Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
edit: Maybe they also buffed autoresolve? idk.. but I like it this way, rather than fighting all the tedious (settlement) battles
Not Imrik or Teclis
Not sure how the new start positions in the game affect their difficulty, but in II Teclis was a relatively difficult start and Imrik was arguably the hardest start in the game.
On that campaign, only about 40 turns in and have had to fight plenty of battles with Snikch as well. Fighting some just because of the hostiles close by even if it was safe to auto-resolve. Damn that big aligator Nikai showed up at just the wrong time too lol.
Wouldn't be surprised if stat weights on auto-resolve are kind of jacked up right now too so some could seem a lot easier than others just based off of unit comparisons.
the AI is agressive and attack my settlements and weak points BUT even with pretty strong army push auto and go next
It feels like the AI only feels confident attacking when it cant lose the battle even if the player cheeses the ♥♥♥♥ out of it.
i am on normal normal, the war declarations are pretty wild but the attacks lackluster so far.
Skarsnik was the ballsiest so far, actually attacking my settlement with a full stuck inside of it while I was weakened, it was no auto win for him but he still went for it.
So sometimes the AI does play the game at least.
they removed a lot of siege units from starter armies, except Empire got them now.
THorgrim lost his grudge thrower, they wanted to take out the early moment I guess.
They took out a lot of the things from TWW2 that provided difficulty -- the anti-player bias, the high supply lines, the aggressive AI. Sure, these things might have been "artificial difficulty" but for some, they made the game enjoyable. If you picked Very Hard or Legendary difficulty and then ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about anti-player bias, that was a you problem, but somehow the hordes convinced CA that it was a game problem or that it wasn't immersive*.
(*) "Immersive" is a totally fine argument -- for normal difficulty. Normal difficulty *should* be immersive and feel like you're fighting a war in the warhammer world. On VH or Legendary, that argument goes out the window; you chose that difficulty to be challenged. If the AI is sending armies halfway around the world just to get at your undefended cities, that's part of what made the game challenging, fun, interactive, and a *game* instead of a simulator. Some people seem to expect to be able to choose "Legendary" and then get a cakewalk -- which is exactly what TWW3 is providing right now.
CA is not going to invest money in making a good AI. It's just not going to give them the same ROI as hiring a few more artists to pump out content packs. In lieu of a good AI, the AI needs cheats and massive anti-player bias if it's going to provide a challenge to competent and experienced players.
Which is exactly what the difficulty selection should be -- choosing *your* way of having fun. I find fighting 20 armies all attacking my capitol while I can only afford 2 to fun because it makes me think. If you find that to be immersion-breaking and annoying, normal difficulty is there for you. Unfortunately, CA took away that option.