I thought this is a thread about how to improve Giants. because Giants look cool, should be cool but are not cool rn.

Anyway 1) having more landmarks is always nice. 2) garrisons should be recruitable. Like, this settlement has a budget of 850 golds for garrison units. You will pay everything over the limit. Racial capitals and other important settlements (like K8P) get bigger budgets. 3) moddable. And DarthEnderX is right. If you capture Egypt (irl or in TW: Rome2) the pyramids will still be there.

​

DarthEnderX-#6513 wrote:

​

WhiteBeard#5844 wrote:
3. When taking settlement from different factions, it gets transformed, so if you are white dwarf conquering Naggarond, that those settlements change look after you take them its bad that they still look like ones from Darkelves, same thing with if you take with Eltharion some orc settlement in badlands is still like that ugly camp 

You know that this is the case, because when you, say, conquer a Skaven city, or even completely destroy it and build a new on in it's place, the city still has a "Local Populace" penalty to Skaven Corruption.  Because the populous is still Skaven.

Oh, interesting, but to me the problem is if you conquered something and its been a while 40-50 turns it should eventually shift in my mind and I think it would be better cause in human civs even somehow you can understand it, but here skaven coliving with dwarfs, no way, or chaos warriors with kislev same story...  But I get the point. 

Jirzik#3160 wrote:

I thought this is a thread about how to improve Giants. because Giants look cool, should be cool but are not cool rn.

Anyway 1) having more landmarks is always nice. 2) garrisons should be recruitable. Like, this settlement has a budget of 850 golds for garrison units. You will pay everything over the limit. Racial capitals and other important settlements (like K8P) get bigger budgets. 3) moddable. And DarthEnderX is right. If you capture Egypt (irl or in TW: Rome2) the pyramids will still be there.

Sorry for Giants :D, yeah if its moddable then I think it could be implemented like for me biggest problem is they are completely different races, so if Elves lives somewhere for 100turns of course it will become custom and a little bit Elvish, not some camp that looks far from it... humans are also very different in culture but at least same race, here it's a completely different story. 

I like idea of not wiping local populace but it could be change after some turns lets say 30-50-70 I don't know something like that. 

​

WhiteBeard#5844 wrote:

2. Garrison: So there are cities that should be really hard to take, like easiest example I will mention the Dwarfs lore Kazar A Karak (which has never been sieged)...

 3. When taking settlement from different factions, it gets transformed, 

2: I agree certain cities should be harder to take. I am pro making an absolute max size of garrisons as 30 units (I know, I know... but it's their game, damn it, so why can't they redesign the system?), as well as strengthening the garrison system generally. I also think that the building system in general has outlived its usefulness, and all settlements should be able to build all buildings, limited only by tier, and that garrisons should be their own customizable buildings. I.e., an expensive Longbeard garrison is something you build rather than recruit. This would help make those really big capitals very difficult to take and better simulate the scale of what they are.

But I think it's instructive that the list of settlements you mentioned are mostly Dwarf holds (lost or retained). The idea of something like Karaz-a-Karak being merely "a settlement" is a gross oversimplification. The new Deeps buildings I think are a step in the right direction to simulating what Dwarf holds really are. I would like to see random armies or Encounter Battle markers being spawned in Mountain climates so long as Dwarfs haven't built Deeps buildings. That would simulate the fact that if the Dwarfs haven't (painstakingly and expensively) reclaimed all the Deeps, then Greenskins and Skaven are going to keep flooding through. That, I think, would help simulate the kind of warfare the Dwarfs fight in the mountains.

3. I agree with this to an extent. Your Grombrindal-Naggaroth example is a good one. What does Grombrindal do to the tens of thousands of Druchii who inhabited this metropolis? Or what does Wurrzag do to tier 5 Altdorf when he occupies it? I think that buildings should not convert between races. That's obvious. But what about tier level? Maybe a conqueror of a different race reduces the tier level of the settlement by as much as 3? If we're talking true conquest and absorption into an empire, that probably is the only thing that makes sense. If a conqueror is merely trying to get rich, he can sack and leave. Conquest should be a much more draining prospect. The game might represent such a thing as "Oh, Wurzzag conquered Rank 5 Altdorf and now it's Rank 2, the size of a small town. I wonder what happened to all those humans?" Personally, I don't mind simply leaving such a thing to the imagination of the particular player. 

​

WhiteBeard#5844 wrote:
Oh, interesting, but to me the problem is if you conquered something and its been a while 40-50 turns it should eventually shift in my mind and I think it would be better cause in human civs even somehow you can understand it, but here skaven coliving with dwarfs, no way, or chaos warriors with kislev same story...  But I get the point. 

Admittedly, it isn't particularly lore friendly, but it DOES seem to be the point.  The Race of the local populace is always the Race of the local populace.  And the settlement's icon reflects that.

Yeah, I don't know guys I didn't want to get into the ethical things of, do you wipe out the populace or what... but I think for me it would be really nice graphic-wise, easier on eyes and to follow. 

Also somewhat rewarding for example to know that corruption from Skavenblight disappear after some big number of turns, otherwise even tho it's owned by a dwarves it does not feel at all like mine :D :D. But anyway I get what you say, its fair point so it is not needed, unlike the first 2 things which I think are really important and very easy to solve.