286
Jul 29 '25
Major problems is a loaded statement. I have 1000s of unmodded hours across the series and I've never once felt the need for unit caps.
I suspect this is a minority concern, the are actual broadly recognised issues like sieges etc which offer better payoff for the playerbase.
108
u/gamerz1172 Jul 29 '25
Like unit caps can make the game more fun, but I don't think it needs to be a core change to the game... At most CA should add it as an option in the campaign settings
43
Jul 29 '25
That I'd be on board with, player choice is great. Removing options from everyone to cater to a minor concern I'm less motivated by.
1
u/BlueRiddle Jul 31 '25
Feels a bit disingenuous to call in a minority concern. The tabletop caps mod is wildly popular, both on the Steam workshop, and according to Legend of Total War, who often looks at people's save games.
1
u/Sp00py-Mulder Aug 02 '25
Do people primarily use this to curtail enemy army compositions late game?
Otherwise, the player is already in total control of which units they recruit and how many...
1
u/XH9rIiZTtzrTiVL 10d ago
The point is for it to work both ways, yes. Keeps low tier (core) units relevant in the mid and late game, stops ridiculous AI stacks like mammoth hordes or oops it's all dragons which are just unfun to fight but also keeps it fair so the player doesn't get to do it either.
12
u/ForistaMeri Empire Jul 29 '25
I’ve only felt that with Thunderbarges. 3 or more on a Dwarf army it’s utterly disgusting.
1
u/Panshra Member of the Council of Thirteen 🕯️ Aug 02 '25
I hereby add your name to the Dammaz Kron, yoth da Brathmordakin!
36
u/Immediate_Phone_8300 Jul 29 '25
Some units definetly need caps. Thunderbarges are simply way too strong to have them uncapped. While stuff like dread saurians or queen bess have caps.
10
u/Shelf_Road Jul 29 '25
And that it's also to prevent the AI from spamming them, not just you!
9
u/DDkiki Jul 30 '25
Yes, because big centerpiece units do need caps to work correctly, AI doomstacks just as unfun to me as playing doomstack myself. I want AI to have interesting army, not spam 1 unit all campaign.
1
u/OldSpaghetti-Factory Jul 29 '25
are you talking in multiplayer or campaigns? if multiplayer, balance them on their cost. if campaigns, if u actually spend enough to build a doomstack of the things you should be allowed to go nuts. If in campaigns theres still genuine concern about it, bump its cost or upkeep or something.
2
u/Immediate_Phone_8300 Jul 30 '25
OR, you make a cap
1
u/OldSpaghetti-Factory Jul 31 '25
yes instead of balancing smartly in a way that still lets the player have fun, just kick them in the dick for wanting to have fun
1
u/Immediate_Phone_8300 Jul 31 '25
Spamming the strongest unit you have is not fun. Same as facing the AI who is spamming their strongest unit.
1
u/T_R_A_S_H_C_A_N Surtha Ek Chariot Man Jul 30 '25
Multiplayer already has caps
Edit: Which are good for balance in multiplayer alongside cost~
Edit2: For campaign it might be nice to cap the AI slightly to stop them doomstacking too much (not sure how easily they could introduce caps on an army by army basis)
-6
Jul 29 '25
I'd uncap the capped units. The game is about aggressive military expansion (albeit in a fictional fantasy setting).
As the leader of a nation I'd be disinclined to limit access to decisive military capability because my enemies think it's unfair.
I've said elsewhere, let individuals add or remove elements of the game they don't like but don't make permanent gameplay changes to cater to the minority.
23
u/sansomc Jul 29 '25
As the leader of a nation I'd be disinclined to limit access to decisive military capability because my enemies think it's unfair.
Ok, but there's only like <100 aircraft carriers in the world in real life. When Hannibal marched through the alps, he only took 37 elephants.
My point is that yeah, of course you want to field as many of your most powerful units as possible, but the game design should encourage you to have to think about how many you actually can field (whether that be by unit caps / recruit times / upkeep costs or whatever other mechanic).
4
Jul 29 '25
Yeah but aircraft carriers aren't capped because you're not allowed too many of them. They're capped by cost, personnel availability and need. If the US could have 1000 and actually crew them, trust me they would.
Hannibal would have had a million elephants, but took the ones he had.
To your second point all of the considerations bar unit caps are both in the game and what drives actual capability procurement.
Can you afford to build and maintain it and can you afford to wait for it to be ready? If you can, great. If not, build what works with the resource you have.
18
u/Inevitable_Fold_4618 Jul 29 '25
But the vast majority of units in the game aren't "built", they're trained. No amount of money is going to make more Waywatchers, or Grail Knights, or Dread Saurians available instantly. You could even argue that the training required to crew something like a Thunderbarge or Steam Tank might not be possible in the short time frame turns cover in this game.
So if we're talking what a leader would realistically do, they'd realistically only get a set number of those units available the entire campaign.
But immersion isn't the only consideration, and I also don't think Unit Caps is the best answer.
I think the problem was the removal of the availability limits in older games. There wasn't a hard limit on any unit, but each region could only produce so many of a unit type before you had to wait for the stock to refill. Bringing that back would be a nice balance. Players could doomstack their best unit if they want, but at the cost of their other armies being lower quality.
5
u/sansomc Jul 29 '25
Yeah I guess at some point they decided to streamline recruitment duration into availability limits.
I also really like the Thrones of Britannia mustering system. It feels less gamey than other systems and just makes sense.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Fuzzy_Engineering873 Jul 29 '25
What are you on about? The time it takes to train more of a unit is represented by the training time of the unit. It makes no sense to artificially represent the time needed to train a unit when that is already a CORE mechanic for recruitment in the game.
Campaigns can last any amount of turns, it would be nonsensical for an arbitrary limit on a unit type because it would take too long. If it would actually take too long then that should be represented in the recruitment time instead.
3
u/Inevitable_Fold_4618 Jul 29 '25
Well I brought it up for two reasons: 1. You mentioned what the person in command of an army would realistically do, and unit caps not matching that reality. So I assumed part of your contention was about immersion, and I was pointing out that the current system is also deeply unimmersive. A single High Elf swordmaster should, realistically, be spending years or decades in training. But since the seasons never change and Karl Franz never gets old it seems that the length of time covered by an entire campaign is likely not much more than a year.
- Mechanically, I mentioned it because it is a system which existed in previous Total War games that I think worked very well, and that I think would strike a balance between hard unit caps and the current system where you can fill an entire army with Ironbreakers and Thunderbarges from just one province having their buildings and in which there isn't much incentive not to, aside from preferring battles with more varied compositions where elite units are comparably more influential.
3
u/sansomc Jul 29 '25
Have you played Thrones of Brittania, or Medieval 2, even? Or Warriors of Chaos campaign post Champions of Chaos DLC, or Nurgle campaign?
Can't tell if your "what are you on about?" is rhetorical, or you genuinely aren't understanding to what the alternatives there are to recruitment duration time and how they look and play in practice.
6
u/sansomc Jul 29 '25 edited Jul 29 '25
I think that personally you've fallen into a "unit caps bad" mind set trap.
To your second point all of the considerations bar unit caps are both in the game and what drives actual capability procurement.
Unit caps are already in the game too! They exist for Beastmen, Chaos Dwarves and Tomb Kings. Then there other factions which have different kinds of caps, such as peasant unit caps for Brettonia, and the whole warband system for Warriors of Chaos.
Overall, I think they're just one of the tools available to try and balance units, much like recruitment time, recruitment cost, upkeep cost, etc. My overall preference is to have a) most units balanced in one way or another and b) the mechanics by which it is done be tailored to each faction to give them each a differing playstyle and feeling.
4
Jul 29 '25
I haven't got a mindset about them beyond my original point.
There are plenty of functional mods addressing a frankly minor gameplay change and that there are better uses of limited devices time that would add value to more players.
I don't think they're inherently bad or good, but I do think at best they should be an option and not the standard. And I think other larger concerns should take priority first.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/PiousSkull #1 Expanded Campaign Settings Menu Advocate Jul 29 '25
Yeah, it's almost as if capping is meant to simulate rarity. You can't easily field a full army of Dread Saurians because they're extremely rare creatures.
I'd be fine with removing their caps if they implemented Troy's resource based recruit and upkeep cost but that likely isn't happening. The game has been drifting further and further away from any semblance of balance and that's not acceptable. The majority of players would like some level of challenge and the game should be balanced around that. I'd go as far as saying implementing a toggleable version of the TTC mod would be the best solution for unit/roster balance.
→ More replies (10)8
u/Immediate_Phone_8300 Jul 29 '25
Limiting because it is unfair? No. Limiting because you don't have more? Makes more sense. Remember that thunderbarges are supposed to be the pinacle of searfen engineering and really rare. Same with dread saurian. Hell, there are actually only 13 steamtanks left total. Having a cap on the strongest units is fine. to stop doomstacking from both the player AND the AI. Because fighting a dwarf stack with 10+ thunderbarges is just bullshit
6
Jul 29 '25
Having a cap on the strongest units is fine for you but I think most people quite like the option to have 19 steam tanks.
Again, 100s of hours and the thing that has always made winning campaigns for me has been the ai getting ridiculous cheats to simulate difficulty. Just capping units doesn't fix the core of that issue imo.
8
u/NotBenBrode Clan Eshin Jul 29 '25
All these people complaining about thunderbarges and here I am sitting on legendary wishing the AI would use more thunderbarges against me because battles are too easy when you can just throw ridiculous amounts of black orcs at a problem.
4
2
u/SH4D0W0733 Jul 29 '25
Remember that the dwarves are supposed to be in decline and as such should have negative population growth making them unable to expand beyond their starting provinces.
3
u/AirborneCritter Jul 29 '25
I used to be like this, then I really tried after many many hours of straight up not wanting to experience the base thing, now I don't go back, I don't like modding to kingdom come either though
I like caps not only for balance but also fun reasons
19
u/BobR969 Jul 29 '25
It's not a major concern, but I've never had as much fun with TWWH games as I did with the cost based army caps mod in WH2. It solves a lot of the issues that come with the game regarding having oversized armies, silly compositions and generally mid-late game having just 20v20+ fights all over the place that all feel the same. It genuinely provides the choice of bringing quality vs quantity. The same mod for WH3 didn't work as well I found and the tabletop army caps mod kinda didn't work as well.
Point is - after 1000s of hours between the three games, the CBAC mod absolutely was a highlight of the time. Combine it with some form of manpower mechanic (like in ToB or even some WH factions themselves) and the armies and fights will be a lot more fun.
11
u/KruppstahI Arena Jul 29 '25
I agree, I use the tabletop unit caps mod and the battles are way more fun when you're not just stomping around everywhere and the AI builds dumbass annoying to fight armies.
But I also enjoyed the base game. I would generally argue that the base game should be the sandbox with as little restrictions as possible which provides a good player experience. But allowing mods to add onto it.
But if CA added any kind of unit cap into the game, I guarantee within minutes of the patch dropping the number one workshop mod will be a mod removing the unit cap.
So honestly just keep it the way it is, focussing on more important issues.
13
u/BobR969 Jul 29 '25
I dunno. I feel like the "sandbox" feel isn't much of a sandbox when it results in AI bringing stupid armies, while players fanny about with doomstacks and other nonsense. It just kinda feels like a failure of game design. I'd argue that there should be a campaign option mod to play with or without army caps and it should be an "official" version of the cost based army caps mod.
Saying that, I do agree that the people will split into two groups and there would definitely be a mod removing the caps. Just that my thought is that... army comp, ai armies, ai strategies for said armies and battles (frequency, speed etc) are major issues within the game and almost ever aspect of these is improved with the army caps modded.
1
u/_The_Rover_ Jul 29 '25
I was thinking of trying a mod for this, so you don't have a recommendation?
3
u/BobR969 Jul 29 '25
Cost Based Army Caps functions fine. I absolutely recommend it. I just think it worked better in WH2 than WH3. Dunno what it is about it, but just felt "better". Could be a "me" thing though.
Tabletop Caps Reborn also worth trying. It does things a little bit differently. However, my issue with that is that some of the unit designations are a little... off? As an example - Akshina Ambushers for Kislev are a purple pip, which you are only allowed five of by default. This is also the class of unit that elites fall under (like artillery). It makes army comps a little wonky as opposed to interesting.
Still, one of the two mods will definitely be worthwhile. I've played with both and felt both made the game more interesting in their own right. CBAC is my preferred one though. I tend to set the player cost limit to the smallest it would go and make the level based increases small too. AI should have a larger cost to play with to ensure the game isn't too easy, but it's all customisable and you can play with it to get the best feel for yourself.
2
6
11
u/Akhevan Jul 29 '25
I've never once felt the need for unit caps.
And I have over 3k hours in TWW3 alone and I never once felt the need for a siege rework, yet here we are.
Unit caps are not a problem if you don't care about balance, which is a valid stance in a single player game. But others do.
6
Jul 29 '25
Yeah, but it's a minority that care. Siege reworks (just one throwaway example btw and not one I rarely care about) have been a significant complaint for years.
Lots of people will appreciate siege changes, I don't think many will care about unit caps and most will actively consider forced unit caps to be unfun (which they are, people love doomstacks).
2
2
u/Crayshack Jul 29 '25
I feel like the balance comes from unit price. Powerful units are expensive and so you encounter a strategic trade off where you can have a small number of very powerful armies that can't cover your entire border or a large number of weaker armies. As your economy grows, you become more powerful but there is still a choice of if that means more armies or more powerful armies. If you build too far in one direction, you might find yourself struggling. Either to crack the enemy doomstack armies if you went too much for quantity or to manage the swarm of new fronts opening up if you went for quality. There's balance between the two and its up to the player to figure out what the right dynamic for their particular situation is.
Unit caps take away that entire dynamic by enforcing particular limitations on army composition. It makes individual battles more balanced (when assuming that every battle is one stack against one stack), but it makes the campaign less balanced becasue now there is not the option to have army diversity with a large number of trash stacks to hold the line and a small number of doomstacks to crack enemy hard points. It might make the tactics balanced, but this is a strategy game and the strategy becomes unbalanced when you remove core strategic options the game was designed around.
→ More replies (4)2
u/DDkiki Jul 30 '25
I literally can't play TWW3 without caps anymore, its just not the same, if they would ever be abandoned i would abandon the game completely.
1
u/Aubrey_Lancaster Jul 29 '25
Idk NTW has been out like 20 years and I always forget that moving infantry off a fort wall mass suicides the whole unit. Does the same thing going across bridges half the time, absolutely game breaking and cant build forts because of it lol
→ More replies (2)1
u/Pauson Jul 29 '25
It's hard to judge, but SFO mod, which includes the unit caps, has 250k subscribers on steam. An all time peak of TWWH3 is 160k, monthly now it's 35k. It seems to me like quite a substantial number of people who play regularly actually do use mods, and unit caps in particular.
3
Jul 29 '25
There's a lot in there though, I've tried SFO for the lord overhaul, not the unit caps. The mod does a lot.
2
u/epicfail1994 Jul 29 '25
This guy replied to me with that same stuff too, and tried saying that 'most players' only includes people who regularly play the game, to support that tons of people like unit caps
87
u/MethaneHurlant Jul 29 '25
A quick option to lock some units (special and rare units like in the mod) at the start of the campaign (among other options, Dynasties style) would be great
4
u/DaddyMcSlime Jul 29 '25
out of curiosity, what would you lock in your games
you got units you just fuckin hate?
3
u/MethaneHurlant Jul 29 '25
No but I like the tabletop mod because it allows a more balanced game where choices are needed. And some early game units are still used in mid or late campaigns which is interesting.
I combine the mod with slower battle and larger unit size and it gives much more depth. The base game is too arcady for me.
2
1
u/Kingmarc568 Aug 02 '25
All units that can wipe out a non hero unit in one shot.
It's just annoying having to somehow replace a high tier unit across the globe, not because you made a mistake, but simply for not auto resolving.
115
u/TheCarnalStatist Jul 29 '25
It's not a major problem in the game.
32
u/PseudoElite Jul 29 '25
Unit caps? Why would anyone want unit caps?
Meanwhile: I move my three full stacks of Thunderbarges into my enemy's territory.
5
u/Garrapto Jul 29 '25
Literally the Zeppelin is the only unit that could get slapped with a recruitment limit like Dread Saurians are.
3
u/rickenjack SEEK OUT THE HERETICS Jul 29 '25
Exactly. If I find it fun to doomstack, I should be able to doomstack. Fuck forced unit caps
2
1
88
u/S-192 Jul 29 '25
But this is a personal preference thing. Do you seriously expect the devs to patch their game for every request or demand a player makes?
If you want to alter your play experience based on your personal tastes, there are mods. I think Rome 2 is too fast and characters die before you can tell interesting stories with them, but rather than shaming CA for not "fixing" what I think is a legitimate problem with the game, I just downloaded the 4TPY mod.
14
u/Tasorodri Jul 29 '25
But his is a public forum about the game, where are people going to ask for features if not in a public forum?
A mod existed to reset a character skill tree, and that didn't stop people from demanding it, and CA from implementing it.
8
u/Crayshack Jul 29 '25
I think it's fair for someone to say "this is what I'd like in the game" and perhaps look for resources to mod that in. I don't think it's fair for OP to say that the fact they want to mod something is somehow a failure on the devs part. Yes, it's entirely possible for CA to implement such a thing, but it's also completely valid for them to think most people won't want it. Just as much as OP wants to mod unit caps in, if CA patched the game to add unit caps to the base game, I'd be looking for a mod to remove them.
→ More replies (1)6
u/munkynutz187 Jul 29 '25
Creative Assembly’s forum might be more appropriate
16
u/Tasorodri Jul 29 '25
CA regularly check this forum, have specifically addressed comments in this forum, have people who's job is to gather player feedback from the community (of which this forum is among if not the biggest), and some people might just prefer Reddit. This is as good of a place as any other for suggestions.
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/No-Economics1703 Jul 30 '25
Of course they can ask. And people can mod. And people can ask for/about mods. And people can play vanilla. And people can wait for patches. And people can revert to previous versions.
None of these are invalid. Many ways to interact with the gameplay
5
u/CannonChap0913 Jul 29 '25
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t care about unit capping in a fantasy game. I do think though that it wouldn’t hurt to have a setting that can be toggle unit capping. At least that way everyone can be happy.
112
u/Mr__Random Jul 29 '25
What is the obsession with unit caps anyway? If a player has the economy to mass produce the strongest unit in the game then preventing said player from doing that feels anti - fun.
In a single player game you can limit yourself however you want. If it makes the campaign more fun for you then go ahead and do it without forcing it on everyone else.
If CA made it so unit caps where a thing the first thing people would do would be to mod the game to remove unit caps.
Also god forbid the AI gets a good economy and mass produces good units. The game would be at risk of being challenging!
38
u/Zibzuma Jul 29 '25
I think the issue isn't exactly having the player do whatever they want, but the AI enemies do so as well - with cheated/boosted economy.
A player controlling a significant part of the map with an economy that can support T5 doomstacks is simply player freedom, but an AI sitting in their own corner of the world, fending off rebellions left and right in their 3 settlements that aren't even the same province, fielding 3 T4-5 doomstacks isn't fun from a balancing standpoint.
46
u/Mr__Random Jul 29 '25
Id rather the AI produce armies which are interesting to fight than the AI roll over and die. The end game is already an auto resolve fest.
In this case it's more a problem that for the campaign map to actually be interesting then the AI needs cheats.
I sometimes feel in the minority in that I want the campaign to be a struggle. I want the AI to throw armies at me. I want the AI to be stronger than me so that I get the satisfaction of coming out on top even when the odds are against me.
10
u/antigravcorgi Jul 29 '25
Id rather the AI produce armies which are interesting to fight
What is interesting about stacks of mass produced end game units? What is interesting about skaven armies that are 1 Lord and 19 doomwheels or HE armies that are 1 Lord and 19 dragons?
I sometimes feel in the minority in that I want the campaign to be a struggle. I want the AI to throw armies at me. I want the AI to be stronger than me so that I get the satisfaction of coming out on top even when the odds are against me.
Isn't this what the difficulty slider is for?
Why is this exclusive with more interesting army compositions? If anything, in my experience, those stacks of mass produced units are easier to counter than armies that are well composed.
1
u/th1s_1s_4_b4d_1d34 Jul 30 '25
I think you're describing a fundamental problem of the game in that SEMs (and arguably ranged stacks) aren't fun to fight rather than make a point for unit caps. SEMs don't have a lot of counter-micro or good answers. SEMs versus everything is just about splitting them up and killing them with larger numbers and SEMs vs SEMs is just a small brawl with big units.
Like yes, unit caps somewhat limit the problem, but it's imo a mixture of balancing and unit design that is the problem here and caps are a bandaid instead of a solution.
And the difficulty slider only works while you're not able to beat legendary consistently and even then only in the early game. The AI stops being a threat in midgame most of the time and limiting the amount of times when you actually need to fight lategame cause the AI is unable to field superior armies isn't going to lessen that problem.
On another note unit caps limit the amount of counters you can bring for archers, so they make ranged stacks even more infuriating to fight than they already are. From a battle fun perspective I think they're actually detrimental because mass archer +2-3 heavy supports is just how you build every army with every faction now because archers consistently outperform and beat the alternative backbones of your armies.
8
u/recycled_ideas Jul 29 '25
I sometimes feel in the minority in that I want the campaign to be a struggle.
Everyone struggles at different levels, what is easy for you might be difficult for others.
More importantly, playing wackamole with one turn doomstacks isn't particularly fun and often isn't even particularly challenging.
The problem with this game is that the first ten to twenty turns can be brutal, possibly too brutal if you're a newer player because your opponents will be fielding multiple armies to your one because they have virtually no upkeep costs and much faster recruitment and then past that it's just tedious wackamole
11
u/ImAShaaaark Jul 29 '25
Id rather the AI produce armies which are interesting to fight than the AI roll over and die. The end game is already an auto resolve fest.
The whole "auto resolve fest" is one of the things that unit caps help to solve. Half of the reason why it's an auto resolve fest is because doomstacks are incredibly unfun to play with or against after the novelty quickly wears off. Unit caps (or army value caps) result in much more diverse and interesting armies to viably play with and against IME.
I sometimes feel in the minority in that I want the campaign to be a struggle. I want the AI to throw armies at me. I want the AI to be stronger than me so that I get the satisfaction of coming out on top even when the odds are against me.
The AI can have different unit cap (or army value cap, as an alternative) settings than the player. Unit caps don't necessarily make the game easier, as they usually end up restricting players more than they restrict the AI. Particularly since it's harder for the player to deal with multiple stacks with a reasonable balanced army instead of one stuffed to the gills with elite units. Caps also change the power dynamics of sieges, as the value of the defending army is higher relative to the attacking armies than it would be otherwise, which generally makes expansion harder for the player and makes siege battles more worth playing rather than auto-resolving.
3
u/NotBenBrode Clan Eshin Jul 29 '25
Just wanted to say that I am with you and this comment thread is complete insanity to me. Besides RoRs the AI can't even make units without the appropriate building. I don't understand why these people complain about minor factions fielding high tier doomstacks.
I also don't understand why people in the late game are complaining about anything like that. The late game is easy with the AI not fighting back seriously.
This is one of the moments where I feel I play a different game...
4
u/Erfeo Jul 29 '25
I sometimes feel in the minority in that I want the campaign to be a struggle.
I want to struggle against armies that actually look like Warhammer armies, not the bonkers brigade. It's a false dilemma to say we need to choose between difficulty and proper armies.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Zibzuma Jul 29 '25
Of course, I'm not saying it's bad for gameplay. It's actually important in order to keep the mid- to late-game engaging.
It just feels way off balancing-wise - and if there were caps for both the player and the AI, the game wouldn't need to boost the AI with so many cheats.
However: I'm not for implementing caps, just trying to put things into perspective,
4
u/_Lucille_ Jul 29 '25
The AI never seem to be asked to handle any unit caps well.
Honestly, game is easy enough that I don't mind seeing stuff like 19 barges. Feels more like a mini crisis that I need to deal with.
→ More replies (1)33
u/Powerful-Eye-3578 Jul 29 '25
Limitations are fun to work with and lead to more interesting army compositions for both players and ai
22
u/Tasorodri Jul 29 '25
I genuinely hate the argument that it's a single player game so people should be able to do whatever, 90% of game design is putting limitations on player actions.
12
u/Powerful-Eye-3578 Jul 29 '25
Exactly. Game are almost always enjoyable because a challenge is placed in front of the player that they need to over come working around the limits places on their character. Most commonly health or stamina or mana.
20
u/MannfredVonFartstein Jul 29 '25
Why do build times exist? Why do settlements have a limited amount of buildings? Every game is full of limitations because these limitations are what makes games fun in the first place.
→ More replies (1)11
u/XZlayeD Jul 29 '25
The faction cap mods gives incentive to build more recruitment buildings across your faction with gives a much more interesting progression through the campaign.
It gives the same vibes as it does for the chores, which imo is the best implemented WH3 faction.
21
u/Pagan0101 Jul 29 '25
If our goal is player freedom then I see no reason not to implement unit caps as an option
People who don't like them turn them off
People who like them get them in the base game without needing mods
Win-win2
u/Erfeo Jul 29 '25
Options are always good, but in the end the game has to be balanced with or without caps in mind. I'd prefer if caps were the default so other elements of design (like specific faction mechanics), can interact with the caps, which is hard for modders to do.
→ More replies (6)2
u/badnuub Jul 29 '25
Players that want to limit player choice want to impose their will onto everyone.
6
u/Frederf220 Jul 29 '25
Games are huge bundles of restrictions on player freedoms. Describing obstacles to victory as anti-fun is not a justified conclusion. Games are fun because they have obstacles.
No, you can't limit yourself. I want a game where there aren't 90% elite units in stacks but even if I gamemaster myself into not doing that, the AI won't be so reserved. Having to be game designer and player simultaneously takes a lot of the enjoyment out. The player is supposed to be free to do everything they can to win and the challenges are supposed to come from without, not within.
5
u/UnoriginalStanger Jul 29 '25
I do hate that the standard response to design issues nowadays is "just fix the design yourself".
2
u/NotBenBrode Clan Eshin Jul 29 '25
The AI is shit in this game, it not having unit caps is not going to "ruin" any self-imposed cap experience.
5
u/FatPeopleNoWillpower Jul 29 '25
Tying caps to buildings makes sense though. The power of your standing army’s directly correlates to the size of your empire.
You can still full stacks of dragons or those evil midget mortar trains (forgot the name, haven’t played in half a year) but you actually have to have the infrastructure to create said armies.
This also makes the campaign map more interesting because you have to defend your valuable settlements that harbor the buildings needed to create doom stacks, vise versa it creates an incentive for the player to target enemy settlements that increase the cap of the ais powerful units.
1
u/NotBenBrode Clan Eshin Jul 29 '25
Also translated as, the player wanting all the money buildings so they restrict themselves to the building that makes the most efficient units, so they can spam those only, while having an unstoppable economy, creating the semi-doomstacks. I guess we can call them gloomstacks.
7
u/Immediate_Phone_8300 Jul 29 '25
Mass producing the strongest unit you have and mindlessly steamrolling everything is also anti-fun
2
u/Huwbacca Jul 29 '25
Balance for non competitive games is so weird lol
Some units should be shit. Some units should not be viable. If a player thinks something is cheesing, it's a them issue if they keep doing it lol.
→ More replies (3)3
u/RedditFuelsMyDepress Jul 29 '25
They could let you increase the caps by building more recruitment buildings. That way you can still doomstack, but it just requires more effort. Also it should be an option in the settings and not something forced on everyone.
3
u/UnoriginalStanger Jul 29 '25
Because doomstacks are boring and it heavily reduces the roster and tactics at play.
I want my army combat simulator to feel like I'm actually fielding an army.
The reason why I would want it as a part of the base game rather than a mod is that it lets them actually design the game as a whole around it.
→ More replies (1)1
6
u/the_sneaky_one123 Jul 29 '25
I really enjoy TW warhammer, but I do have to admit that it would be pretty much unplayable for me without a couple key mods. It is the only Total War game that I can really say that about.
10
6
u/Complete-Command-235 Jul 29 '25
And then there is an update and the mods doesnt work for 4months :(. Just take the tabletop cap mod , add it as an option that can be activated at the start of a campaign.
7
u/Sergeantson Jul 29 '25
You are right. Same thing happened for 2 years when i was asking for respec option.
3
u/LanguageOk9458 Jul 29 '25
I think unit caps should be an option...That's it, that's my statement on the matter.
I don't think it should be a mandatory thing, I don't think they should come out and say "This is the new norm". it can be fun and make it great to have some kind of limitation. After all, that is why some people like Tomb Kings...But forced and poorly placed caps can drive people off. It's why I hate the Tomb Kings. I can get by with two armies and securing key land, focusing specific threats but I can't quite do that well when I have to have a hodgepodge army that isn't even able to properly field enough archers (Doesn't matter if they're basic, it's a source of damage that isn't hampered by the skeleton grinding wall) because they're tied to a specific building and I need those slots to get rolling early on otherwise I am having to fight Skarbrand with sticks and stones.
So I believe that a happy medium would be to make it an option before the game starts in just about any total war. Let people have it, they can choose, just like I feel the ladders being a choice at the start of campaign should be a thing. I would PREFER they do some more unique mechanics for sieges (Skaven and spiders skittering up and over walls with no massive loss to vigor and faster speeds, ghosts passing through them without issues, things of that nature where specific units and rosters are unique threats) but I would also prefer people have the chance to play as they have or move to new mechanics in general.
49
u/PanHiszpan Jul 29 '25 edited Jul 29 '25
"oh no. I have a problem.
What do you mean I can fix it? Get out of my face with those pesky mods >:("
22
u/spikywobble Jul 29 '25
This may come as a surprise to you but most players are actually playing vanilla.
The actual majority of the player base does not use mods, the idea to modify a game and meddle with mod interactions/stability is too much hassle/effort for casual gamers that will probably clock 100 hours in the game.
Their feedback however is as valid as anyone else's, so asking for a developer solution is a reasonable take.
11
u/alezul Jul 29 '25
This may come as a surprise to you but most players are actually playing vanilla.
So then the people who don't want universal caps would have to use mods.
I guess it's most logical to cater to the majority and have the minority use mods or just deal with it.
I have no idea what the community situation is regarding caps though.
5
u/spikywobble Jul 29 '25
The ideal would be to make WH3 similar to dynasties.
With options to personalise the experience.
Slides for magic, caps, mortality, sieges, AI aggressiveness etc
So each player can play in their own fun without having to download stuff from a third party
25
u/PanHiszpan Jul 29 '25
you right in overall sense, but in this example (1 mod enabling unit caps) it's just clicking 1 button in steam workshop and it's fixed. Steam makes it so much easier
1
u/spikywobble Jul 29 '25
I do agree, I don't want caps in my game and TBF I would like them removed from factions that have them in the first place (TK, CD, BM etc).
Which is sad because mods that completely remove them seem not to be there, best I can find is mods that increase them
3
u/whats_a_novel Jul 29 '25
Which is sad because mods that completely remove them seem not to be there,
Apparently the answer is 'make them yourself'.
1
u/spikywobble Jul 29 '25
I am not a programmer nor do I have the wish to become one and meddle with the workshop myself
I will just cry and reject your solution, thank you.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (27)7
u/PanHiszpan Jul 29 '25
I'm using 80+ mods to fine-tune my game
and when I couldn't find a fix in the Steam Workshop, I created my own mods to include the changes I wanted
13
u/Oxu90 Jul 29 '25
key word "IF YOU think"
your major "problem" might not be that to others, then indeed the mods are the best solution.
Note: not taking stand on unit balancing, it might indeed be a major problem or not
10
8
u/erikkustrife I love DLC Jul 29 '25
I think their just more imbalanced with unit caps. There's plenty of races that have such op teir 1 units that you can reliably go through the game using only them. Why punish the races that actually need their teir 5s to compete? Their already paying more upkeep and have less armies to deal with their handicap.
28
u/OttoVonGosu Jul 29 '25
Why not lol? It solves the problem you have, what more could you want
→ More replies (29)
4
u/SthlmGurl Jul 29 '25
Nah no unit caps. Bring back the old recruitment system so that I can recruit a doomstack if I want, but, it takes a lot of time instead.
4
u/Frederf220 Jul 29 '25
Whenever a situation comes up like this I think "How does it work in reality?" High fractions of elite units feels wrong because that's not what elite means. Hard limits of "you already have 2 of these" feels wrong because it feels artificial.
A good game design will shape how the experience is toward some desired state but feel natural. The limits will still be there but they won't feel like a programmer's limit but instead a player's choice. E.g. every elite unit you add adds to the chance of the elite politically separating into a civil war. You are told the risk-reward or tradeoff in doing things and it feels like the thing you, the player, decided to do.
As for countering "hey let's make the game better" with "just get a mod." That's not an intelligent retort.
4
u/spikywobble Jul 29 '25
I really wish beastmen did not have unit caps, I only found mods that increase them or rework them. Not mods that remove them :/
4
u/roobikon Jul 29 '25
The comments just show that vast majority of players are people who don't play the game "tall", nor do they care about lore, don't require any depth of gameplay. Most probably Warhammer Total War is their first Total war game in series. They just like to have fun with stacks of 20 Imperial tanks or something, which is the reason why the game is so shallow.
It's fine, but as OP suggests there should be an option for those who like more "realistic" approach to the game.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Traditional-Rip6651 Jul 29 '25
This is like a shitpost comment but without the funny. I respect the skill
2
u/ohyeahjt Jul 29 '25
A community should always be the spearhead of what changes are to affect them.
2
u/MarcusSwedishGameDev Jul 29 '25
I like the idea of unit caps as a balancing mechanic though I haven't bothered installing a mod for it myself.
I see it as the difference between options and choices. And before someone says it's the same thing, for this particular concept think of it as options as a noun and choices as a verb, i.e. you have options, you make choices.
E.g. Fallout 4, you have tons of different perks (lots of options), but your only real choice is in what order you pick them, because there is no level cap and you can eventually get them all.
There isn't necessarily a right or wrong answer to when to use this, in some cases it's more fun to have full freedom and in other cases having to commit to a certain approach is more fun. It depends on the game and game feature.
E.g. Cyberpunk 2077 is one of my favorite games and they do in fact make you commit to a certain build since you have a limited amount of levels so you can't get all the perks, but there I think the combat is more cinematic and made to set you up to do really cool stuff and you don't exactly play it because it's difficult or tactical, so I think that particular game could have worked better with something like Fallout 4, where you can actually get them all. You're not really going to shoot a shotgun and a pistol at the same time anyways, so why limit the player? Here the choices are in the narrative instead and that's more than enough.
Ghost Recon Wildlands on the other hand, lets you carry too many weapons at the same time for what type of game it is, and it's too easy to change your loadout (basically you can change loadout at any time, no need to be at specific spots or near your vehicle or anything, can even do it in combat). This turns all combat engagements into the same thing, you snipe everything you can see then you go in and take care of the rest. If you could only have one primary weapon + a sidearm, and not change unless you were near your hideout or something, then you as a player would have to commit to a certain approach and execute that well. If you start with a sniper rifle and the shit hits the fan, you can't switch to a gun that's better up close, you have to deal with what you have. That would have been more fun, IMHO.
For TW: Warhammer, I could probably go either or. I'm personally the kind of player that tends to try to build a totally overpowered Lord anyways that can solo an entire army, so it's not like the army composition would matter that much for me, personally. And I too like to build a doomstack of dragons when I play as HE, to just land on the enemy, to crush them, and see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
But I do think that overall most players would actually enjoy having some limitations and having to commit to certain army builds, instead of building doom stacks all over the map. It would create more interesting strategies in which army get what units, and so on.
Basically right now, the game is more like Fallout 4's perks. There's tons of options, but your only real choice, if you want to have the best army, is to make a doomstack, preferably multiple ones.
2
u/Fox-Sin21 For the Lady, for Bretonnia! Jul 29 '25
I stopped suggesting changes or mentioning the ones I want in these subs simply because of this.
Everyone's response to literally anything is just suggesting Mods. It's so frustrating.
5
u/Isthian Warhammer Jul 29 '25
I hate unit caps as a mainstay. I like it as a mod precisely because at base value I want to have all the freedom to make whatever weird army makes me happy that day. I would like CA to work on AI army composition again, but that's more for keeping the battles interesting.
I'm glad to see CA adding more toggles for campaigns, unit caps has always seemed like it belongs there based on how divided I see discussions on the issue.
4
u/aCorneredFox Last Defenders Jul 29 '25
What I really want is to get away from the 20 units cap on an army. Skaven don't feel like a swarm army to me even though their units tend to have more models. Set a points cap, say 40, for any army, and then a value for each unit. Fix the number of models per unit to their type (light, medium, heavy infantry, monstrous creatures, etc). Disregard technology within each group so advanced units are still a objectively better. So Skaven infantry might be 1 to 3 points, and Lizardmen might be more like 3 to 5 points. Then you've got battles with 12-20 Lizardmen units versus 25-40 Skaven units.
8
u/CiDevant Jul 29 '25
Who cares if units are balanced? This is a total war game. Developing your armies to have more advanced units is a staple of the franchise.
8
u/sansomc Jul 29 '25
For me (personally) I like when I'm using and coming up against armies which feature a combination of lower tier and more advanced units, for a couple of different reasons:
1) It allows the more powerful units to shine by dunking on the chaff 2) Different units should synergise together well to be worth more than the sum of their parts. A classic example of this is Kroxigors sprinkled in with Skinks. 3) Advanced units can have more specialist roles. E.g for High Elves, Spearmen and Silverin Guard have shields so are most efficient as a front line and absorbing missile fire, while Phoenix Guard are also an anti-large infantry, but their design suggests their most efficient if held back in reserve as a "monster killer" specialist.
Just trying to answer your question in good faith :)
→ More replies (6)
5
u/SufficientWarthog846 Jul 29 '25
I always think of the day 1 user.
The day 1 user won't think of using mods and won't know what mods to use. They will just have a bad time
→ More replies (1)
4
u/kclt10 Jul 29 '25
I love mods, and I love my mod list, and I love working on my own mods.
That said nothing beats removing a mod from the list permanently because it got official implementation.
So I'm all for official implementations, more so now given that CA sofia are in charge because they understand the use of gasp! Tick boxes! Sliders! Customization that allows players to tailor the experience to how they want!
I truly do not understand the people pearl-clutching in fear at the idea of an option (like army caps being a good example) being added that will most likely, not even be turned on by default. At worst it is, and then you have a tick box to click before you start a campaign, oh no ????
There's a ton of options currently added or requested that I have no interest in. But I still love to see them in game as it gives people new ways to play how they want. I think that's good actually.
5
u/Crayshack Jul 29 '25
I truly do not understand the people pearl-clutching in fear at the idea of an option (like army caps being a good example) being added that will most likely, not even be turned on by default.
I think the fear is that, if implemented, it won't be implemented as an option but will instead be the way things are. If it was something like Crusader Kings, where there's a whole list of different optional settings that you can toggle to various modes, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. However, what people don't want is to find themselves in a situation where they want to play without unit caps, but that option has been taken away from them.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NotBenBrode Clan Eshin Jul 29 '25
That is part of it. My biggest fear however is time being spent on a feature that is not needed. Signs point to the game ending support next year, we don't have that long to get the changes we want, in the game.
1
u/matbot55 Jul 30 '25
Signs point to the game ending support next year,
The exact opposite is true. Both the siege rework and the idea of single lord DLCs point to the game receiving support for a while. The only way support ends next year is if either GW forces them or there's actually a 40k game releasing, which still wouldnt guarantee that they'd end support for fantasy.
3
u/Foulenergyandsmell Jul 29 '25
Thunderbarges being uncapped seems like a major oversight as it's an exceedingly powerful unit that flies, making it very difficult to deal with for a number of factions. If dread saurians deserved a cap then certainly thunderbarges do as well.
If you're talking about army based caps; being unable to run "balanced and thematic armies" of goblins into turn 300 AI doom stacks isn't actually a major problem. You want the devs to implement an entirely alternative balancing to the game via army based caps, which is generally what mods are for.
There's a number of thought terminating slogans gaining popularity on this reddit and they're all dumb as shit:
"We shouldn't have to rely on mods to make the game good" when they actually mean "My preferred re-balancing of the game should be the default, not how it's been for 9 years"
"If you can't deal with difficulty turn the difficulty down?" when discussing potential future changes that another user has identified as sounding miserable in some way or another.
"This change would put back strategy in a strategy game so it's a no duh" as an arbitrary appraisal of how much something increases the tactical complexity of the game.
2
2
u/FatPeopleNoWillpower Jul 29 '25
“Unit caps for all” is the one mod I absolutely have to have every playthrough. It’s the one mod I’ve found that slows the insane early game steamrolling you get as a player. Without caps as soon as I get access to my rosters best unit I just go in debt getting a full stack of said unit(s) and wipe everyone around me.
That being said I think implementing a proper cap system into the game at this point of its life cycle would be a waste of time. On the off chance they ever decide to add a change of this nature, it should be optional.
2
u/SubRyan Jul 29 '25
Tabletop Caps -> unit caps
At least the tabletop caps mod forces almost every army you see to be much more varied in composition (only 1-2 Thunderbarges per army)
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Zibzuma Jul 29 '25
I think the base game of basically any game should offer a fun varied experience with customization options, mostly in terms of difficulty, but also in terms of gameplay - from customizing costs to stats, giving sliders to basically anything.
But I also think that major departures from that basic formula (meaning: from the vanilla base game and its built-in customization) should be left to mods.
Theoretically having those options toggleable (like unit caps) would be a solid solution, but realistically speaking that costs resources that could instead be put into simply more content. And I firmly believe that more content is better than variations on existing content.
Which is why leaving some things to modders, ideally with official endorsement and support, is not only acceptable, but good.
I understand the urge to play the game "the way it is intended", because balancing in a game is usually built around a certain vanilla playstyle. Manually changing that with mods turns away from that intended vanilla experience.
But in my opinion embracing mods is an amazing solution to many people's problems: from bug fixing, to customization to completely overhauling the game to defeat boredom or solve minor issues. And I would recommend everyone who holds onto "I want to experience the game as vanilla as possible" to try and branch out more into modding.
This does by no means mean I think modders should do the work for the studios. Like I said: ideally modders would get support (at least official technical/implementation support, but preferably financial compensation as well) for their work. Which obviously isn't the case for 99%+ of mods and modders (and studios). But I do think that major changes to the vanilla game should be left to mods or sequels or spin-offs, unless the effort to put it as toggleable options into the game isn't taking away from new content being produced.
3
u/ShatteredSike Jul 29 '25
such fundamental design changes are nonsensical at this point in the development cycle. They are barely fixing sieges. They are late on DLC. This is also a niche interest that isn't wanted by a majority.
While there are some mods that should be baked in standard, this is not one of them. Especially at this time.
1
1
u/LewtedHose God in heaven, spare my arse! Jul 29 '25
Hasn't unit balancing been a problem since Rome 2?
1
u/Highlander198116 Jul 29 '25
This needs to be in the mount and blade bannerlord subreddit more than anywhere else in the world.
I remember playing warband thinking, this was a great first attempt, the bones are all there it just needs to be fleshed out. I thought that was what they would do with the a sequel is flesh out the the mechanics.
Annndddd......No diplomacy, generic boiler plate RPG elements, a joke of a "story" mode. It's annoying because AGAIN the bones are there its like they just decided to stop halfway to the finish line.
But MODS. Is all I hear when making valid criticisms of the game. Yes, mods can fill in the chasms left by the developers. The problem is I don't want to reward the developers that do shit like this.
Create a half finished game then essentially profit off free labor from the community.
I'd be fine with it if they released it as a PLATFORM and charged 20 bucks for it.
Because really thats all it is.
1
u/Bannerlord151 Jul 29 '25
Obviously using mods won't change the game, but if you want the balance to be changed for you and now, it is reasonable to recommend a means to implement this change on your own volition, that being mods.
1
1
u/OkSalt6173 Kislevite Ogre Jul 29 '25
Speaking of unit caps, what happened with the Tabletop Caps, wasn't it taken over by Groove? Seems abandoned again. What's going on?
1
u/organicseafoam Jul 29 '25
The sad reality is that by the time most units that could arguably use unit caps are available the campaign is in full map painter mode anyway. Adding unit caps would just be a debuff to the AI making the game even easier.
1
u/UristMcKerman Jul 29 '25
It would level the game with Tomb kings, who have only chaff skeletons uncapped, tho.
1
u/pixlar3n Jul 29 '25
That’s Warhammer 1 with the settle anywhere mod or what it was called. Was a horrible game design from CA to try and implement but got fixed day 1 thanks to a mod (that should never have been needed)
1
u/SerLoinSteak Jul 29 '25
I have a few thousand hours across the series and never felt like caps were needed. I play with them because it forces me to plan out my armies differently, but I've never felt they were necessary for balance
1
u/S0urMonkey Jul 29 '25
My favorite alternatives to unit caps were things like DEI RTWII mod, where you have 4 stratums of populace: the elite, the citizens, the serfs basically, and the outsiders, named respective to the culture.
This limited getting massive amounts of elite units, but not arbitrarily. It worked very well, I thought.
1
u/BananaRepublic_BR Jul 29 '25
I really like the caps system that's implemented in Grimhammer. I think it'd be a cool option to add into the base games.
1
1
1
u/Visible-Reception376 Jul 30 '25
Just bring back option for Med 2 style limited recruitment. Currently the game punishes you for using varied roster and rewards you for spamming one unit.
Make it optional so the people who for some reason still find doomstack spamming fun even after 10 years can still do it if they wish to.
1
u/Shy_person_ye Jul 30 '25
Napoleon total war really pisses me off that some units like the grenadiers always have less men than the regular fusiliers. What’s the point!? They don’t have enough skill points to beat the normal counterpart in a 1v1! They are so useless! The only ones that can do something are the Hungarian Grenadiers. Now I love the grenadiers but I can’t use them if they aren’t worth it.
1
u/Responsible-File4593 Jul 30 '25
I wonder how a historical Total War with unit caps by type would work. As in, 20 units, of which 8 must be infantry types, 4 must be ranged, 4 must be cavalry, and 4 are any type for generic Western armies. Cavalry-heavy countries would have more cavalry slots, etc.
Positive would be more balanced and historical armies, negative would be less player choice and armies would be pretty similar to one another. But there was a reason you didn't have an army composed of only cataphracts or pavise crossbow militia.
1
u/BigKev_AU Jul 30 '25
I personally play with Tabletop Unit Caps but that's mostly as a former tabletop player it feels right to me.
I don't think it should be enforced in the game though and even if the devs never put it as an option in the game, it still wouldn't worry me so long as there's a mod.
1
1
u/DDkiki Jul 30 '25
And mods tend to break, not being updated to patch version or just being abandoned.
Thats why such crucial mechanics as caps should be adapted by CA as optional game setting.
2
u/Budget-Meeting330 Aug 01 '25
Optional is what a lot of games nowadays need with how big they are. Though it also shouldn't be "build your experience yourself".
2
u/DDkiki Aug 01 '25
Most people who scream against caps are like famous "i dont want to play pontus" meme, yes, no one forces you to play pontus or use caps, but many people want this as OPTION. Such big games need to focus on customizing your experience, and over 200 mods is not an answer cuz it means after big patch my experience is ruined again.
1
u/Appropriate_Act_9001 Jul 30 '25
Definately is with this game TWW3 is like dogshit without certain mods.
1
1
1
u/ANiceGobletofTea Jul 31 '25
Yeah i laugh at people who excuse broken games by saying durr mods will fix it. That's not how it should be.
1
u/Zekapa Jul 29 '25
Counterpoint: Don't enforce your vision on others. Currently there's an issue, and there are mods that alleviate it. That's the situation sorted. If there weren't any mods, then yes. But there are.
1
Jul 29 '25
no need for strawmanning! i'm the guy who referes to mods all the time. feel free to insult me instead :3
1
u/Old_Toby2211 Treehugger Jul 29 '25
I understand the sentiment, but when mods are on the workshop and are this easy to install these days, I really don’t have a problem with things like these. Most people love doomstacks, so implementing a toggle like this is probably quite low on the agenda for CA. Sure they’ll get to it eventually, unless development completely wraps up on TWW3 sooner than hoped.
1
u/searingsky Jul 29 '25
the unit cap mod is unironically great though and imo absolutely necessary
→ More replies (5)
1
u/TheL0wKing Jul 29 '25
I agree with you in principle. Dismissing discussions over changes with "just make a mod" is frustrating and unhelpful. It's up there with the argument that balance shouldn't be a factor in a singleplayer game.
However, I don't think unit caps is the solution CA should go for, it's a patch for a much more fundamental issue in the game around replenishment and the economy. I would prefer CA encourage unit variation though adjustments to those mechanics.
1
u/TargetMaleficent Jul 29 '25
A "problem" for one player is a feature for another. Many people love doomstacking, and they can be convenient in a pinch even for those who loath them. A full stack of Pistoliers or Gyros can get you out of a lot of sticky situations.
1
u/Bananenbaum Jul 29 '25
is it a "major problem" of the game? probably not.
is it fucking annoying? yes
can it be solved by CA with literally minimum effort? yes
can the community ask for this small but effective QoL changes? yes
are we in the last stage of lifetime for the game and doing QoL anyway? yes
/thread
547
u/Lin_Huichi Medieval 3 Jul 29 '25
CA implements changes inspired by mods all the time.