As you know, the Changeling does not take settlements. Their gameplay is almost entirely about sacking and this is where the problem occurs. Most notably, whenever you sack a settlement & establish a cult your army stands right where it is, out of movement until the next turn. Then the next turn comes and you're stuck in the city's zone of control unable to move. So I have to attack the city again and break the siege, running off in a random direction, just so I can move freely again. Having this happen every single time you take a city is incredibly frustrating & tedious. 

Could we get a Changeling specific "ignore zone of control of cities with cults" or like, 5% movement after sacking in order to leave the city's zone of control? Plenty of easy fixes to a very annoying problem.

​

TwinniePooh#6096 wrote:

As you know, the Changeling does not take settlements. Their gameplay is almost entirely about sacking and this is where the problem occurs. Most notably, whenever you sack a settlement & establish a cult your army stands right where it is, out of movement until the next turn. Then the next turn comes and you're stuck in the city's zone of control unable to move. So I have to attack the city again and break the siege, running off in a random direction, just so I can move freely again. Having this happen every single time you take a city is incredibly frustrating & tedious. 

Could we get a Changeling specific "ignore zone of control of cities with cults" or like, 5% movement after sacking in order to leave the city's zone of control? Plenty of easy fixes to a very annoying problem.

Eww. I didn't know that was a thing. It would probably be easier to have him sack the settlement and then run a little bit further than it currently does. Does it seem to matter how movement that you have BEFORE you sack the city?

"Please make the piss-easiest faction in the game even piss-easier"

Sorry, Changeling needs changes in the exact opposite direction. Right now he's got the worst campaign in all of TW (Golgfag being a close contender) because there's basically no stakes and not even a faint threat of ever losing.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

"Please make the piss-easiest faction in the game even piss-easier"

Sorry, Changeling needs changes in the exact opposite direction. Right now he's got the worst campaign in all of TW (Golgfag being a close contender) because there's basically no stakes and not even a faint threat of ever losing.

This is more along the lines of a bug and not a request to make things easier. Not being able to leave the zone of control after making a cult is very much not intended gameplay. 

​

Passthechips#4366 wrote:

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

"Please make the piss-easiest faction in the game even piss-easier"

Sorry, Changeling needs changes in the exact opposite direction. Right now he's got the worst campaign in all of TW (Golgfag being a close contender) because there's basically no stakes and not even a faint threat of ever losing.

This is more along the lines of a bug and not a request to make things easier. Not being able to leave the zone of control after making a cult is very much not intended gameplay. 

Then it should be posted in the bugs because doing that helps improve the game faster

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

"Please make the piss-easiest faction in the game even piss-easier"

Sorry, Changeling needs changes in the exact opposite direction. Right now he's got the worst campaign in all of TW (Golgfag being a close contender) because there's basically no stakes and not even a faint threat of ever losing.

Not only is your stance subjective, but you're using your opinion to justify a bug staying in the game. That's one of the weakest takes I've read in a while. 

More on topic: I don't remember this being the case a few months ago, but now it is -- and it's very annoying. 

​

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
Not only is your stance subjective,

Changeling being piss-easy is very much NOT subjective at all.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Changeling being piss-easy is very much NOT subjective at all.

If you want to talk about "piss-easy" you had better start about talking about Malakai and Skulltaker. Their campaigns are so laughably easy that they make The Changeling look difficult. 

Even after losing one battle revealing the entire local zone's cults, and losing The Changeling reveals the entirety of the cults worldwide, you're still on a hypocritical rant about how The Changeling is too easy. Let's focus on the laughably easy Dwarven faction that needs obvious nerfs - especially Malakai. 

Now there is a faction that is genuinely piss-easy, "NOT subjective at all." And yet, where are your complaints regarding the other easy factions? 

Malakai at least has to manage being absolutely surrounded and under constant attack despite his bs summon ability.

At least you essentially lose the game is The Changeling gets killed on Legendary. Every faction in the game gets to auto-detect his cults - again, worldwide detection - if he's offed one time. Oh, and he can't confederate Kairos (his ONLY confed target) without randomly blowing up all Kairos' buildings. 

Meanwhile Dwarves can revive other dead Dwarf factions by default and force confederate them by doing some quests. 
Start with some absurdly strong bullshit airship. 
Gets unique buffs to various units via quests. 
No one cries. 

This isn't about fairness of difficulty. It's a popularity contest, in which the more popular factions get to be absurdly strong but we cry about how OP factions we don't play are. And by "we" I think you now exactly the people I'm referring to are. 

​

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
At least you essentially lose the game is The Changeling gets killed on Legendary. Every faction in the game gets to auto-detect his cults - again, worldwide detection - if he's offed one time. Oh, and he can't confederate Kairos (his ONLY confed target) without randomly blowing up all Kairos' buildings. 

This is not true. That’s only if the Changeling has no armies left. You can park a random lord in any different hidden region and be immortal. The Changeling doesn’t have regular settlements, so he doesn’t get Kairos’ buildings. You’re trying reaaaaally hard to have a point here. The Changeling is the easiest campaign bar none.

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
This isn't about fairness of difficulty. It's a popularity contest, in which the more popular factions get to be absurdly strong but we cry about how OP factions we don't play are. And by "we" I think you now exactly the people I'm referring to are. 

I’m really not sure what you’re on about. I am not concerned about “fairness of difficulty”. The Dwarfs are overpowered to the point of not being fun, much like many of the races that have been reworked since WH2. They should all be nerfed.

Being overpowered is not good. 

The Changeling is a boring nothing campaign after you’ve done it a time or two. Which is awful when Tzeentch might only ever top out at 3 LLs.

​

Passthechips#4366 wrote:

This is not true. That’s only if the Changeling has no armies left.

I have no problem with you being right when you're actually right. So The Changeling needs all his armies defeated before worldwide detection is activated. It's still a stiffer "punishment" than any other LL for losing all their armies. 

Global detection of cults mean that The Changeling can be defeated with enough gold, which is absurd. Thank God and CA that he can hide in some corner of the world with a small army, lest the entire faction be blown out just for losing a few armies. That's absurd. 

You know what else is absurd? The fact that you hand-wave away the fact that a faction with a mere two LL each mostly destroy the other simply by confederation. That's far more egregious than being able to hold on to a losing game by hiding an army off somewhere in the corner of the map and hope no one finds the cult. 

On top of this, there will aways be a faction that is the most survivable. If its not The Changeling, another will immediately take his place. But what isn't acceptable is how incredibly, disgustingly overpowered Dwarves - especially Malakai - is after Thrones of Decay. His campaign is so laughably easy that being "surrounded by enemies" turns out to be a source of quick experience instead of an actual threat. It's like how Drycha used to be, except even more absurd. 

The only thing we can agree on at this point is that a faction being intentionally OP is bad for the game. 
From there, your definition of OP and my definition of OP immediately differ. Where you see a problem with "hard to kill" I see a problem with "absurdly overeffective, which results in being not only hard to kill, but also results in other factions being easily bullied into submitting of simply destroyed with minimal effort. 

Which is why I think it's senseless to complain about "annoying" and "borderline impossible to kill" when genuinely overpowered factions are that by definition, PLUS juggernauts of destruction that bend the game around there mere existence simply by playing the game in a normal fashion. 

In other words, OP is annoying; but being obnoxiously survivable does not an overpowered faction make. I mean Dwarves can literally resurrect defeated factions from the dead and simultaneously confederate them by doing a quest or two, but that doesn't count as being absurdly survivable and OP? 

​

​

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
It's still a stiffer "punishment" than any other LL for losing all their armies. 

It isn’t a punishment if it can’t functionally happen in a campaign with the requirement that the player can afford to rub two brain cells together. 

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
You know what else is absurd? The fact that you hand-wave away the fact that a faction with a mere two LL each mostly destroy the other simply by confederation. That's far more egregious than being able to hold on to a losing game by hiding an army off somewhere in the corner of the map and hope no one finds the cult. 

This isn’t absurd. This isn’t egregious. This isn’t even a real concern. Entire races and several factions can’t even confederate at all. 

It’s simply a concession to gameplay given their radically different settlement systems. Frankly considering how overpowered confederation is in WH3 I almost prefer it. What would solve this issue would be making the Changeling a regular faction.

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
On top of this, there will aways be a faction that is the most survivable. If its not The Changeling, another will immediately take his place. 

It’s not even really about power. I do not give one iota if one campaign or another is “the most survivable”. 

The Changeling feels so completely divorced from the campaign map that it doesn’t feel like an actual Total War campaign or something found in a strategy game. It’s just a trolling simulator.

I do not think the Changeling’s campaign is particularly enjoyable, and the gimmick of his campaign gets old after the first play-through. I wouldn't mind a wholesale rework of the Changeling.

​

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
So The Changeling needs all his armies defeated before worldwide detection is activated. It's still a stiffer "punishment" than any other LL for losing all their armies. 

LoL, a punishment the player will never suffer ever because the player never has to fight any battles they don't want to and the AI cannot ever threaten or even target any of your assets.

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
Global detection of cults mean that The Changeling can be defeated with enough gold, which is absurd.

The only "absurd" part here is that it's a loss condition that will never apply to the player because the player cannot lose.

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
ou know what else is absurd? The fact that you hand-wave away the fact that a faction with a mere two LL each mostly destroy the other simply by confederation. That's far more egregious than being able to hold on to a losing game by hiding an army off somewhere in the corner of the map and hope no one finds the cult. 

LoL. you are seriously claiming the Changeling needs to be even more powerful as if being completely invincible, having your cults crap gold and the game being an utter triviality wasn't enough.

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
I mean Dwarves can literally resurrect defeated factions from the dead and simultaneously confederate them by doing a quest or two, but that doesn't count as being absurdly survivable and OP? 

Dwarfs have been ruined by their rework and need to be nerfhammered hard. That's no argument at all. Especially after your complaint that the Changeling isn't invincible enough yet.

​

Mastigos#4130 wrote:

Malakai at least has to manage being absolutely surrounded and under constant attack despite his bs summon ability.

At least you essentially lose the game is The Changeling gets killed on Legendary. Every faction in the game gets to auto-detect his cults - again, worldwide detection - if he's offed one time. Oh, and he can't confederate Kairos (his ONLY confed target) without randomly blowing up all Kairos' buildings. 

Meanwhile Dwarves can revive other dead Dwarf factions by default and force confederate them by doing some quests. 
Start with some absurdly strong bullshit airship. 
Gets unique buffs to various units via quests. 
No one cries. 

This isn't about fairness of difficulty. It's a popularity contest, in which the more popular factions get to be absurdly strong but we cry about how OP factions we don't play are. And by "we" I think you now exactly the people I'm referring to are. 

Yup. 

Well, it is bug, and reported multiple times, and CA is certainly aware of it. Hopefully next pach fix it. I assume it was new bug as part of 6.0 update.

What coming about people complaining "too easy campaigns", I think there is 100 playable factions. If you do not like play as one of them, play as other. I personally like variations, and do not want have 100 too identical factions.

But I would love to see AI played Changeling to be thing. Same for Golgfag.
I wish AI played Changeling would travel different places, and cause annoying problems, and then go somewhere else. And I would love to see Golgfag join my enemy's side, or my side in war, or just see him taking part of some wars I am not taking part of. I do not see that ether of them would need, nor should, follow same rules as player Golgfag/Changeling does. But doing something seemingly similar would be nice. Making world be more "living" and things bit more unexpecting. (And maybe option for those, who do not want take risk these elements would "ruin their games", to turn these factions as they are now - meaningless minor factions. But I would love to see such "shuffling" elements in the campaigns.)

​

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
So you're complaining about a faction that isn't a threat to you when played by AI - just a little annoying, and completely managable if you build a few detection buildings - and you dislike playing as The Changeling. So what exactly is the problem? 

I actually haven’t complained about the former at all in my posts. The problem is that I dislike playing as the Changeling. I like the character, I like the thematics of the race, and wish both were better.

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
You also continually ignore that The Changeling and Kairos actively hurt each other by confederating.

You the player aren’t harmed from confederating. Would you have preferred no confederation at all like Vilitch?

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
So why not ask for Egrimm van Horstmann to be a third LL for Tzeentch that actually fulfills your playstyle and could get you into the Tzeentch faction?

Well I want both. A good Changeling campaign and a good Egrimm campaign. Considering other races will have much more in terms of LL selection, I’d rather ask for the few campaigns we will get to be good. 

Though I’m hoping Galrauch as an LL sneaks in too.