◄123..131415..293031►Pg#

Subject:Advert

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

It is, but because that weapon strength does not translate into aoe it is not as beneficial as it sounds. He is already very good at dueling as it is.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Started with Loremaster campaign. Is Teclis a god ? Managed to get some really good items in the first few turns.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I've not got far into Tickles' campaign, but I can't deny there's something satisfying about peppering Lizardmen with bolts and arrows as they run forward, then catching 2/3 of their remaining strength mid-charge in a Net of Amyntok at point-blank range.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Knight wrote:
Started with Loremaster campaign. Is Teclis a god ? Managed to get some really good items in the first few turns.

When I had his 18/20 stack get hit by 3 maxxed stacks of Skaven, and I absolutely obliterated them.. yeah, I felt like a god.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Teclis is a win button, and he only needs the basic troops from a tier 1 barracks to enable this. I have been very impressed with how effectively high elf spears can hold the line while archers mass kills. And this was without Net of Amyntok.
Shield of Saphery and Lifebloom extend the pain into far later into the game even for basic troops. Every time Teclis casts, which is a lot, the entire army gets a 10% damage resistance and a top up heal. I never overcast, just stack more spells, usually crows on hordes and withering on anything tough. Net isnt really necessary past braking up the initial charge. Why iobilise a target and peper it with arrows when you can stick it with spears while peppering it with arrows, while being buffed while crows are pecking at the nasties.
Teclis spellpower is so good I have developed my own strategy for him. With every other lord I imediately get the blue skills, +10% movement then four of whatever to unlock the bridging skill and then lightning strike. The single most important skill. Then I buy any upkeep reduction on the campaign skill line until I even think about taking anything else. To me the Lord's first job is to lead the army, that means logistics matter, movement matters, and th ability to attack on your own terms matters, Buffing a lord doesnt matter, if I need spells, hire a wizard, need a tough fighter, hire a hero.
In my Balthasar Gelt playthrough I did this, and was 14th level before I had anything to cast other than the starting spell, but it was worth it. His magic ability was unlocked immediately after of course.
With Teclis the options are so nice I decided to throw my approach out the window and go straight for the spells. I kicked so much arse he leveled up to get a all the spells, and a select number of magic buffs and all the blue skills I normally take by turn 50.

Subject: Re:Total War Warhammer 2.

sebster wrote:
I've never like sieges very much, and the auto-play can't often be used for avoiding them because you will take so many more casualties than by playing them.

Sometimes.
I've got a Bretonnia playthrough that I keep meaning to start back up and finish. I owned the Empire capitol (the Empire had gotten kicked out of it, and someone had left it razed, so I moved in; note that the Empire still existed in that game), and had fully built up the fortification levels on it. I had a full strength army garrisoning it, and it got attacked by two stacks of Chaos Warriors (can't remember which lords). I hit Auto-Resolve just because..
And the Chaos Warriors took zero casualties wiping out my army.
I keep meaning to go back to an earlier save from that game, but haven't ever quite gotten around to it.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I usually don't go for lightning strike (except for horde armies who badly need it to compete with fortified factions). It is often buried too deep in the tree and unit buffs are too strong to neglect.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I actually follow the opposite XD
I generally take the campaign bonuses first, especially to reduce the cost of my armies, and my style makes Lightning Battles something I use frequently (my large full stacks usually have quarter or half stacks in tow with supporting troops).

Subject: Re:Total War Warhammer 2.

Ya, I feel like I’m hamstringing my early turns of the campaign if I’m not taking the increased movement, public order bonuses, reduced recruitment, improved replenishment and reduced upkeep skills.
You can’t see the exact numbers of how it benefits your economy, but it pays dividends in a major way. Much more so that getting a new spell, ability or making your units fight a little better. For me, the unit improvement skills are usually tertiary, preceded by the characterunique campaign skills that lockout the damage skills, then mount skills, then lastly individual skills to improve the characters combat ability.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

It depends how good the campaign boosts are vs the combat boosts. -20% upkeep for saurus? Hell yes. -3% recruitment? Not so much.
I tend not to bother with public order bonuses as I don't find them to useful, I spend more time on the front foot than sitting in my own provinces. Usually public order problems pop up when I'm off away from home anyway.
I feel like my Kroq Gar campaign has tipped to the point of becoming boring. Had a bit of a tough fight taking the jungles of the southlands but in a handful of turns I managed to sweep over the last of the skaven and now suddenly my economy is awesome.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Hello.
I think that what you pick skill wise depends on your difficulty. On a high difficulty you need a lot more public order money ext. but on a lower difficulty a powerful lord can just claim the map.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

LordofHats wrote:
I actually follow the opposite XD
I generally take the campaign bonuses first, especially to reduce the cost of my armies, and my style makes Lightning Battles something I use frequently (my large full stacks usually have quarter or half stacks in tow with supporting troops).

Exactly this. There are three critical skills on most campaign lines. any movement boost, any upkeep reduction and lightning strike. AFAIK all lords get lightning strike and in the same place. It really helps to carve off individual stacks, not only because you can fight your opponents piecemeal, but also the surprise bonus, and the ability to go through post battle multiple times, which helps with recovery leveling and income. The whole is worth less than the sum of its parts and lightning strike amongst other things farms exp for your lords and armies.
As for upkeep, its the most important stat in the game. Your units become 'underpriced' which is always good in any incarnation of warhammer. Now battle skills also make your units underpriced for what they do, but those boosts are on a per unit basis, painting the lord into a corner as to how to stack their army. Upkeep reduction applies to everything and does so automatically.
As for movement range, that extra 10% really helps reach a castle in time to siege or defend, but it becomes crucial when you are with a large stack facing small (normally goblin or marauder) stacks that want to refuse battle. Without it you will be futilely chasing them, with it you can run them down.
I don't tend to buy recruitment cost reduction as its a one off payment I am happy to swallow, though for defensive lords it is worthwhile. In Warhammer 2 I need more than one defensive lord because of the ritual battles. In Warhammer 1 I would just have one to deal with events. This lord I would give recruitment cost reduction to, maxed out, and would buy units and ferry them to the front line lords if there was nothing else he needed doing at the time. This helps as some units are only available in the most built up provinces. So I might have a lord with march buff, three pips in recruit cost reduction and use him as a deliverer of steam tanks or demigryphs to my legendary lords on the frontier. This lord will also get lightning strike and upkeep reduction as and when, because he has a small army of his own on top of what he is delivering. If needs be he to will be on the front line and a new lord will be recruited for homeland defence.
Its very common for my armies to have no yellow or red at all on them. The redux for Warhammer 1 included special abilities for legendary lords from the original game, most of these kick in at level 12, which is perfect because I need the first eleven levels to get the blue campaign line up to lightning strike and three pips of upkeep reduction. Legendary lords get a lot better because of these new skills but it does mean Balthasar Gelt needs even more levels before he begins to do anything more than dribble piss from the sky with that gods awful level 1 spell Metal has.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Hello.
I think that what you pick skill wise depends on your difficulty. On a high difficulty you need a lot more public order money ext. but on a lower difficulty a powerful lord can just claim the map.

I'm playing on Hard. I find if I take a province and my Lord is still in the land, a rebellion isn't a bad thing because you can just put it down immediately (due to me usually looting and occupying that's what tends to happen).
Once my Lord has left the province is when rebellions are annoying because you need to either raise another army to fight it or send one of your Lords back to kill the rebellion. At that point having any public order skills on the Lord isn't helpful because he needed to be camped in the province for it to work.
I find it more useful to put up buildings that give public order and tear them down once the public order has stabilised, and in provinces where I don't want my Lord camping for any period I only occupy rather than loot + occupy.
The couple of annoying rebellions I've had recently were due to me looting + occupying and then leaving the province while forgetting to put up public order buildings, meaning I had to drag my Lord back from his campaign wasting half a dozen turns to put down the rebellion. In a situation like that having a public order boost on the Lord doesn't really help much because he was out of the province when it hit the fan.

Subject: Re:Total War Warhammer 2.

nels1031 wrote:
Ya, I feel like I’m hamstringing my early turns of the campaign if I’m not taking the increased movement, public order bonuses, reduced recruitment, improved replenishment and reduced upkeep skills.
You can’t see the exact numbers of how it benefits your economy, but it pays dividends in a major way. Much more so that getting a new spell, ability or making your units fight a little better. For me, the unit improvement skills are usually tertiary, preceded by the character unique campaign skills that lockout the damage skills, then mount skills, then lastly individual skills to improve the characters combat ability.

CA are realising this and some yellow and red lines now include a specific unit upkeep cost reduction to make them more attractive. Because you have a faction economy as core game mechanic any logistic bonus is naturally worth more than a flat combat bonus.
You can also gain the basic yellow line character skills on a dedicated hero level character and add them to your army if you are missing anything major.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I usually grab the recruitment cost reduction only on my main lord who will end up with all the best units. 3% reduction on common troops is nothing, but once you start buying Temple Guards and monstrous creatures you start benefiting from the bonus more. Plus it saves money if after a big battle you need to buy a new half of the army.
Other than that though I skip it, because my other lords are garrisons or support armies and their units are all cheap and they get more for me out of the public order bonus.
Replenishment is pretty good imo, but not every lord gets that one. I sometimes grab ambush bonuses but I think that's a matter of play style.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

So does melee attack and weapon strength upgrades transfer over to the mount or am I just wasting my skill points on those ones?

LordofHats wrote:
I usually grab the recruitment cost reduction only on my main lord who will end up with all the best units. 3% reduction on common troops is nothing, but once you start buying Temple Guards and monstrous creatures you start benefiting from the bonus more. Plus it saves money if after a big battle you need to buy a new half of the army.
Other than that though I skip it, because my other lords are garrisons or support armies and their units are all cheap and they get more for me out of the public order bonus.
Replenishment is pretty good imo, but not every lord gets that one. I sometimes grab ambush bonuses but I think that's a matter of play style.

Oh yeah, when I'm looking to buy those expensive troops my Lord is usually already levelled up a bit, so they're late skills for me rather than early ones.
In my current Kroq Gar campaign I'm up to about turn 60 and Kroq is up to level 26 and I haven't bought a single Temple Guard unit yet.
But I don't really lose units quick enough to feel it's worth it.
I do like replenishment bonuses, I don't usually get them specifically on Lords unless it's a big bonus for a small investment of skill points, but I try and build buildings and take heroes that gives replenishment bonuses. I love being able to turn around after a tough fight and be ready for another one without having to sit around too long. I'm finding it more important on Hard than I was on Normal because it seems to me the AI is cheating with unrealistic unit recruitment (they lose a battle in their turn, and by my turn somehow they've already recruited a bunch more units?).

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I've given in an started downloading the game despite saying I would wait till it went down in price a little.
In the meantime I am forcing myself to do a Bretonnian campaign in the first game. They feel like someone took all the aspects of an army that I hate and combined it into one. Weak infantry, lousy ranged capabilities, and so so much cavalry micromanagement. I think I may have to add some mods just to make the playthrough bearable!
Regarding skill trees, I tend to focus on making my legendary lords a beast in combat just because I like to see them cut through the enemy army but any other lord I will usually focus on improving the army itself.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So does melee attack and weapon strength upgrades transfer over to the mount or am I just wasting my skill points on those ones?

They transfer over.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

LordofHats wrote:
I usually grab the recruitment cost reduction only on my main lord who will end up with all the best units. 3% reduction on common troops is nothing, but once you start buying Temple Guards and monstrous creatures you start benefiting from the bonus more. Plus it saves money if after a big battle you need to buy a new half of the army.

3% is nothing, but 15% is a fair bit. Say you have a stack of ten basic troops costing 100 a turn each average, you have saving on that pauper army of 150 gold/turn with full upkeep reduction. That is quite noticable IMHO. Most armies will cost more than that, often much more. Also notice how the skill bonuses and % reductions increase as you invest points. Public order reduction and corruption mitigation got up 1,2,3 as you place points in the skill. Combat bonuses go up 2,4,9 or 3,8,15. Some skills are worth putting only a point in, some you need three for the full payoff. When you are looking at your points in a category to reach the bridging skill, you could place one point in public order and get full effectiveness then three points in recruitment reduction for a major cash discount. Doing the other way around is less points efficient.
Also in Warhammer 2 you will need multiple main stacks, more sea movement means more mobile armies, and the need to protect ritual sites and an expanding frontier. If you have an extra lord on his own picking up sea loot you will also have extra upkeep penalty, you need to mitigate that somehow. With four lords a high elf faction is running an upkeep penalty of over 20%, upkeep skills are now not a discount per se but mitigation against spiralling costs.

LordofHats wrote:
Other than that though I skip it, because my other lords are garrisons or support armies and their units are all cheap and they get more for me out of the public order bonus.
Replenishment is pretty good imo, but not every lord gets that one. I sometimes grab ambush bonuses but I think that's a matter of play style.

Upkeep reduction is on the second bar of blue skills, which makes it easier as three upkeep and lightning strike make up the four to unlock the capstone skill, which is normally good, and in Warhammer 2 can include yet more upkeep reduction anyway.
Public order bonus is normally in the first block, and those to me are five points of tax, including the bridging skill, to get from +10% movement to lightning strike. Dont get me wrong there are some nice benefits but the army skills and a mount can be awfully tempting, but I stick for the payoff. Public order is a good choice,and I do use it with some lords. My primary lords take attrition reduction though as they must take the fight to the enemy and are more likely to cross corrupted ground. For secondary lords corruption reduction and public rder are both worthwhile, but are situational. You cant necessarily park an army where you need the public order boost, so any bonus is incidental. With high elves the Merchant lord skill which adds to faction wide trade is more appealing as it is always in effect and again works with the factions logistics, trade boosts gain cash which is the same as a cost saving on your army. Warhammer 1 doesnt have any skills like this for lords, and not all benefit anyway.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Orlanth wrote:
3% is nothing, but 15% is a fair bit.

I think the only real consideration is that it's a 3 point investment. I'd actually like it if they evened the bonus out across points (5%/5%/5% instead of 3%/?%/15%). Since you need 4 points in the tier to advance, a 5% bonus just to get up to grabbing Draft Master and the upkeep reduction would be a no brainer I think. As is if I'm only putting 4 points into that first section I'll skip recruitment cost reduction for public order.

Also in Warhammer 2 you will need multiple main stacks, more sea movement means more mobile armies, and the need to protect ritual sites and an expanding frontier. If you have an extra lord on his own picking up sea loot you will also have extra upkeep penalty, you need to mitigate that somehow. With four lords a high elf faction is running an upkeep penalty of over 20%, upkeep skills are now not a discount per se but mitigation against spiralling costs.

I've mostly gotten around this by building garrisons at strategic locations and placing my reserve armies at in centralized areas. I normally only maintain a few full stacks. In my Kroq campaign for example I'm just past turn 90, control all of southern fantasy Africa but I only maintain two full stacks and about a half dozen 3/5 stacks (mostly Skinks + Kroxigors). The only issue I've ever had is when the other AIs intervene on my rituals which is why I have a full stack near my capital (now..).
I actually find sea loot to be a must. You get so much damn money (and can pick up multi-turn economic bonuses, including reduced upkeep!) from it that the rewards massively out weight the increased upkeep cost. In comparison I've generally found treasure hunting to not really be worth it unless there's a mission reward for doing it.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Commander Cain wrote:
I've given in an started downloading the game despite saying I would wait till it went down in price a little.

CA are holdouts for this game, they know it is getting fresh people into Total War and is holding its value. It is also still fresh because of its scope and variety. Warhammer 3 will be 2018 at this rate, with final DLC appearing 2019. Bundles for the entire series will arrive then, but all that will still be fresh so no heavy discounts until 2020 I think. I am not waiting that long and in all fairness CA deserve our coin on this one, they have done a fantastic job and obviously love the IP enough to want to cover as much as they possibly can.

Commander Cain wrote:
In the meantime I am forcing myself to do a Bretonnian campaign in the first game. They feel like someone took all the aspects of an army that I hate and combined it into one. Weak infantry, lousy ranged capabilities, and so so much cavalry micromanagement. I think I may have to add some mods just to make the playthrough bearable!

At least CA added foot knights, though they call them squires so they count towards the peasant economy limiter. Yes you are forced to have a cavalry focused army, that hurts in sieges especially, and it does need more micro, but the army is fairly simple and solid. You can also squadron up units of knights to have fewer larger blocks of knights, infantry are static and can be ignored and your characters can be joined into a hero squad all doing the same thing. Normally I take a single rigid deployemt of infantry with peasant archers behind, a left wing of cavalry as one unit, a right wing of same, a hero squad and my flyers. I leave the peasants to fight on and micro the four combined units. Even for an oldster like me with crap reflexes it is then manageable. Multiplayer, no, not for me with that army. But it can work well in campaign. You need to work out how many maneuver groups you can handle at once, it will be more than you initially think if you persist.
Regarding skill trees, I tend to focus on making my legendary lords a beast in combat just because I like to see them cut through the enemy army but any other lord I will usually focus on improving the army itself.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Orlanth wrote:

Commander Cain wrote:
I've given in and started downloading the game despite saying I would wait till it went down in price a little.

CA are holdouts for this game, they know it is getting fresh people into Total War and is holding its value. It is also still fresh because of its scope and variety. Warhammer 3 will be 2018 at this rate, with final DLC appearing 2019. Bundles for the entire series will arrive then, but all that will still be fresh so no heavy discounts until 2020 I think. I am not waiting that long and in all fairness CA deserve our coin on this one, they have done a fantastic job and obviously love the IP enough to want to cover as much as they possibly can.

Ah you say that but I got the first game free in a bundle about the same time the Wood Elves DLC was released! Either way, CA certainly earned their money this time, I have been wary ever since TW Rome II but it was not the case this time.

Orlanth wrote:

Commander Cain wrote:
In the meantime I am forcing myself to do a Bretonnian campaign in the first game. They feel like someone took all the aspects of an army that I hate and combined it into one. Weak infantry, lousy ranged capabilities, and so so much cavalry micromanagement. I think I may have to add some mods just to make the playthrough bearable!

At least CA added foot knights, though they call them squires so they count towards the peasant economy limiter. Yes you are forced to have a cavalry focused army, that hurts in sieges especially, and it does need more micro, but the army is fairly simple and solid. You can also squadron up units of knights to have fewer larger blocks of knights, infantry are static and can be ignored and your characters can be joined into a hero squad all doing the same thing. Normally I take a single rigid deployemt of infantry with peasant archers behind, a left wing of cavalry as one unit, a right wing of same, a hero squad and my flyers. I leave the peasants to fight on and micro the four combined units. Even for an oldster like me with crap reflexes it is then manageable. Multiplayer, no, not for me with that army. But it can work well in campaign. You need to work out how many maneuver groups you can handle at once, it will be more than you initially think if you persist.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I suck at horse archery. The AI can always string my cavalry along with horse archers, but mine always get caught, even if I leave them with skirmish mode on.
Frankly I use one unit of horse archers or equivalent per army, and I am careful how i use them. They are fragile and under perform compared to foot archery.
With my crap reflexes I tend to favour an infantry army with very little cavalry also. Its vey effective, and smple to play. Its a vey English way of doing war. Longbows, billmen, handful of knights in royal retainer units, hold the line maul the enemy and use cavalry to mop up. Very efficient, very lethal. It was much harder playing France.
High elves play like Medieval 2 England, Empire too after a fashion. Bretonnians play like France, don't get me wrong the French army can win well, even against longbowmen once they knew how to do so. But its a harder learning curve an one I never truly mastered.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Commander Cain wrote:
I've given in an started downloading the game despite saying I would wait till it went down in price a little.
In the meantime I am forcing myself to do a Bretonnian campaign in the first game. They feel like someone took all the aspects of an army that I hate and combined it into one. Weak infantry, lousy ranged capabilities, and so so much cavalry micromanagement. I think I may have to add some mods just to make the playthrough bearable!
Regarding skill trees, I tend to focus on making my legendary lords a beast in combat just because I like to see them cut through the enemy army but any other lord I will usually focus on improving the army itself.

The only Total War I played prior to TW:W2 was a Bretonnian campaign, got to turn 100 before I quit. I just reloaded that save to give it another shot and realised just how badly I played, lol. Probably just have to start from scratch, at turn 100 I only have 1 Lord at level 15 and a few below level 10. Have too many pathetically weak armies that are costing a huge amount of upkeep.
I think when you play Bretonnians you have to aim to confederate quickly but when you do confederate, just disband the armies you inherit otherwise the upkeep will kill you and because you don't have any enemies close by initially you have to go seek out enemies to avoid becoming stagnant.

Orlanth wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
I usually grab the recruitment cost reduction only on my main lord who will end up with all the best units. 3% reduction on common troops is nothing, but once you start buying Temple Guards and monstrous creatures you start benefiting from the bonus more. Plus it saves money if after a big battle you need to buy a new half of the army.

3% is nothing, but 15% is a fair bit. Say you have a stack of ten basic troops costing 100 a turn each average, you have saving on that pauper army of 150 gold/turn with full upkeep reduction.

For one I originally said 'recruitment' not 'upkeep' and for two I was partly making a point about the skill point investment.
I tend to go for the skills that help the campaign, but depending on the Lord I also like the unit buffs and things that make the Lord tankier (some Lords do great at just wading in to the enemy and having an attached spell caster to drop some AoE on his head).
It's also good to keep in mind that winning battles makes you money, skills that let me win a battle and recover in less time ready for the next battle are effectively money makers early on when you would otherwise have to retreat to lick your wounds.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Orlanth wrote:
I suck at horse archery. The AI can always string my cavalry along with horse archers, but mine always get caught, even if I leave them with skirmish mode on.
Frankly I use one unit of horse archers or equivalent per army, and I am careful how i use them. They are fragile and under perform compared to foot archery.
With my crap reflexes I tend to favour an infantry army with very little cavalry also. Its vey effective, and smple to play. Its a vey English way of doing war. Longbows, billmen, handful of knights in royal retainer units, hold the line maul the enemy and use cavalry to mop up. Very efficient, very lethal. It was much harder playing France.
High elves play like Medieval 2 England, Empire too after a fashion. Bretonnians play like France, don't get me wrong the French army can win well, even against longbowmen once they knew how to do so. But its a harder learning curve an one I never truly mastered.

Never try and move them too much is the trick, the more you click on them the more they stutter step.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Orlanth wrote:
I suck at horse archery. The AI can always string my cavalry along with horse archers, but mine always get caught, even if I leave them with skirmish mode on.
Frankly I use one unit of horse archers or equivalent per army, and I am careful how i use them. They are fragile and under perform compared to foot archery.
With my crap reflexes I tend to favour an infantry army with very little cavalry also. Its vey effective, and smple to play. Its a vey English way of doing war. Longbows, billmen, handful of knights in royal retainer units, hold the line maul the enemy and use cavalry to mop up. Very efficient, very lethal. It was much harder playing France.
High elves play like Medieval 2 England, Empire too after a fashion. Bretonnians play like France, don't get me wrong the French army can win well, even against longbowmen once they knew how to do so. But its a harder learning curve an one I never truly mastered.

I never really got the hang of Bretonnia (love them in the table top game, but they seem to have a very arduous campaign).
But can't they work as an infantry heavy army if you take Foot Squires, polearms for anti-large, a reliquae for leadership, a couple of paladins on foot for some punch and then a damsel or the fey throwing around buffs/debuffs/heals?
You still take knights, but only a couple of units rather than a knight heavy army.
I've just tried to start another Bretonnian campaign and the economy is killing me. Everything is so expensive while there's also not a hell of a lot of things giving me money. I seem to spend a lot of time just sitting around waiting to get enough money for a particular upgrade or to beef up my army before I can do anything.
The replenishment rate also seems terrible, also spending a lot of turns waiting for my armies to get back up to health and I can't see ways of improving the replenishment rate.
Also noticed that magic is much more powerful in Warhammer 2. My Heavens damsel feels completely useless, but a Heavens Skink Priest in Warhammer 2 can do some serious damage.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I found the Brets fairly straight forward after screwing up the initial stages the first time. First thing is farming Orc rebels from the Orc event that usually kicks off at the beginning of the game. This gives chivalry, money and experience.
Second is the long grind against Moussilon & beastmen (the latter is more of a recurring problem, while the former somehow generates several armies more or less instantly and can sustain em all on one city.
While all this is happening, working on techs for confederation is key, since actually attacking other bretonnians is bad. A takeover of Estalia is useful in here, as they're small and conquer able, and will inevitably attack you eventually.
Wood elves are probably going to be a problem- going in early while they're distracted and razing the great tree and whatever cities you can helps a lot. You don't want to let them get to the point where they start confederating and have all those stacks and super-cities pointed in the same direction.
By this point the chaos invasion has probably started, so it's useful to send out a pair of armies to hit the chaos stacks after they've wrecked a big city- you don't really want them getting to your borders.
After that you've probably got more than enough chivalry to trigger the errantry battle. I've only ever done orcs, as it's easier to get to, and somewhat easier to deal with (less armor and morale)
Composition wise, Brets are pretty straight forward- lord, sorceress, mix of 6 infantry, 4 archers, 2 trebuchets, 3 knights on either flank, or one flank and Pegasi.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Careful about WE, they could insta confederate in my save and in about 3 turns I went to face 2 armies and 2 cities to fighting 5 armies with 5 cities.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

I've not tried farming the Orc raids early on, I typically take Marienburg first because it has that high value port, then squash the Orcs.
I don't think the Bretonnian campaign is particularly hard, it's just a slog because the economy is weak and you don't have a real enemy to fight early on. If you want a fight you kind of have to go find one yourself up north or start picking a fight with the various empire factions. By turn 70 or so on my current game I'd confederated all of Bretonnia, gotten enough Chivalry to start the Errantry War and now I'm in a position to start steamrolling everyone, but those first 70 turns weren't an interesting struggle like many other factions.

Subject: Total War Warhammer 2.

Hello.
The Bretonnian campaign is by far the hardest with out any mods or cheating by loading previous saves.
I played it on very had and it took me at least 6 trys to win mostly due to the chivalry and end game needing to march to the top right of the map.
The best I can tell you unless you do the auto save cheat is have one elite army confederate only if someone is picking a fight with the elves to stop it or you will be involved. Then have a peasant army to save your country from beasmen.
Then send your elites to help empire use empire as a buffer for chaos once they are done take over their land and march north if you can.

◄123..131415..293031►Pg#