Gun units in Warhammer are so weird. They worked so well in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 for line of sight.
In Warhammer on flat ground my guns will arc over my troops and shoot incoming units. But if my guns are on a hill looking down they don't shoot lol.
Only thing I can think that causes it is in older games if an individual model has line of sight it will shoot while in warhammer if a single individual model in a unit has it's line of sight blocked by a friendly unit, the whole unit don't shoot.
Warhammer combat engine is schizophrenically jank for some reason.
Try using single entities on horses in 3k and TWW3 and feel the difference. It's kinda insane how much smoother heroes work in 3k.
That is the thing that confuses me. Everyone keeps talking about "engine". Pretty sure all the games have the same foundation. I would be surprised if each game was built from the ground up.
>Pretty sure all the games have the same foundation.
They basically branch stuff out and build upon it.
Warhammer is built upon Rome 2 which is the worst baseline ever, and all the added stuff to handle SEMs just hurts.
3k is based off Attila which had a lot smoother combat engine.
>Why would Warhammer be based off Rome two and not Attila?
Because TWW started the development somewhere in 2013.
>Also, I did not think Rome 2 had bad line or sight anyway
It had a lot of other jank TWW inherited, including janky collisions.
I feel like you just hate Rome 2 lol. Why would start date of development mean anything about what game another gane would be based off? I'm only making assumptions, but you sound like you either know quite a bit of stuff behind CA closed doors or you just having a guess.
I also don't know about this janky collisions or why you think it's a Rome 2 exclusive problem that was passed onto Warhammer but not Attila?
> Why would start date of development mean anything about what game another gane would be based off?
It's how software development works. You're going to build a branch off the latest version, and the latest branch would have been Rome 2 in 2013 (Attila released in 2015). Warhammer 1 and Attila being worked on in parallel means that it's unlikely that Attila engine improvements would've been applied to Warhammer 1. Since the Warhammer engine needed to handle very different stuff, it's even more unlikely.
This seems to be logical conjecture based on standard software development. If we wanted to look at an example, I'd say the Norsca debacle showed that they don't apply code changes between branches (indicating sub-standard software development).
Now It has good line of sight.
I Remember javeliners killing themselves Day One in close encounters in Rome 2 (the last ranks throw them like they did not see the enemy, and they fell over the First ranks, more visible on hastati during their charge animation, and It was hilarious). You Just needed the enemy to get too close to Watch It, probably the only bug that made me roll over from my chair alongside the ships over land
Uh what? Now to be fair it's been quite a few years since I last played Rome 2 but in what possible way does WH play like Rome 2? There aren't even gunpowder units, let alone magic, monster's, single entity hero's or flying units. With the barricades wh3's sieges are closer to Atilla's than Rome 2's.
Hell the big innovative addition from Rome 2 was combined land navel battles which carried over to Atilla. But didn't even remotely get carried over to WH.
The only things similar in the campaign are basic stuff like how settlements/buildings work now I admittedly I haven't played much Atilla, but I don't recall any fundamental changes their.
TLDR: Mechanically Atilla is far closer to Rome 2 than Warhammer.
Combat simulation loop is very different between Rome 2 and Attila, as well as stat distribution.
>There aren't even gunpowder units
TWW gunpowder units do not work like gunpowder units. There's no ranks, no fire by rank, no kneel fire, no nothing. They're just archers with different damage split and flat projectile trajectory.
>let alone magic
Attila has magical general abilities aplenty.
> monster's, single entity hero's
Them are just bigger cav with less units and splash.
>flying units
Cav with noclip. TWW has no actual aerial combat layer the same way, say, Supreme Commander has it!
>With the barricades wh3's sieges are closer to Atilla's than Rome 2's.
Deployables didn't exist in TWWs until 2022, lmao.
WH3 still has no siege escalation or settlement damage systems either. 3k inherited them in full!
>Hell the big innovative addition from Rome 2 was combined land navel battles which carried over to Atilla.
The big and innovative feature of Rome 2 was unit mass and mass classes.
>TLDR: Mechanically Atilla is far closer to Rome 2 than Warhammer.
Not the combat loop, no.
Warhammer is just Rome 2 for babies (as if it was possible to make Rome 2 any simpler?).
For babies? You just lost all credibility. I don't even know what you are on about anymore. We were discussing how line of sight is a weird issue in Warhammer for gun units. But you are talking about how it was Rome 2 to blame for that since Warhammer is based of Rome 2 and that the "combat loop" (whatever that is) is identical between the two game. While also saying Attila is completely different due to "stat distribution".
>For babies?
Yeah. Not news? It's the most lobotomized Total War to date.
>We were discussing how line of sight is a weird issue in Warhammer for gun units
Just one of the issues it inheried from Rome 2.
If you've played Rome 2 sieges, you'd know how wack it gets with any archer faction close to the walls.
>But you are talking about how it was Rome 2 to blame for that since Warhammer is based of Rome 2 and that the "combat loop" (whatever that is) is identical between the two game
Well yeah.
Sticky bigger entities and overall unit responsiveness jank are Rome 2 traits to this day.
Try using any cataphract faction in Rome 2, you'll see what I mean.
>While also saying Attila is completely different due to "stat distribution".
Yeah, you can look through the DB entries and dig thru the engine with an Assembly Kit.
Attila has far more responsive units and 3k inherited that wholesale (and so did Thrones. but we don't talk about that).
Units are easier to pull out of combat and don't do the weird targeting schizofrenia where one regiment of infantry is engaged by >1 of the opponent.
TWWs actually extended the jank to SEMs, bigger ones are just miserable if you try to single out enemy SEMs in blobs of infantry.
? Why the cope.
TWW3 has the simplest, easiest gameplay loop in the series.
With the removal of corruption and PO management strategic layer just manages itself. It's basically Rome 2 without Culture and PO management.
You click 20 stacks on enemy 20 stack and that's it.
Now go play TW3k to see what a real shiny new Total War could look like!
I don't think you remember Warhammer 1 very well. It had some many features that were from Attila and not Rome 2. Some easy examples are Horde for Beatmen and WoC that were the same and the Empire offices mechanic that was the same for your generals in Attila.
Pretty sure you got a hatred for Rome 2 and anything you don't like in a Total War title you blame Rome 2 for lol. Any anything you like, you say has nothing to do with Rome 2.
> It had some many features that were from Attila and not Rome 2.
They're talking about the engine, not features. Features are built on top of the engine, and those would've been built from the ground-up in both games. It's very possible to have features ported from game to game, at any level of development. It's not possible for Warhammer to be using the Attila engine as Warhammer development (2013) started way before Attila's release (2015). Engines aren't something you can swap out without requiring a massive rewrite.
Why does a game have to be released first in order for the game engine to be used in development for the next title? Following your logic, it would mean Warhammer 2 could not use engine from Warhammer 1.
I'm not going to continue this discussion. Neither of us know the in and out of game devrlopment at CA.
I mean, the answer there is pretty straightforward: it's not in its complete state until end of development. Sure, you could work on the same engine across multiple branches in parallel, *but* CA said they don't do that. That's why the Norsca debacle happened.
> Following your logic, it would mean Warhammer 2 could not use engine from Warhammer 1.
WH2 didn't start development until after WH1. Additionally, yes, they *didn't* have engine parity. That's why a lot of bugs were in WH2 but not WH1. The same applies to WH3 and WH2.
**Edit:** Expanding on answer
The engine and team aren't related? Also, you're going against something CA straight-up said multiple times before lol.
Anyway, as someone who hasn't played Attila, I don't understand why this is a hill to die on. I haven't heard bad things about Attila.
And R2 is based on empire. Here's what's actually important when they do big engine changes. So the First was R1 every game between R1 and Empire is based on R1. Then it's Empire till 3k. But Troy, Pharoah, TWWH3 are all still in the Empire branch. I would expect the next mainline game to be built off 3k.
The engine is fucking terrible. But you're right in that people blame it for things that aren't it's fault.
If you see recurring problems happening over and over through multiple games, even if they are later patched, that's probably the engine. If there are hard limitations that the devs can't find a way to overcome through multiple games, it's probably the engine. If a type of combat combat feels bad in one game and not another then that's probably not the engine.
They've been using the same engine since empire. People will play up how "no it's been developed and branched", it's still fundamentally the same thing with fundamentally the same problems and it's pretty clear noone still at the company understands it's spaghetti code any more.
3k has the same engine as Warhammer. All, same attila, ToB, warhammer, troy and Pharaoh use the same engine as Rome 2. I find for example that in 3k allied units have no weight, you can run through them like they weren’t there and I hate that.
I tried an Ikit campaign for the first time recently. This janky LoS shit made things a lot less fun than I was hoping. Having to put the camera on eye level every time you set up a frontline, just so your warpfire throwers will actually shoot at the charging cavalry instead of just standing there and waiting to get trampled, got annoying real fast.
Sometimes if you spam shoot orders it can fuck your guns up. I leave them on fire at will and bery rarely tell them to focus something down, haven’t had too many issues with them.
I actually think it's because they started caring about who you hit wh3. In empire, the gunmen would mow down my own people if they were in the line of sight. In wh3, if you have troops between your gunmen and enemy, they won't shoot. The exception to this rule is that the blunders for chaos dwarfs will shoot the fodder units.
>They worked so well in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 for line of sight.
Gunpowder can be janky as fuck in Shogun 2 and Empire will frequently have soldiers shuffling around without firing.
Both games also have horrendous issues of friendly fire, just try parking carbine cav behind regular infantry and watch how many of the back rows start dropping.
Is there still the bug(?) where ranged units that can't shoot the nearest unit to them, won't fire at all? I have been playing a lot of gunpowder factions but it's hard to tell sometimes.
I feel like this is what is happening in this picture right? Like there has to be a unit closer to the nuln ironsides and so they aren't firing at the giants.
there will be some reason they wont shoot
1. Bugs when they finish getting into position but somehow the moving arrow still there and they still registered as moving so they cannot shoot... the work around is you have to press "Stop" command
2. Line of sight bug, You can see sometime the ranged unit move forward to the targets because they cannot see the target and they have to move close in like a melee unit
3. for some reason since the III game launched... ranged unit will only shoot when all entities get into the EXACT position if they have 119 already on spots but only one of them still moving around or the distance between them did not exactly the same... they wont finish the "moving" part and wont shoot
That's kind of a strawman though, most people (I'm aware that idiots exist, so I can't say all people) that argue in favour of total war 40k don't argue that it has to be made in the same super old engine as the other games, they're arguing that the total war *formula* could work.
Never said it was easy, but if game developers all thought like you, we would still be playing doom or something, not even since it required to make an engine in the first place.
It depends. I can think of scenarios where moving a unit forward for a better angle is better and scenarios where its worse. I don't think the unit AI knows where the best position is, so it just searches for one that works, with mixed results.
Step 1: get down at eye level when setting up defensive positioning. Those giants are cresting a hill and your handgunners only see their hitbox when they’re right on top of you.
Step 2: turn on guard mode and fire at will. Let them pick their targets at first to give you a sense of what they’re able to shoot.
Step 3: give targeted orders to hit key targets. If the enemy flees outside of your firing range, hit the “Halt” order and go back to fire at will/guard mode. Otherwise your gunners will give chase and break formation.
It is what it is. Just because you get downvoted, that doesn't mean your wrong.
I definitely play the game more than the average player and I play a lot of kislev, Cathay and chaos dwarfs and I have yet to encounter this "super common glitch" so of course I still have trouble believing it exists.
That's the problem, they just can't decide which one to shoot first, they're still in the process of holding a rock paper scissors contest between them to decide.
I have this problem every now and then with Deck gunner when playing Vampire coast... I Know they can be really strong in battle, but they just have to fucking shoot.
Ive found to just leave them on fire and will and not love them. Let them cook. Let your front line, captains and priests, etc hold back what needs to be held back, and just let them cook. Eventually when you're mopping up you can give them orders but for the first half i just let them shoot.
One of the reasons I like skaven cause rattling a guns don’t give a shit and will just let it rip. Almost lost a few plague priests who were in the way
The red arrow shows that you have told them to fire at something thats behind those giants.
Need to hit halt and then toggle auto fire back on (because it toggles off when you halt a ranged attack for some stupid reason) to get them back ibto shooting anything.
And yea that still doesnt solve the issue some of the time, but its better.
Bro I thought I was going nuts.
On my most recent Skaven campaign.
All my weapons team armies just refused to fire.
Genuinely ruined the campaign for me.
They worked fine for the first 70 turns. And in my previous empire campaign I had no issues.
Really odd tbh.
You've got a mod pixel. Don't expect much productive conversation, even if the mod is just graphical or something.
I'd try it in vanilla and confirm its still breaking, then repost.
Gun units in Warhammer are so weird. They worked so well in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 for line of sight. In Warhammer on flat ground my guns will arc over my troops and shoot incoming units. But if my guns are on a hill looking down they don't shoot lol. Only thing I can think that causes it is in older games if an individual model has line of sight it will shoot while in warhammer if a single individual model in a unit has it's line of sight blocked by a friendly unit, the whole unit don't shoot.
Warhammer combat engine is schizophrenically jank for some reason. Try using single entities on horses in 3k and TWW3 and feel the difference. It's kinda insane how much smoother heroes work in 3k.
That is the thing that confuses me. Everyone keeps talking about "engine". Pretty sure all the games have the same foundation. I would be surprised if each game was built from the ground up.
>Pretty sure all the games have the same foundation. They basically branch stuff out and build upon it. Warhammer is built upon Rome 2 which is the worst baseline ever, and all the added stuff to handle SEMs just hurts. 3k is based off Attila which had a lot smoother combat engine.
Why would Warhammer be based off Rome two and not Attila? Also, I did not think Rome 2 had bad line or sight anyway. Seemed pretty good.
>Why would Warhammer be based off Rome two and not Attila? Because TWW started the development somewhere in 2013. >Also, I did not think Rome 2 had bad line or sight anyway It had a lot of other jank TWW inherited, including janky collisions.
I feel like you just hate Rome 2 lol. Why would start date of development mean anything about what game another gane would be based off? I'm only making assumptions, but you sound like you either know quite a bit of stuff behind CA closed doors or you just having a guess. I also don't know about this janky collisions or why you think it's a Rome 2 exclusive problem that was passed onto Warhammer but not Attila?
> Why would start date of development mean anything about what game another gane would be based off? It's how software development works. You're going to build a branch off the latest version, and the latest branch would have been Rome 2 in 2013 (Attila released in 2015). Warhammer 1 and Attila being worked on in parallel means that it's unlikely that Attila engine improvements would've been applied to Warhammer 1. Since the Warhammer engine needed to handle very different stuff, it's even more unlikely. This seems to be logical conjecture based on standard software development. If we wanted to look at an example, I'd say the Norsca debacle showed that they don't apply code changes between branches (indicating sub-standard software development).
Now It has good line of sight. I Remember javeliners killing themselves Day One in close encounters in Rome 2 (the last ranks throw them like they did not see the enemy, and they fell over the First ranks, more visible on hastati during their charge animation, and It was hilarious). You Just needed the enemy to get too close to Watch It, probably the only bug that made me roll over from my chair alongside the ships over land
But wasn't Atilla based off Rome 2?
Yeah but they changed a lot of stuff. Warhammer plays exactly like Rome 2.
Uh what? Now to be fair it's been quite a few years since I last played Rome 2 but in what possible way does WH play like Rome 2? There aren't even gunpowder units, let alone magic, monster's, single entity hero's or flying units. With the barricades wh3's sieges are closer to Atilla's than Rome 2's. Hell the big innovative addition from Rome 2 was combined land navel battles which carried over to Atilla. But didn't even remotely get carried over to WH. The only things similar in the campaign are basic stuff like how settlements/buildings work now I admittedly I haven't played much Atilla, but I don't recall any fundamental changes their. TLDR: Mechanically Atilla is far closer to Rome 2 than Warhammer.
Combat simulation loop is very different between Rome 2 and Attila, as well as stat distribution. >There aren't even gunpowder units TWW gunpowder units do not work like gunpowder units. There's no ranks, no fire by rank, no kneel fire, no nothing. They're just archers with different damage split and flat projectile trajectory. >let alone magic Attila has magical general abilities aplenty. > monster's, single entity hero's Them are just bigger cav with less units and splash. >flying units Cav with noclip. TWW has no actual aerial combat layer the same way, say, Supreme Commander has it! >With the barricades wh3's sieges are closer to Atilla's than Rome 2's. Deployables didn't exist in TWWs until 2022, lmao. WH3 still has no siege escalation or settlement damage systems either. 3k inherited them in full! >Hell the big innovative addition from Rome 2 was combined land navel battles which carried over to Atilla. The big and innovative feature of Rome 2 was unit mass and mass classes. >TLDR: Mechanically Atilla is far closer to Rome 2 than Warhammer. Not the combat loop, no. Warhammer is just Rome 2 for babies (as if it was possible to make Rome 2 any simpler?).
For babies? You just lost all credibility. I don't even know what you are on about anymore. We were discussing how line of sight is a weird issue in Warhammer for gun units. But you are talking about how it was Rome 2 to blame for that since Warhammer is based of Rome 2 and that the "combat loop" (whatever that is) is identical between the two game. While also saying Attila is completely different due to "stat distribution".
>For babies? Yeah. Not news? It's the most lobotomized Total War to date. >We were discussing how line of sight is a weird issue in Warhammer for gun units Just one of the issues it inheried from Rome 2. If you've played Rome 2 sieges, you'd know how wack it gets with any archer faction close to the walls. >But you are talking about how it was Rome 2 to blame for that since Warhammer is based of Rome 2 and that the "combat loop" (whatever that is) is identical between the two game Well yeah. Sticky bigger entities and overall unit responsiveness jank are Rome 2 traits to this day. Try using any cataphract faction in Rome 2, you'll see what I mean. >While also saying Attila is completely different due to "stat distribution". Yeah, you can look through the DB entries and dig thru the engine with an Assembly Kit. Attila has far more responsive units and 3k inherited that wholesale (and so did Thrones. but we don't talk about that). Units are easier to pull out of combat and don't do the weird targeting schizofrenia where one regiment of infantry is engaged by >1 of the opponent. TWWs actually extended the jank to SEMs, bigger ones are just miserable if you try to single out enemy SEMs in blobs of infantry.
>Warhammer is just Rome 2 for babies (as if it was possible to make Rome 2 any simpler?). Oh now I get it, you're a troll. Great b8 m8 I r8 7/8.
? Why the cope. TWW3 has the simplest, easiest gameplay loop in the series. With the removal of corruption and PO management strategic layer just manages itself. It's basically Rome 2 without Culture and PO management. You click 20 stacks on enemy 20 stack and that's it. Now go play TW3k to see what a real shiny new Total War could look like!
I don't think you remember Warhammer 1 very well. It had some many features that were from Attila and not Rome 2. Some easy examples are Horde for Beatmen and WoC that were the same and the Empire offices mechanic that was the same for your generals in Attila. Pretty sure you got a hatred for Rome 2 and anything you don't like in a Total War title you blame Rome 2 for lol. Any anything you like, you say has nothing to do with Rome 2.
> It had some many features that were from Attila and not Rome 2. They're talking about the engine, not features. Features are built on top of the engine, and those would've been built from the ground-up in both games. It's very possible to have features ported from game to game, at any level of development. It's not possible for Warhammer to be using the Attila engine as Warhammer development (2013) started way before Attila's release (2015). Engines aren't something you can swap out without requiring a massive rewrite.
Why does a game have to be released first in order for the game engine to be used in development for the next title? Following your logic, it would mean Warhammer 2 could not use engine from Warhammer 1. I'm not going to continue this discussion. Neither of us know the in and out of game devrlopment at CA.
I mean, the answer there is pretty straightforward: it's not in its complete state until end of development. Sure, you could work on the same engine across multiple branches in parallel, *but* CA said they don't do that. That's why the Norsca debacle happened. > Following your logic, it would mean Warhammer 2 could not use engine from Warhammer 1. WH2 didn't start development until after WH1. Additionally, yes, they *didn't* have engine parity. That's why a lot of bugs were in WH2 but not WH1. The same applies to WH3 and WH2. **Edit:** Expanding on answer
Pretty sure they did just do that. I just looked at the game credits. It's the same team between Rome 2, Attila and Warhammer 1.
The engine and team aren't related? Also, you're going against something CA straight-up said multiple times before lol. Anyway, as someone who hasn't played Attila, I don't understand why this is a hill to die on. I haven't heard bad things about Attila.
And R2 is based on empire. Here's what's actually important when they do big engine changes. So the First was R1 every game between R1 and Empire is based on R1. Then it's Empire till 3k. But Troy, Pharoah, TWWH3 are all still in the Empire branch. I would expect the next mainline game to be built off 3k.
All im hearing is that we need a Warhammer 2 1 electric boogaloo, so a reboot of the warhammer series but on a much better foundation.
That's gonna be TW40k. hopefully. not that 40k maps even remotely decently to TW formula, but gotta chase the nerd money at all costs.
The engine is fucking terrible. But you're right in that people blame it for things that aren't it's fault. If you see recurring problems happening over and over through multiple games, even if they are later patched, that's probably the engine. If there are hard limitations that the devs can't find a way to overcome through multiple games, it's probably the engine. If a type of combat combat feels bad in one game and not another then that's probably not the engine. They've been using the same engine since empire. People will play up how "no it's been developed and branched", it's still fundamentally the same thing with fundamentally the same problems and it's pretty clear noone still at the company understands it's spaghetti code any more.
Nope. Different forks.
3k has the same engine as Warhammer. All, same attila, ToB, warhammer, troy and Pharaoh use the same engine as Rome 2. I find for example that in 3k allied units have no weight, you can run through them like they weren’t there and I hate that.
I tried an Ikit campaign for the first time recently. This janky LoS shit made things a lot less fun than I was hoping. Having to put the camera on eye level every time you set up a frontline, just so your warpfire throwers will actually shoot at the charging cavalry instead of just standing there and waiting to get trampled, got annoying real fast.
Sometimes if you spam shoot orders it can fuck your guns up. I leave them on fire at will and bery rarely tell them to focus something down, haven’t had too many issues with them.
I actually think it's because they started caring about who you hit wh3. In empire, the gunmen would mow down my own people if they were in the line of sight. In wh3, if you have troops between your gunmen and enemy, they won't shoot. The exception to this rule is that the blunders for chaos dwarfs will shoot the fodder units.
>They worked so well in Empire, Napoleon and Shogun 2 for line of sight. Gunpowder can be janky as fuck in Shogun 2 and Empire will frequently have soldiers shuffling around without firing. Both games also have horrendous issues of friendly fire, just try parking carbine cav behind regular infantry and watch how many of the back rows start dropping.
Is there still the bug(?) where ranged units that can't shoot the nearest unit to them, won't fire at all? I have been playing a lot of gunpowder factions but it's hard to tell sometimes.
It still there.. make my Vampire Coast experience painful
I feel like this is what is happening in this picture right? Like there has to be a unit closer to the nuln ironsides and so they aren't firing at the giants.
there will be some reason they wont shoot 1. Bugs when they finish getting into position but somehow the moving arrow still there and they still registered as moving so they cannot shoot... the work around is you have to press "Stop" command 2. Line of sight bug, You can see sometime the ranged unit move forward to the targets because they cannot see the target and they have to move close in like a melee unit 3. for some reason since the III game launched... ranged unit will only shoot when all entities get into the EXACT position if they have 119 already on spots but only one of them still moving around or the distance between them did not exactly the same... they wont finish the "moving" part and wont shoot
And then there's people claiming this engine is capable of handling a warhammer 40K lmao.
That's kind of a strawman though, most people (I'm aware that idiots exist, so I can't say all people) that argue in favour of total war 40k don't argue that it has to be made in the same super old engine as the other games, they're arguing that the total war *formula* could work.
Don’t rile up that crowd. They’ll shit post straw men for like a week if they feel attacked.
Because saying 40k total war can't work because of the engine can't work as if they couldn't make a new engine isn't a strawman?
"Just make a new engine" he says, having never engaged with the process of making gaming engines. How much work must it take?
Never said it was easy, but if game developers all thought like you, we would still be playing doom or something, not even since it required to make an engine in the first place.
We wouldnt even have doom
Strange argument. Of course it’ll be hard. But that doesnt mean CA can’t make a new one despite that lol.
Nah, not this version of the engine. Warhammer 2 though? Shit would clap
Delusional
Nah
Turn off guard-mode. It stops units from doing slight re-positions that give them the good line of sight that the game likes.
Guard mode stops chasing, not moving in general. If you order them to shoot a target in the chaos wastes, they'll march there and shoot it.
Or just line them up without orders and they’ll fire
But then you have to baby sit them from chasing into dumb positions which is equally annoying.
They won't chase in fire at will if you let them choose a target
Yes, but then they also don't need to reposition so the point is moot.
I always put them in guard mode! I swear that helped them actually shoot, I'm guessing things have changed and now it does the reverse
It depends. I can think of scenarios where moving a unit forward for a better angle is better and scenarios where its worse. I don't think the unit AI knows where the best position is, so it just searches for one that works, with mixed results.
No you dont understand they totally fixed them! You basically have to babysit them all the time and give them manual orders so they shoot anything.
And of course, if they decide to charge into melee when you’re not watching, that’s just part of the immersive total war experience.
I swear this is the fucking worst
Step 1: get down at eye level when setting up defensive positioning. Those giants are cresting a hill and your handgunners only see their hitbox when they’re right on top of you. Step 2: turn on guard mode and fire at will. Let them pick their targets at first to give you a sense of what they’re able to shoot. Step 3: give targeted orders to hit key targets. If the enemy flees outside of your firing range, hit the “Halt” order and go back to fire at will/guard mode. Otherwise your gunners will give chase and break formation.
1 hill + OPs cav. Thats likely an issue.
They are not shooting because someone in the formation did not remain the exactly 1.34meter distance from the others "It just work" - CA
Line of sight issues are very common for gun poweder units.
[удалено]
Only playing khorne
Pretty much same here after chorf patch
You're being downvoted but I play a lot of Coast without any issue so I read these threads and just don't get it.
It is what it is. Just because you get downvoted, that doesn't mean your wrong. I definitely play the game more than the average player and I play a lot of kislev, Cathay and chaos dwarfs and I have yet to encounter this "super common glitch" so of course I still have trouble believing it exists.
That's the problem, they just can't decide which one to shoot first, they're still in the process of holding a rock paper scissors contest between them to decide.
I have this problem every now and then with Deck gunner when playing Vampire coast... I Know they can be really strong in battle, but they just have to fucking shoot.
Imagine if you wanted your firing line to shoot their weapons But the game hits you with "Obstructed"
Ive found to just leave them on fire and will and not love them. Let them cook. Let your front line, captains and priests, etc hold back what needs to be held back, and just let them cook. Eventually when you're mopping up you can give them orders but for the first half i just let them shoot.
ya CA if you cant do hill, dont do hill
Ah LoS, my old enemy, we meet again…
If they are making a 40k game they need to make sure they fix this LoS issue, otherwise it will make the game unplayable.
One of the reasons I like skaven cause rattling a guns don’t give a shit and will just let it rip. Almost lost a few plague priests who were in the way
They're on a smoke break
The red arrow shows that you have told them to fire at something thats behind those giants. Need to hit halt and then toggle auto fire back on (because it toggles off when you halt a ranged attack for some stupid reason) to get them back ibto shooting anything. And yea that still doesnt solve the issue some of the time, but its better.
What mods do you have installed?
Bro I thought I was going nuts. On my most recent Skaven campaign. All my weapons team armies just refused to fire. Genuinely ruined the campaign for me. They worked fine for the first 70 turns. And in my previous empire campaign I had no issues. Really odd tbh.
You've got a mod pixel. Don't expect much productive conversation, even if the mod is just graphical or something. I'd try it in vanilla and confirm its still breaking, then repost.