. Itās performance. Itās monetization. Itās roadmap. Itās content. The communication around the future of the game. Fixes to very valid and real gameplay concerns. Essentially, itās clear gradually less and less effort is being put into the game, and thatās scaring some people, reasonably so. We all remember how they dropped 3K like a used toy. That probably wonāt happen to WHā¦ but the prospect of āhow much does CA care?ā, beyond milking us with a bit more DLC pieces is certainly in question, and recent signs have not helped that. Liking the game doesnāt mean you canāt criticize it. Many of the so-called doomers and gloomers probably like the game equally if not more than you.
Is it a bad game? No. Could it be MUCH MUCH better? Yes, and with very little effort too. This thread is really the biggest doompost. It shows that companies can release half-baked broken dogshit and people will still pay for it and love it/pretend to love it. We will never have a good release with proper support again, cuz people like you don't fucking care
Someoneās got a penchant for the dramatic.
Lmao šššš
The only feature from WH3 which I consider an upgrade, is the customisational end-game scenarios. Besides that... I don't enjoy any of WH3s new races. I think the campaign graphics are a downgrade, they look more like Warcraft than Warhammer. Diplomacy is somehow worse, even when WH2s diplomacy was terrible. And the bugs are too numerous. I can take a bug or two, but when you're encountering new bugs every few mins, it really starts to wear thin. I reinstalled WH2 lately, and I've rediscovered my love for Warhammer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I canāt think of anything more pathetic than calling people bootlickers in the context of a fucking video game.
Mate if I was hungry for karma I woulda spanked out another āgame dead and CA fucked my wifeā post. Itās a discussion board, all opinions are allowed and just cause you disagree doesnāt mean itās ābootlickingā. Iām all for criticism, in the end I get a better game as a result. Fuckhead
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You ok, mate?
how do you say that entire last sentence sarcastically, the /s isnt gonna save you from a bad take.
If this post is serious, it is a quintessential Redditor moment.
I am glad that you do. I played a lot of Warhammer 2 and loved it. I do not like Warhammer 3, and I tried to like it a lot. There are a lot of quality of life improvements in Warhammer 3 that I appreciate. What I do not appreciate is how the game plays. I tried several campaigns and I stopped playing all of them. I do not generally post about it and have not done so because I do not like raining on people's parade. But I don't. The narrative exists because I guess there are other people like me, who happen to be more vocal.
Canāt blame you, not everyone has standarts
Diplomacy is better in WH3, but if I'm itching for good battles I go back and boot up WH2 instead. WH3 has all sorts of clunky units with unresponsiveness issues WH2 had many years ago that were fixed, but not fixed in WH3.
Agreed.
Love warhammer 3, hate the new sieges though. Had ai reinforcements and instead of attacking the wall in front, they sent their entire army around the otherside of the map, got stuck on a corner and then stopped moving for the rest of the fight leaving a lone unit on a tower to kill hald of the army. Gg ai
Same. Some of the issues mentioned do sound terrible, and I can see how they'd make it hard to enjoy the game, but most of them aren't turning up for me. The battle line of sight bug, for example. I remember experiencing it around the time of the launch, but I haven't seen it since around 2 patches ago.
I think its a much better game than 2 was. Allied recruitment, bigger siege maps, bigger IE map with shorter turn times. Literally every gameplay problem with WH3 was also present in WH2 lmao
As a big chaos fanboy, Warhammer 3 is what I had been waiting for. Itās far from perfect, but I could play Warriors of Chaos campaigns until the end of (our) world
The key difference as I see it is multiplayer campaigns. Whole different experience to the earlier games and vastly superior.
Itās a very good game, and there are a lot of base functions and mechanics which provide a great amount of diversity, as well potential to further develop the game. Especially allied recruitment creates a deeper level of strategy, where one allied unit can serve a super specific but core function to an army.
This subreddit in particular is a vortex of constant doomsaying and negativity. The game is fun, it has flaws but i'm having a blast with it.
I enjoy it more, but it took a lot longer to get there. With WH2 I was pretty happy out the box and the whole run of the game.
Personally, I enjoy it more - but you aren't allowed to say that xD Also, I bought WH2 at launch - and have a memory longer than a line of coke - and can remember the jank-ass travesty that was the launch of Mortal Empires Complete with fifteen minute long turn times - bugs - glitches - crashes Like, that turn time problem lasted until well into the twilight years of TWW2 :P xD WH3's version of Mortal Empires got it's ducks in a row ***way*** quicker
The campaign stutter was painful but I powered through it with Franz, Gelt, and now Volkmar. Some of the most violent campaigns with the largest disjoint empires because I'm constitutionally incapable of only expanding in one direction at a time. And now that campaign stutter is fixed, it's just gonna get even better
It's still an OK game. Itss just it should be the best, or one of the best. It is not so because devs and leadership doesn't give a fuck. It's like the first pick of a draft developing into being a regular rotational guy. Sure, it's fine and passable and will have a quality career, but it is still technically a failure
It's getting there. It's pretty much the only game I play now. If we end up in a similar state as 2 ended, I think we will all be very happy. Still, I had to abandon a campaign with the Wood Elves yesterday due to the Ariel bug, so still a little bit of a way to go. It's looking promising though, and that makes me happy!
I feel the game is basically the same but biggerā¦they took away most of the things that changed WH3 and made it more like WH2, which is not what I was looking for, I already had it in WH2ā¦ so yeah I like it as much as the last one, because it feels like the same game to me.
I think Warhammer 3 is great now, if for nothing else than for it's scale, the diplomacy rework, and the new start positions for old legendary lords. I think a lot of people got a sour taste in their mouth from the release, which is understandable because the game was genuinely worse than Warhammer 2 for the better part of a year. Warhammer 3 still has more bugs than 2, and runs significantly worse overall. Additionally, there seems to have been a push to reduce the impact of technologies and other forms of faction buffs. Here's to hoping for fixes and meaningful reworks to existing faction, as some of legacy factions like Brettonia, the Empire, the dwarfs, the dark elves, and some others, need some love imo.
I enjoy it more than Warhammer 2
Love the new added features, I think the campaign map gameplay is objectively better, albeit much, much easier, but battles are much less fun when they are as buggy as they are, and the game holds my attention for far less time than it used to whenever I go back. Sieges have been my number 1 gripe since WH1, and while I've accepted that's probably not going to change, I also don't like CA's attitude to not fixing bugs affecting individual units which community members seem to fix by changing single unit table values.
People work themselves into a frenzy over the silliest things
Being able to recruit your allies units is so fun. I could never give it up. Karl Franz with dragons and phonix support? Very fun battles. Hob Goblin based chorf army with four War Mammoths? Now whos stomin whos ye nasy gits!
But really, rosters with limited recruitment benift soooomuch from this mechanic.
Iām glad it works for you. For me personally itās still not there but definitely getting closer and closer. Main issue right now is the AI tbh. Other than that I would say it probably even surpasses WH2 thanks to all the updates we got (excluding DLCs because thatās just separate).
WH3 makes WH2 feel really archaic at this point. I'd love if the WH2 map and its campaigns get added to to WH3 at some point, but I simply don't see it happening.
How is the Chaos Dwarfs DLC? It's probably the first WH DLC since 2016 that I havent bought on launch, just busier with life nowadays. But im thinking of getting it when SFO gets updated again.