Can someone explain the wall removal and what the difference between walls and garrison buildings are?

[Red]

I'm just confused by the patch. Everyone is complaining about the wall removal, and I am just trying to understand what is actually done. Can't seem to get a campaign going due to mods being outdated so I haven't had a chance to look over new minor settlements.

[Ashardalon]

minor settlement any tier without any garrison building = autowin fieldbattle vs meaningless nongarrison
t2 garrison building is hoping but not guaranteed town fight with still a pathetic garrison
still a chance for a no hope field battle waste of time
t3 garrison building is higher chance of town fight but still a chance of just autolosing because field battle because garrisons whernt adjusted to the nerfs
walls dont exist in a world like warhammer where a barrier between you and the world that tries to kill you is your only hope
oh and also they nerfed the wall towers because removing the last bit of use from walls is funny

its either nothing or rng for a pittance

[Monsieur Marley]

Field battles are pretty much taken over in every settlement (except major ones). This is a boon if you liked warhammer II as a majority of battles were field battles. However after a majority of complaining about the minor and major city battles being in cities they nerfed how often you will ever see one. Now people are complaining again

[Ashley]

Everyone is Norsca. We're all monke. We have devolved and forsaken all technology especially walls. That's what they did.

[Red]

I will admit... I did prefer more field battles. Eh i'm sure a balance will be found but I honestly didn't care for most of the settlement maps... I liked... the empire walled one and uh one of the cathayan ones.

[Red]

... you know no one has answered my original question of if you get a building that still ups your defenders like walls did. or if buildings now all generate some portion of the garrison or.... etc.

[Ares]

Originally posted by Red:

... you know no one has answered my original question of if you get a building that still ups your defenders like walls did. or if buildings now all generate some portion of the garrison or.... etc.

To answer your question, there is no difference between wall and garrison buildings, they are the same. The final tier of garrison buildings used to have the effect of adding walls to your settlements (along with adding more defenders).

What the patch did was to make the default battles for minor settlements into field battles, and building garrison buildings now changes that into minor settlement battles. They still also add more defenders, as they always have. However the top tier garrison building no longer adds full walls to minor settlements.

[Red]

Thank you. I hate it. If I’m forced to fight a minor settlement I would much rather fight a walled minor settlement. Just get rid of the non walled version….

[Captainbeastfeast (Rat-ee-JiK)]

solution is obvious:
no garrison= land battle
level 1 garrison building = settlement battle
level 2 garrison building = walled settlement battle (this is what CA got wrong, currently it just loads up an unwalled settlement battle)

and also they need to restore walls in all bretonnian level 3 settlements. it's meant to be the land of knights and castles!

This way CA can succeed in reducing the number of seige battles, whilst still keeping the ability for players and ai to fortify over time if they decide to.

[Mors Avis]

Originally posted by Hurricane:

Its a dumb change... minor settlement battles were fine it's just the ar people want no effort wins! Now a handful of skaven can take any time while before you could actually defend!

The obvious reply is that settlement battles were highly abusable. You don't even have to fire a shot half the time, just abuse the idiotic supply point system.

Again, the root problem is the AI. It couldn't defend its small settlements/sieges in WH2, and it's completely worthless in WH3.

Instead of improving the battle AI and/or garrisons, pop-up towers, barricades, and narrow paths were CA's answer.

Now they've gone the other way, but nerfed garrisons.

/facepalm

[Stealthy Mike]

Originally posted by Achungus Amongus:

Everyone is Norsca. We're all monke. We have devolved and forsaken all technology especially walls. That's what they did.

Apes together strong

[Hieronymous]

Town battles were awful. Long live this patch.

[Colfer]

I'm definitely glad they reduced the minor settlement battles. Partly because the maps were so dull.

[MrSoul]

I’m just glad something easily reversed by a mod.

No fing clue what devs smoking there other than a lot of pot and reading too many comments on places like this while actually taking them to heart, versus leaving well enough alone and not reinventing wheel every major patch.

[Big Sneeze]

The complainers did not speak for me when they said they don't want siege battles and settlement battles. The amount of settlement/siege/land battles you played depended on YOUR PLAYSTYLE. There was no reason for a drastic change like this. If you don't want to fight settlement battles, then don't rush an early conquest and go fight the roaming enemy armies instead of map-painting.

If you wanted to map paint and map paint fast, you had to fight settlement / siege battles. That was good design. People who didn't like that should have just uninstalled. Vocal minorities (read: content tourist YouTubers and bored YouTubers who make this game their living) causing devs to make changes to the game is how you kill the game. MOST players didn't hate settlement and siege battles.

[Mors Avis]

I don't mind settlement battles, per se--it's the AI and pop-up towers/barricade nonsense that are the main problems.

The pathing issues can be dealt with, and the supply system can be completely ignored. But the AI is just awful, which, again, makes for a strong case for improving/increasing garrisons (not reducing them), since the AI can't handle/cover the larger maps "intelligently".

Settlement battles could work, provided the AI actually defended itself in battle, and provided the AI actually commits to attacking (instead of 'turtling') on the campaign map.

The problem is that the AI does neither of these things, while the idiotic supply system provides ways to abuse/win the battle without even fighting.

In addition, pop-up towers/barricades do nothing but provide a nuisance whack-a-mole component to the siege battle that no one likes and no one asked for.

Siege battles just need to be re-designed, from the ground up. Minor changes here and there will accomplish nothing.