Looking at how the Garrisons and AI have been changed by Creative Assembly in Patch 4.0, coming alongside Shadows of Change for Total War: Warhammer 3 Immortal Empires.
➜ Join the Discord: https://discord.gg/a4rBAFkqTr
Donate to Support the Channel!
➜ Youtube Membership: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnSuI6Qe57RSyIXn2Q-2Emg/join
➜ Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=EEN4KMAWNVANS
➜ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/costingaming
Special Thanks to:
Alain of Deathwatch
Alexander
Yolosapien
Fred
JKPrimative
Kurtis
RatEmperor
connor
Sean
Sinnelleos
Anton
Phillip
CB
Crix
Mederic
NL
Lina
Dan
Filip
Christopher
Whale
8GREENC
Vlad
Konda
RhadigarTV
Martin
Gabriel
KJF
Lorem
#immortalempires #totalwarwarhammer3 #warhammer3 #totalwar
source
Personally i dont even bother with garrison buildings in minor settlements anymore i just focus on buildings that increase $ and control
I miss playing defensive. Doing so now is suicidal. Before 4.0 that is, taking a hiatus from the game.
what graphical mods are you using? your games color pops so much more than mine
great, more minor settlement battles again, we're really going one step forward two steps back. Great changes CA y'all really listening…
im glad to see the AI is being more aggressive, it was really weird how they would just kinda stalemate across the world and just hvae 1-2 provinces
I disagree about garrisons, many defensive battles are a foregone conclusion currently. Also Ca's removal of walls from tier 2 garrisons was clearly a mistake that will have to be fixed eventually. Also, not a new player. I favour aggressive early expansion also, but later on holding your borders with garrisons is definitely desirable. Otherwise, why even bother with this building at all?
You are worried that you ll need to fight more manual? This game is already 90% autoresolve. Admit you are sick of this game already.
Hard disagree, garrisons need to be stronger. They are useless and a garrison can help you either weaken the enemy or actually defend the settlement. I play VH/VH and want to fight a proper battle when I attack a settlement. Garrisons with walls are not supposed to be useless period. There needs to be a change.
Garrisons should have their own lord and be granted all the buffs your normal units get. Possibly with a minor xp gain over time if garrison isn't regulary wiped out.
Or just straight up rework them to be based on your recruitment buildings in a province, you get the units you can recruit. Mabe even make it customisable.
From a lore perspective I would've never really thought that Khorne factions would have a pretty big garrison… I feel like most of the fighters would go out and fight instead of wait for one at a settlement
Personally i think that garrisons should grant your city walls and that tier 3 settlements should automatically be unwalled settlement maps. I feel like both from a gameplay and balance perspective it works, plus it also just nakes sense logically if we're thinking in-universe.
How would it be if garrison building give f. Ex. a plus 10 leadership extra to all units garrisoned. And military buildings give a small buff to MD MA 🤔 for the units….
For me I am sad, that minor settlements no longer have a hero inside to lead that army.
For vampire counts it makes especially no sense I think just having zombies to defend, but no one to tell them how to 😅… And one unit in a garrison, that can defend kind of against single entities of the opponent was nice to have…
Further if you have a spellcaster from a building, give him/her spells to use and high tier maybe even a mount.
It doesn't have to be the whole lore, but just one spell doesn't justify a spellcaster in my opinion 😢
IMO issue isn't amount of garrison units, but that they are made off just from basic units eventhough races got over time over 20+ unit in a rosters, but garrisons didn't evolved at all.
Playing passivly or defensivly: there is no benefits for that in this GRAND srategy game, partially because there is no deep diplomacy or options what to do meantime. Even more so, there is autoresolve and ecnomic inbalance between evil x order, so in many instances it isn't option for this reason too.
note: how many times you have seen Ai to embed L. Kroak in their armies? I met him wandering low level on the map 100% of the time
Thanks for this youre actually the first youtuber to even cover these changes. I used it to check against the garrisons currently in game and yep the garrison changes vary from either no change at all to an extra tier 3 unit at best.
I disagree about the garrisons. They definitely need to get back to the level they were at launch/in warhammer 2. Right now the garrison building is almost useless because garrisons are so weak even a mid tier army has a relatively easy time beating them. But earlier adding the garrison building could make a major difference. A full minor settlement garrison might not have been able to stop a top tier army but it could still dish out a lot of damage in most cases. And a full major settlement garrison even had a decent chance at beating a top tier army, although it was highly relient on the factions and units involved. They did a great job delaying and weakening an enemy that launched a surprise attack on you. Does it mean that as the player you'll have a tougher time to conquer certain places? Yes. But that's also part of the game. The ability to siege a settlement for multiple turns is there for a reason. The fact that someone refuses to use it because they want to be aggressive isn't really a good reason to not restore garrisons. You can still be aggressive and take things in one turn. You just need to do it manually or with another army, at potentially high casualties. Or you wait it out for a few turns and you don't have to do it manually or without many casualties.
Better garrisons are needed because the A.I. is incapable of defending anything. They made the settlements larger, made the AI dumber, and then somehow expected a handful of A.I. controlled units to defend a sprawling city. Settlements should be difficult to take/capture; currently, they require no skill whatsoever; they're just a frustrating time-sink. The whole rationale behind "playing aggressively" rests on the fact that the player can do that–when the A.I. can't defend itself, the player can just steamroll the game right from turn 1. (This is especially true if A.I. exploits are used.) It would be nice if the A.I. had larger/smarter garrisons, so "playing aggressively" wasn't so damn easy.
Also, it would be nice if the player was actually rewarded for the time invested in laying siege to a settlement/city. Imagine if settlements rewarded the player with unique perks (i.e., special lore items, "gear", army abilities, special landmarks, etc.). One of the reasons why "city battles" suck is that there is zero incentive to engage in them because they take more time to complete than field battles. There is simply no incentive beyond gaining the settlement (or razing/looting it.) There should be additional reasons/incentives for going through the hassle of laying siege to a city. How CA has not realized this is astonishing. Then again, I don't think they have their A-Team working on WH3 any more; the game is barely on life-support. I mean, when the developers and/or QA can't even test the release of a new content drop, to make sure it actually works as designed, someone isn't doing their job.