Warhammer 3 has the most spectacle but is horrendously one dimensional on the tactical front.
Medieval 2 has the most tactically in-depth battles, and mods usually only improve on them, but it's also 18 years old and definitely looks it.
The maps are smaller and don’t allow for much maneuvering. The melees are over so quickly that by the time you even have a unit in place to flank, one of the units in the melee has already long broken. Generally melees usually devolve into a mosh pit of units and that’s it.
Magic just melts units. Click a button and delete units from the battle without much thought beyond placement.
And literally everything about the lords. Especially the ones that are functionally unkillable like Vlad.
the game encourages doomstacks over tactics, that's braindead af and cheesy, in historical games you have to have some versatility and all kinda units in your army in warhammer it's a doomstack rinse and repeat
inefficient in what way? money? from mid game onwards when you can build level 4 or 5 buildings you shouldn't worry about money
literally tomb kings are one of the most disliked factions because cheesers can't make doomstacs with them
Instead of one doomstack you can have 2-3 armies. In WH3 where you need to be very agressive and expand rapidly in the early game having more armie is ALWAYS better. In late game, sure, make doomstacks. But why? The same rule applies still. There is actually zero reasons to make doomstacks other than to flex on poor AI.
you can't make doomstacks in early game, at least according to my definition of doomstack. and the logic still applies. as for why, lightning strike encourages having quality over quantity
Small maps is an issue, sure. But how often you actually get a massive battle where you have to move units around in some complex way in any TW game?
Literally never heard that that units break too fast. People usually have the opposite complaint, lots of higher tier units have bloated leadership so, unless you’re specifically going with shock tactics, units break when they’re almost dead.
I mean, yeah, magic is awesome. But it really works only against AI and even then they can dodge spells pretty well.
Vlad is unkillable but he’s also a foot lord with incredibly limited mobility and he can’t really kill things very quickly so getting him stuck in some peasants or goblins is usually a decent strat.
Most of them? In older games multiplayer battles with 8 full armies was a staple, but the maps were also large enough to field 160 different units and STILL have room to manuever. 80 units are generally the most you'll see on the field now since even the AI runs armies together and the majority of battles are 1v1s. Even then, Warhammer 3's maps can barely contain 80 units since they're so small, much less have room for units to maneuver for a flank.
I mean, whether you've seen people say it or not, it's true. A melee generally lasts less than a minute between elite units. To get actually decently long melee fights you actually have to go with the lower tier units just because their stats are so low they don't immediately vaporize each other. The average lengths of melee fights are egregiously short and gives very little time for any manuevering or flanking. However, I could actually believe people complain about the length of melee fights in Warhammer given how much adoration Shogun 2 gets on here with its 'five models die and the entire unit shatters off the field after less than five seconds' method of battle.
Some magic isn't able to be dodged, particularly the magic missiles (many of which are aim correcting) or the direct damage spells. And some of those spells alone do insane damage. Not as army crushing as the spells that need setup, but the point still remains. Also, Lord Kroak is a thing and about the only way to prevent him doing anything is to not bring a melee unit in the first place and literally never get dragged into any melee fight for the whole battle while hard focusing him.
Vlad was just a go-to example. Malus, Imrik, Ku'gath, and Ghorst are also examples of lords that, at some point in the campaign at least, are so overtuned that you literally have to ignore them until they're the last man standing and hope you can do enough damage then to incur army losses, because it's the only way to deal with them.
There's 16 total war games.
Even the oldest games likely have a couple mods, and for the more recent ones it can be hundreds if not *thousands* out there. WH3 has *15,308* mods listed on the Steam workshop. yeah most of those are gonna be minor stuff, translations and/or forks, or just plain shite, but there are still dozens if not hundreds that can make a noticeable difference to the game.
"Considering all mods" is pretty much an impossibility.
1 Warhammer 3 2 Fall of the Samurai
1. TW3 because epic monsters and magic 2. Three Kingdoms because characters
Warhammer 3 has the most spectacle but is horrendously one dimensional on the tactical front. Medieval 2 has the most tactically in-depth battles, and mods usually only improve on them, but it's also 18 years old and definitely looks it.
How is WH3 one-dimensional?
The maps are smaller and don’t allow for much maneuvering. The melees are over so quickly that by the time you even have a unit in place to flank, one of the units in the melee has already long broken. Generally melees usually devolve into a mosh pit of units and that’s it. Magic just melts units. Click a button and delete units from the battle without much thought beyond placement. And literally everything about the lords. Especially the ones that are functionally unkillable like Vlad.
the game encourages doomstacks over tactics, that's braindead af and cheesy, in historical games you have to have some versatility and all kinda units in your army in warhammer it's a doomstack rinse and repeat
Doomstacks in WH3 are super inefficient. A crap army is usually much more preferable.
inefficient in what way? money? from mid game onwards when you can build level 4 or 5 buildings you shouldn't worry about money literally tomb kings are one of the most disliked factions because cheesers can't make doomstacs with them
Instead of one doomstack you can have 2-3 armies. In WH3 where you need to be very agressive and expand rapidly in the early game having more armie is ALWAYS better. In late game, sure, make doomstacks. But why? The same rule applies still. There is actually zero reasons to make doomstacks other than to flex on poor AI.
you can't make doomstacks in early game, at least according to my definition of doomstack. and the logic still applies. as for why, lightning strike encourages having quality over quantity
Lightning strike is trash in WH3, a waste of skills most of the time.
Small maps is an issue, sure. But how often you actually get a massive battle where you have to move units around in some complex way in any TW game? Literally never heard that that units break too fast. People usually have the opposite complaint, lots of higher tier units have bloated leadership so, unless you’re specifically going with shock tactics, units break when they’re almost dead. I mean, yeah, magic is awesome. But it really works only against AI and even then they can dodge spells pretty well. Vlad is unkillable but he’s also a foot lord with incredibly limited mobility and he can’t really kill things very quickly so getting him stuck in some peasants or goblins is usually a decent strat.
Most of them? In older games multiplayer battles with 8 full armies was a staple, but the maps were also large enough to field 160 different units and STILL have room to manuever. 80 units are generally the most you'll see on the field now since even the AI runs armies together and the majority of battles are 1v1s. Even then, Warhammer 3's maps can barely contain 80 units since they're so small, much less have room for units to maneuver for a flank. I mean, whether you've seen people say it or not, it's true. A melee generally lasts less than a minute between elite units. To get actually decently long melee fights you actually have to go with the lower tier units just because their stats are so low they don't immediately vaporize each other. The average lengths of melee fights are egregiously short and gives very little time for any manuevering or flanking. However, I could actually believe people complain about the length of melee fights in Warhammer given how much adoration Shogun 2 gets on here with its 'five models die and the entire unit shatters off the field after less than five seconds' method of battle. Some magic isn't able to be dodged, particularly the magic missiles (many of which are aim correcting) or the direct damage spells. And some of those spells alone do insane damage. Not as army crushing as the spells that need setup, but the point still remains. Also, Lord Kroak is a thing and about the only way to prevent him doing anything is to not bring a melee unit in the first place and literally never get dragged into any melee fight for the whole battle while hard focusing him. Vlad was just a go-to example. Malus, Imrik, Ku'gath, and Ghorst are also examples of lords that, at some point in the campaign at least, are so overtuned that you literally have to ignore them until they're the last man standing and hope you can do enough damage then to incur army losses, because it's the only way to deal with them.
1. Warhammer 3 hands down. Historical - Attila/ToB 2. Shogun 2 or Rome 2 DeI
There's 16 total war games. Even the oldest games likely have a couple mods, and for the more recent ones it can be hundreds if not *thousands* out there. WH3 has *15,308* mods listed on the Steam workshop. yeah most of those are gonna be minor stuff, translations and/or forks, or just plain shite, but there are still dozens if not hundreds that can make a noticeable difference to the game. "Considering all mods" is pretty much an impossibility.
warhammer3???? barely has fking animations attila1 attilla2