|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Apr 26, 2010 10:48:27 GMT -5
The issue is that WHFB as it is now is not representative of medieval/historical combat. It's more sort of representative of an incredibly silly idea of medieval combat designed to appeal to retarded children that has no particular grounding in reality.
Basically, just because you have orks, goblins, kolbolds, dragons and so on does not mean you should contravene the laws of physics for....I'm not sure why, really. Probably typical GW stupidity...
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel Lupus on Apr 26, 2010 11:14:13 GMT -5
This is probably the reason I stopped playing WHFB... which is a bit of a shame as I have a fully painted 2000pt High Elf army... wonder how much I could get for it...
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Apr 26, 2010 11:33:20 GMT -5
Have a look at my remake and we can have some games once I move over. If you can get to York or so that is, I never figured out where you live permanently.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel Lupus on Apr 26, 2010 11:44:22 GMT -5
Sounds like a viable option... I'll wait till you come over then As for my permanent residence - about 30mins north of Nottingham (Junction 28 off the M1) Quite a good location really, as it's close enough to HQ, has a couple of independant stores close by and is on the edge of the countryside
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Apr 26, 2010 11:52:19 GMT -5
I shall also have a smallish lizardman army, which is even more brutal with the remake (because strength, toughness and armour are actually important now than dumbass special rules). Mmmm....halberds.
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on Apr 26, 2010 19:14:32 GMT -5
The issue is that WHFB as it is now is not representative of medieval/historical combat. It's more sort of representative of an incredibly silly idea of medieval combat designed to appeal to retarded children that has no particular grounding in reality. Basically, just because you have orks, goblins, kolbolds, dragons and so on does not mean you should contravene the laws of physics for....I'm not sure why, really. Probably typical GW stupidity... I do have a question though, because I am honestly puzzled. Why would you play Warhammer Fantasy for realism? The game system is designed around made up creatures battling each other for non-existent lands using magics that would boggle the mind if they existed. I'd think people would look more toward Warhammer Historical for a more "realistic' setting, if they wanted that, and just make up their own fluff using the rules*. I do ask this as an honest question, because I don't understand the quest for realism in this game. I don't play Fantasy, but I do play 40k, and the same general rule holds; I've accepted a setting that already contains quite a few impossibilities, so I'm more then willing to overlook inconsistencies between the real world and pushing my little poorly painted men around the table. I suppose that's the core of my mindset. I've embraced this world of unreality, so I don't mind it if it doesn't follow real world rules. *I haven't seen the rules for Historical, though, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. Reds
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel Lupus on Apr 26, 2010 19:30:19 GMT -5
Hopefully not treading on any toes here, and I'm sure RT or Makarova could give a far better reason/answer but for me it's because 40k uses weapons that have never existed (for the most part) and certainly not in the way they are produced/used - even in the 41st millenium, the Imperium barely understands whats happening with their equipment, so you accept the rules for what things do because there's no real life comparison (if you get what I mean).
WHFB on the other hand, although it has "extreme" magic that didn't exist (even if you're pagan and believe in modern day magic - yes I'm one of those people *sigh* I know... wierdo...) the weapons and wargear that is used is, in the most part, items that actually existed (such as halberds, great weapons, maces etc). Even in LARP historical recreations, you can do more with your weapons than you are able to using WHFB rules - it just doesn't represent what is/was actually possible with the items. You can compare them, because they exist.
Hope that made some degree of sense... very reasonable question though Reds, and I deffinately see where you're coming from - if you want to play WHFB as is from GW, accept that it's NOT correct. But for those like Makarova, RT, et al, maybe you want to use WHFB (and the armies etc that exist in the setting) with more realistic rules.
Again, hope I haven't stepped on any toes, and I'm sure RT/Makarova will be able to explain better/clearer...
|
|
|
Post by Adam Selene on Apr 26, 2010 23:16:26 GMT -5
just a question: why would they bring out a new edition? The old one (while not at all realistic ect) covered basically everything, the only real reason I can see is that a new edition would force everyone to pay for a new book. *thinks about it for a second* Thats reason enough for GW
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Apr 27, 2010 3:23:30 GMT -5
The issue is that WHFB as it is now is not representative of medieval/historical combat. It's more sort of representative of an incredibly silly idea of medieval combat designed to appeal to retarded children that has no particular grounding in reality. Basically, just because you have orks, goblins, kolbolds, dragons and so on does not mean you should contravene the laws of physics for....I'm not sure why, really. Probably typical GW stupidity... I do have a question though, because I am honestly puzzled. Why would you play Warhammer Fantasy for realism? The game system is designed around made up creatures battling each other for non-existent lands using magics that would boggle the mind if they existed. I'd think people would look more toward Warhammer Historical for a more "realistic' setting, if they wanted that, and just make up their own fluff using the rules*. I do ask this as an honest question, because I don't understand the quest for realism in this game. I don't play Fantasy, but I do play 40k, and the same general rule holds; I've accepted a setting that already contains quite a few impossibilities, so I'm more then willing to overlook inconsistencies between the real world and pushing my little poorly painted men around the table. I suppose that's the core of my mindset. I've embraced this world of unreality, so I don't mind it if it doesn't follow real world rules. *I haven't seen the rules for Historical, though, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. Reds Because: A) Like I said, unreality does not equate to breaking the laws of physics. Yes, sacrifices for easier gameplay mechanics can happen, but an axe that gives +2 to strength does not suddenly become any less of an axe than when you mount it on a pole and call it a halberd, unless we're going to start stripping down Newtonian-level physics and, if we are, frankly then I'm surprised our models aren't floating off the board. B) As you point out, it's pushing our little toy soldiers across the board to fight each other. Personally, I'd rather have as close-to an approximation of actual combat as is possible (presuming it doesn't spoil game balance). That's just me - I happen to like an element of realism. Ultimately, it comes down to personal satisfaction with the game. You're clearly happy to keep GW's current ruleset. I'm not, really. I have about 3000 points worth of Ogres and Lizardmen that I stopped using because WHFB just does not allow you to use them in a proper way. To whit, I found myself playing a magic-centric army despite the fact I had a sackload of Saurus, became someone at GW decided that they'd overcost Saurus and then give everyone else magic banners, shiny things and in the case of Vampire Counts, broken character combinations that literally slaughtered my entire front rank of Saurus before they could attack her unit, and then ran them down with Skeletons. In essence, Fantasy designers have thrown Game Balance out of the window, so I might as well play WHFR rather than WHRB, because I'm not playing WHFB as it is now. I played with Guard before they had the new codex, and we had it bad, but Ogres and Lizardmen just are not fun to play with at the moment. C) Just because I play Fantasy does not mean I have to accept lazy or inept gameplay design "Because it's Fantasy". Yes, we has elves and ratmen and talking trees and lizards and mummy empires. So? Given that there's no mention of magic spontaneously and utterly warping the laws of physics in the place of certain specific weapons, and frankly, like I said, I prefer a ruleset that gives a realistic look on combat - extremely powerful cavalry, infantry being dangerous, spears or pikes needed to properly stop cavalry, etc, etc. D): In the words of everyone who's ever played a Total War Game for more than a month: Mods make better. Rome: Total War wasn't much good. Rome: Total Realism was awesome, and Europa Baraborum was simply amazing. Medieval II was nice, it had pretty graphics and all that. Then a mod team rewrites the AI, retrofits all the expansion features into the game and rebuilds the campaign map to be three times bigger, and you've got Stainless Steel. Then, some guy called Gracul builds a supply system, further normalises the armour/attack/melee attacks into a realistic state, and a few other guys start compiling as many of the works of other mods, and soon you've got a game with new factions, everyone with new units (new skins, new models etc), and generally a frankly amazing mod. That's Real Combat/Real Recruitment. Basically, what I'm saying is, my way's more fun.
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on Apr 27, 2010 7:50:02 GMT -5
See, I think that';s my issue. If you do want to play a realistic game setting, why even turn to Fantasy in the first place? Why not try Warhammer historical and houserule magic, or look or game that have a more realistic rules set? It just seems like it would be buying a house that sits in the middle of a freeway, then complaining about how noisy it is from all the cars going by. I'd think most people who play Fantasy don't particularly want realism, so I don't understand why complaining about continuing that style of rules would matter, since they aren't thinking of realism in the majority of their player base.
Also, part of my issue is I don't find realism fun in my games. I don't want my Guardsmen's lasguns to jam on a roll of 1 every time they shoot. I don't want to have my troops in an RTS game like Company of Heroes slaughtered by an Armoured Car in seconds, even when they're in cover. I don't want to have my Dark Heresy character dead by session two, because a single stray round hit him in the leg and severed an artery, causing him to hemorrhage to death in the first few minutes of the game. I don't want to die in an FPS from the first round I take. I find that makes games more frustrating then enjoyable.
As to the total war games, I've played the basic game, Stainless Steel, Darth mod, and I've played Kingdoms. I wasn't particular fond of Stainless Steel, and found Darth Mod to be more amusing, but I just generally prefer the basic game. Can't say why, just do.
On a final note, consider what realism might do. All Empire armies would have halberdiers or pike men and gunners, like most European armies did. Bretonnians would be useless, or at least have their Knights reduced to support, as opposed to the core of the army. Ogres would simply be shredded. Army lists would look startlingly similar, just like most armies did during the 1600's or so. Each army revolves around tactics that were used at different times in history. The reason that many of those tactics didn't survive is because real world technology and tactics rendered them obsolete. I'd rather not see that represented in a game.
I dunno, just my view I suppose. In the interest of not derailing the thread, let's return to the topic.
Reds
|
|
ware
Guardsman
Posts: 54
|
Post by ware on Apr 27, 2010 9:04:57 GMT -5
I have played WHFB for a number of years, but have not played with the latest edition.
WHFB appealed to me because it was a much more tactical game than 40K. Units typically have a front and hence are restricted which way they can charge. Hence, having supporting units on your flanks becomes much more important. Units are usually good at shooting or at CC, again creating more of a tactical game then when having units that excel at one and are good or decent at another. Shooting was less effective and movement was more restrictive, again lending a more tactical feel, since units across the board could not be easily destroyed by shooting nor could most armies maneuver across the board in a turn or two.
While I was playing WHFB it seamed like their were less special rules, and less codex creep than in 40K. I can't be sure since I was not playing 40K at the time. But the 40K players sure complained more.
We also had an older more mature crowd playing WHFB.
Plus two armies facing off across the table would look magnificent.
Some down sides include, taking forever to set up, and the games running longer than equivalent point value 40K games.
I played almost exclusively in 6th edition, maybe a little 5th edition, and have not read the rules nor played 7th edition. So, I can not comment on the complaints I've heard about 7th edition.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Apr 27, 2010 10:12:10 GMT -5
See, I think that';s my issue. If you do want to play a realistic game setting, why even turn to Fantasy in the first place? Because the Warhammer world has fascinating background, an in-depth story and we want to play in that universe. Why not try Warhammer historical and houserule magic, or look or game that have a more realistic rules set? Or just use Makarova's rules set. There. Easy. Done. It just seems like it would be buying a house that sits in the middle of a freeway, then complaining about how noisy it is from all the cars going by. More like buying a house, painting it red and then having to deal with everyone asking 'Why'd can't you just have a regular house like the rest of us', or 'why not move somewhere else'. The only people complaining here seem to be you and Envoy. I'd think most people who play Fantasy don't particularly want realism, so I don't understand why complaining about continuing that style of rules would matter, since they aren't thinking of realism in the majority of their player base. Certainly, but simply because a large number of people do something does not make it correct or other points of view incorrect Also, part of my issue is I don't find realism fun in my games. I don't want my Guardsmen's lasguns to jam on a roll of 1 every time they shoot. I don't want to have my troops in an RTS game like Company of Heroes slaughtered by an Armoured Car in seconds, even when they're in cover. I don't want to have my Dark Heresy character dead by session two, because a single stray round hit him in the leg and severed an artery, causing him to hemorrhage to death in the first few minutes of the game. I don't want to die in an FPS from the first round I take. I find that makes games more frustrating then enjoyable. And your point is? I'm not sure how this relates to WHFB and/or Makarova's remake, considering that the latter system actually makes infantry more survivable and stops the game being a clash-of-the-super-units. As to the total war games, I've played the basic game, Stainless Steel, Darth mod, and I've played Kingdoms. I wasn't particular fond of Stainless Steel, and found Darth Mod to be more amusing, but I just generally prefer the basic game. Can't say why, just do. And I like the Real Recruitment/Real Combat submods, EB and RTR. I guess I just prefer having to work for a victory. On a final note, consider what realism might do. All Empire armies would have halberdiers or pike men and gunners, like most European armies did. Bretonnians would be useless, or at least have their Knights reduced to support, as opposed to the core of the army. Ogres would simply be shredded. Army lists would look startlingly similar, just like most armies did during the 1600's or so. Each army revolves around tactics that were used at different times in history. The reason that many of those tactics didn't survive is because real world technology and tactics rendered them obsolete. I'd rather not see that represented in a game. No offence Reds, but you should look more closely at the rules system you're discussing. And the period of history. In the 14-1600 era of warfare, you had: Swords and shields (Roldeleros) Spears/Shields (Peasant militia) Pikes (Duh) Two handed-swords (Doppelsoldners) Halberds/polearms (everyone) Crossbows (everyone) Longbows (The English) Heavy Cavalry (Everyone, mostly in half or full plate) Missile Cavalry (Most everyone) Guns. Sorry, what part of WHFB is being left out here? Add in magic and so on, and you've got that. And as someone who's building a Saurus and Ogre mixed army, I've got to say your supposition is groundless. Saurus cannot use pikes, and nothing heavier than medium armour (5+), and yet they're still extremely scary troops. Ogres are even more terrifying. As for cavalry - Bretonnians, due to the new lance rules are stupidly powerful. They die against sustained missile fire and spearwalls (as they should), but most other units will get slaughtered on the charge and broken. Just like they should. Put simply, as far as I can see it, Makarova's system is pretty much balanced and viable for every army. And yes, I'm biased, but I can't see much in the way of weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by ElegaicRequiem on Apr 27, 2010 10:35:51 GMT -5
I look forward to 8th ed coming so that I can have a look at it.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Apr 27, 2010 11:11:14 GMT -5
I look forward to 8th ed coming so that I can have a look at it. Could well have some interesting new concepts in it, yes. And of course, new snazz models.
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on Apr 27, 2010 14:07:47 GMT -5
Actually, that post was not intended to complain or claim I'm right. I was simply explaining why I asked the question about the desire for realism, and why I didn't really understand it. I stress that it's my opinion for a reason through that post. I wasn't trying to dismiss anyone's view, just explaining why I had to ask the question in the first place (that reason being I've found realism usually doesn't make a game more enjoyable for me).
Also, in regards to the history of it, you actually illustrated my question. Can an army based around that 1400's concept of warfare expect to hold up against the tactics and weaponry of an army some 200 years later without some tweaking of rules and realities? I honestly don't know, which is why I raised the point.
I will be interested to see how this changes Fantasy, though. 5th Ed for 40k did make some rather drastic changes, and I'm curious if they'll do the same here. I've only played two Fantasy games, but I'm waiting for the new edition before I consider actually playing the game and collecting an army.
Reds
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Apr 27, 2010 14:22:26 GMT -5
Actually, that post was not intended to complain or claim I'm right. I was simply explaining why I asked the question about the desire for realism, and why I didn't really understand it. I stress that it's my opinion for a reason through that post. I wasn't trying to dismiss anyone's view, just explaining why I had to ask the question in the first place (that reason being I've found realism usually doesn't make a game more enjoyable for me). Fair point. But you should really read the remake before you ask, it answers a lot of questions and you'd be able to tell whether it spoils the game or not. Also, in regards to the history of it, you actually illustrated my question. Can an army based around that 1400's concept of warfare expect to hold up against the tactics and weaponry of an army some 200 years later without some tweaking of rules and realities? I honestly don't know, which is why I raised the point. If you're smart, then yes. Pike formations may have been unbeatable when you had 10,000 men against 10,000, but at a tactical scale like WHF: TR, they have flanks, they have rears, and if you can't get to them, then there's mercenaries! Anyway, if we want to continue this, let's do it on the WHF: TR thread.
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Apr 27, 2010 14:53:33 GMT -5
Right...
I play WHFB Total Realism because I want things to work as they would logically. GW tells me how magic, Skaven and other supernatural things work, and as long as they're not being idiots about it (like with Elves and Dwarves on some points), I can swallow that. But I've played this game for a lot of years now. I can't stomach that my spearmen get brutally slaughtered by cavalry. That halberds are ridiculously ineffective. That swords and shields is the best weapon combo save for a great weapon, and the best to use against cavalry (right, what the hell are you going to do against heavy cavalry with a sword?). That great weapons strike last, despite being relatively easy to handle with enough training (the two-handed grip counters most weight increase, and the head of a longaxe isn't much bigger or not bigger at all than the head of a one-handed axe). That great swords are described as being "massive" and "can cleave a knight in twain", when they are finely balanced, light and quick weapons that aren't much good at all against plate armour. That axes gives you a +1 save in close combat, despite being almost impossible to parry with. That a full suit of chainmail and plate only gives you a 1/6 chance to survive, despite being nigh invulnerably to most medieval weapons.
And then we have the units themselves. Pistoliers have light armour on the profile, yet wear cuirasser plate (clearly made of tempered steel as they would be able to afford this, being nobles). Greatswords wear a rather ordinary munition half-plate, that even if it was made of steel wouldn't offer near as much protection as the plate armour the Knightly Orders wear. Yet they both have full plate, 4+, on the profile.
I simply know too much to ignore all of this, it gets into my head. I know I can fix it. I even did. It's made the game incredibly enjoyable for me, my brother and RT, rather than just annoying and frustrating. I haven't tried to make the game historical, I'm not interested in historical battles (nor do I have any belief in Warhammer Historical or for that matter any game being more realistic. I can't say I know, but I've played enough RPG's to know that games designers in general don't really know or care about realism). I've simply done my best to make the Warhammer world more sensible. This includes, I saw you mentioned this, moving the Empire down to the late 1400's in technology, and kicking the Bretonnians up to the 1350's. This is also a matter of realism as in this particular example, they are neighbouring nations and would naturally adopt each others warfare if it was more effective. For example, the Brets would get cannons as quickly as they could as it's a lot more pleasant to demolish a castle wall in 9 days rather than 9 years (trebuchet, mangonels). The Empire would also have pikes, as their country wouldn't exist without it. With the sheer number of knightly orders in full plate, pikes are needed to fight the constant civil wars. A pike is the only thing that can be a serious threat to a full plated knight. Crossbows and arquebuses help, but the pike is the main reason to why the cavalry-dominated warfare of the middle ages started disappearing in the 1400's, erupting in the typical renaissance warfare in the late 1400's and up until the mid 1500's. I don't do this to make it more "historical", I do it to make it sensible. This was one of many examples, for more changes you're welcome to actually read through the remake.
Basically, I enjoy the world of WHFB, I really do and always have done since I was 13. But I want it to make more sense, that's all. Both game-wise when it comes to equipment rules and availability, army compositions, cavalry and similar things. And fluff-wise in some aspects. I want my Warhammer world to feel, work and look as it actually would've done if it had existed. Despite the supernatural and magical things present in it, logic, physics and human social behaviour doesn't change much.
On the issue of balance; there is little of it. When it comes to equipment, units and similar things, I don't care about balance. I care about realism. But, because weapons, armour and tactics matter to a larger extent here, a lesser developed nation such as Norsca could still beat the Empire, by using the correct things against the correct things. It's harder, but I see that as part of the challenge. I'm not going to pretend factions have any more assets than they do because of balance issues, I govern things as unit stats, points costs, equipment availability and similar things on fluff (and in some cases tweak it for balance if I -have- to). Factions aren't the way they are because I make them so, they are they way they are because the fluff dictates so, and I do my best to represent that and tweak it for sense and logic where suitable.
Also you can't deny that it's a lot more fun and flexible for everyone that the combinations available in one of my codexes can create a hundred different units, rather than 10 static ones like in vanilla. This can seem as a balance issue, but it's not since everyone is in the same boat. I've challenged people to come up with a superunit that could crush everything, and they haven't been able to. There is always a mean to counter it.
I hope that enlightened it a bit, I've had frankly had ENOUGH of people who tell me to "play historical, duuuuh" and "it's fantasy, therefore it can be all messed up and I don't have to learn anything about real warfare, yaaaay!".
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel Lupus on Apr 29, 2010 4:23:15 GMT -5
There's a WHF:TR thread? Where?
My searching powers are so weak and unreliable, I don't even attempt to use them anymore...
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Apr 29, 2010 5:08:17 GMT -5
In the Warhammer board. There's three of them.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel Lupus on Apr 29, 2010 5:33:44 GMT -5
oooooooo... I may have to pop over to those...
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on May 2, 2010 7:14:37 GMT -5
Go and have a look. Please. All of you. Some of you must be annoyed with WHFB. If so, please, take a look at this new, shiny rule-set. It has the following advantages:
1. Realism without more complexity: The rule-set is about as complex as WHFB. It's a bit of a trade off - less special rules, but more options and ways to do basic combat.
2. Flexibility: Want an army all armed with halberds? You can have that. Want a pike formations? You can have it. Weapons, armour and equipment are all much more flexible (you can pretty much have anything).
3. Game balance: While the game is not perfectly balanced, it has removed some things. Firstly, undefeatable army combinations. This was mostly due to the fact that the silly, bent special rules were removed, and secondly, because of the flexibility of the list. You can not guarantee what you will face up against here, unlike in WHFB. You could wind up fighting an Empire gunline....or, you could end up fighting a bunch of pikemen, swordsmen with support from...well, pretty much anything. Mercenary cold one knights, possibly. The possibilities with the list are endless.
3. These two make it more fun.
|
|
|
Post by nilkimas on Jun 16, 2010 14:01:34 GMT -5
How much simpler pointing a lasgun suddenly seems to have become after reading all of this...
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Jun 16, 2010 14:36:45 GMT -5
40K is unrealistic and we like it that way, because modern infantry combat is hard to model.
Medieval combat is not. Medieval combat is easy to model in a realistic fashion. Thus, you should. GW doesn't, because I suspect the initial rules set was developed by people with a limited knowledge of history and physics, and the company is now too big and stubborn to admit their mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Julian Sharps on Jun 16, 2010 21:32:21 GMT -5
There is one very simple reason why a WHTR40K ruleset would be hard to play with on the tabletop: your basic infantry weapon would have a range greater than the the size of the table.
US Marines (the closest analogy I can come up with to Imperial Guardsmen) are trained to be able to accurately hit a man-sized target from 500 yards with his M-16. US Army riflemen are trained to do the same from 300, with a dedicated marksman being able to hit at least double that (snipers are another matter entirely). A guardsman model is about an inch tall, which going by scale means that 1 inch = ~2 yards. As a result, unless we're talking about reducing the miniature scale to Epic or something we're looking at a 250 inch range for a basic infantry rifle. Every weapon would cause pinning, the game would revolve entirely around cover and essentially become a sci-fi tabletop version of Ghost Recon and assault armies would be totally screwed over against any ranged player with the merest grasp of tactics unless the assaulting player was ridiculously good (we're talking Dark Eldar vs. Tau here, to give you an example of how messy it would be for the attacker), and don't get me started on tank combat (the distances we're talking about in vanilla 40K is spitting distance for tanks).
|
|
|
Post by Makarova (M.I.A) on Jun 19, 2010 3:12:34 GMT -5
I kind of like 40K as it is, I can turn a blind eye on things. Besides, the only factions that even could be made realistic would be the Imperial Guard, Orks and possibly Marines, the rest we'd just have to guess on as they use unexplainable technology (in difference to fantasy, where pretty much everyone use perfectly logical, explainable technology that existed IRL at one point or another). Also modern infantry combat is the most boring way to fight I can imagine, it just doesn't do it for me. On the point of WHFB: TR, I think of how armies act and fight more from a fluff perspective. What options would say an Orc army have in the fluff? And then I simply try to represent that in-game. If Orcs or anyone else is weaker than another faction, I don't care. It's not my fault, and in a logical world there ARE such things as overall weaker nations and factions. However, all factions and races have their own advantages, and equipment matters a lot more than unit profiles in my game (except for when it comes to monsters and so obviously, with a very powerful stat line). Therefore, you can still win by the correct use of tactics. Personally I think my armybooks, despite the inherit difference between the factions, are more balanced than the vanilla ones, as mine are all written with the same mindset, based on the same principle and updated regularity. Vanilla WHFB just tries to make the next armybook more powerful than the previous one, and have a much harder time balancing their game as they work with an inherently unbalanced and unrealistic game system, and have an armada of obscure special rules to boot. And come on, anyone who's played WHFB vanilla knows that they're anything but balanced. Back in 6th Hordes of Chaos were useless and Dwarves, Wood Elves and Bretonnia dominated pretty much everyone else.
|
|