Print

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

[nenjin]

Started my Archaon campaign. Just played a turn. I feel a bit overwhelmed with the changes even though I know that much hasn't really changed, just generally relabeling stuff.

I was puzzled though why I was being charged an additional 25% recruitment cost for Marauders. I think it's because if you don't have the unit building built, you can still recruit base troops but they charge you more? I feel like some factions mechanics have gotten more complex in TWH3.....while not necessarily keeping up with the tooltips.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I was puzzled though why I was being charged an additional 25% recruitment cost for Marauders. I think it's because if you don't have the unit building built, you can still recruit base troops but they charge you more? I feel like some factions mechanics have gotten more complex in TWH3.....while not necessarily keeping up with the tooltips.

I don't think it's anything to do with the buildings since the cost increase isn't a flat malus. I double-checked my armies and the cost varied, from 409 at the low end to 514 at the high. It might be based on chaos corruption and terrain, since the cheaper marauders were in Norsca while the expensive ones were in the edge of the Empire.

[nenjin]

Still not really seeing it explained anywhere. It's not the flavor of corruption. It's not my primary corruption (it's almost maxed in that province), it's not Control, there's no buildings doing it, no other characters in the region that could affect it. The tool tips all mention terrain and climate affecting availability, but not cost. The cost markup is variable per unit (Troll is 20% more expensive, Chaos Warhound is 25% more expensive.....) for purchasing them...and on the flip side, they all have reduced upkeep costs versus normal.

It kind of looks like a balancing act for warbands specifically. Costs more to recruit since it's instant recruitment, but lower upkeep so you uh....can make due with fewer cities I guess?

Like, if that's the case, the over/under tooltip is just kind of confusing, making me think it's a situational thing I can do something about. If the game is just going to mark up/mark down unit cost and upkeep according to various factors....either tell me the inputs or don't show me the markup / markdowns.

[nenjin]

If I have one complaint about Chaos vassalage right now, it's that you sort of have to choose between actively reducing the enemy down to one settlement + their capital, and then attack the capital and keep it, and vassalize them when you attack their minor settlement.....or you let them have the Dark Fortress.

I was intending to vassalize all the minor daemon factions around Archaon's start point, but due to how things worked out over 20 turns, Ursan Revivalists pretty much put paid to the Khorne faction and the Khorne faction put paid to the Tzeentch faction. Both just had their capitals left so it was like....miss out on two Dark Fortresses or lose two vassalized daemon factions and their recruitment options. I vassalized the minor Slaanesh faction mostly because the campaign start primes you for it, and it's managing to pay out a decent number of recruits. So I'm kinda bummed I had to wipe out the Tzeentch daemons, because I really wanted their ranged.

Vassals for Chaos seem....I dunno. I'm not inclined to donate settlements to them for their benefit, so instead they end up surrounded and isolated by my provinces and don't grow or develop, so their recruits don't get any better or at least get better quickly like a regular AI faction with some territories would. For Chaos in particular, vassal recruits can't be upgraded or promoted. So a vassal Marauder recruit will just gain XP but not be able to promote to Chaos warrior. Useful if you need to bulk up an army quick I suppose.

Don't get me wrong, vassalization is cool. It's super flavorful and RP friendly. If you want your Sigvald and Archaon bromance, (or whatever weird WHF fanfic you're into) you can support your vassal like you would a coop player and actually use them. From a mechanics and optimization perspective though....it's kinda just easier to wipe them out and own their provinces yourself. There's some modifiers to vassal tribute but since it's only a part of their wealth rather than their entire wealth, those modifiers I think still make it fall short of economically developed settlements. Half the settlements in the Chaos wastes are just altars and stuff, not even the equivalent of a minor settlement. So you really want those Dark Fortresses in your hands rather than their's. And the other ostensible other benefit of vassals, their recruitable units, you're limited to just 4. That might be enough to make an important difference to your armies for some units, like war machines or cavalry or really good archers or monstrous units. But it mostly just seems like flavor at the end of the day.

Right now I'm debating in my campaign whether to go west through the Chaos Wastes and vassalize or destroy the Daemons of Chaos.....or go south east and start completing Archaon's quests, amassing souls and laying waste to the Empire. Just got my second army started so maybe I'll try to send them opposite directions instead of just dogpiiling on the AI with both and auto-resolving the next 200 turns.

[dragdeler]

Funny enough, I haven't gotten around to playing it yet, busy days, but also idk what to play yet.

Maybe it's time to play empire fore the first time? I know their roster is vast but it kinda feels very vanilla... But I played most factions I like lorewise once so... diplomacy boni to get an even larger roster seems like a fun campaign. Ah we'll see i'll probably start one today if nothing gets in between.

[Mech#4]

Still not really seeing it explained anywhere. It's not the flavor of corruption. It's not my primary corruption (it's almost maxed in that province), it's not Control, there's no buildings doing it, no other characters in the region that could affect it. The tool tips all mention terrain and climate affecting availability, but not cost. The cost markup is variable per unit (Troll is 20% more expensive, Chaos Warhound is 25% more expensive.....) for purchasing them...and on the flip side, they all have reduced upkeep costs versus normal.

It kind of looks like a balancing act for warbands specifically. Costs more to recruit since it's instant recruitment, but lower upkeep so you uh....can make due with fewer cities I guess?

Like, if that's the case, the over/under tooltip is just kind of confusing, making me think it's a situational thing I can do something about. If the game is just going to mark up/mark down unit cost and upkeep according to various factors....either tell me the inputs or don't show me the markup / markdowns.

This isn't related to the Warband Authority mechanic is it?
Above the lord when they're selected there's a series of chaos icons with a number in a circle. Say, Khorne 1, Nurgle 2, Tzeentch -1, Slaanesh 0 and Undivided 4.

This gives bonuses and penalties to units aligned with the different gods or who are undivided. Basically, if you have +1 Khorne Authority (Authority is usually gained through having heroes devoted to specific gods or unaligned) you will get a small discount for Khorne units.

However, if Khorne Authority is -1 or more, you will get a penalty to upkeep, along with other penalties, for Khorne units.

Heroes and Lords devoted to specific gods will also reduce Authority related to their opposite god. So Khorne heroes will raise Khorne Authority but lower Slaanesh Authority.

Specific bonuses/Penalties are:
Casualty Replenishment Rate.
Upkeep for X Gods Units.
Recruitment Cost for X Gods units.
Warband Upgrade cost for X Gods units.

[Persus13]

The reduced upkeep is definitely because of the Authority, but I'm not sure why that it would increase recruitment cost though.

[scriver]

Has anyone tried the new Mortal Empires campaign yet? I'm curious about how it runs.

[Persus13]

I've played a bit of Kholek single player and Tiktaq'to in a multiplayer.

Warhammer 3 I can't run at higher graphics settings in the first place, but IME doesn't run any worse for me compared to vanilla. The lack of the realms of chaos and the rifts might mean it actually runs a bit better on the campaign map, and I feel like battle load times take a little longer, but that's just my impression.

[dragdeler]

It drives me mad how much the third game is more demanding on the campaign map than in an actual battle. In campaign my pc gets HOT, in battle temps are fine. This shouldn't be. Why can't I crank down the campaign map specifically as to not punish my gpu. Ugh

[nenjin]

For me it seems to run......better for me? Although I think in TWH2 my campaign map performance may have suffered because of a map mod I installed that gave you way higher zoom out.

But in general yeah, I think it's run at least as smooth as TWH2 did for me. Game default to mostly max settings. (I don't have 3070 and I've got like a 4th gen i7.) I was prepared for battles to run like shit but so far it's been pretty good. That said I think models and stuff in TWH3 have lower fidelity. The game doesn't look better and when I look at the model, particularly in the hero/lord panel, they just seem kinda flat and ugly.

[dragdeler]

IDK I have sort of a beefy pc, when I bought it I didn't realize the issue with high TDP GPU... It's "only" a 2080ti, but that comes in at around 300w. I hate to see such an expensive piece of tech hover close to the 90°C. So usually what I do is finetune settings until I don't exceed 82°C anymore, and I tend to judge the quality of the optimisation by this admittedly random process. I know I should just get some third party tool to adjust the expected TDP or something directly on the GPU itself, but I made a habit out of my way and it has become a means for me to judge the quality of programming without tainting it with subjective impresions about the content of the game... I allways do that first before actually playing. Some newer games IDK what they have but I could put them on medium or I could put them on super duper ultra and not notice that much of a difference in my temps either way.

Yes I am obsessed with temperature but I hate the idea of additional strain on the parts, in order to produce excess heat, and I will just reduce visual fidelity and cap framerate until I'm satisfied. For example shadows have allways been an easy "off" for me, I find all the contrasting lines just distract from the actual information that is being conveyed, of course there are exceptions like stealth games.

I kinda outhyped myself by playing a VC and ork campaign in TW1, and a woodelf campaign in TW2 recently, technically I'd "rank" them as such:

TW1: easy on hardware because oldest and smallest
TW2: I found most optimised, super happy with the settings that were still in from when I bought it, and I wasn't even capping framerates at 48
TW3: I'm capping frames at 48, because I'm fine with that in strategy titles, but yeah, on a 2080ti just as to not exceed 82-84°C on the campaign map? Seems a bit excessive, especially since battles run so minty fresh

[Mech#4]

It runs much the same for me as Warhammer 2 did. There's some issues that have been around from launch of Warhammer 3 with fog and mist effects on battle maps and some parts of the campaign map causing FPS drops.

I have most settings on ultra with shadow detail on high. Anti-aliasing is FXAA. This is at 1920x1080 resolution too.
Video card is a 2070 8gb.

[nenjin]

I'm at about Turn 75 in my Archaon campaign. (Normal/normal because despite watching a few hundred hours of LotW I don't have the stomach for harder difficulties.)

It's been a cake walk. The AI just doesn't seem as aggressive or predatory as THW2. Dealing with Throgg and Icetooth has still taken the better part of the campaign, that's not changed. But in general you have to do really, really stupid things to get a challenging fight. (I managed to get attacked by both Thrott and the Empire in one battle because I decided to siege a city where I was already looking at a valiant defeat. So they sallied out. Came out to 2 Skaven armies, the Skaven Garrison and an Empire army. Smoked them all. I imagine the survivors of the Empire won't be telling their kids about that particular battle.....)

AI armies don't seem particularly strong either in terms of composition. Still a lot of T1 units, and a sprinkling of T3 stuff. I haven't seen a T4 or T5 unit from anyone yet. I've had I think one settlement in the ass crack of Norsca taken but other than that no one has really tried to go for me, and I've made due with only three armies until very recently. I hit Strength Ranking 2 by around turn 40 or so, or at least that's when I noticed it. Usually in TWH2 by the mid game various factions would be looking to nip at the undefended parts of my empire because it's gotten bigger than my army count. Maybe it's the advantage of being back against the edge of the map and surrounded by vassalized factions as Archaon in TWH3. I've had exactly two battles so far where auto-resolve was calling it a valiant defeat, and I managed to turn them both into decisive victories (one of those was the above battle.) So not feeling particularly challenged by the early game, and the late game steamroll is well underway.

The game started with 272 factions and by turn 75 we're down to about 130. I'm really looking forward to the campaign end time-lapse of factions to see who went out when, and where.

On the topic of vassalage, shit be gettin crazy. The map is CRAWLING with armies from Norsca tribes now, and they're even making in roads into the Empire ahead of me while I clean up Norsca. I've vassalized 3 daemon factions and probably more than 7 Norsca tribes by now, with a few more to come. I even vassalized Clan Moulder, which, I didn't think Chaos could vassalize non-Chaos, Daemon or Norscan factions. So Now I've got Thrott running around fuckin shit up on my behalf. And yet somehow I was completely unable to vassalize or subjugate the Daemons of Chaos faction. No idea why, it didn't follow any of the other rules on vassalizing I've seen so far.

Other than that I've started to get a sense of vassalage now and it's sort of useful if a bit buggy. Some units seem to get stuck and will never respond to new orders or even move ever again. Some units are slow to respond to orders, particularly if they're already got previous orders. Maybe you need to well and truly need to cancel their existing orders first if you want an immediate change, otherwise it seems to take a few turns for them to actually do it themselves. The game mentioned something about AI obeying orders for a few turns before they'll go back to what they were doing. That only seems true of defend orders.

But yeah, vassals are fairly handy. They're good for camping on cities you think might be vulnerable, good for running down broken armies, good for ordering to follow you around to bolster your numbers. Just their presence alone makes the enemy AI have to reconsider things and might contribute to their seeming passivity.

That said it feels weird to not be responsible for every single campaign move. I'll look back at an area I've revealed but haven't moved toward yet, and found the AI has started capturing settlements there. I think it's cool thematically but it does make the game easier and like you're not really responsible for a bit of it. I still don't generally let them take Dark Fortresses and it is sometimes annoying to have to roll back a turn because they've decided to attack a target you were interested in, unbidden. I often have to order my vassals to go do something else to draw them away from my next conquest, because if you're looking to invade somewhere, often some of your vassals are thinking the same thing at the same time, since your enemies are their enemies. Economically I guess the benefit of vassals (for Chaos) is they can turn minor settlements (which make you no money if you own them) into small profit generators. Still not sure if that value outstrips what a fully upgraded Dark Fortress brings or not.

The Lord and Hero trait RNG as far as Chaos god allegiance goes seems a little wonky. If you're looking to do a mono god themed army in Warriors of Chaos, you're kind of reliant on both the Lord and Hero traits, AND which Paths to Glory they roll with. For example, I've yet to see a melee Lord roll with the Nurgle or Tzeentch traits that make it cheaper to dedicate to a god and get their Authority. But I have 8+ Lords in the recruitment queue each with the trait for dedicating to Khorne or Slaaneesh. And I've yet to see a melee Hero roll the dedication to Tzeentch Path to Glory. I don't think it's necessarily tied to anything, just RNG. My idea for this campaign was to run Khorne/Tzeentch leaning armies. But so far the faction I've had almost all my opportunities and successes with is Slaanesh. It's just a minor flavor thing at the end of the day, Chaos Undivided is going to be strongest in Archaon's army. Still, it's always annoying when a flavor thing you're trying to do in a video game is essentially tied to RNG. The game ends up over and trivialized by the time you get the things you were going for.

Lastly, one other thing I think is contributing to Archaon's campaign feeling a little too easy is the prevalence of Aspiring Champions available for warband recruitment. I'm not sure what governs it, but not long after you've taken over an area, you're as likely as not to see at least one Aspiring Champion available for recruit in any given region. You're more likely to see them than Chosen or Chaos Warriors, no joke. You're skipping pretty much the entire melee progression in Warriors of Chaos recruiting them via warband recruitment, and Aspiring Champions once your tech tree is built out are fuckin' disugstin'. Regen, frenzy, barriers, perfect vigor, strider, poison, immune to psychology....they make you kind of question the value and utility of mono god Chaos Warriors because they simply get so many (and many of the same) benefits of those troops. A Chosen of Khorne is just a way more vulnerable version of a decked out Aspiring Champion with way fewer perks. Kind of feels like mono god Chaos Warriors need another tier of troop above them, like Champions of <god>, so they can give Aspiring Champions a run for their money.

[Grim Portent]

Warriors of Chaos are able to subjugate the 'Destruction' factions, Greenskins, Ogres and Skaven (technically a chaos faction, but in a wibbly kind of way,) in addition to the various other Chaos factions. Not Dark Elves though, dunno why.

The lack of confederation bugged me in my Archaon run, I had no need for the other LLs, my generics grew in power readily enough that little stood in their path to the point that Archaon, Rell (daemon prince of Khorne) and Hezxus (Undivided lord on dragon) were each able to single handedly thrash an entire region of the map solo. BUT I would still have liked to get my hands on Kholek and Be'lakor rather than having to do a whole new campaign to get to use them.

Archaon dealt with the Northern Wastes, Naggaroth and Ulthuan, Rell razed the World's Edge Mountains and some space on either side, Hezxus burned Cathay and the Mountains of Mourne to ash. Then they converged on the end game event, which was dwarves, with them handily dealing with basically everything that got thrown at them with ease. By the end of the campaign I had long since vassalised every chaos faction except Throgg and Wulfric. The four greater daemons vassalised without me even being near them, my opinion bonus from subjugating the North was so high.


Doing a Mannfred run now, and the AI does seem waaaay less aggressive than in the story campaign, and less agressive than in TW2 but not quite as much. Over a 100 turns I've probably had my settlements attacked only about 10-15 times despite being surrounded by enemies at all times.