Warhammer 3 will have reworked sieges. Called it!

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

After watching these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GEmF5uIrwU&t=7s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSkYVFCZn_Y&t=4s

I'm happy to say, that I was one of the people who called it!

I just knew that CA was waiting until Warhammer 3 to rework siege battles for the Warhammer TW games.

Now, from what I've been able to play of Warhammer siege battles, I personally never hated them, but I did see that they were a downgrade from Rome 2 and Attila's. But I understood why.

I, and I'm sure a few others as well, understood that there were going to need to be all the races either already in the game or for it to be the final game that can just have the races added into it.


But now it's question time.

How do you guys think CA will rework the sieges in Warhammer 3?

And what sort of things do you think they'll do with different race based siege maps and such things?

[THEDOSSBOSS]

If the AI aren't improved along with it, CA could make siege maps as impressive as Thrones', and it wouldn't mean a damn thing

With that in mind, and CA understanding that as an issue (since that is most likely the reason they stuck with these sieges anyways amongst the TT theme), I honestly don't know how much they'll revamp it. To the same level as the outposts is certainly not enough, and the AI can't even properly utilize those to take advantage of the inner layer

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by THEDOSSBOSS:

If the AI aren't improved along with it, CA could make siege maps as impressive as Thrones', and it wouldn't mean a damn thing

I think that with things like flying units and such could help out, but I get what you mean.

But I'm sure CA knows what they're doing and will make siege battles great again.


Edit
Maybe they could just make some siege maps for multiplayer vs single player.

[||]

Originally posted by THEDOSSBOSS:

If the AI aren't improved along with it, CA could make siege maps as impressive as Thrones', and it wouldn't mean a damn thing

Making AI for these games isn't as simple as you seem to think.

And you think you want good AI, but you don't really. There is issue of cost to implement, the performance issue and the issue that it would make game unplayable for most people.

Those efforts are better put into some other, actual features.

[THEDOSSBOSS]

Originally posted by dejw:

Originally posted by THEDOSSBOSS:

If the AI aren't improved along with it, CA could make siege maps as impressive as Thrones', and it wouldn't mean a damn thing

Making AI for these games isn't as simple as you seem to think.

And you think you want good AI, but you don't really. There is issue of cost to implement, the performance issue and the issue that it would make game unplayable for most people.

Those efforts are better put into some other, actual features.

I understand AI isn't simple. I have been defending CA's AI fo ages because compared to AI from other games, especially rts games, it is pretty damn good. However, I also believe CA should work within the confines of what is possible. If the AI can't handle sieges, then don't do complicated sieges, absolutely

But yes, I definitely want better AI and all the implications that entails. No question about it. In a strategy game, I want to lose because I was outsmarted, not because the AI managed to bring an extra stack of units it's just gonna charge against my lines because it is not under the same economic confines. Once again, I understand that the player cheats due to difference of intellectual aptitude, meaning that giving the AI buffs is a balancing factor, but if there is a possibility to decrease that difference rather than come up with ways of destroying more braindead units, I am going to pick the former 100% of the time

AI is an extremely important feature. It increases the payoff knowing you beat something capable of actually beating you. Even on legendary, it's just a matter of picking the right damage-dealing units and buffs to hold the line against thrice their numbers

[THEDOSSBOSS]

Heck, even improving the auto-resolve system would be better. It should fluctuate depending on your battle performance. Manage enough decisive victories on what are projected as pyrrhic battles, and the bar should then change to reflect your own personal capabilities, to the point where it removes the need to fight any contrived or unnecessary battles because it has changed its parameters enough to suit your performance that it would be in your favor even though the AI army is equal or more in strength

[||]

Originally posted by THEDOSSBOSS:

Originally posted by dejw:

Making AI for these games isn't as simple as you seem to think.

And you think you want good AI, but you don't really. There is issue of cost to implement, the performance issue and the issue that it would make game unplayable for most people.

Those efforts are better put into some other, actual features.

I understand AI isn't simple. I have been defending CA's AI fo ages because compared to AI from other games, especially rts games, it is pretty damn good. However, I also believe CA should work within the confines of what is possible. If the AI can't handle sieges, then don't do complicated sieges, absolutely

But yes, I definitely want better AI and all the implications that entails. No question about it. In a strategy game, I want to lose because I was outsmarted, not because the AI managed to bring an extra stack of units it's just gonna charge against my lines because it is not under the same economic confines. Once again, I understand that the player cheats due to difference of intellectual aptitude, meaning that giving the AI buffs is a balancing factor, but if there is a possibility to decrease that difference rather than come up with ways of destroying more braindead units, I am going to pick the former 100% of the time

AI is an extremely important feature. It increases the payoff knowing you beat something capable of actually beating you. Even on legendary, it's just a matter of picking the right damage-dealing units and buffs to hold the line against thrice their numbers

I understand your sentiment, and agree with why you want it, but the thing is the % of people who would actually make use of that improved AI is really, really small, while it would cost insane amount of money. Not to mention the performance cost on your computer, which is what could actually make it impossible.

I'd rather they put that effort into naval battles for example. Probably won't happen either though, heh.

EDIT: Isn't autoresolve getting updated with the patch that was in proving grounds, or do I just remember badly?

[THEDOSSBOSS]

Originally posted by dejw:

Originally posted by THEDOSSBOSS:

I understand AI isn't simple. I have been defending CA's AI fo ages because compared to AI from other games, especially rts games, it is pretty damn good. However, I also believe CA should work within the confines of what is possible. If the AI can't handle sieges, then don't do complicated sieges, absolutely

But yes, I definitely want better AI and all the implications that entails. No question about it. In a strategy game, I want to lose because I was outsmarted, not because the AI managed to bring an extra stack of units it's just gonna charge against my lines because it is not under the same economic confines. Once again, I understand that the player cheats due to difference of intellectual aptitude, meaning that giving the AI buffs is a balancing factor, but if there is a possibility to decrease that difference rather than come up with ways of destroying more braindead units, I am going to pick the former 100% of the time

AI is an extremely important feature. It increases the payoff knowing you beat something capable of actually beating you. Even on legendary, it's just a matter of picking the right damage-dealing units and buffs to hold the line against thrice their numbers

I understand your sentiment, and agree with why you want it, but the thing is the % of people who would actually make use of that improved AI is really, really small, while it would cost insane amount of money. Not to mention the performance cost on your computer, which is what could actually make it impossible.

I'd rather they put that effort into naval battles for example. Probably won't happen either though, heh.

EDIT: Isn't autoresolve getting updated with the patch that was in proving grounds, or do I just remember badly?

I didn't get my hands on the proving grounds and it currently doesn't exist. CA hasn't made known what elements may or may not be implemented into the game

[Ysthrall]

I would like, in siege improvements....

1) Routing units fleeing back towards their starting point. So the defenders flee inwards, and the attackers flee outwards.

2) That damn bug whereby artillery, when directed to attack a tower/gate/wall, instead starts walking towards it....

3) Less durable siege towers/battering rams. I don't know what they're building those out of but they're very tough...

4) Racial capitals (so about 16, as WoC and Beastmen don't get them) being special unique maps with double walls. Except Dwarfs, who get triple walls.

Everything else, including tower range etc.... I think we can leave it as is.

[Kaaz]

Originally posted by Ysthrall:

I would like, in siege improvements....

1) Routing units fleeing back towards their starting point. So the defenders flee inwards, and the attackers flee outwards.

2) That damn bug whereby artillery, when directed to attack a tower/gate/wall, instead starts walking towards it....

3) not this one for me, higher rank walls tear those things apart, its just the standard ones that struggle

4) Racial capitals (so about 16, as WoC and Beastmen don't get them) being special unique maps with double walls. Except Dwarfs, who get triple walls.

Everything else, including tower range etc.... I think we can leave it as is.

basically same as what id want, but id also want high level cities to gain another layer of a defensive line (like forts are now with their fallback wall line) lower rank cities can keep the single main wall as is imo

[David McMurdo]

I don't know. I like the simplicity of settlements as they are now. The three walled cities and castles of Medieval 2 were super boring to assault.

[Hieronymous]

My main request for sieges is that there be far fewer.

[Dezpo]

Without talking about an improved AI

Id like some special map for capitals, harder to take for attackers, with alot of position where defender can fallback

A button for lock / open gates (a bit like Age of empire), so you don't get that bug when you units open the gates when you don't want

When you attack a town without wall, defender start in a 'urban" map, with houses, street maybe some advantageous position like higher position etc... and attacker outside
Im a bit tired of the full plains

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Ysthrall:

I would like, in siege improvements....

1) Routing units fleeing back towards their starting point. So the defenders flee inwards, and the attackers flee outwards.

2) That damn bug whereby artillery, when directed to attack a tower/gate/wall, instead starts walking towards it....

3) Less durable siege towers/battering rams. I don't know what they're building those out of but they're very tough...

4) Racial capitals (so about 16, as WoC and Beastmen don't get them) being special unique maps with double walls. Except Dwarfs, who get triple walls.

Everything else, including tower range etc.... I think we can leave it as is.

1. I would think that'd be a nice feature to have return.

2. Agreed, though I've not seen it too much myself.

3. I could agree with that, but only to an extent. Some race's towers and siege equipment should be a lot sturdier than others.

Maybe they could bring the return of of Rome 2 style siege equipment, with them being strong but far from invincible.

4. Having key capital maps be vastly different from their more common counterparts would be a really nice touch.

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by Kaaz:

basically same as what id want, but id also want high level cities to gain another layer of a defensive line (like forts are now with their fallback wall line) lower rank cities can keep the single main wall as is imo

If they did that, they really would have to rework siege ladders, maybe have them be similar to Medieval 2, where you could use them to attack the inner walls.

[chubbyninja89 (TNB)]

Originally posted by David McMurdo:

I don't know. I like the simplicity of settlements as they are now. The three walled cities and castles of Medieval 2 were super boring to assault.

I don't disagree with you on that they could be boring, but I think that they could manage to make some of the siege maps work and be more dynamic than Medieval 2's.