Source
r/totalwar•
Herestheproof

I feel like the current implementation of climates is a missed opportunity to truly differentiate the races

Warhammer II

I like the idea of a climate system guiding where to conquer, but currently it feels like someone just took the idea and then slapped 3 climates on each race and called it done. With a little more thought the climate system could be so much better.

Lets take a look at the most obvious example: high elves. High elves have temperate island, frozen, and savannah as habitable climates. What the fuck? How do high elves have both hot savannah and cold frozen as habitable but regular temperate is uncomfortable? It just makes no sense, and its pretty obvious that CA just slapped frozen on so they'd fight dark elves and savannah on to make it 3.

What if instead of forcing each race to have 3 random habitable climates we balanced races around the climates that are habitable? Maybe high elves only have temperate island as habitable, which means they'll be slow to expand outside of Ulthuan, and to make up for that they have a really good economy? This makes sense lore-wise and reinforces their gameplan as "secure and protect Ulthuan". Maybe dark elves also have only temperate island as habitable and to make up for starting in uncomfortable terrain the have their slave economy? This then reinforces their gameplan of "invade ulthuan" instead of going off into norsca which is exactly as habitable as ulthuan to them.

Those are just a couple of examples, its pretty easy to think of stuff for other races. For DLC lords who start in non-habitable territory (like imrik or lokhir) they can have special settlement buildings for the climate they start in.

TL;DR: current climate system is lazy, putting a little thought into it creates meaningful distinctions between races.

Posted Feb 12, 2021, 10:08 PM UTC

4115
Thepacifist4191•

In my opinion, your proposed solution is pretty close to the actual implementation of the system. You say it should be used to push races towards certain areas and fights, but that's how it's already used. Additionally, you suggest that Dark Elves shouldn't have their home area be a preferred climate for them, despite it being just fine for them in the lore. How does that suggestion hold up with the rest of your post saying that the system doesn't make sense?

49
Archinatic•

I mean while a Kislevite might do better in the tundra than a Bretonnian peasant that doesn't exactly mean the tundra is easier to survive in for him than if he were living in the more moderate climate of Bretonnia

6
Skitterleap•

Naggaroth isn't exactly fine for Dark Elves. They get by in it, mainly by weaponising the shittier aspects like the giant monsters and chaos infestation, but the idea that they wouldn't be better off in the temperate isles of Ulthuan is ridiculous.

4
EbdanianTennis•

Yeah this. If they actually liked Naggaroth their entire personality wouldn’t be “we are in a really shitty mood because we are not in Ulthulan”

6
Lefty_Gamer•

Certainly not for everyone, but this is what I like to use since the vanilla climate system is less than desirable.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1180702987

7
mrsir231Dwarfs•

There should also be greater penalties for inhospitable climates. Maybe need some research in order to inhabit those climates. Would help races like Norsca from just getting their land colonized early on

5
SWtaervdesn•

Don't try to fix something that's not broken. It's balancing where races expand just fine as is.

2†
Nekor5•

Honestly I just wish they dumbed in down and made unhabitable flat out not unhabitable for races apart from maybe an outpost building which prevent resettle spam / gives vision.

Either remove the special factions climates or add some of them to the ENTIRE Race and then make unpleasent more forgiveable by removing the income and replishment penatly.

If we still had the Difficulty gauge it would actually fit now with Malus and Teclis being hard etc....

2
CovenantcuriousDwarf Fanboy•

There should at the very least be more than three grades of habitability. And greater penalties for "uninhabitable", like +100% penalties.

And many more climate types, differentiate coastlines and rivers/valleys from hinterlands, steppes from forestland.

1†
smelimmedem•

Why too many climates? That would make it too messy and some climates could be specific only to a few provinces or even regions.

6
CovenantcuriousDwarf Fanboy•

Climates really should be more like terrain in EU4. Make different hills/mountain types.

It makes the world feel more alive and varied.

1
Gaargod•

I would agree. One of the current problems is that a) the jumps are quite large, and b) uninhabitable isn't actually... uninhabitable.

For example:

  • Pleasant: Small buffs to public order and money, etc. Your starting area. Allows you to survive the early game without rebellion-farming. Some small buffs to occupying.
  • Acceptable: This is fine. No buffs or debuffs.
  • Unpleasant: As vanilla.
  • Abhorrent: Very difficult, current uninhabitable, but with some small buffs to sacking/razing.
  • Uninhabitable: Literally cannot settle, but significant buffs to sacking/razing.

Gives people a reason to be somewhere difficult (great for murdering), but also limits them. Norsca, as an obvious example, would survive much better.

3
CovenantcuriousDwarf Fanboy•

Yes, like I said in another comment in the thread: High Elves consider both 'temperate' and 'wasteland' to be "unpleasant".

This is silly.

1
talltaletellersalus populi suprema lex esto•

There should at the very least be more than three grades of habitability

But... Why?

2
CovenantcuriousDwarf Fanboy•

Because HE shouldn't be equally "uncomfortable" in temperate as they are in wasteland.

1