The number 1 thing I would love to see changed is different races having different AI sets. Like beast men should have way more aggression than dwarves but they literally act the same.
Yep, every AI is Beastmen. Running away no matter what, sacking and running away, blowing up settlements, all to spite the player and live just one turn longer to annoy the player furthermore.
@@johnolsson2923 Thats every campaign ever, modded or not. Hecleas AI mod is relatively new afaik. Idk what game youve been playing for years, but Im glad the AI wasnt an abomination like for everyone else.
@johnolsson2923 there are slight differences in the campaign map but most differences are between major and minor factions have very different programing. I was referring mainly to battle maps tho. The AI in battles is definitely all the same. It changes based on unit type so factions that recruit more range or calvary or infantry will have differences in that sense. But a stack bloodletters will act the same as a stack skinks. You will see all AIs use he same formations.
I think the best way to takle this would be an evolution to the "endgame crisis": "big war scenarios" that trigger on a countdown between two different alliances of factions (from one or more races). For example: imagine playing as Elspeth and getting something around turn 50-60 the warning that Tamurkhan is rallying several norsca tribes and chaos dwarves holds against an alliance of dwarves and empire factions; at that point the AI receives a bust on their bonuses and start coordinating attacks against your alliance, both alliances have some defensive positions that must be protected and enemy settlements that must be conquered or raized, achieving any of those war objectives grants the whole alliance with bonuses (including alliance units from the other factions) and losing any of the defensive positions cause penalties; war ends whenever a number of objectives have been secured or whenever 1-3 factions from the opposite alliance have been eliminated with relevant rewards for all the victorious factions. Just imagine a proper Chaos Invasion with all WoC pushing against the Empire, the Dwarves and Bretonnia. Or a combined effort against Ulthuan between Morathi, N'Kari and Grom the Paunch.
Honestly, I think they hit the nail on the head of having increasing campaign difficulty in early Attila. In the first few months of Attila, the campaign often got so difficult that you had to give up territory, make very difficult decisions and generally turtle from the waves of Huns and economic penalties hitting you at the same time. Unfortunately, many people found this too difficult so they nerfed the difficulty to oblivion through the development cycle, including introducing new factions that straight up ignored the increased difficulty when it came to economics, having factions that heavily countered the Huns playstyle making the Big Bad almost trivial and generally buffing most of the factions (for example, the corruption nerfs) so that the late game penalties became less of an issue. Whilst I understand that many people quit campaigns out of frustration once the game got to difficult in the mid-late game, I wished they implemented a hardcore mode so that we could get that release level of difficulty back! Honestly, seeing that victory screen as Western Roman Empire in those first few months was one of the most satisfying experiences in Total War, knowing that you had just won the hardest campaign in the hardest game that Creative Assembly has ever produced!
SFO devs on the AI changes - "5.2 update mentions big changes to AI among many other things that should make it more “smart”. While playing now you can see AI more aggressive and harder at the first glance. We went deep into those changes and found out why. Actual AI changes are very minimal to the point of not affecting the campaign at all. The big change that was introduced is the insane amount of cheats that AI received. We are talking about 80% cost reductions for buildings, recruitment or units upkeep. No technology costs, high replenishment, no attrition damage or free experience for units and characters. Those values are almost double from the previous vanilla version and a base when the game begins so with few more technologies that AI researches way faster than players we have a situation when everything is just free. But what really changed that AI has more elite armies is not the fact that it started to move to proper provinces and recruit there, no. AI after the update has NO global recruitment time and cost. Yes, AI can do it for free now and instantly. And things that I just mentioned are not only on Legendary difficulty but on all of them, added to AI stronger the player is (even 3 player provinces can provide 50% reductions for AI). It all causes situations when 1 enemy province can produce an unlimited number of armies. So if you want to win a war you need to wipe out the enemy."
Wow... thank you for insight to AI changes. When come reveal form ex-developer of TW:R 2 and i saw section about AI development, specifically around politics behind AI behavior I lost hope for Warhammer 3. Now i see no changes in politics, no learning from previous titles to deliver better product. This look like exaggerated small step with some magic to satisfy some voices in community. Continuously the same ingenuine marketing, lazy with no work no money put to create positive changes. All this is short term cash-grab.
three kingdoms had the best late game. With the way the AI would form alliances and the end game would be three alliances. Would be sick in this game with vassals and variety with all the factions. Then medieval 2 crusades systems to have crazy multi faction battles.
Really hope the eventual end times update/ dlc brings in these mechanics Most of all, I wish they would improve ai intelligence rather than giving easy cheats!
I've noticed the ai making wiser choices with ambushes in key points or fleeing to replenish instead of attacking and raiding mindlessly like before. Not perfect, but better. Another stuff is that a giant empire doesnt feel like it: in attila trying to restore the roman empire against invaders, corruption, religion and other problems was a real challenge long run, here is harder to get.
It’s well documented that the reason why the late game of war 2 was more challenging than war 3 war in war 2, confederations were beyond easy to do, for both the players and the AI. So the AI would have 14 powerful factions vs having 85 weaker ones like we have now. Empire is decent at becoming powerful by mid game but the vast majority of the factions you fight are 10 region factions that your 60 region faction will crush without much effort.
War2 confederation should come back, the current one is stupid. I played a vlad camapign just after 5.2 and ghorst refused to be confederated to the very end, at his last turn of existing, he was still at -30 (only one settlement, since next turn he got wiped out) while i was all over the empire and also had half of bretonnia. Kemler only accepted to be confederated after he was down to 3 settlements while i was about to get my long term victory. This is stupid and I know there are ways to cheese it but it shouldn't need cheese. If a faction of your race is down to one settlement, you should be able to confederate them, no question asked.
But that s wrong: having ti face 10 faction instead of 3 is better for diversity, it's just stupid that they dont ally against you if you are much more powerful. It's still hard if you have 3 armies in a region and a couple of enemies attack you from another direction. That didnt happen in tww2 either.
@@Drakenn100 I think something in middle would be the best, where its not the auto confed that war 2 was, but we dont have the stubborn 1 settlement factions we all hate in war 3
@@AndreaFasani I actually enjoy the war 3 style for giving each faction a real identity vs the confed fiesta that led to 8 mega factions before, but it does mean the game is easier
@@MarkyMcOliver Oh sure. But the current status is mental. You shouldn't be walled from confederating a member of your lord race that is about to get wiped from the map, even less a legendary character. It just sucks the fun out of the game, even more when the only way to avoid it is to use weird cheesy strats. I shouldn't have to cheese to confederate, factions of my race about to die should be begging me to join me.
I think they did a great job, AI feels more formidable. I actually legitimately lost a battle and it wasn’t due to AI cheese, but I got overly confident and they punished that
If they really want to make campaing better they really need to fix both autoresolve and battle combat AI, specially the second because AI is just brain dead. Some players might not notice because battles are very fast and hectic but AI is very very dumb at managing the units. And autoresolve is too forgiving and in the player favour most of the time.
I still have the exact same problem with the AI as before the update: They refuse to give me interesting fights, instead scattering with the goal to sack my settlements from behind me. Only difference now is they have better units while running away from my armies.
I feel like buffing the AI like this is just making the gameplay loop way more narrow, your essentially making a total war version of They are Billions. You don't fight factions like yourself, your opponent and challenge is just endless waves. Seeing the AI build competent settlements gives me hope they can program something that can at least defend it's own territory as that would kind of fix the difficulty issue of the late game. Pushing into a large amount of territory with stacks in ambush/guarding passes would be interesting to encounter.
Could you do a azarath the ashen campaign? I find myself stuck with hobgoblins far too long like turn 70 plus until i get enough resources to increase unit caps. Maybe i dont know how to build a proper chaos dwarf economy to balance all the different currencies.
I'd like to see AI not sacking as much. For orcs, warriors of chaos and others it makes sense. But I'm getting sick of the empire and kislev doing the sack dance and giving their enemies time to strike back
Whilst your comment on gradual increase in difficulty is very apparent - you should consider how CA is likely to respond to your feedback. For example talking about not facing an organised attack by multiple factions - this would just lead CA to increase the anti player bias (which most of us recently campaigned to reduce). I'm not trying to say limit your criticism, but I am saying consider how CA will adapt their game to your feedback (usually not well).
The number 1 thing I would love to see changed is different races having different AI sets. Like beast men should have way more aggression than dwarves but they literally act the same.
They dont?
Yep, every AI is Beastmen. Running away no matter what, sacking and running away, blowing up settlements, all to spite the player and live just one turn longer to annoy the player furthermore.
@@Grivehn haven't had that experience but I run hecleas AI mod so that obviously might affect it.
@@johnolsson2923 Thats every campaign ever, modded or not. Hecleas AI mod is relatively new afaik.
Idk what game youve been playing for years, but Im glad the AI wasnt an abomination like for everyone else.
@johnolsson2923 there are slight differences in the campaign map but most differences are between major and minor factions have very different programing. I was referring mainly to battle maps tho. The AI in battles is definitely all the same. It changes based on unit type so factions that recruit more range or calvary or infantry will have differences in that sense. But a stack bloodletters will act the same as a stack skinks. You will see all AIs use he same formations.
I think the best way to takle this would be an evolution to the "endgame crisis": "big war scenarios" that trigger on a countdown between two different alliances of factions (from one or more races). For example: imagine playing as Elspeth and getting something around turn 50-60 the warning that Tamurkhan is rallying several norsca tribes and chaos dwarves holds against an alliance of dwarves and empire factions; at that point the AI receives a bust on their bonuses and start coordinating attacks against your alliance, both alliances have some defensive positions that must be protected and enemy settlements that must be conquered or raized, achieving any of those war objectives grants the whole alliance with bonuses (including alliance units from the other factions) and losing any of the defensive positions cause penalties; war ends whenever a number of objectives have been secured or whenever 1-3 factions from the opposite alliance have been eliminated with relevant rewards for all the victorious factions. Just imagine a proper Chaos Invasion with all WoC pushing against the Empire, the Dwarves and Bretonnia. Or a combined effort against Ulthuan between Morathi, N'Kari and Grom the Paunch.
Honestly, I think they hit the nail on the head of having increasing campaign difficulty in early Attila. In the first few months of Attila, the campaign often got so difficult that you had to give up territory, make very difficult decisions and generally turtle from the waves of Huns and economic penalties hitting you at the same time.
Unfortunately, many people found this too difficult so they nerfed the difficulty to oblivion through the development cycle, including introducing new factions that straight up ignored the increased difficulty when it came to economics, having factions that heavily countered the Huns playstyle making the Big Bad almost trivial and generally buffing most of the factions (for example, the corruption nerfs) so that the late game penalties became less of an issue.
Whilst I understand that many people quit campaigns out of frustration once the game got to difficult in the mid-late game, I wished they implemented a hardcore mode so that we could get that release level of difficulty back! Honestly, seeing that victory screen as Western Roman Empire in those first few months was one of the most satisfying experiences in Total War, knowing that you had just won the hardest campaign in the hardest game that Creative Assembly has ever produced!
SFO devs on the AI changes -
"5.2 update mentions big changes to AI among many other things that should make it more “smart”. While playing now you can see AI more aggressive and harder at the first glance. We went deep into those changes and found out why. Actual AI changes are very minimal to the point of not affecting the campaign at all. The big change that was introduced is the insane amount of cheats that AI received. We are talking about 80% cost reductions for buildings, recruitment or units upkeep. No technology costs, high replenishment, no attrition damage or free experience for units and characters. Those values are almost double from the previous vanilla version and a base when the game begins so with few more technologies that AI researches way faster than players we have a situation when everything is just free. But what really changed that AI has more elite armies is not the fact that it started to move to proper provinces and recruit there, no. AI after the update has NO global recruitment time and cost. Yes, AI can do it for free now and instantly. And things that I just mentioned are not only on Legendary difficulty but on all of them, added to AI stronger the player is (even 3 player provinces can provide 50% reductions for AI). It all causes situations when 1 enemy province can produce an unlimited number of armies. So if you want to win a war you need to wipe out the enemy."
Wow... thank you for insight to AI changes. When come reveal form ex-developer of TW:R 2 and i saw section about AI development, specifically around politics behind AI behavior I lost hope for Warhammer 3. Now i see no changes in politics, no learning from previous titles to deliver better product. This look like exaggerated small step with some magic to satisfy some voices in community. Continuously the same ingenuine marketing, lazy with no work no money put to create positive changes. All this is short term cash-grab.
@@thelos07c3 CA Sofia is still a competent studio and are actually trying to make good games. Warhammer 3 is beyond redemption imo.
Can you link a citation for this? If it’s a forum or Twitter thread/discussion somewhere, I want to read the whole discussion. Thanks.
three kingdoms had the best late game. With the way the AI would form alliances and the end game would be three alliances. Would be sick in this game with vassals and variety with all the factions. Then medieval 2 crusades systems to have crazy multi faction battles.
Really hope the eventual end times update/ dlc brings in these mechanics
Most of all, I wish they would improve ai intelligence rather than giving easy cheats!
I've noticed the ai making wiser choices with ambushes in key points or fleeing to replenish instead of attacking and raiding mindlessly like before.
Not perfect, but better. Another stuff is that a giant empire doesnt feel like it: in attila trying to restore the roman empire against invaders, corruption, religion and other problems was a real challenge long run, here is harder to get.
It’s well documented that the reason why the late game of war 2 was more challenging than war 3 war in war 2, confederations were beyond easy to do, for both the players and the AI. So the AI would have 14 powerful factions vs having 85 weaker ones like we have now. Empire is decent at becoming powerful by mid game but the vast majority of the factions you fight are 10 region factions that your 60 region faction will crush without much effort.
War2 confederation should come back, the current one is stupid. I played a vlad camapign just after 5.2 and ghorst refused to be confederated to the very end, at his last turn of existing, he was still at -30 (only one settlement, since next turn he got wiped out) while i was all over the empire and also had half of bretonnia. Kemler only accepted to be confederated after he was down to 3 settlements while i was about to get my long term victory. This is stupid and I know there are ways to cheese it but it shouldn't need cheese. If a faction of your race is down to one settlement, you should be able to confederate them, no question asked.
But that s wrong: having ti face 10 faction instead of 3 is better for diversity, it's just stupid that they dont ally against you if you are much more powerful. It's still hard if you have 3 armies in a region and a couple of enemies attack you from another direction. That didnt happen in tww2 either.
@@Drakenn100 I think something in middle would be the best, where its not the auto confed that war 2 was, but we dont have the stubborn 1 settlement factions we all hate in war 3
@@AndreaFasani I actually enjoy the war 3 style for giving each faction a real identity vs the confed fiesta that led to 8 mega factions before, but it does mean the game is easier
@@MarkyMcOliver Oh sure. But the current status is mental. You shouldn't be walled from confederating a member of your lord race that is about to get wiped from the map, even less a legendary character. It just sucks the fun out of the game, even more when the only way to avoid it is to use weird cheesy strats. I shouldn't have to cheese to confederate, factions of my race about to die should be begging me to join me.
I think they did a great job, AI feels more formidable. I actually legitimately lost a battle and it wasn’t due to AI cheese, but I got overly confident and they punished that
I’d be in favor of WH2 style confederation as long as it wasn’t the same factions every time, which is possible now.
I feel you on this but I am loving the new buffs. Great start.
If they really want to make campaing better they really need to fix both autoresolve and battle combat AI, specially the second because AI is just brain dead. Some players might not notice because battles are very fast and hectic but AI is very very dumb at managing the units. And autoresolve is too forgiving and in the player favour most of the time.
I still have the exact same problem with the AI as before the update: They refuse to give me interesting fights, instead scattering with the goal to sack my settlements from behind me. Only difference now is they have better units while running away from my armies.
I feel like buffing the AI like this is just making the gameplay loop way more narrow, your essentially making a total war version of They are Billions. You don't fight factions like yourself, your opponent and challenge is just endless waves. Seeing the AI build competent settlements gives me hope they can program something that can at least defend it's own territory as that would kind of fix the difficulty issue of the late game. Pushing into a large amount of territory with stacks in ambush/guarding passes would be interesting to encounter.
I think AI confederations are coming with the End times style DLC that we will get imo.
Could you do a azarath the ashen campaign? I find myself stuck with hobgoblins far too long like turn 70 plus until i get enough resources to increase unit caps. Maybe i dont know how to build a proper chaos dwarf economy to balance all the different currencies.
You must bear in mind the WH III is 'Arcade' Total War.
Replenishment, building, battles are all VERY fast.
It was made to be quick and easy.
suurrre
@Costin Gaming
Try the SFO overhaul mod, it plays very differently than vanilla.
🙂
I'd like to see AI not sacking as much. For orcs, warriors of chaos and others it makes sense. But I'm getting sick of the empire and kislev doing the sack dance and giving their enemies time to strike back
Some factions like the greenskins need to be less inclined to team up, and more likely to create more factons when conquering more territory.
Whilst your comment on gradual increase in difficulty is very apparent - you should consider how CA is likely to respond to your feedback.
For example talking about not facing an organised attack by multiple factions - this would just lead CA to increase the anti player bias (which most of us recently campaigned to reduce).
I'm not trying to say limit your criticism, but I am saying consider how CA will adapt their game to your feedback (usually not well).
Really dislike AI CHEATING... I dislike giving AI buffs for it to compete. SMH
Yeah it's just lazy game design. Make the AI actually use logic.