Surely nice for some, totally not my cup of tea. Radious destroys this by basically adding so much units that gives every army nearly the same possibilities. You have to live/abuse those and that's for me a great meta. Honestly, one of the things I love about CA's Warhammer is that they are quite close to the tabletop balance wise and that each race has distinctive strengths and weaknesses.
I would say it's rather the balance that earns Radious it's bad reputation. Unless of course you like to remove basically any difficulty from the game and add a roster bloat the size of a Great Unclean One.Īs you can see, OP, Radious is disliked by many players, because it pays no attention to actual Warhammer lore - and how the tabletop game envisioned balance - and does whatever strikes the mod creator's whim. Originally posted by Divolg:Save yourself some time and stay as far away from Radious as possible. So warhammer geek=go SFO, Total war geek=Go radious Overall i'd recommend Radious over SFO, even tho i like both. I prefer the campaign balancing of SFO however, where radious sometimes feels like you're either overpowered and steamroll everyone, or like the picked on kid in the classroom. Being a warhammer-dumbass who never cared about it or it's lore, i must say that the lore /diversity is an interesting addition to the Total war Franchise, but that's more like a bonus as i'd still pick Radious anyday because of it's extensive rosters which make you feel like every building you can build in campaign is actually 'worth it', even if it gives you a reasonable extra something like income, public order, or whatever. I've come to appreciate the Hammer but am still into it because of the Total War, if you catch my drift. I just bought WH1+2 because of Total War, not the Hammer.
You might get the impression there's so much dislike because most people replying here seem like total Warhammer fanatics (to the lore i mean).
0 kommentar(er)
