Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've stopped playing and the patch hasn't brought me back.

I actually don't care that much about the campaign, I like Vortex and while I wouldn't say I like Chaos Realms, I also don't dislike it enough to stop playing because of it.

It's all the other stuff that has made me stop playing the game, like units feeling less responsive to commands, the ugly UI, and I'm utterly sick of minor settlement and siege battles that make up such a massive part of the game experience.

Unless they fix those things I don't know if I'll even come back for mortal empires (well, I'll come back, but probably not spend hundreds of hours playing it and buy every DLC available like I did for TWW2).

 Overread wrote:
We always knew that the new Mortal Empires would come later; it did so for Warhammer 2 and it stands to reason it would come later for Warhammer 3. That said I figure many haven't jumped off the boat; but likely moved back to Warhammer 2 so its not a total disaster. It does reflect that CA have missed the mark and need to address that.

Heck Warhammer 2 had the whole issue with Norsca and such around its launch and they fixed that and Warhammer 2 went on to be and remain their strongest playerbase game for a LONG time

Mortal Empires came out 1 month after the release of TWW2 with the release date announced about 2 weeks after the main game released, we're at almost 2 months from the TWW3 release and still no release date has been set. Like, I know it's coming, but people were moaning over it not being available at release with TWW2 and in TWW2 it would have been out by now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Overread wrote:
We always knew that the new Mortal Empires would come later; it did so for Warhammer 2 and it stands to reason it would come later for Warhammer 3.

And? That doesn't excuse the Chaos Realms campaign or the anti-fun changes that they made to the game. Or the other questionable choices (red on red on red UI!). Or the fact that they ignored all the feedback from everyone in their partner program.

To be fair they did make a bunch of good changes too. Seeing the outcome of a quick battle, selling unwanted gear, toggle flying in battle and so on. That doesn’t excuse the bad changes of course, but there’s quite a few good things with the bad. The one thing I really wish for is alternative win cons. Like maybe short campaign, long campaign and rifts of chaos campaign. I know there are mods for that but still.

 Nerak wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Overread wrote:
We always knew that the new Mortal Empires would come later; it did so for Warhammer 2 and it stands to reason it would come later for Warhammer 3.

And? That doesn't excuse the Chaos Realms campaign or the anti-fun changes that they made to the game. Or the other questionable choices (red on red on red UI!). Or the fact that they ignored all the feedback from everyone in their partner program.

To be fair they did make a bunch of good changes too. Seeing the outcome of a quick battle, selling unwanted gear, toggle flying in battle and so on. That doesn’t excuse the bad changes of course, but there’s quite a few good things with the bad. The one thing I really wish for is alternative win cons. Like maybe short campaign, long campaign and rifts of chaos campaign. I know there are mods for that but still.

On balance I think they made more bad changes than good ones. Also, seeing the outcome of the battle was also added in TWW2 in one of the last few patches, it's not a new feature for TWW3.

Not that seeing the outcome matters anymore as auto-resolve is so incredibly in favour of the AI that it's simply not worth doing.

What's that? You brought 1.5 stacks of troops vs 10 enemy units in a garrison? Valient defeat for you!

They had a full stack, and you have two? Crushing defeat for you!

There are some very good additions from Troy and ingeneral

Diplomacy: trading settlements, "make it work", outposts, being able to better cordinate with military allies.
Settlement battles: lots of people wanted them and now they have them - but I personally am not a fan of the building towers during a battle element.
Campaign: why have such a railroad campaign escapes me and why make it so long - the Prolgue campaign is excellent - mroe of these perhaps as intros to factions or instead of the quest battles would be great imo.
Autoresolve is bugged - forcing people to fight battles is not great - I enjoy battles but not every little skirmish where i bring a full stack and they have 6 units....

I did go back to TW2 to do some campaigns I had not previously done but will be coming back to it when completed the current one.

 Mr Morden wrote:
There are some very good additions from Troy and ingeneral

Diplomacy: trading settlements, "make it work", outposts, being able to better cordinate with military allies.
Settlement battles: lots of people wanted them and now they have them - but I personally am not a fan of the building towers during a battle element.
Campaign: why have such a railroad campaign escapes me and why make it so long - the Prolgue campaign is excellent - mroe of these perhaps as intros to factions or instead of the quest battles would be great imo.
Autoresolve is bugged - forcing people to fight battles is not great - I enjoy battles but not every little skirmish where i bring a full stack and they have 6 units....

I did go back to TW2 to do some campaigns I had not previously done but will be coming back to it when completed the current one.

I'd be interested to know how many people actually like the new minor (or even major) settlement battles, as that's probably one of my biggest gripes and why I don't have a great desire to start another TWW3 campaign.

The settlement battles in Three Kingdoms were good.

The ones in this game are not. They took a successful implementation from 3K, and bungled it. In particular, the whole "build stuff while the melee rages" implementation is utterly stupid.

Eumerin wrote:
The settlement battles in Three Kingdoms were good.

The ones in this game are not. They took a successful implementation from 3K, and bungled it. In particular, the whole "build stuff while the melee rages" implementation is utterly stupid.

I've never played 3K, is that basically the same but without the tower defence element? The main two aspects I don't like are the tower defence and the choke points, but also how spread out the maps are relative to how many troops you're likely bringing in.

The battles become very formulaic.

It wouldn't be so much of a problem if it weren't for the fact campaign mode has such a high proportion of settlement battles.

There is that. Other than the 'close rift fights' and the unavoidable fights in the chaos realms, I didn't fight many open field battles in my Kislev play-through.

When I tried daemon prince, I fought a lot of faux-naval battles, simply because of the constant multi-faction swarm across the sea (of blood).

The scaling of the campaign map lends itself to the AI running away from fights until it clumps up. (or, oddly enough, death marching just a little too far into enemy terrain). Expansion is also de-incentivized to the point you shouldn't actually try to chase people down. You need your armies at home


I think my biggest issue with the minor settlement battles is the stupid narrow, twisting paths- I really want to see multiple regiments moving alongside each other into a formation, not bogging down into a muddle.

I'd also love to see a 2-D 'relief' map of the usable terrain on the settlement maps. I suspect in most cases its a couple plazas joined by a few snake trails doubling back on themselves.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I've never played 3K, is that basically the same but without the tower defence element? The main two aspects I don't like are the tower defence and the choke points, but also how spread out the maps are relative to how many troops you're likely bringing in.

There are towers, but you don't build them. They're already up - typically at the entrances to the settlements. So you don't have the silly "You destroyed my tower, but I'm going to rebuild it if you don't leave a unit babysitting the build point!" thing that they do in this game. Also, the streets are wider (based on the *extremely* limited number of settlement battles in the new game I've fought), so you have at least a little room to maneuver your units. There are also opportunities to flank a small group of enemy defenders, assuming you can take a few shots from an arrow tower covering one of the other entrances that you'll be running past.

Im playing as legions of chaos.

I really like the "build your demon prince" thing.

I do wonder, are heralds going to be the only lords available for recruitment ?

I was expecting to have greater demons, demon princes or chaos lords and sorceress as a lord choice.. The heralds seem very underwhelming.

Heralds turn into Exalted Greater Daemons at Level 14 (I think it's rank 14?).

Chaos Lords/Sorcerers are a Warriors of Chaos thing, not a Daemons of Chaos thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chaos Lords/Sorcerers are a Warriors of Chaos thing, not a Daemons of Chaos thing.

Daemon princes are in both though.

I never loved the way GW handled the different Chaos subfactions though, will be interesting to see what CA do with it through mortal empires and DLC.

Im trying to figure what's the point of mono god demon factions.

In legions, you still have to decide one choice of corruption or other and you still need god glory to recruit units.

So you basically can play all tzeentch army but have access to blood crushers..

I tried to play as khorne but it was so one dimensional i gave up 10 turns it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd be interested to know how many people actually like the new minor (or even major) settlement battles, as that's probably one of my biggest gripes and why I don't have a great desire to start another TWW3 campaign.

There's a lot I dislike about TWW3. I dislike most of the armies, I dislike the colour saturated chaos wastes, I dislike the campaign, I dislike the laughably bad UI. But most of all I despise the settlement battles. I hate the tower defence nature of them. I hate playing a mini-game while I'm playing a wargame. I hate the complete lack of strategy from carefully positioning your forces because everything is a narrow alley. I hate that settlement battles are the great majority of the battles.

Every time I think of giving TWW3 another go, because I loved 2 so much and I want to play with new things, I get as far as booting up Steam and then thinking: "No, I'm not going to play this, because I absolutely hate this game!"

 Argive wrote:
Im trying to figure what's the point of mono god demon factions.

In legions, you still have to decide one choice of corruption or other and you still need god glory to recruit units.

So you basically can play all tzeentch army but have access to blood crushers..

I tried to play as khorne but it was so one dimensional i gave up 10 turns it.

My experience: A Legion of Chaos army that chooses to go head to head with an identical army from one of the monogod factions will get worked over pretty bad, particularly mid to late game when the technology that puts monogod units on another level is in effect.

The strength of Legion of Chaos is that its got a full chest of toys to play with, whereas monogods have to stay on brand.

The factions themselves have mechanics to compensate, Khorne for instance getting "free" armies when it razes a settlement, then will populate that razed settlement somewhere down the line.

 Argive wrote:
Im trying to figure what's the point of mono god demon factions.

In legions, you still have to decide one choice of corruption or other and you still need god glory to recruit units.

So you basically can play all tzeentch army but have access to blood crushers..

I tried to play as khorne but it was so one dimensional i gave up 10 turns it.

The daemon prince is supposed to be the jack of all trades master of none, the monogods are the masters of what they do (Khorne - melee and aggression, Tzeentch - Magic and sneakiness, Slaanesh - Speed and seduction, Nurgle - toughness and, err, poop?).

Thought I'd share this as it was a... strange win.

Managed to ambush Queek Headtaker and then proceeded to decimate his entire army with 5 squads of Fireleech Terradons. They just clumped up together and let themselves be bombed to gak and with only 2 units of slingers, they couldn't fight back. I only took 4 casualties and they were all friendly fire from the Stegadons.


Sotek would be pleased.

I think I'm the only one that doesn't mind the new settlement battles. I always disliked the fact that they were too easy on the other games. I did sort of hope they would be more like the minor settlement battles from Rome 2. I think the renewal of destroyed towers is my main issue, but I feel like it should be a bit of a slog to attack a fortified settlement..

I also don't mind auto resolve being dodgy because I don't really use it.

I didn't like the vortex campaign much and the reasons for that are why I don't like this new campaign much. I want to conquer territory and take over, not get smashed in the back by some random donkey-cave who spawned behind me.

Auto resolve has always been dodgy in any TW game. Warhammer ones in particular because units have a lot of special abilities floating around and the correct use of them (And the incorrect deployment of the enemy) can make huge differences in the results (as shown a few posts above).

I know CA put a lot of work into Auto Resolve ,but in the end its really only there for clear cut win/lose situations - 20stacts vs 1 etc... For most fights the game makes the assumption that you will fight the battle using the real time method

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Im trying to figure what's the point of mono god demon factions.

In legions, you still have to decide one choice of corruption or other and you still need god glory to recruit units.

So you basically can play all tzeentch army but have access to blood crushers..

I tried to play as khorne but it was so one dimensional i gave up 10 turns it.

The daemon prince is supposed to be the jack of all trades master of none, the monogods are the masters of what they do (Khorne - melee and aggression, Tzeentch - Magic and sneakiness, Slaanesh - Speed and seduction, Nurgle - toughness and, err, poop?).

I mean from an ingame mechanics perspective.

Can you get demon princes in monogod armies ?

 Argive wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Im trying to figure what's the point of mono god demon factions.

In legions, you still have to decide one choice of corruption or other and you still need god glory to recruit units.

So you basically can play all tzeentch army but have access to blood crushers..

I tried to play as khorne but it was so one dimensional i gave up 10 turns it.

The daemon prince is supposed to be the jack of all trades master of none, the monogods are the masters of what they do (Khorne - melee and aggression, Tzeentch - Magic and sneakiness, Slaanesh - Speed and seduction, Nurgle - toughness and, err, poop?).

I mean from an ingame mechanics perspective.

Can you get demon princes in monogod armies ?

No daemon princes.

I'm probably not the best one to answer because I haven't played with the daemon prince yet. But on campaign you get...

Khorne - massive campaign movement buffs for winning battles, and the ability to spawn new "bloodhost" armies after defeating a settlement, meaning you can play very aggressively in campaign, sweeping across the map razing everything. It's very easy (if not the best way) to run with negative income because you advance so quickly that armies pay for themselves by winning battles.

Slaanesh - Haven't played them, they have their seduction mechanics but I don't know if they're worth anything.

Tzeentch - Have their manipulation mechanics that let you force other factions to do things that weaken their positions (like giving up settlements, getting in unfavourable wars, etc).

Nurgle - Haven't played them, but they have their plagues, the "regrowth" mechanism around how buildings work, and recruit from a pool.

In battles, I think all of them get extra buffs for their main daemon units that keep them relevant later into the game, and also I think the daemon prince doesn't get access to the mortal units than the monogod factions have? Or maybe he does? I dunno. Apparently the legendary lord greater daemons are also more effective on the battlefield than the daemon prince.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Argive wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Im trying to figure what's the point of mono god demon factions.

In legions, you still have to decide one choice of corruption or other and you still need god glory to recruit units.

So you basically can play all tzeentch army but have access to blood crushers..

I tried to play as khorne but it was so one dimensional i gave up 10 turns it.

The daemon prince is supposed to be the jack of all trades master of none, the monogods are the masters of what they do (Khorne - melee and aggression, Tzeentch - Magic and sneakiness, Slaanesh - Speed and seduction, Nurgle - toughness and, err, poop?).

I mean from an ingame mechanics perspective.

Can you get demon princes in monogod armies ?

No daemon princes.

I'm probably not the best one to answer because I haven't played with the daemon prince yet. But on campaign you get...

Khorne - massive campaign movement buffs for winning battles, and the ability to spawn new "bloodhost" armies after defeating a settlement, meaning you can play very aggressively in campaign, sweeping across the map razing everything. It's very easy (if not the best way) to run with negative income because you advance so quickly that armies pay for themselves by winning battles.

Slaanesh - Haven't played them, they have their seduction mechanics but I don't know if they're worth anything.

Tzeentch - Have their manipulation mechanics that let you force other factions to do things that weaken their positions (like giving up settlements, getting in unfavourable wars, etc).

Nurgle - Haven't played them, but they have their plagues, the "regrowth" mechanism around how buildings work, and recruit from a pool.

In battles, I think all of them get extra buffs for their main daemon units that keep them relevant later into the game, and also I think the daemon prince doesn't get access to the mortal units than the monogod factions have? Or maybe he does? I dunno. Apparently the legendary lord greater daemons are also more effective on the battlefield than the daemon prince.

I think they do. I seen some tzeench knights for sure in my recruit buildings but not sure about other.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not that seeing the outcome matters anymore as auto-resolve is so incredibly in favour of the AI that it's simply not worth doing.

What's that? You brought 1.5 stacks of troops vs 10 enemy units in a garrison? Valient defeat for you!

They had a full stack, and you have two? Crushing defeat for you!

Well, you can game the autoresolve. Its more that the autoresolve is stacked in favor of simple numbers, and this has always been the case.

I'm pretty sure the way autoresolve works is it just puts DPS vs the durability of the unit. I'm sure it doesn't take any special abilities or morale into account. Which is why elite units get trashed so much because they're fighting unbreakable trash that just grinds down their hit points.

And since the AI pretty much only makes huge stacks of trashy units they're completely unfair in autoresolve.

Rome 2 you could abuse the autoresolve by going for the cheapest units with decent damage output and durability and just spamming them like crazy and Im sure you can do the same here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not that seeing the outcome matters anymore as auto-resolve is so incredibly in favour of the AI that it's simply not worth doing.

What's that? You brought 1.5 stacks of troops vs 10 enemy units in a garrison? Valient defeat for you!

They had a full stack, and you have two? Crushing defeat for you!

Well, you can game the autoresolve. Its more that the autoresolve is stacked in favor of simple numbers, and this has always been the case.

I'm pretty sure the way autoresolve works is it just puts DPS vs the durability of the unit. I'm sure it doesn't take any special abilities or morale into account. Which is why elite units get trashed so much because they're fighting unbreakable trash that just grinds down their hit points.

And since the AI pretty much only makes huge stacks of trashy units they're completely unfair in autoresolve.

Rome 2 you could abuse the autoresolve by going for the cheapest units with decent damage output and durability and just spamming them like crazy and Im sure you can do the same here.

It seems to ignore your army abilities (like summoning extra units) as it seems exceptionally bad when you have a small army where those abilities can swing a battle. I've had "valiant defeats" where in reality there's barely any losses because the summoned units do half the damage before the main army gets stuck in.

It does feel worse than TWW2 to me, because I'd autoresolve quite a lot of small "trivial" battles in TWW2 and occasionally a big battle where I could see it was going to take a very long time to fight manually, whereas now I feel like I can barely autoresolve anything. Maybe the autoresolve hasn't changed but the way armies work has changed enough to make it a problem, either way it's a problem (unless you really love fighting every single skirmish that SHOULD be trivially easy).

Don't usually play video games, but got TWW3 because Khorne.

The initial release was very buggy. Modded out the Souls Race and conquer every territory as Skarbrand.

Basic impression is the game needs improvements but is overall enjoyable. Khorne, in particular, seems well balanced.

Slaanesh and Tzeentch seem to have a replenishment problem, it sometimes takes 10 turns to reinforce after a battle - too long.

Have not tried the other factions. They look interesting, but I'd rather wait for the game to become a more stable before investing additional time.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not that seeing the outcome matters anymore as auto-resolve is so incredibly in favour of the AI that it's simply not worth doing.

What's that? You brought 1.5 stacks of troops vs 10 enemy units in a garrison? Valient defeat for you!

They had a full stack, and you have two? Crushing defeat for you!

Well, you can game the autoresolve. Its more that the autoresolve is stacked in favor of simple numbers, and this has always been the case.

I'm pretty sure the way autoresolve works is it just puts DPS vs the durability of the unit. I'm sure it doesn't take any special abilities or morale into account. Which is why elite units get trashed so much because they're fighting unbreakable trash that just grinds down their hit points.

And since the AI pretty much only makes huge stacks of trashy units they're completely unfair in autoresolve.

Rome 2 you could abuse the autoresolve by going for the cheapest units with decent damage output and durability and just spamming them like crazy and Im sure you can do the same here.

It seems to ignore your army abilities (like summoning extra units) as it seems exceptionally bad when you have a small army where those abilities can swing a battle. I've had "valiant defeats" where in reality there's barely any losses because the summoned units do half the damage before the main army gets stuck in.

It does feel worse than TWW2 to me, because I'd autoresolve quite a lot of small "trivial" battles in TWW2 and occasionally a big battle where I could see it was going to take a very long time to fight manually, whereas now I feel like I can barely autoresolve anything. Maybe the autoresolve hasn't changed but the way armies work has changed enough to make it a problem, either way it's a problem (unless you really love fighting every single skirmish that SHOULD be trivially easy).

I agree with this sentiment.

However, im not sure its entirely a bad thing.
a TW game at its core is about the RTS battle in my view.

Sometimes it feels like im not even fighting any battles. Because I can juts one click and done.

I would like to ask a question about legion of chaos, someone mentioned the heralds become demon lords. Is that in terms of once you unlock the relvant demon lord ?
The only way to do that is if you get locked into one type of glory from looking at the tech tree ?

Im finding the heralds relaly underwhelming as a lord choice :(

Its annoying that you get so many demon prince parts but only get one demon prince..

This is the first time I've actually picked up the game on release, for the others I've always waited until the sale and usually by then everything is right as rain. I assume that when the mortal empires stuff comes out things will be reasonably sorted..?

In the meantime I've gone back to playing some TWW2

 Argive wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not that seeing the outcome matters anymore as auto-resolve is so incredibly in favour of the AI that it's simply not worth doing.

What's that? You brought 1.5 stacks of troops vs 10 enemy units in a garrison? Valient defeat for you!

They had a full stack, and you have two? Crushing defeat for you!

Well, you can game the autoresolve. Its more that the autoresolve is stacked in favor of simple numbers, and this has always been the case.

I'm pretty sure the way autoresolve works is it just puts DPS vs the durability of the unit. I'm sure it doesn't take any special abilities or morale into account. Which is why elite units get trashed so much because they're fighting unbreakable trash that just grinds down their hit points.

And since the AI pretty much only makes huge stacks of trashy units they're completely unfair in autoresolve.

Rome 2 you could abuse the autoresolve by going for the cheapest units with decent damage output and durability and just spamming them like crazy and Im sure you can do the same here.

It seems to ignore your army abilities (like summoning extra units) as it seems exceptionally bad when you have a small army where those abilities can swing a battle. I've had "valiant defeats" where in reality there's barely any losses because the summoned units do half the damage before the main army gets stuck in.

It does feel worse than TWW2 to me, because I'd autoresolve quite a lot of small "trivial" battles in TWW2 and occasionally a big battle where I could see it was going to take a very long time to fight manually, whereas now I feel like I can barely autoresolve anything. Maybe the autoresolve hasn't changed but the way armies work has changed enough to make it a problem, either way it's a problem (unless you really love fighting every single skirmish that SHOULD be trivially easy).

I agree with this sentiment.

However, im not sure its entirely a bad thing.
a TW game at its core is about the RTS battle in my view.

Sometimes it feels like im not even fighting any battles. Because I can juts one click and done.

I would like to ask a question about legion of chaos, someone mentioned the heralds become demon lords. Is that in terms of once you unlock the relvant demon lord ?
The only way to do that is if you get locked into one type of glory from looking at the tech tree ?

Im finding the heralds relaly underwhelming as a lord choice :(

Its annoying that you get so many demon prince parts but only get one demon prince..

Heralds have the option of being transformed into exalted greater daemons if you can get them to level 15 in the monogod factions, I assume it's the same for the legions of chaos faction.

Regarding the autoresolve thing, I think TWW2 struck a good balance. If the autoresolve wasn't going to lose any units, chances are it'd be a dead easy battle and you aren't missing anything by skipping it (and just pay the penalty of losing more troops than if you'd done it manually). If the autoresolve told you that were you going to lose a unit or two, you'd fight it manually. This is especially true of small battles with unimportant armies, you might still fight easy battles if you want to keep the army pristine for another upcoming battle, but it was an option, now autoresolve decimates or flat out loses some really easy battle so you're forced to fight even the uninteresting ones.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Argive wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not that seeing the outcome matters anymore as auto-resolve is so incredibly in favour of the AI that it's simply not worth doing.

What's that? You brought 1.5 stacks of troops vs 10 enemy units in a garrison? Valient defeat for you!

They had a full stack, and you have two? Crushing defeat for you!

Well, you can game the autoresolve. Its more that the autoresolve is stacked in favor of simple numbers, and this has always been the case.

I'm pretty sure the way autoresolve works is it just puts DPS vs the durability of the unit. I'm sure it doesn't take any special abilities or morale into account. Which is why elite units get trashed so much because they're fighting unbreakable trash that just grinds down their hit points.

And since the AI pretty much only makes huge stacks of trashy units they're completely unfair in autoresolve.

Rome 2 you could abuse the autoresolve by going for the cheapest units with decent damage output and durability and just spamming them like crazy and Im sure you can do the same here.

It seems to ignore your army abilities (like summoning extra units) as it seems exceptionally bad when you have a small army where those abilities can swing a battle. I've had "valiant defeats" where in reality there's barely any losses because the summoned units do half the damage before the main army gets stuck in.

It does feel worse than TWW2 to me, because I'd autoresolve quite a lot of small "trivial" battles in TWW2 and occasionally a big battle where I could see it was going to take a very long time to fight manually, whereas now I feel like I can barely autoresolve anything. Maybe the autoresolve hasn't changed but the way armies work has changed enough to make it a problem, either way it's a problem (unless you really love fighting every single skirmish that SHOULD be trivially easy).

I agree with this sentiment.

However, im not sure its entirely a bad thing.
a TW game at its core is about the RTS battle in my view.

Sometimes it feels like im not even fighting any battles. Because I can juts one click and done.

I would like to ask a question about legion of chaos, someone mentioned the heralds become demon lords. Is that in terms of once you unlock the relvant demon lord ?
The only way to do that is if you get locked into one type of glory from looking at the tech tree ?

Im finding the heralds relaly underwhelming as a lord choice :(

Its annoying that you get so many demon prince parts but only get one demon prince..

Heralds have the option of being transformed into exalted greater daemons if you can get them to level 15 in the monogod factions, I assume it's the same for the legions of chaos faction.

Regarding the autoresolve thing, I think TWW2 struck a good balance. If the autoresolve wasn't going to lose any units, chances are it'd be a dead easy battle and you aren't missing anything by skipping it (and just pay the penalty of losing more troops than if you'd done it manually). If the autoresolve told you that were you going to lose a unit or two, you'd fight it manually. This is especially true of small battles with unimportant armies, you might still fight easy battles if you want to keep the army pristine for another upcoming battle, but it was an option, now autoresolve decimates or flat out loses some really easy battle so you're forced to fight even the uninteresting ones.

Can anyone confirm if its the same for chaos legions?

Yeh I hear ya.

Tzeenches firestorm is my new fav spell though I haven't tested many of the others.

The slanesh whip spell seems very good at thrashing infantry in terms of cost v damage.

What lores do people rate?