>game needs other full games, dozens of dlcs and years of optimization to be good
When did this became acceptable?
>game needs other full games, dozens of dlcs and years of optimization to be good
When did this became acceptable?
when Obama got elected
the greed of the anglo can not be sated
The game only needs the "turn realm of chaos off" mod to be good (and even then, once you get how you're supoosed to play, not even realm of chaos is that bad).
When a sufficient percentage of gamers became pathetic fags chasing their next high.
>said game gives you thousands of hours of content
meh, could be worse
Who started this practice? Paradox?
Thing is main campaing has almost no replayability given the goal will always beat the race for which you have to turtle and not explore, oposite way than as in Wh2, when your main army went on to capture shrines and minor forces stood behind for defense.
Even if you turn portlas off, the map is designed in a way your conquests wont ever take you to Kislev as Cathay and viceversa unless you force it.
Sadly it´s unredemeable.
Plus the Empeing canon fodder for some random ogre is a meme.
Tabletop games.
Anyway, what other game actually does what TW Warhammer does?
check out the price of all train simulator's dlcs
>spend £150 for all 3 games and most of the DLCs when on sale
seems like good value to me
I found that having two half armies instead of a full one allows for a more expansionist playstyle, particularly when playing Kislev and Cathay (though feasible for Tzeentch and somewhat obligatory and the intended playstyle for Khorne, can't comment on the other two and didn't really need to as Skrag). You might run a deficit early on but it'll pay itself over pretty soon. You can just ignore the realms, beat whoever beats the race and keep playing the campaign, though I always get bored doing that.
If you want a sugestion, what I usually do is unify my faction then babysit a couple of allies until I get bored, it's not that different from my IE or WH1 experiences.
I won't pretend I didn't have my faults with WH3 but at the same time there's a bunch of QOL and little tweaks in it which prevent me from fully going back to WH2. Can't say I'm not anxious for IE though, but mostly because I want my old dudes with the above mentioned improvements, not because I hate WH3, I'd give it a 7/10, 8 with mods and with huge potential to become an actual 10.
It's not about price, there are plenty of games with huge DLC lists and huge prices for the "full game."
Are train sim dlcs bringing anything more than just new trains?
you don't need any dlc, just the base games to play immortal/ Mortal Empires.
honestly you can skip all dlc's except for the factions you want to play,
Still cheaper than getting an actual army from GW.
Empire is gimped without archers(wulfhart dlc) to spam early game
Wood elves are DLC in DLC
Greenskins suck without Grom and the Paunch
Rangers are too good to pass up for Dawi
maybe Helves don't need DLC but Sisters of Averlorn are OP
and don't forget, if you don't have the DLC you can't confederate
Yeah you do not need any of those, I'll reiterate what the other user said.
>t. doesn't have many of these.
>years of optimization to be good
Has that ever happened with any CA game?
Greenskins are fine without grom.
Their problem was mechanics prior to that DLC, not units, which was fixed with the patch it came with.
The only truly necessary lord pack is the prophet and the warlock for skaven, who absolutely suck balls without it
during TW2 there was a patch that drastically decrease turn times
>buy base game
>pirate the dlc
thanks Obama
>Ogres won't get DLC
It's not fair Ogrebros
imagine how much sex you could have had during those hours
>Empire is gimped without archers
I have never needed archers as empire ever.
At the start crossbow men are more than fine for pretty much everything and by the mid game you should have hand-gunners to delete everything else.
What do you mean
>Empire is gimped without archers(wulfhart dlc) to spam early game
unironically get good. Archers suck ass.