CA should bring back WH2s Proving Grounds beta. That was some good stuff that made the campaign much slower. 

Maybe at end of development. If you want control over pace I think SFO currently does this. 

​

SafironDracolich#6190 wrote:
Besides the fact that maybe in 6.2 we will see an updated AI, there will be a beta test of the Osad revamp sometime in the summer and certainly the combat AI will need to be reworked. But at the same time...you can't really forget about the pace of the game both from the beginning and to the very end. Because CA Sofia will have to make two options, either for players to reduce everything for characters to gain experience and levels slower as it was in the first two parts so that elites, technicians, monsters and units of higher rank cost much more. Exactly the same as the construction of key buildings. Or for the AI to be on par with the player to develop and hire higher ranked units so that everything is not clogged with low ranked units and for this game everything will be for the benefit of the player.

-fix PO and corruption so they matter and can't be simply ignored

-remove building autoconversion

-lower replenishment rates

-add economy scaling 

lower replenishment is not enough. It would lead to another problem. If a unit needs for example 3 turns to replenish... then it's more efficient to just disband it and recruit a new one. This is not very logical...

It could with another change. Like a global manpower pool (see Europa Universalis). When you recruit a unit, it consumes part of this pool, and it will restore other time. So disbanding a unit to rebuild instead of waiting for it to replenish wouldn't be so easy.

​

Steph#6413 wrote:
If a unit needs for example 3 turns to replenish... then it's more efficient to just disband it and recruit a new one. This is not very logical...

You lose all veterancy and if building autoconversion is removed then you won't be able to just hire new troops in freshly conquered provinces. 

But that could also be solved by fixing recruitment slots and making it much harder to get more and making global recruitment use up regular recruitment slots. 

The right way to go at this point is AI getting massive bonuses so that at high level their lords can keep pace w player. it needs to be difficulty dependent as well, and many bonuses should be automatic/random on level gain, like ward save etc.

Also need something to slow down expansion. Stronger garrisons, public disorder, supply lines - or even just the higher recruitment cost we had in proving grounds.

Also think they need to make higher tier units available much sooner for both player and AI and make AI recruit higher tier units, while limiting both player and AI from doomstacking - there are mods that do this

​

RawSugar#1229 wrote:
The right way to go at this point is AI getting massive bonuses so that at high level their lords can keep pace w player.

This proved not only ineffective in WH2, it also made the game noticeably worse because that just meant every war with the AI was an endless grind and one-settlement empires had about as much power as 100-settlement empires. No, I don't want a return to that malaise. The outcome of battles needs to mean something. 

The right course of action is to finally nerf the player. 

​

Steph#6413 wrote:

lower replenishment is not enough. It would lead to another problem. If a unit needs for example 3 turns to replenish... then it's more efficient to just disband it and recruit a new one. This is not very logical...

I tend to agree. It's probably better for replenishment to be as fast as it is right now - but only possible where that unit can be recruited. So I can only replenish my Reiksguard where I have a Reiksguard recruitment building. Otherwise zero replenishment. 

Combine this with no building auto-conversion as Tain suggests, unit caps, and rebalanced buildings and you've got a system that makes a lot more sense IMO. 

In my mod, I have no auto conversion, unit caps based on building (and with regional recruitment and caps), weaker units when recruited outside of your home region). That changes things a lot.

They've not nerfed Khorne or Ogre Kingdoms' stupid turbo 30 turn campaigns where you get everything handed to you from turn 1, so I'm concerned that's going to be the design philosophy going forward. 

Challenge free campaigns so dumbed down you complete them in one sitting.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

​

RawSugar#1229 wrote:
The right way to go at this point is AI getting massive bonuses so that at high level their lords can keep pace w player.

This proved not only ineffective in WH2, it also made the game noticeably worse because that just meant every war with the AI was an endless grind and one-settlement empires had about as much power as 100-settlement empires. No, I don't want a return to that malaise. The outcome of battles needs to mean something. 

The right course of action is to finally nerf the player. 

Thats bad implementation not bad overall design.
First i assume you are overstating the impact or they changed much more than just the strength of lords/heroes, because a few of those do not match the strength of 100 settlement worth of armies. And obviously levels gains needs to be primarily linked w battles won - AI just needs to get much more xp pr battle since it fights far fewer.

As for the other...the worst shenanigans w items should be curtailed, maybe some balancing between the most useless and most powerful. bonuses should be multiplicative rather than additive so you cant stack ward save....but that only manages the extremes, which the player can easily avoid.

The issue is there being a system at all of managing items and followers, and even skills. its timeconsuming and snowball effecting, and it needs to be rewarding to make any sense. Turning it off should be an option - technically you can; just dont use skill points, items followers or even tech...arguably thats actually the better way to play the game. but its a lil hard not to take advantage and some factions need to unlock certain stuff to work....and they cant just remove it after ~10 years of it beibnga defining feature. so agreed some minor balancing, but the majority is going to have to be on AI side

​

RawSugar#1229 wrote:
First i assume you are overstating the impact or they changed much more than just the strength of lords/heroes, because a few of those do not match the strength of 100 settlement worth of armies. And obviously levels gains needs to be primarily linked w battles won - AI just needs to get much more xp pr battle since it fights far fewer.

No, I don't want more difficulty by giving the AI more advantages because that means the lategame is just an endless grind because the AI can churn out armies no matter how bad they are doing until you take their last settlement. That was the WH2 lategame and I never want a return to that ever. Winning and losing need to mean something. 

you seem to generally want a harder early game and easier lategame? not my preffered direction. Could easily see increasing wound time to 10 turns, or maybe 5+3 pr death there's mods for that as well.

The alternative to buffing AI is basically stripping all item/follower/skill from lords heroes. thats a fairly wild suggestion. 

​

RawSugar#1229 wrote:

up to 100 is the number im aiming for, that puts you in top 10 power. you're not giving me a number but it sounds like you're suggesting ~33 settlements, meaning your faction is top 30 at turn 100. You also want world domination to be a 3000 turn project if at all.

I think actually you can achieve something like this just not using buildings that produce currencies or trading goods. Id be interested in gameplay like this, maybe even making AI more aggresive as wel. I dont think id want it as my primary game mode though. 100 turns to become a great power. another 50 to become dominant. seems plenty...i guess w smaller empires come somewhat shorter turns so a bit slower is ok.

I guess you could lower AI bonuses to match so you could still be very strong w just 33 settlements....it would still feel weird to end  campaign w just ~60 settlements, and i wouldnt want to make a campaign longer in playtime than they already are.

You are not getting the point, which is that conquering 100 regions in this game is no issue at all and that this is what needs to change. Large empires also need to have their own issues and challenges and that needs to change too. 

i obviously get that...you clearly havent thought about the broader implications of how that impacts gameplay and the overall design of what youre suggesting so im trying to sketch that...and it doesnt look appealing at all.