So after the next DLC, Empire will have 5 hero types and Brets with just... 2?!

[Lampros]

Game life is unfair, just like real life...

[Conflagration]

Publicado originalmente por Lampros:

Publicado originalmente por TheSilverRaven:

To be fair, it was like that in tabletop as well. Characters not yet in Total War in italics.

Empire Lords
General of the Empire
Battle Wizard Lord
Arch Lector
Grand Master

Empire Heroes
Captain of the Empire
Battle Wizard
Warrior Priest
Master Engineer
Witch Hunter

Bretonnia Lords
Bretonnian Lord
Prophetess of the Lady

Bretonnia Heroes
Paladin
Damsel of the Lady

Part of this likely because Bretonnia was THE MOST neglected Tabletop faction. It, Skaven, and Beastmen were the only three armies to not get an 8th edition rulebook. It alone didn't even get a 7th edition update.

The Old World adds a Sergeants-At-Arms as an infantry hero for Bretonnia, but that's the extent of what CA can draw from tabletop. It also adds Warrior Priests of Ulric which would be nice if Toddy ever got proper Legendary Lord treatment.

I owned a Bret army on the tabletop, so I know. But PC gaming is a different context; on the tabletop, every faction had the same amount of points to spend on heroes and therefore could end up just as many heroes; Brets just had fewer variety. On PC, however, that is not the case. Fewer hero type means fewer heroes. There are also other things that worked okay for Brets on the tabletop but doesn't translate to PC as well, but that's another topic (for instance, all-cavalry army doesn't work on PC, unless you have superhuman reflexes and can micro like a machine).

The game is based off of TT though. If there's not a base for them to use, then they have to ask GWto give them something new. Clearly GW hasn't, and likely won't as CA have stated pretty clearly they don't intend to give Bretonnia new content.

[Breeding Medicine]

Publicado originalmente por Lampros:

Publicado originalmente por Breeding Medicine:

with how much popular Empire is it deserves 25 hero types

So game balance doesn't matter at all?

if you worry about 680 heroes roaming the campaign map there is a basic unit fee for both player and AI not overdo that.

As for anything else the more the merrier as long as it makes sense and fits both faction aesthetics and lore.

[Mr_Puddins]

Bret was the first faction I ever played in this game and still one of my top 3 favs.

[Solvem Probler]

Publicado originalmente por Lampros:

Publicado originalmente por Born2Dive:

Do you have a single fact to back that up OP

What fact to back up? It's obvious.

Translation: I made ♥♥♥♥ up

[Elitewrecker PT]

Publicado originalmente por Born2Dive:

Publicado originalmente por Lampros:

What fact to back up? It's obvious.

Translation: I made ♥♥♥♥ up

We know what type of content the DLC will contain.

[Conflagration]

Publicado originalmente por Born2Dive:

Publicado originalmente por Lampros:

What fact to back up? It's obvious.

Translation: I made ♥♥♥♥ up

The next DLC is going to contain the Empire. New DLCs are going to contain a Lord and a Hero type. Ergo, the Empire is getting a new Hero. Bretonnia is not getting a new DLC and therefore is not getting a new Hero.

What exactly is he "making up"?

[Lampros]

Publicado originalmente por Neurotoxin:

The game is based off of TT though. If there's not a base for them to use, then they have to ask GWto give them something new. Clearly GW hasn't, and likely won't as CA have stated pretty clearly they don't intend to give Bretonnia new content.

We don't know whether the reluctance to add a third hero type is due to GW's reluctance to give permission - or CA's reluctance to do the work. I am assuming it's the latter, because adding something like Faceless or Hermit Knight from the lore cannot be so daunting from a permissions aspect. But you think otherwise, so we will have to agree to disagree.

[Conflagration]

Publicado originalmente por Lampros:

Publicado originalmente por Neurotoxin:

The game is based off of TT though. If there's not a base for them to use, then they have to ask GWto give them something new. Clearly GW hasn't, and likely won't as CA have stated pretty clearly they don't intend to give Bretonnia new content.

We don't know whether the reluctance to add a third hero type is due to GW's reluctance to give permission - or CA's reluctance to do the work. I am assuming it's the latter, because adding something like Faceless or Hermit Knight from the lore cannot be so daunting from a permissions aspect. But you think otherwise, so we will have to agree to disagree.

You clearly know nothing about GW and their insane inconsistency.

[Lampros]

Publicado originalmente por Neurotoxin:

You clearly know nothing about GW and their insane inconsistency.

Don't be so sure in your opinion of things. First of all, I've been a GW customer for almost thirty years and a watcher of the company during that time as well. I am aware of their zeal in protecting their copyrights. Second, still, there is a world of difference between permitting CA to come up with a lore character type as I mentioned versus creating an entire roster such as Ind and Khuresh. It's reasonable to assume that CA can get the former. Basically, it seems like you are trying to shift every blame in roster deficiencies to GW, rather than CA. Of course, some posters un-versed in the relationship between the two companies may have erred excessively the other way in blaming CA for these problems, but you can swing to the other extremes, too.

As an aside, it's amazing how people's Steam IDs frequently demonstrate their personalities: "toxin" is indeed fitting in this case.

[Heinz]

To me Bretonnia does not feel like a real faction. It feels more like whoever was responsible for making the Warhammer world wanted to add romanticized medieval knights somewhere and just slapped them on there. Cheaply. At least one good point about Age of Sigmar is that it does not contain them.

[Garatgh Deloi]

Publicado originalmente por Born2Dive:

Translation: I made ♥♥♥♥ up

It's all well known information. But if you want sources:

https://www.totalwar.com/blog/wh3-soc-update-cathay/

WHAT TO EXPECT MOVING FORWARD
Below I have laid out what you can expect to see for Shadows of Change and Thrones of Decay in terms of the content and features for these products moving forward.

DLC Content – Shadows of Change & Thrones of Decay

3 Legendary Lords – Each playable in the Realms of Chaos and Immortal Empires campaigns
Unique gameplay mechanics for each Legendary Lord
3 Legendary Heroes – One per race
3 Lords – One per race
3 Heroes – One per race
5 Units (Infantry/Cavalry/Monsters etc.) per race
3 Regiments of Renown per race
1 FREELC Character (Aekold Helbrass for Shadows of Change and a Legendary Lord for Thrones of Decay)

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1142710/view/3127191325136532108

THRONES OF DECAY: Nurgle, the Empire, and the Dwarfs

[Anarchy]

Publicado originalmente por Ashardalon:

just like the imperium
the empire is strangely popular
so they get more stuff so they get more popular
people love boring factions
its the way of the world

Because
#humanityfirst

And french/french inspired people aren't human
(This is a joke)

[撿骨頭]

Publicado originalmente por Ashley:

Nobody likes Bretonnia though

Publicado originalmente por Human bean:

Publicado originalmente por Ashley:

Nobody likes Bretonnia though

Said nobody

I don't like Bretonnia, it made me very annoyed since Warhammer 1 when my lord got the lazy trait when garrisoned.
Bretonnia is even a race that I skipped in Warhammer 2 and never played again.

[Conflagration]

Publicado originalmente por Lampros:

Publicado originalmente por Neurotoxin:

You clearly know nothing about GW and their insane inconsistency.

Don't be so sure in your opinion of things. First of all, I've been a GW customer for almost thirty years and a watcher of the company during that time as well. I am aware of their zeal in protecting their copyrights. Second, still, there is a world of difference between permitting CA to come up with a lore character type as I mentioned versus creating an entire roster such as Ind and Khuresh. It's reasonable to assume that CA can get the former. Basically, it seems like you are trying to shift every blame in roster deficiencies to GW, rather than CA. Of course, some posters un-versed in the relationship between the two companies may have erred excessively the other way in blaming CA for these problems, but you can swing to the other extremes, too.

As an aside, it's amazing how people's Steam IDs frequently demonstrate their personalities: "toxin" is indeed fitting in this case.

Yeah, okay buddy. You tell yourself whatever you want, I suppose at the end of the day it's irrelevant whoever is the roadblock - you're not getting a Bretonnia update so get used to it.

[ope84]

They should add a peasant hero with block army action