Support NeoGAF

[amigastar]

It's a lot of fun but it's not perfect. I tried Chaos yesterday and in forty turns I had two battles. The rest were sieges which I auto resolve because they're so boring.

Empire campaign is better but also annoying since you have to run all over the map putting out fires after they nerfed garrisons so cities fall way too easily. Even high level Altdorf is an easy auto resolve for the ai now.

Thats true, i wish you could choose between sieges and battlefield.

 

[Lady Jane]

I’m not a fan of WH3 sieges either. It doesn’t feel epic at all. It’s just scattered skirmishes. And the tower system feels like they’re beta testing a PvP monetization model.

 

[Hari Seldon]

For some reason I skipped these because I have been pretty down on TW games and don't really care about warhammer, but I started playing WH3 on gamepass and I love it. Are the older games worth playing at all or should I just only play WH3? I do already own them from previous steam sales, but none of the huge amount of DLC.

 

[Lady Jane]

For some reason I skipped these because I have been pretty down on TW games and don't really care about warhammer, but I started playing WH3 on gamepass and I love it. Are the older games worth playing at all or should I just only play WH3? I do already own them from previous steam sales, but none of the huge amount of DLC.

If you enjoy any of the WH games in the trilogy, then you'll enjoy the other two. It's more about who you want to play as. WH3 has a focus on chaos and "evil" factions. If you own any of the content in WH1 or WH2, then you'll be able to play as those factions in the WH3 Immortal Empires campaign.

 

[amigastar]

I've just send Creative Assembly an email with the suggestion to make the possibilty to choose between sieges and open battlefield.
It would be really nice to have that option.

 

[Slicker than your average]

I've just send Creative Assembly an email with the suggestion to make the possibilty to choose between sieges and open battlefield.
It would be really nice to have that option.

There's a mod that turns all settlement battles into field.

I don't mind sieges but settlement battles suck.

 

[Sybrix]

I've just send Creative Assembly an email with the suggestion to make the possibilty to choose between sieges and open battlefield.
It would be really nice to have that option.

Isnt that basically cheating the game?

Siege battles are more difficult for obvious reasons and add more challenge to the game.

If players have an option to either have a siege battle or open... they will always go for open, its the easier option.

 

[amigastar]

Isnt that basically cheating the game?

Siege battles are more difficult for obvious reasons and add more challenge to the game.

If players have an option to either have a siege battle or open... they will always go for open, its the easier option.

Maybe make the open battle more difficult than the siege battle.

 

[Sybrix]

Maybe make the open battle more difficult than the siege battle.

Maybe, that would have to depend on the terrain the open battle is taking place.

The point of historical TW games is them being as historically accurate as possible, they can't take away the challenge of a siege battle because its a pain in the ass.

To some extent i agree with you, siege battles in TW games suck.

Instead of removing them, CA should evolve them, there should be more options to sneak behind city walls, have spies place explosives for your attack etc. There are lots of things CA could do to make siege battles more enjoyable.

 

[Lady Jane]

Siege battles are hard for the wrong reasons. Scaling walls and moving on-top of walls has always been janky. Siege battles overall have a horrible flow to them for plenty of reasons. The next TW core game (which is likely the historical one), I'm hoping that a Siege rework has a large focus, maybe even be top priority. Regardless, settlement battles are not the answer.

 

[GnomeChimpsky]

Maybe, that would have to depend on the terrain the open battle is taking place.

The point of historical TW games is them being as historically accurate as possible, they can't take away the challenge of a siege battle because its a pain in the ass.

To some extent i agree with you, siege battles in TW games suck.

Instead of removing them, CA should evolve them, there should be more options to sneak behind city walls, have spies place explosives for your attack etc. There are lots of things CA could do to make siege battles more enjoyable.

Siege battles can be really fun imo, it's settlement battles that suck.

 

[amigastar]

Just build my new SSD into my PC. Finally i can enjoy Warhammer 3 properly.

 

[KyoZz]

 

[amigastar]

I don't get it, why is it an Immortal Empires launch trailer? Immortal Empires launched last year, right?

 

[Kacho]

I don't get it, why is it an Immortal Empires launch trailer? Immortal Empires launched last year, right?

Saw the trailer in my feed this morning. I assume it’s out of Beta now.

 

[amigastar]

Saw the trailer in my feed this morning. I assume it’s out of Beta now.

Yes, that seems to be the case. Also you don't need WH 1 and 2 anymore to play Immortal Empires, it's free for all WH 3 owners.