Difficulty curve and unit tactical value trouble.

[Skanvak]

Just a point on difficulty. I jsut don't feel confortable with the difficulty system. More difficulty mean either less ressources or more hit point for the oponnent, which I felt like my oponnent (even if AI) cheating that why I tend to play on normal (understand full rules for both side). I would like raise the difficulty if it was the AI that get smarter with increased difficulty.

[JimmyC]

Actually, i believe that "normal" gives the player an advantage (orks units at 80% size). Its "challenging" that put's you on an even footing (Ork units at 100% size). I could forgive you for thinking otherwise though, as normal would usually indicate 1:1.

[CiZerin]

Actually, i believe that "normal" gives the player an advantage (orks units at 80% size). Its "challenging" that put's you on an even footing (Ork units at 100% size). I could forgive you for thinking otherwise though, as normal would usually indicate 1:1.

Actualy, no. If you'll check diff.whdat, wou will se that on normal AI Hit Points is 0. And the only difference between normal and challenging is player points.

[Aekar]

That's true CiZerin.

But Challenging at least has no bonus to the AI; no resource and no hitpoint.
The AI doesn't cheat, and the player discards a number of exceeding resources.

I believe the tooltip about Challenging was accurate enough, as well:
Pick it if you have any experience on similar wargames.

[JimmyC]

Actually, i believe that "normal" gives the player an advantage (orks units at 80% size). Its "challenging" that put's you on an even footing (Ork units at 100% size). I could forgive you for thinking otherwise though, as normal would usually indicate 1:1.

Actualy, no. If you'll check diff.whdat, wou will se that on normal AI Hit Points is 0. And the only difference between normal and challenging is player points.

Sorry, my bad. So what is the difference between normal and challenging then? I'm playing on challenging and am finding it living up to its name (ie. challenging), but still enjoyable.

[CiZerin]

Actually, i believe that "normal" gives the player an advantage (orks units at 80% size). Its "challenging" that put's you on an even footing (Ork units at 100% size). I could forgive you for thinking otherwise though, as normal would usually indicate 1:1.

Actualy, no. If you'll check diff.whdat, wou will se that on normal AI Hit Points is 0. And the only difference between normal and challenging is player points.

Sorry, my bad. So what is the difference between normal and challenging then? I'm playing on challenging and am finding it living up to its name (ie. challenging), but still enjoyable.

Easy Player Points (%) 200 Player Experience (%) 200 AI Hit Points -50
Normal Player Points (%) 100 Player Experience (%) 100 AI Hit Points 0
Challenging Player Points (%) 80 Player Experience (%) 100 AI Hit Points 0
Hard Player Points (%) 70 Player Experience (%) 100 AI Hit Points 20
Very Hard Player Points (%) 70 Player Experience (%) 100 AI Hit Points 50

I'm playing on Very Hard and it's really hard, but very interesting. You FEEL all the pain of Imperium Guard

[JimmyC]

Thanks. But i don't understand what "player points" is. Does it mean requisition points?

I'm having a tough enough time on challenging, so will leave very hard difficulty to others!

[CiZerin]

Does it mean requisition points?

Exactly

[Aekar]

Also, hitpoints bonus means the AI gets more "Strength" (rounded down), meaning it also hits you more.

[Skanvak]

Ok, I have finished the camapign so I can come back on difficulty.

I have used a mixed of Titans (6 at the end), guardsmen infantry and heavy tanks (no light tanks) and space marine infantry and tanks. I used normal difficulty and never used roll back to save a unit. I did restart on scenraio 3 time but otherwise did it in one go. That mean that I find the balance correct as had some ressource difficulty at the end and cannot afford as much as I wanted mainly because I lost too many units (guardsmen infantry, space marine infantry, light tanks...). I lost 2-3 Warhounds but not one Reaver (they all finished with 10 skulls).

Ok the Reaver Titan are needed and I had a shadowsword to supplement my anti-gargant firepower. I think that with enough heavy tanks you can go but it will be slow. The point is that for their price the Titans and Super-heavy tanks are just TOO good. It is generally a no-brainer to take a titan as most units directed by the AI will not attacked or be able to damage a Titan so they are especially powerful.

I love Titan but I reckon that the point system cannot be fair with them as they will cost too much for there utility if you want a correct population of Titan (that was the Epic solution where Titan were expensive but vulnerable).

Does the Titan and super-Heavy should cost more : yes. They should not be able to repair themselves on the battlefield either. And I think they should have less HP (both the Titan and the Super Heavy). They are not that solid. And especially a Reaver should have less hp than a Gargant. Gargant were far more resilient than the Reaver titan and a Warhound should have much less as they cannot sustained even predator fire for long in the tabletop game. I think that implementing the Void shield system could make it fun. That is for the Reaver 4 hp are void point and can return at the begining of the turn (33% of chance for each void shield) but the Reaver would only have 10 real Hp (for a total of 12). This way the Titan will be way more vulnerable but still as powerful. Warhound have 2 void and should have 6 HP). Suer heavy including Orks whould be review to be lower too. Exact number are t be discuss, mine are educated guess.

[Steakenglisch]

Ah Void Shields... Memories of Final Liberation
But Void Shields would be nice!

[Ranimiro]

The balance problem between units is not a problem of this game, it's a direct consequence of being too faithfull to the tabletop game. Personally I think that big armored units - titans are OP as a sales strategy of GW, sadly that translated to this game.

Gargants and titan should be EXTREMELY RARE and EXTREMELY COSTLY units.

Personally, I find the idea of a 100 meters high walking war machine RIDICULOUS. but then again there is plenty of tactical shortcomings in tabletop WH40K that translates to this game (lack of infantry indirect fire weapons, like mortars, lack of effective anti tank infantry weapons, etc etc). But As i said, GW has the a sales policy that dictates that in order to deal effectively with a tank you need a bigger tank, hence the titans are the ultimate weapon, they are the bigger so they kill everything. I would love to see that titan unsoported by infantry get destroyed by assault infantry.

[riuminkd]

I would love to see that titan unsoported by infantry get destroyed by assault infantry.

In tabletop they do, and yes, it's cool. Very cool.

[Plaid]

4-5 units of tankbuztaz will destroy Reaver titan, problem is AI never attacks them at all (even with his own titans).

[Skanvak]

I would love to see that titan unsoported by infantry get destroyed by assault infantry.

In tabletop they do, and yes, it's cool. Very cool.

Yes, that was present in Adeptus mechanicus/space marine which make titan alone a risquy buisiness. In Epic the Titan where harder to take on CC but they where far more weaker to direct hit. That whare I disagree with raanimiro, in the Epic the balance was very good and somewhat contrary to what the lore says. Of course a titan was powerful but not more than a half dozen tanks (which have a similar value). The Super heavy where actually very weak (only twice as resilient has the normal tank). So all those costly machine die quickly on the battle field which made the choice difficult. But they may have change the rule now though I have seen mortar and has I remind Las Canon and Rocket launcher are anti-tank weapon that equip all devastator or heavy weapon squad in WH40K.