Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Cavalry units and Anti large.

OndjageOndjage Junior MemberPosts: 544Registered Users
After testing a lot of cav through quite a few games i have come to the fact that most cav units in this game are never used, The reason for this is the Anti large Trait on some cavalry units while most others dont. The Anti Large trait is not very specific and feels like its a wierd trait looking at it Lore Wise and balance wise

Thats why i propose to make a change to this definition by adding another trait called Anti cavalry.

So that means we will have Anti cav and Anti Large in that order. So for example if you have the anti Large +30 you will have bonus damage vs Cavalry and monsters, But if you only have anti cavalry you will only have bonus damage vs Cavalry.


The point of Anti cavalry is to be the middle ground between Normal damage and the Anti Large bonus. For example most cav we have today have no bonuses vs other cav except, demis, BBBU's and Blood Knights and these knights are more or less the only ones that see major usage by the good players within these races.


I believe that all cav with a lance or spear should have a Anti cavalry trait, so that way most knights like the Grail Knights, Knights of the realm, empire knights, Knights of the blazing sun, reiksguard, chaos knights with lances, Black knights with lances and Centigors get a minor buff against cavalry. Im talking something in the lines of a +8 Bonus vs cav, with this they would be more viable to bring in a cavalry fight without being good against monsters. I believe that the GS also should get savage orcs with spears as they have that in the tabletop and thus have another cav unit to help fight cav.

As it makes no sense to me that a Orc with a spear on a boar is better against cav then a Knight with a Lance. This way you still have use for the Anti large trait to help kill monsters and monstrous infantry/flyers, but you might only bring 1 of them since you can bring other alternatives to fight cavalry. And thus we might bring some of the other cav units that rarely see play these days.

I also propose that all knights that dont fall into this category (black knights, chaos knights , most orc cav and Centigors with Greatweapons recieve further bonuses to their stats to be more effective vs Infantry in a grind battle as they should not excel on the charge in the same way, but because they have swords they should do better in prolonged combat.
I think either small bonuses to Weapon strenght or increase in melee defence or Attack. (talking minor changes like +5 weap dmg or something in those lines).

Thoughts are appreciated.
«1

Comments

  • DalakhDalakh Senior Member FrancePosts: 1,937Registered Users
    Ironically enough, anti cav already exists in the files but is simply not used.
    "We shall strike down our foes with sharp steel and cold hearts. The weak die so that the strong prevail and none shall be spared. Then and only then will our enemies know the true meaning of fear."

    — Malekith, Witch King of Naggaroth
  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    I really like the idea but it would require a cavalry overall rebalance and not sure if CA would do it. I remember another TW games (maybe Shogun 2?) where all cavalry units with lances had anticavalry bonus, what I found great and logic. I don't know why CA stopped to use this.
    Ondjage said:


    As it makes no sense to me that a Orc with a spear on a boar is better against cav then a Knight with a Lance.

    Yes, aside BBBU being OP I also hate what you say. It doesn't make any sense.

    I think that CA has tried to represent the cavalry with lances power giving them much more Charge Bonus and making them pretty effective even vs some antilarge cav units if you are able to charge with your knights. My only problem with some antilarge cavalry (BBBU/DGKs Halberds) is they haven't any weakness vs regular cavalry and usually overperform it without any problem in all circumstances. I would like that antilarge cavalry like DGKs Halberds or BBBU only would be able to win vs other cavalry units if they fight on prolongued melee but if both sides are able to charge, the battle should be 50/50. This way antilarge cavalry wouldn't be unfair to factions without access to this kind of unit.

    If DGKs Halberds and BBBU wouldn't be as effective as they are vs cavalry and 300 gold spearmen wouldn't be as effective as they are vs all, I think that most of the cavalry issues would disapear.

    I suggest try first something easier to CA which maybe would solve the issue without rebalancing all cavalry units. My suggestion is:

    - Make DGKs Halberds and BBBU less effective on the charge. They should win easy vs similar priced shock cavalry units only if they avoid the frontal charge. Otherwise the battle should be 50/50.
    - Increase the 300 gold Spearmen price to 350 or make them a bit weaker vs cavalry/infantry because they are extremely cost/effective ATM (especially Bret and Empire version). I don't have problems to wait until february to get a 300 gold spearmen nerf because Bretonnia haven't full roster yet.

    On the other hand we have Blood Knights, they have antilarge trait plus they are shock cavalry but they are expensive, well balanced and don't need any change IMO. Also they are pretty well represented if we think about lore. For me, the current cavalry balance is pretty good except Greenskins cavalry and DGKs Halberds (DGKs are only a bit OP).
  • ResiKesiResiKesi Posts: 119Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    The problem you've described is one that could do with being addressed, but surely there's got to be a more elegant solution than the one you've proposed?

    It feels like BBBU's are one of the biggest problems with cav balance, and after they're hopefully sorted, maybe the other issues will be lessened.
  • salsichasalsicha Posts: 3,572Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    I agree that the problem comes from the "anti-large" attribute being binary. I don't agree that the solution is adding a new category, a Giant and a mounted knight are both vulnerable to being impaled by a spear. I would prefer the "anti-large" attribute be given to ALL lance and spear and halberd units. Of course, not all units with anti-large should get the same bonus. Right now, for example, Chaos Knights (lances) have slightly more AP damage than normal Chaos Knights. They should also be slightly better against large than normal Chaos Knights.

    In short, give ALL lance units at least a small anti-large bonus. There can still be units that specialize at killing large units, and those would get bigger bonuses, but it should not be all or nothing between units that have basically the same weapons.
    Post edited by salsicha on
  • Lord_NathanaelLord_Nathanael Posts: 1,496Registered Users
    so what are DGK in your suggested new differenciation? cav or large?

    because cav = another nerf for them effectively while most other stuff remains the same or only gets small tweaks against each other.


    feel free to point out my errors, I'd like to improve my english
  • OndjageOndjage Junior Member Posts: 544Registered Users

    so what are DGK in your suggested new differenciation? cav or large?

    because cav = another nerf for them effectively while most other stuff remains the same or only gets small tweaks against each other.

    They will still be large and thus can actually be used.
  • OndjageOndjage Junior Member Posts: 544Registered Users
    salsicha said:

    I agree that the problem comes from the "anti-large" attribute being binary. I don't agree that the solution is adding a new category, a Giant and a mounted knight are both vulnerable to being impaled by a spear. I would prefer the "anti-large" attribute be given to ALL lance and spear and halberd units. Of course, not all units with anti-large should get the same bonus. Right now, for example, Chaos Knights (lances) have slightly more AP damage than normal Chaos Knights. They should also be slightly better against large than normal Chaos Knights.

    In short, give ALL lance units at least a small anti-large bonus. There can still be units that specialize at killing large units, and those would get bigger bonuses, but it should not be all or nothing between units that have basically the same weapons.

    This is also a good solution! And its hell of a lot easier to implement. All Lance cav could get a +4 bonus vs large which will not make much of an impact but will atleast help them a little bit, and make them slightly more effective in a cav fight.
  • OndjageOndjage Junior Member Posts: 544Registered Users
    busa27 said:

    I really like the idea but it would require a cavalry overall rebalance and not sure if CA would do it. I remember another TW games (maybe Shogun 2?) where all cavalry units with lances had anticavalry bonus, what I found great and logic. I don't know why CA stopped to use this.

    Ondjage said:


    As it makes no sense to me that a Orc with a spear on a boar is better against cav then a Knight with a Lance.

    Yes, aside BBBU being OP I also hate what you say. It doesn't make any sense.

    I think that CA has tried to represent the cavalry with lances power giving them much more Charge Bonus and making them pretty effective even vs some antilarge cav units if you are able to charge with your knights. My only problem with some antilarge cavalry (BBBU/DGKs Halberds) is they haven't any weakness vs regular cavalry and usually overperform it without any problem in all circumstances. I would like that antilarge cavalry like DGKs Halberds or BBBU only would be able to win vs other cavalry units if they fight on prolongued melee but if both sides are able to charge, the battle should be 50/50. This way antilarge cavalry wouldn't be unfair to factions without access to this kind of unit.

    If DGKs Halberds and BBBU wouldn't be as effective as they are vs cavalry and 300 gold spearmen wouldn't be as effective as they are vs all, I think that most of the cavalry issues would disapear.

    I suggest try first something easier to CA which maybe would solve the issue without rebalancing all cavalry units. My suggestion is:

    - Make DGKs Halberds and BBBU less effective on the charge. They should win easy vs similar priced shock cavalry units only if they avoid the frontal charge. Otherwise the battle should be 50/50.
    - Increase the 300 gold Spearmen price to 350 or make them a bit weaker vs cavalry/infantry because they are extremely cost/effective ATM (especially Bret and Empire version). I don't have problems to wait until february to get a 300 gold spearmen nerf because Bretonnia haven't full roster yet.

    On the other hand we have Blood Knights, they have antilarge trait plus they are shock cavalry but they are expensive, well balanced and don't need any change IMO. Also they are pretty well represented if we think about lore. For me, the current cavalry balance is pretty good except Greenskins cavalry and DGKs Halberds (DGKs are only a bit OP).
    I agree that the solution is not that easy to implement, but at the current time i dont see any other effective way of getting the other lance cav into the game especially the black knights, normal demis, and most of the standard knights, as they just feel lacklustre in the current meta.

    I dont really care what solution they go for but with all the cav units we have so few are actually good for their money, and it makes cav really lacklustre in general
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 4,186Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    i said ages ago we need more unit categories. for example small-medium-large-huge so giants, dragon ogres shaggoths etc are huge, cavalary are medium, monstrous infantry are large and regular infantry are small.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 8,103Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    I agree that most cav units are not even considered when making a competitive army, i do think it is due to spearman being really cost effective and non specialised cav (aka not Demis, Black knights etc) are not cost effective.

    There is a thin line in making drastic improvements to cav due to their higher speed over melee troop which makes them harder to avoid.

    Regarding to what you say i do not necessary agree with anti cav bonus but i think it is a good idea unless a better option can be though of, what about flank/rear charge bonus it would reward generals who can use the cavs advantage of speed to get around flanks/rear. it could apply to lance/spear cav only to reflect unprotected charge devastation (not to the front).

    *i do not mean to hijack your topic with my own idea so i hope you will take it as constructive response as i do not want to just write, i disagree without providing another solution because i do agree with you about the general idea that basic cav is just not worth it at the moment.
  • KhorneFlakesKhorneFlakes Posts: 3,373Registered Users
    not gonna happen too much changes,i am basing this off from the extent of changes happen patches,these kind of changes require either cte or a balanced mod preview

    Balance Is A Lie

  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    The antilarge bonus by itself is not the problem IMO. The problem is people thinking that antilarge cavalry should win ALWAYS vs regular cavalry units because the unit card shows the antilarge bonus. If DGKs Halberds are antilarge, DGKs lancers are shock cavalry with lances, so why DGKs halberds should win for sure if both units are able to charge?. Yes, DGKs Halberds are a dedicated anticav unit but DGKs Lancers are a dedicated shock cavalry with lances, so the battle should be balanced if both units are able to charge. DGKs Halberds would continue being better vs cavalry on prolonged melee combats and DGKs Lancers would continue being better vs infantry. If the balance between these two kinds of units work as I'm saying, I'm sure that DGKs Lancers shouldn't be as unused as they are.

    Let's see, we only have 3 cavalry units with antilarge trait because Dragon Ogres are monsters and they aren't great to counter cavalry units, also they are expensive and more vulnerable vs arrows like any other monster unit and much more similar than Minotaurs with great weapons and not like DGKs halberds. On the other hand, we have tons of regular cavalry units which are pretty good balanced, so why not change only DGKs Halberds and BBBU instead change all other cavalry units?. As I said before I don't think that Blood Knights need a change, they are good and balanced as they are.

    As long as people continue thinking that "dedicated cavalry" should always win vs regular cavalry, this game never will be balanced.
  • KhorneFlakesKhorneFlakes Posts: 3,373Registered Users
    imo chaos knights with lances should get frenzy and the regular one either 100 price decrease or keep the price same either let them have some anti large or make them ap.... and grail knights can get blessing of the lady or frenzy...cause other cavs are much better than them

    Balance Is A Lie

  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users

    imo chaos knights with lances should get frenzy and the regular one either 100 price decrease or keep the price same either let them have some anti large or make them ap.... and grail knights can get blessing of the lady or frenzy...cause other cavs are much better than them

    And what about DGKs with lances and other regular cavalry?. Antilarge cavalry is also overperforming vs them.

    I continue thinking that is pretty much easier for CA if we ask for BBBU and DGKs halberds change instead change all other cavalry units. Let's face it, CA won't rebalance all regular cavalry unit because it requieres a lot of time an they probably don't have this time.
  • KhorneFlakesKhorneFlakes Posts: 3,373Registered Users
    yeah sure,but dgks should get a price increase rather than stats buff you know lore wise and bbbu is already discussed,but dragon ogres do need heavy buff,i mean if you wanna count dgks as cav then you should count dragon ogres as well

    Balance Is A Lie

  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    @KhorneFlakes It isn't about I want to count DGKs as cav because I'm only saying how CA has clasified these units. DGKs are cavalry and DOs are monsters. You can't shot cavalry units with gunners if you have a friendly infantry units in the middle engaged on melee combat vs DGKs but you are able to shot DOs without any problem. DGKs are simply cavalry and DOs monsters in all aspects.
  • KhorneFlakesKhorneFlakes Posts: 3,373Registered Users
    busa27 said:

    @KhorneFlakes It isn't about I want to count DGKs as cav because I'm only saying how CA has clasified these units. DGKs are cavalry and DOs are monsters. You can't shot cavalry units with gunners if you have a friendly infantry units in the middle engaged on melee combat vs DGKs but you are able to shot DOs without any problem. DGKs are simply cavalry and DOs monsters in all aspects.

    yes thats exactly the issue i am trying to convey,dragon ogres have no clear identity what they are supposed to do and at 1800 they are not at all good all around unit(if this is what they are supposed to be) blood knights just are much better at everything while costin 100 less(not saying they are op,imo they are perfectly balanced),its just dragon ogres are ****

    Balance Is A Lie

  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    Blood Knights are better vs monsters units with several models and are better vs cavalry units but DOs are better vs single entity monsters and characters. Maybe DOs should be a bit better vs infantry but I don't think about them to deal vs cavalry. I prefer Chaos Knights lancers on this role.

    test DOs and Blood Knights vs Gorebulls+healing potion and see how big is the differece.
  • salsichasalsicha Posts: 3,572Registered Users
    DGK lances should also have an anti-large bonus, just a much smaller one than DGK halberd.
  • Thorien_KellThorien_Kell Senior Member Posts: 1,529Registered Users
    I don't like this. I think it's a bad idea to dissolve one one overall solid system by making it more complex. It requires more of programming and effort so our chances of seeing it are minimal.

    What is "wrong" here is division by itself - most of cavalry in WH are anti infantry while just few /or elite ones, are anti cavalry. This is weird and counter intuitive, and gives some units massive advantage in job they really need to do most. Old system that we had in shogun 2 was in fact pretty close to perfect. Most of (lance) cav was "anti large" / shock (very high charge bonus) cav, made for circle charging while melee (anti inf.) cav was more armored, less effective at charge but able to tank it out and actually *fight*, unlike shock cav.

    I would re introduce this in re adjusting stats, bonuses and specialization of cavalry - most of cavalry should in fact have anti large bonus, each faction could have ONE anti inf. cav, which should be substantially more effective against infantry.

    They put whole system upside down, which was bad decision.
  • SaphironSaphiron Junior Member Posts: 827Registered Users
    I agree with the OP. It's bloody weird the same bonus applies to horses, Giants, and dragons.

    Anti-cav should be a feature of units and cavalry.

    I also hate this ongoing argument that a positive change to the game shouldn't be made because it will affect balance for a while (it will be balanced, and then the game will be better for it).
  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    edited November 2016
    Well, good thing is most people do agree with the opinion about antilarge cavalry is pretty much useful than regular cavalry. I like the Ondjage's idea and if CA is able to do it great for me. If not, I only hope another solution because antilarge cavalry feels unfair most of the times.

    They are better vs cavalry, better vs flyers, better vs monsters and only worse vs infantry but taking into account that they are able to counter easily the enemy cavalry, this isn't a problem for them. Anyway, I continue thinking that the biggest issue is BBBU (and DGKs Halberds to a lesser extent).
  • JastallJastall Junior Member Posts: 1,030Registered Users
    salsicha said:

    I agree that the problem comes from the "anti-large" attribute being binary. I don't agree that the solution is adding a new category, a Giant and a mounted knight are both vulnerable to being impaled by a spear. I would prefer the "anti-large" attribute be given to ALL lance and spear and halberd units. Of course, not all units with anti-large should get the same bonus. Right now, for example, Chaos Knights (lances) have slightly more AP damage than normal Chaos Knights. They should also be slightly better against large than normal Chaos Knights.

    In short, give ALL lance units at least a small anti-large bonus. There can still be units that specialize at killing large units, and those would get bigger bonuses, but it should not be all or nothing between units that have basically the same weapons.

    Doesn't that just end up with sword cavalry being even more useless than they currently are?

    I mean, I agree that BBBUs having Anti-Large but Reiksguard or Realm Knights not having it makes absolutely no sense, but fixing that still leaves us with some cavalry units that have very little use when they get routed by anti-large cav so easily.

    That said, I'm not sure adding Anti-Cavalry fixes the problem. It only adds one more variable. I'd say make all lance cavalry get Anti-Large to various degrees, and sword cavalry (mostly regular chaos knights, black knights and boar boys) gets a survivability bonus so they don't get routed so easily, and can stay in prolonged melee longer with infantry.
  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    edited November 2016

    salsicha said:

    I agree that the problem comes from the "anti-large" attribute being binary. I don't agree that the solution is adding a new category, a Giant and a mounted knight are both vulnerable to being impaled by a spear. I would prefer the "anti-large" attribute be given to ALL lance and spear and halberd units. Of course, not all units with anti-large should get the same bonus. Right now, for example, Chaos Knights (lances) have slightly more AP damage than normal Chaos Knights. They should also be slightly better against large than normal Chaos Knights.

    In short, give ALL lance units at least a small anti-large bonus. There can still be units that specialize at killing large units, and those would get bigger bonuses, but it should not be all or nothing between units that have basically the same weapons.

    Doesn't that just end up with sword cavalry being even more useless than they currently are?

    I mean, I agree that BBBUs having Anti-Large but Reiksguard or Realm Knights not having it makes absolutely no sense, but fixing that still leaves us with some cavalry units that have very little use when they get routed by anti-large cav so easily.

    That said, I'm not sure adding Anti-Cavalry fixes the problem. It only adds one more variable. I'd say make all lance cavalry get Anti-Large to various degrees, and sword cavalry (mostly regular chaos knights, black knights and boar boys) gets a survivability bonus so they don't get routed so easily, and can stay in prolonged melee longer with infantry.
    Well, you have brought a pretty fair point. At this point, I think it isn't viable adding anticavalry trait to shock cavalry because this would require a lot of work and plus we would have new issues as @Bob The King say. Let's see guys, do you think that current cavalry overall balance is bad?. Aside BBBU, DGKs Halberds and some GS cavalry units underperforming vs light infantry, I find the current cavalry balance pretty good. I would like to know which cavalry units do you think that are overperforming/underperforming ATM if we don't take into account GS cavalry/DGKs.
    Post edited by busa27 on
  • salsichasalsicha Posts: 3,572Registered Users

    Doesn't that just end up with sword cavalry being even more useless than they currently are?

    Yeah, it's really funny that a knight can have a lance OR a sword, but not both. There are plenty of other of units that can switch weapons. I guess there is no place for a knight to put his lance while he switches to a sword, so the animation would make the lance just disappear. Certainly in real life no one could sustain melee with a one-handed lance. A knight fighting with just a lance would have a great charge and his reach would give him an advantage against mounted infantry, and his height would give him an advantage against foot infantry, but his melee ability, in general, would be terrible. A knight fighting with just a sword would be able to melee, and his height might give an advantage against infantry, but his short reach would mean he had no advantage against other mounted infantry.

    A realistic solution would be for the knight to charge with his lance, and then discard it and draw to his sword for melee. They probably already decided not to go down that path a long time ago. Since that's not an option, we just have to live with the two different knight units being over specialized.
  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    Yes, it sounds pretty coherent and realistic and it's like ALL other historical Total War games have been but it isn't like Warhammer fantasy works. CA is being faithful to Warhammer fantasy where you have to choice between lances or swords but not take both.
  • ITA_Vae_VictisITA_Vae_Victis Senior Member ItalyPosts: 1,593Registered Users
    Right now most lance cavalry is basically a tier above the equivalent sword cavalry. Rather than sidegrades, they are an upgrade.

    So you either make lances better vs. large and sword better vs. infantry, or the lance variant will just be even more powerful/expensive compared to the sword counterpard.
  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    edited November 2016

    Right now most lance cavalry is basically a tier above the equivalent sword cavalry. Rather than sidegrades, they are an upgrade.

    So you either make lances better vs. large and sword better vs. infantry, or the lance variant will just be even more powerful/expensive compared to the sword counterpard.

    Yes but Knights with lances are already better than Knights with swords vs monters/cavalry. While Knights with swords are already better than lancers vs infantry in prolonged fights. Also, Knights with Swords are decent vs Knights with lances, regular Chaos Knights win vs Reiksguards Knights without problems while they lose vs Chaos Knights lancer/Grail Knights (as it should be according to TT stats).

    I think we are confusing CA staff saying wrong things when the current cavalry balance is PRETTY good and faithful to TT stats. The only issues we have are BBBU being extremely OP vs cavalry, DGKs Halberds overperforming a bit vs cavalry and all Greenskins cavalry units underperforming vs light infantry. All other cavalry units are pretty well balanced, I really would like that someone could give me an example of some cavalry units overperforming/underperforming strongly without taking into account GS cavalry units and DGKs Halberds.

    Yes, we have some little things like KotBS being better than Reiksguards Knights on melee combat and plus getting useful skills Or things like Black Knights Lancers being a bit overpriced if we take into account TT stats and they are slightly weaker than Reiksguards Knights/KotBS (on the other hand Black Knights cause terror) but these things aren't balance breaking issues and they don't require an urgent fix. I'm not even sure about Black Knights Lancer issue.
  • RiggsenRiggsen Member Posts: 2,598Registered Users
    Black Knights only cause fear, but its still handy. The lance version should come down to 1050-1100, they're a significant upgrade to the regular black knights but not worth 500 more.
    "CA WHY U NU UNPOOP GAME" (Dank TW meme of 2011)
  • busa27busa27 Senior Member Posts: 1,744Registered Users
    Riggsen said:

    Black Knights only cause fear, but its still handy. The lance version should come down to 1050-1100, they're a significant upgrade to the regular black knights but not worth 500 more.

    Yes, my mistake, Black Knights cause fear. I was thinking on 1100-1150 because they are only slightly worse than Reiksguards Knights.
Sign In or Register to comment.